Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E03-010 - WESTFIELD CORPORATION - WESTFIELD SOUTHCENTER MALL EXPANSIONWESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER EIS E03 -010 T1S FILE .* LSO CLUDES CD ATE P '\.1TH DC LAND USE CD FILE T F DE L HLE# 23iW To: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development \%()' -615-0/.0 Jack Pace, SEPA Official Community Development Director From: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner Date: 8 July, 2010 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director Subject: Westfield EIS Addendum to include Northeast Parking Phase I & Phase II (former Bank of America parcel) File No. E09 -017, Staff Report Proposal Phase 1: Demolition of the approximately 400 square foot former Bank of America drive- through structure and replacement with surface parking. Phase 2: Demolition or relocation of the adjacent, approximately 8,717 square foot bank building and redevelop into surface parking. Location The former Bank of America parcel (359700 -0257) is in the northeast corner of the Westfield property (Mall) and is bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north and Andover Park West to the east. The EIS excluded the 3 acre former Bank of America parcel from the Westfield property which is located on 82 acres in the block otherwise bounded by Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Stander Boulevard and Andover Park West. This Addendum adds that parcel to the proposal and analysis. Background The City of Tukwila was approached by the Westfield Co. in 2003 regarding their proposal to expand their recently purchased facility, Southcenter Mall. On April 24, 2003 a Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice was issued. The focus of the EIS was on transportation, air quality and on the impacts on local government operations and services. A DEIS was issued in June 2004 and the FEIS was issued in October 2004. (File No. E03 -010) Construction proceeded in 2005 -2008 for a portion of the square footage that was analyzed in the EIS. The following information supplements the information contained in the "SEPA COMPLIANCE DOCUMENT" prepared by Westfield and considers the impacts associated with the Proposal described above. The applicant has listed mitigating measures in their SEPA checklist dated 11/6/09 associated with adding the former Bank of America parcel that will be incorporated into their project. Findings Westfield has returned to the City proposing to include the former Bank of America parcel within the overall Mall property. The most recent use of this parcel is as a bank building and adjacent drive - through facility. The site has been vacant since July 27, 2009 when the bank relocated to a new building on the south side of the site. The existing drive - through facility will be demolished and redeveloped into 239 surface parking stalls as Phase 1. Phase 2 would involve demolition of the existing bank building and develop of an additional 103 stalls into surface parking. There are no immediate plans to proceed with Phase 2. The DEIS review evaluated expanding the size of the Mall by no more than 787,903 square feet to 2,226,274 square feet of gross building area (GBA) with the majority of the development occurring generally to the south. With the addition of the former Bank Building, the Mall will have added 461,866 square feet of GBA, well under their EIS expansion allowance. The DEIS proposed a parking supply of 7,900 stalls. The Mall currently has 6,669 stalls. There is an opportunity to restripe to create 46 additional stalls. Reconfiguring the Bank parcel will add 342 stalls after both phases. The total stall count could be 7,011 stalls and is within the parking space impacts evaluated under the EIS. Air Quality Impacts to air quality were related to the peak hour automobile traffic. For the EIS, a quantitative analysis concluded that the proposal would not likely exceed National Ambient Air quality Standards. The proposed revisions associated with incorporating this existing building into the Mall property should have little to no impact to air quality. Only asbestos is listed as a potential containment on the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency web site. Demolition of the Bank of America building could potentially lead to exposure of asbestos containing building material. The applicant will be subject to compliance with the rules regarding asbestos and demolition and will conduct asbestos abatement as necessary in all structures prior to demolition. SM Page 1 oft 07/13/2010 BoA Demo\Addendum staff report. doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Water Resources Storm Water The applicant will be required to comply with the storm water manual in affect when any applications are submitted and complete for that site. The addition of this parcel is not subject to the Development Agreement that covers the rest of the site. Sanitary Sewer No impacts are expected as no change is proposed to the Sanitary Sewer system. Plants and Animals The applicant has designed the parking lot layout to retain as many mature trees as possible. The DEIS states that the Proposed Action would result in no change in the vegetated area, and hence, no changes in wildlife use. The applicant references in their SEPA Compliance Document that there will be some loss of existing landscaping to the Bank of America property including the elimination of 34 mature trees. Much of the lost landscaped area is only vegetated in manicured lawn and provides minimal wildlife habitat. Transportation The demolition of either the drive - through or the bankbuilding will not generate additional trips other than on a temporary basis during construction. The surface parking that is proposed for Phase 1 and Phase 2 is an accessory use to either the site and/or the Mall and will not be generating any trips. The transportation impacts of creating additional surface parking stalls were adequately addressed in the original EIS, concurrency with transportation standards is maintained and no further study is required. The SEPA addendum does not address impacts from or the issue of traffic impact fees or credits due to potential changes in occupancy or use of the existing bank building. Traffic impact fees or credits will be determined prior to occupancy of the existing building. Parking The DEIS stated that the proposed expansion did not provide adequate parking. The proponent would either increase parking supply on -site to meet code requirements for parking or would seek a parking variance to authorize the reduced parking supply. The applicant obtained a parking variance (L04 -055). This project will increase the parking supply on the site. This proposal lessons the impacts to parking and no further review is required. Solid Waste Westfield evaluated the waste associated with the proposed demolition. They identified under Air Quality the possibility of asbestos in the Bank of America and there will be the need to safely remove that material from both buildings. Archeological and Historical The subject site was completely paved in the late 1960s. This proposed plan may require some excavation, at which time there may be some uncovering of artifacts of archeological significance. There are records that show an important historical site along the river to the east of the project. To the north of the project site is a stream that leads to the archeological site along the river. Depths of soil fill and proposed excavations shall be identified during the permitting process. Existing City standards (18.50.110 TMC) stipulate procedures for archaeological conservation and preservation. Conclusion The City has reviewed the Westfield Expansion DEIS and FEIS (City of Tukwila, 2004) and the additional information provided by the applicant and determined that it, along with City staff analysis, is adequate in evaluating the impacts associated with including the former Bank of America parcel into the scope of the Final EIS. Related Information 1. SEPA Checklist (File E09 -017) 2. Development permit for demolition and repaving (File D09 -237) 3. Initial DNS and Scoping Notice (File E03 -010) 4. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion (City of Tukwila 6/2004) 5. Final EIS Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion (City of Tukwila 10/2004) 6. Westfield EIS Addendum Southcenter Mall -- withdrawn (File E08 -021) 7. Development Agreement (File DA07 -003) 8. Proposed Parking Count Plan (Westfield 09/26/2005) 9. Parking Decision (File L04 -055) 10. Parking Decision Amendment (File L04 -055) 11. Bank of America (new) Design Review Staff Report (File L08 -001) 12. Westfield Expansion Development Permit (File D06 -147, addendum J) 13. Westfield Southcenter Area and Parking Summary-Draft (5/11/12) SM H:\A BoA Demo\Addendum staff report.doc Page 2 of 2 07/13/2010 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director SEPA ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE SOUTHCENTER MALL EXPANSION Description of current proposal: Inclusion of the 2.9 acre parcel (King County Assessor's parcel # 3597000257) in the northeast corner of the subject block. Redevelopment of this parcel could occur in two phases. Phase 1 is for demolition of the approximately 400 square foot former Bank of America drive - through structure and replacement with 239 parking spaces. Phase 2 is for demolition of the adjacent 8,717 square foot bank building and replacement with 103 parking spaces: File number: E09 -017 Proponent: Westfield Corporation Inc. Location of current proposal: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter is an 82 acre site located in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Stander BL and Andover Park West. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. The EIS excluded the Bank of America Parcel in the northeast corner of the site. This Addendum adds that parcel to the proposal and analysis. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Title of documents being added to: Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued by the City of Tukwila on June 21, 2004 and Final Environmental Impact Statement issued by the City of Tukwila on October 6, 2004. Date documents being added to were prepared: DEIS - June 21 2004; FEIS - October 6, 2004. If the documents being added to were challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: The DEIS and FEIS were not challenged. The document is available to be read at: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188, Monday thru Friday, 8:30 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report dated July 7, 2010, the lead agency has determined that there are no additional adverse significant impacts associated with the Bank of America parcel redevelopment other than those that were identified and mitigated as part of the original DEIS and FEIS. This addendum adds information and analyses about a proposal but does not substantially change the analyses of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing EIS prepared for expansion of Southcenter Mall. SM H:\A BoA Demo \adoption addendum.doc Page 1 of 2 07/13/2010 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 The DEIS and FEIS evaluated a total project build -out of 787,903 gross building square feet at the Southcenter Mall site, summarized potential environmental impacts, and identified possible mitigation measures for those impacts. To date, Westfield has built 453,149 square feet of space. With the Bank of America parcel redevelopment, no new square footage will be built but the existing building will add 8,717 square footage to the project for a total gain of 461,866 square feet. The square footage will remain under the total square footage evaluated in the FEIS. There are no changes to the project that are likely to have significant adverse impacts that were not adequately addressed in the environmental documents. Address: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100; Tukwila, WA 98188 Contact person: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner Phone: 206 433 7166 Responsible official: J : k Pace, Director Signature: Phone: 206 431 3670 Date: Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05 -020 (Order DE 83 -39), § 197 -11 -965, filed 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84. SM Page 2 of 2 07/13/2010 H:\A BoA Demo \adoption addendum.doc C t • ofj"Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Mayor Mullet and Tukwila City Council From: Steve Lancaster Date: October 7, 2004 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Steve Lancaster, Director Attached is a copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement issued for the proposed expansion of the mall. Taking into consideration the identified impacts and appropriate mitigating measures, the City may now proceed with permit review and issuance. The City is currently reviewing two applications for the project. The first is for a parking variance from the minimum parking stall requirement, which is an administrative decision made by me as the DCD Director. The other application is for design review approval, which is a quasi-judicial decision made by the Board of Architectural Review after a public hearing. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. We look forward to working with the mall in their proposed expansion and ensuring that the urban center and the mall move in a positive direction reflecting the goals of the community and creating a place that is an exceptional Tukwila landmark. Copy: Chief Haines Fire Marshall Don Tomaso Jim Morrow Alan Doerschel 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 October 2004 city of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 1, 2004 Dear Reader, Attached to this letter is the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 787,903 square foot expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter, which is located in the southeast comer of the I -5 and I-405 intersection in Tukwila. A draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on June 21, 2004 with comments due back to the City on July 21, 2004. Nine comment letters were received by the deadline and are contained in Chapter 3 along with responses to each letter. We encourage your review of both the draft, which contains the majority of the analysis, and the final, which contains additional concerns, comments and quantitative air quality analysis. After seven days the City will be able to approve any land use requests or construction permits associated with the project outlined in this environmental analysis. Review of any requests for construction of the project will take into consideration the impacts associated with the project and measures that could be used to mitigate those impacts. Several applications are currently pending a decision — an administrative variance from the City's parking standards and Board of Architectural Review. Questions on the above two applications or about this project may be directed to me or to Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development, City of Tukwila; 206 431 -3651 . or at inbradshaw@ci.tukwila.wa..us. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director SEPA Responsible Official 16300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION CITY OF TUKWILA SEPA File No. E03 -010 Prepared in compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Re- vised Code of Washington Ch.4321 C, and City of Tukwila SEPA Policies and Procedures Date of Issue: October 6, 2004 PREFACE This Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion has been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington); the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197 -11, Washington Administrative Code); and rules adopted by the City of Tukwila (Title 21: Environmental Regulations, Tukwila Municipal Code), the lead agency for the environmental review of the project under SEPA. Preparation of this Final EIS is the responsibility of the City of Tukwila Depart- ment of Community Development. This Final EIS includes a Fact Sheet, Chapter 1 (Summary), and Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative) from the Draft EIS, and Chapter 3 — comments on the Draft EIS and their accompanying responses. The Draft EIS for this proposal was issued on June 21, 2004. A 30 -day comment period followed issuance of the Draft EIS in accordance with WAC 197 -11- 455(6). The com- ment period on the Draft EIS concluded on July 21, 2004. A total of 10 comment letters on the Draft EIS were received from state and regional agencies, tribes, organizations, and businesses. Responses to these letters are provided in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS. FACT SHEET Name of Proposal Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. The expansion would primarily occur within the southern portion of the site. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping cen- ter. Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter). The maxi- mum expansion would increase the size of Southcenter to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (sf) of gross building area (gba), and would consist of additional retail com- mercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The proposed expansion and renovation of the mall would add up to 535,347 sf of retail shops, anchor stores, expanded food court space, and a theater. In ad- dition, up to three freestanding restaurants (21,101 sf) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outparcels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shop- ping center would increase by 626,803 sf of gross leas- able floor area (glfa). An additional 161,100 sf of space would be developed for mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two parking structures. All development would occur within the ex- isting shopping center site. Construction of the expanded shopping center is sched- uled to begin in 2004 and be complete in 2006. De- pending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be eliminated or deferred until a later time. How- ever, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet No Action Alterna- tive SEPA Lead Agency SEPA Responsible Official EIS Contact Person Required Permits & Approvals Expansion of the shopping center would not occur in the foreseeable future for any uses under the No Action Al- ternative. Existing trends in levels of patronage would prevail, and any changes in land use and transportation in the vicinity would be those that would occur under existing conditions. The No Action Alternative repre- sents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. City of Tukwila, Department of Community Develop- ment. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: 206.431.3670 Fax: 206.431.3665 E -mail: mbradshawAci.tukwila.wa.us Preliminary investigation indicates that the following approvals and/or actions would be required for devel- opment of the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Additional permits and/or ap- provals may be identified as project design is finalized. City of Tukwila - Complementary and Parking Variance Approvals - Design Review and Approval - Boundary Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Approval - Building Permit - Demolition Permit - Mechanical Permit - Hauling Permit - Type C— Construction, Right -of -Way, and Grading Permits - Fire Protection System Permits ii Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet Authors /Principal Contributors to this EIS Type/Timing of Subsequent Envi- ronmental Review Location of Back- ground Data Seattle /King County Health Department - Plumbing Permit State Agencies - Department of Ecology - Coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (for general construction activities) - Department of Labor & Industries - Elevator Permits - Electrical Permits Regional Agencies - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency - Notice of Asbestos Removal The Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila. Research and analysis for this EIS have been provided by the following consulting firms: • Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. — lead EIS consultant, document preparation, public services and utilities, fiscal analysis; • MFG, Inc. — air quality; • Pentec Environmental, Inc. — water (stormwater quality and quantity), plants and animals (fisher- ies effects of stormwater); and • The Transpo Group — transportation. No subsequent environmental review would be required for the development addressed in the EIS. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet iii Supporting SEPA Documents Date of Issuance of the Draft EIS Date of Issuance of this Final EIS Availability /Cost of Final EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 270 -3rd Avenue, Suite 200 Kirkland, Washington 98033 The following existing environmental documents are incorporated by reference for purposes of SEPA com- pliance (WAC 197 -11 -635): ■ Tukwila Municipal Code • Tukwila Comprehensive Plan EIS, 1995 • Transportation Element Background Report, 1993 ■ Gilliam Creek Basin Stormwater Management Plan, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2001 June 21, 2004 October 6, 2004 Copies of this Final EIS have been distributed to agen- cies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distribu- tion List. Copies are also available for review at the fol- lowing locations: • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Foster Library 4060 S. 144th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Paper copies may be purchased at the City for the cost of reproduction. iv Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Fact Sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Fact Sheet i 1. Summary Proponent/Project Location S -1 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative S -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts S -2 2. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal 2 -1 Proponent 2 -1 Description of Proposed Action 2 -1 Nature and Location of the Proposed Action 2 -1 Background 2 -1 Objectives of the Proposed Action 2 -4 Proposed Project 2 -4 No Action Alternative 2 -11 3. Comment Letters and Response to Comments Introduction 3 -1 Distribution List Appendix A: Air Quality Report Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS V Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 -1 Summary of Impacts S -3 1 -2 Summary of Mitigating Measures S -10 2 -1 Proposed Action Development Assumptions 2 -6 3 -1 2010 Proposed Action Traffic Volume Impact — Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension 3 -19 3 -2 2010 Proposed Action LOS Summary -- Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension 3 -20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2 -1 Regional Map 2 -2 2 -2 Vicinity Map 2 -3 2 -3 Existing Site Development 2 -5 2 -4a Site Plan — Level 1 2 -7 2 -4b Site. Plan — Level 2 2 -8 2 -4c Site Plan — Level 3 2 -9 3 -1 Project Trip Distribution — Effect of Strander Boulevard Extension 3 -21 Vi Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Summary The following information, which is reprinted from the Draft EIS, provides a general overview of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion project. It briefly de- scribes the proposed expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter ( Southcenter)', compares the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative, and sum- marizes the expected environmental impacts, mitigating measures that would address the impacts, and the significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Proponent/Project Location Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposes to expand and renovate the existing Southcenter shopping center, located in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The proposed project would be located within the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site. The site is bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. The site is within the City of Tukwila's Urban Center (TUC), which is bounded by I -405, I -5, South 180"' Street, and West Valley High- way /eastern city limits. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the geographical loca- tion of the proposed project. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Proposed Action In accordance with objectives of the proponent to improve the market position of South - center as a regional, commercial shopping complex that offers a wide variety of mer- chandise options and retail opportunities to consumers, the Proposed Action seeks to ex- pand and renovate the existing shopping center by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet gba (1,926,947 square feet glfa). The development would include additional retail uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All de- velopment would occur within the existing shopping center site, generally within the southern portion of the site. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the proposed site plan. Construction of the proposed improvements is scheduled to begin in 2004 for completion in 2006. Depending on market conditions, construction of some of the square footage, including the freestanding restaurant space and the hotel, could be deferred until a later Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS S -1 Summary time. For the purpose of environmental review, however, the Proposed Action presented in this EIS represents the maximum development potential of the proposal. Access to the shopping center would continue to be provided from Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Andover Park West. No additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Access to the parking structures would be provided from the internal circulation roads. The number of parking stalls, in- cluding surface and structured parking, would increase by approximately 15.5 percent to 7,900 spaces total. In general, existing drainage patterns at the site would remain — surface water would be conveyed through underground pipes toward Gilliam Creek to the north and ultimately into the Green River near I -405. In accordance with the City of Tukwila's stormwater management regulations, the Proposed Action would provide for the installation of me- chanical catch basins in order to treat surface water runoff (collected from on -site imper- vious surfaces and roof drains). The area of impervious surface would not increase under the Proposed Action. Therefore, flow control would not be incorporated into the storm - water strategy. Increases in existing utilities' services would be necessary under the Proposed Action. Water, sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems would be reconfigured, relocated, and/or upgraded to varying degrees in order to meet the requirements of the Proposed Action. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Without future improvements at Southcenter, the existing trends in levels of consumer activity could prevail, and any changes to land use and transportation in the vicinity would occur as a result of existing conditions, independent from any improve- ments at Southcenter. Under No Action, untreated surface water runoff would continue to be discharged from Southcenter into Gilliam Creek and the Green River. In addition, on -site utilities — particularly those currently eligible for improvements and upgrades — may not receive the appropriate level of improvements. Finally, the City would not bene- fit from the increased tax revenues that would be generated by an improved Southcenter. Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Un- avoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1 -1 summarizes potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tive. Table 1 -2 summarizes the mitigating measures for addressing the impacts identified in this EIS. Please see Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS for more complete information. S -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts Proposed Action No Action Alternative AIR QUALITY Construction Impacts • Dust from excavating and grading would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter • Construction equipment engines would emit air pollutants that would temporarily slightly degrade local air quality, particularly chemical constituents in diesel exhaust • Odors emitted during paving operations could cause odors detectible to some people off site • Renovations to the existing structure might require the removal and disposal of asbestos - containing building materials • Impacts to air quality would occur if construction activities result in traffic delays and reduced travel speeds Operation Impacts • The expected increases in peak -hour volumes and intersection delays would worsen traffic conditions and have the potential to cause significant adverse air quality impacts, particularly higher CO concentrations in the areas with traffic delays • Violations of the 8 -hour CO standard near the locations of the intersections operating at LOS E or worse would be possible • Increases in traffic in the area as a result of ambient growth would likely lead to greater congestion, delay, and corresponding increases in air quality impacts, although less than under the Proposed Action WATER RESOURCES Water Quantity Water Quantity • Impervious surface area would remain the same; no impacts to water quantity are anticipated • Continued absence of flow control; flooding and channel erosion could persist • Cumulative impacts are not anticipated due to the existing developed and impervious surface condition of the area Water Quality • Impacts are not anticipated; runoff would continue to contribute to flooding and erosion in the downstream section of Gilliam Creek Water Quality • Potential for water quality improvement • Increased traffic could impact water quality, but impact could be partially offset by a reduction (10 percent) in parking spaces exposed to precipitation; covered parking structures could reduce impact to stormwater runoff from otherwise exposed pollutants • Use of stormwater treatment vaults would likely result in improved water quality leaving the sub - basin, relative to existing conditions • No significant risks to water quality are anticipated from the proposed type of commercial activities • Cumulative impacts to water quality are not anticipated due to the existing, developed nature of the sub - basin • Water quality would remain the same Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -3 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts PLANTS AND ANIMALS • No significant impacts to plants, animals, fish or aquatic life are anticipated, relative to existing conditions • Cumulative impacts are not anticipated due to the highly developed nature of the area • Gilliam Creek would continue to be highly degraded but could improve through a planned fish habitat improvement project and other efforts by the City of Tukwila TRANSPORTATION Trip Generation Roadway Improvements • New trips, or trips made in order to visit the shopping center, would increase under the Proposed Action, resulting in 1,335 new weekday PM peak -hour trips (44 percent increase), 1,170 new weekday midday trips (36 percent increase), 1,910 new Saturday peak -hour trips (46 percent increase), and 12,380 new daily trips (36 percent increase) • The number of total trips generated by the expansion would be 1,720 during the weekday PM peak hour, 1,440 for the weekday midday peak hour, 2,420 for the Saturday peak hour, and 15,250 for the weekday daily period Traffic Volume Roadway and intersection improvement projects likely to be constructed by 2010 within the study area (City of Tukwila Six -Year TIP 2004 - 2009): -TUC Traffic Signal Interconnect - Southcenter Pkwy Improvements (180th — south City limits) - Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd Intersection Improvements _S 168th St Roadway Extension _West Valley Hwy /S 156`h St (1-405 NB) HOV improvement -West Valley Hwy Improvements - Minkler Blvd Improvements Other improvements (beyond 2010) include: -major revisions to Southcenter Pkwy/ Klickitat Drive /Strander Blvd; -1-405 improvements; - reconstruction of 61st Ave S bridge over 1 -405 Strander Boulevard extension • Percent impact of project trips during the weekday PM peak hour would range from less than one percent at the outlying study intersections, to approximately 22 percent at study intersections adjacent to the site • Percent impact during the Saturday peak hour would range from approximately 3 percent to 28 percent • Largest percent increases during the weekday PM peak hour (approx. 22 percent) and the Saturday peak hour (approx. 28 percent) would both occur at two study intersections /site driveways: Andover Park West/Baker Boulevard and Mall- Target Driveway /Strander Boulevard Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S-4 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts Traffic Operations • During weekday PM peak hour, five of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS F (as under No Action conditions), the intersection of 61st Ave S/Tukwila Parkway would fall from LOS E to LOS F, and six study intersections would fall from LOS C or D to LOS E • During Saturday peak hour, four study intersections fall from LOS E or better to LOS F; in all, seven intersections would operate at LOS F • Overall, the TUC average LOS would remain at LOS D, meeting the City of Tukwila's concurrency requirements; slight decreases in average travel speed are anticipated to occur on each arterial as a result of the Proposed Action Driveway Levels of Service • During the weekday PM peak hour, all site driveways would operate at LOS D or better, or remain at the same LOS as in 2010 No Action conditions • During the Saturday peak hour, four driveways are expected to fall from operating conditions of LOS E or better to LOS F, Andover Park W /South Driveway and West Driveway /Strander Boulevard would operate at LOS F and would experience vehicle delays Transit and Rail • Additional trips would not create a significant adverse impact to transit and rail operations in the area Non - Motorized • No significant adverse impacts to non - motorized facilities or operations are expected to occur under the Proposed Action Traffic Safety • There would be a potential increase in traffic accidents at study intersections, due to the increase in traffic • With an increase in traffic volumes at the site driveways, traffic safety conditions could decline proportionally Parking • Parking supply would increase from 6,679 parking stalls to approximately 7,900 parking stalls (both surface and structured parking) • Peak parking demand associated with the 20`h highest hour of the year during a Christmas holiday season weekend afternoon is estimated to be 8,355 parking stalls, excluding the hotel, and 8,428 with the hotel • Provision of 7,900 parking stalls would not be adequate in order to meet the peak parking demand and would not meet City code requirements, without successful implementation of peak season traffic and parking management strategies Transit and Rail Operations • TUC transit center will eventually be developed to serve Tukwila TUC • Sound Transit will develop a permanent commuter rail station that would serve Southcenter • Potential exists for a "Tukwila Shuttle Circulator" • Metro plans various route revisions, some serving Southcenter • With these improvements, the rate of vehicular traffic growth may be less than assumed for No Action Non - Motorized Improvements • Sidewalks will be constructed at various locations in conjunction with related infrastructure improvements Traffic Volumes • Traffic volumes are estimated at a growth rate of 1.5 percent/yr Traffic Operations • During weekday PM peak hour, 3 of the 35 signalized and 2 of the 5 unsignalized intersections would likely operate at LOSF Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -5 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts • Two study intersections would noticeably improve by 2010 No Action • During Saturday peak hour, 3 intersections would likely operate at LOS F; improvements to others would occur during this time Arterial Level of Service • During weekday PM peak hour in 2010, all studied arterials would likely operate at LOS E or better • Overall, the TUC average level of service would be LOS D Driveway Operations • No changes in site uses would occur that would affect driveway operations. Background volumes on the adjacent streets at the driveways would increase by 2010 No Action. • Driveway operations would be LOS C or better at all signalized driveways. Two unsignalized driveways would operate at LOS F during one or more of the peak hours. Transit • Planned improvements are anticipated to improve bus and rail accessibility for the project site Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -6 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire and Emergency Medical Services • No impacts to public services and Construction Impacts utilities are anticipated • Calls for service would increase, leading to a need for one additional firefighter FTE • The on -site lift station would • Calls for review and inspections would increase, as could the need for training pertaining to the smoke continue to experience capacity control system; potential demand would affect review times for inspections for permit applications by the constraints and would likely Fire Marshal's office require an capacity upgrade • Overall, impacts to fire and emergency medical service during construction would be moderate • The existing sewer system would continue to create maintenance Operation Impacts problems for the City resulting • Expansion would increase demand for fire and emergency medical services from grease discharges by • Using an estimate based on the existing ratios of fire and aid calls per 1,000 sf per year, the Proposed restaurants Action could result in an increase of approximately 28 fire and 101 aid calls per year, resulting in the need to add approximately 1 FTE firefighter and up to 1 shift lieutenant in order to maintain response times • Impacts to the Department's ability to provide timely response to fires within the parking structures are possible, depending on the layout of the structure and available equipment • Overall, impacts during operation would likely be moderate Police Services Construction Impacts • Vandalism, theft and /or trespassing could occur during construction • Construction traffic could require police presence and could reduce the Department's ability to respond to incidents elsewhere Operation Impacts • Based on Police Department estimates, calls for service could increase from 9.4 calls currently to 13 per 24- hour day (28 percent increase) • Number of cases could increase from 3.5 to 5 per 24 -hour day (30 percent increase) • Using an estimate based on the number of calls per 1,000 sf, the Proposed Action could result in an increase of 5 calls per day, or 1.4 more calls per 24 -hour day than Department estimates • Additional demands equate to the need for one additional FTE position. Without increases in staffing, indirect impacts to service levels and response times citywide could occur • Additional personnel may result in the need for expanded departmental facilities, but no additional vehicles or equipment would be necessary • Absence of a Community Resource Center could adversely impact service at Southcenter and would reduce police presence, potentially contributing to an increase in criminal activity • Overall, impacts to police services during operation would likely be moderate Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -7 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts Water Supply • Existing water pipes could be impacted and may need to be relocated in order to accommodate new construction • Water usage could increase by 41,177 gpd, or to 116,347 gpd for all of Southcenter • Impacts to water capacity and supply would be minimal relative to the level at which the City meets area water supply demand through the existing wholesale purchase contract with the City of Seattle PUD • Impacts to fire flow are not anticipated Stormwater • See Water for stormwater impacts Sewer • New sewer lines would be connected to existing lines or would be connected to sewer lines that would be relocated or replaced in order to conform to building codes • Adverse impacts to system capacity could occur, depending on the extent to which sewage flow is gravity fed to the line at Strander Blvd versus being pumped to Lift Station 12; Lift Station 12 is currently at capacity and in need of upgrade • Sewage flow could increase by 39,827 gpd to a total of 112,534 gpd • Overall, impacts to the City's capacity to treat sewage from Southcenter would be minimal Solid Waste • Solid waste generation would increase during construction and operation, although impacts would be minimal • Impacts to the existing recycling area would be positive, as it does not meet current City requirements, but would be expanded to meet City standards • Minor impacts to the capacity of transport and disposal facilities are anticipated Electricity • Electricity use would increase; total peak demand could increase by 50 percent, or 12 Mva • Impacts to the distribution system and capacity are anticipated • Temporary service interruptions during removal or replacement of electrical lines at Southcenter are anticipated Natural Gas • Replacement, removal, or realignment of portions of the existing natural gas system would be necessary • Since all natural gas facilities reside on the roof, impacts to the existing system could be significant if improvements occur to the roof of the existing structure Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -8 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts • If demand for natural gas were to increase proportional to the size of the expansion, use could increase by 445,758 therms (Westfield, 2004), although demand may be more related to type of use than to square footage increases Communications • Demand for communications services would increase and would require expansion or relocation of the existing termination space • Overall, impacts to communications are all site targeted and would be significant, but the upgrades would significantly benefit Southcenter Cumulative Impacts • Demand for public services and utilities would increase in conjunction with other potential development projects, but is anticipated to be minimal due to the high level of existing development in the area and provided that public service agencies have anticipated and accommodated the increased demand • Development of the annexation area to the south of the TUC in conjunction with the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative impacts FISCAL ANALYSIS Revenue Impacts • Fiscal impacts are not anticipated • Total additional revenue to the City of Tukwila: $982,000 in 2006 (estimated build -out) to $2,953,000 by 2012 (revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, and admissions taxes comprise the majority of the estimated total additional revenue) • During construction, revenues would range from nothing in 2004 (due to time lags for collection) to nearly $1 million • During operation (by 2012), revenues would generally stabilize at $2.9 million, with the exception of property tax revenues, which would continue to increase each year Costs • Total costs incurred by the City of Tukwila: $33,000 in 2004 to $678,000 by 2012 (point at which project costs generally stabilize) • During construction, the City would incur costs primarily from the need for additional fire and EMS services • During operation, the City would incur costs for police services (20 percent of total), general government costs (55 percent), fire services (17 percent), and road /street maintenance (8 percent) Net Fiscal Surplus • Net fiscal surplus to the City of Tukwila: $371,000 in 2005 to $2,262,000 in 2023 • Positive impact to pre- existing revenue sources, as the City could fund project - related improvements with revenues generated by the Proposed Action Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -9 Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures Proposed Action No Action Alternative AIR QUALITY Construction Per the Washington Associated General Contractors brochure, Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects, the following mitigating measures are recommended: • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition • No mitigating measures would be necessary • Require all off-road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment • Use bio- diesel or other lower emission fuels for vehicles and equipment • Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction • Implement construction curbs on hot days to reduce ozone emissions • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (i.e., 5 minutes) • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors, such as fresh air intakes for buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations • Locate construction staging zones in areas of least impact • Route and schedule construction trucks around high traffic periods to reduce emissions In addition, mitigating measures would be required in conjunction with City of Tukwila permits; specifically the applicant would be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and an Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan. These plans include a number of additional mitigating measures relevant to reducing air quality impacts. Operation • In order to reduce vehicle volumes and /or improve operation of poor -LOS intersections during peak weekday and Saturday periods, transportation demand measures to improve mobility and measures that target shopping center employees could be implemented • No additional mitigating measures are proposed other than those listed in "Potential Transportation Mitigation Options" (Table 3 -19) WATER RESOURCES • No mitigating measures would be necessary • No mitigating measures would be necessary Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -10 Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures PLANTS AND ANIMALS • No mitigating measures would be necessary • No mitigating measures would be necessary TRANSPORTATION The comparison of traffic volumes, traffic operations, transit and rail, non - motorized, traffic safety, and parking conditions under the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative was used to identify near -term impacts and possible mitigation measures. Table 3 -19 summarizes the mitigation options identified as a result of this impact analysis. Parking impacts on peak days (typically holidays) could be mitigated through implementation of a Transportation Demand Management program and /or requiring employees to park off -site. To mitigate long -range transportation impacts, the Proposed Action would be subject to mitigation impact fees pursuant to the Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48.070. The City Transportation Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees Chapter of the TMC allow credit for developer improvements. • Same as Proposed Action PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire and Emergency Medical Services ■ No mitigating measures would be necessary • Work with Tukwila Fire Department regarding fire lane access issues • Replace existing fire alarm system with a fully - addressable fire alarm system Police Services • Implement construction site security measures in order to discourage theft, vandalism, trespassing, and other unauthorized activities; work with the Tukwila Police Department regarding implementation, if possible • Maintain accessibility to the site to ensure response times • Incorporate security features into the Southcenter expansion in order to reduce impacts to police services during the operation phase Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary S -11 Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures Utilities • Provide 9,635 sq. ft. of space designated for recycling services in order to comply with City requirements • Schedule interruptions to utility service during hours with least impact. Provide advance notice to surrounding community when utility service may be interrupted during construction • In order to reduce capacity constraints on the sewer lift station, route new sewerage flow at Southcenter to the Metro line along Strander Blvd if feasible; otherwise, increase lift station capacity • Dispose of construction - related debris in a proper solid waste disposal facility per jurisdictional requirements and work with the City and King County to develop a Solid Waste Management Plan for recycling of CDL wastes • Incorporate into project PSE recommendations for fair share upgrades and /or changes to the existing electrical system (see the Public Services and Utilities section in this Draft EIS for specific information) • During construction, consult with PSE as early as possible in order to maintain service to the existing portions of the mall • With planned system improvements identified above, no additional mitigating measures would be necessary for the water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas systems • Upgrade the existing communications space located in the mall to meet the proposed increase in demand (see Public Services and Utilities section in this Draft EIS for specific information) FISCAL ANALYSIS • No mitigating measures would be necessary • No mitigating measures would be necessary Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Summary = S -12 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Description of Proposed Action Nature and Location of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter' (Southcenter) (Figure 2 -1). The maximum expansion proposed would increase the size of Southcenter by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (1,926,947 square feet glfa). It would provide for addi- tional retail commercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The Proposed Action represents the maximum development potential under this proposal. Market forces could result in lesser development or deferring portions of this development. For review purposes, the maximum development is assumed to open in 2006. The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east (Figure 2 -2). The expansion would occur within the southern portion of the site. I -5 and I-405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. Background When Southcenter shopping center was opened in 1968 with the first enclosed mall in the region it had 1,298,937 square feet of glfa, including 137,393 glfa of outparcel develop- ment including the former Doubletree Inn. In 1989, the Nordstrom store was expanded and a food court replaced an existing grocery. In 1992, an anchor store (Mervyn's) and I Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self- contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 2 -1 Description of the Proposed Action Source: HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2 -1 Regional Map 2 -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action Source: HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles Figure 2 -2 Vicinity Map Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 2 -3 Description of the Proposed Action retail shops were added and Frederick and Nelson's was closed, which was subsequently replaced by Sears. Today, Southcenter includes five anchor department stores (Bon Macy's, J.C. Penney, Mervyn's, Nordstrom, and Sears) and over 150 specialty retail stores and restaurants (Figure 2 -3). The mall encompasses an area of 1,252,317 square feet of glfa. Outparcels around the mall contain two restaurants (Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden at 17,930 square feet) and a post office, Key Bank, and Firestone Auto Center (29,897 square feet total). A Bank of America branch is located north of Mervyn's along Tukwila Parkway, but it is not on property under Westfield's control. The former Doubletree Inn, located in the southwest comer of the site, was closed in December 2002 and will be demolished in 2004. The majority of the shopping center site is leased by Westfield (actual leaseholder entity is WEA Southcenter LLC, which is part of the Westfield group) from Prudential Financial, Inc., which owns the land. Approximately 15 acres is owned by Federated (Bon Macy's) that includes the land under the Bon and the parking area to the north. Westfield Corporation is the developer and operator of the shopping center site; Nord- strom, Sears, J.C. Penney, and Mervyn's sublease the land beneath their respective build- ings from Westfield and, in some cases, control the parking adjacent to their stores. Objectives of the Proposed Action The objectives of the proponent are to improve Southcenter's market position in continu- ing to operate a commercial shopping complex that offers high quality merchandise and competitive retail opportunities to consumers in the region. Specific objectives are to: • Respond to market conditions; • Strengthen the center's position as a super - regional shopping center; • Broaden the merchandise mix available at the center and add complementary uses; • Increase the ratio of small retailers to anchors; • Increase the number of upscale retailers to complement other existing high quality retailers /products; and • Improve the lifestyle component of the mall, including entertainment and dining. Proposed Project Development Assumptions The proposed expansion and renovation of the shopping mall would add 289,517 square feet of retail shops, 162,650 square feet of anchor stores, 7,980 square feet of expanded food court space, and a 75,200- square -foot theater. In addition, three freestanding restau- rants (21,101 square feet) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outpar- cels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shopping center would increase by 626,803 square feet of glfa. An additional 161,100 square feet of space would be developed for new mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to 2-4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action &en ca TeikiiilaIRafkway,1 "An't Staildertilly Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-3 Southcenter Site Boundary Existing Site Development Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2-5 the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two multi -level parking structures (Figure 2 -4). All development would occur within the existing shopping center site. Existing uses and proposed development are shown in Table 2 -1. Table 2 -1. Proposed Action Development Assumptions (sq.ft.) The new anchor retail space would be comprised of up to five stores ranging in size from about 12,000 square feet to about 84,000 square feet, compared to the existing anchor department stores that range in size from about 86,000 square feet (Mervyn's) to 250,000 square feet (Bon Macy's). Potential anchor store uses could include stores specializing in home goods, clothing, sporting goods, books, entertainment and/or home electronics. 2 Olive Garden opened in October 2003 and Bahama Breeze opened in May 2003. 3 The former Doubletree Inn (104,232 square feet) closed in December 2002 and will be demolished and replaced with surface parking in 2004 under separate permit. 2 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action Source: HuckelllWeinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-4a Site Plan — Level 1 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcen er Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2 -7 ;t t s U G.. . / v '` • ti4 r Q 0 1 • 1 a TUKWILA PARKWAY 1 • M y 'I 0 0 0. �- CC W W w -2 n iI 00 ANDOVER PARK • WEST 0 Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. t i N. • 8 �.w STRANDER BOULEVARD Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-4c Site Plan — Level 3 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2 -9 The remaining shopping center retail would consist primarily of specialty shops similar to those at the mall today, but catering to a broader range of customers and featuring a wider array of merchandise. The theater complex is expected to have 16 -18 screens, and seat- ing for 3,600 to 4,000 moviegoers. It would be developed on the second or third level of the mall. Development of the hotel would depend upon market demand but is planned to provide lodging for about 140 guests. Its location on the site has not yet been deter- mined. Construction of the expanded shopping center is scheduled to begin in 2004 and be com- plete in 2006. Depending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be elimi- nated or deferred until a later time. However, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. Construction phasing would occur as follows: September — December 2004 January — June 2005 July — December 2005 January — May 2006 Access and Parking Prepare site, relocate utilities, and start foundations Erect parking structures and structural steel for mall Complete mall shell, open parking structures, and begin construction of outparcel uses Finish mall expansion and construction of outparcel uses; open for business Access to the shopping center site is currently provided at two locations each from Tuk- wila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard and at four locations from Andover Park West. These access points would be retained under the Proposed Action, and no additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Ac- cess to the parking structures would be provided from the intemal circulation roads. There are currently 6,679 surface parking stalls on the site, including spaces at the exist- ing outparcels. With the demolition of the former Doubletree Inn and resurfacing of that site, 704 surface parking stalls will be added for a total of 7,383 stalls. The proposed re- tail expansion would remove some surface parking but two proposed parking structures would provide additional stalls. A total of approximately 7,900 parking spaces are pro- posed, including surface and structured parking. Grading and Drainage In general, construction of the expanded shopping center would be accomplished at exist- ing grades. Excavations would be made for utilities and for structure foundations. The expanded mall area grades would be raised slightly to allow surface runoff to flow away from the building. Existing drainage patterns of the site would be maintained. 2 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action Nearly the entire site is covered with impervious surfaces (buildings and parking areas). Surface water drainage from the site is conveyed through underground pipes either north- erly or easterly and then northerly to Gilliam Creek, which lies north of the site along Tukwila Parkway. Gilliam Creek empties into the Green River near I -405. No treatment or control /detention of surface water runoff occurs at the present time. Under the Proposed Action, surface water runoff from new or redeveloped impervious surfaces on the project site would flow to mechanical catch basins to treat stormwater. The target treatment level would be set to meet existing City stormwater management regulations. No stormwater flow control (i.e., detention) is proposed because there would be no change in the amount of impervious surface on the site. Stormwater would be routed through the existing stormwater conveyance pipes that currently convey water from the site to Gilliam Creek. Roof drains would also connect to these conveyances. Utilities All utilities (water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications) are provided on or adjacent to the site. Under the Proposed Action, there will be increased require- ments for water, sewer and telecommunications as well as electricity and gas. Systems would need to be reconfigured/relocated and extended to serve the shopping center ex- pansion. Puget Sound Energy would need to expand capacity and service on site and possibly off site, and other utility system capacities may need to be increased as well. No Action Alternative Expansion of the shopping center would not occur in the foreseeable future for any uses under the No Action Alternative. Existing trends in levels of patronage would prevail, and any changes in land use and transportation in the vicinity would be those that would occur under existing conditions. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 2 -11 Description of the Proposed Action THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Description of the Proposed Action CHAPTER 3 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Introduction This chapter of the Final EIS contains comments received on the Draft EIS and the re- sponses to those comments. A total of 10 comment letters were received during the comment period; each letter received is included in its entirety in this section. The com- ment numbers that appear in the margins of the letters are cross - referenced to the corre- sponding response provided after each letter. Expressions of opinions, subjective state- ments and positions for or against the proposed action are acknowledged without further response. Written comments were received from the following state and local agencies, tribes, organizations, and businesses: Letter Agency /Tribe /Organization /Business Number 1 Washington Department of Transportation 2 King County Department of Transportation — Metro Transit Division, Design, & Construction Section. Environmental Planning and Real Estate 3 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treat- ment Division 4 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treat- 7 ment Division 5 City of Renton, Planning/Building /Public Works Department 6 City of Tukwila Fire Department 7 Highline Water District 8 QWEST Communications 9 Perkins Coie LLP on behalf of the Boeing Company Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -1 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Washington State Department of Transportation Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation July 20, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Moira: Letter 1 Page 1 Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 206 -440 -4000 TTY: 1- 800 - 833 -6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov WSDOT has reviewed the submitted Draft Environmental Impact Statement and offer the following comments. WSDOT has identified some areas of concern below with respect to this projects impacts on the existing transportation facilities. Project Summary This project will add approximately 787, 903 square -feet (sf) of gross building area to the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Mall, bringing the total to 2,226,274 sf. New construction will include additional retail commercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All development will occur within the existing shopping center site. The project is expected to add approximately 12,380 new daily trips to the surrounding roadway network. Construction is schedule to begin in 2004 and be complete in 2006. Comments 1. Intersection 4 — 51St Avenue South/SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp has been identified as operating at Level of Service (LOS) F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 2. Intersection 10 — Interurban Avenue South/I -405 SB Ramps has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as High Accident Location (HAL), and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. The proposal will add additional trips to this location. 3. Intersection 11— Interurban Avenue South/Southcenter Boulevard has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT as a HAL. WSDOT 1 2 3 3 -3 Name: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement review Date: July 20, 2004 Page 2 Letter 1 Page 2 may request HAL mitigation at this site. This proposal will add additional trip to this location. 4. Intersection 21- Southcenter Parkway/I -5 Northbound Ramp (Mall Entry) has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as a HAL, and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 5. Intersection 23 — Southcenter Parkway/I -5 Northbound Off -Ramp has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as a HAL, and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 6. Intersection 40 — West Valley Highway /South 196`h Street is listed by WSDOT as a HAL, although this is not noted in the report. Please note that High Accident Locations and High Accident Corridors listed by WSDOT that are impacted by a proposal are considered as probable significant adverse impacts. If you have any additional questions, or require additional information please contact John Lefotu of our Development Services section by phone at 206 -440 -4713, or via e- mail at lefotuj@a,wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Ramin Pa ooki SnoKing Area Planning Manager JL:jl cc: Don Sims/Rick Roberts, King Area Traffic MS 120 3-4 I3 4 5 Responses to Letter #1 Washington Department of Transportation Comments 1 -5. The purpose of the EIS is to accurately disclose impacts and offer possi- ble mitigation to address those impacts. The City of Tukwila will consider possible miti- gation options when it issues a decision on the project. Comment 6. Comment is acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -5 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments King County Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division, Design & Construction Section Environmental Planning and Real Estate, MS KSC -TR -0431 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104 -3856 (206) 684 -1418 FAX: (206) 684 -1900 June 25, 2004 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Dear Mr. Lancaster: Letter 2 R Page 1 FcF /V ' OA/ 2 FO 004,,10 8 2004 Copts King County Metro Transit staff reviewed the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS and have the following comments. The EIS states that the project proponent, Westfield_ Corporation, could consider upgrading local transit bus stops to help improve connectivity and to encourage transit use to and from the site. Metro is ready to work with Westfield Corp. to determine specific improvements and the timing of those improvements. Listed below, in order of priority, are bus stops needing improvement in the project area. Please refer to the attached diagram for the location of these bus stops. Bus Stop #59310 & #59312 (southbound on Andover between Baker and Strander): Bus stop #59310 has two passenger shelters, but we need at least one at #59312. Overall, there is a great need to revise the paving and landscaping at both bus stops to provide more standing/waiting space for bus patrons and to reduce the amount of maintenance. Litter is a problem at bus stop 59312 where we do not provide cleaning maintenance. Metro has a strong interest in working with the proponent on improvements at this location. 1 Bus Stop #58109 (westbound on Strander at 61st): This bus stop needs a passenger shelter. Passengers leave a lot of litter and Metro does not provide any cleaning maintenance where we do not have a passenger 2 shelter. Metro has a strong interest in working with the proponent on improvements. Bus Stop #60430 (northbound on Andover Park just north of Strander): While we already have one passenger shelter at this stop, there is a need for more improvements. Additional standing/waiting space is needed to reduce impact to landscaping and maintenance. An additional passenger shelter would be beneficial. It would be useful if improvements at this stop could be coordinated with the improvements that might be made at the three stops discussed above. Please contact Paul Alexander, Transit Planner (206.684.1599, paul.alexander (a,metrokc.gov), to discuss bus stop improvements in that area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, �I r —, V Gary iedt Senior Environmental Planner 3 MOBILITY FOR THE REGION 3-7 Letter 2 Page 2 Southcenter Bus Stops Needing Improvements Responses to Letter #2 King County Department of Transportation — Metro Transit Division, Design, & Construction Section. Environmental Planning and Real Estate Comments 1 -3. Comments are acknowledged. The purpose of the EIS is to accurately disclose impacts and offer possible mitigation to address those impacts. The City of Tukwila will consider possible mitigation options, including those identified by Metro, when it issues a decision on the project. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -9 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 June 24, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion DEIS RECEV, -..t.) (JUN 2 8 2P4 DCLO N Letter 3 Page 1 The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Project. King County requires that a capacity charge be applied to any project that constructs a new connection to the sewer system, any reconnection within five years of a disconnection, or any change in use or building remodel that includes an increase in plumbing fixtures. King County generally receives notice of new construction; however, some sewer districts and /or the cities that represent them have neglected to report changes in use and tenant improvements that involve an increase in plumbing fixtures. In an attempt to remedy this problem, we are sending this reminder to you in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We ask that you forward this reminder to the sewer district or city department responsible for Sewer Use Certification forms: Please be sure that a Non - Residential Sewer Use Certification form for the above project is completed and sent to the King County Capacity Charge Program in a timely manner. The form should be sent to Eunice Verstegen, Capacity Charge Program, KSC -NR -0501, at the address above. If you need additional forms or have questions about the program, please call Eunice at (206) 684 -1740. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Meredith Redmon Environmental Planner cc: Eunice Verstegen, Capacity Charge Program ,t. .® ,emu CLEAN WATER- A SOUND INVESTMENT 1 3 -11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Responses to Letter #3 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treatment Division Comment 1. A reminder will be forwarded to the City of Tukwila Public Works Depart- ment and a Non - Residential Sewer Use Certification form will be obtained and submitted to the King County Water Treatment Division as required. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -13 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -14 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 June 23, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 REcEIvED 'JUN 2 81004 utITLOpmEivr Letter 4 Page 1 RE: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated June 2004. King County's Tukwila Interceptor is located within the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Project site. In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Tukwila do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to Eric Davison in the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, Civil /Architectural Section. Eric can be contacted at (206) 684 -1707. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Drawings should be sent to: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, KSC -NR -0508 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 • Please contact Eric Davison at (206) 684 -1707 a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in order to allow staff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on the site during construction. • • King County has a permanent easement fora sewer line on the proposed development site, and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line, and, in the event that the line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided. • Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the proposed development site to Eric Davison in the Civil /Architectural Section so that he can contact the property owner regarding the easement. Eric can be reached at (206) 684 -1707, at eric.davison a,metrokc.gov, or by mail at the address above. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have questions, I can . be reached at (206) 684 -1227. • ®, CLEAN WATER- A SOUND INVESTMENT 1 2 3 4 . 3 -15 Sincerely, Barbara Questad Environmental Planner Enclosures cc:Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section Pam Elardo, Supervisor, Right -of -Way Unit, Planning and System Development bet r fat Pik- 'uS' , . 3 -16 Letter 4 Page 2 Responses to Letter #4 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks -- Wastewater Treatment Division Comment 1. Construction drawings will be submitted to the County by the City of Tuk- wila for review prior to permit issuance. Comment 2. The identified staff member will be contacted by the applicant's project manager 72 hours prior to starting construction. Comment 3. Your comments are acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Comment 4. Property ownership information will be sent to the identified staff member. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -17 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -18 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments .Kathy Keolker- Wheeler, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning /Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator July 20, 2004 Steve Lancaster Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite •100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, .TUNE 2004 Letter 5 Page 1: DEV ELpWP :Nr Dear Mr. Lancaster, Thank you for the opportunity to review:the above referenced document. The City of Renton has. several continents on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); most of which are related to transportation issues: These are described. below. • • Traffic Analysis. On May.13, 2003, the City sent a letter to the City of Tukwila requesting early coordination on this DEIS and specifically identified Renton streets that we felt may be impacted. would like to • have addressed. Unfortunately, the City did not receive early review: of the traffic analysis, and only two of several potentially impacted intersections were evaluated, and the requested arterial analysis of S.W: Grady Way, Oakesdale Avenue S.W. and S.W. 43`d is not provided at. all. Lastly, the EIS traffic analysis indicates that the highest project volumes are expected for Saturday p.m. peak hour, but analysis of Renton streets and intersections is limited to weekday p.m. peak hour volumes. If it is appropriate to consider two different peak periods for traffic., impacts, the reasoning and methodology behind this should be documented. It is possible that Saturday p.m. peak hour volumes in Renton are low enough to justify this, but to avoid any confusion or questioning, the actual numbers supporting this approach should be presented. Forecasting What was the forecasting tool used and how does it address issues like mode split and arterial I speeds ?, Mode Split The EIS does not assume any changes in "transit- related travel patterns to reflect potential new service ". Does this mean that routing changes are not considered or that mode split assumptions 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 124 m r.,.,ro:n¢ .rn . w..,.,larf maeaniat 111.4. met er,nee mum. 2 3 4 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Letter-.5 Page2 do not vary from today's levels? If mode split assumptions change, please provide information on the percentage and reason for the change. Air Quality Cont'd Air quality impacts are described as likely as a result of the project, but no specific project mitigation . for these impacts are identified in the Air Quality chapter. The EIS Air Quality chapter recommends improvements that reduce vehicle volumes and/or improve level of service, but does not further define the mitigation. Presumably, all of the choices from the table of Potential Transportation Mitigation Options either reduce volumes or improve level of service, but it is not possible to discern this from the table (e.g., does installing c- curbing reduce air quality impacts ?) Clarification of which improvements address this issue would be helpful,.- Planned Improvements We request that the Strander Boulevard Extension be included as a project that would be completed by 2010, and that the study area, 2010 volumes and traffic operations analysis (such as; SW Grady way /Oakesdale Avenue SW, SW 27th Street / Oakesdale Avenue SW SW 43rd. Street / Oakesdale Avenue SW) be revised to reflect completion of this - project by.2010. We disagree with the assumption that no portion of the Strander Boulevard Extension project would be complete by. the 2010 horizon year The City of Renton •.Six -Year (2005 -2010) Transportation Improvement Program (which is:scheduled for adoption July 26,2004): designates the Strander Boulevard Extension. Project for completion by 2010. Though this project is not fully funded, there have been funding commitments;by the City ofRenton, City of Tukwila;: The Boeing Company and the Freight Mobility; Strategy_ Investment Board, and it is. the CitY of Renton's intent to aggressively pursue the needed additional' funding so that the 2010 completion: date can be met. The City of Renton Transportation :Planning and Programming Section: is available to assist in resolving the resulting shifts in background traffio due to the new Strander. Boulevard Extension roadway: Also, it is our understanding. that certain improvements to I -405 in. the vicinity of Southcenter..•... Expansion site are planned by WSDOT for:completion by, 2010. as part of the "Nickel Package ". • The text in DEIS, 2010 volumes and trafc:operationsanalysis should be amended to reflect the:.: • "Nickel Package" projects. . Background Growth: and Pipeline Projects We request that the DEIS include discussion of the future planned development for the Boeing. : Longacres site. The discussion of traffic volumes and traffic operations should reflect traffic • generated from future development on this site. A Draft and Final EIS and Mitigation Document have been adopted for the development of the Longacres site that will provide approximately 2,500,000 square feet of office space; with approximately 10,000 employees occupying the "site. Even though there are no projects currently in the permitting process or approved (the Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters building and Day -Care Center have been completed), Boeing has shown a commitment to future planned . . development by satisfying their mitigation requirements for full build -out of the Longacres site in the form of right -of -way dedication for the Strander Boulevard Extension project. We view this as a commitment by Boeing for further development on their site by 2010 and to completion of the extension of Strander Boulevard. . The City of Renton Transportation Planning and Programming Section is available to assist in revising the DEIS to reflect the planned Boeing Longacres development. Mitigation Measures Letter 5 Page 3 Table 3 -19, Potential Transportation Mitigation Options describes various options for each impact and offers pros and cons for those options. However, by doing so, it is difficult to discern: which. is the final proposed mitigation measure. Consequently, it is not possible to determine .whit . would be implemented, how it would resolve the impacts (in contrast to it's pluses and minuses) and how it could affect Renton. More specificity about the recommended mitigation measures would address this issue. Also, we request that the DEIS include discussion of the City of Renton's mitigation requirements and that the proposed Southcenter•Expansion project would be subject to Renton's . traffic mitigation program pursuant to City of Renton Resolution 2100 and Concurrency • • Management System policies. • • The City of Renton has also adopted. afee -based transportation mitigation program. This fee represents land -use developments' fair -share cost of citywide transportation system improvements to address traffic generated by future development • and to maintain an established: Level of Service standard. •Under Renton's transportation mitigation :program, site - specific::. improvements are also required to'mitigate impacts to on -site and, adjacent facilities. •Renton's • mitigation.fee is based on the increase in total:daily: vehicle trips generated by adevelopment - project. • • We recognize that Renton and Tukwila•do not have an Interlocal agreement for addressing traffic. mitigation, for development projects inside our respective borders:, :So for modest projects, we • have exchanged environmental documentation' and development proposals and addressed review: comments. However,.for.the Boeing Longacres development project (a mega project), mitigation • of transportation impacts in Tukwila:were addressed and traffic'mitigation negotiated between. Tukwila and Boeing was a component of the Mitigation Document t. ent for that project We view the -• Southcenter Expansion as a project that would. be in•the category of the Boeing Longacres• . development in .terms of impacts on Renton's streets arid the•needfor mitigation to those..impacts. We appreciate this opportunity to review the DEIS . If you have any questions about our comments, please feel free to contact me at 425 -430 -7311. • 10 Si;cerely, Gregg Zimmerman Administrator Planning, Building, and Public Works cc: Alex Pietsch Sandra Meyer 3 -21 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -22 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Responses to Letter #5 City of Renton Planning/Building /Public Works Department Comment 1. The corridors of SW Grady Way, Oaksdale Avenue, and SW 43rd were not evaluated as part of the traffic analysis. This approach is consistent with City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, which indicates that the "study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5 percent increase in peak -hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development." Traffic volumes on SW Grady Way, Oaksdale Avenue, and SW 43rd will each increase by less than 5 percent due to project generated traffic volumes. For example, the inter- section of Grady Way at Oaksdale Boulevard is forecasted to carry 4,225 PM peak -hour weekday vehicle trips in 2010 without the Southcenter addition. The proposed expansion is forecasted to add 134 vehicles per hour during the same period. This represents a 3.2- percent increase, which is below the 5- percent threshold level. The traffic volume in- creases for both City of Renton intersections and for arterial road segments are shown in Table 3 -1. Comment 2. As noted on Page 3 -21 of the Draft EIS (Transportation and Parking sec- tion of Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Impacts of the Alternatives, Mitigating Meas- ures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts), analysis of Saturday traffic condi- tions was confined to the immediate vicinity of the site because this is an area dominated by other retail activity. This analysis was made to determine if the combination of exist- ing and new retail trips created any unusual traffic related impacts. The Saturday traffic volume analysis validated the weekday PM peak -hour traffic volume conditions. Traffic patterns in west Renton are typical of employment uses that peak on weekdays and not on Saturdays. As a result, cumulative Saturday peak -hour traffic would be less than the level of traffic described for weekday PM peak -hour conditions. For these reasons, a Saturday traffic volume analysis in this primarily non - retail area was not considered. Comment 3. Traffic was forecasted using a generally accepted transportation planning process that included the following steps: Trip Generation — Trip generation forecasts were based on a combination of data from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook and were calibrated using actual driveway traffic counts from the existing Westfield Shoppingtown at Southcenter. The trip generation forecast is discussed in detail in the Draft EIS on pages 3 -48 through 3 -51. Mode Split — No reduction or adjustment in trip generation was made for increased transit use or improvement of transit facilities, which results in a conservative analysis of future traffic impacts. Traffic volumes would have been lower than those forecasted if an ad- justment were included. This assumption helps to ensure that traffic volume impacts are not underestimated. Trip Distribution and Assignment — As indicated on Page 3 -51 of the Draft EIS, the dis- tribution was developed based on City of Tukwila transportation demand models reflect- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -23 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments ing existing and 2020 traffic volume conditions and existing traffic counts. This ap- proach reflected the best attributes of subregional travel patterns reflected by regional growth patterns, and the local intersection traffic volume turning movements as calibrated with actual traffic counts to ensure a realistic traffic volume forecast. Comment 4. As noted above, mode split assumptions were not changed to ensure that traffic volume impacts are not underestimated. Comment 5. A qualitative assessment of potential air quality impacts was carried out for the Draft EIS. As noted in your comment, the assessment concluded that the proposed project could possibly cause significant adverse air quality impacts without effective mitigation. Subsequently, a more detailed quantitative analysis of potential air quality impacts was completed by the applicant's consultant. The City's consultant conducted a peer review of the analysis, which concluded that the proposed action would not likely exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Specifically, project - related traffic could result in 8 -hour carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations of about 8 ppm, which is less that the 9 -ppm ambient air quality standard for CO. The analysis is provided in Ap- pendix A of this Final EIS. Because impacts would not be significant, mitigation of air quality impacts would not be required. However, as noted on Page 3 -10 of the Draft EIS (Air Quality section of Chap- ter 3, Affected Environment, Impacts of the Alternatives, Mitigating Measures, and Sig- nificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts), traffic mitigation measures that reduce vehicle volumes and/or improve level of service would reduce the potential for air quality im- pacts. The City of Tukwila will consider mitigating measures that could reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality when it issues a decision on the project. Comment 6. Completion of the extension of Strander Boulevard by the year 2010 is con- sidered speculative due to external funding restrictions and as such was excluded from direct consideration in the Draft EIS. During preliminary traffic analysis, an analysis in- cluding a Strander extension was prepared. This analysis shows that a Strander Boule- vard extension to Oaksdale Boulevard would shift an estimated 6 percent of net new PM peak -hour weekday project generated trips to Strander Boulevard off of South 180th Street. This shift in the traffic distribution is illustrated on Figure 3 -1. The increase in PM peak -hour traffic volume on roads and streets in Renton will remain below the 5- percent threshold used by the City of Renton to identify potentially impacted roads and intersections. While not required by ordinance, level of service analysis was also prepared for intersec- tions where volumes are forecasted to shift with the Strander Boulevard extension and are summarized in Table 3 -2. These results indicate that construction of the Strander Boule- vard extension to Oaksdale Avenue SW would reduce the level of service from LOS C to LOS E at Oaksdale Avenue SW /S 180th Street during the weekday PM peak -hour due primarily to shifts in background traffic resulting from the new roadway. The City of Renton requires that projects mitigate intersections back to the baseline LOS should the LOS degrade with the addition of project traffic. This analysis found that the Oaksdale 3 -24 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Avenue SW /S 180`h Street intersection would operate at LOS E under No Action condi- tions, meaning the Proposed Action would not cause a LOS degradation at this location. Therefore, even if the analysis were to formally assume the extension of Strander Boule- vard as described, the level of impact would not require mitigation based on City of Ren- ton guidelines. As noted in Table 3 -2, the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection would improve from LOS E to LOS D with the Strander Boulevard extension. A number of in- tersection improvements at West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard were appropriately assumed in the with - Strander Boulevard extension scenario, which results in the im- proved LOS at this location with the extension. These improvements were coordinated with City of Tukwila staff, and reflect improvements likely to occur to accommodate in- creased traffic volumes at the intersection commensurate with the roadway extension. The other two study intersections impacted by the shift in the project trip distribution with the Strander extension remain at the same LOS in PM peak -hour conditions under either scenario. Comment 7. A review of WSDOT plans shows that none of the "Nickel Package" im- provements planned for the I -405 corridor will affect the traffic operations at inter- changes used to access Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter nor will they result in a re- gional shift of background or project - generated traffic distribution patterns. Accordingly, the regional improvements to I -405 will not affect level of service at any intersections on the arterial street network. Therefore no changes in the traffic analysis related to I -405 improvements prior to 2010 appear to be warranted. Comment 8. It is understood that potential future development on Boeing Longacres site has been evaluated by Renton in the context of a long -range master plan of Boeing Head- quarters. However,, as noted in the City of Renton letter, no permits are pending for the Boeing master planned development. Accordingly, actual development numbers for 2010 are unavailable and it would be speculative to include some estimate in the 2010 projections. However, as part of its long -range planning, the City of Tukwila is evaluat- ing Boeing's Longacres Master Plan employment growth in the Transportation Element update of its Comprehensive Plan. Comment 9. The purpose of the EIS is to accurately disclose impacts and offer possible mitigation to address those impacts. The City of Tukwila will consider mitigating meas- ures when it issues a decision on the project. Comment 10. As noted above, the proposed development will increase volumes along Renton streets by less than 5 percent, which is the City of Renton's threshold for evaluat- ing impacted streets. Regarding traffic impact fees, there is no interlocal agreement be- tween the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila that permits Tukwila to require such fees on behalf of Renton. Comment 11. Your comment is acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -25 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Table 3 -1. 2010 Proposed Action Traffic Volume Impact - Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles (without Strander Boulevard extension). 2. Total Project Trips. Without Strander Boulevard Ex- tension Weekday PM Peak Hour. Trips (TEV)'. 2010 Base- line Project Trips Proposed Action Per - cent Impact Percent Increase Int. # Study Intersections: 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way 4,225 134 4,359 3.1% 3.2% 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street 3,125 120 3,245 3.7% 3.8% Arterial Road Segments: SW Grady Way west of Oaksdale 3,355 134 3,489 3.8% 4.0% SW Grady Way east of Oaksdale 2,395 55 2,450 2.2% 2.3% Oaksdale north of SW Grady Way 1,435 40 1,475 2.7% 2.8% Oaksdale south of SW Grady Way 1,265 39 1,304 3.0% 3.1% 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles (without Strander Boulevard extension). 2. Total Project Trips. 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles (with Strander Boulevard extension). 2. Total Project Trips. 3 -26 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Table 3 -2. 2010 Proposed Action LOS Summary- Weekday PM Peak Hour Without and With Strander Boulevard Extension Int. Study Intersections' Without Strander Boule- yard Extension With Strander Boulevard Exten- mon LOS2 Delay3 .: V /C4 LOS Delay -. V/C 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd E 70.7 1.08 D5 50.4 0.95 37 West Valley Highway /S 180th Street D 47.9 0.93 D 49.2 0.94 38 72nd Avenue S/S 180th Street B 10.6 0.47 B 10.2 0.36 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street C 20.8 0.75 E 71.2 1.16 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F: A = least delay; F = worse delay). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Includes multiple improvements to the intersection to accommodate increased traffic due to the Strander extension, and the addition of the fourth approach of the intersection; these improvement assumptions were coordinated with City of Tukwila Staff. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -27 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments 3 -28 Without Strander Blvd Extension OAKSDALE AVE SW 5 180TH ST N NOT TO SCALE With Strander Blvd Extension (Extension) OAKSDALE AVE SW 5 180TH ST Figure 3 -1 The Project Trip Distribution- Effect of the Strander Blvd. Extension Transpo Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion Group M:103103007 Southcenter Mal Graphics \Graphic08.dwg, A, 812612004 2:36:48 PM, lindak Letter 6 Page 1 Tukwila Fire Department InterOffice Memo July 21, 2004 To: Moira Carr Bradshaw From: Capt. Don Tomaso Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Draft DIS Moira, Here are my comments on the draft EIS for the Mall, most are just minor. 1) Page S -7, One additional firefighter FTE per shift, change One shift Lieutenant to Fire Prevention Officer. ) Page S -11, Under fire service & utilities add: Relocate fire sprinkler riser rooms I per Tukwila Fire Department requirements. 2 3) Page 3 -78, 4th paragraph, (King County — wide Medic One Program) 13 4) Page 3 -105, 1' paragraph 1' sentenance, should read: The additional demand for Fire and EMS services attributable to the Proposed Action equates to one additional shift firefighter FTE per shift and one Fire Prevention Officer FTE, 4 during both construction and operation. If you have any questions please let me know. cc: jacquelyn stoner 3 -29 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -30 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Responses to Letter #6 City of Tukwila Fire Department Comment 1. As stated on page 3 -87, this project's impact on call volumes equates to the demand for one firefighter FTE. However, as a result of the staffing requirements of the fire service, it is inefficient to add only one staff member as this will not fulfill the current 24 -hour shift schedule in place. That is, one 24 -hour position requires three FTEs. Therefore, although this specific project does not directly create the demand for three firefighter FTEs, it does contribute to the need for two additional FTEs to fill the single position, or as stated in the comment letter, one FTE per shift. Comment 2. Your comment is acknowledged; fire sprinkler riser rooms would need to be relocated. Comment 3. Your comment is acknowledged; text should read "King County -wide Medic One Program." Comment 4. As a result of the offset between development fees and inspection costs, the funds necessary to pay for an additional Fire Prevention Officer (a type of inspection cost) are not explicitly included as a Fire and EMS service cost. Although the demand would exist, the cost for this position is offset by the development fees collected by the City (see p. 3 -97 of the Draft EIS, "Introduction" for more on the relationship between development fees and inspection costs). Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -32 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments JUL er YJN ic•CIJri9 IUKW1LI1 IJLIJ /1"W July 8, 2004 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 P.9 /zP Letter 7 Page 1 Sensing the Southwest Nlehopo8an Area since 1948 Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter— Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Statement for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter project. We have no comments at this time and wish you good luck with this project. Sincerely, Thomas D. Keown, P.E. Construction /Operations Manager TDK:maf 23828 - 30th Ave. S. • P.O. Box 3867 • Kent, WA 98032 (206) 824 -0375 / FAX; (206) 824 -0806 e'er ";t .LJ . 3 -33 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 =34 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Responses to Letter #7 Highline Water District Comment 1. Your comment is acknowledged. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Final EIS 3 -35 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments _ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -36 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments .r.- V, Ur, ate• v. 1 It 1 V/wvs,...r, Moire Bradshaw - Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter From: "Bob Steen 11" .rsteenig/tgwest.com> To: embradshaw@ci.tukwna.wa.us> Date: 7/21/04 5:35PM Subject Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Moira Carr Bradshaw: Sony about the late response, but 1 had to show an official response on information that I just received (just in case). I will also contact the owners to let them know about this as wen, so we can work out the necessary details. I was just given the final concerns of others that have reviewed this within our company (late this afternoon). The main concern of all, is how to maintain the existing service, while the new additions are under construction. QWEST has the main feed to the existing equipment, which feeds from the South off of Strandar Blvd (which just happens to come right under the main portion of the proposed structures). This may or may not work the way this is designed, as there are some existing vaults that would require long term access for maintenance to the existing services. If there is a method to get truck access into these areas in the future (which It does not look possible with the sketch Included in this statement), we could maintain the existing route to the existing terminal location. If the room did require relocation of the existing equipment, this room would still be required as a connect through location for all of the existing cables to customer suites (unless it 13 the plan to reconstruct conduits throughout the entire existing mall area, for new cables from a new terminal location). If the construction happens as sketched in this EIS, the possibility of a new underground route may be required to this location, coupled with a room expansion, in order to be able to maintain service and meet growth needs. At the existing terminal location, the walls to the West or South sides of the room would be the only possible directions to expand the. existing equipment room.' QWEST has already (since the original inquiry) replaced some of the equipment in this location, condensing what could be condensed for space. This was needed in order to meet existing needs and allow for some future growth. However, the future growth that was accommodated for, would not handle the neer the requirements for the proposed additions. There is not enough termination space on the / existing walls (and this is the only way to make the connections, as It is not totally antiquated (as mentioned in the EIS statertients made), but the current method practiced within the industry. The room (es near as we can ten at this time, with only minimal details) would have to be pretty much at least doubled in size, to provide for the relocation of some equipment, making room for the additional mall terminations. All work for this relocation, is considered bill able. Once the equipment has been re- established and the wan space defined, additional growth would be handled on a'going forward basis (we will try to provide forecast assistance, so that the final equipment room will handle ultimate requirements and not require this billing for rearrangements again at a later date). In order to maintain the existing services, allow for ultimate growth and meet the overall needs for this site once and for ail, it will require good communication up front in the design process as well as _ 1 1 2 Page 1 Letter 8 Page 1 Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Page 2 constant monitoring throughout the project. QWEST is concerned about the ultimate design and the cost/time associated to a total relocation of the facilities to another room, verses the possible expansion and reroute of facilities, to the existing terminal room. We will do our best to minimize service impact to the existing customers, but will need information long before any final designs ere approved. We look forward to the project and working with the design team to seek a solution that all can work with, but we go into this project with some apprehension as to what might happen to the incoming services to the melt. If you have any additional questions, comments, or concerns, please call me at 2013- 345 -4475. twig be the coordinator and engineer on this project, from the property line into the new (or expansion of the existing) equipment room(s). Others will be supporting the electronic design /re- design within the site. structure and/or cable rearrangements to the site, as well as the long term planning and actual site installation/rearrangements support on site during the construction process. 1 may be used as the focal point to get these items coordinated. Robert P. Steen It, RCDD Building Industry Consultant Design Engineer QWEST Communications 2 cont'd CC: "Ken Stoner" <kstoner@gwest.com>, "Richard Clary" <rcIary @gwest.com> Letter 8 Page 2 Responses to Letter #8 Qwest Communications Comment 1. Your comment is acknowledged and hereby incorporated in the Final EIS. Comment 2. Your comment is acknowledged. Information will be provided as soon as possible prior to construction to minimize impacts on existing service. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3 -39 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-40 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Laura N. Whitaker PHONE 206.359.8584 P.MAA.: LWhitaker®perkinscoie.com July 20, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION AND U.S. MAIL Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Letter 9 Page 1 .Irr FD Re: DEIS/Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Perkins Coin 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101 -3099 PHONE: 206.359.8000 FAX: 206.359.9000 www.perkinscoie.com We represent The Boeing Company ( "Boeing "), owner of the Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") property located along the northeast/northwest boundary between the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. As you know, Boeing has conducted planning and environmental review supporting commercial development of the LOP property, with a horizon year for SEPA purposes of 2010. As documented in the 1994 LOP EIS and addressed in the Transportation Mitigation Agreement between Tukwila and Boeing dated December 20, 1995 ( "Tukwila/Boeing Agreement"), LOP at full buildout is forecast to distribute 1,831 vehicle trips into the Tukwila transportation system.1 As a neighboring property owner and developer, therefore, Boeing has asked us and its traffic consultant, Transportation Engineering Northwest, to review the DEIS for 1 Additional SEPA review was conducted by the City of Renton in 2001 supporting an increment of additional LOP commercial development. The traffic study conducted as part of that SEPA review concluded that the additional LOP development area proposed would not generate vehicle trips in excess of those forecast by the 1994 LOP EIS. [03003 -0104 /SB041950.198] ANCHORAGE BEIJING BELLEVUE BOISE CHICAGO • DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP (Perkins Coie tic in Illinois) 3-41 Letter 9 Page 2 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner July 20, 2004 Page 2 the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ( "Westfield EIS "). Our comments on the DEIS are limited to the transportation element and are listed below: Boeing Comments on Chapter 3, Transportation and Parking 1. The transportation analysis does not account for any pipeline projects. See, Westfield EIS at 3 -40. But as noted above, the impacts of LOP development, which has begun and is anticipated to continue at least until 2010, have been analyzed and corresponding mitigation established by the City. LOP is clearly, therefore, a pipeline project that should have been included as background traffic for purposes of the Westfield transportation analysis.2 The Westfield transportation analysis should be revised to include the 1,831 LOP trips. 2. The transportation analysis also fails to account for the planned Strander Boulevard extension. That project will alter relevant trip distribution patterns and should be assumed for purposes of assessing impacts of the Westfield project on the site vicinity, including Boeing's LOP property. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you would like to discuss them, please do not hesitate to contact Shaunta Hyde, at 206 - 544 -0182, or me. ery truly yours, ,A Laura N. Whitaker LNW:Inw cc: Colette M. Temmink Jeffrey R. Adelson Shaunta R. Hyde 2 Although the Tukwila Boeing Agreement establishes the LOP trips as a baseline traffic condition at least until 2010, it should also be noted that both the PSRC Regional Model and the City of Renton Model assume continued buildout at LOP as a future baseline condition. [03003- 0104/SB041950.198] 07/20/04 3-42 Responses to Letter #9 Perkins Coie LLP on Behalf of the Boeing Company Comment 1. The City of Renton submitted a similar comment; please refer to the re- sponse to City of Renton Comment #8. Comment 2. The City of Renton submitted a similar comment; please refer to the re- sponse to City of Renton Comment #6. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS 3-43 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -44 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Comment Letters and Responses to Comments DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X State Agencies Washington State Department of Community Development Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (2) Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Washington State Department of Transportation (Ramin Pasooki, Phil Segami, Stacey Trussler, Mark Bandy) Regional and Local Agencies Duwamish Indian Tribe Kent Planning Department King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, SEPA Info. Center King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division (Meredith Redmon) King County Department of Transportation, Transit Division (Gary Kriedt) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Resources Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Wildlife Program Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Paul Carr) Puget Sound Regional Council SeaTac Planning Department Renton Planning Department (Greg Zimmerman) Seattle Department of Planning and Development Utilities and Services Highline Water District King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division King County Water District #125 Puget Sound Energy (Susan Hempstead) QWest Rabanco Seattle Public Utilities Department Libraries Foster Library Tukwila Library Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Dist -1 Distribution List Newspapers Highline Times Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle Times (Jake Batsell) South County Journal Other Interested Parties Parties of Record: Alice Neiffer Brad Decker Denise Evans Gloria Ramirez Jonathan Pool Mike Hemphill Mon Wig Paul Lenoue Sue Carlson Tracy Harms Tonni Best Laura Whitaker (Perkins Coie LLP) Dist -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Final EIS Distribution List APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY REPORT ENVIROMETRICSWC. 4803 Fremont Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 -6527 (206) 633 -4456 FAX (206) 633 -4835 Air Quality Report Westfield Shopping Town Southcenter Southcenter Expansion Prepared for Westfield Corporation, Inc. 11601 Wilshire Blvd., 12th floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Prepared by Michael Ruby J.D. McAlpine September 29, 2004 1 Air Quality Report Southcenter Expansion SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Concentrations of CO from vehicles using three intersections near Southcenter in 2010, after completion of the proposed expansion project, were estimated using air quality simulation models, following EPA guidelines. These intersections were selected as being representative of the greatest expected impact from the traffic associated with the expansion project. In none of the intersections did the estimated results, including a standard urban background concentration, exceed the federal air quality standards. OVERVIEW Three air pollutants are of primary concern from motor vehicle traffic: nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO). NOx and HC are both of concern at a regional level as they contribute to the formation of ozone several hours downwind. CO is of concern at the specific location where it is generated, generally within a few hundred feet of an intersection or a portion of a heavily - traveled road. CO is the pollutant modeled and reported here. If CO is above the concentration established as the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) it is a potential threat to health. The NAAQS for CO is 35 ppm averaged over one hour and 9 ppm averaged over eight hours. The federal Clean Air Act has required, since 1967,'new motor vehicles to incorporate controls that reduce the amount of air pollutants released by vehicles during operation. These requirements have become more restrictive over the years. As new vehicles replace old ones, the air pollutant emissions from the vehicle fleet decrease. As a result, the air pollution impact at an intersection with increasing traffic may actually decrease in future years, as the reduction in emissions from each vehicle may exceed the increase from more vehicle travel. Thus when projecting the air pollution impact in future years it is important to include both the future change in the vehicle emissions as well as the future change in vehicle travel. The potential air pollution impact at an intersection is predicted using air quality simulation models developed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These models are based on years of research and testing. Because it is the duty of the EPA to protect the public health and the environment, they have deliberately tuned the models so they are conservative and will, in most cases, overstate the impacts that will be realized. 2 LOCAL CLIMATOLOGY AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY The proposed project (Southcenter expansion) is located on the east side of the Central Puget Sound basin. The climate is classified as Mid - Latitude West Coast Marine. During the Summer months, the winds are light and from the north and northwest. Skies are generally sunny and precipitation is light. The fall and winter months are dominated by stronger southwest and south winds and frequent precipitation. Between winter storms, moderate to strong temperature inversions can develop toward sunset and persist through to the following morning. A few times a year the inversions may persist for up to 24 hours, or more on rare occasions. The fall and winter temperature inversions can trap CO emitted from motor vehicles near the surface. The highest CO concentrations in this area tend to occur during these winter temperature inversions. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency maintains several air quality monitors that continuously record CO concentrations. There are no monitors in Tukwila but there are (or have been) CO monitors placed in several locations with large traffic volumes and congestion that may be comparable to the area of the proposed project. These include downtown Bellevue near the intersection of Bellevue Way and NE 8t , adjacent to Bellevue Square, in Lynnwood near the intersection of 44th Avenue W and 196`h St SW, near Alderwood Mall, and near the intersection of NE Northgate Way and 3rd Ave. NE, near I -5 and the Northgate Shopping Center. Carbon monoxide data from these stations in recent years shows that concentrations of this pollutant are well below the NAAQS. For example, the second highest measured concentration of carbon monoxide on an 8 -hour average, at the three stations noted above, has declined from values of approximately 5 to 6 ppm in 1999 to 3 to 4 ppm in 2002. Projections by the Puget Sound Regional Council show that regional carbon monoxide emissions are expected to decline overall by 2010, despite a projected increase in total vehicle miles of travel. The Puget Sound region was designated a CO nonattainment area in 1991. That designation required PSCAA and Ecology to develop strategies and plans to work toward complying with the ambient standards and affected transportation planning and emission control policies throughout the nonattainment area. As a result of the success of those strategies and the introduction of newer vehicles with lower emissions, no violations of the ambient standards have been recorded in the Puget Sound area since one in 1992 near the University of Washington and one in 1994 near Bellevue Square. In 1997, the EPA redesignated the Central Puget Sound region as attainment for CO, and approved the associated maintenance plan to ensure the area remains in attainment of the CO NAAQS. The latest available (quality- assured) ambient data are from 2002. The value corresponding to the NAAQS for CO for a one -hour average ranged from 5.4 to 9.5 ppm among the Northgate, Lynnwod and Bellevue monitors, those most similar in situation to Southcenter. The average of those values was 6.9 ppm. This compares to the one -hour NAAQS for CO of 35 ppm. The values for the 8 -hour average from those same monitors ranged from 3.4 to 4.2 ppm, with an average of 3.8 ppm. This compares to the 8 -hour NAAQS for CO of 9 ppm. After reviewing these data, the Washington Dept. of Ecology was consulted to establish a "background" value for use in this modeling. Based on the range and average for these Central 3 Puget Sound suburban intersections, a background value for air entering an intersection from other parts of the urban area of 4.0 to 4.5 ppm was agreed. The value of 4.5 ppm was used. It is possible to calculate an experience ratio of the recorded maximum one -hour average value for a given monitor and the recorded maximum eight -hour average value for the same day. For these same monitors for eight occurrences of maxima on the same day in 2002, we have a range of 0.59 to 0.84, with an average of 0.65. The EPA recommends using a factor of 0.7 to estimate the maximum 8 -hour value from a modeled one -hour average value. The EPA recommended value is conservative and appropriate for use in these circumstances. TRAFFIC DATA AND VEHICLE EMISSIONS The traffic data used in this study were developed by TSI from a transportation study conducted by Transpo for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for this project. It was necessary for TSI to obtain additional files and information from Transpo, beyond that presented in the EIS, to develop the needed data. The traffic data used were for the weekday pm peak hour. Air quality models were developed for three intersections from the DEIS using the traffic data for the year 2010 with the project implemented. The three intersections chosen were • #7, 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd, • #13, 61S` Ave S and Tukwila Parkway, and • #15, Andover Park W and Tukwila Parkway. These intersections were selected taking into account intersections with high background traffic volumes, intersections where the project will contribute a higher percentage of new trips, level of service without the project and degradation of level of service by the project. It is expected that the chosen intersections will have as or greater projected ambient air quality impact than the intersections that were not modeled. For each of the intersections modeled it was necessary to identify the: • physical geometry of the intersection; • traffic volume for each lane in each direction and each turning motion; • average traffic speed over the cycle for each lane; • average signal cycle length (green to green) for each intersection; • average red time length for each approaching direction; • clearance time lost by drivers; • lane saturation flow rate; • signal automation level; and • upstream signal progression, if any. Emissions were calculated using the Mobile 6.2 emission model, which is the most up to date EPA model available. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) recently adopted Mobile6 and is currently using it for regional analyses. However, the PSRC Mobile6 modeling uses a national 4 default distribution of re- starts. This is appropriate, and necessary, for regional effects modeling but it is not appropriate for hot spot intersection modeling, especially where vehicles have been traveling for a significant period over high -speed roadways and thus does not include vehicles which are being started. Re -start emissions reflect the startup of vehicles after they have been turned off and have partially or completely cooled off. The "soak distribution" sets the percentage of vehicles on the roadway traveling under cold re -start and hot re -start conditions. The longer the vehicle has been parked, the greater the startup CO emission will be during startup. The high startup emission reduces as the choke is pulled off (or its equivalent in electronically controlled vehicles). These high emissions diminish rapidly and are really only a factor during the first minute or two of operation. Because of this, "EPA recommends that the calculation of idling emissions at intersections not include any effects from engine starts "(EPA, 2004). It follows that a running engine in the queue would not include an engine start as it moves out of the queue and through the intersection. The use of engine start effects in the running emissions at the modeled intersections is therefore not appropriate, unless the queue or link represents the direct exit of a parking lot or garage. For the modeling effort, Envirometrics applied the PSRC settings to Mobile6 for every variable except for soak distribution. To remain conservative in our approach, the national default re -start emission rates were used for some queues and links. However, hot emissions were used for those queues and links that are primarily used by traffic incoming from freeway offramps. The following table compares the settings and output emission rates for the modeling cases: MOBILE6 emissions PSRC modeling: Envirometrics remodel: PSRC w/ limited re -start Lane Speed 30 mph 30 mph Road type: Arterial/Collector Arterial/Collector Vehicle distribution: PSRC PSRC Month: January January Temps (min/max): 34 / 50 °F 34 / 50 °F Fuel RVP: 13.8 psi 13.8 psi Soak distribution: national default cold start soak distribution hot running emissions for lanes from freeways, others PSRC Emission rate: 18.06 g/mile 7.423 g /mile (hot lanes) Idle emission rate: 112.1 g/hr 85.49 g/hr (hot lanes) Winter conditions were assumed for emissions, which is a conservative approach. The average vehicle speed used by Transpo in developing their traffic models was used in calculating the 5 emissions for moving vehicles. Emissions from idling cars were calculated using EPA - recommended procedures. AIR QUALITY MODELING The procedures for estimating projected air quality from traffic using an air quality simulation model is described by EPA in the Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (EPA- 454/R -92 -005). In this case the EPA air dispersion model CAL3QHC, the guideline model for intersections such as these, was used. In the models all the intersections were assumed to be at right angles although the 61st Ave and Southcenter Blvd./Tukwila Parkway intersections are actually at about 80 degrees included angle. It is not clear what, if any, effect this would have on the results. The CAL3QHC model uses the traffic data described above to compute the length of the queue that develops behind each yellow and red light. The emissions from this queue of vehicles while stopped and the emissions from the vehicles operating through the intersection while the light is green were included and were used to predict the concentrations of CO at the receivers near the edge of the roadway. The emissions, calculated from Mobile 6 as described above, are released into a zone about the height of a vehicle and the width of a lane, are mixed with the air in the zone, and are then dispersed into the surrounding air using verified models of atmospheric dispersion. The result is a prediction of one -hour average CO concentrations at receptors placed along the roadway. Because of some of the constants assigned to the models by EPA, the estimates of CO concentration will generally be conservatively high. The dispersion model was set to seek the wind direction that would result in the greatest concentrations at a receptor for a low (1 m/s) wind speed and neutral stability conditions. The low wind speed and the search for the wind direction with the greatest impact results in a prediction of the expected highest annual concentration at that intersection with the new traffic patterns. EPA guidance requires the use of Class D, or neutral stability, for urban area modeling (EPA, 1992). In the past, PSCAA has recommended using Class E, or stable, to provide a conservative estimate of pollution concentrations. However, according to John Anderson of PSCAA, their approach is case -by -case and is not a universal constraint. They agree that there are cases where Class D would be more appropriate. Class E is a good meteorological condition to use in urban areas surrounding the Seattle metropolitan area that are located in valleys or a flat region and away from major freeways and the downtown core. This is because stable conditions will form when cold air pools in valleys and flat regions due to radiative cooling. Cool air formed on slope sides tends to sink into 6 adjacent lower lying areas. Also, cooling is not as severe in denser urban areas where a lot of paved surfaces, traffic, and cooling load- dominated buildings hamper it. Two of the modeled locations are located on a hillside slope above the valley. All three are near the intersection of two of the busiest freeways in the region and near large paved parking lots and large retail/industrial buildings. It is therefore too conservative to assume stability Class E as the worst -case condition during the evening rush hour at this location. If the intersections were located further down the valley or we were modeling much later in the evening, Class E stability could be a more reasonable assumption Receptors were placed along the existing sidewalks, and in the case of Andover Park W and Tukwila Parkway, at a bus stop. Receptors were not placed were there are no sidewalks or where physical barriers would discourage access. The model only predicts the CO concentrations due to the traffic using that intersection. To account for CO which is generated on I -405, at other nearby intersections or is generally present in the urban air during a worst case day, a background of 4.5 ppm of CO is added to the 8 -hour average results computed from the models. The 8 -hour background near I -405 is expected to be about the same as general urban background because the traffic on I -405 moves at average speeds in excess of 45 mph for most of the eight -hour period.. The 8 -hour average results are themselves obtained by multiplying the computed one -hour averages by the EPA - recommended persistence factor, which is 0.7. Though several of the intersections included roadways which are overpasses they were treated as "at- grade" rather than "bridge" links /queues. The effects that either alternative has on the concentration is not known. AIR QUALITY MODELING RESULTS Each of the modeled intersections, the locations of the receptors at the intersection and a graphical presentation of the resulting estimated ambient concentrations of CO is presented in Figures 1 through 3. Also included in an Appendix are the output files for each of the modeling runs. Two sets of modeling were conducted. The main set of modeling includes a mixture of queues /links using either total hot start emission rates or cold start default emission rates depending on the origin of incoming traffic. Traffic approaching 61st Ave. South and Southcenter Blvd from the east and west are assumed to be with no re -start emission rates. Following from this, southbound traffic approaching 615t Ave S and Tukwila will all be with no re- start emissions also considering that this link is fed only by the previous no -re -start links. For all three intersections the results were below the 8 hour NAAQS limit for CO. Using the Envirometrics calculated idle rate of 85.49 grams/hour and traveling rate of 7.423 grams /mile for the hot - running lanes, and the PSRC rates for the remaining lanes results were computed, illustrated in the following table: These values include the calculated 1 -hour values multiplied by the 8 -hour persistance factor of 0.7. The accepted background value of 4.5 ppm is added (the values would be 0.5 ppm lower if the lower background values were used). Figures 1 -3 illustrate the impacts respectively. A much more conservative approach would be to consider the national default re -start emissions for all the queues and links except for the eastbound approaching lanes of 61st Ave. S and Southcenter Blvd. These lanes are directly coming from interstate offramps, ensuring that almost all the traffic is in hot run mode. Even with this conservative assumption, all intersections are below the NAAQS 8 -hour CO limit: Class D stability 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd 7.9 ppm Andover Park W and Tukwila Pkwy 7.9 ppm 61st Ave S and Tukwila Pkwy 7.3 ppm These values include the calculated 1 -hour values multiplied by the 8 -hour persistance factor of 0.7. The accepted background value of 4.5 ppm is added (the values would be 0.5 ppm lower if the lower background values were used). Figures 1 -3 illustrate the impacts respectively. A much more conservative approach would be to consider the national default re -start emissions for all the queues and links except for the eastbound approaching lanes of 61st Ave. S and Southcenter Blvd. These lanes are directly coming from interstate offramps, ensuring that almost all the traffic is in hot run mode. Even with this conservative assumption, all intersections are below the NAAQS 8 -hour CO limit: REFERENCES EPA, 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Interstections. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 1992 EPA- 454/R -92 -005 EPA, 2004. Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation, USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, August 2004. EPA420 -R -04 -013 Class D stability 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd 8.2 ppm Andover Park W and Tukwila Pkwy 7.9 ppm 61st Ave S and Tukwila Pkwy 7.8 ppm REFERENCES EPA, 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Interstections. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 1992 EPA- 454/R -92 -005 EPA, 2004. Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation, USEPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, August 2004. EPA420 -R -04 -013 0 0 0 8 O O •100 0 100 P11m 9.00 8 50 8.00 7.50 7.00 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 050 0.00 8 Figure 1. Modeled region of 61st Ave S and Southcenter Blvd.. showing maximum 1 -hour concentrations of 4.8 ppm (before accounting for background and persistance factor) at southeast corner of intersection. 9 8 0 8 -200 -100 0 100 200 9.00 8 50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 450 00 350 300 250 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Figure 2. Modeled region of 61st Ave S and Tukwila Blvd.. showing maximum 1 -hour concentrations of 4 ppm (before adding background, persistance factor) at southwest corner of intersection. 8 0 8 A -300 •200 •100 0 100 200 300 0.00 0 50 600 7.50 7.00 6 50 600 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 7 CO 50 1 OD 05D 0.00 10 Figure 3. Modeled region of Andover Park W and Tukwila Blvd.. showing maximum concentrations of 4.8 ppm (before adding background, persistance factor) at southeast corner of the intersection. 11 APPENDIX (Appendix tables are available upon request) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tukwila 2004 June 21, 2004 Dear Reader: City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Attached to this letter is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed expansion of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter, which is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of I -5 and I -405 in Tukwila. The applicant's objectives are generally to improve the mall's market position by diversifying and expanding the number of retail, entertainment and hospitality businesses and providing a higher quality environment and gocds. Specifically, the DEIS examines the impacts of 787,903 square feet of additional retail, commercial services, entertainment and hotel space. In order for the existing 85- acre site to accommodate the increase in building square footage, the mall itself will have a multi- level addition, and the site will have several restaurants, a hotel and two multi -level garages for parking vehicles. The DEIS focuses primarily on the transportation impacts associated with the proposed expansion and compares a "no action" alternative with a "proposed action" alternative. The proposed action will not cause traffic in the City to fall below its adopted transportation standards; however, individual intersections have been identified that would fall to the lowest operating standard during the PM peak hour and the Saturday peak hour as a result of the expansion. In addition to elements of the natural, manmade and public service environment, an analysis of the fiscal costs and benefits of the proposed expansion was conducted. This analysis shows that the revenue generated by the redevelopment could result in a positive fiscal impact for the City. Your suggestions on improving the environmental analysis of the proposed project are welcome. Written comments on the DEIS are due in 30 days and must be postmarked no later than July 21. 2004. Comments should be addressed to Steve Lancaster, Director, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA, 98188. Questions about this project may be directed to me or to Moira Carr Bradshaw at 206- 431 -3670, or mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster DCD Director and SEPA Responsible Official Q : \ma 1I \I DEIS-cot crltr doe 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 4313670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION CITY OF TUKWILA The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion has been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington); the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197 -11, Washington Administrative Code); and rules adopted by the City of Tukwila (Title 21: Environmental Regulations, Tukwila Municipal Code), the lead agency for the environmental review of the project under SEPA. Preparation of this EIS is the responsibility of the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate method- ology and has directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken in prepara- tion of this EIS. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for an action; in its final form,' it will accom- pany the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion proposal and will be consid- ered in making the final decisions on the proposal. Date of Draft EIS Issuance June 21, 2004 Date Comments are Due on this Draft EIS July 21, 2004 Final EIS PREFACE The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) is to identify and evaluate probable significant environmental impacts that could result from the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion (Proposed Action) and the No Action Alternative and to identify possible measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. An EIS is a disclosure document. It does not select a specific alternative or recommend for or against a particular course of action. Information contained in this Draft EIS — along with other technical and financial factors — will be considered by the City of Tuk- wila when they consider the Southcenter proposal. The Draft EIS evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposal and alternatives, as well as construction- related impacts. The City of Tukwila, following a public scoping period, determined the environmental elements that are analyzed in this Draft EIS. They include air quality, water (stormwater quality and quantity), plants and animals (fisheries effects of stormwater), transportation, public services and utilities, and fiscal impacts. A detailed table of contents is provided on page v of this document. This Draft EIS is organized into the following sections: • Fact Sheet (immediately following this Preface) provides an overview of the proposed project, its location, the approvals needed, the process for providing comments, and information concerning whom to contact for additional in- formation. • Chapter 1— Summary summarizes the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion proposal, including the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tive, environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and significant unavoid- able adverse impacts. • Chapter 2 — Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative presents relevant background information, the objectives of the proponent, and a detailed description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tives. • Chapter 3 — Affected Environment, Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Sig- nificant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts contains information about current conditions on the site of the proposal and surrounding area with respect to the elements of the environment considered in the Draft EIS. This section also provides a detailed analysis of probable environmental impacts that could re- sult from implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives and identifies possible mitigating measures and significant unavoidable ad- verse impacts. FACT SHEET Name of Proposal Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. The expansion would primarily occur within the southern portion of the site. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping cen- ter. Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter). The maxi- mum expansion would increase the size of Southcenter to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (sf) of gross building area (gba), and would consist of additional retail com- mercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The proposed expansion and renovation of the mall would add up to 535,347 sf of retail shops, anchor stores, expanded food court space, and a theater. In ad- dition, up to three freestanding restaurants (21,101 sf) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outparcels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shop- ping center would increase by 626,803 sf of gross leas- able floor area (glfa). An additional 161,100 sf of space would be developed for mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two parking structures. All development would occur within the ex- isting shopping center site. Construction of the expanded shopping center is sched- uled to begin in 2004 and be complete in 2006. De- pending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be eliminated or deferred until a later time. How- ever, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fact Sheet SEPA Lead Agency SEPA Responsible Official EIS Contact Person Final Action Required Permits & Approvals City of Tukwila, Department of Community Develop- ment. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: 206.431.3670 Fax: 206.431.3665 E -mail: mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us Approval of the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion by the City of Tukwila. Preliminary investigation indicates that the following approvals and/or actions would be required for devel- opment of the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Additional permits and/or ap- provals may be identified as project design is finalized. City of Tukwila - Complementary and Parking Variance Approvals - Design Review and Approval - Boundary Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Approval - Building Permit — Demolition Permit - Mechanical Permit - Hauling Permit - Type C— Construction, Right -of -Way, and Grading Permits - Fire Protection System Permits Seattle /King County Health Department - Plumbing Permit ii Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fact Sheet Authors /Principal Contributors to this Draft EIS Type/Timing of Subsequent Envi- ronmental Review Location of Back- ground Data State Agencies Department of Ecology - Coverage under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (for general construction activities) Department of Labor & Industries - Elevator Permits - Electrical Permits Regional Agencies Puget Sound Clean Air Agency - Notice of Asbestos Removal The Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Tukwila. Research and analysis for this Draft EIS have been provided by the following consulting firms: • Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. — lead EIS consultant, document preparation, public services and utilities, fiscal analysis; • MFG, Inc. — air quality; • Pentec Environmental, Inc. — water (stormwater quality and quantity), plants and animals (fisher- ies effects of stormwater); and • The Transpo Group — transportation. No subsequent environmental review would be required for the development addressed in the EIS. City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 270 -3`d Avenue, Suite 200 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS III Fact Sheet Supporting SEPA Documents Date of Issuance of this DEIS Date Comments Due Regarding this Draft EIS Availability /Cost of Draft EIS The following existing environmental documents are incorporated by reference for purposes of SEPA com- pliance (WAC 197 -11 -635): • Tukwila Municipal Code • Tukwila Comprehensive Plan EIS, 1995 ■ Transportation Element Background Report, 1993 • Gilliam Creek Basin Stormwater Management Plan, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., 2001 June 21, 2004 In order for comments concerning this Draft EIS to be considered in the Final EIS, written comments must be received no later than 5 PM, July 21, 2004. Copies of this Draft EIS have been distributed to agen- cies, organizations and individuals noted on the Distri- bution List . Copies are also available for review at the following locations: • City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 • Foster Library 4060 S. 144th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Free copies of the Draft EIS are available on compact disc. A limited number of complimentary paper copies of this Draft EIS are available at the City of Tukwila De- partment of Community Development while the supply lasts. Additional paper copies may be purchased at the City for the cost of reproduction. iv Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fact Sheet TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Fact Sheet 1. Summary Proponent/Project Location S -1 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative S -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts S -2 2. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal 2 -1 Proponent 2 -1 Description of Proposed Action 2 -1 Nature and Location of the Proposed Action 2 -1 Background 2 -1 Objectives of the Proposed Action 2 -4 Proposed Project 2 -4 No Action Alternative 2 -11 3. Affected Environment, Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality 3 -1 Affected Environment 3 -1 Analysis Framework 3 -1 Existing Air Quality 3 -2 Impacts of the Alternatives 3 -5 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -5 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -8 Mitigating Measures 3 -8 Construction Impact Mitigation 3 -8 Operational Impact Mitigation 3 -10 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -10 Water Resources 3 -11 Affected Environment 3 -11 Water Quantity 3 -11 Water Quality 3 -12 Impacts of the Alternatives 3 -13 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS V Table of Contents Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -13 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -15 Mitigating Measures 3 -15 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -15 Plants and Animals 3 -17 Affected Environment 3 -17 Impacts of the Alternatives 3 -17 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -17 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -18 Mitigating Measures 3 -18 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -18 Transportation and Parking 3 -19 Affected Environment 3 -19 Study Area 3 -19 Street System 3 -21 Traffic Volumes 3 -21 Traffic Operations 3 -23 Special Considerations 3 -27 Arterial Level of Service 3 -28 Driveway Operations 3 -29 Transit 3 -30 Non - motorized Facilities 3 -32 Traffic Safety 3 -33 Parking 3 -35 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -36 Planned Improvements 3 -36 Traffic Volumes 3 -39 Traffic Operations 3 -40 Arterial Level of Service 3 -45 Driveway Operations 3 -46 Transit Service 3 -47 Non - Motorized Facilities 3 -47 Traffic Safety 3 -47 Parking 3 -48 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -48 Proposed Action Assumptions 3 -48 Trip Generation 3 -48 Distribution 3 -51 Assignment 3 -51 Traffic Volume Impacts 3 -56 Traffic Operations 3 -60 Arterial Levels of Service 3 -66 Driveway Levels of Service 3 -67 Transit Service 3 -70 Non - Motorized Facilities 3 -70 VI Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Table of Contents Traffic Safety 3 -70 Parking 3 -71 Cumulative Impacts 3 -73 Mitigating Measures 3 -73 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -74 Public Services and Utilities 3 -77 Affected Environment 3 -77 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 3 -77 Police Services 3 -79 Southcenter Security 3 -81 Utilities 3 -81 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -85 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 3 -86 Police Services 3 -88 Southcenter Security 3 -89 Utilities 3 -89 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -93 Cumulative Impacts 3 -93 Mitigating Measures 3 -93 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -96 Fiscal Analysis 3 -97 Introduction 3 -97 Affected Environment 3 -97 Impacts of the Alternatives 3 -98 Impacts of the Proposed Action 3 -98 Development Assumptions 3 -98 Revenues 3 -99 Costs 3 -103 Net Fiscal Surplus 3 -105 Sensitivity Analysis 3 -106 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 3 -107 Cumulative Impacts 3 -107 Mitigating Measures 3 -107 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3 -107 References Ref -1 Distribution List Appendix A: Fiscal Analysis Calculations Appendix B: Transportation and Parking Calculations Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Vil Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2 -1 Regional Map 2 -2 2 -2 Vicinity Map 2 -3 2 -3 Existing Site Development 2 -5 2 -4a Site Plan — Level 1 2 -7 2 -4b Site Plan — Level 2 2 -8 2 -4c Site Plan — Level 3 2 -9 3 -1 Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Study Area 3 -20 3 -2 Roadway Characteristics 3 -22 3 -3A Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -24 3 -3B Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -25 3 -4A 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -41 3 -4B 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -42 3 -5 Inbound and Outbound Trip Distribution 3 -52 3 -6A Weekday PM Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment 3 -53 3 -6B Weekday PM Peak -Hour Project Trip Assignment 3 -54 3 -7 Project Traffic — Saturday Peak Hour 3 -55 3 -8A 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -57 3 -8B 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 3 -58 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS ix Table of Contents THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK x Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Summary Chapter 1 is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion proposed by Westfield Corporation, Inc. It briefly describes the proposed expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter) 1, compares the Proposed Action and the No Action Alterna- tive, and summarizes the expected environmental impacts, mitigating measures that would address the impacts, and the significant unavoidable adverse impacts. This sum- mary should not serve as a substitute for the more comprehensive analysis contained in this Draft EIS. Please consult the full EIS and technical appendices for complete infor- mation. Proponent /Project Location Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposes to expand and renovate the existing Southcenter shopping center, located in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The proposed project would be located within the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site. The site is bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. The site is within the City of Tukwila's Urban Center (TUC), which is bounded by I -405, I -5, South 180th Street, and West Valley High- way /eastern city limits. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the geographical loca- tion of the proposed project. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Proposed Action In accordance with objectives of the proponent to improve the market position of South- center as a regional, commercial shopping complex that offers a wide variety of mer- chandise options and retail opportunities to consumers, the Proposed Action seeks to ex- pand and renovate the existing shopping center by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet gba (1,926,947 square feet glfa). The development would include additional retail uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All de- velopment would occur within the existing shopping center site, generally within the southern portion of the site. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the proposed site plan. I Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparceis), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS S -1 Summary CHAPTER 1 Summary Chapter 1 is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion proposed by Westfield Corporation, Inc. It briefly describes the proposed expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter) I, compares the Proposed Action and the No Action Alterna- tive, and summarizes the expected environmental impacts, mitigating measures that would address the impacts, and the significant unavoidable adverse impacts. This sum- mary should not serve as a substitute for the more comprehensive analysis contained in this Draft EIS. Please consult the full EIS and technical appendices for complete infor- mation. Proponent /Project Location Westfield Corporation, Inc. proposes to expand and renovate the existing Southcenter shopping center, located in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The proposed project would be located within the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site. The site is bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. The site is within the City of Tukwila's Urban Center (TUC), which is bounded by I -405, I -5, South 180th Street, and West Valley High- way /eastern city limits. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the geographical loca- tion of the proposed project. Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Proposed Action In accordance with objectives of the proponent to improve the market position of South- center as a regional, commercial shopping complex that offers a wide variety of mer- chandise options and retail opportunities to consumers, the Proposed Action seeks to ex- pand and renovate the existing shopping center by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet gba (1,926,947 square feet glfa). The development would include additional retail uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All de- velopment would occur within the existing shopping center site, generally within the southern portion of the site. Please see Chapter 2 for figures depicting the proposed site plan. Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS S -1 Summary Construction of the proposed improvements is scheduled to begin in 2004 for completion in 2006. Depending on market conditions, construction of some of the square footage, including the freestanding restaurant space and the hotel, could be deferred until a later time. For the purpose of environmental review, however, the Proposed Action presented in this EIS represents the maximum development potential of the proposal. Access to the shopping center would continue to be provided from Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Andover Park West. No additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Access to the parking structures would be provided from the internal circulation roads. The number of parking stalls, in- cluding surface and structured parking, would increase by approximately 15.5 percent to 7,900 spaces total. In general, existing drainage patterns at the site would remain — surface water would be conveyed through underground pipes toward Gilliam Creek to the north and ultimately into the Green River near I -405. In accordance with the City of Tukwila's stormwater management regulations, the Proposed Action would provide for the installation of me- chanical catch basins in order to treat surface water runoff (collected from on -site imper- vious surfaces and roof drains). The area of impervious surface would not increase under the Proposed Action. Therefore, flow control would not be incorporated into the storm - water strategy. Increases in existing utilities' services would be necessary under the Proposed Action. Water, sewer, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems would be reconfigured, relocated, and/or upgraded to varying degrees in order to meet the requirements of the Proposed Action. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Without future improvements at Southcenter, the existing trends in levels of consumer activity could prevail, and any changes to land use and transportation in the vicinity would occur as a result of existing conditions, independent from any improve- ments at Southcenter. Under No Action, untreated surface water runoff would continue to be discharged from Southcenter into Gilliam Creek and the Green River. In addition, on -site utilities — particularly those currently eligible for improvements and upgrades — may not receive the appropriate level of improvements. Finally, the City would not bene- fit from the increased tax revenues that would be generated by an improved Southcenter. Summary of Impacts, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Un- avoidable Adverse Impacts Table 1 -1 summarizes potential impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alterna- tive. Table 1 -2 summarizes the mitigating measures for addressing the impacts identified in this Draft EIS. Please see Chapter 3 of this Draft EIS for more complete information. S -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts Proposed Action No Action Alternative AIR QUALITY Construction Impacts • Dust from excavating and grading would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter • Construction equipment engines would emit air pollutants that would temporarily slightly degrade local air quality, particularly chemical constituents in diesel exhaust • Odors emitted during paving operations could cause odors detectible to some people off site • Renovations to the existing structure might require the removal and disposal of asbestos- containing building materials • Impacts to air quality would occur if construction activities result in traffic delays and reduced travel speeds Operation Impacts • The expected increases in peak -hour volumes and intersection delays would worsen traffic conditions and have the potential to cause significant adverse air quality impacts, particularly higher CO concentrations in the areas with traffic delays • Violations of the 8 -hour CO standard near the locations of the intersections operating at LOS E or worse would be possible • Increases in traffic in the area as a result of ambient growth would likely lead to greater congestion, delay, and corresponding increases in air quality impacts, although less than under the Proposed Action WATER RESOURCES Water Quantity Water Quantity • Impervious surface area would remain the same; no impacts to water quantity are anticipated • Continued absence of flow control; flooding and channel erosion could persist • Cumulative impacts are not anticipated due to the existing developed and impervious surface condition of the area Water Quality • Impacts are not anticipated; runoff would continue to contribute to flooding and erosion in the downstream section of Gilliam Creek Water Quality • Potential for water quality improvement • Increased traffic could impact water quality, but impact could be partially offset by a reduction (10 percent) in parking spaces exposed to precipitation; covered parking structures could reduce impact to stormwater runoff from otherwise exposed pollutants • Use of stormwater treatment vaults would likely result in improved water quality leaving the sub - basin, relative to existing conditions • No significant risks to water quality are anticipated from the proposed type of commercial activities ■ Cumulative impacts to water quality are not anticipated due to the existing, developed nature of the sub - basin • Water quality would remain the same Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Summary S -3 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts PLANTS AND ANIMALS • No significant impacts to plants, animals, fish or aquatic life are anticipated, relative to existing conditions • Cumulative impacts are not anticipated due to the highly developed nature of the area • Gilliam Creek would continue to be highly degraded but could improve through a planned fish habitat improvement project and other efforts by the City of Tukwila TRANSPORTATION Trip Generation Roadway Improvements ■ New trips, or trips made in order to visit the shopping center, would increase under the Proposed Action, resulting in 1,335 new weekday PM peak -hour trips (44 percent increase), 1,170 new weekday midday trips (36 percent increase), 1,910 new Saturday peak -hour trips (46 percent increase), and 12,380 new daily trips (36 percent increase) • The number of total trips generated by the expansion would be 1,720 during the weekday PM peak hour, 1,440 for the weekday midday peak hour, 2,420 for the Saturday peak hour, and 15,250 for the weekday daily period Traffic Volume Roadway and intersection improvement projects likely to be constructed by 2010 within the study area (City of Tukwila Six -Year TIP 2004 - 2009): -TUC Traffic Signal Interconnect - Southcenter Pkwy Improvements (180th — south City limits) - Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd Intersection Improvements S 168th St Roadway Extension West Valley Hwy /S 156`h St (1-405 NB) HOV improvement -West Valley Hwy Improvements - Minkler Blvd Improvements Other improvements (beyond 2010) include: -major revisions to Southcenter Pkwy/ Klickitat Drive /Strander Blvd; -1 -405 improvements; - reconstruction of 61st Ave S bridge over 1 -405 Strander Boulevard extension • Percent impact of project trips during the weekday PM peak hour would range from less than one percent at the outlying study intersections, to approximately 22 percent at study intersections adjacent to the site • Percent impact during the Saturday peak hour would range from approximately 3 percent to 28 percent • Largest percent increases during the weekday PM peak hour (approx. 22 percent) and the Saturday peak hour (approx. 28 percent) would both occur at two study intersections /site driveways: Andover Park West/Baker Boulevard and Mall- Target Driveway /Strander Boulevard Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S-4 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts Traffic Operations • During weekday PM peak hour, five of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS F (as under No Action conditions), the intersection of 615t Ave STTukwila Parkway would fall from LOS E to LOS F, and six study intersections would fall from LOS C or D to LOS E ■ During Saturday peak hour, four study intersections fall from LOS E or better to LOS F; in all, seven intersections would operate at LOS F • Overall, the TUC average LOS would remain at LOS D, meeting the City of Tukwila's concurrency requirements; slight decreases in average travel speed are anticipated to occur on each arterial as a result of the Proposed Action Driveway Levels of Service • During the weekday PM peak hour, all site driveways would operate at LOS D or better, or remain at the same LOS as in 2010 No Action conditions • During the Saturday peak hour, four driveways are expected to fall from operating conditions of LOS E or better to LOS F, Andover Park W /South Driveway and West Driveway /Strander Boulevard would operate at LOS F and would experience vehicle delays Transit and Rail • Additional trips would not create a significant adverse impact to transit and rail operations in the area Non - Motorized • No significant adverse impacts to non - motorized facilities or operations are expected to occur under the Proposed Action Traffic Safety • There would be a potential increase in traffic accidents at study intersections, due to the increase in traffic • With an increase in traffic volumes at the site driveways, traffic safety conditions could decline proportionally Parking • Parking supply would increase from 6,679 parking stalls to approximately 7,900 parking stalls (both surface and structured parking) • Peak parking demand associated with the 20th highest hour of the year during a Christmas holiday season weekend afternoon is estimated to be 8,355 parking stalls, excluding the hotel, and 8,428 with the hotel • Provision of 7,900 parking stalls would not be adequate in order to meet the peak parking demand and would not meet City code requirements, without successful implementation of peak season traffic and parking management strategies Transit and Rail Operations • TUC transit center will eventually be developed to serve Tukwila TUC • Sound Transit will develop a permanent commuter rail station that would serve Southcenter • Potential exists for a "Tukwila Shuttle Circulator" • Metro plans various route revisions, some serving Southcenter • With these improvements, the rate of vehicular traffic growth may be less than assumed for No Action Non - Motorized Improvements • Sidewalks will be constructed at various locations in conjunction with related infrastructure improvements Traffic Volumes • Traffic volumes are estimated at a growth rate of 1.5 percent/yr Traffic Operations • During weekday PM peak hour, 3 of the 35 signalized and 2 of the 5 unsignalized intersections would likely operate at LOSF Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -5 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts ■ Two study intersections would noticeably improve by 2010 No Action • During Saturday peak hour, 3 intersections would likely operate at LOS F; improvements to others would occur during this time Arterial Level of Service • During weekday PM peak hour in 2010, all studied arterials would likely operate at LOS E or better • Overall, the TUC average level of service would be LOS D Driveway Operations • No changes in site uses would occur that would affect driveway operations. Background volumes on the adjacent streets at the driveways would increase by 2010 No Action. • Driveway operations would be LOS C or better at all signalized driveways. Two unsignalized driveways would operate at LOS F during one or more of the peak hours. Transit • Planned improvements are anticipated to improve bus and rail accessibility for the project site Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -6 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire and Emergency Medical Services • No impacts to public services and Construction Impacts utilities are anticipated • Calls for service would increase, leading to a need for one additional firefighter FTE • The on -site lift station would • Calls for review and inspections would increase, as could the need for training pertaining to the smoke continue to experience capacity control system; potential demand would affect review times for inspections for permit applications by the constraints and would likely Fire Marshal's office require an capacity upgrade • Overall, impacts to fire and emergency medical service during construction would be moderate • The existing sewer system would continue to create maintenance Operation Impacts problems for the City resulting • Expansion would increase demand for fire and emergency medical services from grease discharges by • Using an estimate based on the existing ratios of fire and aid calls per 1,000 sf per year, the Proposed restaurants Action could result in an increase of approximately 28 fire and 101 aid calls per year, resulting in the need to add approximately 1 FTE firefighter and up to 1 shift lieutenant in order to maintain response times • Impacts to the Department's ability to provide timely response to fires within the parking structures are possible, depending on the layout of the structure and available equipment • Overall, impacts during operation would likely be moderate Police Services Construction Impacts • Vandalism, theft and /or trespassing could occur during construction • Construction traffic could require police presence and could reduce the Department's ability to respond to incidents elsewhere Operation Impacts • Based on Police Department estimates, calls for service could increase from 9.4 calls currently to 13 per 24- hour day (28 percent increase) • Number of cases could increase from 3.5 to 5 per 24 -hour day (30 percent increase) • Using an estimate based on the number of calls per 1,000 sf, the Proposed Action could result in an increase of 5 calls per day, or 1.4 more calls per 24 -hour day than Department estimates • Additional demands equate to the need for one additional FTE position. Without increases in staffing, indirect impacts to service levels and response times citywide could occur • Additional personnel may result in the need for expanded departmental facilities, but no additional vehicles or equipment would be necessary • Absence of a Community Resource Center could adversely impact service at Southcenter and would reduce police presence, potentially contributing to an increase in criminal activity • Overall, impacts to police services during operation would likely be moderate Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -7 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts Water Supply • Existing water pipes could be impacted and may need to be relocated in order to accommodate new construction • Water usage could increase by 41,177 gpd, or to 116,347 gpd for all of Southcenter • Impacts to water capacity and supply would be minimal relative to the level at which the City meets area water supply demand through the existing wholesale purchase contract with the City of Seattle PUD • Impacts to fire flow are not anticipated Stormwater • See Water for stormwater impacts Sewer • New sewer lines would be connected to existing lines or would be connected to sewer lines that would be relocated or replaced in order to conform to building codes • Adverse impacts to system capacity could occur, depending on the extent to which sewage flow is gravity fed to the line at Strander Blvd versus being pumped to Lift Station 12; Lift Station 12 is currently at capacity and in need of upgrade • Sewage flow could increase by 39,827 gpd to a total of 112,534 gpd • Overall, impacts to the City's capacity to treat sewage from Southcenter would be minimal Solid Waste • Solid waste generation would increase during construction and operation, although impacts would be minimal • Impacts to the existing recycling area would be positive, as it does not meet current City requirements, but would be expanded to meet City standards • Minor impacts to the capacity of transport and disposal facilities are anticipated Electricity • Electricity use would increase; total peak demand could increase by 50 percent, or 12 Mva • Impacts to the distribution system and capacity are anticipated • Temporary service interruptions during removal or replacement of electrical lines at Southcenter are anticipated Natural Gas • Replacement, removal, or realignment of portions of the existing natural gas system would be necessary • Since all natural gas facilities reside on the roof, impacts to the existing system could be significant if improvements occur to the roof of the existing structure Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -8 Table 1 -1. Summary of Impacts • If demand for natural gas were to increase proportional to the size of the expansion, use could increase by 445,758 therms (Westfield, 2004), although demand may be more related to type of use than to square footage increases Communications • Demand for communications services would increase and would require expansion or relocation of the existing termination space • Overall, impacts to communications are all site targeted and would be significant, but the upgrades would significantly benefit Southcenter Cumulative Impacts • Demand for public services and utilities would increase in conjunction with other potential development projects, but is anticipated to be minimal due to the high level of existing development in the area and provided that public service agencies have anticipated and accommodated the increased demand • Development of the annexation area to the south of the TUC in conjunction with the Proposed Action, would result in cumulative impacts FISCAL ANALYSIS Revenue Impacts • Fiscal impacts are not anticipated • Total additional revenue to the City of Tukwila: $982,000 in 2006 (estimated build -out) to $2,953,000 by 2012 (revenues from sales taxes, property taxes, and admissions taxes comprise the majority of the estimated total additional revenue) • During construction, revenues would range from nothing in 2004 (due to time lags for collection) to nearly $1 million • During operation (by 2012), revenues would generally stabilize at $2.9 million, with the exception of property tax revenues, which would continue to increase each year Costs • Total costs incurred by the City of Tukwila: $33,000 in 2004 to $678,000 by 2012 (point at which project costs generally stabilize) • During construction, the City would incur costs primarily from the need for additional fire and EMS services • During operation, the City would incur costs for police services (20 percent of total), general government costs (55 percent), fire services (17 percent), and road /street maintenance (8 percent) Net Fiscal Surplus • Net fiscal surplus to the City of Tukwila: $371,000 in 2005 to $2,262,000 in 2023 • Positive impact to pre- existing revenue sources, as the City could fund project - related improvements with revenues generated by the Proposed Action Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -9 Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures Proposed Action No Action Alternative AIR QUALITY Construction Per the Washington Associated General Contractors brochure, Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects, the following mitigating measures are recommended: • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition • No mitigating measures would be necessary • Require all off -road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment • Use bio- diesel or other lower emission fuels for vehicles and equipment • Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction • Implement construction curbs on hot days to reduce ozone emissions • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (i.e., 5 minutes) • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors, such as fresh air intakes for buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations • Locate construction staging zones in areas of least impact • Route and schedule construction trucks around high traffic periods to reduce emissions In addition, mitigating measures would be required in conjunction with City of Tukwila permits; specifically the applicant would be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and an Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan. These plans include a number of additional mitigating measures relevant to reducing air quality impacts. Operation ■ In order to reduce vehicle volumes and /or improve operation of poor -LOS intersections during peak weekday and Saturday periods, transportation demand measures to improve mobility and measures that target shopping center employees could be implemented • No additional mitigating measures are proposed other than those listed in "Potential Transportation Mitigation Options" (Table 3 -19) WATER RESOURCES • No mitigating measures would be necessary • No mitigating measures would be necessary Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -10 Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures PLANTS AND ANIMALS • No mitigating measures would be necessary • No mitigating measures would be necessary TRANSPORTATION The comparison of traffic volumes, traffic operations, transit and rail, non - motorized, traffic safety, and parking conditions under the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative was used to identify near -term impacts and possible mitigation measures. Table 3 -19 summarizes the mitigation options identified as a result of this impact analysis. Parking impacts on peak days (typically holidays) could be mitigated through implementation of a Transportation Demand Management program and /or requiring employees to park off -site. To mitigate long -range transportation impacts, the Proposed Action would be subject to mitigation impact fees pursuant to the Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48.070. The City Transportation Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees Chapter of the TMC allow credit for developer improvements. • Same as Proposed Action PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire and Emergency Medical Services • No mitigating measures would be necessary • Work with Tukwila Fire Department regarding fire lane access issues • Replace existing fire alarm system with a fully - addressable fire alarm system Police Services • Implement construction site security measures in order to discourage theft, vandalism, trespassing, and other unauthorized activities; work with the Tukwila Police Department regarding implementation, if possible • Maintain accessibility to the site to ensure response times • Incorporate security features into the Southcenter expansion in order to reduce impacts to police services during the operation phase Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -11 Table 1 -2. Summary of Mitigating Measures Utilities • Provide 9,635 sq. ft. of space designated for recycling services in order to comply with City requirements • Schedule interruptions to utility service during hours with least impact. Provide advance notice to surrounding community when utility service may be interrupted during construction • In order to reduce capacity constraints on the sewer lift station, route new sewerage flow at Southcenter to the Metro line along Strander Blvd if feasible; otherwise, increase lift station capacity • Dispose of construction - related debris in a proper solid waste disposal facility per jurisdictional requirements and work with the City and King County to develop a Solid Waste Management Plan for recycling of CDL wastes • Incorporate into project PSE recommendations for fair share upgrades and /or changes to the existing electrical system (see the Public Services and Utilities section in this Draft EIS for specific information) • During construction, consult with PSE as early as possible in order to maintain service to the existing portions of the mall • With planned system improvements identified above, no additional mitigating measures would be necessary for the water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas systems • Upgrade the existing communications space located in the mall to meet the proposed increase in demand (see Public Services and Utilities section in this Draft EIS for specific information) FISCAL ANALYSIS • No mitigating measures would be necessary • No mitigating measures would be necessary Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be expected. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Summary S -12 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Name of the Proposal Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion. Proponent Westfield Corporation, Inc. Description of Proposed Action Nature and Location of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action consists of development approvals that would allow expansion and renovation of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter' (Southcenter) (Figure 2 -1). The maximum expansion proposed would increase the size of Southcenter by 787,903 square feet of gross building area (gba) [626,803 square feet of gross leasable floor area (glfa)] to a total of 2,226,274 square feet (1,926,947 square feet glfa). It would provide for addi- tional retail commercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. The Proposed Action represents the maximum development potential under this proposal. Market forces could result in lesser development or deferring portions of this development. For review purposes, the maximum development is assumed to open in 2006. The Proposed Action is located on the existing 85 -acre Southcenter site in the block bounded by Tukwila Parkway to the north, Southcenter Parkway to the west, Strander Boulevard to the south, and Andover Park West to the east (Figure 2 -2). The expansion would occur within the southern portion of the site. I -5 and I -405 intersect near the northwest corner of the shopping center. Background When Southcenter shopping center was opened in 1968 with the first enclosed mall in the region it had 1,298,937 square feet of glfa, including 137,393 glfa of outparcel develop- ment including the former Doubletree Inn. In 1989, the Nordstrom store was expanded and a food court replaced an existing grocery. In 1992, an anchor store (Mervyn's) and Use of the words "Southcenter" and "shopping center" refers to the entire site and its uses (shopping mall and outparcels), whereas "mall" or "shopping mall" refers to the self - contained retail facility with anchor stores, food court, and specialty retail uses all connected by promenades. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 2 -1 Description of the Proposed Action Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. HuckeII/Weinnman Associates, inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2 -1 Regional Map 2-2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action Source: HuckelVWeinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2 -2 Vicinity Map Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2 -3 retail shops were added and Frederick and Nelson's was closed, which was subsequently replaced by Sears. Today, Southcenter includes five anchor department stores (Bon Macy's, J.C. Penney, Mervyn's, Nordstrom, and Sears) and over 150 specialty retail stores and restaurants (Figure 2 -3). The mall encompasses an area of 1,252,317 square feet of glfa. Outparcels around the mall contain two restaurants (Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden at 17,930 square feet) and a post office, Key Bank, and Firestone Auto Center (29,897 square feet total). A Bank of America branch is located north of Mervyn's along Tukwila Parkway, but it is not on property under Westfield's control. The former Doubletree Inn, located in the southwest corner of the site, was closed in December 2002 and will be demolished in 2004. The majority of the shopping center site is leased by Westfield (actual leaseholder entity is WEA Southcenter LLC, which is part of the Westfield group) from Prudential Financial, Inc., which owns the land. Approximately 15 acres is owned by Federated (Bon Macy's) that includes the land under the Bon and the parking area to the north. Westfield Corporation is the developer and operator of the shopping center site; Nord- strom, Sears, J.C. Penney, and Mervyn's sublease the land beneath their respective build- ings from Westfield and, in some cases, control the parking adjacent to their stores. Objectives of the Proposed Action The objectives of the proponent are to improve Southcenter's market position in continu- ing to operate a commercial shopping complex that offers high quality merchandise and competitive retail opportunities to consumers in the region. Specific objectives are to: • Respond to market conditions; • Strengthen the center's position as a super - regional shopping center; • Broaden the merchandise mix available at the center and add complementary uses; • Increase the ratio of small retailers to anchors; • Increase the number of upscale retailers to complement other existing high quality retailers /products; and • Improve the lifestyle component of the mall, including entertainment and dining. Proposed Project Development Assumptions The proposed expansion and renovation of the shopping mall would add 289,517 square feet of retail shops, 162,650 square feet of anchor stores, 7,980 square feet of expanded food court space, and a 75,200- square -foot theater. In addition, three freestanding restau- rants (21,101 square feet) and a 70,355- square -foot hotel would be developed on outpar- cels peripheral to the mall. Altogether, the shopping center would increase by 626,803 square feet of glfa. An additional 161,100 square feet of space would be developed for new mall common area and service area, bringing the increase in gross building area to 787,903 square feet. The expansion would extend the footprint of the mall generally to 2 -4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2 -3 Southcenter Site Boundary Existing Site Development Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 2 -5 Description of the Proposed Action the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide two multi -level parking structures (Figure 2 -4). All development would occur within the existing shopping center site. Existing uses and proposed development are shown in Table 2 -1. Table 2 -1. Proposed Action Development Assumptions (sq.ft.) The new anchor retail space would be comprised of up to five stores ranging in size from about 12,000 square feet to about 84,000 square feet, compared to the existing anchor department stores that range in size from about 86,000 square feet (Mervyn's) to 250,000 square feet (Bon Macy's). Potential anchor store uses could include stores specializing in home goods, clothing, sporting goods, books, entertainment and/or home electronics. 2 Olive Garden opened in October 2003 and Bahama Breeze opened in May 2003. 3 The former Doubletree Inn (104,232 square feet) closed in December 2002 and will be demolished and replaced with surface parking in 2004 under separate permit. 2 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action Existing Site Expanded Site Net Increase Gross Leasable Floor Area (glfa): Shopping Mall: Retail Shops 333,349 622,866 289,517 Food Court 5,530 13,510 7,980 Anchor Retail 913,438 1,076,088 162,650 Theater 75,200 75,200 (3,600 to 4,000 seats) (3,600 to 4,000 seats) Total Mall Retail 1,252,317 1,787,664 535,347 Outparcel Uses: Post Office, Key Bank, Firestone 29,897 29,897 0 Freestanding Restaurant 17,9302 39,031 21,101 Hotel3 70,355 70,355 (140 rooms) (140 rooms) Total Outparcel Uses 47,827 139,283 91,456 TOTAL GLFA 1,300,144 1,926,947 626,803 Mall Common Area and Service Area 138,227 299,327 161,100 TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA 1,438,371 2,226,274 787,903 The new anchor retail space would be comprised of up to five stores ranging in size from about 12,000 square feet to about 84,000 square feet, compared to the existing anchor department stores that range in size from about 86,000 square feet (Mervyn's) to 250,000 square feet (Bon Macy's). Potential anchor store uses could include stores specializing in home goods, clothing, sporting goods, books, entertainment and/or home electronics. 2 Olive Garden opened in October 2003 and Bahama Breeze opened in May 2003. 3 The former Doubletree Inn (104,232 square feet) closed in December 2002 and will be demolished and replaced with surface parking in 2004 under separate permit. 2 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Figure 2-4a Site Plan — Level 1 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcen er Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2-7 0 cc 0 u-■ 0 0 Li 0 Li 0 0 —tNaYdl 1 3M 0 a TUKWILA PARKWAY 7--.\ it 7 l ,;---} r.., .5 ,--- l 1 1 - 6.' -------!..) v..% ::. /- --- -- 5 - -.1 ( T -.,;.: t). 0 • --i. N----ii --- \-9 X 7 : A 'ZS.----t-4-0 —N ---0, --`2 .., . ril ./7 i I :7:: rt. ...• n V v • . A A 7 7 A ..: V 5k 0 0 rr 11W 035013N3 0 • t ■ r . ......._.-..-.:_:i ;.7,- — ' \ -- — r! 7.7 -- -- 1 '.• , ! 71 , ,LLe A r , 7 V, -;\ - - • – - -- — — ‘P . - li 'S',' ,•-'. -.., -c,- - -4-. .,"-• .., • i " , – 1'0 '•-■ 7.■ c k2,-LA J. 4 STRANDER BOULEVARD II .t4. Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT r <' I Ir Figure 2-4b 0 0 r P 5 j Site Plan — Level 2 2-8 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action i$ TUKWILA PARKWAY W d a bitkiT J a 4 a a a 0 - u .; ca ar. } Source: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. MackeII/Weinman HWA Associates, Inc. a 0 CL (. .w' STRANDER DOULEVARD Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ,p 1.1 • c7 O tfl 67 .. Li i i. S 0 w r: ROO E Figure 2 -4c • i:t'• I o .2 ANC')VEP PAYK V4:.S1 • 3 tI s Site Plan — Level 3 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action 2 -9 The remaining shopping center retail would consist primarily of specialty shops similar to those at the mall today, but catering to a broader range of customers and featuring a wider array of merchandise. The theater complex is expected to have 16 -18 screens, and seat- ing for 3,600 to 4,000 moviegoers. It would be developed on the second or third level of the mall. Development of the hotel would depend upon market demand but is planned to provide lodging for about 140 guests. Its location on the site has not yet been deter- mined. Construction of the expanded shopping center is scheduled to begin in 2004 and be com- plete in 2006. Depending on market conditions, part of the expansion could be elimi- nated or deferred until a later time. However, for the purposes of this EIS, all uses are assumed to be open in 2006. Construction phasing would occur as follows: September — December 2004 January — June 2005 July — December 2005 January — May 2006 Access and Parking Prepare site, relocate utilities, and start foundations Erect parking structures and structural steel for mall Complete mall shell, open parking structures, and begin construction of outparcel uses Finish mall expansion and construction of outparcel uses; open for business Access to the shopping center site is currently provided at two locations each from Tuk- wila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard and at four locations from Andover Park West. These access points would be retained under the Proposed Action, and no additional access to the site would be provided under the Proposed Action. Ac- cess to the parking structures would be provided from the internal circulation roads. There are currently 6,679 surface parking stalls on the site, including spaces at the exist- ing outparcels. With the demolition of the former Doubletree Inn and resurfacing of that site, 704 surface parking stalls will be added for a total of 7,383 stalls. The proposed re- tail expansion would remove some surface parking but two proposed parking structures would provide additional stalls. A total of approximately 7,900 parking spaces are pro- posed, including surface and structured parking. Grading and Drainage In general, construction of the expanded shopping center would be accomplished at exist- ing grades. Excavations would be made for utilities and for structure foundations. The expanded mall area grades would be raised slightly to allow surface runoff to flow away from the building. Existing drainage patterns of the site would be maintained. 2 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action Nearly the entire site is covered with impervious surfaces (buildings and parking areas). Surface water drainage from the site is conveyed through underground pipes either north- erly or easterly and then northerly to Gilliam Creek, which lies north of the site along Tukwila Parkway. Gilliam Creek empties into the Green River near I -405. No treatment or control /detention of surface water runoff occurs at the present time. Under the Proposed Action, surface water runoff from new or redeveloped impervious surfaces on the project site would flow to mechanical catch basins to treat stormwater. The target treatment level would be set to meet existing City stormwater management regulations. No stormwater flow control (i.e., detention) is proposed because there would be no change in the amount of impervious surface on the site Stormwater would be routed through the existing stormwater conveyance pipes that currently convey water from the site to Gilliam Creek. Roof drains would also connect to these conveyances. Utilities All utilities (water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications) are provided on or adjacent to the site. Under the Proposed Action, there will be increased require- ments for water, sewer and telecommunications as well as electricity and gas. Systems would need to be reconfigured/relocated and extended to serve the shopping center ex- pansion. Puget Sound Energy would need to expand capacity and service on site and possibly off site, and other utility system capacities may need to be increased as well. No Action Alternative Expansion of the shopping center would not occur in the foreseeable future for any uses under the No Action Alternative. Existing trends in levels of patronage would prevail, and any changes in land use and transportation in the vicinity would be those that would occur under existing conditions. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 2 -11 Description of the Proposed Action THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Description of the Proposed Action CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment, Impacts of the Alternatives, Mitigating Measures, and Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Air Quality This section presents the air quality impact and mitigation analysis performed by MFG, Inc. as part of the environmental review process. This analysis included review of existing air quality data for the project vicinity, and a qualitative review of existing and future traffic conditions to assess potential air quality impacts related to the proposed project. The Proposed Action would expand Southcenter's retail capacity, and result in increased traffic on nearby roads. Because the proposed expansion would not comprise a major direct source of air pollutants, potential construction and traffic - related air quality impacts are the focus of this analysis. Affected Environment Analysis Framework Air quality is generally assessed in terms of whether concentrations of air pollutants are higher or lower than ambient air quality standards established to protect human health and welfare. Three agencies have jurisdiction over ambient air quality in the project area: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). These agencies establish regulations that govern both the concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air and contaminant emissions from air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in stringency, each agency has established its own standards. Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent standards, the EPA standards pertain. Applicable federal, state, and local air quality standards are mentioned as appropriate in the sections below. In order to measure existing air quality, Ecology and PSCAA maintain a network of monitoring stations throughout the Puget Sound region. Generally, these stations are placed where there may be air quality problems, so monitoring usually occurs in or near urban areas or close to specific large air pollution sources. Other stations in remote areas provide an indication of regional air pollution levels. Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the state (Ecology) and federal (EPA) agencies designate regions as being either "attainment" or "nonattainment" for particular air pollutants. Attainment status is therefore a measure of whether air quality in an area complies with Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -1 Air Quality the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These standards are intended to protect human health with a margin of safety. Typical sources of air pollution within the project area include vehicular traffic, manufacturing facilities, the Seattle- Tacoma International airport, a variety of commercial enterprises, and residential wood - burning devices. Each source type contributes to the pollutant concentrations measured at state and local air monitoring stations. For example, residential wood burning produces a variety of air contaminants, including large quantities of fine particulate matter (PM to and PM2.5) and carbon monoxide. Pollutant emissions resulting from manufacturing processes are source - specific and are regulated by state and local agencies limiting the source's impact on ambient pollutant concentrations. Because project - generated traffic would impact traffic volumes on area roads, and traffic is likely to be the only significant pollutant source related to operation of the completed project, the pollutants of greatest concern are those associated with vehicles. Vehicles along area roadways comprise a significant source of cumulative emissions in and around the project area and in the region. Vehicles emit large quantities of carbon monoxide (CO), which is often used as an indicator of traffic - related emissions. In addition to CO, vehicles also emit other pollutants, including small amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), as well as both hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which can transform to become ground - level ozone. Vehicles also emit fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) directly in their exhaust and indirectly as a function of their tires raising dust on paved and unpaved roads, but the amounts of PMio and PM2.5 generated by individual vehicles are small compared with other sources (e.g., a wood - burning stove). Several of these pollutants are discussed in greater detail below. Existing Air Quality Ozone Ozone is a highly reactive form of oxygen created by sunlight- activated chemical transformations of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons) in the atmosphere. Unlike CO concentrations, which tend to occur very close to the emission source(s), ozone problems tend to be regional in nature because the atmospheric chemical reactions that produce ozone occur over a period of time. During the lag time between emission and ozone formation, ozone precursors can be transported far from their sources. Transportation sources are one of a number of sources that produce the precursors to ozone. The Southcenter project study area is in an ozone air quality "maintenance" area (a formerly designated nonattainment area that has been found to be in attainment of the standard, but that is still subject to special air quality reviews until the standard has been maintained for at least 10 years). Under current air quality plans and policies, this status has no direct implications for the proposed project being considered. At this time, there 3 -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality are no standard means to assess "project- level" impacts of ozone due to transportation sources. Although a new, more stringent ozone standard has been proposed by the EPA, the new standard has not yet been fully implemented. Consequently, the Puget Sound region currently applies the older 1 -hour average ozone standard of 0.12 ppm, which will likely be phased out after implementation of the new standard. PSCAA also is monitoring to assess compliance with the new 8 -hour, 0.08 -ppm standard. During the last three years, none of the Puget Sound region ozone monitoring stations have recorded any ozone concentrations that would comprise a violation of either the 1 -hour or the 8 -hour standards (PSCAA 2004a and 2004b). Inhalable Particulate Matter (PMio) Federal, state, and local regulations set limits on the concentrations of particles less than or equal to about 10 micrometers in diameter. This fraction of particulate matter, called PMto, is important . in terms of potential human health impacts because particles this size can be inhaled deeply into lungs. PM10 is generated by industrial activities and operations, fuel combustion sources like residential wood burning, motor vehicle engines and tires, and other sources. Such sources occasionally cause high PM10 levels in the Puget Sound region, and three areas in Seattle, Tacoma, and Kent were at one time nonattainment because PMto concentrations sometimes exceeded health standards. All three areas are now in attainment for PM10 and are designated as "maintenance" areas for PM10. The Southcenter project area is not included in a PMto maintenance area, and given the lack of major sources, it is likely that PM to concentrations throughout the project area are below the limits set by the health standards most of the year. Monitored PMto levels have not exceeded the health standards in recent years (PSCAA 2004a and 2004b), but during winter months (periods of prolonged cold and inversion conditions), it is possible that emissions from transportation and residential wood - burning sources in the area could raise PMto concentrations to unhealthy levels for brief periods near clusters of such sources. Under current policies, this fact has no implications for the proposed project. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) In 1997, the EPA adopted a new federal standard for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (microns) in diameter. This fine fraction of particulate, called PM2.5, is a subset of PM1o. Such small particles (e.g., a typical human hair is about 100 microns in diameter) can be breathed deeply into the lungs, and are believed to represent the greatest risk to human health from all the varieties of particulate matter. Although implementation of the new PM2.5 standard was delayed by court challenges, the EPA ultimately prevailed, and the standard is now in effect. Monitoring data indicate particulate matter concentrations at all measurement locations are complying with the short -term and the annual PM2.5 standards (PSCAA 2004a and 2004b). The PM2.5 monitoring station nearest the Southcenter project area is in Kent, Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -3 Air Quality which is too far away to directly apply to the project area. Because most particulate matter emissions from residential wood burning and vehicle exhaust are in the PM2.5 size range, and because these source types likely predominate during the wintertime near the project site, it is reasonable to assume that particulate emissions in the project area are primarily comprised of PM2.5. The relative concentrations of PM2.5 in the project area are unknown. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is the product of incomplete combustion generated by transportation sources and other fuel- burning activities like residential space heating, and especially heating with solid fuels like coal or wood. Carbon monoxide (CO) is usually the pollutant of greatest concern related to transportation sources because it is the air contaminant emitted in the greatest quantity for which short-term health standards exist. Short-term standards (as opposed to annual- average standards) are often the controlling or most restrictive NAAQSs. There are two air quality standards for carbon monoxide: a 1 -hour average standard of 35 ppm and an 8 -hour average standard of 9 ppm. These levels may be exceeded once per year without violating the standard. CO impacts are usually localized near the emission source. The highest ambient CO concentrations usually occur near congested roadways and intersections during periods of cold temperatures (autumn and winter months), light winds, and stable atmospheric conditions. Such weather conditions reduce the mechanisms that disperse the pollutants emitted into the air. The Southcenter Project study area is located in the center of the Puget Sound region CO maintenance area (a formerly designated nonattainment area that has been found to be in attainment of the standard but is still subject to special air quality review). The network of CO monitoring stations in the Puget Sound region have not measured CO levels that would comprise a violation of either the 1 -hour or the 8 -hour CO standards since 1995 (EPA 2004).1 Additionally, regional emission trends are decreasing due to improvements in the vehicle fleet. Consequently, the potential for air quality impacts from CO related to traffic appears to be decreasing. The maintenance plan nonetheless requires that transportation projects be evaluated for potential CO "hot- spots" as described below to ensure continuing compliance with the health -based ambient air quality standards. The proposed project would increase and redistribute traffic in the vicinity and, thereby, affect CO emissions and concentrations in the CO maintenance area. In such areas, any major changes in the transportation system are subject to review under the federal and state "transportation conformity" rules. These rules are designed to prevent pollution ' Although not necessarily the most congested areas nor necessarily representative of the Southcenter area, some of these monitoring stations are located in downtown Seattle near Westlake Mall, in north Seattle near Northgate Mall, and in downtown Bellevue near Bellevue Square. 3 -4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality hot -spots from creating new air quality problems, exacerbating existing problems, or prolonging the process of solving old problems. However, because the proposed project does not include a specific "transportation component" that would modify a major roadway, it is not subject to a complete air quality conformity review. Transportation projects are subject to conformity review if they involve activities that expend funds on or affect physical or operational changes to the regional transportation system. At present, the proposed project would not include any elements that would be considered a transportation project under these rules. Several of the potential traffic mitigating measures currently being considered could trigger a transportation conformity review by affecting the regional transportation system, if and when they are implemented. In the absence of any such changes to the transportation system, the guidelines for conformity review can nonetheless provide an indication of the potential for air quality impacts from traffic related to the project. Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action Potential Air Quality Impacts During Construction During construction of the Southcenter expansion, dust from excavation and grading would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. The construction contractor(s) would have to comply with the PSCAA's Regulation I, Section 9.15, which requires reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Construction would require the use of heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air pollutants that would slightly degrade local air quality, but these emissions and resulting concentrations would be far outweighed by emissions from traffic normally in and around those portions of the project area near busy roads. However, there is a growing awareness that the chemical constituents in diesel exhaust include a number of known and suspected human carcinogens, and many air pollution control agencies are beginning to take steps to minimize people's exposure to such air pollution. For example, the PSCAA- sponsored Diesel Solutions program encourages the use of ultra low sulfur diesel or other alternative fuels instead of traditional fuels to reduce diesel - related toxic and fine particulate emissions. Some phases of construction would cause odors detectible to some people off site. This would be particularly true during paving operations using tar and asphalt. The construction contractor(s) would have to comply with the PSCAA regulations requiring measures to control the emissions of odor - bearing air contaminants so as to prevent any adverse effects on nearby people or properties (Regulation I, Section 9.11). Such odors would be short-term. Renovations to the existing structure might require the removal and disposal of asbestos- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -5 Air Quality containing building materials. The demolition contractors would be required to comply with U.S. EPA regulations related to the safe removal and disposal of any asbestos - containing materials. Construction equipment, material hauling, and detours for excavation and grading could affect traffic flow within the Southcenter project area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic- related emissions would increase. Potential Air Quality Impacts from. Project Operation This review of the air quality implications of the proposed project was based on consideration of the traffic conditions expected to occur in the area with and without the project. Such a review provides an indication of the potential for CO hot -spots due to traffic congestion because CO emissions and concentrations are directly related to the length of times vehicles must queue and idle at congested intersections. (These data are presented in the Transportation section of this document.) By rank ordering the signalized intersections that would be affected by project - related traffic, it is possible to consider the potential for hot -spot air quality impacts. A summary of current and expected future traffic conditions at the six signalized intersections that would be most affected by the proposed project is presented in Table 3 -1. This list is rank ordered by the expected increase in the hours of peak -hour delay caused by project - related traffic. The intersection operation data considered in Table 3 -1 and related discussion include estimates of intersection delay that are not presented in the Transportation section of this document. At congested intersections where traffic volumes far exceed capacity, the Transportation section reports a maximum delay of 80 seconds per vehicle because of uncertainties about the accuracy of these estimates in very congested situations. The tabulation above applies longer delays, as they were calculated during the transportation modeling process. The use of intersection delays longer than 80 seconds is appropriate for the comparisons presented in this table because any error or uncertainties in these estimates are likely to be relatively similar across the transportation network. Thus, for screening level review and general comparisons, use of these more specific estimates of delay are considered applicable. The expected increases in peak -hour volumes and intersection delays due to the project would worsen traffic conditions and have the potential to cause air quality impacts. For example, EPA guidance for performing air quality modeling to assess air quality near signalized intersections suggests that intersections with levels of service (LOS) of "D" or worse should be considered for modeling (EPA 1992). A further screening method based 3 -6 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality Table 3 -1. Weekday PM Peak Traffic Conditions at Six Signalized Intersections Most Affected by Proposed Proiect Intersection Existing 2010 No Action . 2010 Proposed Action LO S Del V/C LOS Del (Sec) V/C Vol Tot Del (Hrs) LOS Del (Sec) V/C Delta Del' (Sec/Vehicle) Vol Delta Vol Tot Del (Hrs) Delta Del (Hrs) 6l' Avenue S/ Southcenter Blvd F 108.4 1.28 F 153.9 1.5 4,745 202.8 F 196.4 1.6 43 5,194 449 283.4 80.5 61' Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway D 39.7 0.96 E 57.1 I 3,775 59.9 F 84.3 1.2 27 4,280 505 100.2 40.3 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd C 30.1 0.86 D 42.4 0.9 3,575 42.1 E 64.1 1 22 3,869 294 68.9 26.8 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.7 0.79 C 33.9 0.9 2,690 25.3 E 59.1 1 25 3,069 379 50.4 25.1 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd D 44.7 0.92 E 57.6 1.00 4,350 69.6 E 70.7 1.1 13 4,504 154 88.5 18.9 Andover Park W/ Strander Blvd D 41.6 0.77 D 48.4 0.8 2,985 40.1 E 59 9 0.9 12 3,458 473 57.5 17.4 Totals for Worst Six Signalized Intersections 22,120 440 x = 23.5 24,374 2,254 649 209 Totals for ALL Signalized Intersections 111,225 1,933 x = 7.5 118,532 7,307 1,862 369 NOTES: LOS = level of service, which is a measure of intersec ion operation based on the weighted average per - vehicle delay; Del (sec) = Delay per vehicle in seconds; V/C = volume to capacity ratio; Vol = PM peak -hour volume (weekday l; Tot Del (hrs) = total hours of delay (i.e., volume x per vehicle delay - converted to hrs); Delta Del' (sec /vehicle) = project - related increase in weekday PM peak -hour delay on a per vehicle basis; Delta Vol = project- related increase in PM peak -hour volume (weekday); Delta Del' (hrs) = project - related increase in the total hours of delay during the weekday PM peak hour. Source: Traffic data from Transpo, Inc. (2004) and tabulation by MFG, Inc. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -7 Air Quality on EPA guidance is to consider those intersections with the highest volumes and the greatest delays that would be most affected by a project. Table 3 -1 summarizes the findings of such a screening review. As shown in Table 3 -1, compared with both existing conditions and No Action, the proposed project would increase weekday PM peak -hour volumes, and increase delays at the most - affected intersections. At the six most - affected intersections, the project would generate a combined total of about 2,200 more peak -hour vehicles, and cause about 209 additional hours of delay than No Action (Table 1). During the Saturday peak hour, the project would cause even larger increases in volumes and delays at most of these six intersections (Transpo 2004). Considering weekday conditions at all affected signalized intersections (last row of data in Table 3 -1), the proposed project would increase PM peak -hour volumes by a combined total of about 7,300 vehicles, and cause an increase of about 369 hours of vehicle delay. Based on these traffic data it appears that the proposed project has the potential to cause hot -spot air quality impacts at some of the most affected intersections in the project area. Because project - related traffic would worsen congestion compared with both existing conditions and No Action, without mitigation, the project would result in higher CO concentrations at the most affected intersections. Additionally, because the most - affected intersections would operate at LOS "E" or worse, there is also a potential that project - related traffic would cause violations of the 8 -hour CO standard near these locations. For these reasons, it appears that without effective mitigation, the proposed project could possibly cause significant adverse air quality impacts at one or more of the most affected signalized intersections in the vicinity. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Increases in traffic in the area as a result of ambient growth would likely lead to greater congestion, delay, and corresponding increases in air quality impacts. Such impacts would probably be less than under the Proposed Action. Mitigating Measures Construction Impact Mitigation Mitigating measures for reducing the potential for air quality impacts during construction include measures for reducing both exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. The Washington Associated General Contractors brochure Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects and the PSCAA suggest a number of methods for controlling dust and reducing the potential exposure of people to emissions from diesel equipment. The following is a list of possible mitigating measures that could be implemented to reduce potential impacts during construction. • Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition. 3 -8 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality • Require all off -road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment (i.e., require contractors to participate in the Puget Sound region Diesel Solutions program). • Use bio- diesel or other lower emission fuels for vehicles and equipment. • Use car - pooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers. • Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction. • Implement construction curbs on hot days when the region is at risk for exceeding the NAAQS for ozone, and work at night instead. • Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (e.g., limit idling to a maximum of 5 minutes). • Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors, such as fresh air intakes for buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations. • Locate construction staging zones where diesel emissions will be unnoticeable to the public and away from sensitive populations, such as the elderly and the young. • Route and schedule construction trucks so that traffic delays are reduced during peak travel times to minimize air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic speeds. A Public Works permit will be required for construction of the proposed expansion. A requirement of the permit will be a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan and an Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Plan. These plans will evaluate and include the following measures, which will lower impacts to air quality: • Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PMIo and deposition of particulate matter. • Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that will be exposed for long periods. • Cover all trucks transporting materials, spray water on materials in trucks, or provide adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck bed) to reduce PMI0 emissions and deposition during transport. • Provide wheel washers for the removal of particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off the site by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways. • Remove particulate matter deposited on paved public roads, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths to reduce mud and dust; sweep and wash streets continuously to reduce emissions. • Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind -blown debris. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS 3 -9 Air Quality Operational Impact Mitigation Measures that would reduce vehicle volumes and/or improve the operation of poor -LOS intersections during peak weekday and Saturday periods would reduce the potential for air quality impacts. This could include transportation demand measures as appropriate to improve mobility and measures that target shopping center employees. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Without effective mitigation, the proposed project has some potential to cause significant adverse air quality impacts at signalized intersections that would be affected by project - related traffic. 3 -10 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Air Quality Water Resources Affected Environment Water Quantity Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter is located near Sea -Tac International Airport. The climate records at the airport indicate the mean annual precipitation to be 38.2 inches with the bulk of the precipitation falling between October and April. The most intense precipitation tends to occur in November and December. The mean July maximum tem- perature is 75.0 degrees F while the mean January maximum is 44.8 degrees F (Western Regional Climate Center website, 2003). The project site is situated near the head of the Duwamish River valley, in the Gilliam Creek watershed. Most of the Gilliam Creek watershed is highly developed, including single- and multi - family residential areas, commercial and office areas, and roadway sur- faces. Thus, there are large areas of impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces convey rainfall to receiving waters much more quickly than do pervious land areas such as unde- veloped forest and open space, causing increased peak flows and runoff volumes. Scour and erosion characterize the upper reaches of the stream, resulting in sediment deposition and frequent flooding in the lower reaches (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). These problems of upstream erosion and downstream sedimentation are exacerbated by the topography of the basin, which has relatively steep stream channel slopes in the upper basin and a flat channel gradient in the lower basin, where it flows across the floodplain of the Green River. The project site occupies nearly one -half of the "Southcenter" sub -basin identified in the Gilliam Creek Stormwater Management Plan (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). This 200 -acre sub -basin drains into lower Gilliam Creek, which drains into the Green River near the Interstate 405 (1 -405) crossing of the Green River. The sub -basin is bounded by I -405 to the north, Interstate 5 (I -5) to the west, the Green River to the east, and Strander Boulevard to the south. Most runoff is conveyed by stormwater pipes. The project site, which is 85 acres in size, is in a highly developed area. Nearly 100 per- cent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces, such as streets, parking lots, and rooftops. While runoff is currently transmitted to the stormwater system, there are no flow control measures in the Southcenter sub - basin. The stormwater system (as well as water and sanitary sewer systems) on the site are maintained by the City of Tukwila under a 1969 agreement between mall owner at that time and the City. The City of Tukwila Draft Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (DCSWP) (CH2MHi11, 2003) identifies capital improvement projects to be undertaken within city limits to repair and prevent exacerbation of existing problems and meet the conditions of the upcoming Phase II Municipal Stormwater Discharge permit, anticipated in 2004, and Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -11 Water Resources regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology. DCSWP identifies nine pro- jects within the Gilliam Creek Basin. Eight of these are meant to address water quantity issues (flooding). One of these is directly linked to run -off from the project site, but is ranked 15 out of 19 in cost benefit for the entire City, and will likely be a low- priority project. This project would increase the size of stormwater pipe under Andover Parkway which is currently undersized relative to the potential amount of runoff coming from the Southcenter sub - basin. Another project, which is intended to improve fish habitat and is ranked 5 out of 10 habi- tat improvement projects, is located downstream from the Southcenter sub -basin outlet to Gilliam Creek. This project would include widening the stream channel, installing log structures, increasing channel sinuosity, and planting riparian vegetation. This project could potentially be affected by changes in run -off from the Southcenter site area. Water Quality The project site is located in an area heavily impacted by urban development. Gilliam Creek has not been given an official designation by the Department of Ecology, and therefore automatically retains the class of its receiving water, the Green River, which is designated as Class "A" (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). In 1999, two points were sampled immediately downstream from the outlet that drains the Southcenter sub - basin. The results of laboratory analysis consistently exceeded state water quality criteria for Class A waters for fecal coliform (mean < 100 /L, >90% samples <200 /L) and copper (varies with hardness). The turbidity of samples taken was consistently higher than other Seattle -area urban streams (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). The sampling was not sufficient, however, to determine the nature of the water quality in the Southcen- ter sub - basin. Fecal coliform is usually associated with septic fields and stormwa- ter /sewer overflows. To date, no sampling has been conducted within this sub - basin, nor has the sampling on the mainstem of Gilliam Creek been sufficient to identify inputs from the sub - basin. A number of capital improvement projects were identified in the Gilliam Creek Stormwa- ter Management Plan to address water quality (Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001). However, none of the capital improvement projects aimed at addressing water quality were located in the Southcenter sub - basin. In addition, the DCSWP list of capital improvement projects does not include any within the Southcenter sub - basin. There are no runoff water treatment facilities in the Southcenter sub - basin. Runoff from parking lots drains directly into the stormwater system. 3 -12 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Water Resources Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action Water Quantity There are several ways in which construction or reconstruction projects can affect water quantity. Construction of buildings and parking lots creates impervious surfaces. These surfaces do not allow precipitation to infiltrate into the soil. A drainage basin with im- pervious surfaces experiences large alterations in runoff patterns: peak flows are higher, while low flows are lower, and the duration of high flows is much less than under natural conditions (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Changes in runoff regime can cause indirect ef- fects, including increased flooding severity, lateral and vertical channel erosion, and sedimentation. Under the proposed project, there would be virtually no difference in effects on water quantity from existing conditions. The proposed mall addition and parking structures would be built on existing parking lot and other hardened surfaces. The amount of im- pervious surface would not increase; therefore, there would be no additional effect on wa- ter quantity relative to the existing conditions. Because stormwater is not currently con- trolled at the site, nor are there plans to control stormwater, the hydrograph of the South - center sub -basin would continue to be flashy, contributing to flooding and channel ero- sion in Gilliam Creek. Cumulative effects to water runoff are not anticipated. Because there would be no change in impervious surface area, there would be no change in the Southcenter sub - basin runoff hydrograph. Notably, the sub -basin is mostly developed and, therefore, there are few potential projects that would create cumulative effects. Additionally, the DCSWP identifies future watershed improvement projects that would reduce the effects of past development on water quantity. Water Quality Effects to water quality from commercial developments occur due to parking lot runoff and from the commercial operations themselves, depending on the nature of the opera- tions. Water quality can be affected by the construction of such developments, as well. Under the Proposed Action, the number of vehicles entering and leaving the project site would increase over time (see Transportation section). Increased traffic and parked ve- hicles would tend to increase the risk of pollutants entering runoff. However, the poten- tial increase in traffic would be at least partially offset by the reduction in parking spaces exposed to runoff. Two parking garages would be constructed. Only the top story of the parking structures proposed would be exposed to precipitation and runoff. Additionally, the expansion of retail space in the mall would occur at the expense of parking lots (ga- rages would make up the difference). Approximately 14.4 acres of existing parking lot would be converted to mall space. Thus, there would be a 10 percent decrease in the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -13 Water Resources amount of parking spaces and driveways exposed to precipitation. The result would be a potential improvement in water quality of runoff in the sub -basin because there would be substantially less surface water contact with surfaces (parking spaces and driveway) po- tentially containing pollutants. The proposed project would use in -line stormwater treatment vaults, like the Stormcep- tor, to decrease the amount of pollutants reaching surface waters from the redeveloped portion of the site. Stormceptor -type treatment vaults allow pollutants (especially petro- leum hydrocarbons and suspended solids) to settle out of the water before emptying into a receiving water body. The vaults would be installed on the main trunk of the stormwater drain leading out of the south end of the development. Therefore, it would at least par- tially treat the runoff from the south parking lots as well as the proposed parking garages. The use of these vaults would likely result in an improvement of overall water quality leaving the sub - basin, relative to existing conditions. The type of commercial operation under the Proposed Action would not be significantly different than under existing conditions. The project site would be devoted to retail sales and associated services. No significant risks to water quality would be expected from these activities; construction and operation of retail facilities would be regulated to com- ply with building codes. The proposed project would require a "targeted site review" according to the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998). The targeted review re- quires that the project proponent demonstrate compliance with a limited set of "core re- quirements," and is less extensive than a full review. The proposed project falls under "Category 3" of the target review, which includes redevelopment projects that modify drainage pipes or ditches greater than 12 inches in diameter. The requirements under this review include 1) erosion and sediment control, 2) maintenance and operations, 3) finan- cial guarantees and liability, 4) source control, and 5) oil control. There is no require- ment for flow control for targeted site review category 3 projects. The use of stormwater treatment devices would meet the intent of the requirements for water quality control, while a stormwater pollution prevention plan, discussed below, would meet the require- ment for erosion and sediment control. Other requirements would need to be addressed at the time of permitting. Because the amount of exposed parking lot would be substantially reduced, and because of the planned use of stormwater treatment vaults, the effects of the Proposed Action on water quality would be minor. The Clean Water Act requires that construction projects that disturb greater than one acre of land be covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (40 CFR 122). The proposed construction of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcen- ter would fall under this requirement. The project proponent would be required to de- velop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP contains "best man- agement practices ". The main potential pollutant would be sediment, although fuels and lubricants related to construction equipment would also need to be addressed in the 3 -14 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Water Resources SWPPP. The SWPPP, properly implemented, would minimize the amount of construc- tion- related pollutants entering stormwater. Cumulative effects to water quality are not anticipated. Because the sub -basin is almost entirely developed, there would be few new projects that would contribute to cumulative effects. Additionally, the installation of the water treatment vaults would likely result in an improvement to the sub - basin's water quality. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, hydrograph patterns would remain the same as they are currently. There would likely remain a distinct "flashiness" to the runoff hydrograph from the Southcenter sub -basin and the Gilliam Creek watershed. The runoff from the sub -basin would likely increase flooding and erosion in the downstream section of Gil- liam Creek. Water quality would remain at the same level as it is currently. There are no data to as- sess the run -off from the Southcenter sub - basin, but it is possible that there is some con- tribution to Gilliam Creek's turbidity, and possibly to excess copper detected down- stream. Any pollutants on parking lot surfaces that become suspended in runoff would flow untreated to the Green River. Mitigating Measures As noted previously, the project proponent would be required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -15 Water Resources THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -16 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Water Resources Plants and Animals Affected Environment The Southcenter sub -basin of the Gilliam Creek watershed drains through a floodgate di- rectly into the Green River at about River Mile 12.5. Gilliam Creek is a highly modified urban stream. The lower reach, into which the Southcenter stormwater is discharged, runs through several large culverts with intermittent reaches that remain open to daylight. The floodgate limits access of anadromous fish, but Herrera Environmental Consultants (2001) cite reports of chinook and coho salmon and cutthroat trout in the stream. Several non - salmonids may also be present. The Southcenter area is essentially fully developed with very limited natural habitat to support wildlife. Birds that are present are typical of those species that are adapted to intensive urbanization and include crows, gulls, English sparrows, and pigeons. Savan- nah and /or song sparrows may possibly use landscaped parking strips. In the greater Tukwila area, a broader diversity of birds has been reported including several species of songbirds, raptors, and waterfowl. The primary mammals in the greater Tukwila area include rats and other rodents, opos- sums, raccoons, gray squirrels rabbits, coyotes, bats and, in riparian areas, river otter and beaver. Use of the site by most species is likely limited to margins of the site near vege- tated areas. Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action The Proposed Action would have no significant effect on fish or aquatic life in the stream. Stormwater input from impervious surfaces would continue to impact stream benthos and fish life. Water quality may be slightly improved by covering a portion of the parking area that is currently directly exposed to runoff. However, this is unlikely to result in significant improvement in fish populations or health as long as the stream re- mains in its current configuration (channelized, with restricted access from the Green River, and surrounded by high percentages of impervious area). The Proposed Action would result in no change in vegetated area and, hence, no changes in wildlife use. No cumulative effects to plants or animals are expected due to this project. The project area is already highly developed, the Proposed Action does not alter or disturb existing habitat, and it is unlikely that future projects would occur that would alter the remaining habitat. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -17 Plants and Animals Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, Gilliam Creek would continue to be a highly degraded stream. However, conditions may improve with the fish habitat improvement project proposed in the Gilliam Creek Stormwater Management Plan and in the City's Compre- hensive Surface Water Plan. Also, the area would continue to be fully developed, with little habitat for wildlife other than human - adapted species. Mitigating Measures None required. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3 -18 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Plants and Animals Transportation and Parking Affected Environment Study Area Selection of the study area and time periods was coordinated closely with City of Tuk- wila staff. The study area encompasses the project site and approximately 2 miles north, east, south, and west of the project site. Portions of the study area fall within five differ- ent jurisdictions: the City of Tukwila, the City of Renton, City of SeaTac, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Kent. Based on the an- ticipated circulation of project- generated traffic and the peak hour of adjacent street traf- fic, all study intersections were evaluated during weekday PM peak -hour traffic. Inter- sections closest to the project site were also evaluated during the Saturday peak hour. In addition, all existing site driveways were evaluated during both periods. Study intersections include the following (see Figure 3 -1): 1) International Blvd /S 154th St 21) Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Off -Ramp (Mall Entrance)* 2) 42 "d Ave S/S 154th St 22) Southcenter Parkway / Klickitat Drive* 3) Klickitat Drive /51St Ave S /SR 518 WB On -Ramp 23) Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off - Ramp* 4) 51St Ave S /SR 518 EB Off -Ramp 24) Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd* 5) I -5 SB Ramp (53`d Ave S) /S 154th St 25) Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd* 6) Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd 26) Andover Park W /Strander Blvd* 7) 61st Ave S /Southcenter Blvd* 27) Andover Park E /Strander Blvd 8) 65th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd 28) West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd 9) 66th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd 29) Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street* 10) Interurban Ave S/I -405 SB Ramps 30) Southcenter Parkway / Minkler Blvd 11) Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd 31) Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd 12) Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way 32) Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd 13) 61St Ave S /Tukwila Parkway* 33) Southcenter Parkway /S 180th Street 14) Mall Entrance (I -405 NB Ramp)/ Tukwila Pkwy* 34) Andover Park W/S 180th Street 15) Andover Park W /Tukwila Parkway* 35) Andover Park E/S 180th Street 16) Andover Park E /Tukwila Parkway 36) Sperry Drive /S 180th Street 17) West Valley Highway /I -405 NB Ramp 37) West Valley Highway /S 180th Street 18) 53`d Ave S /Klickitat Drive 38) 72nd Ave S/S 180th Street 19) Klickitat Drive /I -5 SB On -Ramp 39) Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street 20) Andover Park W /Baker Blvd. (Mall Entrance)* 40) West Valley Highway /S 196th Street *Studied during both the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -19 O 0 0 i 0 It or ------b,,10,403 . 0 N-------------,, o s.stv \ N N ® V r cam.•, � • T AAAI �Ly O ®�o :of, e® 2 5' A N NOT TO SCALE ./2 STUDY INTERSECTIONS OWEEKDAY PM PEAK SATURDAY PEAK @ aX WEEKDAY PM PEAK i Figure 3 -1 4 Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Study Area Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3 -20 M'C3i030C7 Scuthc_ KlY11C raphrcs\Gral:h.J A> R.'Oak 0 §;02161 14.13 The Transpo Group The Oaksdale Avenue SW /SW Grady Way and Oaksdale Avenue SW /S 180th Street in- tersections are both within the City of Renton. The West Valley Highway /S 196th Street intersection is within the City of Kent. The International Boulevard/S 154th Street inter- section is within the City of SeaTac. The remaining 36 study intersections are within the City of Tukwila. Street System The project site is located on the southeast corner of the Interstate 5 (I -5) and Interstate - 405 (I -405) interchange, two major regional freeway systems. Several of the roadways adjacent to the project site provide direct access to /from both I -5 and I -405. The street system within the immediate project site vicinity consists of a combination of major roadways and local access streets. The roadways directly adjacent to the project site are classified as minor arterials by the City of Tukwila, including Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Andover Park W, and Strander Boulevard. Interurban Avenue S, West Valley Highway, and International Boulevard are all classified as principal arterials in the study area. Southcenter Boulevard is classified as a principal arterial between I -5 and the eastern city limits, and a collector arterial between I -5 and Tukwila International Boulevard. The remaining roadways in the study area are classified as either minor or collector arterials or are private streets or small streets not classified. Most major intersections in the study area are controlled, fully actuated traffic signals. Individual characteristics of the adjacent study roadways, including classification and posted speed limits, are illustrated in Figure 3 -2. Traffic Volumes Analysis of traffic conditions within the study area focused on the weekday PM peak hour, which is anticipated to be the period during the typical weekday when the Proposed Action would generate the most traffic. In addition, the PM peak hour is consistent with the peak hour developed for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) modeling conducted by Mirai Associates. For these reasons, the PM peak hour was selected for analysis over weekday midday peak -hour conditions. An abbreviated Saturday peak -hour analysis was conducted to evaluate driveway opera- tions and impacts to the study intersections in the immediate vicinity of shopping center. These locations are expected to experience the most noticeable difference in traffic opera- tions because the combination of shopping center traffic and background traffic is greater during the Saturday peak hour than during the weekday PM peak hour within the identi- fied study area. Existing traffic volume data were compiled for the study area to characterize traffic con- ditions during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. Traffic counts for the weekday PM peak hour were obtained from the City of Tukwila, City of Renton, and City of Kent, all of which were conducted in either 2002 or 2003. Traffic counts for the Saturday peak Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -21 Transportation and Parking COLLECTOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 2 LANES PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 35 MPH 5 LANES MINOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 4-5 LANES PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 40 MPH 4 LANES 2 LANES MINOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 5 LANES MINOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 4-5 LANES MIN ER BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL COLLECTOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 4-5 LANES 30 MPH S 180w ST 2 LANES MINOR ARTERIAL 35 MPH 4-5 LANES PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 50 MPH 5-7 LANES S 196TH ST S 200TH ST i.* Figure 3-2 1 Roadway Characteristics Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3-22 ki:03`03JC:‘,,:uth:::■:::T F.111Gaptc,Graph.c0 1 .:F> :indak trJ.TY..); 14 The Transpo Group hour were all conducted in 2003. All traffic counts were increased by a 1.5- percent an- nual growth rate to estimate 2004 existing traffic volumes. A 1.5- percent annual growth was approved by City of Tukwila staff as being consistent with historic annual growth in the area. All of the existing traffic counts were conducted in April 2003, prior to the opening of the Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden restaurants, which are located on the project site. To account for these restaurants, which are now open and operating, trip generation assump- tions were made using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) average trip rates (ITE Land Use #832 —High Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant) and were assigned to the site driveways and study intersections using the same distribution as is noted later in the im- pacts section. These trip assignments were added to the 2004 existing traffic volumes for use in analyzing existing traffic operations. All intersections were evaluated using the peak -hour traffic volumes of each individual intersection, rather than a specific peak hour for the entire study area. This allows for a conservative worst -case analysis. Figures 3 -3A and 3 -3B summarize the existing weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Figure 3 -1 shows the location of each study intersection. Traffic Operations The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the inter- section's level of service (LOS). The intersection as a whole and its individual turning movements can be described with a range of levels of service (LOS A to F), with LOS A indicating free - flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. At signalized intersections, LOS is measured in terms of average total delay per vehicle and is typically reported for the intersection as a whole. At two -way, stop - controlled, unsignalized intersections, LOS is measured in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement and typically reports for the worst movement. LOS methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual ([HCM], Transportation Research Board, 2000) was applied to the study intersections to estimate existing peak - hour levels of service. The 2000 methodology is the most up -to -date methodology avail- able for calculating intersection LOS. The Synchro 5.0 analysis software package was used in all analyses. Signal timing information was obtained from the municipal jurisdic- tions and WSDOT, and traffic signal splits were optimized under existing conditions to account for the actuated traffic signal adjustments that occur in response to specific traf- fic volume demands. Table 3 -2 illustrates existing study intersection levels of service, average vehicle delays, and each intersection's volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio or worst movement for the PM peak hour, while Table 3 -3 illustrates the intersection LOS for those intersections studied during the Saturday peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -23 Transportation and Parking OINTERNATIONAL BLVD S 154TH STREET 95 155 110 230_i 4 125 125 f245 180 - (-110 1 f r 270 35 60 42ND AVE S S 154TH STREET 315 55 140 35_i ▪ �k180 265 -430 45-) x325 45 11 0 15 51ST AVE S SR 518 WB ON -RAMP 1¢5 50 725 • } 10 O51STAVES SR 518 EB OFF -RAMP 25J 640-) 170 825 O53RD AVE S (1.5 SB RAMP) S 154TH STREET 10 205 1,065 J �► 480 -4-575 30-) r40 25 55 MACADAM RD S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 50 115 J � 70, 130 110 1,765 O61ST AVENUE S %. SOUTHCENTER BLVD (260) 680 765 (325) :2,005) 1,485 r 205 (165) (1,100) 1,0 0 7565) O65TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 50 85 J � 60_i 1._95 415 -760 O66TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 605 f720 95, (-605 255 665 (D INTERURBAN AVENUE S 1.405 SB RAMPS 80 50 90 65j �k 70 35-► .-55 330, (-205 1 }I" 525 265 55 INTERURBAN AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 60 135 250 160_i - ks_625 755~ - -800 165-) (-315 1• 5r- 185 500 5 OAKSDALE AVE SW SW GRADY WAY 25 365 115 255_i ▪ �!_60 1,055~ f830 205-) r40 • f r 330 65 20 .1 3 61ST AVENUE S TUKWILA PARKWAY (1,150) 710 11,000 (1,035) (560) 475 _) A.._ 615 (580) (560) 445 175 (255) MALL ENTRANCEII -405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY (355) 280 _) 4 320 (260) (600) 620 f 610 (500) (420) 235 , r 55 (80) 155 50 (175) i 50) 120 (170) 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1-405 NB RAMPS 0 320�r 315 1 &,15 10-...- f5 390--) r10 510 10 1, 00 Figure 3 -3A i Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion [Ili 3 -24 M:O210301)7 Sou ^,ant: Ma I.Gr3p!ncs,,(3rst,lncc`_ ' E> .,rocak CC 0 9i 11.16 1 p 53RD AVE S O KLICKITAT DR 645-► .4-780 80, x120 20 85 OANDOVER PARK W 5 TUKWILA PARKWAY (385) 480 -► f 550 (425) (350) 375 r 255 (305) (415) 540 250 (285) 0 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA PARKWAY 520 -+ x-215 200-) x225 355 400 O KLICKITAT DR 1 -5 SB ON -RAMP 710 65 L 585 85 ANDOVER PARK W ,0• BAKER BLVD (510) 460 (110)50 1 400 (55) (95) 70 _ 4_ 65 (35) (45) 35 f 45 (55) (120) 45 1 r 90 (60) (145) 0 0(60) 605 (430) LEGEND WEEKDAY PM PEAK X PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK & (X) a SATURDAY PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK Transpo Group SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1.5 NB OFF-RAMP/NORDSTROM'S (100) 140 J (135) 60 -► (25) 40 -) (1,040) 855 35(55) 455(115) (- 240 (310) i145 (260) 700 (930) SOUTHCENTER PKWY KLICKITAT DR (935) 685 (475) 395 (275) 200 J (710) 585 (1,055) -9..d i 565 (855) SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2'3 1.5 NB OFF -RAMP (RIGHT ONL (1,650) 1,180 1 (285) 380 1,475 (1,885) 0 SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2 4 STRANDER BLVD (1,355) 1,035 (630) + 585 (715) (- 355 (635) I235 (775) 820 (1,170) MALL/TARGET DVWY 25. STRANDER BLVD (70) 45 (195) 140 I L 5 (195) (225) 140 J L 160 (210) (485) 415 .- 590 (525) (250)125, (- 80 (140) r. 100 11 (190) (130) 45 (70) ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD (460) 375 (225) 1 I 220 (240) (205) 125 ! 4 165 (200) (545) 380 505 505 (560) (205) 105 ' ' (- 130 (155) (235) 180 90 130) 470 (365) 2 7 ANDOVER PARK E STRANDER BLVD 315 130 150 100_i k.'`95 425 .-435 125-) (-125 1 245 8 40 CDWEST VALLEY HIGHWAY O STRANDER BLVD 1, 30 310 35 435, &10 30-► .-20 440-) (-20 275 5 1, 65 2 =9, O SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST (1,785) 1,270 (20)5 j 1 30(85) (30)5, 35(100) (5) 0 -► .- 0 (0) (5)5, (- 15 (70) (5 ) 5 i 1040) 1,135 (1,620) SOUTHCENTER PKWY MINKLER BLVD r 55 1,d25 (-105 0 ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 90 0 1 70j `140 100 .-90 35, (-60 251 25 5 3 2 ANDOVER PARK E MINKLER BLVD 45 11115 30 60J &55 30-.► .-60 95-) (-80 �100 45 45 3 6 0 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 180TH ST 35 280 405 J L 175JL405 275-.- x-490 30, (-145 20130 90 3 7 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 180TH ST 9$0 80 300 11ojJ 580-■ 565-) (-75 470 55 85 ANDOVER PARK W S 180TH ST 90 230 300 J �► 80j U00 515 -790 5-) } (-20 20135 3 5 ANDOVER PARK E S 180TH ST 125 245 125_) J &150 720 --.- x-840 SPERRY DR S 180TH ST 55 I 330 J �► 75J 250 910 -885 S,I• r (-5 15 45 72ND AVE S S 180TH ST 920 .-755 65-) (-10 110 55 0 OAKSDALE AVE SW S 180TH ST 115 160 65 L- 115_ �( 55 1,045 .-900 85-) (-75 r 80 85 85 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 196TH ST 1,705 40 370 45J • k300 315 -455 240, (-245 � 235 r 95 A N OX LEGEND = WEEKDAY PM PEAK X = PM PEAK HOUR 0 SATURDAY PEAK & (K) • SATURDAY PEAK HOUR x WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -3B pan Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion F.4:10_',03037 Soutra.nter Ma!6Crap•.r1;1Gr41.oa; ^_ • C, I nC3h 7:.* -1 1.1.', Transpo Group 3 -25 Table 3 -2 Existing (2004) Weekday PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Summa Int. # Signalized Intersections' _ . Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS Delay a V/C4 Tukwila International Blvd /S 154th Street D 46.8 0.81 2 42nd Ave S/S 154"' Street D 42.9 0.76 5 1 -5 SB Ramp (53fd Ave S) /S 154`" Street C 26.4 0.82 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd. B 12.6 0.71 7 61s Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.28 9 66th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd D 48.3 0.92 10 Interurban Ave S/I -405 Southbound Ramps E 65.4 1.04 11 Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F 81.9 1.14 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way D 44.0 0.83 13 61st Ave S/Tukwila Parkway D 39.7 0.96 14 Mall Entrance (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 17.3 0.54 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.7 0.79 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Parkway C 23.7 0.57 17 West Valley Highway /I -405 Northbound Ramp D 38.8 0.96 18 53rd Ave S /Klickitat Drive B 12.4 0.71 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance) B 13.0 0.43 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entrance) C 23.9 0.57 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive D 41.2 0.85 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd C 30.1 0.86 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 21.3 0.60 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd D 41.6 0.77 27 Andover Park E /Strander Blvd C 34.5 0.69 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd D 44.7 0.92 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street A 9.5 0.48 30 Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Blvd A 9.3 0.48 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd C 34.5 0.66 32 Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd D 48.3 0.82 33 Southcenter Parkway /S 180th Street E 57.0 0.95 34 Andover Park W/S 180"' Street D 36.5 0.75 35 Andover Park E/S 180"' Street B 14.2 0.63 36 Sperry Drive /S 180th Street B 20.0 0.76 37 West Valley Highway /S 180th Street D 41.3 0.81 38 72nd Ave S/S 180th Street A 7.4 0.52 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street B 18.9 0.62 40 West Valley Highway /S 196th Street D 54.3 0.95 Int. # . , Unsi gnalized Intersections_ -_ Weekday PM Peak 'Hour 6 LOS Delay WM 3 51st Ave S /SR 518 Westbound On -Ramp B 12.0 NB Left 4 51S` Ave S /SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp E 35.7 EB Left 8 65`h Ave S /Southcenter Blvd E 38.5 SB Left 19 Klickitat Drive /I -5 SB On -Ramp C 15.1 SB Left 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramp D 25.7 EB Right Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement. App = Approach. 3 -26 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -3 Existing (2004) Saturday Peak -Hour Level of Service Summa Int. # Saturday Study Intersections' Saturday Peak Hour LOS2 Delay3 WM or V/C4 7 61sT Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F 92.4 1.20 13 615` Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway F >80.0 1.32 14 Mall Entrance (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Parkway B 13.8 0.61 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 30.0 0.76 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd B 13.1 0.53 21 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Ramp(Mall Entrance) C 30.8 0.78 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive D 54.8 1.01 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramps D 31.0 EB Right 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd F 80.7 1.15 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 30.4 0.75 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd D 51.8 0.86 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street B 16.5 0.70 Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. WM = Worst Movement, V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. The results in Table 3 -2 for the weekday PM peak hour show that two of the 35 signal- ized study intersections currently operate at LOS F while none of the unsignalized study intersections currently operate at LOS F. The intersection of 61st Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard operates at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.28, while Interurban Avenue/ South - center Boulevard also operates at LOS F with a v/c ratio of 1.14. The delay calculation for a signalized intersection becomes increasingly inaccurate beyond a v/c ratio of 1.20. Thus, when the v/c ratio exceeds 1.20 it is more appropriate to measure intersection op- erations and congestion by the v/c ratio rather than intersection delay because it is diffi- cult to predict the intersection delay. To reflect the potential inaccuracy of the delay val- ues in this circumstance, the intersection delay has been reported as greater than or equal to 80.0 seconds (the lower LOS F boundary) indicating the intersection is operating at LOS F. The remaining signalized study intersections are all operating at LOS E or above during the weekday PM peak hour. The Saturday peak -hour analysis results shown in Table 3 -3 indicate that three study in- tersections currently operate at LOS F during the Saturday peak hour and the remaining intersections operate at LOS D or better. All three study intersections operating at LOS F are signalized (61st Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard, 61sT Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway, and Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard). Special Considerations Traffic operations in the vicinity of Klickitat Drive, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard are a function of individual intersection delays, traffic progression between the closely spaced intersections, and the resulting vehicle queuing that occurs when traffic signal green times are not adequate to fully clear a particular movement through the inter- section. The results summarized in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 account for individual intersection Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -27 Transportation and Parking delays, which report corresponding intersection level of service. The analysis software does not account for close intersection spacing, short roadway segments (such as the Klickitat I -5 overpass), and vehicle queuing, thus these conditions were also assessed based on direct field observations. A similar situation exists due to the close proximity of the 61' Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard and 61" Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway intersec- tions, between which queuing sometimes occurs. Field observations demonstrate that actual traffic conditions in the Klickitat Drive, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard area are adversely affected by both the in- tersection spacing and the resultant queuing. Frequently, vehicles are forced to weave from one lane to the next in short distances or vehicle queues extend back to adjacent in- tersections, thus reducing the capacity of the affected intersection. As a result, actual traffic operations for the affected intersections 21, 22, 23, and 24 may be worse than sug- gested by the LOS calculations reported in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. The City of Tukwila has identified the shortcomings in this subarea and is taking steps to identify short- and long- term solutions. Arterial Level of Service Per Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48.070, the City of Tukwila has established an average level of service standard of LOS E or better for the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC), whose borders are defined in the Municipal Code. The Code identifies 17 segment and cordon locations within the TUC; these locations were combined to form 12 arterial segments by which arterial LOS and concurrency could be determined. The level of service for the TUC is determined by calculating the average arterial level of service for each segment, then averaging the segments to arrive at an average LOS for the TUC. Consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual, arterial level of service is reported in a range from LOS A to LOS F (LOS A indicating free flow and LOS F indicating failing conditions) and is a function of average travel speed (miles per hour) along the arterial. Existing arterial traffic conditions were evaluated for the 12 arterial segments within the TUC to establish current operating conditions in comparison to the City's threshold of LOS E. Table 3 -4 summarizes the results based on PM peak -hour conditions. The arterials evaluated under existing conditions are currently operating at LOS E or bet- ter during the PM peak hour. The TUC on average is operating at LOS D during the PM peak hour with an average travel speed of approximately 15 miles per hour. The results indicate the TUC is operating within the City's adopted LOS standards. Levels of service reported in Tables 3 -2, 3 -3, and 3 -4 provide an observable frame of ref- erence for reviewing and understanding forecast conditions, and for identifying potential transportation impacts. 3 -28 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -4 Existing (2004) Arterial Level of Service Summary- PM Peak Hour Arterial Segment' PM ° Peak Hour Speed LOS Southcenter Pkwy: S 180"' St— Minkler Blvd 16.1 D Southcenter Pkwy: Minkler Blvd — Strander Blvd 23.1 C Southcenter Pkwy: Strander Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 16.2 D Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 11.4 D Andover Park W: Tukwila Pkwy—S 180'" St 16.3 D Andover Park E: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180th St 16.2 D Strander Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 11.6 E Minkler Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 12.2 E S 180th St: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 14.6 D 61st Ave S: Southcenter Blvd— Tukwila Pkwy 7.4 E 66th Ave S: Southcenter Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 12.7 D Klickitat Dr: SR 518 WB on- ramp — Southcenter Pkwy 21.2 C TUC Average 14.9 D Notes: 1. Per TMC 9.48.050 Driveway Operations Existing operating conditions at the project site driveways were analyzed using the same methodologies as the study intersections. Traffic counts were conducted at the site drive- ways in 2003 and used in this analysis, along with the through movement traffic volumes from their respective adjacent study intersections. The driveway traffic counts were con- ducted prior to Bahama Breeze and Olive Garden opening in May and October 2003, respectively. However, the driveway volumes were adjusted to account for the an- ticipated levels of traffic associated with these restaurants and accounted for in the exist- ing driveway operations analysis. Nine separate driveways serve the project site, four of which are signalized and were ana- lyzed as study intersections. Table 3 -5 shows the existing LOS operating conditions at all nine driveways during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. As Table 3 -5 shows, during. the PM peak hour, all of the study driveways currently oper- ate at LOS C or better, with the exception of Andover Park W/North Driveway, which operates at LOS E. During the Saturday peak hour, the unsignalized driveway at Ando- ver Park W/North Driveway also operates at LOS E. In both cases the LOS E reflects the delay experienced by the outbound left -turn movement. During the Saturday peak hour, two driveways currently operate at LOS F: Tukwila Parkway/ West Driveway and West Driveway /Strander Boulevard. These driveways are unsignalized and experience the highest vehicle delay on their respective left -turn move- ments exiting the shopping center. At this level of driveway congestion, calculated vehi- cle delay values become increasingly inaccurate. This is due to the sensitivity of the ve- hicle delay equation and, as a result, vehicle delay exponentially increases at a dispropor- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -29 Transportation and Parking tionate rate. Thus, LOS F best represents operations in this situation, and delay is trun- cated at greater than 50.0 seconds (the lower LOS F boundary) to indicate this condition. Table 3 -5 Existing (2004) Driveway Level of Service Summa Signalized Site Driveways' Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour LOS2 Delay3 V/C4 LOS Delay V/C ( #14) Mall Entry (1 -405 NB)/Tukwila Pkwy B 17.3 0.54 B 13.8 0.61 ( #20) Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) B 13.0 0.43 B 13.1 0.53 ( #25) Mall- Target Entry/Strander Blvd C 21.3 0.60 C 30.4 0.75 ( #21) Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB (Mall Entry) C 23.9 0.57 C 30.8 0.78 Unsignalized Site Driveways5 LOS Delay WMb LOS Delay WM Tukwila Pkwy/West Driveway C 20.7 NB Left F >50.0 NB Left Andover Park W /South Driveway C 18.0 EB Left C 22.4 EB Left Andover Park W /North Driveway E 43.3 EB Left E 42.9 EB Left West Driveway /Strander Blvd C 18.5 SB Left F >50.0 SB Left Southcenter Pkwy /North Driveway C 20.1 WB App. D 33.6 WB App. Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio 5. LOS and delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement. Transit King County Metro is the primary transit service provider in the study area. Regional service is provided by Sound Transit in the form of Sounder, commuter rail service. Transit Coverage Transit routes in the study area provide connections between the Westfield Shoppingtown at Southcenter project site /Tukwila Urban Center and the neighboring communities, downtown Seattle, and regional destinations. Additional regional transit opportunities exist via the commuter rail Sounder station, which is located to the east of the site on S Longacres Way, approximately 1 mile walking distance from the site. Transit Service Levels Table 3 -6 summarizes the existing transit service in the site vicinity. This table includes information on the service routes, times, frequencies, and areas served. As Table 3 -6 illustrates, the majority of existing routes operate during the weekday peaks, midday, and evening periods, and on weekends. During morning and afternoon peak periods, existing routes operate with headways ranging from 15 to 60 minutes. Ser- vice headways range from 30 to 60 minutes during the weekday off -peak (non- commute) periods and on weekends. In addition to the Metro bus routes shown in Table 3 -6, Sound Transit's Sounder commuter train operates on weekdays with three northbound and three 3 -30 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking southbound trains in both the AM and PM peak hours with 15- minute headways between each train. Table 3 -6 Existing Transit Service Route Approx. Service Times and Frequencies (minutes) Major Areas Served Peak Hour Midday /Early Evening Evening Weekend 39 30 30 — 30 Downtown Seattle /Rainier Valley/ Southcenter 124 60 — — — Allentown (North Tukwila) /Southcenter 128 30 30 30 30 to 60 West Seattle/Whitecenter /Southcenter 140 15 30 60 60 Burien /Renton /SeaTac /Southcenter 150 15 30 30 30 Downtown Seattle /Southcenter/ Kent/Auburn 155 60 60 — 60 Southcenter /Fairwood /Renton Source: Transpo Group, 2003 Transit Stops Currently, there are two transit zones that serve the project site. All of the transit routes listed in Table 3 -6 serve the transit zone located on Andover Park W adjacent to the site. The zone consists of a designated stop on the west side of the street, mid -block between Strander Boulevard and Baker Boulevard, with its partnering stop located on the eastern side of Andover Park W. Transit shelters and a bus pull -out exist on the west side of An- dover Park W. The second zone is located on Strander Boulevard, near the signalized shopping center driveway. The eastbound transit stop at this location is served by one route (Metro route 155) and the westbound stop is served by five of the six routes listed in Table 3 -6. Surveys and focus group interviews of transit riders completed on behalf of the City of Tukwila in 2003 (Perteet Engineering 2003 /Carolyn Browne Associates 2003) indicated that local transit riders seek improved seating at the primary Tukwila transit zone (located near Andover Park W /Baker Boulevard intersection), expanded service hours and fre- quency in the evening hours, and improved intra -city travel options. Riders most com- monly requested improved amenities at the primary Tukwila transit zone with improved maintenance and upkeep. In terms of specific route improvements, riders requested bet- ter transit connections between the shopping center area, commercial businesses along Southcenter Parkway, and the Sounder commuter rail station. Also, interest in a dedi- cated Tukwila -to- Seattle express route was noted in the survey and focus group inter- views. The general absence of late evening routes to serve retail employees in the area was also noted. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -31 Transportation and Parking Non - Motorized Facilities Walking and bicycling are important elements of the transportation system, especially as each relates to travel mode choice and the effort to reduce vehicular travel. The follow- ing sub - sections describe the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the site vi- cinity. Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks exist on most principal arterials, minor arterials, and local access streets within the immediate area. In a few intermittent locations, sidewalks may exist on only one side of the roadway. The sidewalks in the area range in width and condition. In addition, most signalized study intersections include crosswalks, pedestrian pushbuttons, and sig- nal- protected crossings to facilitate pedestrian circulation. Bicycle Facilities No designated (striped) on- street bicycle lanes exist within the study area. The current King County Bicycling Guide Map, a comprehensive guide of the region's bicycling net- work, is published by King County. The map illustrates Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila Parkway, Strander Boulevard, Andover Park W, Andover Park E, and portions of South - center Boulevard as roadways with heavy traffic volumes without a wide curb lane or paved shoulder. In addition, the King County Bicycling Guide Map illustrates S 180th Street as a roadway for bicyclists to use with caution, as it has heavy traffic volumes without a wide curb lane or shoulder. In the project vicinity, Klickitat Drive and S 154th Street are noted as having moderate to heavy traffic with a wide curb lane or paved shoulders. West Valley Highway has three different designations in the study area on the King County Bicycling Guide Map, including designations as having either moderate or heavy traffic both with and without a wide curb lane or paved shoulder. Between 1 -405 and S 180th Street, the map suggests using West Valley Highway with caution due to the high traffic volumes. The King County Bicycling Guide Map also shows the paved Green River Trail located to the east of the project site, which provides a north -south bicycle route in the study area. Major trail access points to the Green River trail are located east of the Andover Park E/ Strander Boulevard intersection and on Southcenter Boulevard near 66th Avenue S. An- other paved trail, the Interurban Trail, also exists east of the site, beginning near I -405 and continuing to the south. With study area streets lacking on- street bicycle lanes, any existing bicycle activity must use the street travel lanes, the paved trails, or paved shoul- ders where they exist. The City _ of Tukwila's Transportation Element: Background Report (City of Tukwila, 1993) identifies Southcenter Boulevard and Klickitat Drive as being "Bike /Ped Trails." A former railroad easement beginning near Tukwila Parkway, mid -block between Ando- ver Park W and Andover Park E and heading south, is categorized as a "Bike `Friendly' 3 -32 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Street" by the Report, before heading east and connecting with the Green River and In- terurban Trails. Traffic Safety Records of reported vehicle collisions were reviewed within the study area to document existing traffic safety issues. In addition, collision data at those locations within the City of Kent and the City of Renton that are within the study area were obtained and summa- rized for the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2002, representing the most recent three years of complete collision data for each city. A historical review of the fre- quency of collisions was conducted at all study intersections. A summary of the average annual number of collisions is shown in Table 3 -7. In addition, the table shows the colli- sions per million entering vehicles (MEV) based on the average daily traffic (ADT) vol- umes at each study intersection. ADT was estimated to be 13 times the PM peak -hour traffic volumes entering each respective intersection. This factor was derived based on a comparison of weekday PM peak -hour volumes to average daily traffic volumes at vari- ous locations within the study area. The study intersection with the highest rate of collisions during the three -year period, as shown in Table 3 -7, is Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard (Intersection #24). The second highest rate of collisions occurred at Southcenter Parkway /Minter Boulevard (In- tersection #30). Both of these locations have a collision rate exceeding 2.0 collisions per MEV. Six other study intersections were estimated to have a MEV rate greater than 1.0, but less than 2.0. Generally, any intersection that has an MEV rate higher than 1.0 is monitored for collision trends and potential improvements. The two intersections noted above (Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard and South - center Parkway /Strander Boulevard) were evaluated in further detail. In order to do this, collision records provided by the City of Tukwila were reviewed in an attempt to identify predominant collision types and possible collision patterns. Findings for each intersec- tion are given below. Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard Approximately 36 percent of the collisions at this intersection are believed to be related to private driveways adjacent to the intersection and not necessarily an intersection - related collision. Collision data provided by the City of Tukwila do not give the distance from the intersection that the collision occurred. However, based on the direction of each vehicle in each collision and the layout of the intersection, non - intersection - related colli- sions were ascertained. Of the remaining intersection - related collisions, the predominant collision type at Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard was rear -end collisions, ac- counting for approximately 30 percent of the collisions during the three -year period. Ap- proach turn, sideswipe, and right -angle collisions make up approximately 60 percent of the collisions at the intersection. The frequency of collisions at this location is likely at- tributable, in part, to the congestion that is created by weaving and vehicle queuing that Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -33 Transportation and Parking Table 3 -7 Collision Summary: 2000 -2002 Int. # Intersection Co troy 2000 2001 2002 Total Avg/Yr MEV2 1 International Blvd /S 154th St Signal. 3 4 1 8 2.7 0.18 2 42nd Ave S/S 154th St Signal. 2 2 0 4 1.3 0.14 3 51s` Ave S /SR 518 WB On -Ramp Unsignal. 0 2 0 2 0.7 0.13 4 51st Ave S /SR 518 EB Off -Ramp Unsignal. 1 4 1 6 2.0 0.26 5 1 -5 SB Ramp /S 154th St Signal. 3 2 7 12 4.0 0.36 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 10 12 18 40 13.3 0.78 7 61st Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 22 17 20 59 19.7 1.02 8 65th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Unsignal. 1 0 1 2 0.7 0.10 9 66th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 2 3 4 9 3.0 0.22 10 Interurban Ave S/I -405 SB Ramps Signal. 12 17 14 43 14.3 1.01 11 Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd Signal. 9 15 19 43 14.3 0.61 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way Signal. 6 5 2 13 4.3 0.24 13 61s` Ave S/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 11 10 9 20 10.0 0.64 14 1 -405 NB Ramp/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 7 8 8 23 7.7 0.69 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Pkwy Signal. 13 10 12 35 11.7 1.29 17 W Valley Hwy /I -405 NB Ramp Signal. 1 0 1 2 0.7 0.04 18 53`d Ave S /Klickitat Dr Signal. 1 6 4 11 3.7 0.46 19 Klickitat Dr /I -5 SB On -Ramp Unsignal. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd Signal. 1 4 5 10 3.3 0.44 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp/ Mall Entrance Signal. 1 1 0 2 0.7 0.05 22 Southcenter Pkwy /Klickitat Dr Signal. 20 13 11 44 14.7 0.97 23 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp Unsignal. 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 24 Southcenter Pkwy /Strander Blvd Signal. 31 46 38 115 38.3 2.39 25 Target -Mall Entrance /Strander Blvd Signal. 1 0 0 1 0.3 0.04 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd Signal. 12 20 14 46 15.3 1.18 27 Andover Park E /Strander Blvd Signal. 9 5 6 20 6.7 0.51 28 W Valley Hwy /Strander Blvd Signal. 18 18 12 48 16.0 0.88 29 Southcenter Pwky /S 168th St Signal. 1 0 2 3 1.0 0.09 30 Southcenter Pkwy /Minkler Blvd Signal. 20 37 29 86 28.7 2.43 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd Signal. 6 4 1 11 3.7 0.51 32 Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd Signal. 13 4 4 21 7.0 0.95 33 Southcenter Pkwy /S 180`h St Signal. 18 12 17 47 15.7 1.29 34 Andover Park W/S 1801h St Signal. 5 12 7 24 8.0 0.74 35 Andover Park E/S 180th St Signal. 8 5 5 18 6.0 0.59 36 Sperry Dr /S 180th St Signal. 4 5 1 10 3.3 0.28 37 W Valley Hwy /S 180`" St Signal. 21 29 25 75 25.0 1.13 38 72nd Ave S/S 180th St Signal. 10 14 1 25 8.3 0.95 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th St Signal. 2 5 6 13 4.3 0.33 40 W Valley Hwy /S 196th St Signal. 4 9 3 16 5.3 0.23 1. Intersection Control; Signal.= Signalized Intersection, Unsignal. = Unsignalized Intersection 2. MEV= Collisions per million entering vehicles 3 -34 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking occurs during the peak hours. Improving traffic conditions within the vicinity of this lo- cation would likely improve traffic safety. Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard The predominant collision types at the Southcenter Parkway/Minkler Boulevard intersec- tion during the three -year period were rear end and right -angle collisions, accounting for approximately 34 and 27 percent of the total collisions, respectively. Of the rear -end col- lisions, approximately 79 percent involved southbound vehicles at the intersection rear - ending other southbound vehicles. The rear -end collisions are likely attributable to high volumes on the Southcenter Parkway corridor. Of the right angle collisions, approxi- mately 61 percent involved vehicles making prohibited left turns from the right- out -only private driveway that forms the western leg of the intersection. These vehicles are not controlled by the traffic signal at this intersection, but instead are stop - controlled and ex- pected to turn right only. These right -angle collisions involve vehicles that complete an illegal left turn or through movement and collide with southbound vehicles on Southcen- ter Parkway. In addition to these two predominant collision types, approach turn and sideswipe collisions together account for approximately 35 percent of the collisions at the intersection. Traffic safety could potentially be improved by eliminating the opportunity for illegal movements at this location. Feedback from City staff and the Tukwila Police Department indicates the area immedi- ately surrounding the study site is characterized as having a high number of traffic acci- dents, particularly at the unsignalized driveways along the perimeter of the site. A review of historical data did not provide conclusive information regarding the type or location(s) of collision trends. With more detailed monitoring, the City may be able to determine if and where collision trends are occurring in an effort to improve traffic safety. Parking Parking for the shopping center is provided in paved surface parking lots that surround the mall. There are currently 6,679 parking stalls on site that serve the shopping center and the out parcels. With the demolition of the former Doubletree Hotel and resurfacing that site, parking will increase to approximately 7,383 stalls. In comparison to the total gross leasable area of the existing mall, the existing parking supply equates to approxi- mately 5.1 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Parking demand for the existing shopping center was calculated using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, Second Edition (1999). The methodology established by ULI indicates that restaurant, entertainment, and/or cinema uses can be included with the general retail uses found at typical shopping centers. The methodology identifies a recommended parking ratio of 4.5 stalls per gross leasable area (GLA) of the shopping center. This parking ratio was found to provide the typical shop- ping center with sufficient parking to serve the needs of customers and employees at the 20`h busiest hour of the year. This methodology implies that parking demand would ex- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -35 Transportation and Parking ceed this parking ratio only 19 business hours of the year. For the remaining 3,000 busi- ness hours of the year, parking demand would be less than this ratio. Based on the existing gross leasable area of the shopping center, including outparcels and restaurants, the existing parking demand during the 20th busiest hour is anticipated to be approximately 5,850 stalls. In comparison to the parking supply, there is enough parking to accommodate average and peak parking conditions on -site. City code requires 5.0 stalls per 1,000 sf of useable floor area for the "shopping center, planned" land use category that is applicable to the site. This rate would apply to existing uses on -site. Useable floor area is defined as any part of the structure floor area that is used for sales, display, walkways or storage, but excludes common corridors designed for the circulation of people. Based on useable floor area information provided by Westfield and the parking code requirement, the existing site would be required to provide ap- proximately 5,764 stalls on -site. The existing supply exceeds this amount and therefore meets code requirements. Appendix B -1 provides a summary of the calculations used to estimate parking demand and code requirements. Impacts of the No Action Alternative This section of the Draft EIS describes expected transportation and parking conditions within the study area if no expansion were to occur at the existing shopping center. The No Action Alternative assumes that the existing land uses, on -site structures, parking, and driveways would remain unchanged. The transportation and parking analysis for the No Action Alternative was conducted for the weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour conditions in 2010. While the Proposed Action is scheduled to be complete in 2006, a 2010 horizon year was selected by City of Tukwila staff to provide a longer -range forecast to evaluate potential impacts of the Proposed Ac- tion. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparison to the Proposed Ac- tion by which transportation and parking impacts can be measured and possible mitiga- tion measures defined. Planned Improvements Planned transportation improvements within the study area are discussed below and are categorized into Roadway, Transit, and Non - Motorized Improvements. A review of planned improvements provides an overview of what the transportation system could look like by the 2010 horizon year. Roadway Improvements The City of Tukwila has identified several roadway and intersection improvement pro- jects in their Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program 2004 -2009 (TIP). Within the study area, those projects that are funded and were identified by City of Tukwila staff 3 -36 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking as being likely to be constructed by the 2010 horizon year were assumed as part of the analysis. These projects include: • TUC Traffic Signal Interconnect. This project includes the installation of hard wire interconnect systems between traffic signals in the TUC, effectively coordi- nating the operations between adjacent traffic signals (the TUC encompasses much of the project study area). The City has received federal grant funding to support implementation of this planned improvement. • Southcenter Parkway Improvements. This project includes the widening of Southcenter Parkway to four lanes and providing a center left -turn lane from S 180th Street south to, the Tukwila city limits. Curb, gutter, sidewalks, drainage, landscaping and utility work would all occur simultaneously with the roadway widening. ■ Andover Park E /Minkler Boulevard Intersection Improvements. This project includes construction of left -turn lanes for both the north and south legs of Ando- ver Park E, allowing for signal phasing improvements to the intersection. ■ S 168th Street Roadway Extension. This project includes construction of S 168th Street so that it connects between its eastern terminus to Andover Park W, provid- ing a full connection between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park W. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, illumination, and landscaping improvements would all occur as part of the project. • West Valley Highway /S 156th Street (I -405 NB). This project includes con- struction of an additional northbound left -turn lane from West Valley Highway to the I -405 northbound ramps exclusively for HOV traffic. This improvement was not incorporated into the operations analysis because the improvement would not be available for general traffic use. This approach results in a conservative analy- sis of operations at this particular intersection because some percentage of northbound left - turning traffic would use this new turn lane in the future. • West Valley Highway Improvements. This project includes widening West Valley Highway to seven lanes between I -405 and Strander Boulevard. Curb, gutter, sidewalks, illumination, and drainage would also be constructed as part of the project. • Minkler Boulevard Improvements. This project includes widening Minkler Boulevard to three lanes from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park W. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, and landscaping would all be constructed as part of the project. In addition to the projects listed above, the City of Renton is planning to construct a roadway extension that crosses through both jurisdictions. The first phase of the Strander Boulevard extension would extend from West Valley Highway to Oaksdale Avenue SW. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -37 Transportation and Parking In future phases of the project, Strander Boulevard would be extended further to the east to connect with SR 167. However, for this study, no portion of the Strander Boulevard extension was assumed complete, as the roadway extension is not anticipated to be con- structed by the time of the horizon year of 2010. Other roadway improvements in the area that may not be complete by the. 2010 horizon year include major revisions to the Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Ramps/ Strander Boulevard area that are intended to increase capacity and access for the Tukwila TUC. Because this large -scale project is still in the preliminary planning stages and unfunded, it has not been included in the 2010 analyses. Similarly, long -range plans to improve the I -405 corridor in the vicinity of the site have been identified by WSDOT. The I -405 improvements would add general - purpose lanes to I -405 and modify interchange locations and configu- ration within the study area. As a part of planned improvements to I -405, the 61st Avenue S bridge over I -405 is anticipated to be reconstructed with the expectation that additional capacity would be added to the bridge. Such an improvement would improve operating conditions at the 61st Avenue S intersections with Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway. WSDOT has secured partial funding for the I -405 improvements; however, the timing of full project completion is uncertain and unlikely to occur prior to the 2010 hori- zon year. Transit Improvements The Tukwila Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program 2004 -2009 includes the construction of a TUC transit center that will serve as a major hub for transit activity in the Tukwila TUC. However, the location and extent of the transit center are still in the planning stages at this time so no specific adjustments were made in the No Action Al- ternative, or in assumptions about background traffic growth to reflect this planned im- provement. Sound Transit is in the process of formalizing plans for a permanent commuter rail sta- tion in the area, replacing the temporary station currently located on the Longacres- Boeing site. The site would potentially include a transit center and a park and ride lot with up to 415 parking spaces. King County Metro (Metro) indicates in its Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007 that it will restructure transit service in the area once this station is complete. Also in its Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007, Metro identifies a `Tukwila Shuttle Circulator' service as a potential service area need, which may result in the shuttle's inclusion as a priority for new service or improvements to existing Metro transit service. There are no specific plans for such a service, but Metro has identified this as a potential new market area. No changes in transit - related travel patterns were made in the No Action Alternative to reflect this potential new service. In addition, Metro plans various revisions to current routes. Route 126 would be created between Southcenter and Rainier Beach, replacing route 39 which had previously been noted as needing an improvement as it does not extend to the project site during the AM peak hours or in the evening. In addition, routes 128, 140, 150, and 155 have been identi- 3 -38 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking feed for potential improvements in service hours and frequency, addressing many con- cerns noted in the draft Existing Transit Conditions memorandum prepared by Perteet Engineering. For instance, route 140 is projected to possibly operate between 4:30 a.m. and 12:20 a.m. seven days a week, an extension of current AM and PM operating hours. Increased service hours such as these would allow more employees on -site and within the study area to utilize transit service, which would potentially decrease traffic and parking demand within the study area. The planned improvements outlined in Metro's Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007 address a number of the concerns identified by existing transit riders within the study area, particularly with respect to increased bus frequency and extended service hours. The improvements do not address the transit community's desire to im- prove transit facilities on Andover Park W. To the extent that these transit investments result in improved transit accessibility to the TUC, the rate of vehicular traffic growth may be less than assumed herein. The resulting analysis could be considered to be based on a conservatively high traffic forecast. This approach provides a conservative estimate of vehicle - related trips in the No Action Alter- native, as it is likely that a share of vehicle trips will switch to transit or rail when these improvements are implemented. Non - Motorized Improvements The City of Tukwila's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program 2004 -2009 identi- fies several non - motorized, improvements in the study area that will occur in conjunction with roadway improvements. Specifically, sidewalks and related infrastructure will be constructed at the following locations to connect portions of existing sidewalks already located in places along each roadway: • Southcenter Parkway: from S 180th Street to the Southern city limits • S 168`h Street: from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park W • West Valley Highway: from I -405 to Strander Boulevard • Minkler Boulevard: from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park W Traffic Volumes 2010 peak -hour traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative are comprised of three elements: existing traffic, background traffic growth that encompasses general traffic growth and future developments that may occur within the area by 2010, and background traffic shifts assumed due to roadway improvements constructed in the study area that will influence existing travel patterns. Existing Traffic Existing 2002 and 2003 traffic counts were collected as described previously in the Af- fected Environment section. These traffic counts, which were previously factored upward Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -39 Transportation and Parking from the original count date to arrive at estimated 2004 existing volumes, were used as the basis from which all future 2010 traffic volumes were derived. Background Growth and Pipeline Projects For purposes of developing a reasonable estimate of future traffic volumes in the area, traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative were estimated by increasing existing vol- umes by an annual growth rate. Based on historic TUC traffic data from the past decade available from the City of Tukwila, a single growth rate was found to be applicable to the entire study area. An annual growth rate of 1.5 percent was applied to all study area in- tersections, as is consistent with the historic counts for daily traffic growth. As noted in the prior section on planned transit/rail improvements, this approach does not assume re- duced growth rates due to increased transit use, and may thus be conservative. At the time of project scoping, no pipeline projects were identified by the City of Tukwila for inclusion in the analysis. Pipeline projects are development projects that are in the permitting process or have been approved and would have significant impacts on traffic conditions on the study area being evaluated, by the 2010 horizon year. Background Traffic Shifts due to Roadway Improvements The City of Tukwila TIP identifies a roadway extension project that will create a connec- tion on or near the S 168th Street alignment between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park W. In order to account for resulting shifts in background traffic due to the new roadway, adjustments were made to the 2010 baseline traffic volumes based on existing travel patterns in the area and the projected future volumes of turning movements at adja- cent intersections that would likely take advantage of the new east -west connection. The traffic forecasts in the South 168th Street Draft EIS (June 1987, Entranco) were also used as a guideline to forecast volumes with the planned roadway extension. Existing traffic volumes inflated by 1.5 percent per year, in addition to the shifts in traffic noted above, result in the forecast 2010 traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative. Figures 3 -4A and 3 -4B illustrate future weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour traffic vol- umes at the respective study intersections for the No Action Alternative. Traffic Operations Weekday peak -hour intersection levels of service were calculated for each of the study intersections for the No Action Alternative. The planned intersection and roadway im- provements discussed previously were assumed complete and incorporated into the analysis. The signal timings (cycle length/phase splits) at the signalized study intersec- tions were optimized in the No Action Alternative analysis to reflect the 2010 horizon year, and the city's multiple TIP improvements related to signal coordination in the TUC. It is assumed that by 2010, some degree of modification would occur at all of the study intersection traffic signals. In addition, the City's planned signal improvements in the TUC would allow the signals to optimize and coordinate based on actual demand. Thus, 3 -40 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking OINTERNATIONAL BLVD S 154TH STREET 1,075 170 130 250J • L145 165y ♦355 195--) (-145 295 50 65 42ND AVE S 51 ST AVE S 51ST AVE S S 154TH STREET 3 SR 518 WB ON -RAMP O SR 518 EB OFF -RAMP 35 � t r 55J L195 390-■ +550 (-355 65 21 795 25J 700, ,¢5 O53RD AVE S (1-5 SB RAMP) O MACADAM RD S S 154TH STREET SOUTHCENTER BLVD 65 125 L■ 90 L140 525 ■ -4-630 205 ♦1,650 35, `-45 1,930 1 25 60 0 61ST AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD (285) 805 f 865 (355) (2,190) 1,650 " r 225 (180) (1,205) 1,120 80 (70) 8 65TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 60 95 70J L105 510 -► -.-855 O66TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 715— —810 105• (-660 280 • r INTERURBAN AVENUE S 1.405 SB RAMPS 190 55 100 J C 70JL75 40- ∎ f60 370-) (-225 575 92 5 0 INTERURBAN AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 745 160 I 275 18oJJ L685 840 - ∎ -0-885 215, (-345 205 545 0 1 OAKSDALE AVE SW SW GRADY WAY 20 400 125 J 2 � 80J L65 1,170 -■ x-920 225, (-45 360 70 25 61ST AVENUES TUKWILA PARKWAY (1,255) 7 1,100 (1,130) (610) 530 J L • 675 (635) (610) 485 -.- 190 (280) MALL ENTRANCE/1-405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY (390) 305 J L 350 (285) (655) 685 -..- 670 (545) (420)235, r 55 (80) (175)155 I 50 50) 120 (170) C) ANDOVER PARK W 1'S TUKWILA PARKWAY (420) 530 — f 600 (465) (385) 415 " r 280 (335) (455) 590 72 5 (310) 1 6 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA PARKWAY 570 --■ -4-300 220, (-245 390 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1-405 NB RAMPS 1,90 375 55 350JJ CL15 10- ■ --5 425'- r10 T/ 560 110 1,895 53RD AVE S KLICKITAT DR 705-■ ♦855 85-) (-135 20 105 1 n KLICKITAT DR 7 1.5 SB ON -RAMP A N 0. O ANDOVER PARK W 2 BAKER BLVD (560) 8 0 505 1 I �(6D) (95) 70 J + L 70 (40) (45) 35 f 45 (55) (120) 45 1 r 100 (65) 660 (145) 80 I 45 (65) 90 (470) LEGEND = WEEKDAY PM PEAK X = PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK & (X) = SATURDAY PEAK HOUR X, = WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -4A 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion MkO3tn30,7 Sn:t "cc ntor MJ!IiGtdphics'•G raIL;O5'D >bnd,ik I.:1 11 22 Transpo Group 3 -41 3 -42 SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1.5 NB OFF- RAMPINORDSTROM'S (110) 160 J (135) 60 (25) 50 (1,135) 955 35(55) + 55 (115) } r 240 (310) I r (260) 765 (1,015) SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2 2 KLICKITAT DR (1,020) 750 (520) 455 (300) 220 J (775) 640 1 (1,155) 990 1 620 (935) (2) SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1-5 NB OFF-RAMP (RIGHT ONL (1,805) 1,290 (310)415 1 1 1,615 (2,060) SOUTHCENTER PKWY STRANDER BLVD (1,620) 1,225 350 (550) 585 (705) r 190 (445) 1 72 (670) 950 (1,355) 0 5' MALL/TARGET DVWY STRANDER BLVD (70) 45 (195) 1 I ` (195) (225) 140 J L 160 (210) (215) 280 390 (255) (275) 135 , r 85 (155) (210) 110 120 (140) 45 (70) 2 6. ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD (575) 465 (175) 75 124 (260) (180) 115 J + k_ 180 (220) (470) 350 -.- 400 (435) (85) 30, `290 (345) (180), 0 (265) 535 (445) 2 7 ANDOVER PARK E STRANDER BLVD 40 140 165 110J &105 465 -475 135'' (-135 -l�r 270 200 55 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY STRANDER BLVD 1, 40 340 40 475JJ cL10 35-v- x--20 480' r20 300 5 1, 85 OSOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST (1,670) 1,170 (20) 115 (270) (35) 5 J L 155 (255) (5) 0 y f 0 (0) (5) 5 " r 215 (325) (5) 5 11 0 (250) 1,105 (1,525) SOUTHCENTER PKWY MINKLER BLVD 1, 90 85 k. 60 } r115 40 1, 40 CI ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 100 5 1 55J k_200 110+ 20, r65 —1 }r 15 25 30 3 2 ANDOVER PARK E MINKLER BLVD 50 125 35 65J �L60 35-o- 105-) r85 110 50 50 0 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 180TH ST 35 J 305 445 190J &_445 300 -535 35-) r160 20 10(- ANDOVER PARK W S 180TH ST 250 330 10 85JJ �4.....220 565 ■ f 865 5, r20 —1 }r 20 40 8 3 5 DOVER PARK E S 180TH ST 135 270 135JJ `165 785 f920 3 6 SPERRY DR S 180TH ST 60 360 L► 80J `275 995-■ f970 S-), r5 r 1550 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 180TH ST 1,045 85 330 120JJ 635- -► -625 620-1 r80 —1} r 515 60 95 Figure 3 -4B 2010 No Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion Ni .OS.IJ 3U2; So..rccoty MalkGrapnks G ,ph:uiS ..E ..rn :ak ■X X2-34 1....23 72ND AVE S S 180TH ST 1,005 -► 70, r10 -1 r 120 60 3 9 OAKSDALE AVE SW S 180TH ST 15 5J 175 70 12 L-L6o 1,145 -.- ..-985 95-1 r80 85 95 9 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 196TH ST 1, 65 45 405 L.- 50j k_330 345-.- -v--500 260-) x270 � � 0 1, 55 LEGEND O X = WEEKDAY PM PEAK X = PM PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK & (X) . SATURDAY PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK The Transpo Group optimization most closely represents forecast signal operating conditions in the future. Table 3 -8 summarizes weekday PM peak hour levels of service information at the study intersections for the No Action Alternative. Table 3 -9 illustrates Saturday peak -hour op- erations results. The results in Table 3 -8 for the weekday PM peak hour show that three of the 35 signal- ized study intersections and two of the five unsignalized study intersections are antici- pated to operate at LOS F. Two of the three signalized intersections operating at LOS F are along Interurban Avenue. The Interurban Avenue intersection at the 1 -405 south- bound ramps is forecast to fall from LOS E in existing conditions to LOS F in 2010 No Action conditions, whereas the intersection at Southcenter Boulevard is expected to con- tinue to operate at LOS F. The 61st Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard intersection would continue to operate at LOS F under the No Action Alternative. Two study intersections are anticipated to have noticeably improved LOS by 2010 under the No Action Alternative. The Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive intersection would improve from LOS D to LOS C as a result of optimizing the intersection cycle lengths and signal timing to forecast traffic volumes. Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd would im- prove from LOS D in existing conditions to LOS B under the No Action Alternative due to intersection improvements planned by the City. As discussed in the affected environment section, traffic operations in the vicinity of Klickitat Drive, Southcenter Parkway, and Strander Boulevard are a function of traffic congestion caused by weaving and vehicle queuing between the closely spaced intersec- tions, in addition to the intersection delay shown in Tables 3 -8 and 3 -9. As traffic vol- umes increase in this area, weaving and vehicle queues will have a greater effect on traf- fic operations in the area. As a result, actual traffic operations for the affected intersec- tions 21, 22, 23, and 24 would continue to be worse than level of service would indicate in Tables 3 -8 and 3 -9. Potential short-term solutions could include adjusting traffic sig- nal timing and coordination, whereas long -term solutions may require roadway widening or more substantial reconfiguration of the intersections. The analysis results shown in Table 3 -9 indicate that three Saturday study intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS F during the Saturday peak hour. The intersections on 61st Avenue S at Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway would continue to operate at LOS F, while the unsignalized intersection at Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Off -Ramp would fall from LOS D in existing conditions to LOS F in 2010 No Action conditions. A noticeable improvement in Saturday operations is expected to occur at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard as a result of traffic diverting to S 168th Street with the planned extension between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park W. The remaining study intersections operate at LOS E or better during the Satur- day peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -43 Transportation and Parking Table 3 -8 2010 No Action Alternative- Weekday PM Peak -Hour Intersection LOS Summary Int. # Signalized Intersections' Weekday PM Peak Hour LOW LOS Delay V/C4 Tukwila International Blvd /S 154th Street D 58.2 0.93 2 42 "d Ave S/S 154th Street E 66.4 0.95 5 1 -5 SB Ramp (53rd Ave S) /S 154th Street C 33.7 0.90 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd C 22.1 0.88 7 615t Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.47 9 66th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd D 37.8 1.05 10 Interurban Ave S/I -405 Southbound Ramps F >80.0 1.24 11 Interurban Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.32 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way D 51.7 0.96 13 61St Ave S/Tukwila Parkway E 57.1 1.04 14 Mall Entrance (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 10.7 0.62 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.9 0.88 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Parkway C 20.7 0.65 17 West Valley Highway /1=405 Northbound Ramp D 44.5 1.03 18 53`d Ave S /Klickitat Drive B 14.1 0.75 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance) B 13.6 0.44 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entrance) C 20.5 0.62 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive C 28.6 0.91 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd D 42.4 0.93 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.8 0.45 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd D 48.4 0.84 27 Andover Park E /Strander Blvd D 43.7 0.71 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd E 57.6 1.00 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street C 21.2 0.71 30 Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Blvd A 6.2 0.59 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd D 41.9 0.77 32 Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd B 14.3 0.45 33 Southcenter Parkway /S 180th Street E 66.1 1.06 34 Andover Park W/S 180th Street D 40.1 0.81 35 Andover Park E/S 180th Street B 18.4 0.70 36 Sperry Drive /S 180th Street B 15.9 0.77 37 West Valley Highway /S 180th Street D 45.6 0.88 38 72nd Ave S/S 180th Street B 10.2 0.45 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street B 19.3 0.70 40 West Valley Highway /S 196th Street E 68.7 1.03 Int. # Unsignalized Intersections Weekday PM Peak Hour 5 LOS Delay5 : WM 3 51St Ave S /SR 518 Westbound On -Ramp C 15.1 NB Left 4 51St Ave S /SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp F >50 EB Left 8 65th Ave S /Southcenter Blvd F >50 SB Left 19 Klickitat Drive /I -5 SB On -Ramp C 17.8 SB Left 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramp D 29.5 EB Right Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 3 -44 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -9 2010 No Action Alternative Saturday Peak -Hour Intersection LOS Summa Int. # Saturday Study Intersections' Saturday Peak Hour LOS Delay a WM or V/C4 61st Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.33 13 61st Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway F >80.0 1.39 14 Mall Entrance (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Parkway B 12.9 0.66 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.2 0.84 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd B 13.2 0.56 21 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Ramp(Mall Entrance) C 27.3 0.83 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive E 60.2 1.13 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -ramps F >50.0 EB Right 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd E 54.5 1.09 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.0 0.65 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd E 56.5 0.88 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street E 63.5 1.05 Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F). 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle. 4. WM = Worst Movement, V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. Arterial Level of Service Arterial traffic conditions within the TUC were evaluated for 2010 No Action Alternative conditions for comparison to the City of Tukwila's threshold of LOS E. Table 3 -10 summarizes the results and provides a summary of existing conditions LOS for compari- son purposes. All of the studied arterials are anticipated to operate at LOS E or better during the week- day PM peak hour in 2010 under the No Action Alternative conditions. Several segments would experience improved travel times and, in one instance, improved LOS conditions, as a result of intersection and roadway improvements, shifts in travel patterns, and/or an- ticipated signal - timing improvements throughout the study area. On average, the TUC would operate at LOS D in 2010. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -45 Transportation and Parking Table 3 -10 2010 No Action Alternative Arterial Level of Service Summary- Weekday PM Peak Arterial Segment' Existing Conditions 2010 No Action Alternative Conditions Speed LOS Speed LOS Southcenter Pkwy: S 180th St— Minkler Blvd 16.1 D 15.6 D Southcenter Pkwy: Minkler Blvd — Strander Blvd 23.1 C 24.1 C Southcenter Pkwy: Strander Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 16.2 D 16.1 D Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 11.4 D 12.9 D Andover Park W: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180th St 16.3 D 15.0 D Andover Park E: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180th St 16.2 D 17.7 D Strander Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 11.6 E 13.1 E Minkler Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 12.2 E 15.1 D S 180th St: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 14.6 D 14.6 D 61st Ave S: Southcenter Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 7.4 E 8.0 E 66`" Ave S: Southcenter Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 12.7 D 11.9 D Klickitat Dr: SR 518 WB on- ramp — Southcenter Pkwy 21.2 C 21.0 C TUC Average 14.9 D 15.4 D 1. Per TMC 9.48.070 Driveway Operations Anticipated 2010 operating conditions for the No Action Alternative at the site driveways were analyzed using the same methodologies as in the affected environment section. Un- der the No Action Alternative, 2010 traffic volumes on the streets adjacent to the site are anticipated to increase due to background growth and planned improvements; however, volumes and allocation of overall traffic to each of the driveways would not change since no change in the site uses would occur under this alternative. Table 3 -11 shows the 2010 No Action LOS operating conditions at all nine driveways during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. All site driveways are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better during the PM peak hour in 2010 under the No Action Alternative with the exception of the Andover Park W/North Driveway (see Table 3 -11). This unsignalized driveway is expected to fall from an existing LOS E condition to LOS F as a result of background growth on Andover Park W. During the Saturday peak hour, the signalized study driveways are expected to operate at LOS C or better in 2010. The unsignalized driveways are anticipated to operate between LOS D and F on the exiting movements. Vehicles exiting the site at the west driveway on Tukwila Parkway and north driveway on Andover Park W would experience long ve- hicle delays due to high through volumes on the respective arterials. As delay increases at the unsignalized driveways by 2010, it is likely that traffic may shift and use signalized access points that are operating with available capacity. 3 -46 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -11 2010 No Action Alternative Driveway Level of Service Summa Signalized Site Driveways' Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour LOS2 Delay3 V/C4 LOS Delay V/C ( #14) Mall Entry (1 -405 NB)/Tukwila Pkwy B 10.7 0.62 B 12.9 0.66 ( #25) Mall- Target Entry/Strander Blvd C 23.8 0.45 C 23.0 0.65 ( #20) Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) B 13.6 0.44 B 13.2 0.56 ( #21) Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB (Mall Entry) C 20.5 0.62 C 27.3 0.83 Unsignalized Site Driveways5 LOS Delay WM6 LOS Delay WM Tukwila Parkway/West Driveway C 22.7 NB Left F >50.0 NB Left Andover Park W /South Driveway C 19.5 EB Left D 25.2 EB Left Andover Park W /North Driveway F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left West Driveway /Strander Blvd C 15.8 SB Left E 36.7 SB Left Southcenter Parkway /North Driveway C 23.3 WB App. E 43.3 WB App Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio. 5. LOS delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement In 2010, the West Driveway /Strander Boulevard driveway is expected to operate slightly better than existing conditions due to the anticipated shift in traffic volumes from Strander Boulevard to the new S 168th Street corridor. Transit Service As discussed previously, several improvements to transit service are planned within the study area related to commuter rail service, with subsequent revisions to Metro bus ser- vice that would follow. A new TUC transit center is still in the planning stages by the City of Tukwila. These improvements should improve transit accessibility for the project site under the No Action Alternative. Non - Motorized Facilities As discussed previously, various improvements are planned for non - motorized facilities identified within the study area by 2010, specifically sidewalks. These improvements would improve non - motorized accessibility within the Tukwila TUC, including the pro- ject site. Traffic Safety By 2010, there would likely be an increased potential for traffic accidents at study inter- sections proportionate to increased traffic growth in the area. Traffic volumes under the No Action Alternative are anticipated to vary between negative growth to substantial positive growth over existing traffic volumes. At some study intersections, traffic vol- umes may actually decrease in the future due to a shift in travel patterns to new corridors. At other locations, traffic volumes may increase due to these shifts or background traffic Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -47 Transportation and Parking growth. At the two intersections with the highest collision rates (Southcenter Park - way/Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway /Minlder Boulevard), traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by 1 and 6 percent, respectively. The frequency of collisions could increase proportionally unless congestion can be reduced or safety measures are implemented at these intersections. Parking Under the No Action Alternative, the future on -site parking supply and demand is ex- pected to remain consistent with existing conditions. Impacts of the Proposed Action This section documents transportation and parking impacts within the study area for the Proposed Action. It addresses project - generated impacts to the street system, traffic vol- umes, traffic operations, transit service and facilities, non - motorized facilities, traffic safety, and parking. The transportation and parking analysis for the Proposed Action were conducted for the weekday PM and Saturday peak -hour conditions in 2010. The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparison to the Proposed Action, by which transportation and parking impacts can be measured and possible mitigating measures defined. Proposed Action. Assumptions The Proposed Action includes a combination of general retail, food court, restaurant, and anchor retail space, in addition to a movie theater and a hotel. Table 2 -1 (provided in the Description of the Proposed Action section) summarizes the Proposed Action develop- ment assumptions. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the Proposed Action were developed using a combination of Trip Generation (ITE, 6th Edition, 1997) and existing rates observed at the project site. The following paragraphs describe the methodology used to arrive at Proposed Action trip generation estimates. The general retail components of the shopping center, including the general retail, the food court, and the anchor retail stores, are best represented by ITE land use category 820, Shopping Center. To calibrate the ITE rate to existing trip generation characteristics at Southcenter, weekday and weekend peak -hour counts were conducted at the existing shopping center. Counts were conducted during three time periods to capture conditions when the shopping center trip generation is highest, and when shopping center traffic combined with adjacent street traffic is highest. The time periods evaluated were the weekday midday peak hour (11:45 to 12:45 p.m.), the weekday PM peak hour (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.), and the Saturday peak hour (1:15 to 2:15 p.m.). Weekday daily conditions were also evaluated. 3 -48 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking The raw traffic counts were adjusted to normalize the April 2003 counts to average con- ditions with a seasonal factor. In addition, traffic attributable to the Bank of America, Key Bank, Post Office, and Firestone outparcels was excluded from the traffic counts to isolate mall - related traffic only.' The adjusted traffic counts were then compared to ITE trip generation estimates using the ITE Shopping Center land use category. During the peak hours, the counts were found to be approximately 12 percent higher than ITE esti- mates and, on a daily basis, approximately 22 percent higher. These factors were essen- tially applied to the ITE trip generation rates to derive a calibrated trip rate for general retail component of the Proposed Action. Trip generation for the remaining components of Proposed Action, including the restau- rant space, theater, and hotel, were calculated using rates directly from the ITE Trip Gen- eration Manual. The respective ITE land uses applied to these components were High - Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (LU 832), Movie Theater with Matinee (LU 444), and Hotel (LU 310). The proposed theater is expected to provide between 3,600 and 4,000 seats. To be conservative, the upper limit of 4,000 seats was used to calculate theater trip generation. Table 3 -12 summarizes total trip generation for the existing mall, in comparison to ex- pansion under the Proposed Action. Appendix B -2 provides a more detailed summary of the calculations used to arrive at the results in Table 3 -12. Total trip generation for a shopping center is comprised of several trip types. The site generates captured (or internal) trips, pass -by trips, and new (primary trips). A brief de- scription of each type is provided below. • Captured Trips are trips made internally to the site between different land uses. They are considered "shared" trips. All captured trips occur within the bounda- ries of the site through walking or driving between destinations. With the Pro - posed Action, it is expected that a share of theater or restaurant customers would also visit retail components within the mall, or attract trips between each other. While these are considered new person trips, they would not result in added vehi- cle trips, impact the site driveways, or the adjacent street system. Approximately 25 percent of the theater and restaurant total trip generation is expected to be cap- tured trips. The general retail component of the shopping center also has a share of captured trips. However, the trip generation rates identified for the shopping center already account for the captured trips and no additional reduction is needed. • Pass -by trips are those made en -route to another destination. Based on data col- lected at shopping centers nationwide, the ITE pass -by rate for the site with the Proposed Action would be approximately 17 percent. The ITE pass -by rate for sit -down restaurants is approximately 25 percent of total trip generation. Pass -by ' Traffic associated with the outparcels was included in the driveway analyses. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -49 Transportation and Parking trips impact the site driveways and adjacent intersections on occasion, but typi- cally do not impact the broader street system since they are already en- route. Table 3 -12 Proposed Action Trip Generation Existing Southcenter Internal Capture Trips (Shared) Pass -By Trips Primary New Trips Total Trips Weekday Daily 02 8,000 34,100 42,100 Weekday Midday Peak 02 760 3,270 4,030 Weekday PM Peak 02 710 3,020 3,730 Saturday Peak 02 960 4,120 5,080 Southcenter with the Expansion Internal Capture Trips (Shared) Pass -By Trips Primary New Trips Total Trips Weekday Daily 1,380 9,490 46,480 57,350 Weekday Midday Peak 120 910 4,440 5,470 Weekday PM Peak 215 880 4,355 5,450 Saturday Peak 310 1,160 6,030 7,500 Proposed Action (Expansion Only) Internal Capture Trips (Shared) Pass -By Trips . Primary New Trips Total Trips Weekday Daily 1,380 1,490 12,380 15,250 Weekday Midday Peak 120 ° 150 1,170 1,440 Weekday PM Peak 215 170 1,335 1,720 Saturday Peak 310 200 1,910 2,420 1. Rounded to the nearest 10 trips 2. Existing Southcenter captured trips occur internally to the site and were not counted in the April 2003 counts. Thus, no reduction to total trip generation is needed to account for captured trips. • New trips, or primary trips, are those made for the primary purpose of visiting the shopping center. New trips impact the site driveways and the adjacent street sys- tem, as they would be generated as a direct result of the Proposed Action. As shown in Table 3 -12, the Proposed Action would result in 1,335 new weekday PM peak -hour trips, 1,170 new weekday midday trips, 1,910 new Saturday peak -hour trips and 12,380 new daily trips. Thus, new trips would grow by about 44 and 46 percent, re- spectively, during the weekday PM peak -hour and Saturday peak -hour conditions. New trip growth during the weekday midday and overall weekday condition would each in- crease about 36 percent. This difference reflects the character of the proposed land uses. For example, the theater and hotel components generate less traffic during the weekday midday peak hour than during the weekday PM peak hour. In total, the existing mall with expansion under the Proposed Action is expected to gener -. ate approximately the same amount of traffic during the weekday midday peak hour as the weekday PM peak hour (5,470 trips and 5,450 trips, respectively). However, the amount of new traffic attributable to the Proposed Action would be higher during the weekday PM peak hour than during the weekday midday peak hour. The weekday PM peak hour was selected as the weekday peak hour for the impact analysis due to the 3 -50 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking greater amount of new project trips, and because the weekday PM peak hour coincides with the peak hour used by the City of Tukwila for TUC (Tukwila Urban Center) plan- ning purposes. The Saturday peak hour was also selected for analysis within the immedi- ate vicinity of the site to evaluate ultimate peak -hour conditions for design purposes. Not specifically accounted for in this estimate of Proposed Action trip generation is the effect of existing transportation management programs, or potential programs that could be implemented on -site to discourage Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel. A trans- portation demand management (TDM) program can be used to minimize employee - related traffic impacts, through carpooling, transit incentives, flexible work hours, or similar measures. With the Proposed Action, it is possible that TDM -type measures could be implemented for the holiday season specifically or year- round, thereby reducing the amount of new vehicular traffic. No specific adjustments were made to the traffic generation estimates to account for TDM; therefore, the analysis could be considered a conservative estimate of vehicular traffic generation. Distribution The distribution of Proposed Action traffic was identified through a combination of the City of Tukwila's transportation demand models and existing travel patterns. The City has developed two transportation demand models, one that represents existing travel con- ditions and one that represents forecast 2020 conditions. The travel demand model was used to determine travel patterns for the project site under existing conditions and fore- cast 2020 conditions. The results of this analysis were summarized in terms of percent- age of total trips within the study area. The regional travel patterns found in the existing and 2020 model were very similar. The nearby freeways and highways are expected to carry approximately 60 percent of project traffic, while local roadways and neighborhoods would carry the remaining approxi- mately 40 percent. Based on a combination of both model results, the distribution pat- terns were identified. The distribution for the 2010 impact analysis is shown in Figure 3- 5. Assignment The Proposed Action trip generation (weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour) shown in Table 3 -12 was assigned to the study intersections based on the inbound and outbound trip distribution percentages. Pass -by trips were assigned to the project drive- ways and/or adjacent study intersections based on existing travel volumes and travel pat- terns in the area. Figures 3 -6A and 3 -6B show the project trip assignment for the week- day PM peak hour, while Figure 3 -7 shows the assignment for the Saturday peak hour. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -51 Transportation and Parking 410 NOT TO SCALE Figure 3 -5 Inbound and Outbound Trip Distribution Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3 -52 M ::3.o3u t South: en;,• h.1, L(2 hic5 Graph;iO 'A> 4__..7.1r, 14 71 The Transpo Group O S INTERNATIONAL 154TH STREET BLVD 14 L k_13 14—► —13 C-6 7 O S 154TH STREET 6 L k--7 35—► —32 51ST AVE S O SR 518 WB ON -RAMP 52 O SR 518 EB 55—) OFF -RAMP O53RD AVE S 154TH STREET B RAMP) 116 L 41—.. —39 O'SOUTHCE TER BLVD � ► k-6 —148 198— O SOUTHCENTER BLVD 205, ( 49 154 41 65TH AVE S O SOUTHCENTER J 6J 35—.- BLVD —42 0 9 66TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 35—■ x-42 (-70 50 INTERURBAN AVENUE S 1 V 1 -405 SB RAMPS 21 42, 1 20 1 INTERURBAN AVENUES 1 SOUTHCENTER BLVD 20 43 20JJ 65--► OAKSDALE AVE SW 2 SW GRADY WAY 21 19J J 27—.- —28 19, 0 —69 61ST AVENUE S O3 TUKWILA PARKWAY 107 -.) L 76 J 4 119 37 —► — 19 O MALL ENTRANCE /I -405 NB 4 TUKWILA PARKWAY 24 J (s_ 33 120 —..- �— 118 40-� (10 20 115 10 (13)107, O ANDOVER PARK W 5 TUKWILA PARKWAY ( -13) 28 — 29 ( -7) x'41(7) (7)132 2213) O ANDOVER 16 TUKWILA 50—o- PARK PARKWAY BLVD (-3) 73 + 9 1 77 ( -6) X (X) E -70 PARK W — 6 LEGEND I % -405 NB RRAMPSIGHWAY 20 + 0 8 KL CK TAT DR 55—s.- x--52 r6 7 9 1-5ISBION -RAMP 6 j 1T 1 8833 �8 2 0 BAKER (23)� (26) 72 J 6 -► (3) 76 (6) N = NET NEW TRIPS = PASS -BY TRIPS Figure 3 -6A Project Traffic - Weekday PM Peak Hour Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion Pc0_ _O:t7 The Transpo Group 3 -53 3 -54 2 SOUTHCENTER 1-5 NB OFF-RAMP/NORDSTROM'S 0 (-9) 15 ( -2) 5 J (2) 51 5 -) 14 ( -13) PKWY 1 `(9) 74 (15) r 59 (9) i 30 (.... (13) SOUTHCENTER PKWY KLICKITAT DR 31 48 I 17 J + 45, ! 91 27 SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2 3 1 -5 NB OFF -RAMP (RIGHT ONLY) 76 28, 1 120 SOUTHCENTER STRANDER ( -12) 11 11 PKWY BLVD I `(,2) + 109 r 28 (12) i 30 0 STRANDER ( +s) � (5)45_ 66 -... (-1) (3) BLVD 7 j (4) C 1_101(11) f 110 ( -9) (-2) i 7 2 6 STRANDER BLVD 12 101 ++ ( +) � C 71i 4_ 34 68 - - -.- 87 (2)16, r ( -2) ,i 15 (1) (2) 2 % STRANDER BLVD STRANDER 68� f86 43, HIGHWAY $ WEST STRANDER BLVD STRANDER BLVD 20 10j .58-) s 2 9 SDUTH ENTER 39 41 PKWY 1 3 Q SOUTHCENTER ER BLVD PKWY 32 I 1 1 34 3 ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 11 1 17 I ,i5 O ANDOVER 3 2 MINKLER BLVD 43 17-1 3i5 PARK E 1 C) SOUTHC ENTER 13 6 7_f ii4 PKWY I + 3 4 A 1DOV ST PARK W 4 �k._7 3 5 A S 1DOV ST ARK E 60 C-k_58 4� f7 3 6 SPERRY DR S 180TH ST 64-► --65 3 % S ES TV VALLEY 10 10- 54, 15 HIGHWAY + 48 &51 f11 i 3 $ 72NTHET 58--.- 3 9 OAKSDALE AVE SW S 180TH ST 39--► 4 O WEST S 196TH N VALLEY ST 59 + 612 X (X) HIGHWAY f62 -.-41 ') ) LEGEND = NET NEW TRIPS = PASS -BY TRIPS w " Figure 3 -6B Project Traffic - Weekday PM Peak Hour Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion M:\03;03037 So ,venter Miall',Gr3p -i s,G• ij h:a -5'3' l.n.'a %0 _2`0.1 14:57 Transpo Group 7;; 61ST AVENUES SOUTHCENTER BLVD 1 3 61ST AVENUES TUKWILA PARKWAY 155 240 MALL ENTRANCE /I -405 NB 1.4 TUKWILA PARKWAY ANDOVER PARK W 1 5 TUKWILA PARKWAY 92 , 4_ 169 33 , 46 37 -► f 17 183 --- .-- 159 ( -15) 24 - --.-- 32 (-8) 319 r76 61-) r 15 (15) 179 `"73(8) 20 544 27 1 20 (8)1 8 4215) 13 elANDOVER PARK W BAKER BLVD SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2 1 I -5 NB OFF- RAMPINORDSTROM'S SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2 2 KLICKI TAT DR SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2.. I -5 NB OFF -RAMP (RIGHT ONLY) (-4) (-11) 154 30 61 129 (30) 83 i 8 -..- ( -2) 8 J 9 (2) 78 -► k_ 82 (18) 26 , (4) 101 - j 18 -) r 78 (11) 68 32 -) (7) 8 1 16) 1 18 1 1 142 15 24 147 (-7) j (-16) PKWY MALL/TARGET DVWY ANDOVER PARK W SOUTHCENTER PKWY 2SOUTHCENTER ;4 STRANDER BLVD 2 5 STRANDER BLVD 2`:6 STRANDER BLVD 2 6 S 168TH ST ( -14) 15 8 16 52 + (14) (18) 49 l 203 (4) + 185 I L(1) 130 (6) 76, 1I` 174 (13) 140 J + L 59 + 47.- -► f 169 ( -11) 89 y f 122 (2) r 37 (14) (2) 21 -) r (-2) 46 I6 ( -1) ( -2) 1 36 ( -1) i 1 17 10 23 63 (3) (1) A LEGEND N X = NET NEW TRIPS (X) - PASS -BY TRIPS Figure 3 -7 Project Traffic - Saturday Peak Hour Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion M tOd',0302. ,,entur Mu II'3r,vni.S (. (.Ipr.i E. • H Transpo Group 3 -55 Proposed Action trips were assigned to the project driveways based generally on the allo- cation of new parking spaces to be constructed as part of the expansion. All of the new parking and retail that comprises the Proposed Action would be constructed on the south side of the existing shopping center. The driveway assignment emphasizes this new growth on the south side of the shopping center; however, some of the Proposed Action trips were assigned to the northerly driveways to account for the intra -site travel patterns that would occur as customers use internal roadways to travel to new parking, or use ex- isting excess parking on the north side of the site. The driveway assignment is depicted in Appendix B -3. Traffic Volume Impacts The Proposed Action project trips (new and pass -by) were combined with the traffic vol- ume forecasts for 2010 No Action Alternative conditions, to arrive at 2010 Proposed Ac- tion traffic volumes. Figures 3 -8A and 3 -8B show the 2010 Proposed Action traffic vol- umes at the study intersections. The total entering traffic volumes shown in Figures 3 -4A and 3 -4B for the No Action Al- ternative were compared to those in Figures 3 -8A and 3 -8B under the Proposed Action to identify the percent impact of project traffic at the study intersections. These percentages are illustrated in Table 3 -13 for the weekday PM peak hour and in Table 3 -14 for the Sat- urday peak hour. As Table 3 -13 shows, the percent impact of project trips during the weekday PM peak hour ranges from less than one - percent at the outlying study intersections to approxi- mately 22 percent at study intersections adjacent to the site. Table 3 -14 shows the per- cent impact during the Saturday peak hour, which ranges from approximately 3 percent to 28 percent. The largest percent impact during the weekday PM peak hour (approximately 22 percent) and the Saturday peak hour (approximately 28 percent) would occur at two study inter- sections that also serve as site driveways: Andover Park W /Baker Boulevard and Mall - Target Driveway /Strander Boulevard. As expected, project traffic volume impacts de- crease as the distance between the site and study intersection increases. The following section evaluates the effect of Proposed Action traffic volumes on peak -hour traffic op- erations. 3 -56 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking OINTERNATIONAL BLVD S 154TH STREET 1,075 170 1 144 250JJ L158 179- ► ♦368 195, (151 295 57 6 42ND AVE S S 154TH STREET 35 70 161 J c' 55J L202 425 ♦582 70, (355 65 120 10 51ST AVE S SR 518 WB ON -RAMP 10 80 847 1�r O51STAVES SR 518 EB OFF -RAMP 25J 755-) 1r 952 O53RD AVE S (I.5 SB RAMP) S 154TH STREET 10 225 1 1,281 566-. ♦669 35-) (-45 25 60 OMACADAM RD S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 65 132 90. • k_146 205—Z ♦1,798 2,128 O61STAVENUES SOUTHCENTER BLVD (285) 805 865 (355) 2,509)1,855, r 274 (256) (1,411) 1,274 121 (124) O65TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 67 95 76JJ (_105 545~ .._897 O66TH AVE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 750 -852 105-) (730 280 1 O INTERURBAN AVENUE S 1-405 SB RAMPS 91 55 100 70JJ � L75 40-► x-60 412, (225 575 92 65 0 INTERURBAN AVENUE S SOUTHCENTER BLVD 75 203 275 J 200J �k 685 905 ♦954 215, (-345 i (.- 205 60 1 2 OAKSDALE AVE SW SW GRADY WAY 20 421 125 J 299J �4 65 1,197~ ♦948 244, (-45 380 70 25 O61ST AVENUE S 3 TUKWILA PARKWAY (1,410) 902 11,247 (1,370) (702) 606 J 4_ 794 (804) (647) 522 -.- ..- 209 (297) 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY 1-405 NB RAMPS 1,110 375 55 350JJ 415 10--► .-5 425, (10 570 10 1,d(95 1 4 MALL ENTRANCE /I -405 NB TUKWILA PARKWAY (423) 329 J 4_ 383(331) (838) 805 �-- 788 (704) (481) 275 1 r 65 (95) 175 1 6r- (202) 70) 130 (183) 1 $ 53RD AVE S KLICKITAT DR 760~ -907 85-) (141 or .1 ,5 ANDOVER PARK W TUKWILA PARKWAY (429) 545 -.- 622 (489) (579) 535 , r 328 (416) (651) 729 310 (367) 9 KLICKITAT DR 1.5 SB ON -RAMP A N 82 j 80 L 1, 0 18 O 0 0 1 G ANDOVER PARK E lJ TUKWILA PARKWAY 620- -■ ♦370 220-) (245 390 ■ (9 ANDOVER PARK W BAKER BLVD (710) 575 (211) 1 1 45 (60) (208) 168 J k_ 70 (40) (53) 41 -..--- 51 (64) (225) 124 1 r 100 (65) (233) 135 45 (65) 736 (605) LEGEND • WEEKDAY PM PEAK X PM PEAK HOUR • SATURDAY PEAK B WEEKDAY PM PEAK (X) - SATURDAY PEAK HOUR ea^a°n -°r Figure 3-8A 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes The O Group 3 -57 M:103 )1U : c;.t^ ..rater M i I,3r: , i<,.i't,(.hKC: • N.. SOUTHCENTER PKWY 1 -5 NB OFF- RAMPINORDSTROM'S (116) 163 J 144 (215) (215) 113 (43) 55 -) r 308 (399) 1 1x88 (311) 766 (1,014) SOUTHCENTER PKWY KLICKITAT DR (1,081) 781 (585) 503 (326) 237 j (843) 685 , (1,278) 1,083 647 (959) OSOUTHCENTER PKWY 23 I -5 NB OFF -RAMP (RIGHT ONLY) (342) 443 -) (1,934) 1,366 1,735 (2,207) 2 4 SOUTHCENTER PKWY STRANDER BLVD (1,621) 1,224 (710) • 694 (835) r 230 (496) 1 305 (716) 961 (1,372) MALL/TARGET DVWY STRANDER BLVD (78) 52 (262) 192 I `(402) (307) 190 J k_ 272 (397) (262) 346 — 491 (413) (275) 135 r 85 (155) (209)1 1 118 (138) 55 (83) ANDOVER PARK W STRANDER BLVD (591) 477 (360) 1 I (318) (320) 186 J + t._ 214 (279) (559) 418 -► — 489 (559) (108) 48 , r 288 (343) (216) 163 64 (264) 551 (469) 2 7 ANDOVER PARK E STRANDER BLVD 40 140 165 110) L-k.105 533 -.- ..-561 178-) (-135 00 305 55 c), WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY o STRANDER BLVD 1, 40 360 40 r L- 485 _i L10 35— —20 538, (-20 s�5 1, 85 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 168TH ST (1,722) 1,209 (20)5 115 (270) (35) 5 J + 155 (255) (5) 0 0(0) (5) 5 ' r 215 (325) (5) 5 11 0 (250) 1,146 (1,588) 3 3 3 O SOUTHCENTER PKWY MINKLER BLVD 1,322 185 & 60 (-115 40 1, 74 3 1 ANDOVER PARK W MINKLER BLVD 6 1001 62 r 55J k.223 110 -► x-55 20, (-65 I 15 2 45 0 ANDOVER PARK E MINKLER BLVD 53 125 35 r 65J �k,_60 35--► —65 122-) (-85 O 0 5 SOUTHCENTER PKWY S 180TH ST 348 311 445 J � 197, 445 300 —535 35- r160 °,1435 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 180TH ST 1,55 85 378 120JJ L.- _321 645 -■ x-636 674, (-80 90 90 ANDOVER PARK W S 180TH ST 1 250 334 r L..- 85 j L227 565 -► x-865 5, (-20 9 to (40 .- 8 0 3 0 72ND AVE S OO S 180TH ST 1,063 —887 70, (-10 00 3 5 ANDOVER PARK E S 180TH ST 135 330 135, L223 789— —927 0 OAKSDALE AVE SW S 180TH ST 15 175 70 125_i L6o 114-) r80 60 9 3 G SPERRY DR V S 180TH ST 60 I 360 r 8 0_ `275 1,059 -► -.- -1,035 r. 5-) � 15 1 50 (-5 0 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY S 196TH ST 1, 24 45 405 1,124 50 J • L330 345-■ —500 260-), (-270 255�50 1,17 LEGEND OX = WEEKDAY PM PEAK X PM PEAK HOUR 0 XSATURDAY PEAK & (X) =SATURDAY PEAK HOUR WEEKDAY PM PEAK Figure 3 -8B 2010 Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak & Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 3 -58 M "\03'0°0;' Southcenter Mall }Grsphics',G'2phics 5 co, Or. t2 0•I , 4 :27 The Transpo Group Table 3 -13 2010 Proposed Action Percent Impact- Weekday PM Peak Hour Int. # Study Intersections Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Proposed Action (TEV)' Percent Impact 2010 Baseline Project Trips2 1 Tukwila International Blvd /S 154th Street 3,630 67 3,697 1.8% 2 42nd Avenue S/S 154th Street 2,550 80 2,630 3.0% 3 51st Avenue S /SR 518 WB On -Ramp 1,365 52 1,417 3.7% 4 51S` Avenue S /SR 518 EB Off -Ramp 1,810 107 1,917 5.6% 5 1 -5 SB Ramp (53rd Ave S) /S 154th Street 2,720 196 2,916 6.7% 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd 4,205 359 4,564 7.9% 7 61S` Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd 4,745 449 5,194 8.6% 8 65th Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd 1,695 90 1,785 5.0% 9 66th Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd 3,295 197 3,492 5.6% 10 Interurban Avenue S/I -405 SB Ramps 3,405 83 3,488 2.4% 11 Interurban Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd 5,720 217 5,937 3.7% 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way 4,225 134 4,359 3.1% 13 61st Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway 3,775 505 4,280 11.8% 14 Mall Entry (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy 2,625 390 3,015 12.9% 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway 2,690 379 3,069 12.3% 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Parkway 2,160 120 2,280 5.3% 17 West Valley Highway /I -405 NB Ramp 4,000 30 4,030 0.7% 18 53`d Avenue S /Klickitat Drive 1,905 120 2,025 5.9% 19 Klickitat Drive /I -5 SB On -Ramp 2,510 203 2,713 7.5% 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) 1,755 468 2,223 21.1% 21 Southcenter Pkwy /l -5 Ramp (Mall Entry) 2,465 358 2,823 12.7% 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive 3,675 261 3,936 6.6% 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramp 3,320 224 3,544 6.3% 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd 3,575 294 3,869 7.6% 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd 1,755 488 2,243 21.8% 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd 2,985 473 3,458 13.7% 27 Andover Park E /Strander Blvd 3,125 232 3,357 6.9% 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd 4,350 154 4,504 3.4% 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street 2,930 80 3,010 2.7% 30 Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Blvd 2,730 66 2,796 2.4% 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd 1,715 66 1,781 3.7% 32 Andover Park E/Minkler Blvd 1,755 118 1,873 6.3% 33 Southcenter Parkway /S 180th Street 2,905 40 2,945 1.4% 34 Andover Park W/S 180`h Street 2,580 11 2,591 0.4% 35 Andover Park E/S 180`h Street 2,410 129 2,539 5.1% 36 Sperry Drive /S 180`h Street 2,820 129 2,949 4.4% 37 West Valley Highway /S 180`h Street 5,300 253 5,553 4.6% 38 72nd Avenue S/S 180`h Street 2,090 120 2,210 5.4% 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180`h Street 3,125 120 3,245 3.7% 40 West Valley Highway /S 196th Street 5,530 121 5,651 2.1% 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles 2. Total Project Trips (new, and pass -by at some locations) Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -59 Table 3 -14 2010 Proposed Action Percent Impact- Saturday Peak Hour Int. # Saturday Study Intersections Saturday Peak Hour Trips (TEV)1 Proposed Action Percent Impact 2010 Baseline Project Trips2 7 61s` Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd 4,285 655 4,940 13.3% 13 61st Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway 4,520 710 5,230 13.6% 14 Mall Entrance (1-405 NB Ramp) /Tukwila Pkwy 2,770 557 3,327 16.7% 15 Andover Park WTTukwila Parkway 2,370 561 2,931 19.1% 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) 1,830 709 2,539 27.9% 21 Southcenter Pkwy /l -5 NB Ramp(Mall Entry) 3,160 475 3,635 13.1% 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive 4,705 367 5,072 7.2% 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -Ramp 4,175 308 4,483 6.9% 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd 5,345 405 5,750 7.0% 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd 2,215 766 2,981 25.7% 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd 3,635 751 4,386 17.1% 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street 4,365 115 4,480 2.6% 1. TEV = Total Entering Vehicles 2. Total Project Trips (new, and pass -by at some locations) Traffic Operations 2010 Proposed Action LOS operations were evaluated using the traffic volumes previ- ously detailed in this section. All roadway conditions, signal timing variables, and future improvements identified in the No Action Alternative analysis were held constant for the Proposed Action analysis. This provides for an equal comparison between the two in or- der to identify the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. Table 3 -15 summarizes the Proposed Action weekday PM peak hour levels of service results at the study intersections, while Table 3 -16 summarizes Saturday peak hour opera- tions results. Both tables include the. No Action Alternative results for comparison pur- poses. As Table 3 -15 shows, during the weekday PM peak hour five of the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS F in Proposed Action conditions as they did in No Action conditions, while the intersection of 61st Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway would fall from LOS E to LOS F with the Proposed Action. Six study intersections are ex- pected to fall from LOS C or D to LOS E with the Proposed Action. Table 3 -16 shows that during the Saturday peak hour, four study intersections fall from LOS E or better to LOS F with the Proposed Action. In total, seven study intersections would operate at LOS F with the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour. For those intersections that are anticipated to operate at LOS F in Proposed Action condi- tions during the PM peak hour and/or the Saturday peak hour, a detailed review of opera- tions was conducted for each in order to evaluate the degree of Proposed Action impacts, evaluate improvement options, and identify possible solutions where they exist. 3 -60 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -15 2010 Proposed Action Study Intersection LOS- Weekday PM Peak Hour Int. # Signalized Intersections' No Action 2010 Proposed Action 22010 LOS Delay V/C a LOS Delay V/C 1 Tukwila International Blvd /S 154th Street D 58.2 0.93 E 60.1 0.94 2 42nd Avenue S/S 154th Street E 66.4 0.95 E 75.5 0.97 5 1 -5 SB Ramp (53rd Ave S) /S 154th Street C 33.7 0.90 D 44.6 0.97 6 Macadam Rd S /Southcenter Blvd C 22.1 0.88 C 33.0 0.93 7 6151 Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.47 F >80.0 1.60 9 66th Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd D 37.8 1.05 D 50.7 1.11 10 Interurban Avenue S/I -405 SB Ramps F >80.0 1.24 F >80.0 1.28 11 Interurban Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.32 F >80.0 1.32 12 Oaksdale Ave SW /SW Grady Way D 51.7 0.96 E 58.5 1.00 13 61st Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway E 57.1 1.04 F 84.3 1.16 14 Mall Entry (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 10.7 0.62 B 12.7 0.70 15 Andover Park WTTukwila Parkway C 33.9 0.88 E 59.1 1.04 16 Andover Park E/Tukwila Parkway C 20.7 0.65 B 20.0 0.67 17 West Valley Highway /I-405 NB Ramp D 44.5 1.03 D 47.3 1.04 18 53rd Avenue S /Klickitat Drive B 14.1 0.75 B 15.7 0.79 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entry) B 13.6 0.44 B 16.4 0.58 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 Ramp (Mall Entry) C 20.5 0.62 C 29.6 0.84 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive C 28.6 0.91 D 36.8 0.98 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd D 42.4 0.93 E 64.1 1.02 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.8 0.45 C 29.2 0.60 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd D 48.4 0.84 E 59.9 0.93 27 Andover Park E /Strander Blvd D 43.7 0.71 D 43.6 0.75 28 West Valley Highway /Strander Blvd E 57.6 1.00 E 70.7 1.08 29 Southcenter Parkway /S 168th Street C 21.2 0.71 C 21.3 0.73 30 Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Blvd A 6.2 0.59 A 6.2 0.61 31 Andover Park W /Minkler Blvd D 41.9 0.77 D 47.7 0.80 32 Andover Park E /Minkler Blvd B 14.3 0.45 B 14.7 0.50 33 Southcenter Parkway /S 180th Street E 66.1 1.06 E 71.8 1.09 34 Andover Park W/S 180th Street D 40.1 0.81 D 40.5 0.82 35 Andover Park E/S 180th Street B 18.4 0.70 C 20.4 0.75 36 Sperry Drive /S 180th Street B 15.9 0.77 B 17.4 0.79 37 West Valley Highway /S 180th Street D 45.6 0.88 D 47.9 0.93 38 72nd Avenue S/S 180th Street B 10.2 0.45 B 10.6 0.47 39 Oaksdale Ave SW /S 180th Street B 19.3 0.70 C 20.8 0.75 40 West Valley Highway /S 196th Street E 68.7 1.03 E 72.1 1.04 Int. # Unsignalized Intersections 2010 No Action 2010 Proposed Action LOS Delays WMb LOS ` Delay WM 3 51st Avenue S /SR 518 WB On -Ramp C 15.1. NB Left C 17.3 NB Left 4 51st Avenue S /SR 518 EB Off -Ramp F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left 8 65th Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >50.0 SB Left F >50.0 SB Left 19 Klickitat Drive /1 -5 SB On -Ramp C 17.8 SB Left C 20.4 SB Left 23 Southcenter Parkway /I =5 NB Off -Ramp D 29.5 EB Right E 41.1 EB Right Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 6. WM = Worst Movement. App = Approach Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -61 Table 3 -16 2010 Proposed Action Study Intersection LOS- Saturday Peak Hour Int. # Saturday Study Intersections' 2010 No Action 2010 Proposed Action LOSS Delay3 V/C or WM LOS Delay V/C or WM 7 61st Avenue S /Southcenter Blvd F >80.0 1.33 F >80.0 1.53 13 61st Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway F >80.0 1.39 F >80.0 1.54 14 Mall Entry (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy B 12.9 0.66 B 14.6 0.75 15 Andover Park W/Tukwila Parkway C 33.2 0.84 E 63.7 1.04 20 Andover Park W /Baker Blvd B 13.2 0.56 C 22.5 0.82 21 Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entry) C 27.3 0.83 F >80.0 1.87 22 Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive E 60.2 1.13 F >80.0 1.23 23 Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Off -ramp' F >50.0 EB Right F >50.0 EB Right 24 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd E 54.5 1.09 F >80.0 1.21 25 Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd C 23.0 0.65 D 43.8 1.00 26 Andover Park W /Strander Blvd E 56.5 0.88 F 99.4 1.10 29 Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd E 63.5 1.05 E 70.3 1.07 Notes: 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio, WM = Worst Movement. 5. Delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. • Intersection 7-61st Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard. This signalized inter- section is expected to operate at LOS F under both No Action and Proposed Ac- tion conditions during both the weekday PM peak and Saturday peak hours. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by 9 percent and ac- count for approximately 9 percent of the total entering volume in the PM peak hour, while during the Saturday peak hour, the Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by 15 percent and account for approximately 13 percent of the total entering volume. Potential improvement options include the addition of a second westbound left - turn lane and/or a second eastbound through -lane. Either of these options would require road widening on Southcenter Boulevard, which would likely impact I- 405, and the overpass on 615t Avenue S. The improvement would reduce inter- section delay, but still maintain LOS F at the intersection. The associated high cost of this option greatly outweighs the benefit provided. An alternate, more fea- sible solution would be to modify the signal timing to operate the eastbound right- turn movements concurrently with the westbound through movements, allowing more green time to this critical turning movement. This simple signal timing modification could improve PM peak -hour conditions to LOS E with the Pro- posed Action, while Saturday peak -hour conditions would remain at LOS F but with significantly reduced delay and a v/c ratio below that of No Action condi- tions. WSDOT improvements are planned for the 615` Avenue S bridge in conjunction 3 -62 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking with proposed I -405 improvements previously mentioned in the Planned Im- provements section. The reconstruction and widening of the bridge and Southcenter Boulevard to increase capacity, as proposed, would further improve operations at this intersection. • Intersection 10— Interurban Avenue S/I -405 SB Ramps. This signalized inter- section, which currently operates at LOS F, is anticipated to also operate at LOS F under No Action and Proposed Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by approximately 4 per- cent and would account for about 2 percent of the total entering traffic volumes. A potential improvement option is to install an eastbound right -turn overlap phase with the northbound left -turn phase. Such an improvement would improve Pro- posed Action conditions to LOS E, a significant improvement from No Action conditions. • Intersection 11— Interurban Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard. This signal- ized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F under both the No Action Alter- native and Proposed Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by less than one tenth of 1 percent and account for approximately 4 percent of total entering traffic volumes. A po- tential improvement option is to construct a northbound right -turn lane and oper- ate it in an overlap phase with the westbound left -turn phase. This improvement could improve operations to LOS E with the Proposed Action, an improvement from No Action operating conditions. However, the construction of a northbound right turn lane would be expensive to construct due to the abutments for the I -405 overpass over Interurban Avenue S. • Intersection 13 -61St Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway. This signalized intersection is expected to fall to LOS F with the Proposed Action, from LOS E under No Ac- tion Alternative conditions during the PM peak hour, and would operate at LOS F during both No Action and Proposed Action conditions during the Saturday peak hour. The Proposed Action would increase intersection delay by approximately 27 seconds and account for 12 percent of total entering peak -hour volumes in the PM peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, the Proposed Action would in- crease the v/c ratio by approximately 11 percent, and account for 14 percent of to- tal entering peak -hour volumes. Constructing a second eastbound through lane on Tukwila Parkway would improve operations to LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, this improvement would still result in LOS F conditions, but would improve operations from those in No Action condi- tions. This improvement would require widening on the south side of Tukwila Parkway, which could be difficult due to grade changes between the roadway and existing mall parking lot. As discussed in the subsequent Driveway Levels of Service section, another po- tential modification evaluated for this intersection is the addition of a fourth inter- section leg opposite the 61s` Avenue S bridge. This leg would serve as a new Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -63 Transportation and Parking driveway to the site with ingress movements only. While this modification would improve circulation into the site and reduce traffic volumes on Tukwila Parkway and Southcenter Parkway, the intersection of 61St Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway would continue to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak and Saturday peak hours. • Intersection 21— Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Ramp (Mall Entry). This signalized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during the Saturday peak hour under the Proposed Action, in comparison to LOS C under the No Ac- tion Alternative. LOS D conditions could be attained by constructing a northbound right -turn lane, a westbound right -turn lane, and changing the phasing on the southbound left -turn movement to permitted/protected. These improve- ments would substantially reduce vehicle queues on the shopping center driveway approach as well. Alternately, traffic volumes at this location would be reduced if the 61S` Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway intersection was modified to provide ingress to the site. With a new point of ingress, the Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Ramp (shopping center entry) intersection would operate LOS D during the Saturday peak hour with the Proposed Action. While intersection delay would be significantly im- proved, the westbound traffic volumes and anticipated queue lengths (exiting the site) would still warrant constructing a westbound right -turn lane on this ap- proach. • Intersection 22— Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat Drive. This signalized inter- section is expected to operate at LOS F under the Proposed Action during the Sat- urday peak hour, in comparison to LOS E under the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by approximately 9 per- cent and account for approximately 7 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour volumes. Constructing a second eastbound left -turn lane could restore LOS E conditions during the Saturday peak hour; however, this option would require bridge widening on Klickitat Drive. The City has identified more substantial im- provements for this location under a longer -range plan that could be supported through transportation impact fees. An option that may produce a more feasible short-term solution would be to evaluate and then implement improved signal co- ordination and timing. • Intersection 23— Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Off -Ramp. This un- signalized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F under the No Action Al- ternative and the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour. The Proposed Action would account for approximately 7 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour traffic volumes. Due to the close spacing of adjacent signalized inter- sections, this intersection is not a good candidate for signalization. As mentioned previously, the City has identified long -range improvements that would improve operations in the vicinity of this intersection and contribution could be made in the form of transportation impact fees. A feasible short-term solution would in- 3 -64 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking clude installing a c -curb to require all off -ramp turn movements to travel southbound on Southcenter Parkway, past Strander Boulevard. Currently, weav- ing patterns between this off -ramp and Strander Boulevard affect corridor pro- gression and increase vehicle delay. If c -curb were installed at this location, traf- fic currently turning right at this intersection and then left onto Strander Boule- vard would likely shift to the signalized mall entry/I -5 Ramp (Intersection #21) to the north. Such a shift may cause operation issues at that location. • Intersection 24— Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard. This signalized intersection is expected to fall to LOS F with the Proposed Action during the Sat- urday peak hour, from LOS E under No Action Alternative conditions. _During the PM peak hour, the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS E with the Pro- posed Action; however, the level of service calculations are not able to take into account the added congestion attributable to vehicle weaving and queuing. The Proposed Action would increase the intersection v/c ratio by approximately 11 percent and account for 7 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour volumes. A second westbound right -turn lane could improve operations to LOS D during the Saturday peak hour; however, topographical constraints associated with this option would be cost prohibitive in the short-term. The City has identified a long - range solution to improve operations at this location and in the vicinity through roadway widening and a flyover ramp between northbound Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. Contribution through the City's concurrency ordinance would support construction of this project. In the interim, traffic signal coordina- tion and timing could be reviewed and potentially modified to improve forecast Proposed Action conditions. This option would address the traffic issues docu- mented in existing conditions, as well as No Action and Proposed Action conditions, related to queuing and signal coordination. Should c- curbing be in- stalled at the unsignalized 1 -5 Northbound Off - Ramp /Southcenter Parkway inter- section (intersection #23), traffic formerly turning right at intersection #23 would likely use intersection #21 instead in order to have access to the southbound left turn lane at Strander Boulevard. Such an improvement may improve progression through this intersection in the southbound direction by eliminating upstream weaving, but may not influence traffic volumes at this intersection noticeably. • Intersection 26— Andover Park W /Strander Boulevard. This signalized inter- section is expected to fall to LOS F with the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour, from LOS E under No Action Alternative conditions. The Proposed Action would increase intersection delay by approximately 43 seconds and ac- count for approximately 17 percent of total entering Saturday peak -hour volumes. Improvements could include a second eastbound left -turn lane, a second west- bound left -turn lane, a southbound right -turn lane, and/or a westbound right -turn lane. Implementing two or more of these improvements would restore intersec- tion operations to LOS E with the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour. The feasibility of intersection widening would likely be driven by right -of- way constraints on one or more of the intersection corners. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -65 Transportation and Parking • Intersection 4-51st Avenue S /SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp. This unsignal- ized intersection is expected to operate at LOS F on the eastbound left -turn movement under both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would noticeably increase vehi- cle delay on this movement and account for approximately 6 percent of total en- tering PM peak -hour volumes. Installing a traffic signal at this intersection would improve peak -hour operations to LOS B. To minimize vehicle queues, the signal would need to be operated so that sufficient green time is allocated to the off - ramp. An alternate option would be to widen the 5151 Avenue bridge to provide a center refuge lane for vehicles turning left from the off -ramp while retaining un- signalized control at the intersection. The left -turn movement would still operate at LOS F, but with reduced delay. The costs associated with bridge widening would exceed the cost of installing a traffic signal, and the bridge widening would not provide the same level of improvement as a traffic signal. Therefore, traffic signalization would appear to be a more favorable alternative. • Intersection 8 -65th Avenue S /Southcenter Boulevard. This unsignalized in- tersection is expected to operate at LOS F on the southbound approach under both the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action conditions during the PM peak hour. The Proposed Action would account for approximately 5 percent of total entering PM peak -hour volumes. Operations could be restored to LOS D by for- malizing the channelization on Southcenter Boulevard to provide a center refuge area for vehicles completing a southbound left -turn movement. A refuge area in the center turn lane would allow vehicles to complete the turn in two movements and improve the opportunity to enter the traffic stream. The roadway width exists on Southcenter Boulevard; the improvement would only require upgraded road- way striping. Alternatively, a traffic signal could be installed to improve opera- tions. Arterial Levels of Service Table 3 -17 shows that under the Proposed Action, all of the arterial segments within the TUC are expected to operate at the same LOS as for the No Action Alternative. Only slight decreases in average travel speed are anticipated to occur on each arterial as a re- sult of the Proposed Action. Overall, the TUC average LOS would remain at LOS D, meeting the City of Tukwila's concurrency requirements. 3 -66 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -17 Proposed Action Arterial LOS- Weekday PM Peak Hour Arterial Segment' 2010 No Action Conditions 2010 Proposed Action Conditions Speed LOS Speed LOS Southcenter Pkwy: S 180th St— Minkler Blvd 15.6 D 15.0 D Southcenter Pkwy: Minkler Blvd— Strander Blvd 24.1 C 23.9 C Southcenter Pkwy: Strander Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 16.1 D 15.0 D Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 12.9 D 11.7 D Andover Park W: Tukwila Pkwy—S 180th St 15.0 D 13.7 E Andover Park E: Tukwila Pkwy —S 180th St 17.7 D 17.7 D Strander Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 13.1 E 12.1 E Minkler Blvd: Southcenter Pkwy— Andover Park E 15.1 D 15.1 D S 180th St: Southcenter Pkwy —West Valley Hwy 14.6 D 14.3 D 61s' Ave S: Southcenter Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 8.0 E 6.6 F 66th Ave S: Southcenter Blvd — Tukwila Pkwy 11.9 D 11.9 D Klickitat Dr: SR 518 WB on- ramp — Southcenter Pkwy 21.0 C 20.4 C TUC Average 15.4 D 14.8 D 1. Per TMC 9.48.070 Driveway Levels of Service Anticipated 2010 Proposed Action operating conditions at the site driveways were ana- lyzed using the same methodologies as for the No Action Alternative. As was discussed previously, Proposed Action trips were assigned to the project driveways based on the allocation of new parking spaces to be constructed as part of the expansion. All of the new parking will be constructed to the south of the existing mall, drawing most of the new traffic. However, some of the Proposed Action trips were assigned to the existing northerly driveways (in addition to the southerly driveways that will serve the new park- ing capacity) to account for the likely intra -site travel patterns that will occur as visitors use internal roadways to travel from the northerly driveways to the new southerly park- ing, or use existing excess parking on the northern end of the site. The existing driveway intersection geometry, used in the Affected Environment and No Action Alternative analyses, was used for the Proposed Action driveway analyses. Table 3 -18 shows the 2010 Proposed Action operating conditions at all nine driveways during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. No Action driveway LOS results are also included in the table for comparison purposes. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -67 Transportation and Parking Table 3 -18 Proposed Action Driveway LOS Summa Weekday PM Peak Hour' 2010 No Action 2010 Proposed Action LOSZ Delay3 VWM /C or LOS Delay V/C WM or Tukwila Parkway/West Driveway C 22.7 NB Left D 28.2 NB Left Mall Entry (1-405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy* B 10.7 0.62 B 12.7 .0.70 Andover Park W /North Driveway F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance)* B 13.6 0.44 B 16.4 0.58 Andover Park W /South Driveway C 19.5 EB Left D 28.1 EB Left Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd* C 23.8 0.45 C 29.2 0.60 West Driveway /Strander Blvd C 15.8 SB Left C 23.3 SB Left Southcenter Pkwy / /I -5 Ramp (Mall Entry)* C 20.5 0.62 C 29.6 0.84 Southcenter Parkway /North Driveway C 23.3 WB App. D 29.8 WB App. Saturday Peak Hour' 2010 No Action 2010 Proposed Action LOS2 Delay3 V/C or WM LOS Delay V/C WM or Tukwila Parkway/West Driveway F >50.0 NB Left F >50.0 NB Left Mall Entry (1 -405 NB Ramp)/Tukwila Pkwy* B 12.9 0.66 B 14.6 0.75 Andover Park W /North Driveway F >50.0 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left Andover Park W /Baker Blvd (Mall Entrance)* B 13.2 0.56 C 22.5 0.82 Andover Park W /South Driveway D 25.2 EB Left F >50.0 EB Left Mall- Target Entrance /Strander Blvd* C 23.0 0.65 D 43.8 1.00 West Driveway /Strander Blvd E 36.7 SB Left F >50.0 SB Left Southcenter Pkwy /I -5 NB Ramp (Mall Entry)* C 27.3 0.83 F >80.0 1.87 Southcenter Parkway /North Driveway E 43.3 WB App F >50.0 WB App Notes: * Signalized Intersection 1. LOS, delays, and v/c ratios at signalized intersections reflect the operation of the intersection as a whole, while delay for unsignalized intersections reflects the delay for the worst movement. 2. LOS = Level of Service (A -F) 3. Del = Average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle 4. V/C = Critical volume -to- capacity ratio, WM = Worst Movement. As Table 3 -18 shows, all of the site driveways would operate at LOS D or better, or re- main at the same LOS as in 2010 No Action conditions during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, four driveways (three of which are unsignalized) are ex- pected to fall from operating conditions of LOS E or better to LOS F with the Proposed Action. The unsignalized Andover Park W /South Driveway would operate just above the threshold for LOS F, indicating that vehicles would be delayed on the eastbound left -turn movement, but would find an opportunity to enter the traffic stream. All other move- ments at this intersection would operate at LOS B or better under the Proposed Action. The unsignalized West Driveway /Strander Boulevard would also operate at LOS F on the southbound left -turn movement. This movement would experience high vehicle delay and drivers would likely chose to use the signalized access points once learning that this movement is difficult to complete during the Saturday peak hour. All other movements would operate at LOS C or better during the Saturday peak hour. 3 -68 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking As discussed in the operations analysis, the signalized Southcenter Parkway /I -5 NB Ramp at the Nordstrom's entry would operate more effectively if right -turn lanes were constructed on the northbound and westbound approaches, and the signal phasing on the southbound left -turn movement was modified to allow permitted and protected move- ments. This would improve peak -hour conditions to LOS D or better during the peak hours, and significantly reduce queues on the shopping center driveway approach. Another alternative that would improve conditions at the Southcenter Parkway /I -5 Northbound Ramp /Mall Entry signal would include adding ingress to the site via a new driveway at the 61st Avenue S/Tukwila Parkway intersection. A fourth leg could be added to this intersection to allow entering movements only. Egress would not be al- lowed, in an effort to reduce signal- timing impacts on the existing east, west, and north approaches. Furthermore, westbound left -turn movements from Tukwila Parkway into the site would need to be restricted and directed to use the signalized driveway located opposite the I -405 Northbound On -Ramp on Tukwila Parkway. By providing direct ac- cess to the site from the 61st Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway intersection, traffic volumes at the Southcenter Parkway driveway would be reduced and peak -hour operations would improve to LOS D or better. Because this alternative does not affect egress travel pat- terns, the recommended westbound right -turn lane on the site driveway approach would still be needed to accommodate anticipated queue lengths with the Proposed Action. The unsignalized Southcenter Parkway/North Driveway is expected to fall to LOS F un- der the Proposed Action during the Saturday peak hour, in comparison to LOS E under the No Action Alternative. The westbound approach (mall driveway) currently has one travel lane. Operations could be improved by widening the driveway to separate out- bound left- and right -turn movements. Vehicle delay would be reduced; however, even with the recommended improvement, the driveway would operate just above the LOS F threshold during the Saturday peak hour under the Proposed Action. The two unsignalized driveways operating at LOS F under the No Action Alternative would continue to operate at LOS F under the Proposed Action. The Tukwila Park- way /West Driveway would experience increased congestion on the northbound left -turn movement as a result of the Proposed Action. Vehicles would likely choose a signalized intersection over this driveway as drivers experience long vehicle delays on this outbound movement. The adjacent signals have adequate capacity to support additional exiting traffic, thus traffic volumes would likely balance and result in acceptable operations. Under the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action, Andover Park W/North Driveway is also expected to operate at LOS F on the eastbound left -turn movement. If the previously mentioned option of adding ingress access via the 61st Avenue S /Tukwila Parkway intersection were implemented, the Saturday peak hour LOS at the western Tukwila Parkway unsignalized driveway would improve from LOS F to LOS C, while the remainder of the unsignalized driveways would remain at LOS F. In general, the outbound left -turn movements at the unsignalized driveways are expected to operate with noticeable vehicle delay during the peak hours. This is to be expected for Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -69 Transportation and Parking stop - controlled movements on arterials with high traffic volumes. The existing signal- ized access points could accommodate a shift in traffic volumes, should drivers seek al- ternate locations to exit the site. Transit Service It is assumed that existing and future transit service would continue to be used as a mode choice to access the project site. Overall, the existing services (and the potential for fu- ture improvements) are expected to accommodate any increase in ridership that could re- sult from the Proposed Action. Buses operating in the area would be subject to the same delays reported in the LOS tables for the Proposed Action, as they are accounted for in projected traffic volumes and they utilize the roadway network in conjunction with other motor vehicles. The delay for each individual bus rider would be consistent with the de- lay experienced by the bus and other motor vehicles following the same route. Thus, the overall delay to persons would be higher for buses versus standard automobiles. The potential improvements listed in Metro's Six -Year Transportation Development Plan 2002 -2007 would address most concerns raised in recent transit rider surveys. The key unaddressed transit rider issue revolved around potential capital improvements to the ex- isting transit shelter at the Andover Park W /Baker Boulevard intersection. While addi- tional "trips would not create a significant adverse impact to bus and rail operations in the area, the proponent could consider upgrading the existing bus shelters, benches, and gen- erally improve connectivity between the Andover Park W bus stops and the mall entrance to further encourage transit use to /from the site by employees and customers. Non - Motorized Facilities Existing non - motorized facilities within the study area would accommodate the portion of Proposed Action trips that would access the site via non - motorized means. In addition, improvements to trail connections and the Tukwila TUC should only further strengthen this accessibility. Thus, no significant adverse impacts to non - motorized facilities or op- erations are expected to occur under the Proposed Action. Pedestrian travel could be im- proved by integrating dedicated walkways into the site plan that provide access between the adjacent streets, adjacent transit zones, and the shopping center. Traffic Safety There would be a potential increase in traffic accidents at study intersections due to the increase in traffic from the Proposed Action. As discussed previously, the Proposed Ac- tion is anticipated to increase peak -hour intersection traffic by a range of approximately 1 to 30- percent at the study intersections during the weekday PM and/or Saturday peak hours. Several planned transportation improvements and/or potential improvements iden- tified as a result of operational conditions could be implemented to reduce congestion and improve traffic safety within the study area. 3 -70 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Two study intersections were noted to have unusually high collision rates: Southcenter Parkway /Minlder Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard. At Southcenter Parkway /Minkler Boulevard, the predominant share of collisions occurred as a result of illegal movements out of an unsignalized stop controlled driveway that forms the western leg of the intersection. Intersection design measures such as integrating the driveway into the signal operations, restricting egress from the driveway, or driveway design modifications to reduce illegal movements would significantly improve safety at this location. The Proposed Action would account for approximately 2 percent of traffic volumes at this location; however, project - related traffic is expected to travel north and southbound on the Parkway and not use the west leg that causes the highest portion of existing collisions. Collisions at Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard seem to be caused by a combina- tion of conditions, primarily due to driveways located within the immediate vicinity of the intersection or collisions due to overall congestion levels. Safety improvements could include turn movement and/or egress restrictions at adjacent driveways. The City's long - range planned improvements for this intersection as part of the Klickitat bridge improve- ments are expected to reduce traffic congestion, and as a result are expected to improve traffic safety. The Proposed Action would account for approximately 8 percent of traffic volumes at this location, and could proportionally impact traffic safety conditions. Fi- nancial contribution towards the planned improvements through impact fees or right -of- way dedication could be a mitigating measure to offset the project's proportional share of impacts to safety conditions. With an increase in traffic volumes at the site driveways with the Proposed Action, traffic safety conditions could decline proportionally. Since no specific collision patterns have been identified to date, the City may consider monitoring collision patterns with occu- pancy of the proposed expansion. Should the unsignalized driveways experience high collision rates, potential measures such as turn- movement restrictions, creating center refuge -lanes on adjacent arterials, or signalization, could be considered depending on the type of safety condition identified. However, the results of the traffic analysis do not conclusively highlight the need for specific improvements at this time. Potential traffic safety impacts of the Proposed Action could be reduced as a result of specific intersection improvements, if implemented. Parking A review of parking supply in comparison to anticipated peak parking demand and City of Tukwila parking code requirements was conducted to determine the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. Parking Supply The existing shopping center has a total of 6,679 parking stalls, all provided in surface parking lots on -site. Under the Proposed Action, parking supply would total approxi- Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -71 Transportation and Parking mately 7,900 stalls in a combination of surface and structured parking. The increase in parking supply would occur primarily on the south side of the project site. The increased parking supply would support the existing parking demand and the anticipated demand under the Proposed Action. Proposed Action Parking Demand Peak parking needs for the shopping center component of the Proposed Action were cal- culated using the same methodology outlined in the existing conditions analysis of park- ing demand. This ULI methodology assumes the peak parking needs on the 20th busiest hour of the year are approximately 4.5 stalls per 1,000 sf of gross leasable area. As was discussed in the Affected Environment section, this methodology implies that parking demand would exceed this parking ratio only 19 business hours of the year. For the re- maining 3,000 business hours of the year, parking demand would be less than this ratio. This rate is applicable to all retail, restaurant, and cinema uses within the shopping center (including the outparcels). It is noted that the 20th busiest hour of parking demand for a shopping center has been found to occur between 1:00 and 3:00 p.m. on the second Sat- urday prior to Christmas. Practically speaking, consideration of demand levels in this range should be viewed as typically representative of holiday season weekend peak park- ing demands. Parking demand associated with the proposed hotel was calculated using ITE Parking Generation, Second Edition. While no overlap for shared parking has been included in the hotel parking demand, some shared parking is likely; thus, calculated de- mand may somewhat overestimate actual conditions. It is also noted that, while traffic generation estimates were developed assuming a 12- percent increase in traffic over ITE trip generation estimates, parking rates were not simi- larly adjusted. Trip rates were adjusted based on actual driveway traffic counts con- ducted during weekday PM peak -hour conditions. Parking accumulation is a function of both total demand and duration of shopping stay, while driveway traffic counts are sim- ply a measure of in and out activity. In fact, high parking turnover (which can result in lower accumulations) can be related to higher driveway traffic counts. Thus, no adjust- ment to the methodology described above was appropriate for the parking analysis. The 20th highest hour peak parking demand for the shopping center, excluding the hotel, is estimated to be 8,355 parking stalls. With the hotel, assuming no shared parking, the peak demand would increase to 8,428 stalls. The detailed parking demand calculations are provided in Appendix B -1. This analysis indicates that on the peak parking days, the available supply of approximately 7,900 stalls would not be adequate to meet the peak parking demand. Unmitigated, this condition would result in a number of adverse im- pacts, including congestion in internal circulation aisles as a result of prolonged parking searches, congestion at site driveways related to parking search delays, increased circula- tion on surrounding streets, and possible parking off -site in adjacent retail centers — to the extent that these centers appear to have parking available. It should be noted, however, that during the period when Southcenter parking would be at a holiday peak, the same would be true for adjacent retail centers. As a result, it is important that such high de- mand conditions be anticipated, and programmatically mitigated. 3 -72 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking The ULI methodology includes employee parking demand in its total peak parking de- mand. Employee parking could be as high as 20 percent of the total parking require- ments. Twenty percent of the demand would equate to over 1,670 spaces. If employees were required to park in offsite locations during the predictable periods of highest de- mand, which typically occur during the Christmas holiday shopping season, on -site park- ing would be adequate to meet even these peak demand levels. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures such as transit incentives, car- pooling programs for employees, parking management programs with preferential park- ing for carpools or vanpools, and/or shuttle services could also be used to reduce peak parking needs during the holiday season or year round. Code Requirements Based on the City of Tukwila's parking code requirements, the Proposed Action would require a minimum of approximately 8,289 parking stalls. In comparison to the proposed supply of 7,900 stalls, the Proposed Action would not meet City code as currently pro- posed. The proponent would either increase parking supply on -site to meet the code re- quirements for parking by increasing the size of the parking structures, or would seek a parking variance to authorize the reduced parking supply. The detailed calculations used to arrive at code requirements are provided in Appendix B -1. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are accounted for in the analysis of the Proposed Action through the inclusion of background traffic growth reflecting future development, and through the inclusion of planned transportation improvements. Mitigating Measures Traffic volumes, traffic operations, transit and rail, non - motorized, traffic safety, and parking conditions under the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative were compared to identify near -term impacts and possible mitigating measures. Table 3 -19 summarizes the intersection mitigation options identified as a result of this impact analysis. Peak parking demand, which typically occurs during the holiday season, would generate more parking than the proposed supply. While the 20th busiest hour analysis is reflective of the second Saturday prior to Christmas, the conditions and impacts represented can be viewed as typical of weekend conditions during the holiday season. Parking impacts could be mitigated through a Transportation Demand Management program for site em- ployees, and/or by requiring off -site parking for employees during the peak holiday sea- son. Such programs may require the employment of a parking shuttle system to transport employees from off -site parking locations to the site, depending on the location of off -site parking. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -73 Transportation and Parking Improvements to the transit facilities or services could also encourage transit use by em- ployees throughout the year, particularly during the holidays. To mitigate long -range transportation impacts, the Proposed Action would be subject to mitigation impact fees pursuant to the Traffic Concurrency Standards and Impact Fees chapter of Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Traffic volumes, congestion, and collisions are expected to increase within the Tukwila Urban Center as a result of forecast population, employment growth, and transportation system improvements, without or with implementation of the Proposed Action. 3 -74 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Table 3 -19 Potential Transportation Mitigation Options Int # Intersection Mitigation Warranted' Mitigation Options Option Pros /Cons Existing t Acti on Proposed Action 4 51St Ave S/ SR 518 EB Off -Ramp X X a. Install traffic signal b. Construct center refuge lane on 51st Ave S Option (a) provides more benefit for the associated cost 615` Ave S/ Southcenter Blvd X X X a. Second WB left -turn lane and /or EB thru- lane b. Modify signal phasing /timing Option (b) is most feasible and provides more benefit than option (a) 8 65th 65 Ave S/ Southcenter Blvd X X a. Channelize center refuge lane on Southcenter Blvd b. Install traffic signal Option (a) most effective. Option (b) would impact traffic progression on the Boulevard. 10 Interurban Avenue S /I- 405 SB Ramp X X a. Add overlap signal phase to EB right turn lane 11 Interurban Ave S/ Southcenter Blvd X X X a. Construct NB right -turn lane with overlap signal phase Option (a) costly due to proximity of 1-405 overpass near the intersection. 13 5, 61 Ave S/ Tukwila Pkwy X X X a. Construct second EB through lane b. Construct new ingress driveway on south leg, restrict WB left -turn movements Option (a) would improve peak hour operations. Option (b) would improve circulation into the site and operations at other locations, but would not improve conditions at this location. 21 Southcenter Pkwy/ 1 -5 NB Off -Ramp/ Mall Entry X a. Construct NB right -turn lane, WB right -turn lane, and phasing modifications b. Construct new ingress driveway at 61st Ave S/Tukwila Pkwy and a WB right -turn lane at this location. 22 Southcenter Pkwy/ Klickitat Dr X a. Construct second EB left-turn lane b. Improve signal coordination /timing Option (a) costly, temporary fix. Option (b) is feasible short-term solution 23 Southcenter Pkwy/ 1 -5 NB Off -Ramp X X a. Install c -curb to eliminate vehicle weaving Option (a) is feasible short -term solution Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking 3 -75 24 Southcenter Pkwy/ Strander Blvd X X X a. Construct second WB right -turn lane b. Improve signal coordination /timing c. Restrict turn - movements at adjacent driveways Option (a) is costly, temporary fix. Option (b) is feasible short-term solution. Option (d) could address existing safety conditions. 26 Andover Park W/ Strander Blvd X a. Construct second EB left-turn lane b. Construct second WB left -turn lane c. Construct SB right -turn lane d. Construct WB right -turn lane Each option provides equal benefit; right -of -way constraints would determine feasibility and preferred solution 30 Southcenter Pkwy/ Minkler Blvd X X X a. Integrate existing unsignalized driveway into signal operations b. Physically restrict turn movements from unsignalized driveway Options to be considered to address existing safety conditions. Notes: 1. Improvements (mitigation) warranted as a result of intersection level of service operating at LOS F 3 -76 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS Transportation and Parking Public Services and Utilities Affected Environment Fire and Emergency Medical Services The City of Tukwila Fire Department provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to the project site. The Department serves 17,270 residents and approximately 45,000 employees over an area of approximately 8.6 square miles. The Department is comprised of four stations — Stations 51, 52, 53, and 54. Table 3 -20 lists the physical location and types of equipment housed at each station. Table 3 -20. City of Tukwila Fire Stations Locations and Equipment Station Location Equipment Station 51 444 Andover Park East 1 main engine (1,500 GPM') 1 rescue truck 1 support engine (1,500 GPM) 1 shift commander vehicle (Battalion 51) Station 52 5900 South 147th Street 1 main engine (2,000 GPM) 1 hazardous materials response vehicle Station 53 4202 South 115th Street 1 main engine (2,000 GPM) 1 support engine (1,500 GPM) Station 54 4237 South 144th Street 1 ladder truck (2,000 GPM) 1 rescue aid unit 1 support aid unit Source: City of Tukwila, 2003. 'Gallons Per Minute of water pumped per vehicle. Station 51, the Headquarters Station, is located within one -half mile of Southcenter and has primary responsibility for responding to incidents occurring on the shopping center property and in the general vicinity including the adjacent interestates. Station 52 and Station 54 provide back -up support to Station 51. Station 52 is located less than one mile from Southcenter. Station 54 is located just over a mile away and has convenient access to the surrounding highways (State Route 99 and SR 518) and other main arterials. Sta- tion 53 provides primary response to incidents in north Tukwila, the Boeing Military Air- plane Factory, the Museum of Flight, and the south end of Boeing Air Field. In addition, the Department participates in the King County-wide mutual aid agreement contract, which covers all fire departments in the County. Call type and available re- sources would ultimately determine the station response sequence at the time of an inci- dent. With all fire apparatus in quarters and available, apparatus would respond to an emergency medical alarm in the following order: Engine 51, Engine 52, Ladder 54, City Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -77 Public Service and Utilities of Renton Aid or Engine 14, City of Kent Engine 76, and City of SeaTac Engine 46 (Tomaso, 2004). On average, a 4- minute response time is typical from Station 51. Response times are variable, depending on the time of day or night, traffic conditions, and available stations. Outlying stations would respond within up to 13 to 15 minutes. In all, the four Tukwila stations are equipped with 3 main engines, 2 back -up engines, 1 ladder truck, 1 hazardous materials response unit, 1 Command unit, 1 main rescue aid unit, and 1 back -up aid unit. A total of 39 full -time equivalent (FTE) firefighters, 12 shift lieutenants, and 3 shift captains are assigned to the stations. All responding personnel are Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and are defibrillator- certified. The "fire sup- pression crews" work three rotating 24 -hour shifts, with a minimum of 14 personnel staffed per shift among the four stations. Table 3 -21 shows the staffing allocation for each station. Table 3 -21. City of Tukwila Fire Stations Staff per Station Staff Per 24 -Hour Shift Station 51' Station 52 Station 53 Station 54 1 Captain 1 Lieutenant 3 Firefighters 1 Lieutenant 2 Firefighters 1 Lieutenant 3 Firefighters 1 Lieutenant 5 Firefighters 'The Department's Shift Commander, Fire Marshall, and Training Division all report from Station 51. The Special Operations Division of the Tukwila Fire Department consists of the Hazard- ous Materials Team and the Rescue Team. Each team is cross - trained and includes 12 officers and firefighters from the Department who have received specialized training in responding to incidents involving chemical releases, fuel spills, and rescues involving high angles, confined spaces, trenches, or water. American Medical Response and Tri -Med Ambulance company provide the ambulance service. Service is rotated between the two companies and calls are dispatched by Tuk- wila Fire Department's dispatch agency. Initial response to medical incidents is typically made by first responders who are typically EMT firefighters, followed by advanced life support response by the Paramedic Unit, (country-wide medic one program) if necessary. Staffing levels are set by the City of Tukwila Mayor's Office, with input from the Fire Chief. The current budget requires that the Aid unit be out of service whenever the de- partment is at minimum staffing (14 personnel on duty). During the first quarter of 2004, the Aid unit was placed out of service for a total of 48 shifts (days). When this has oc- curred, private ambulance companies respond to provide service. This arrangement has resulted in a slight increase in incident response times. In 2002, the Department received a total of 1,446 fire calls and 2,620 aid calls in the City. Of these calls, the Department responded to roughly 52 fire - related calls (.036 calls per 3 -78 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities 1,000 sf) and 184 aid calls (.128 calls per 1,000 sf) at Southcenter (City of Tukwila, 2003). Police Services Information about police services was provided by the City of Tukwila Police Depart- ment (Haines, 2003). The City of Tukwila Police Department provides primary law enforcement services to the residents and businesses in the City, including the project site. The patrol division is headquartered at the City's administrative campus (6200 Southcenter Blvd.), just north of I -405, Tukwila Parkway, and Southcenter. The administration and investigation divi- sions operate out of 6300 Southcenter Blvd. The area served by the Department is di- vided into 5 patrol districts: T -1, T -3, T -5, T -7, and T -9. The proposed site is located in Patrol District T -3. Two off -site locations provide limited workspace for officers. The first location, the Tukwila Police Community Resource Center, is provided by Southcenter and located at the south end of the mall as an exterior storefront. One crime prevention officer and one civilian employee staff the office generally Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm. These employees do not respond to police calls, but provide crime prevention services throughout the City from the Southcenter location. The other off -site location, referred to as the Neighborhood Resource Center, is located on Tukwila International Blvd. and pro- vides office space for one crime prevention officer and several volunteers. Both locations provide limited space for district vehicles. The Department is organized into two divisions — Patrol Services and Investigative Ser- vices. Within these divisions, the Department maintains units specializing in traffic en- forcement, major crimes, crime prevention, drug enforcement, special operations (i.e., Valley Special Response Team, civil disturbance), K -9, community and educational out- reach, and emergency disaster management. In the event of an incident at Southcenter, patrol units from District T -3 would provide first response, followed by back -up assistance from other patrol districts in the area. If T- 3 were not available to respond, the on -duty supervisor would coordinate response from another district or hold the call for response by T -3, depending on the level of emergency. In addition, mutual aid agreements have been established between the City and all sur- rounding jurisdictions for major emergencies, including the Seattle Police Department and the King County Sheriffs Office. The City has established mutual aid agreements with 97 agencies statewide. The Washington State Patrol (WSP) also serves the area by providing traffic law en- forcement, collision investigation, and motorist assistance along the state and interstate highways. The WSP's South Seattle Detachment office is located in Tukwila (15666 In- Current estimates indicate that Tukwila supports approximately 2,000 businesses and a workforce of 45,000 (City of Tukwila, 2003). Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -79 Public Service and Utilities ternational Boulevard); the headquarters office is located in Bellevue and provides ser- vice to north Pierce County and all of King County (referred to as District 2). In addition to highway patrol, the WSP provides drug enforcement, hazardous materials oversight, incident response, truck inspections, and aviation patrol (WSP, 2003). The Tukwila Police Department currently employs 68 commissioned full -time equivalent (FTE) officers and 16 non - commissioned officers. Approximately 28 volunteers donate time to various departmental functions (including special events, youth programs, com- munity services, traffic safety awareness, and administration). Police service extends be- yond Tukwila's resident population (17,270 in 2003) to include the non - resident work- force, shoppers, and other visitors. Due to the high level of police activity and relatively low population, the Department determines police personnel requirements based on num- ber of police calls, rather than the number of City residents. Two police shifts occur within a 24 -hour period. A minimum of 5 patrol officers and 1 supervisor staff each shift, although as many as 8 patrol officers and 1 Sergeant are scheduled for each shift. A traffic unit comprised of 2 officers and 1 Sergeant supple- ment the patrol staffing (Monday through Friday, daytime hours). Presently, the Department has adequate staffing, vehicle fleet, and facilities to meet de- mand. However, facilities space at 6200 and 6300 Southcenter Blvd is limited; an in- crease in staffing would result in the need for an expansion of these facilities. The City currently has no planned capital facilities allocation for expansion of facilities. During 2002, the Citywide response time for emergencies ranged from 3.0 minutes to 8.9 minutes, depending on the level of priority assigned to the incident. Non - emergency re- sponse times were an average of 12 minutes. Given the close proximity of the police headquarters, emergency response times to the site are generally less than 3 minutes. Over the 12 -month period from November 2002 to November 2003, the Department re- corded 35,869 calls for service Citywide, 3,302 (or 9.2 percent) of which originated at Southcenter. The Southcenter calls resulted in 1,234 cases, or 13.7 percent of all case reports in the City. 2 Southcenter generated an average of 9.4 calls for service and 3.5 cases per 24 -hour day. The majority of calls for service at Southcenter occur during the hours of operation (generally from 10am to 1Opm). Officers (dispatched from the Re- source Center and/or the patrol districts) spent approximately 2,107 hours on calls at Southcenter during this time (1.46 hours per 1,000 sf), not including time required for follow -up, case completion, or investigation. Incidents at Southcenter typically involve shoplifting, vandalism, minor crime calls, and minor vehicle accidents. Approximately 16 percent of calls from Southcenter are characterized as "9 -1 -1 hang -up calls." Mall se- curity is contacted by the Tukwila Police supervisor on duty to investigate these calls; the City does not typically provide response but is charged by the dispatch center for each call. 2 During this 12 -month period, Southcenter generated 2.29 calls for service per 1,000 sf and 0.86 cases per 1,000 sf. 3 -80 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Southcenter Security Information about Southcenter security was provided by Southcenter management (Tufts, 2003). Certain security - related information was provided to the City but is not included in this public document. Security at Southcenter is provided through a contract between Westfield and Profes- sional Security Consultants. Depending on the demand for security, which is typically dictated by the peak shopping periods, management staffs a range of 25 to 35 security officers (.017 to .024 officers per 1,000 sf). Officers are on duty 24 hours per day, with 10 officers (.007 per 1,000 sf) typically on duty in the evenings and on weekends (Thurs- day through Sunday), fewer during mall hours Monday through Wednesday and at night. Staffing occurs over an area of 7 patrol zones. Security duties are carried out in vehicles, on bicycle, and via foot patrol. Additional se- curity and loss prevention personnel are employed by the major retailers and by some of the smaller stores. In the event of an emergency, Southcenter security notifies emergency dispatch (911). Southcenter security officers cannot interfere with criminal or emergency matters without initial response by the City. Southcenter also contracts with the Tukwila Police Department to provide additional in- ternal mall security service during heavy shopping periods (i.e., holidays). Service is provided by off -duty police officers. Utilities Water Supply The City of Tukwila receives water supply through a wholesale purchase contract be- tween the Cascade Water Alliance, of whom Tukwila is a party, and the City of Seattle Public Utilities Department. The Tukwila Water Utility manages distribution of water to paying customers within its service area, which includes the majority of the City. High - line Water District provides service to areas in the southwest end of the City and King County Water District 125 serves the area northwest of I -5. Nearly all of the water supplied to Tukwila comes from the Cedar River Watershed, a 90,000 -acre watershed located in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains. Water is trans- ported through supply lines consisting of a 60 -inch Cedar River Pipeline No. 4 to the south of the City and a 48 -inch West Seattle supply line to the north. Emergency interties are also maintained between the Tukwila Water District and nearby districts. Highline water district intertie Water district 75 intertie Water district #75 intertie The primary transmission main for Southcenter is the 60 -inch line that enters the site at the northwest corner, near the Bahama Breeze restaurant. The water main is reduced to smaller lines on site in order to provide service to the shopping center businesses. The City maintains all water lines on the site under a 1969 agreement between the then mall Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -81 Public Service and Utilities owner and the City. Within the Southcenter area, there is one 140 -pound -per square inch (psi) water pressure zone. In 2002, Southcenter used 27,437,049 gallons of water, or 75,170 gpd. There are no current capacity constraints with the existing system. Stormwater See the Water Resources section in this chapter for the stormwater discussion. Sewer The City of Tukwila operates the existing sewer system, which serves approximately 1,500 customer accounts. The system consists of 8 sewage lift stations and a collection system comprised mainly of 10- to 12 -inch sanitary sewer lines. The system consists of roughly 30 miles of concrete pipe with some portions of PVC, asbestos cement, cast iron, and ductile iron mains (City of Tukwila, 2003). The City's system connects with King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division's South Treatment Plant in Renton. The treatment plant treats millions of gallons of wastewater generated by homes, businesses, and industrial operations. The treatment plant has an average treatment capacity of 115 million gallons of waste daily (King County, 2003). According to the City, the current average daily flow from the City to the treatment facility is approximately 2 million gallons per day (mgpd) (Cusick, 2003). In 2002, Southcenter produced 26,537,890 gallons of effluent (72,707 gpd), or 3.6 percent of the City's total daily flow to King County's treatment plant. Lift Station 12 serves the project site and is located on an easement on the shopping cen- ter property, between the post office and Key Bank. This lift station is currently at capac- ity; additional sewage flows would require an upgrade to the lift station or redirection of some sewer flows to an existing line along Strander Blvd. (Cusick, 2003). The City currently has responsibility for maintenance of all sewer lines on the site under the 1969 agreement with the then mall owner and the City. The City has identified maintenance problems (i.e., blockage) on the existing system in- volving grease accumulation from existing restaurants and infiltration of groundwater or surface water,3 which have compromised the ability of the lift station to function properly (Cusick, 2003). Currently, the larger food establishments at Southcenter (Nordstrom Grill, Rainforest Cafe, and Bahama Breeze) are responsible for maintaining individual grease interceptors; the smaller restaurant operations are not currently required to manage grease waste. As a component of routine maintenance, the mall flushes its wastewater drainage system up to twice each year (Tufts, 2003). 3 The mall was not designed with a central grease interceptor system that ties in with the City's sewer sys- tem. 3 -82 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Solid Waste Rabanco is contracted to provide solid waste and recycling collection services to the pro- ject site. Rabanco's South King County Division —Kent Meridian/SeaTac Disposal and Recycling (22010 76`h Ave. S, Kent) transports waste to the King County Solid Waste Division's Bow Lake Transfer Station, located at 18800 Orillia Road South in Tukwila. From this location, wastes are transferred to the Cedar Hills Landfill, located approxi- mately 20 miles southeast of Seattle. SeaDruMar picks up some of the mall's recyclables, including all cardboard. Construction, demolition, and landclearing debris (referred to as CDL) are transported to the Black River Demolition Disposal and Recycling Station (501 Monster Rd. SW, Renton) and then onto Rabanco's Roosevelt Landfill located in Klicki- tat County, Washington. These facilities currently have capacity constraints for hauling and receiving wastes. The Bow Lake Transfer Station and Cedar Hills Landfill accept wastes from commercial haulers and self - haulers. Most wastes are accepted at these facilities, with the exception of tires (limited quantities), hazardous wastes, oil, and CDL waste. Contractors and/or haulers with pre- existing accounts may use the facilities; users may also pay cash to dis- pose of waste. Currently, King County contracts with Rabanco (its subsidiary, Regional Disposal Com- pany) and Waste Management to each provide a minimum handling capacity of 25,000 tons of CDL wastes and recyclables per month (300,000 tons per year). Each company maintains two CDL handling facilities in King County. From 1994 to 1999, the Rabanco facilities handled the disposal of approximately 118,000 to 165,000 tons per year (King County, 2001), resulting in a remaining capacity for approximately 182,000 to 135,000 tons per year. The King County Solid Waste Division has responsibility to provide for management of wastes generated within its jurisdiction, which includes providing disposal capacity. That capacity is currently available at the Cedar Hills Landfill, and that site has capacity through at least 2012. The County is currently re- evaluating solid waste generation rates and available capacity, and site life of Cedar Hills Landfill may be extended. When the landfill reaches capacity, the County will seek to ensure disposal capacity by contracting with another landfill outside the county to provide disposal service. This will be done through a competitive procurement process, the outcome of which has not been deter- mined (Kiernan, 2004). Space for an effective recycling program does not currently exist at Southcenter. City standards require 5 sq. ft. for every 1,000 sq. ft. in gross leasable area for retail develop- ments. Existing waste facilities at Southcenter consist of seven internal garbage storage rooms [two with recycling containers, six with Styrofoam peanuts recycling bags /racks, and six with verti -packs for cardboard (small, front - loading waste compactors designed to reduce bulky waste)], and three loading docks for recyclables and garbage collection. The mall recycles cardboard, paper products, Styrofoam peanuts and plastic bags /film. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -83 Public Service and Utilities There are three outdoor 30 -yard garbage compactors —one at each loading dock. There are additional compactors at each loading dock for cardboard. Kent Meridian/SeaTac Disposal and Recycling generally provides waste pick -up 6 to 7 days per week, depending on the volume of waste. Recyclable materials are retrieved 1 to 3 times per week, depending on container locations (indoor containers are picked up 3 times per week, while outdoor containers are picked up once per week). Current solid waste and recyclables generation from Southcenter is unknown. Billing is based on the pick -up schedule and does not reflect quantities of waste. In addition, Southcenter waste that is transported to Rabanco's facilities normally includes wastes from other Rabanco customers (Erath, 2003). Electricity Electricity information was provided by officials at Puget Sound Energy (2003). Puget Sound Energy provides electricity service to Southcenter. Two exclusive 12 -kv (kilovolt) distribution circuits serve the property from the Renton Junction Substation, which is located at West Valley Hwy and Strander Blvd. This station has two separated 25 -Mva (megavolt- amperes) transformers. The two distribution circuits that serve South - center are split -- one from each of the two substation transformers and directed west to- ward Southcenter. The system is loopable and at the current peak loads of around 8 Mva required by Southcenter, either circuit can carry the entire Southcenter load. The north half of Southcenter is on one circuit and the south half is on the other. Renton Junction Sub serves primarily commercial load in the surrounding area around Southcenter along Andover Park East and West and load along the West Valley Hwy. Southcenter is by far the largest customer served from this substation using approximately 20 percent of the station capacity during summer peaks. The Renton Junction substation has a total capacity of 50 Mva (between its two 25 -Mva transformers). The original station was built around the time Southcenter was con- structed. The second station transformer was added in the mid 70's. The station has been in the system for some time but is maintained on a regular basis. In the late 90s, the two 12 -kv circuits were replaced in their entirety with brand new cable from the station to Southcenter. The electrical distribution system is entirely underground, including an underground crossing of the Green River just west of the substation. The circuits continue from the river to Andover Park East and West. One circuit heads north on Andover Park East and loops around Tukwila Pkwy to Andover Park West. It continues south on Andover Park West and provides the service through several large switch cabinets for the north side of the Southcenter. The other circuit heads north from Strander Blvd. on Andover Park West and serves the south half of Southcenter via several switch cabinets. These circuits meet at a manual loopable switching cabinet on Andover Park West that is normally in the open position. All of the system, including within the mall, is in conduit. The local 3 -84 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities system enters Southcenter from the switch cabinets on Andover Park West and connects via several lines to recently installed pad -mount transformers spread throughout South - center. In 1986, much of the local distribution cable was replaced. In 1999, all of the older subsurface transformers were replaced with above - ground equipment. The anchor stores have spot network systems that are located on the roofs of the buildings. Natural Gas Puget Sound Energy provides natural gas service to the site from Andover Park West. Gas is used throughout the mall for food court operations, the HVAC system, and other uses. In the common areas and areas not occupied by tenants, 2003 gas usage totaled 48,335 therms. Extrapolating this number based on gas use per square footage, a total of approximately 454,632 therms was used throughout all of Southcenter during 2003. Communications QWest provides telecommunications to the project area, although Southcenter tenants have the option to select individual service providers. Wireless interne service was es- tablished in early November 2003. Digital cable television is not currently provided to the site. Comcast provides cable service to the local area. Information regarding QWest's service was provided by a QWest communications repre- sentative (Steen, 2004). Qwest provides service to the site via a system of service conduits located within a termi- nation space (area that holds equipment and connections for patching service to mall cus- tomers). Westfield provides the space and conduits, which enables Qwest to provide the service. The termination space is currently located at the south end of the mall in an area approximately 6 feet wide by 12 feet long. Much of the existing equipment is outdated and technological advances in communications have exceeded what currently exists on the site. In late 2002, kiosk expansions within the mall resulted in the saturation of service capac- ity within the termination space. QWest has indicated that it is still possible to bring ser- vice into the property from off -site, but capacity does not exist to patch service to cus- tomers located within the mall. Impacts of the Proposed Action Note: the purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Proposed Action. Impacts attributable to in- creases in the number of calls for service and its influence on a department's level of ser- vice (i.e., staffing levels, type of equipment, facilities, and response times) are considered in this analysis. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -85 Public Service and Utilities Specifically, impacts to staffing levels — strictly recognized as estimates of what could become actual impacts from the project — are provided based on several methods in order to identify a range or an average of the most probable scenario. This DEIS is not in- tended to resolve staffing issues, but rather to measure probable impact. Staffing esti- mates have been determined using estimates provided by the service provider based on historical experience, and by extrapolating past experience based on ratios of service de- mand per square feet of retail space. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Construction Development under the Proposed Action will increase the number of fire - related calls, fire inspections, and medical emergencies during construction. Demolition of paved ar- eas and buildings, site preparation, and construction of the proposed project could in- crease the risk of a medical emergency or accidental fire. In the event of emergencies involving confined space or trench rescue, emergency response by the Department's spe- cial operations teams may be necessary. The number of construction employees, pres- ence of heavy equipment, electrical installation, type and length of work schedules, and vandalism during the construction phase contribute to this potential. The extent of the impact on the Fire Department and emergency medical services would depend on the number of calls during the construction phase. The Department estimates that it could receive approximately 30 to 50 emergency calls for fire, aid and special team services during this construction phase. This equates to a demand for one additional fire- fighter FTE. It is also anticipated that the size of the construction project (including the construction of parking structures) will generate a significant number of calls for review and inspections — greater than the Fire Marshal's office currently can accommodate. The fire marshal estimates the need for one FTE to accommodate this increased workload. Installation of smoke evacuation systems in the common mall areas could result in the need for training in the operation of the smoke control system following the acceptance and annual confidence testing of the system, which could impact the Department's ability to provide service. Any traffic delays that would result from construction activities will result in increased response times. As a result of additional call volume, the Department estimates the need for three addi- tional FTE Firefighters, which would raise the minimum manning to 15 personnel and ensure that the aid unit is staffed. In addition, the additional square footage in retail and common areas could require the addition of one FTE in the Fire Marshal's office in order to manage the additional inspection load. This position could be maintained through the operations phase in order to perform annual fire code compliance inspections and to pro- vide other services (Tomaso, 2004). Overall, impacts to fire and emergency medical service during the construction phase would be moderate. 3 -86 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Operation Expanding the number and area of retail services will increase demand for fire and emer- gency medical services. The Proposed Action would contribute to an increase in the number of shoppers and employees at Southcenter. Using the existing ratios of fire and aid calls per 1,000 sf per year, the expanded site could experience an increase of ap- proximately 28 fire and 101 aid calls per year. This equates to demand for one additional firefighter FTE. Due to the unique staffing requirements of the fire service, it is difficult and inefficient to add a single firefighter. The proposed shopping center expansion will accelerate and account for a portion of the eventual need to increase the Department's minimum manning from 14 to 15, which would require the addition of three firefighter FTEs. The proposed expansion would also increase the ongoing plan review and inspection de- mands placed on the Fire Marshall's office. While the increased demand directly from the expansion would be less than one FTE, the Fire Marshall's office may by unable to provide adequate ongoing service to the mall and other customers without an increase in staffing. The Fire Marshal's office also estimates that the ability of its operations division to sup- press vehicle fires within the parking structures could be affected. At this point, how- ever, based on preliminary conceptual plans of the structures, it is difficult to determine the actual extent of impacts (i.e., need for additional equipment related to serving the structures). Generally speaking, due to the size of the proposed parking structures and because typical parking structures do not have sufficient clearances for fire apparatus to enter, there may be a time delay for firefighters to reach vehicle fires that may occur on the upper floors. A smaller vehicle or apparatus may be necessary in order to transport the firefighters to these areas in a timely manner. Given the close proximity of the fire station to Southcenter (just southeast of the mall), response times would not likely be adversely affected. Response times currently average four minutes to the mall, depending on the priority level of the incident and level of traf- fic on surface streets, and would likely remain at approximately four minutes following the proposed expansion (See Affected Environment). Site access could also influence response times. An Evacuation Assistance Plan is required by Tukwila's Building Code. The plan is re- viewed and approved by the City and is then posted on site and available to emergency personnel. Overall, impacts to fire and emergency medical services resulting from operation of the expanded Southcenter property would likely be moderate. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -87 Public Service and Utilities Police Services Construction Vandalism, theft and/or trespassing could occur during construction. The level of secu- rity measures utilized on -site during construction, such as fencing and security patrols, would directly influence the need for police. At times, construction traffic could contrib- ute to traffic congestion on the transportation routes around the mall. In these instances, police services may be required to facilitate traffic movement. Overall, construction traf- fic could result in an increased need for police services and could reduce the Depart- ment's ability to respond to incidents elsewhere. Impacts during this phase would likely be minor to moderate. Operation The Department estimates the Proposed Action could affect police services in the City by 2006. Specifically, calls for service at Southcenter are estimated by the Department to increase from 9.4 at present to 13 per 24 -hour day (28 percent) and the number of cases could increase from 3.5 to 5 per 24 -hour day (30 percent) (Haines, 2003). Using the De- partment's estimate for number of calls, the number of hours spent on calls (not including cases) over a 12 -month period could increase from 2,107 to roughly 2,900. By extrapolating the current experience of the shopping center in terms of calls per 1,000 square feet (3,302 calls or 2.3 calls per 1,000 sf), a similar estimate can be derived that indicates that calls could increase by 5 calls per day, or 1.4 more calls per 24 -hour day than the Department's estimate.. [Note: Westfield's experience at other malls reveals that police calls do not increase proportionately to the size of an expansion, and that certain calls for police service (i.e., for shoplifting) tend to originate more frequently from the department stores. Because the bulk of the growth planned for the mall is not designated for new department stores, calls may not increase in direct proportion to the increase in proposed square footage. However, it is important to note that this point does not ac- count for the potential increase in calls that could be generated by the proposed movie theater, which does not currently exist at the site.] Considering the anticipated increase in calls for service and cases, the Proposed Action will increase the Department's workload by approximately one FTE position (roughly 2/3 FTE patrol officer and 1/3 FTE detective). Since it is not possible to add personnel in these increments, choices for meeting the increased demand are not obvious. In the event the City chooses to not increase Police Department staffing with completion of the shop- ping center expansion, it would be necessary for the Department to alter its allocation of personnel resources, potentially affected service levels at the mall and elsewhere in the community. The Department believes that current demands for service, together with the proposed expansion, may justify initiation of regular foot patrols at Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. This would require hiring three patrol officers in order to provide foot pa- 3 -88 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities trol service daily from loam to lOpm, accounting for vacations, sick leave, training and other absences. The Proposed Action by itself would be responsible for only a portion (roughly 1/3) of this need. Adding regular foot patrols at the mall in this fashion would result in improved service at the mall and free up some Department resources to benefit other areas of the community. At this time, it is not clear if and where the Tukwila Police Community Resource Center would be relocated in the expanded mall. It is currently located at the south end of the mall, the area proposed for the majority of redevelopment. Southcenter management and the Tukwila Police Department have expressed strong support for relocating and main- taining the Community Resource Center and its services. Southcenter intends to continue its use of off -duty police officers following the expansion. The absence of the Resource Center could adversely impact the Department's ability to provide timely, comprehensive service to Southcenter. In addition, police presence could appear less visible, potentially increasing the level of criminal activity. Operation of an expanded Southcenter would result in greater impacts than during the construction phase. Additional police personnel would minimize these impacts, while ensuring current levels of service to other areas in the City. Overall, impacts to police services during this phase would likely be moderate. Southcenter Security It is anticipated that expansion of Southcenter could require additional private security personnel and equipment. The service increase has not been determined and could differ between the construction and operation phases. Construction security may also be pro- vided as a component of the agreement with the contractor(s). Based on current security staffing per 1,000 sf of building area, it is estimated that approximately 14 to 19 addi- tional security officers could be needed to accommodate the increase in building area and potential service demand. However, increased security coverage needs would not neces- sarily be tied to increases in square footage, but would be based on day of the week, peak time periods, zone layout, and other factors. Overall, with the addition of security personnel and support by the Tukwila Police De- partment, impacts to security at Southcenter would be minimal. Utilities The City wishes to transfer responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the on -site water, storm and sanitary facilities to the owner /mall. If this occurs, the City's mainte- nance costs would decline. Water Supply In those locations where new buildings or building additions encroach on existing water utilities, the pipes would be relocated around the new construction, as required. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -89 Public Service and Utilities Water usage is estimated to increase on site as a result of the Proposed Action due to the increase in commercial use. Based on the increase in square footage of the Proposed Ac- tion, the total water demand for commercial uses at Southcenter would be approximately 116,347 gallons per day (gpd). The net increase in demand for this use would be ap- proximately 41,177 gpd. To the extent that the City meets area water supply demand through the existing whole- sale purchase contract with the City of Seattle Public Utilities Department, impacts to wa- ter capacity and supply would be minimal. Based on the Fire Department's review of the proposed expansion (as described in this DEIS), it is anticipated that the City's water system would provide sufficient fire flow for the project per the requirements of the International Fire Code. Stormwater See the Water section in this chapter for stormwater impacts. Sewer Sanitary sewer service would be provided to the new buildings and building additions associated with the Proposed Action. New services will be extended from the nearest adjacent sewer mains and piped to the building following the shortest possible alignment. New sewer lines would be connected to existing lines or would be connected to sewer lines that would be relocated or replaced in order to conform to the building codes. Im- proved grease traps would be installed in all new food establishments as part of the pro- posed relocation of the existing food court, which would provide better grease separation. The existing sewer system could be adversely affected. Because the new Southcenter development would occur primarily at the south end of the property, it may be feasible for sewage flow to be gravity fed to the Metro sewage line at Strander Blvd.4 Otherwise, since the Lift Station 12 is at capacity, an upgrade to the lift station would be required in order to serve additional service needs created by growth at Southcenter (Cusick, 2003). Based on the increase in square footage for the Proposed Action, sewage flow could in- crease by 39,827 gpd to 112,534 gpd. Sewage flow from Southcenter would represent approximately 5.6 percent of the City's total 2 million gpd of sewage flow to the treat- ment plant. This additional increment of sewage flow can be accommodated by the exist- ing system. Therefore, impacts to capacity would be minimal. a Sewage waste from the former Double Tree Hotel, which was located at the southwest corner of the pro- ject site, was directed to the Metro gravity line. 3 -90 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Solid Waste Solid waste generation could increase both during construction and relative to the addi- tional commercial uses at Southcenter. Construction waste typically consists of building materials and demolition debris. Demolition waste would result from demolition of park- ing areas, buildings, and other man -made structures, and consist of concrete, brick, wood, masonry, composition roofing, steel, and other metals. Some of these items would be disposed of, while others would be recycled. Operationally, the area currently available for recycling (i.e., paper products, Styrofoam) does not meet City requirements and would not be sufficient under the proposed expan- sion. The City requires 5 sq. ft. of recycling space for every 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area (GLFA). The proposed expansion would require a total of 9,635 sq. ft. of re- cycling space to comply with City requirements. Impacts to recycling services could be perceived as positive, in that Southcenter's recycling facilities would be brought into con- formance with City standards, thereby increasing the potential for recycling to occur among retail establishments and Westfield. Only minor impacts to the capacity of transport and disposal facilities are anticipated. Although construction activities at Southcenter would result in an increase in the amount of CDL waste for disposal, Rabanco maintains sufficient capacity for the disposal of the CDL waste and recyclables generated by redevelopment of the Southcenter site.5 In addi- tion, the Kent Meridian/SeaTac Disposal and Recycling estimates sufficient transport ca- pacity to meet the demand created by the Southcenter expansion (Erath, 2003), while the Cedar Hills Landfill has available capacity through at least 2012. Once Cedar Hills Landfill has reached capacity, the County will seek to ensure disposal capacity by con- tracting with another landfill outside of the County to provide disposal service (Kiernan, 2004). Overall, impacts to the provision of solid waste services are anticipated to be minimal. Electricity Electricity use at Southcenter would increase as a result of the expanded commercial space and site uses. PSE estimates that total peak demand would increase by 50 percent, or 12Mva; therefore, impacts to the distribution system and capacity are expected (see below). The current looped distribution circuit system is designed so that either circuit can carry the entire Southcenter load. The system must be designed this way to accommodate rou- tine switching and maintenance or in the event of a single contingency equipment fail- ure. A single circuit would not be able to carry the entire load for the proposed expansion and capacity would need to be increased. 5 Although the King County contracts are set to expire in 2004, Rabanco and Waste Management would continue to accept CDL waste and recyclables. Rabanco would handle CDL waste generated by the pro- posed Southcenter site. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -91 Public Service and Utilities Some electrical lines would be removed or replaced during redevelopment, resulting in the potential for temporary service interruptions. In addition, the southerly expansion of the mall would impact the existing electrical facilities on the south side of the mall, as most of PSE's system that serves the south side of the mall lies within the 150 -foot ex- pansion limits. The ability to maintain service to the existing portions of the mall would be impacted. The applicant would be expected to share in the cost of constructing electrical system im- provements. The cost and percent of contribution required of the applicant would be de- termined by PSE's Schedule 85. Overall, with the provision of capacity upgrades and replacement of portions of the exist- ing electrical system, as identified by PSE, impacts to electricity service would be mini- mal. Natural Gas Construction of the Southcenter expansion may require replacement, removal, or re- alignment of portions of the existing system. The existing 4 -inch service line system could be sufficient as long as the existing and new load do not exceed system capacity [estimated at 38,000 cubic feet/hour (cfh)]. However, PSE estimates that portions of the existing distribution main would need to be replaced with 6 -inch service line and a new district regulator may also need to be installed. Upgrades to the main line along Andover Park East are not anticipated. Since all natural gas facilities reside on the roof, impacts to the existing natural gas sys- tem could be significant if improvements occur to the roof of the existing structure. PSE also estimates the existing 4 -inch service line may need to be moved away from the new parking area at JC Penney. Further analysis is required by PSE in order to determine the extent of these impacts. If demand for natural gas were to increase proportional to the size of the expansion, use could increase by an estimated 445,758 therms (Westfield, 2004). It is noted that in- creases in demand may be more related to type of use than to square footage increases. Communications Any new development would result in an increased demand for communications services. In order to accommodate the increased demand and since capacity does not exist for pro- viding additional service, the existing termination space would need to be expanded and upgraded. In addition, since the communications feed enters the property (and mall) from the south, which is also the location of the proposed construction and the termina- tion space, it is possible that the entire termination space would need to be relocated. This will depend on the depth of construction in relation to the existing service lines. Therefore, the level of upgrade and expansion could vary from a total relocation of the service space (including upgrades in equipment) to expansion of the existing space, in- 3 -92 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities eluding provision of new equipment and conduit. In either case, QWest has indicated that the applicant would be fully responsible for making those changes. Overall, impacts to communications as a result of the proposed expansion would be sig- nificant. However, given the level of outdated equipment currently in use at the site, up- grades resulting from the expansion would be beneficial to communications service in the long run. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under No Action, the need for public services and utilities on site and in the project vi- cinity would not likely change. No impacts to public services and utilities are anticipated under this alternative. Services would continue to be provided by existing purveyors. The on -site lift station would continue to experience capacity constraints and would likely require a solution that would provide additional service capacity. The existing sewer system would continue to create maintenance problems for the City resulting from grease discharges by restaurants. Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Action would contribute to an increase in demand for public services and utilities in conjunction with other development projects in the local area. In general, the area is mostly developed. As a result, cumulative impacts to public services and utilities would not likely be substantial. However, redevelopment activities in the vicinity of Southcenter could contribute to cumulative impacts (e.g., the JC Penney Distribution cen- ter /warehouse site, the Tukwila Urban Center Plan). Likewise, future annexation of areas to the City could result in cumulative impacts. In order to plan for potential cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas service, PSE would continue coordination with the representatives of other proposed expansions in the area. Some of these expansions would result in significant increases in electricity use. If these proposed projects become a reality, new electrical facilities — including sub- stations and transmission facilities — would be needed. Similar impacts to natural gas fa- cilities could also occur. PSE is currently working on long -range plans for accommodat- ing this growth, if and when it occurs. Coordination with the City would be required for provision of new major facilities. To the extent that public service and utility agencies have anticipated cumulative growth and increased service demand in their planning and can accommodate the increased de- mand, no long -term cumulative impacts would occur. Mitigating Measures • Require the contractor to develop and implement a safety plan, which would be approved by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry. All employees and City inspectors would be required to comply with this plan. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -93 Public Service and Utilities • Equip all structures with fire sprinkler systems in order to provide adequate fire flow to the proposed project. Available fire flow must meet the require- ments of the International Fire Code (to be adopted in June 2004). • The Tukwila Fire Department would provide recommendations regarding the following issues related to fire service access: placement of access points into the mall property, location of fire lane areas, and placement of access routes for aerial platform apparatus. In addition, when the fire loop water service is relocated, several of the fire sprinkler risers located in the existing mall would require relocation in order to provide access to the fire sprinkler control valves. Finally, per City requirements, the applicant would replace and up- grade the existing fire alarm system with a fully addressable fire alarm sys- tem. • Provide fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement service providers with emergency response information relating to the design of the project, includ- ing building and site plans indicating ingress and egress routes, as well as other information that would assist responders in the event of an emergency. • Develop an Evacuation Assistance Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City's Building Code. The Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City; it would be posted on site and available emergency personnel. • Implement construction site security measures, such as security patrols, on- site security surveillance, fencing, lighting, and provision of secure areas for equipment, in order to discourage theft, vandalism, trespassing, and other un- authorized activities. Where possible, work with the Tukwila Police Depart- ment to implement these security measures. • Maintain accessibility to the site at current levels in order to retain current re- sponse times. • Incorporate the following features in order to improve existing service to Southcenter and to meet the additional service demands created by the Pro- posed Action: exterior and/or interior security cameras; adequate exterior and garage lighting; a bi- directional antenna that would ensure proper transmis- sion of communications between dispatch and inside the mall; designated parking areas for police vehicles; and a Police Community Resource Center within the mall. Ideally, the Center would have space for at least 2 crime pre- vention officers, 2 patrol officers, 1 volunteer, a conference room, and an in- terview room. • Provide advance notice to the surrounding community when utility service may be interrupted during construction. Coordinate displacement of parking 3 -94 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities and/or disruption of vehicular or pedestrian traffic patterns with Southcenter management and local emergency response agencies prior to construction. • In order to reduce capacity constraints on the sewer lift station, reroute sewer line at Southcenter to the Metro line along Strander Blvd. If feasible; other- wise, increase capacity of the lift station. • Utilize required space for bins and compactors and work with City to expand and enhance the recycling program. In addition, collection points and hauling routes of recyclables would be planned to minimize impacts to pedestrian and vehicle routes. • Dispose of construction- related debris in a proper solid waste disposal facility per jurisdictional requirements. King County offers free assistance to devel- opers and contractors in order to facilitate CDL recycling on construction sites; Westfield and its contractor will work with the City and King County to develop a Solid Waste Management Plan for recycling of CDL wastes. The City encourages the use of off -site recycling facilities; reuse of recyclable ma- terials by Westfield would not be a requirement of the Solid Waste Manage- ment Plan. • Contribute fair share toward, a third distribution circuit off set in accordance with Schedule 85. At this time, the best source for an additional circuit would come from the Southcenter substation located on Southcenter Parkway and approximately S. 168th St. Empty conduit exists from the substation to the south side of the Southcenter property. A vault and conduit system would need to be extended north from the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Blvd. — near the former Doubletree Inn — and tied into the existing spare conduits on the west side of Southcenter. The new circuit would then extend from the substation through the conduit system to tie into the existing circuits on the East side of Southcenter on Andover Park West. If needed, ad- ditional station transformer capacity could be added at both Southcenter and Renton Junction subs. Many new local lines and transformers would be needed on site for the new buildings. • Consult with PSE as early as possible in order to maintain service to the exist- ing portions of the mall during construction (to the best extent possible), and to ensure that customers' needs and expectations are sufficiently met. • Contribute to the cost of upgrading the electrical system, per the requirements of PSE's Schedule 85. • With planned system improvements identified above, no additional mitigating measures would be necessary for the water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas systems. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS 3 -95 Public Service and Utilities Require the applicant to upgrade the existing communications space located in the mall to meet the proposed increase in demand. If the existing space is maintained and expansion occurs in another area in order to meet the increase in demand, the applicant would need to protect and provide maintenance ac- cess to the existing communications path while digging during construction. If the extent of digging precludes the applicant from protecting the existing communications path, relocation of all communications components would be necessary (preferably, in one location). New conduit and updated service equipment would be provided. The applicant would be responsible for any and all upgrades that would enable QWest to serve the site. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public services and utilities would be ex- pected. 3 -96 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion -- Draft EIS Public Services and Utilities Fiscal Analysis Introduction This section presents the results of a fiscal analysis performed for the proposed expan- sion of Southcenter. The purpose of the analysis is to estimate the fiscal impacts to the City of Tukwila that are likely attributable to the development, and to provide infor- mation that may be useful in evaluating the availability of funding for public service needs and infrastructure improvements in the area. The fiscal analysis estimates incremental revenues and costs that would accrue to the City over a 20 -year period. Estimates are provided in 2003 dollars. Revenue catego- ries included in the analysis are property taxes, sales taxes, hotel /motel taxes, admis- sions taxes, utility taxes, business license fees, and law enforcement services reim- bursement. Cost categories are road and storm drain maintenance, police services, fire suppression and emergency medical services (EMS), and general government. Devel- opment fees collected by the City, such as building permit fees, and development re- view and inspection costs incurred by the City, such as plan review and inspection services, are assumed to be offsetting and are not included in the analysis. Detailed results of the analysis are provided in Appendix A to this EIS. The cost of capital improvement needs attributable to the shopping center expansion that could be required, such as a new sewer lift station and electrical and communica- tion system upgrades, would be borne by the applicant and are not part of the analysis. Specific police and fire services equipment and facility needs have not yet been identi- fied and are, therefore, not included in the analysis. Affected Environment The revenues and costs accruing to Tukwila in 2003 are summarized in Table 3 -22. As indicated, the primary source of revenue is tax revenue, which comprised 69 per- cent of the revenue in 2003. Sales and use tax revenues account for 47 percent of total tax revenues. The largest expenditure category for the City is Administration', which accounts for about 30 percent of the budget in 2003. Includes City Council; Mayor, Boards, and Commissions; Municipal Court; Administrative Services/Personnel; Finance; City Attorney; Recreation; Park Maintenance; and Community Development. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -97 Fiscal Analysis Table 3 -22. 2003 Tukwila General Fund Budget Summary Revenues Taxes: Real and Personal Property Taxes Local Retail Sales and Use Tax Other Taxes Total Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Revenue Charges for Services Fines and Forfeits Miscellaneous Revenues Other Financing Sources Subtotal Beginning Fund Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES Expenditures Administration Police Department Fire Department Public Works Contributions /Ending Fund Balance TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Source: (City of Tukwila, 2002). $ 9,800,000 12,265,000 4,054,000 $26,119,000 757,000 2,098,000 1,358,000 311,000 496,000 3,108,000 34,247,000 3,794,000 $38,041,000 $11,325,920 9,934,600 7,676,392 4,410,092 4,693,996 $38,041,000 Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of the Proposed Action Development Assumptions The proposed expansion consists of the following uses: 3 -98 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis Shopping Mall: Anchor retail 162,650 square feet Retail shops 289,517 square feet Food court 7,980 square feet Theater 75,200 square feet (3,600 to 4,000 seats) Freestanding Restaurants 21,101 square feet Hotel 70,355 square feet (140 rooms) Common and Service Areas 161,100 square feet Total 787,903 square feet For purposes of the analysis, construction is assumed to begin in 2004 and be com- plete in 2006; some costs would begin to be incurred during the construction period. The proposed expansion would be open for business in 2006; the analysis assumes it would be open during the second half of 2006. At that time, revenues would begin to accrue. Possible exceptions would be part of the freestanding restaurant and the hotel, which may be constructed later in response to market conditions. The analysis as- sumes a 2006 opening for these as well, however. Revenues Property Tax Revenues. Property tax revenues will be derived from the additional value of improvements at Southcenter and business personal property; land value is assumed to remain constant. At full development, the estimated value of improve- ments would be $190 million. The construction value component of the expansion ($130 million) represents new assessed value, and does not figure in (or it is exempt from) the 1- percent ceiling on annual property tax increases. Therefore, its value can be captured at the time it is placed in service. However, for tax purposes, the portion of the value of improvements attributable to market value appreciation ($60 million) is subject to the 1 percent limitation. Therefore, this component of the improvement value is added incrementally in estimating the total value of improvements subject to the property tax; in 20 years this would amount to $157 million vs. the estimated $190 million figure. Business personal property values, estimated to be about 10 percent of the value of improvements, would be $19 million at full development. Property values would increase corresponding to the amount of development during the construction period. At Tukwila's 2004 levy rate of $3.10 per $1000 of assessed value, it is estimated that property tax revenues would increase from $118,000 in 2006 to approximately $536,000 per year in 2023 (Table 3 -23). This latter figure represents about 5.5 percent Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -99 Fiscal Analysis of total property tax revenues compared to Tukwila's 2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Table 3 -23. Summary of Estimated Revenues ($1000) It should be noted that the levy rate might vary from the rate used herein depending upon budgetary needs of the City. However, the increased property tax base attribut- able to the shopping center would result in an increase in "wealth" whether this is cap- tured by the City in terms of increased revenues or by its citizens in the form of re- duced tax levies. Property tax revenues are lagged two years to account for the inter- val between when development occurs, when the property is assessed, and when ac- tual collection occurs. Sales Tax Revenues. Sales taxes will be collected on the value of shopping center construction and on its retail sales after opening. Total construction cost is estimated to be $130 million; construction purchases would occur during the 2004 through 2006 construction period with most of those sales in 2005. Construction would be com- pleted approximately mid -2006. Sales taxes on construction accrue to the jurisdiction in which the construction site is located; it is assumed that there would be 10- percent leakage to other jurisdictions. Retail sales directly attributable to the expansion are estimated to be about $221 mil- lion at full development. These sales estimates were based on sales per square foot estimates obtained from Westfield. In addition, empirical sales data in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2002 (ULI, 2003) were compared with Westfield's esti- mates. In general, Westfield's estimates were within the range reported by ULI with the exception of the estimate for retail shops (which accounts for about 70 percent of total retail sales of the expansion), where Westfield's estimate exceeds ULI's upper decile figure by about 12 percent. This is the same percentage that Westfield's actual traffic counts at Southcenter exceed the average nationally for their centers. 3 -100 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2023 Property Tax Revenues $ - $ - $ 118 $ 362 $ 470 $ 474 $ 478 $ 483 $ 487 $ 536 Sales Tax Revenues $ - $ 512 $ 652 $ 1,092 $ 1,513 $ 1,673 $ 1,763 $ 1,852 $ 1,897 $ 1,897 Admissions Tax Revenues $ - $ - $ 117 $ 283 $ 332 $ 352 $ 371 $ 391 $ 391 $ 391 Utility Tax Revenues $ - $ 45 $ 69 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 Business License Fee Revenues $ - $ - $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 $ 6 Total General Fund Revenues $ - $557 $962 $1,817 $2,396 $2,580 $2,693 $2,806 $2,855 $2,905 Hotel /Motel Tax Revenues $ - $ - $ 19 $ 43 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 $ 48 TOTAL REVENUES $ - $557 $982 $1,860 $2,444 $2,628 $2,741 $2,854 $2,903 $2,953 It should be noted that the levy rate might vary from the rate used herein depending upon budgetary needs of the City. However, the increased property tax base attribut- able to the shopping center would result in an increase in "wealth" whether this is cap- tured by the City in terms of increased revenues or by its citizens in the form of re- duced tax levies. Property tax revenues are lagged two years to account for the inter- val between when development occurs, when the property is assessed, and when ac- tual collection occurs. Sales Tax Revenues. Sales taxes will be collected on the value of shopping center construction and on its retail sales after opening. Total construction cost is estimated to be $130 million; construction purchases would occur during the 2004 through 2006 construction period with most of those sales in 2005. Construction would be com- pleted approximately mid -2006. Sales taxes on construction accrue to the jurisdiction in which the construction site is located; it is assumed that there would be 10- percent leakage to other jurisdictions. Retail sales directly attributable to the expansion are estimated to be about $221 mil- lion at full development. These sales estimates were based on sales per square foot estimates obtained from Westfield. In addition, empirical sales data in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2002 (ULI, 2003) were compared with Westfield's esti- mates. In general, Westfield's estimates were within the range reported by ULI with the exception of the estimate for retail shops (which accounts for about 70 percent of total retail sales of the expansion), where Westfield's estimate exceeds ULI's upper decile figure by about 12 percent. This is the same percentage that Westfield's actual traffic counts at Southcenter exceed the average nationally for their centers. 3 -100 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis Sales estimates reflect that stores would be open for only six months in 2006, that lower sales efficiency would occur. in 2006 (80 percent) and 2007 (90 percent), and that retail sales are estimated to be 95- percent taxable. At full development, therefore, effective sales are estimated to be about $210 million. Two additional adjustments were made to retail sales. The first recognizes that retail sales at existing stores would increase as a result of greater customer traffic generated by the shopping center expansion. This is estimated to be about $12.8 million at full development. On the other hand, the expanded shopping center would likely cannibal- ize or divert sales from existing uses in Tukwila. To the extent this occurs, the City of Tukwila would receive lower sales tax revenues than would otherwise be the case. This diversion or substitution effect is estimated to be 25 percent in 2006 and to diminish to 5 percent in 2010 and no effect in 2011 as a result of population growth. At full development, the net effect of these adjustments is that retail sales are esti- mated to be $223 million per year. Using the City's sales tax rate of 0.85 percent, sales tax revenues are estimated to be nearly $1.9 million per year at full development (Table 3 -23). This compares with existing sales tax revenues from Southcenter of about $3.7 million, and represents about 15 percent of total sales tax revenues in Tuk- wila's 2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Sales tax revenue collec- tions are lagged by six months. HotellMotel Tax Revenues. Hotel/motel tax revenues would be received from sales at the proposed hotel, which are estimated to be about $4.8 million per year at full de- velopment. Sales efficiency is assumed to be 80 percent and 90 percent of full devel- opment levels' during the first two years, respectively. At a tax rate of 1 percent, the proposed action would generate about $48,000 in hotel /motel tax revenues per year (Table 3 -23). This represents about 13 percent of total budgeted hotel /motel tax reve- nues in Tukwila's 2003 budget (City of Tukwila, 2002), and the proposed hotel's room would represent 5 percent of the 2,700 hotel rooms in Tukwila. It is noted that hotel/motel tax revenues do not go directly to the City's general fund but are earmarked for the City tourism fund. Also, the revenues from the proposed hotel could be considered to offset those from the former Doubletree Inn, which closed in December 2002, although that was a separate action. Admissions Tax Revenues. Admissions tax revenues would be collected on movie theater ticket sales, which are estimated to be about $7.8 million per year at full devel- opment. Sales efficiency is assumed to be 80 percent and 90 percent of full develop- ment levels during the first two years, respectively. Similar to retail sales, it is ex- pected that there will be diversion of sales from the existing cinema complex in Tuk- wila and admission tax revenues would be lower than would otherwise be the case. Like retail sales, this substitution effect is estimated to be 25 percent in 2006 and to The full development level is equivalent to an average room price per day of $136 and an occupancy rate of 68 %; actual prices and occupancy may vary from this. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -101 Fiscal Analysis diminish to 5 percent in 2010 and no effect in 2011 as a result of population growth. At a tax rate of 5 percent, the proposed action would generate about $390,000 in ad- missions tax revenues per year (Table 3 -23). This estimate is about 50 percent higher than budgeted admissions tax revenues in Tukwila's 2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002), which are attributable to an existing 12- screen theater with 2,226 seats (about 35 to 40 percent smaller than the proposed action). Also, the proponent expects that ticket sales and admissions tax would be four times higher than for the existing theater because of its location closer to freeway access, greater visibility, and the synergy of being at the shopping center. Utility Tax Revenues. The City of Tukwila collects a 4 percent tax on the sale of electricity, natural gas, cable, and telephone utility services. Electricity and natural gas consumption levels for the shopping center expansion were estimated by extrapo- lating 2003 consumption for the mall and applying these rates to the area of the expan- sion. Sales were then estimated by applying costs per kilowatt-hour and therms, re- spectively, to the consumption estimates for electricity and natural gas. Cable and telephone sales were estimated by applying sales per business of $1,200 and $2,400, respectively, to the estimated 80 new businesses that would occupy the shopping cen- ter. At full development, utility sales are estimated to be about $1.8 million per year, re- sulting in tax revenue of about $75,000 per year (Table 3 -23). This estimate repre- sents about 5 percent of budgeted utility tax revenues in Tukwila's 2003 General Fund budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Business License Fee Revenues. Tukwila charges businesses located in the City an annual fee based on the number of employees. The fee is $50 per business for busi- nesses with 5 or less employees and $100 per business for businesses with 6 to 100 employees. The analysis assumes one -half of the 80 new businesses would have 5 or less employees and one -half would have 6 to 100 employees. On this basis, the Pro- posed Action would add $6,000 in business license fee revenues per year (Table 3 -23). Summary of Revenues. As indicated in Table 3 -23, the Proposed Action would con- tribute nearly $1 million in additional revenues to the City of Tukwila in 2006, rising to nearly $3 million in 2023. Not counting Hotel /Motel tax revenues of about $50,000 per year (which are earmarked), this level of total revenues represents about 8 percent of Tukwila's total 2003 General Fund budget of about $38 million (City of Tukwila, 2002). Sales tax revenues account for the largest component of the total, amounting to about $1.9 million (64 percent), followed by property tax revenues reaching nearly $540,000 in 2023 (18 percent). During the construction period, revenue levels would range from nothing in 2004 (due to lags in collection) to nearly $1 million in 2006. Revenue levels would stabilize in 2012 at $2.9 million with the exception of property tax revenues, which would con- tinue to grow yearly. 3 -102 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis Costs The City of Tukwila would incur costs resulting from development and operation of the proposed Southcenter expansion. These costs would include ongoing costs for road and utility maintenance, police and fire services, and general governmental costs. In general, costs were estimated based on the City of Tukwila's 2003 annual budget, project information from the applicant, specific project - related information provided by the City and prior fiscal studies performed for similar commercial projects in the Puget Sound region. As noted earlier, costs for development, design and fire review and inspection would likely be offset by plan review and inspection fees paid by the applicant and, therefore, are not estimated for the analysis. Storm Drain and Utility Maintenance Costs. Storm drain, and utility maintenance costs would be incurred as the development is constructed and becomes operable. The proponent would be financially responsible for all on -site and, potentially, off -site storm water (Larson, 2003) and utility (Cusick, 2003) costs incurred by changes to storm water or utility systems during construction and operation of the Southcenter expansion. This would include upgrades possibly needed for sewer Lift Station 12, which is at capacity. Off -site costs would be incurred if capacity needs to be ex- panded to accommodate the proposed expansion. The assumption is that sufficient sanitary and water capacity exists, subject to modification of existing lines. Accord- ingly, the City would not incur costs for these components of the infrastructure. If the City transfers responsibility for maintenance of on -site water, stormwater, and sewer facilities (see Public Services and Utilities section), existing costs to the City would be reduced. Road Maintenance Costs. An estimated 40 percent of the City's road and street sys- tem would be affected by the Southcenter expansion. According to the traffic analysis conducted for this EIS, an 8- percent (on average) increase in weekday PM peak -hour trips would occur in this area that would be attributable to the Southcenter expansion. The total costs of road maintenance for this portion of the road system was calculated by estimating 40 percent of the General Fund Street Maintenance and Operation budget in Tukwila's budget (City of Tukwila, 2003). Of that total cost ($657,652), 8 percent was attributed to the proposed expansion. The resulting annual cost to the City for road maintenance attributable to the Southcenter expansion was, therefore, estimated to be slightly over $50,000 per year (Table 3 -24). Police Service Costs. Based on information gathered from the Tukwila Police De- partment (Haines 2003) and the City of Tukwila Budget (2003), this analysis assumes that one FTE police officer (2/3 FTE patrol officers and 1/3 FTE detective) could be required as a result of the proposed development (please see Public Services and Utili- ties section) in order to maintain current response times and service levels. Based on Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion - Draft EIS 3 -103 Fiscal Analysis the City's budget, the cost for an additional patrol officer (all- inclusive rate2) would be approximately $123,041 per FTE per year and the cost for an additional investigator (all- inclusive rate) would be $98,091 per FTE per year during the operations phase of the Southcenter expansion. The Tukwila Police Department does not anticipate that any additional police services would be needed during the construction phases of the expansion project. Therefore, beginning with the opening of the first phase of the ex- pansion additional police services would cost the City about $115,000 per year. In addition, the expanded shopping center would require the assignment of additional off -duty personnel by the Police Department for security patrols at the center on Fri- days and Saturdays. It is estimated that the additional service would amount to 24 hours per week. Officers are scheduled and paid by the City at their overtime rate of $50 per hour. Westfield reimburses the City for this service at a rate of $35 per hour, resulting in a net cost to the City of $15 per hour. On this basis, costs for additional security personnel would amount to nearly $19,000 per year at full development. The total cost to the City for police services would be about $133,000 (Table 3 -24). This represents about 1 percent of the Police Department's 2003 expenditure budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Finally, Westfield provides a Police Community Resource Center at the mall on a rent -free basis. Although not included in the fiscal analysis, it represents a fiscal bene- fit to the City. Table 3 -24. Summary of Estimated Costs ($1000) Cost Category 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2023 Storm Drain and Util- ity Maintenance - - - - - - - - - - Road Maintenance $ - $ - $ 26 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53 Police Services $ - $ - $ 9 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134 Fire/EMS Services $33 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 $112 General Govemment $ - $74 $131 $248 $325 $350 $365 $380 $386 $393 TOTAL COSTS $33 $186 $278 $545 $623 $647 $663 $678 $684 $691 2 The cost per patrol officer was calculated as total budget ($5,106,109) of the Police Department's pa- trol program divided by the number of staff (41.5) in that program. 3 The cost per investigator was calculated as total budget of the Police Department's Investigation (ma- jor crimes) ($980,905) divided by the number of staff (10) in that program. 3 -104 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis Fire and EMS Service Costs. The additional demand for fire and EMS services at- tributable to the Proposed Action equates to on additional firefighter FTE during both construction and operation. Alternatively, extrapolating the experience of the existing center results in an estimate that two personnel could be needed during operation. Based of the City's 2003 budget (City of Tukwila, 2002), the cost for an additional fireman/EMS would be approximately $111,500 (all- inclusive rate4) per year (Table 3- 24). This represents about 1 percent of the Fire Department's 2003 expenditure budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). General Government Costs. General government costs were estimated to increase in proportion to additional revenue attributable to the project. First, the existing ratio of staffing per $100,000 of budget was calculated based on the City's 2003 budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). General governmental staff for this analysis includes executive, legislative, municipal court, and administrative /finance staff. At present, there is 0.12 staff per $100,000 of budget for these staff categories. This ratio was then applied to the additional revenues attributable to the proposed expansion to estimate additional FTE staff requirements in these departments. It is estimated that at full development, between three and four additional staff would be required as a result of the proposed Southcenter expansion at a cost of approxi- mately $106,606 per staff member (all- inclusive rates). Therefore, annual general government costs could increase from $74,000 in 2005 to $393,000 in 2023 (Table 3- 24). The latter figure represents about 3.5 percent of the 2003 Administration expen- diture budget (City of Tukwila, 2002). Summary of Costs. Costs incurred by the City as a result of the proposed shopping center expansion would increase from about $33,000 in 2004 to approximately $684,000 in 2012 when project costs generally stabilize. The principal cost to the City during construction (2004 to 2006) would be general government and fire and EMS services costs. During the operations phase, police services are expected to constitute about 30 percent of the total, general government costs are expected to constitute about 55 percent, and fire services are expected to constitute the approximately 17 percent of the costs (Table 3 -24). Road/street maintenance costs would comprise about 8 percent of the total. Net Fiscal Surplus The Proposed Action would have a positive fiscal impact on the City of Tukwila. The City would accrue a net fiscal surplus attributable to the proposed expansion project 4 The cost per fireman was calculated as the Fire Department's suppression program total budget ($6,021,011) divided by the number of staff (54) in that program. 5 The cost per staff member was estimated by dividing the General Fund budget of the executive, legis- lative, municipal court, and administrative /finance departments by the number of employees in these departments. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -105 Fiscal Analysis every year except the first year of construction (2004). The annual surplus would in- crease from $371,000 in 2005 to over $2.2 million in 2023 (Table 3 -25). An implica- tion of this benefit is that the City could fund project- necessitated improvements from revenues generated as a result of the project instead of from pre- existing revenue sources. Table 3 -25. Net Fiscal Surplus ($1000) Sensitivity Analysis Reasonable assumptions were used in estimating revenues and costs attributable to the project. Nevertheless, several assumptions or factors were varied to test their effect on the outcome. These sensitivity calculations are shown below for a typical full opera- tion year (2012). Assumption Effect Reduce sales for Retail Shops from $532 per sf to $475 per sf Reduce the level of expanded sales at existing uses by 50 percent Later hotel opening Higher /more sustained substitution effect for admissions tax (25 %) Reduce police services costs by 50% Reduce General Government staff increase by 50% $133,250 decrease in net revenue $54,400 decrease in net revenue $47,800 decrease in net revenue each year hotel is not developed $97,800 decrease in net revenue $66,760 increase in net revenue $193,200 increase in net revenue 3 -106 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2023 TOTAL REVENUES $ - $557 $982 $1,860 $2,444 $2,628 $2,741 $2,854 $2,903 $2,953 TOTAL COSTS $33 $186 $278 $545 $623 $647 $663 $678 $684 $691 NET FISCAL SURPLUS $ -33 $371. $704 $1,315 $1,821 $1,981 $2,079 $2,177 $2,219 $2,262 Sensitivity Analysis Reasonable assumptions were used in estimating revenues and costs attributable to the project. Nevertheless, several assumptions or factors were varied to test their effect on the outcome. These sensitivity calculations are shown below for a typical full opera- tion year (2012). Assumption Effect Reduce sales for Retail Shops from $532 per sf to $475 per sf Reduce the level of expanded sales at existing uses by 50 percent Later hotel opening Higher /more sustained substitution effect for admissions tax (25 %) Reduce police services costs by 50% Reduce General Government staff increase by 50% $133,250 decrease in net revenue $54,400 decrease in net revenue $47,800 decrease in net revenue each year hotel is not developed $97,800 decrease in net revenue $66,760 increase in net revenue $193,200 increase in net revenue 3 -106 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis The analysis illustrates that even if all of the revenue decreases were to occur, a net fiscal surplus of nearly $1.9 million per year would remain in 2012. Impacts of the No Action Alternative Under No Action, the fiscal surpluses attributable to expansion of the shopping center would be foregone; neither incremental costs nor revenues would accrue. Cumulative Impacts The extent to which future development activities in Tukwila would result in fiscal benefits depends on the type of use, the uses' infrastructure requirements, the demand on public services and utilities, and other factors. The Proposed Action would make a positive contribution to the aggregate fiscal outcome. Mitigating Measures The proponent would be responsible for on- site infrastructure improvements and could share proportionately in the cost of off -site improvements. To mitigate long -range transportation impacts, the Proposed Action would be subject to mitigation impact fees pursuant to the Traffic Concurrency Standards chapter of the Traffic Studies and Mitigation section of the Tukwila Municipal Code 9.48.070. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the City's fiscal condition would be expected. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS 3 -107 Fiscal Analysis THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 -108 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Fiscal Analysis REFERENCES Carolyn Brown Associates. 2003. Draft Focus Group Discussions: Concerning Public Transportation Services for the City of Tukwila. Bellevue, WA. CH2MHi11, 2003. Draft Surface Water Management Plan, prepared for the City of Tukwila, 150 p. Cusick, Michael. 2003. Senior Engineer, City of Tukwila. Personal communication with Alex Cohen, December 5, 2003. Cusick, Michael. 2003. Senior Utility Engineer, City of Tukwila. Personal Communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. November 26, 2003. Dunne T., and Leopold, L., 1978. Water in Environmental Planning, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 818 p. Entranco. 1987. South 168`h Street Extension Environmental Impact Statement. Bellevue, WA. Erath, Tom. 2003. Marketing Manager, Kent Meridian/SeaTac Disposal and Recycling. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. November 26, 2003. Fortunato P.E., Bill, 2003. PacLand. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. December 3, 2003. Haines, Keith. 2003. Chief, City of Tukwila Police Department. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner, November 25, 2003; December 9, 2003. Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2001. Gilliam Creek Stormwater Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Tukwila, March 9, 2001.46 p. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1987. Parking Generation. 2"d ed. Washington, DC. . 1997. Trip Generation. 6th ed. Washington, DC. . 2001. Trip Generation Handbook. Washington, DC. Kiernan, Kevin. 2004. King County Solid Waste Division. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. January 20, 2004. King County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Ref -1 References . 2001. Final King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Information from Chapter 8: Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Debris and Special Wastes. Seattle, Washington. . 2002. King County Bicycling Guide Map. 2 "d ed. Seattle, WA. . 2003. Website: http: / /dnr.metrokc.gov /swd /SWDINFO /swdsyspg.htm. Information on King County Metro Solid Waste Division. Accessed November 13, 2003. . 2003. Website: http: / /dnr.metrokc.gov /wtd. Information on King County Wastewater Treatment Division, South Treatment Plant. Accessed November 17, 2003. King County Metro. 2002. Looking to the Future: Six -Year Transit Development Plan for 2002 -2007. Seattle, WA. Larson, Ryan. 2003. Storm Water Utility Project Manager, City of Tukwila. Personal communication with Alex Cohen, December 5, 2003. Mirai Associates. 2003. Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project. Bothell, WA. Perteet Engineering, Inc. 2004. Draft Tech Memo 1: Existing Transit Conditions. Everett, WA. . 2004. Draft Tech Memo 2: Rider Surveys. Everett, WA. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). 2004a. 2002 Air Quality Summary. PSCAA, 110 Union Street, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101. January 2004 2004b. Online Air Quality Reports. PSCAA Technical Services. Seattle, WA. Web Page: http: / /www.PSCAA.org. Checked January, 2004. Steen, Bob. 2004. Senior Design Engineer /Building Industry Consultant, QWest. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. February 2, 2004. The Transpo Group. 2004. Southcenter Project Traffic Analysis Data. Tomaso, Don. 2003. Captain, City of Tukwila Fire Department. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner, November 24, 2003. Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Ref -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS References Tufts, Tina. 2003. Assistant Manager, Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. Personal communication with Jacquelyn Stoner. November 20, 2003; December 3, 2003. City of Tukwila. 1993. Tukwila Tomorrow, Background Report: Transportation Element. Tukwila, WA. . 2002. Adopted Annual Budget 2003. Adopted December 16, 2002, By Ordinance No. 2008. . 2002. Tukwila Police Department 2002 Annual Report. Tukwila, Washington. . 2003. Website: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us /fire /fd.htm. Information on Tukwila Fire. Department and Tukwila Police Department. Accessed November 6, 2003. 2004. Transportation Improvement Plan: 2004 -2009. Tukwila, WA. Urban Land Institute. 1999. Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers. 2nd ed. Washington, DC. 2003. Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide From Roadway Intersections. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. November, 1992. EPA- 454/R -92 -005 . 2004. Online Air Quality Reports. http: / /www.epa.gov /air /data/, Checked May, 2004: Washington State Patrol (WSP). 2003. Website: http: / /www.wsp.wa.gov /. Access November 12, 2003. Western Regional Climate Center website, 2003: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin /c1iMAIN.pl ?waseat Westfield Corporation, Inc. 2004. Table depicting "Estimated Additional Natural Gas Requirements ". Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Ref -3 References THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ref -4 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS References DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies Federal Highway Administration National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X State Agencies Washington State Department of Community Development Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (2) Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Washington State Department of Transportation (Ramin Pasooki, Phil Segami, Stacey Trussler, Mark Bandy) Regional and Local Agencies Duwamish Indian Tribe Kent Planning Department King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, SEPA Info. Center King County Department of Transportation, Transit Division (Gary Kriedt) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural_ Resources Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Program Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Wildlife Program Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Paul Carr) Puget Sound Regional Council SeaTac Planning Department Renton Planning Department (Greg Zimmerman) Seattle Department of Planning and Development Utilities and Services Highline Water District King County Metro Wastewater Treatment Division King County Water District #125 Puget Sound Energy (Susan Hempstead) QWest Rabanco Seattle Public Utilities Department Libraries Foster Library Tukwila Library Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS Dist -1 References Newspapers Highline Times Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle Times (Jake Batsell) South County Journal Other Interested Parties Parties of Record: Alice Neiffer Denise Evans Gloria Ramirez Jonathan Pool Mike Hemphill Paul Lenoue Sue Carlson Tracy Harms Dist -2 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion — Draft EIS References APPENDIX A FISCAL ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS Southcenter Fiscal Analysis Calculations DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Retail: Anchor Retail 40,663 121,988 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 Retail Shops 72,379 217,138 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 Total retail 113,042. 339,125 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 Restaurants: Food Court - 1,995 5,985 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 - 7,980 7,980 Freestanding Restaurants 10,551 21,101 21,101 21,101 21:101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 Total Restaurants 1,995 16,536 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 Theater 18,800 56,400 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75.200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 Hotel Number of rooms 70 140 140 140 140 - 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 ' 140 140 140 140 Square footage 35,178 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 Common and Service Areas 40,275_ 120,825 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 Shopping Center Total 174,112 568,063 787,903 787,903 787,903 787.903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 OPEN FOR SALES Retail: Anchor Retail 81,325 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 162,650 Retail Shops 144,759 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 289,517 Total retail 226,084 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 452,167 Restaurants: Food Court 3,990 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 Freestanding Restaurants 10,551 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 21,101 Total Restaurants 14,541 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 29,081 Theater. Number of seats 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Square footage 37,600 75,200 75,200 75,200 75.200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 75,200 Hotel Number of rooms 70 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 Square footage 35,178 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 70,355 Common and Service Areas 80,550 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 161,100 Shopping Center Total 393,952 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 1 REVENUES (2003 Dollars) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES Value of improvements (51000): Anchor retail 57,308 521,923 929,231 929,231 829,231 529,231 529,231 529,231 529,231 829231 529,231 529.231 529231 529,231 $29,231 529,231 529,231 520231 529,231 529,231 Retail shops 514,815 543,846 558,462 558,462 558,462 558,462 558.462 558,462 $58,462 558.462 558,462 558.462 558.462 658,462 558.462 558,462 $58,462 558,462 $58,462 558.462 Mall and Common areas 57,308 $21,923 529,231 529231 529.231 529,231 529,231 529,231 529231 629,231 529,231 529,231 529,231 629,231 $29,231 529,231 529,231 $29,231 529,231 $29,231 Food court 5913 52,740 53,654 $3,654 53,654 53,654 53,654 53,654 53,654 53,654 53,654 $3,654 53,654 $3,654 53,654 53,654 53,654 $3,654 53,654 53,654 Freestanding restaurants 50 51,827 53,654 $3,654 53,654 53,654 $3,654 $3,654 53,654 $3,654 53,654 53,654 $3,654 $3,654 53,654 $3,654 53,654 $3,654 • 53,654 53,654 Theater 53,654 510,962 514,615 514,615 514,615 514,615 514,615 $14,615 514,615 514,615 514,615 $14,615 514.615 $14,615 514,615 514,615 814,815 014815 514,615 514,615 Hotel 50 57,308 514,615 014,615 814815 514,615 514,815 514.615 514,615 514,615 514,615 014,615 514,615 514,615 514,615 514.615 814,615 014815 514,615 514.615 Parking structure 514,615 036539 536,539 536,539 538,539 $36,539 $36,539 536.539 536,539 536.539 536.539 836,539 536,539 536,539 536,539 536,539 636,539 536,539 - 536,539 536,539 Total Value of Improvements $48,414 5147,067 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 0190,000 8190,000 5190,000 5190,000 5190,000 Improvements subject to tax (51000): Construction value +1% of prior year's value 533,125 5100,956 5131,341 5132,654 5133,981 $135,321 $136,674 5138,041 5139,421 5140,815 5142.223 5143,646 5145,082 $146,533 5147,998 5149,478 5150,973 5152,483 6154,007 5155,548 1% of construction value+ prior year's value 5331 51,010 51,313 51,327 51,340 $1,353 51,367 51,380 81,394 51,408 51,422 01,436 51,451 51,465 51,480 51,495 51,510 01.525 51,540 $1,555 Improvement Value Subject to Tax 533,456 5101,966 5132,654 0133,981 5135,321 5138,674 5138,041 5139,421 $140,815 5142,223 5143,646 6145,082 $146,533 0147,998 5149,478 5150,973 6152,483 $154,007 5155,548 5157,103 Personal property value: Ratio to value of improvements (10 %) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Total Personal Property Value 54,841 514,707 019,000 019,000 519.000 519,000 519,000 019,000 519,000 519,000 519,000 519,000 519,000 519,000 519,000 619000 519,000 519,000 519,000 519,000 Total Property Valuation for Taxes (51000) 538,298 5116873 5151,654 0152,981 5154,321 5155,674 6157,041 $158,421 $159,815 5161.223 5162,646 5164,082 5165533 5166,998 5168,478 5169,973 5171,483 5173,007 5174,548 5176,103 City of Tukwila levy per El 000 A.V. 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 5118,723 5361.685 $470,128 5 474240 5478,394 5482,589 $486,826 5491.105 $495,427 5499,792 5504,201 5508,654 5513,152. 5517,694 6522,282 $526,916 6531,596 5536,323 5541,097 $545,919 PROPERTY TAX REVENUEW /2 -YR LAG - $ - $ - $118,723 5361,685 5470,128 $474,240 $478,394 5482,589 5 486,826 $491,105 5495,427 5499,792 5504201 $508,654 $513,152 $517,694 $522,282 5526,916 5531,596 $536,323 SALES TAX REVENUES Construction Sales: Construction value (51000): Anchor retail 55,000 510,000 55,000 Retail shops $10,000 520,000 510,000 Mall and Common areas 55,000 $10.000 55,000 Food court 5625 51,250 $625 Freestanding restaurants 51,250 51250 Theater 52,500 55,000 52,500 Hotel 05,000 55,000 Parking structure 510,000 515000 Total Construction Value 533,125 567.500 529,375 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 - $ - $ - 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 Sales tax rate (0.85 %) 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 Potential Sales Tax Rev. on Construction $ 261,563 5 573,750 $ 249,688 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - Sales Tax Revenue w/ 10% Leakage $ 253,406 $ 516,375 $ 224,719 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Retail Sales (51000): Total Retail Sales $ 88,580 $ 199,345 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 5 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221.447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 $ 221,447 Effective sales (sales subject to lax) 095 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.95 Taxable retail sales of expansion $ 84,151 $ 189,377 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 $ 210.375 $ 210,375 $ 210.375 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 5 210.375 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 $ 210,375 $ 210275 Additional sales generated at existing uses $ 3.200 $ 21,038 $ 12.800 $ 37.875 $ 12.800 $ 31,556 $ 12,800 $ 21,037 $ 11800 $ 10,519 $ 12,800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - $ 11800 $ $ 12,800 $ - $ 12800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - $ 11800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - $ 12,800 $ - Sales diverted from other locations Net retail sales attributable to expansion (51000) $ 66,313 5 164,302 $ 191,618 $ 202,137 $ 212,656 $ 223.175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 $ 223.175 $ 223.175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 $ 223,175 Tax Rate (0.85 %) _ 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 Total Retail Sales Tax Revenues $ 563,660 51,396,566 51,628,756 51,718,165 51,807,574 $1,898.983 $1,896,983 51,896,983 $1,896,983 51.896,983 $1,896,983 51,896,983 51,896,983 $1,896,983 $1,896,983 51,896,983 51,898,983 5 1 896 983 TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUES 5253,406 $ 518375 $ 788,379 51.396,566 51,628,756 51,718.165 51,807,574 51.896.983 51,898983 51,896,983 $1.896,983 $1.896,983 51,896,983 51,896,983 $1,896,983 51,896,983 $1,896,983 $1,896,983 51,896,983 $ 1,896,983 SALES TAX REVENUES WITH 6-MONTH LAG IN COLLECTION $ - $ 511,594. $ 652,377 $1,092,473 51,512,661 $1,673,461 51,762,870 51,852279 51,896,983 51,896,983 51,896,983 $1.896,983 $1,896,983 51,896,983 51,896,983 51,896,983 $1,896,983 $1,896,983 51,898,983 $ 1,896,983 HOTELIMOTEL TAX REVENUES Hotel Sales (51000) $ 1,900 5 4.292 5 4.784 5 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 $ 4,784 Tax rate (1 %) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 001 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 TOTAL HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE $ 18,996 $ 42,917 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 5 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 $ 47,841 ADMISSIONS TAX REVENUES Theater sales (51000) $ 3.121 $ 7.069 $ 7,821 $ 7.821 5 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 5 7,821 5 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7.821 Sales diverted from other locations $ 780 5 1,414 $ 1,173 $ 782 $ 391 $ - $ - $ • $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ Net sales att4butable to expansion (01000) 5 2,341 $ 5,655 $ 6,648 $ 7,039 $ 7,430 $ 7,821 $ 7.821 $ 7,821 5 7,821 5 7.821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 E 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 $ 7,821 Tax rate (5 %) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 TOTAL ADMISSIONS TAX REVENUE $ 117,030 $ 282,752 $ 332,384 $ 351,936 $ 371,488 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391.040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 $ 391,040 REVENUES (continued) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 . 2020 2021 2022 2023 UTILITY TAX REVENUES Electricity Electricity sales: Area of expansion (sl) 566063 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787.903 787,903 787,903 787.903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787.903 787,903 787.903 787,903 Consumption per sf (KWH) 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 256 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 Total Consumption (KWH) 14,656,032 20,3276197 20,327,897 20.327,897 20,327,897 20,327.897 20,327,897 20,327,897 20.327,897 20,327,897 20,327,897 20,327.897 20.327.897 20,327,897 20,327,897 20,327,897 20,327,897 20,327,897 20,327,897 Cost per KWH $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 5 0.0689 $ 0.0889 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 00689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 $ 0.0689 Total Electricity sales 51,010,020 51,400,897 51,400,897 51,400,897 $ 1,400,897 $1,400,897 $1,400,897 $1,400.897 $1,400,897 $1,400,897 51,400,897 $1,400.897 51,400,897 51,400,897 $1,400,897 $ 1,400,897 51.400,897 51,400,897 $ 1,400,897 Tax rate on electricity sales 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Electricity tax revenue $ 40,401 $ 56,036 $ 56036 $ 56,036 $ 56,036 $ 56,036 $ 56,036 $ 56.036 $ 56,036 5 56,036 $ 56,038 $ 56.036 $ 56,036 $ 56,036 $ 56,036 $ 56,036 $ 56,036 5 56.036 $ 56,036 Natural gas Natural gas sales: Area of expansion (sf) 568,063 787,903 787,903 787,803 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787.903 787,903 787.903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 787,903 Consumption per sf (therms) 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 02882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 0.2882 Total Consumption (therms) 163,716 227,074 227,074 227,074 227.074 227.074 227,074 227. 074 227. 074 227,074 227,074 227,074 227,074 227,074 227,074 227,074 227,074 227,074 227,074 Cost per therm $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 $ 0.7705 Total Natural Gas sales $ 126,143 $ 174660 $ 174.960 $ 174.960 $ 174,960 $ 174.960 $ 174.960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 $ 174,960 Tax rate on natural gas sales 004 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0,04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0,04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Natural Gas tax revenue $ 5,046 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6.998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6,998 $ 6.998 $ 6,898 Cable and Telephone Cable and telephone sales: 80 new businesses 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Cable sales per business per year $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1.200 $ 1.200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1.200 S 1,200 0 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1200 5 1200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 Telephone sales per business per year $ 2,400 $ 2.400 $ 2.400 $ 2.400 $ 2.400 $ 2.400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2.400 Total cable and telephone sales $ 144,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 5 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 $ 288,000 Tax rate on cable and telephone sales 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04. 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Cable and Telephone tax revenue $ 5,760 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11.520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ .11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 $ 11,520 TOTAL UTILITY TAX REVENUES $ - $ 45,447 $ 68,794 $ 74,554 $ 74,554 $ 74,554 $ 74.554 $ 74.554 $ 74.554 $ 74.554 $ 74,554 $ 74,554 $ 74,554 $ 74,554 $ 74.554 $ 74.554 $ 74.554 $ 74,554 $ 74,554 $ 74,554 BUSINESS LICENSE FEE REVENUES Number of businesses 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 License fee per business (1/2 Q $50, 1/2 (fir 5100) $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 S 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 $ 75 TOTAL BUS. LICENSE FEE REVENUE $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 8.000 $ 6,000 $ 6.000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ - 5 557,040 $ 981,920 01,860,381 $2,443,569 $2,628,033 52,741,147 02654,303 52,903,245 $2,907,524 $2,911,846 $2,916,211 52920,620 52,925,073 52,929,571 $2,934,113 $2.938,701 52,943,335 52,948,015 $ 2,952,742 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 COSTS (2003 Dollars) STORM DRAIN & UTILITY MAINTENANCE COST The City would not incur costs ROAD MAINTENANCE COST General Fund street maintenance budget (2003; $ 1,644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1.844,130 $ 1.844,130 $ 1,644.130 $ 1.644.130 $ 1.644,130 $ 1.644,130 $ 1.644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1.644,130 $ 1.644.130 $ 1.644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1,644,130 $ 1,644,130 Percent of City's roads affected by project 0.40 0.40 0 .40 0.40 0.40 0 .40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0 .40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Corresponding budget affected by project $ 857.652 $ 657.652 $ 657,652 $ 657,652 $ 657.652 $ 657,652 $ 657,652 $ 657,652 $ 657.652 $ 657,652 $ 657.652 $ 657.652 $ 657.652 $ 657,652 $ 657,652 $ 657,652 $ 657,652 $ 657.652 $ 657.652 $ 657.652 Percent impact attributable to project 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 TOTAL ROAD MAINTENANCE COS1 $ - $ - $ 26.306 $ 52,612 $ 52.612 $ 52.612 $ 52.612 $ 52.612 $ 52.612 $ 52,612 $ 52,612 $ 52.612 $ 52,612 $ 52.612 $ 52.612 $ 52.812 $ 52,612 $ 52,612 $ 52,612 $ 52.612 POLICE SERVICES COST Routine Patrol. Response and Investigation: Number of Additional Officers Required 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Cost per Officer (all inclusive rate) $ 123.041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123.041 $ 123.041 $ 123.041 $ 123.041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123.041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123,041 $ 123.041 $ 123,041 Cost of Additional Officer $ - $ - $ - $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82.437 $ 82.437 $ 82.437 $ 82.437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 $ 82,437 Number of Additiomal Detectives Required 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Cost per Detective (all inclusive rate) $ 98,091 5 98.091 $ 98,091 $ _ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98.091 $ 98.091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98,091 $ 98.091 $ 98,091 Cost of Additional Detective $ - $ - $ - 6 32,370 0 32,370 $ 32,370 $ 32,370 $ 32.370 $ 32.370 $ 32,370 $ 32,370 $ 32,370 $ 32370 $ 32,370 $ 32,370 $ 32.370 $ 32,370 $ 32,370 $ 32,370 $ 32,370 Cost of Additional Police Services $ - $ - $ - $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114.807 $ 114.807 $ 114.807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114.807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 $ 114,807 Additional Security Services: Additional police services (24 hours per week) 824 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1.248 1,248 1,248 1,248 1,248 Howdy cost to City $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 $ 15 Additional Security Services Cos $ 9,360 $ 18.720 $ 18,720 $ 18.720 $ 18.720 $ 18,720 $ 18,720 $ 18,720 $ 18,720 $ 18.720 $ 18,720 $ 18.720 $ 18,720 $ 18,720 $ 18,720 $ 18.720 $ 18.720 0 18.720 TOTAL POLICE SERVICES COST $ - $ - $ 9,360 $ 133.527 $ 133.527 $ 133,527 $ 133.527 $ 133.527 $ 133,527 $ 133,527 $ 133,527 $ 133,527 $ 133,527 $ 133.527 $ 133,527 $ 133,527 $ 133,527 $ 133,527 $ 133.527 $ 133.527 FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EMS SERVICES Additional Fire Suppression Personel Required 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cost per Staff (ad Inclusive ate) $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 0 111,500 $ 111.500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111.500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111.500 $ 111.500 $ 111.500 $ 111.500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 Cost of Additional Services $ 33,450 $ 111.500 $ 111.500 $ 111.500 $ 111.500 $ 111,500 5 111,500 $ 111.500 $ 111.500 0 111.500 $ 111.500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111.500 $ 111,500 $ 111.500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 $ 111,500 GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS 2003 General Government Staff 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 . 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5 2003 General Fund Budget (01000) $ 38.041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 0 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 $ 38.041 $ 38,041 $ 38,041 Staff per 0100,000 Revenue 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 0.1249 Additional Revenue Attributable to Project $ - $ 557,040 $ 981,920 0 1,860.381 0 2.443,569 0 2.628,033 0 2,741,147 0 2.854,303 5 2,903.245 0 2.907.524 0 2.911.846 5 2,916,211 5 2,920,620 0 2.925.073 8 2,929.571 0 2.934,113 0 2,938.701 5 2.943,335 0 2,948,015 5 2,952,742 Additional Staff 0.00 0.70 1.23 2.32 3.05 3.28 3.42 3.56 3.63 3.63 3.64 3.64 3.65 3.65 3.66 3.66 3.67 3.68 3.68 3.69 Cost per Staff Member $ 106,606 $ 108.606 $ 106.606 $ 106,606 $ 106,606 $ 106,606 $ 106.606 $ 106.606 $ 106,606 $ 106,606 $ 106,606 $ 106,606 $ 106.606 $ 106,606 $ 106,606 $ 106.606 $ 106,608 $ 106,606 $ 106.606 $ 106,606 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT COST $ - $ 74,150 $ 130,707 $ 247,642 $ 325,272 $ 349,826 $ 364.883 0 379,946 $ 386,461 $ 387,030 $ 387.606 $ 388,187 $ 388,774 $ 389,366 $ 389,965 $ 390,570 $ 391,180 $ 391,797 $ 392,420 $ 393,049 TOTAL COSTS $ 33,450 $ 185.650 $ 277,873 $ 545,281 $ 622.911 $ 647,466 $ 662,523 $ 677,585 $ 684,100 $ 684,670 $ 685.245 $ 685.826 $ 686,413 $ 687,006 $ 687,605 $ 688209 $ 688.820 $ 689,437 $ 690,060 $ 690.689 NET FISCAL SURPLUS Revenues $ - $ 557,040 $ 981,920 $ 1,860,381 $ 2,443,569 $ 2,628,033 $ 2,741,147 $ 2,854.303 5 2,903245 $ 2,907,524 52.911.848 $ 2.918.211 $ 2.920,620 $ 2,925,073 $ 2,929,571 $ 2,934,113 $ 2,938.701 $ 2.943,335 $ 2.948.015 $ 2,952,742 Costs $ 33,450 $ 185,650 $ 277.873 $ 545.281 $ 622.911 $ 647,466 $ 662.523 $ 677.585 $ 684,100 $ 684.670 $ 685,245 $ 685.826 $ 688.413 $ 687,006 $ 687.605 $ 688,209 $ 688,820 $ 689,437 $ 690,060 $ 690.689 NET FISCAL SURPLUS (DEFICIT) 5 (33,450) $ 371,391_0 704,047 $ 1,315,100 $ 1,820,658 $ 1,980,567 5 2,078,624 0 2,176,718 0 2,219,145 5 2,222.854 0 2,226,601 $ 2,230,385 1 2.234.207 0 2,238,067 $ 2,241,966 0 2,245,904 0 2249.881 5 2253.898 0 2.257.956 0 2,262.053 APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION CALCULATIONS B -1 Southcenter Parking Demand Analysis B -2 Trip Generation B -3 Exhibits for Project Driveway Assignments APPENDIX B -1 SOUTHCENTER PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN AT SOUTHCENTER - Peak Parking Demand SHOPPING CENTER PARKING DEMAND Existing With Southcenter Expansion Retail (GLA) 1 1,252,317 1,712,464 Restaurants (GLA) 17,930 39,031 Other Outparcel Uses (GLA) 29,897 29,897 Cinema (GLA) 0 75,200 Total GLA 1,300,144 1,856,592 Percent Non - Retail Uses 3.7% 7.8% Shopping Center Parking Generation Rate (stalls /1,000 GLA) 2 4.5 4.5 Shopping Center Parking Generation (stalls) 5,851 8,355 HOTEL PARKING DEMAND Hotel Parking Generation Rate (stalls /room) 3 0.52 0.52 Hotel rooms 0 140 Hotel Parking Generation (stalls) 0 73 TOTAL PEAK PARKING DEMAND 5,851 8,428 TOTAL PARKING SUPPLY 6,679 7,900 PARKING SUPLUS OR (OVERSPILL) 828 (528) EMPLOYEE PARKING DEMAND (APPROX. 20% OF DEMAND) 1,336 1,580 PARKING SURPLUS OR (OVERSPILL) WITH EMPLOYEE OFF -SITE PARKING 2,164 1,052 1 Includes mall retail, anchor retail, and food court 2 Based on ULI Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 2nd Edition. 3 Based on ITE Parking Generation, 2nd Edition. WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN AT SOUTHCENTER - Parkins Code Requirements EXISTING DEVELOPMENT USE Total Building Area USABLE FLOOR AREA (UFA) Anchors Nordstrom 170,795 165,900 Bon 263,795 250,407 JC Penny 251,753 240,597 Sears 174,630 170,800 Mervyn's 86,115 85,734 Total Anchors 947,088 913,438 Mall Retail Shops (1) 338,879 321,935 Mall Common Area 138,277 0 Total Mall Retail 1,424,244 1,235,373 Outparcel Uses: Post Office 4,650 4,418 Bank 4,258 4,045 JC Penny (Firestone) 20,989 19,940 Bahama Breeze /Olive Garden 17,930 17,034 Total Outparcels 47,827 45,436 SUBTOTAL, EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 1,472,071 1,280,809 PROPOSED EXPANDED USES Mall Retail Shops (1) 297,497 282,622 Mall Common Area 161,100 0 Anchor Retail 162,650 154,518 Theater 75,200 71,440 Total Mall Uses 696,447 508,580 Outparcel Uses: Freestanding Restaurant 21,101 20,046 Total Outparcel Uses 21,101 20,046 SUBTOTAL, EXPANSION 717,548 528,626 TO Credit for 10% Complementary Uses PROJECT AREA FOR PARKING CALCULATION Parking Required @ 5.0 / 1000 TOTAL PROJECT AREA - WITH EXPANSION Credit for 10% Complementary Uses PROJECT AREA FOR PARKING CALCULATION Parking Required @ 5.0 / 1000 Parking Required for Hotel Total Parking Required 1,472,071 (2) 1,280,809 (128,081) (3) 1,152,728 5,764 2,189,619 1,809,434 (180,943) (3) 1,628,491 (1) Includes kiosk UFA (2,860 sf existing and an additional 2,000 sf with expansion). (2) UFA includes 5% discount from GLA for restrooms and equipment rooms in Tenant spaces (3) Assumes 10% of uses are granted parking credit as complementary uses (4) Hotel GLA and parking for hotel not included (to be calculated separately at 1 /room plus 1/20 employees = 147 spaces) 8,142 147 (4) 8,289 APPENDIX B -2 TRIP GENERATION WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN AT SOUTHCENTER TRIP GENERATION Weekday Weekday Daily Mid -day Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekend Peak Hour Quantity ITE LU Rate Trips Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out EXISTING SOUTHCENTER TRIP GENERATION Shopping Center' 1,252,317 GLA 33.61 42,090 3.22 4,032 2,177 1,855 2.98 3,732 1,829 1,903 4.06 5,084 2,745 2,339 a Total Driveway Trips 42,090 4,032 2,177 1,855 3,732 1,829 1,903 5,084 2,745 2,339 b Shopping Center Pass -By Trips 19% 7,998 19% 766 383 383 19% 710 355 355 19% 966 483 483 c Net New Trips (c = a - b) 34,092 3,266 1,794 1,472 3,022 1,474 1,548 4,118 2,262 1,856 EXPANDED SOUTHCENTER TRIP GENERATION Shopping Center' 1,712,464 GLA 30.25 51,802 2.9 4,966 2,682 2,284 2.68 4,589 2,249 2,340 3.65 6,250 3,375 2,875 Restaurant2 21,101 GSF 832 130.34 2,750 10.86 229 137 92 10.86 229 137 92 10.86 229 137 92 Theater' 4,000 seats 444 0.48 1,920 0.06 240 130 110 0.14 560 297 263 0.23 920 497 423 Hotel° 140 rooms 310 Eq. 884 50% of PM 34 19 15 Eq. 68 36 32 Eq. 101 57 44 d Total Trips 57,356 5,469 2,968 2,501 5,446 2,719 2,727 7,500 4,066 3,434 e Less Restaurant/Theater /Hotel Capture Trips 25% 1,388 126 72 54 214 118 96 312 172 140 f Total Driveway Trips (f = d - e) 55,968 5,343 2,896 2,447 5,232 2,601 2,631 7,188 3,894 3,294 Shopping Center 17% 8,806 17% 908 454 454 17% 780 390 390 17% 1,062 531 531 Restaurant 832 25% 688 43% 0 0 0 43% 98 49 49 43% 98 49 49 g Total Pass -By Trips 9,494 908 454 454 878 439 439 1,160 580 580 h Net New Trips (h = f - g) 46,474 4,435 2,442 1,993 4,354 2,162 2,192 6,028 3,314 2,714 NET TRIP GENERATION (PROPOSED ACTION) i Total Trips (i = d - a) 15,266 1,437 791 646 1,714 890 824 2,416 1,321 1,095 j Driveway Trips (j = f - a) 13,878 1,311 719 592 1,500 772 728 2,104 1,149 955 k Net New Trips (k = h - c) 12,382 1,169 648 521 1,332 688 644 1,910 1,052 858 m Pass -By Trips (m = j - k) 1,496 142 71 71 168 84 84 194 97 97 1 In/Out %age splits based on Southcenter Mall Counts, April 2003. Weekday PM = 49 In/51 Out, Weekend Peak = 54 In/46 Out, Weekday Peak = 54 In/46 Out 2 Weekday and weekend mid -day peak assumed to equal weekday PM peak hour 3 Daily theater rate is 3.44 times PM peak rate (ratio of rates using screens as a variable), weekday mid -day est. 45% of weekday PM peak based on ULI 4 Hotel weekday mid day est. 50% of weekday PM peak based on ULI, in/out %ages based on weekend mid -day peak trip generation.xls \Trip Gen4 The Transpo Group, Inc. 1/30/04 APPENDIX B -3 Exhibits FOR PROJECT DRIVEWAY ASSIGNMENTS NOT TO SCALE ( -9) 15 1 81 (9) r 59 (9) (26) 72 J 74 (15) ( -2) 5 cn 30 (13) (2) 51 -- O 5 , C 14 —103) m Z m 7 (7) 38 36 (3 (15) 37 89 (4) STRANDER BLVD J L► L 98 L (5) J (10) 48 J (2) 75 — PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT SHOWN AT DRIVEWAYS ONLY. (5) 45 J 66 —► 6-- (3) 76 127 22 (2) 26 J (1)29, t 159 (20) 77 ( -6) (3)20 t 100 ( -2) BAKER BLVD LEGEND XX = NEW PROJECT TRIPS (XX) = PASS —BY TRIPS Exhibit C1 i Proposed Action Weekday PM Peak Hour Project Driveway Assignment Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion 1‘;1' ..3:03007Seutk.: ;:hr_. Crapm:,Ci • A' i..aa60;; '_- ..2.35 The Transpo Group '1'47-484, NOT TO SCALE 7 20 183 333 . X159 juKw��l= 61 27) f� 13/20 (23) PKWY t )k 82 (18) r 78 (11) ( -2) 8 J 1 35 (16) cn (2) 78 O 15 18� 2(16) m m -o (8)44 5 (4) STRANDER BLVD J �► 8 (18) 49 203 (4) L 95 J �► 123 (6) (12) 74 J (6) 76 J (2) 118 — 47 -r PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT SHOWN AT DRIVEWAYS ONLY. 31 J11 5 7 (-4) 154 (27) 74 (30) 83 J 8 (4) 101 219 36 (2) 32 J (1)34, 225 (23) BAKER -. BLVD (7) 81 142 ( -7) (3)31 191 (-2) LEGEND XX = NEW PROJECT TRIPS (XX) = PASS —BY TRIPS Exhibit C2 Proposed Action Saturday Peak Hour Project Driveway Assignment Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter - Mall Expansion M: 3 03?C•7 Soulkwe, M3I Ga;4m: (raph cCr The Transpo Group ';Moira Bradshaw - Renton Response From: "David Markley" <davidm @tsinw.com> To: "Steve Lancaster" <saancaster @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 1/4/05 8:25AM Subject: Renton Response Steve, Thank you for including me in your meeting with Moira and Cyndy this morning. The discussion and the response letter from the City helped to flesh out several responses that I help to distinguish the impacts of the Southcenter expansion from those of the Boeing Longacres redevelopment. I continue to believe that the two primary responses in the FEIS are strongest: 1. The LOS at key intersections in the City of Renton are not degraded to levels that would typically be considered deficient (except for Oaksdale Avenue SW /180th with Strander completed); and 2. The impact of PM peak hour trips on the Renton road network in 2010 (without the added development are Tess than the City of Renton 5% threshold for assessment of mitigation) See Table 3 -1 in FEIS 2.3% to 4.0 %. As a result of our discussion and review of the Boeing Longacres redevelopment EIS, I believe Renton's assertion that the Boeing traffic impacts are similar to the Southcenter traffic impacts is flawed due to the following: 1. The percentage impact on Tukwila streets from Boeing are significantly larger that the South Center impacts on Renton Streets. For example on the Interurban Bridge south of the 1 -405 ramps, the Boeing development will add 654 vehicles per hour (Source: Boeing DEIS) to the 2010 PM peak hour volume of 3000 (Source: Southcenter DEIS because no peak hour volumes were available in the Boeing EIS) - an 21 % increase in traffic. A similar computation shows West Valley /Strander intersection would be impacted by 366 PM peak hour trips as compared to 4350 PM peak hour trips in 2010 without the Southcenter expansion - a 8.4% increase. This compares to the 3.2% increase at Oaksdale /Grady intersection and the 3.8% increase at the Oaksdale /180th intersection related to the Southcenter expansion. Thus, the Boeing traffic impacts on Tukwila roads 2.5 to 5.0+ times as large as the Southcenter expansion traffic impacts on the Renton Road network. 2. This difference is logical considering that the Southcenter expansion traffic volumes will be served by grade separated freeway interchanges that are located within the City of Tukwila while much of the traffic generated by the Boeing redevelopment will need to travel through Tukwila to gain access to the freeway system. This is why Boeing volumes on West Valley Highway and the Interurban Bridge are as larger than corresponding Southcenter traffic volumes on Grady way and Oaksdale. In contrast, the Southcenter expansion volumes using Renton Roads are shorter trips destined /originated from locations west of west of West Valley Highway. Longer Southcenter expansion trips are on the freeway while many of the longer Boeing commute trips needed to use the local Tukwila road network to access freeway ramps. Moira Bradshaw - Renton Response • As we also discussed (but a weaker argument) is that Renton may already be collecting traffic impact fees for the one end of the trip that is located in Renton (the origin of a trip destined for the Southcenter expansion or the destination of a trip generated by the Southcenter expansion.) There may have been other items discussed but I believe these to be the most relevant. Please feel free to call if you would like to clarify /refine these further. Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you. David David D. Markley TSI - Transportation Solutions, Inc. 8250 165th Avenue NE, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 -6628 (425) 883 -4134 Fax (425) 867 -0898 CC: "Moira Bradshaw" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Cyndy Knighton" <cknighton @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Greg Fitchitt" <GFitchitt @westfield.com >, "Brent Carson (Brent Carson)" <bcarson @buckgordon.com> City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director October 26, 2004 Mr. Greg Fitchitt Development Director Westfield Corporation, Inc. 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 11`h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 -1748 RE: EXPANSION OF WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER — TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Dear Mr. Fitchett: Thank you for your letter of October 11, 2004 wherein a revised transportation impact fee for the Klickitat Project was proposed. After a review of the facts, the following response is provided that will explain how the impact fee for the Klickitat Project was established and Westfield's participation in the update process and the establishment of Klickitat's fee. As part of the Growth Management Act (GMA) adopted by the State Legislature in 1990, the City of Tukwila is required to ensure adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development. As part of the GMA requirements, new growth and development is required to pay a proportionate share of the costs of new facilities. Further, Tukwila is authorized to impose impact fees as part of the financing for public facilities, provided that the entire financing package is a reasonable balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds. In 1995, Tukwila adopted a transportation impact fee schedule that complied with the GMA requirements. In early 2004, the City started the process to update its transportation impact fees. The update, in part, was driven by the fact that new transportation improvements were needed to the Urban Center's transportation system in order to maintain the area's level -of- service requirement. In order to provide an accurate fee calculation for the Klickitat Project, the City proposed to use current traffic volumes and projected traffic volumes for 2020. Because this information was readily available and is being used for all planning efforts citywide, it was considered to be a reasonable approach. During one of our numerous meetings with Westfield, your attorney raised several objections to the proposed methodology for calculating an impact fee for the Klickitat Project. One objection was directly related to the proposed use of current:. traffic volumes and a 2020 - planning horizon. Westfield's attorney felt that 1990 traffic volumes and a 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 433 -0179 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 2010 - planning horizon were more appropriate, unless the City's Comprehensive Plan was amended. Tukwila's City Attorney agreed. Since there was insufficient time to make a comprehensive plan amendment and Westfield desired to have a clear understanding of the total transportation impact fee before proceeding with the proposed mall expansion, Public Works developed an alternative methodology. Historic traffic volumes representing 1990 conditions were collected. Since the modeling information used to develop earlier fees was no longer available, it was decided to apply a historic growth rate of 1.85% per annum to the 1990 volume in order to arrive at the 2010 volume. The 1.85% adjustment was selected after reviewing historic growth rates for the area. Again, all of this information was made available to Westfield as the update progressed. Further, Westfield's representative was present during the briefings to the City's Transportation Committee, Committee of the Whole, and the City Council meeting when the new impact fees were adopted. As expected, no objections were made by Westfield during those meetings because the City adopted the methodology proposed by Westfield. As the City has stated and shown in your October 11, 2004 letter, those adopted rates produce a total transportation mitigation impact fee of $1,926,180. It is inconsistent with Westfield's earlier objection that a return to the use of current traffic volumes (EIS data) for the area is now being proposed. Using the current traffic volumes cannot be accommodated without a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan. At this time, the City will not be making another update to the transportation impact fee list until 2005. Changes to it and other transportation issues will be addressed during next year's scheduled update to the City's Comprehensive Plan. At that time the City intends to use the most recent traffic volume counts, a new planning horizon, and the City hopes that Westfield will again participate in the process. Should you have any questions, please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, dorro.n.a_ 3- *-rft9t-N-csk3-- James F. Morrow, P.E. Director Cc: Steve Lancaster, Director Community Development ..LL Kathy Keolker - Wheeler, Mayor CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator t4 October 20, 2004 Steve Lancaster ; ' NUS z ,�.. Director c E `o; Department of Comm ity.WveloiY ent City of-Tukwila 7 V 8 ^> 6300 SoYthcenter Bout. 'd,iS'u, - 100 _. Tukwila, V. 98188 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Final Environmental Impact Statement, October 2004 RECEIVED NOV 0 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Lancaster: REC ED OCT 2 8 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We appreciate your acknowledgement and response to our comments on the subject Draft EIS. However, we are concerned with Tukwila's response to our July 20, 2004 comment regarding the Southcenter Expansion as a project that we believe is in the same category as the. Boeing . Longacres Development, and, therefore, there is a need for mitigation of transportation impacts in Renton (Comment 11). We anticipated, at the least, a response from Tukwila similar to the response to Comment 9 in our July 20, 2004 letter (i.e. that the City of Tukwila will consider mitigating measures when it issues a decision on the project). Sincerely, Gre gg Zi erman" , Administrator Planning/Building /Public Works cc: Sandra Meyer Nick Afzali Bob Mahn File 6(aPc cfn'AAD5 liviz971 4 H: \TRANS\PLNG\ALM \REVIEWS\2004 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Final EIS 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE October 7, 2004 • City of Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Laura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 39015 172 Av. SE Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear Ms. Murphy: Thank you for your comment letter on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed expansion of the above facility. The City followed up on your request and contacted the Office of Archaeology, see the attached letter. The City received a response from OHP, also attached, and will consider the impacts of the proposed project on potential archaeological remains that may be disturbed by construction activity. Also, the City is aware of the existing regulations that address actions that must be taken during construction if any evidence of cultural resources is discovered. The Wildlife program and the Fisheries Program of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe were sent copies of the draft EIS and are typically copied on any environmental mailings. No comments were received from either program. Because your letter was not received by the end of the comment period for the EIS, we were unable to include it in the final EIS. We hope you will continue to be involved in review and comment on future work within the City and encourage you to meet the deadlines if at all possible. If you have any further questions or comments regarding this project please contact me at mbradshaw@ci.tukwila.wa.us or at 206 431 -3651. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • STATE OF WASHINGTON Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 (Mailing Address) PO. Box 48343 •Olympia, Washington 98504 -8343 (360) 586 -3065 Fax Number (360) 586 -3067 September 17, 2004 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner City of Tukwila . 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste. 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091704 -29 -KI Re: Westfield Shoppingtown South Center Expansion DEIS Dear Ms. Carr Bradshaw: RECEIVED, SEP 2 3 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the proposed project referenced above. There is a recorded archaeological site 1100 feet from the project area, and four ethnographic place names and the Green River are within one mile, all of which combine to increase the archaeological probability. Though the project area is completely paved, it is possible that archaeological resources exist buried beneath the pavement. Though we would recommend a professional archaeological survey of those areas proposed for any excavation associated with the proposed project be required, we realize this is not feasible due to the pavement. As an alternative approach, we would suggest an overview level study instead. This level would not involve fieldwork, but a review of landforms, historic records, past disturbance and current development plans and would address the specific probability in the various project areas. The study could also make recommendations about how to handle construction in light of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. We also recommend consultation with the concerned tribes cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. If federal funds or permits are involved Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations, 36CFR800, must be followed. This is a separate process from SEPA. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties concerning cultural resource issues that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and we look forward to receiving the report. Sincerely, Stepheni Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist (360) 586 -3083 • StephenieK(�cted.wa.gov cc: Laura Murphy ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 3 August 2004 Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504 -8343 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Dear Mr. Whitlam: Steven M Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director The City directed the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the above project. The Muckleshoot Tribe commented on the Draft EIS with the attached letter that suggests that the subject site could harbor undisturbed archaeological resources that could be reached by construction activities. Ms. Murphy recommends that the City rule out the likelihood of inadvertent discovery by addressing the possibility in the EIS. The City requests any information you may have on the potential for cultural resources in the project area, procedures to be followed during construction if there is the potential for finding them and methods for handling them should their presence be found. I can be reached at 206 431 -3651 or by.email at mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Moira.Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner Attachment: Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Letter dated: June 21, 2004 'Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter DEIS Copy: Greg Fitchitt, Westfield Duane Huckell, HWA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431.3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 cry of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 10 September 2003 John Goodwin Westfield Corporation 11601 Wilshire B1, 12 floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 -1748 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear John: Puget Sound Energy (PSE) is the electrical and natural gas provider for your site. The utility responded to the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice with the attached comments. A subsequent meeting between them and the City reveals that for the proposed expansion there are issues of timing and their ability to distribute the necessary gas and electricity to meet your needs. Both the distribution networks for natural gas and electricity will need to be modified/enhanced off -site in order to serve the expanded mall. Other regional and national projects compete for needed products from their suppliers. If you wish to open the expansion in late 2005, then you should contact PSE immediately. They would like to begin working with Westfield. Their contact is Susan Hempstead and her number is 425 -456 -2838 or susan.hempstead @pse.com. For your reading pleasure, enclosed is a short article from a PSE document describing the beginnings of the Southcenter's electrical system. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner C: Susan Hempstead Attachments Enclosure - Southcenter utility layout plans from 1966 -1987 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 I is all underground— primary lines, secondary lines, . transformers —the whole works. It's Puget Power's 13,000 - kilowatt, $650,000 Total Underground system for the new Southcenter Shopping Mall opening this sum- mer in Tukwila. It's also the first of its kind in the Com- pany service area. And its practically outage- proof. Warren Pagel, assis- tant engineer - distribution, is the project supervisor. He explained that Puget engineers have designed the South- center system so that the triad is divided almost equally into north and south halves of the shopping stall. Incom- ing feeder cables from the Renton Junction substation are split to provide two sources of power for each half. In the event of a cable failure, automatic switches will redistribute, the load, and service will go uninterrupted. Further protection is afforded the center's three major department stores. A "spot network" serves each store with two sets of lines and transformers carrying the nor- mal load. However, either set can handle it all in an emergency. Again, the load transfer is automatic. The Southcenter goes (Cover) Assistant engineer Warren Pagel checks "beginning" of Southcenter system where one of three 15,000 -volt cables goes underground from the Renton Junction Substation. Nutt !ii siiiiii iii ii 'lliliiii7 : Looking across the freeway at Southcenter in the foreground and Andover Industrial Park in the background. Heavy lines at the top are 15,000 -volt, main feeders. Pagel inspects one of the .i tap lines which carry power into the shopping center from this underground vault. back -up arrangement will allow Puget crews ample time to replace store transformers in rooftop vaults without service interruption. Company engineers were required to design and test several new items of line materials to meet the difficult soil and water conditions at Southcenter. Allowances were made for landfill settling. Conduits and vaults were located to avoid foundation pilings. Automatic • sump pumps were installed in each vault to counteract the high water table. Conduits were sealed to prevent swamp gas from leaking into service entrances. Adjoining Southcenter on the east is Andover Indus- trial Park, developed by Puget Western, Inc., a Company subsidiary. Andover also is served by underground, with pad - mounted transformers. The two comprise one of the nation's largest commercial - industrial complexes featur- ing underground wiring. Capacity of the Renton Junc- tion substation recently was increased to 40,000 kva to meet the area's future needs. Five 13,000-volt cables pass under the .Green River to deliver the power. t. TOTAL UNDERGROUND Winter weather and a high water table at the construction site made pulling a slippery job. (right above) Preparing to pull in secondary lines. Final connection is made on one of 40 secondary terminations in the system. Clean Air Agency www.pscleanair.org Ph 206.343.8800 1.800.552.3565 Fax 206.343.7522 110 Union Street Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 -2038 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dennis J. McLerran BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIR TACOMA Bill Evans, City Councilman KING COUNTY Ron Sims, Executive SEATTLE Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor KITSAP COUNTY Jan Angel, Commissioner BREMERTON Cary Bozeman, Mayor PIERCE COUNTY John Ladenburg, Executive SNOHOMISH COUNTY Jeff Sax, Councilman EVERETT Frank Anderson, Mayor MEMBER AT LARGE Janet Chalupnik Printed on recycled paper Pub. No. 30.71 Revised 7 -31 -2003 Southcenlrr doc Working Together For Clean Air July 31, 2003 �� w O o 4o¢ 4Zr e41 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Planner Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determination of Significance for the planned expansion and renovation of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter project. We are pleased to see that air quality is listed one of the areas specifically identified for discussion in the proposed EIS. We are enclosing a copy of our generic list of key issues for your reference. If we may be of further assistance, please let me know at 206.689.4051 or johna @pscleanair.org. Sincerely, ohn K. Anderson Supervisory Engineer Enclosure 1 • • Puget Sound Clean Air Agency SEPA Document Review Key Issues Demolition Activities Prior to any demolition activities: (1) an asbestos survey must be performed to identify all asbestos - containing materials present, (2) a project notification must be submitted to PS Clean Air at least ten days before asbestos removal or demolition activities begin, and (3) all friable asbestos - containing materials must be removed prior to demolition. Forms may be obtained by calling 206.689.4090. Construction Dust Emissions Reasonable precautions to control the release of dust include: (1) installation of a wheel- washer to reduce dirt and mud track -out onto paved public roadways, (2) formulation of a dust suppression plan to control dust generated on -site, and (3) implementation of a dust management policy for trucks transporting excavation and other dust generating materials to and from the site (e.g. provide adequate freeboard and cover all loads). Vehicle Idling To reduce emissions and the exposure to toxic air contaminants by the surrounding community, do not leave trucks, cars, or construction equipment idling unused for longer periods than five minutes. Diesel Emissions The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, along with a consortium of partners, has developed the Diesel Solutions program to make diesel vehicles in this region dramatically cleaner. To reduce diesel emissions for improvement in air quality related to air toxics and fine particulate matter, we encourage the use of ultra low sulfur diesel (15 ppm sulfur), bio- diesel, or alternative fueled vehicles (e. g. compressed natural gas, propane, hybrid, electric and fuel cell), depending on the particular circumstances. New Facilities The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency performs a pre- construction review of projects involving significant air contaminant emissions. Examples include automobile repair /painting, dry- cleaning plants, gasoline stations, coffee roasters, crematories, rock crushers, soil /groundwater remediation, and miscellaneous surface coating operations. A Notice of Construction approval is required before construction activities begin. Forms may be obtained from our web site at < http : / /www.pscleanair.org/businfo /formsprocedures.shtml> or by calling 206.689.4049. SEPA Key Issues.doc 1 Feb 10 2003 • Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Puget 9 Y SEPA Document Review Key Issues, Conformity On larger projects air quality analyses are required to insure conformity to the existing state implementation plan for meeting national ambient air quality standards. The Puget Sound region was designated as an attainment area for carbon monoxide, effective October 11, 1996 (Federal Register 10- 11 -96, page 53323); for ozone, effective November 25, 1996 (Federal Register 9- 26 -96, page 50438); and for particulate matter, effective. We were also designated as attainment for particulate matter, effective May 14, 2001 (Federal Register 3 -13- 01, page 14492). A regional conformity review at the program level does not preclude further emission reduction mitigation measures being required at the project level, particularly related to diesel exhaust and other toxic emissions. Regionally significant transportation projects require a project level conformity determination. Major, federally funded, non transportation projects may require a general conformity determination. Wood Smoke For residential construction we recommend incorporation of natural gas or propane burning fireplaces instead of wood burning fireplaces or wood stoves. Open Burning Open burning of land clearing debris and yard or household waste is prohibited in urban areas designated as growth management areas. We discourage open burning in any areas of our jurisdiction. Generally, there are reasonable alternatives to open burning, such as mobile chipping and waste pick -up. Lawn Care We encourage the use of low- emission equipment to maintain lawn and grounds. Electric or manual yard equipment and mulching mowers will eliminate air contaminant emission during routine maintenance of landscape facilities. SEPA Key Issues.doc 2 Feb 10 2003 City of flaw' • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Determination of Significance Second Request for Comments on Scope of EIS Steve Lancaster, Director Description of proposal: Westfield Corporation, Inc., the owner of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter, formerly known as Southcenter Mall, plans to expand and renovate. The planned expansion includes 289,517 square feet of new retail shops and 162,650 square feet of new anchor stores; additional restaurants and an expanded food court of 29,081 square feet; a 75,200- square -foot theater, and possibly a 174,587- square -foot hotel. The expansion extends the footprint of the shopping center generally to the south, establishes a second level of retail shops, and provides one or more parking structures. All development occurs within the existing shopping center site. Proponent /applicant: John Goodwin, Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location of proposal: The block bounded by Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Andover Park West. (See the attached map.) Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No: E03 -010 EIS Required. This proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared per the State Environmental Policy Act of the Revised Code of Washington (43.21C.030 (2)(c) RCW.) The City and Westfield agreed that a checklist is not needed and that an EIS will be prepared as allowed per the Environmental Regulations of the Tukwila Municipal Code (21.04.140 TMC.) The following areas are identified for discussion in the EIS: elements of the natural environment, specifically air quality, and storm water quality and its fisheries impact; and the built environment, specifically transportation and utilities. The fiscal implications of public service and infrastructure impacts will also be analyzed. Scoping. You are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and approvals that are required. The comment period is 21 days. Comments must be in writing and must be received by 5:00 p.m. August 19, 2003. If you submitted comments previously, you remain a party of record; the issues you raised will be considered in the preparation of the DEIS; and you do not need to resubmit. The address, fax number and email are as follows: Responsible official: Steve Lancaster Position/title: Director, Department of Community Development Address: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Phone: (206) 431 -3670 Project Planner: Tukwila, WA 98188 Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Moira Carr Bradshaw Email: mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Date: July 29, 2003 Signature SEPA Responsible Official There is no appeal of this decision of significance. WAC (8/2/99) (Ch. 197 -11 WAC -p.671 _ .C. \mcb\mall\2SEPQ, DS.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 o Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 RECEIVED a9UL� 2 5 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX TRANSMITTAL 1144 EASTLAKE AVE E T 206.522.9510 suITE601 F 206.522.8344 SEATTLE, WA 98109 WWW. PAC LAND.COM Date: July 24, 2003 To: Moira Bradshaw; City of Tukwila Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter; Tukwila, Washington Affidavit of Installation of Public Signs Sender: Janet for Jack Hollenbach YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 2 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THESE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (206) 522 -9510. DESCRIPTION: As discussed, please find the attached Affidavit of Installation of Public Signs for the public information boards. Please contact us at your earliest convenience with any questions or comments. Thank you. Cc: . Greg Fitchitt; Westfield Development Corp. (310) 478 -4468 2003116.001 .00 -2 3A/tkwfm bfx02.doc State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I t.c K -U ` \ 'tn cL(PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on Z `{ 2Pc) ;the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other e guidelines were posted on the property located at L1 e_ , n }pe a, o as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for ap icatiion file number I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. icant o Project M.. ager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me �.J 4 c (�ex\ iDac- to me known to Y P Y PP 1�- be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. � SUBSCRI OWORN to before me this '2-1-1--it day of J u ly u® p1A1 .--- PUBIOG :0= -..%..*. 4f4F? 1, 4-- '110 4;',e; ntili1111 N RY PUB 1611v1 1■ Jay►e1i" J l i t and for the Stat of Washington M Dui) 414ke. e,rrae,et WQ a2oo3 I Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Shoppingtowruthcenter From: 'Bob Steen 11" <rsteeni @gwest.com> To: <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 7/21/04 5:35PM Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Moira Carr Bradshaw: Sorry about the late response, but I had to show an official response on information that I just received (just in case). I will also contact the owners to let them know about this as well, so we can work out the necessary details. I was just given the final concerns of others that have reviewed this within our company (late this afternoon). The main concern of all, is how to maintain the existing service, while the new additions are under construction. _ QWEST has the main feed to the existing equipment, which feeds from the South off of Strander BLvd. (which just happens to come right under the main portion of the proposed structures). This may or may not work the way this is designed, as there are some existing vaults that would require long term access for maintenance to the existing services. If there is a method to get truck access into these areas in the future (which it does not look possible with the sketch included in this statement), we could maintain the existing route to the existing terminal location. If the room did require relocation of the existing equipment, this room would still be required as a connect through location for all of the existing cables to customer suites (unless it is the plan to reconstruct conduits throughout the entire existing mall area, for new cables from a new terminal location). If the construction happens as sketched in this EIS, the possibility of a new underground route may be required to this location, coupled with a room expansion, in order to be able to maintain service and meet growth needs. At the existing terminal location, the walls to the West or South sides of the room would be the only possible directions to expand the existing equipment room. QWEST has already (since the original inquiry) replaced some of the equipment in this location, condensing what could be condensed for space. This was needed in order to meet existing needs and allow for some future growth. However, the future growth that was accommodated for, would.not handle the near the requirements for the proposed additions. There is not enough termination space on the existing walls (and this is the only way to make the connections, as it is not totally antiquated (as mentioned in the EIS statements made), but the current method practiced within the industry. The room (as near as we can tell at this time, with only minimal details) would have to be pretty much at least doubled in size, to provide for the relocation of some equipment, making room for the additional wall terminations. All work for this relocation, is considered bill able. Once the equipment has been re- established and the wall space defined, additional growth would be handled on a going forward basis (we will try to provide forecast assistance, so that the final equipment room will handle ultimate requirements and not require this billing for rearrangements again at a later date). In order to maintain the existing services, allow for ultimate growth and meet the overall needs for this site once and for all, it will require good communication up front in the design process as well as t j Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Shoppingtovyouthcenter Page 2 constant monitoring throughout the project. QWEST is concerned about the ultimate design and the cost/time associated to a total relocation of the facilities to another room, verses the possible expansion and reroute of facilities, to the existing terminal room. We will do our best to minimize service impact to the existing customers, but will need information long before any final designs are approved. We look forward to the project and working with the design team to seek a solution that all can work with, but we go into this project with some apprehension as to what might happen to the incoming services to the mall. If you have any additional questions, comments, or concerns, please call me at 206- 345 -4475. I will be the coordinator and engineer on this project, from the property line into the new (or expansion of the existing) equipment room(s). Others will be supporting the electronic design /re- design within the site, structure and /or cable rearrangements to the site, as well as the long term planning and actual site installation /rearrangements support on site during the construction process. I may be used as the focal point to get these items coordinated. Robert P. Steen II, RCDD Building Industry Consultant Design Engineer QWEST Communications t CC: "Ken Stoner" <kstoner @gwest.com >, "Richard Clary" <rclary@gwest.com> tr- � Washington State �I/ Department of Transportation Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation July 20, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ivloira: Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -97.10 206 - 440 -4000 TTY: 1- 800 - 833 -6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov WSDOT has reviewed the submitted Draft Environmental Impact Statement and offer the following comments. WSDOT has identified some areas of concern below with respect to this projects impacts on the existing transportation facilities. Project Summary This project will add approximately 787, 903 square -feet (sf) of gross building area to the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Mall, bringing the total to 2,226,274 sf. New construction will include additional retail commercial uses, restaurants, a movie theater complex, a hotel, and parking structures. All development will occur within the existing shopping center site. The project is expected to add approximately 12,380 new daily trips to the surrounding roadway network. Construction is schedule to begin in 2004 and be complete in 2006. Comments 1. Intersection 4 — 51St Avenue South/SR 518 Eastbound Off -Ramp has been identified as operating at Level of Service (LOS) F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 2. Intersection 10 — Interurban Avenue South/I -405 SB Ramps has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as High Accident Location (HAL), and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to, address this HAL. The proposal will add additional . trips to this location. . Intersection 11 — Interurban Avenue So uth/Southcenter Boulevard has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT_ as 'a HAL. WSDOT ( Name: Westfield Shoppllipwn Southcenter Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement review Date: July 20, 2004 Page 2 may request HAL mitigation at this site. This proposal will add additional trip to this location. 4. Intersection 21- Southcenter Parkway/I -5 Northbound Ramp (Mall Entry) has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as a HAL, and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 5. Intersection 23 — Southcenter Parkway/I-5 Northbound Off -Ramp has been identified as operating at LOS F in the design year. WSDOT requests mitigation to address deficiencies at this location. This site has also been identified by WSDOT as a HAL, and as such WSDOT may also request mitigation to address this HAL. This proposal will add additional trips to this location. 6. Intersection 40 — West Valley Highway /South 196th Street is listed by WSDOT as a HAL, although this is not noted in the report. Please note that High Accident Locations and High Accident Corridors listed by WSDOT that are impacted by a proposal are considered as probable significant adverse impacts. If you have any additional questions, or require additional information please contact John Lefotu of our Development Services section by phone at 206 - 440 -4713, or via e- mail at lefotuj @wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Ramin Paoki SnoKing Area Planning Manager JL: jl cc: Don Sims/Rick Roberts, King Area Traffic MS 120 Laura N. Whitaker PHONE: 206.359.8584 enun : LWhitaker @perkinscoie.com July 20, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION AND U.S. MAIL Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 ,t Re: DEIS/Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Perkins Coie 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101 -3099 PHONE: 206.359.8000 FAX: 206.359.9000 www.perkinscoie.com We represent The Boeing Company ( "Boeing "), owner of the Longacres Office Park ( "LOP ") property located along the northeast/northwest boundary between the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. As you know, Boeing has conducted planning and environmental review supporting commercial development of the LOP property, with a horizon year for SEPA purposes of 2010. As documented in the 1994 LOP EIS and addressed in the Transportation Mitigation Agreement between Tukwila and Boeing dated December 20, 1995 ( "Tukwila/Boeing Agreement "), LOP at full buildout is forecast to distribute 1,831 vehicle trips into the Tukwila transportation system.' As a neighboring property owner and developer, therefore, Boeing has asked us and its traffic consultant, Transportation Engineering Northwest, to review the DEIS for 1 Additional SEPA review was conducted by the City of Renton in 2001 supporting an increment of additional LOP commercial development. The traffic study conducted as part of that SEPA review concluded that the additional LOP development area proposed would not generate vehicle trips in excess of those forecast by the 1994 LOP EIS. [0 3 0 03- 0 1 04/SB041950.198] ANCHORAGE BEIJING • BELLEVUE BOISE • CHICAGO DENVER '• HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie uP (Perkins Coie LLC in Illinois) eT' Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner July 20, 2004 Page 2 the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion ( "Westfield EIS "). Our comments on the DEIS are limited to the transportation element and aYe listed below: Boeing Comments on Chapter 3, Transportation and Parking 1. The transportation analysis does not account for any pipeline projects. See, Westfield EIS at 3 -40. But as noted above, the impacts of LOP development, which has begun and is anticipated to continue at least until 2010, have been analyzed and corresponding mitigation established by the City. LOP is clearly, therefore, a pipeline project that should have been included as background traffic for purposes of the Westfield transportation analysis.2 The Westfield transportation analysis should be revised to include the 1,831 LOP trips. 2. The transportation analysis also fails to account for the planned Strander Boulevard extension. That project will alter relevant trip distribution patterns and should be assumed for purposes of assessing impacts of the Westfield project on the site vicinity, including Boeing's LOP property. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you would like to discuss them, please do not hesitate to contact Shaunta Hyde, at 206 -544 -0182, or me. Very truly yours, (u JU /1,; Laura N. Whitaker LNW:lnw cc: Colette M. Temmink Jeffrey R. Adelson Shaunta R. Hyde 2 Although the Tukwila Boeing Agreement establishes the LOP trips as a baseline traffic condition at least until 2010, it should also be noted that both the PSRC Regional Model and the City of Renton Model assume continued buildout at LOP as a future baseline condition. [03003- 0104/SB041950.198] 07/20/04 % Katy'Keolker- Wheeler, Mayor .. I 'Y F RENTON PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator.' July 20, 2004. Steve Lancaster` • .:Director -.. Department of Community Development .City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite'100; Tukwila, WA-98188 WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION: : . DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. STATEMENT,' JUNE 2004 "Dear Mr. Lancaster, RECEIVED J(11 -. ►7804.. DEVFLOpr�uNT . Thank you for the opportunity to review".the above referenced document. The City of Renton has several comments. on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), most of which are related to transportation issues. These are. described below. ".Traffic Analysis On May i3, 2003, the City sent a letter to the_City of. Tukwila.requesting early coordination on -this DEIS. and•specifically identified Renton'streets that we felt may be impacted -would like to have addressed: Unfortunately, the, City did not receive early review; of the traffic analysis, and only .two Of several. potentially impacted intersections were evaluated, and the requested arterial .analysis of S.W. Grady Way,'Oakesdale Avenue•S:W: and.S :W :.43`' is, not provided at all Lastly, the EIS traffic analysis indicates that the highest project volumes are expected for Saturday p.m. peak hour, but analysis of Renton streets and intersections is jimited to weekday p :m, peak hour volumes.. If it is appropriate to consider two different peak periods for traffic impacts, the reasoning and methodology behind this should be documented. It is possible that Saturday p.m, peak hour volumes in. Renton are low enough to justify this, but to avoid any confusion or questioning, the actual numbers supporting this approach should be presented. Forecasting . What was the"forecasting-tool used and how does it address issues like mode split and arterial speeds ?'. Mode Split The EIS does not assume any changes. in":transit- related.travel;patterns to reflect potential new .service ": Does this mean that routing changes' are; not considered or ..that mode: split: assumptions 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 - This paper contains 50% recycied material, 30% post consumer AHEAD.OF. TH E CURVE do not vary, fromtoday's levels? If Mode-split assurnptions.change,please provide`i iformation on the percentage and reason for the change. Quali Air.quality:impacts are described as likely as a:result.of the project, but no specif c :project :Mitigation for these impacts are identified in the Air.Qualitychapter: The EIS ir,Quality • chapter.recommends-improvements that reduce _vehicle:volumes,and/or improve level of service, but. does not further define the mitigation. Presumably, all ofthe.choices from _the 'table of Pote ntial Transportation Mitigation. Options either reduce volumes•or`improve.level of service,- but it is not :possible:to discern this from the table (e.g., ,does installing; c,- curbing reduce'air quality-impacts?): :,Clarification of which improvements address this. issue would be helpful. Planned Improvements We:request.that the: Strander BoulevardExtension be included as a:project that would be completed by 2010, and that the study area 2010 volumes and :traffic operations analysis (such at; .SW Grady way /Oakesdale Avenue:SW,,SW :27th Street / Oakesdale :Avenue SW.:and SW 43rd -• • • Street / Oakesdale Avenue SW) ;.be revised to.reflect'c ompletion'of thikproject by 2010. We disagree with the assumption that no':portion of the Strander Boulevard Extension ,project would be complete. by. the 2010 horizon°year. The Cityof Reriton-Six -Year (2005 -2010) Transportation, Improvement- Program (which is scheduled for: adoption on July 26, 2004) designates the Strander Boulevard Extension Project for completion by,2010.' 'Though this project is not fully funded, there•have been funding commitments by'the •City of. Renton, City of. Tukwila, The Boeing Company and the. Freight Mobility.: Strategy Investment. Board, and it is. the City of Renton'.s intent :to aggressively pursue the needed additional funding so that the 2010 completion date can be Met: The City of Renton Transportation. Planning and Programming. Section is . • • available to assist in resolving the resulting shifts in background:traffic due to the new Strander - Boulevard Extension roadway. - Also, it is_ our understanding that certain improvements :to I -405. in jthe vicinity of Southcenter. • Expansion site are planned by WSDOT for completion: by. 20:1.0- as part of the. 'Nickel. Package ":: ..The text in DEIS, 2010:volumes and traffic operations analysis should be amended to reflect the "Nickel Package" projects. - Background Growth and Pipeline Projects We request that the DEIS include discussion of the future planned development for the Boeing Longacres site. • The discussion of traffic volumes and traffic-operatioris should reflect traffic .• generated from'future development on this site.: A Draft arid Final EIS and Mitigation. Document have.been'adopted for the development of the • Longacres site that•will provide approximately 2,500,000 squarefeet:of office space, with • approximately 10,000 employees occupying the site..Even though there are no projects currently in the permitting process or approved (the Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters`building and Day -Care Center have been completed), Boeing shown: a commitment to future planned development by satisfying their mitigation requirements for full.luild- out•ofth'e Longacres site in the of right-of-way dedication for. the Strander Boulevard: Extension: project:- We view this as a commitment. by Boeing•for fiirther development'on their- siteby2010 and: to completion of . the extension of Strander Boulevard: The City of :Renton. Transportation Planning and'Prograinming Section is available to assist in .. revising the DEIS to reflect the planned Boeing Longacres development:' : �:, , ,Mitigation Measures =Table :3 -19, :Potential Transportation Mitigation Options describes various options^for each impact and. offers pros and-cons for those. options:: However, 'by,doing so, if is difficult to. discern". which: . is-the final proposed mitigation measure :'Consequently, it is not possible to determine what ::.. would be implemented, how it would resolve the impacts (in.contrast to it's pluses and minuses) and how it could affect Renton :. More specificity about , the: recommended mitigation m „ easures -:•\. 'Would address this issue." Also, we request that the:DEIS.include discussion of the City Of Renton's mitigation : requirements ' and that the.proposed Southcenter Expansion, project would be:subject•to Renton's traffic mitigation: program pursuant: to City`' of Renton Resolution:2100 :and Concurrency .. • Management Systempolicies.- :. The City of Renton :has also adopted ,alfee- basedtransportation mitigation program. :This .fee ' represents: land -use developments' fair -share cost of'citywide transportation. system improveinents;to:address traffic generated,by future:, development "and to maintain an established Level of Service standard: ,Under Renton's transportation mitigation. program, site - specific improvements are also :required to mitigate impacts to on -site and adjacent facilities: Renton's mitigation fee is`,based on the "increase in total daily vehicle: trips generated by a development • project. . We recognize that Renton and, Tukwila do not-have;an Interlocal agreement for addressing traffic mitigation for:. development projects inside. our: respective borders:.. So for modest projects, we • • have exchanged'environmental documentation and development proposals and. addressed. review con-iments However, for the Boeing Longacres development project (a mega project), mitigation of ;transportation impacts in Tukwila :wer e. addressed and :traffic mitigation. negotiated between • " Tukwila and Boeing was a component of.the Mitigation Document for. "that project. We view the • Southcenter. Expansion as a project that would be in the category of.the Boeing Longacres. -, . • development.- in. terms of impacts On Renton's streets andthe need:for mitigation to those. impacts. We. appreciate this opportunity to review the DES . If you have any questions about our comments, please, feel free to contact meat 425- 430 -73111 Gregg .Zimmerman Administrator . Planning, Building, and Public Works . • • July 8, 2004 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 `"'Ps- Serving the Southwest Metropolitan Area since 1946 Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter — Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact Statement for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter project. We have no comments at this time and wish you good luck with this project. Sincerely, Thomas D. Keown, P.E. Construction /Operations Manager TDK:maf 23828 - 30th Ave. S. • P.O. Box 3867 • Kent, WA 98032 • (206) 824 -0375 / FAX: (206) 824 -0806 King County Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division, Design & Construction Section Environmental Planning and Real Estate, MS KSC -TR -0431 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104 -3856 (206) 684 -1418 FAX: (206) 684 -1900 • 4 June 25, 2004 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS Dear Mr. Lancaster: King County Metro Transit staff reviewed the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft EIS and have the following comments. The EIS states that the project proponent, Westfield Corporation, could consider upgrading local transit bus stops to help improve connectivity and to encourage transit use to and from the site. Metro is ready to work with Westfield Corp. to determine specific improvements and the timing of those improvements. Listed below, in order of priority, are bus stops needing improvement in the project area. Please refer to the attached diagram for the location of these bus stops. Bus Stop #59310 & #59312 (southbound on Andover between Baker and Strander): Bus stop #59310 has two passenger shelters, but we need at least one at #59312. Overall, there is a great need to revise the paving and landscaping at both bus stops to provide more standing/waiting space for bus patrons and to reduce the amount of maintenance. Litter is a problem at bus stop 59312 where we do not provide cleaning maintenance. Metro has a strong interest in working with the proponent on improvements at this location. Bus Stop #58109 (westbound on Strander at 61st): This bus stop needs a passenger shelter. Passengers leave a lot of litter and Metro does not provide any cleaning maintenance where we do not have a passenger shelter. Metro has a strong interest in working with the proponent on improvements. Bus Stop #60430 (northbound on Andover Park just north of Strander): While we already have one passenger shelter at this stop, . there is a need for more improvements. Additional standing/waiting space is needed to reduce impact to landscaping and maintenance. An additional passenger shelter would be beneficial. It would be useful if improvements at this stop could be coordinated with the improvements that might be made at the three stops discussed above. Please contact Paul Alexander, Transit Planner ( 206. 684. 1599, naul.alexander n.metrokc.gov), to discuss bus stop improvements in that area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Gary ICriedt Senior Environmental Planner MOBILITY FOR THE REGION • • Southcenter Bus Stops Needing Improvements King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 June 24, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion DEIS 'JUN 2 8 2G 71 Mgn- The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Project. King County requires that a capacity charge be applied to any project that constructs a new connection to the sewer system, any reconnection within five years of a disconnection, or any change in use or building remodel that includes an increase in plumbing fixtures. King County generally receives notice of new construction; however, some sewer districts and /or the cities that represent them have neglected to report changes in use and tenant improvements that involve an increase in plumbing fixtures. In an attempt to remedy this problem, we are sending this reminder to you in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We ask that you forward this reminder to the sewer district or city department responsible for Sewer Use Certification forms: Please be sure that a Non - Residential Sewer Use Certification form for the above project is completed and sent to the King County Capacity Charge Program in a timely manner. The form should be sent to Eunice Verstegen, Capacity Charge Program, KSC -NR -0501, at the address above. If you need additional forms or have questions about the program, please call Eunice at (206) 684 -1740. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Meredith Redmon Environmental Planner cc: E&mice Verstegen, Capacity Charge Program C L E A N WATER- A S O U N D I N V E S T M E N T King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 June 23, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED UUN 2 8 2004. bJMOPM N7 RE: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement The. King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated June 2004. King County's Tukwila Interceptor is located within the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion_Project site. In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Tukwila do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to Eric Davison in the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, Civil /Architectural Section. Eric can be contacted at (206) 684 -1707. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Drawings should be sent to: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, KSC -NR -0508 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 • Please contact Eric Davison at (206) 684 -1707 a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in order to allow staff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on the site during construction. • • King County has a permanent easement for a sewer line on the proposed development site, and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line, and, in the event that the line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided. • Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the proposed development site to Eric Davison in the Civil /Architectural Section so that he can contact the property owner regarding the easement. Eric can be reached at (206) 684 -1707, at • eric.davison ,metrokc.gov, or by mail at the address above. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you have questions, I can be reached at (206) 684 -1227. i #. . ®,M.. CLEAN WATER — A SOUND INVESTMENT • Sincerely, Barbara Questad Environmental Planner Enclosures r soot LetsioteL • cc:Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section Pam Elardo, Supervisor, Right-of-Way Unit, Planning and System Development • • MUCKLESHOOT CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 June 21, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear Ms. Bradshaw: • FAX: (253) 876 -3312 „ CO4f, ZUO4 Cpp441- INDIAN TRIBE On behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee, I have reviewed the information sent on 06/21/04 regarding the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Project and have the following comments. Even areas that have been previously disturbed or highly developed can harbor undisturbed archaeological resources at depths below ground surface that may be reached by construction activities. It is important to rule out the likelihood of inadvertent discovery by addressing this possibility in the EIS. I see that the Washington State Office of Community, Trade, and Economic Development is on your distribution list, but it is unclear whether the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) has been notified. The EIS should address the potential for cultural resources in the project area. The OAHP should be notified for review and comments on the draft EIS. The Cultural Resources Program does not represent the Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Please contact these departments separately for their input on this project. We appreciate the effort to coordinate with the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to site. preparation. The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site and cause delays and unnecessary expense for the contractor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 253- 876 -3272. Thank you for keeping the Tribe informed. S erely, Laura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist CC: Donna Hogerhuis, Cultural Specialist Melissa Calvert, Wildlife & Culture Director Stephenie Kramer, Assistant State Archaeologist, OAHP • Cizj' of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY June 21, 2004 Westfield, the owner of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter, is proposing to expand the existing mall by adding two levels of retail generally between Sears and J.C. Penney, relocating the food court and adding a movie theater on a third level. Two garages will be built in the parking lot adjacent to the south side of Sears and J.C. Penney. Additional freestanding restaurants and a hotel are also envisioned. The City required an analysis of expected impacts, primarily traffic, but also air quality, storm water and public services. The project and its potential impacts are summarized in a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.) SEPA File Number: E03 -010 Opportunity for Public Comment The City invites your review and comments on the potential impacts associated with the proposed expansion. The information contained in the EIS will be considered by the City in its review of any required approvals or permits for the project. Copies of the EIS are available at: the public libraries in Tukwila; the Tukwila Department of Community Development, or the City's web site. The cost for an EIS is $10.00 or $5.00 for a compact disc of the document. Comments must be sent to Steve Lancaster, Director and SEPA Responsible Official, Department of Community Development and postmarked by 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2004. City of Tukwila: 206 - 431 -3670 Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. www.ci.tukwila.wa.us The DEIS file is separated into sections and large and will take time to open. Tukwila Library: 206 - 244 -5140 14475 59 AV. S. Monday /Wednesday /Thursday 3 - 6 p.m. Tuesday 3 - 8 p.m. Saturday 12 - 5 p.m. Foster Library: 206- 242 -1640 4060 S 144 ST Monday - Thursday l la.m.- 9 p.m. Friday and Saturday 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. Sunday 1 - 5 p.m. If you have questions about the project, please call Moira Carr Bradshaw, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development at 206 431- 3670 or at mbradshaw@ci.tukwila.wa.us. [Moira Bradshaw - FW: Southcenter stfield Shoppingtown Page 11 From: "Hempstead, Susan B" <susan.hempstead @pse.com> To: <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 6/10/03 2:35PM Subject: FW: Southcenter / Westfield Shoppingtown Moira, I believe you mentioned that you have a meeting with Westfield management tomorrow. Here is additional information regarding our electric utility system at Southcenter. We'll need to do additional research on the natural gas side. I do have a utilities map and our team can be available to meet. Additionally, when the Double Tree /Red Lion gets torn down there will need to be a removal of PSE electric facilities. There would be primary metering, a switch, two transformers, 1/0 and conduit. We would need to de- energize and prepare a notification to our service provider, Potelco, to do the work. Thanks, Susan Susan Hempstead Local Government and Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy PO Box 97034, OBC 11E Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Phone: 425 - 456 -2838 Fax: 425 - 462 -3355 Email: susan.hempstead @pse.com www.pse.com Original Message From: Harris, Wayne Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 2:51 PM To: Hempstead, Susan B; France, H. Syd Cc: Kostek, Leann; Jainga, Joe; Kuhlman, Kellie; Bates, Joan; Kreshel, Stephanie J; Koch, Cathy; Swart, Brian Subject: RE: Southcenter / Westfield Shoppingtown Susan /Syd - sorry it took me so long to get back to you. When the electrical facilities were designed to serve Southcenter Mall, several very detailed ink and pen drawings were put together on mylar. They show not only our facilities but the onsite utilities such as storm and water and the original bldg and foundation details. These drawings were kept at the Renton Headquarters and I have hung onto them through the recent facility relocations. They are in a flat file here at South King. I am sending you a copy of one of the drawings that show our facilities on the south side of the Mall. These would appear to me to be the facilities that would be in conflict with the bldg expansion. Those facilities are approximately 120ft south of the existing structures. A 200 ft expansion would put them in the construction area. Relocating this system, maintaining service, and providing a new permanent service to the south side of the Mall would be a real challenge. It would take quite a bit of engineering and planning with the designers. The earlier we get into the loop on this the better. We would probably need a project manager and I am sure some engineering support from PSE. My best guess is that we would have a 50% load increase at full build out of their expansion. I would see the need to bring a third feeder circuit into the property, probably from our Southcenter sub at the southwest corner of the property, and tie this to the two existing Renton Junction feeders that serve the system from the east side of the property on Andover Park West currently. This would mean trench and duct on the west side of the Mall to intercept some of our existing spare duct work that you see on the Moira Bradshaw - FW: Southcenter / ` field Shoppingtown Page 2 map I am sending you. This is a very sketchy off the top of my head analysis. The key would be to get in on the planning process with the Mall early on to try to flesh this out into reality. This is a broad bush for the electric side. The map you get should make things a little clearer. I will cc Joan Bates and Stephanie Kreshel who could speak to the gas concerns. If you need more information regarding the map or other details prior let me know... Wayne Systems Integration to examine how TOD concepts might be incorporated into the planning for developing this process. Subject to final Sound Transit Board approval, staff expects to release a request for proposal covering Future Phase High Capacity Transportation Alternatives Analyses and a National Environmental Protection Act Process by January 2001. This is a multi -year effort, meant to enable the Sound Transit Board to craft a Phase 11 Implementation plan for submission to voters by November 2004 at the latest. Motion:. It is hereby moved by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority that the Transit - Oriented Development Program for 2001 is adopted as set forth herein. APPROVED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of October 2000. ATTEST; Gf%a.Gkw Maria Walker Board Administrator vid Earling Board Chair Motion No. M2000 -90 Page 3 of 3 • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 4 June 2003 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director John Goodwin Westfield Corporation Wilshire Boulevard, 12 floor Los Angeles, CA Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear John: Below is a summary and update on the status of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.) DS and Scoping Notice issued: April 24, 2003 Three party EIS consultant contract completed: April 29, 2003 Public Comment period ends: May 15, 2003 Second Public Comment period ends: July 3, 2003 Posting of the site, a requirement for the DS and scoping, occurred on May 30, 2003. Therefore, a second 21 day comment period will begin on June 12, 2003. Additional project information from Westfield is needed before the EIS can move forward. The 41 week time frame is currently at approximately week 35, which puts EIS completion at the end of January 2004. This date will likely move out because the consultants are awaiting the requested information, which is needed in order to continue with analysis. See enclosed copies of the information requests submitted by email. During negotiations for the EIS work, it was noted that the City's transportation consultant, Mirai & Associates, created and own a computer traffic model of the City's existing and projected future street and traffic conditions. In order for the EIS traffic analysis to be complete, Westfield will need to pay for a "run" of the model using the expected new trips generated by the expansion. Enclosed is the estimate from Mirai & Associates for the necessary tasks. It would be most expeditious for Westfield to pay Mirai directly for the model run. The enclosed description of tasks, which has been agreed to by the EIS traffic consultant, is the scope of work. Please review the task descriptions and cost estimates and then if acceptable provide Mirai, via me, with a written okay to proceed. Mirai would then invoice you upon satisfactorily completing the work. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • As discussed previously, we are scheduling your design team for a site plan workshop here in Tukwila on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 in the a.m. There will be a Tukwila Urban Center workshop on June 30 Monday in the afternoon. Your attendance would be welcome and encouraged at that as well. I hope that we can get some momentum on the project and keep it going. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner Enclosure C:\mcb\mall \031tr609.doc Moira Bradshaw - Notice of Application From: Moira Bradshaw To: ilseattle @msn.com; Palenoue @mac.com; Pool @centerplex.net Date: 5/30/03 4:50PM Subject: Notice of Application As parties of record for the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Expansion plan, I am forwarding a Notice of Application for a demolition permit and parking lot improvement that Westfield is planning. I do not have electronic copies of the plans that show the existing hotel buildings to be demolished and future proposed stalls that will replace the structures. If you would like copies of these site plans, please forward me your mailing address. Sincerely, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX C1! t t' col Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Memorandum To: John Goodwin; Duane Huckell; Tukwila Departments of Public Works, Police, Fire; Parties of Record. From: Moira Bradshaw, Project Planner Date: 19 May 2003 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter — EIS Attached are the comments received as a result of the issuance of the Determination of Significance and the Scoping Notice. These comments resulted from the following notification effort: 1. published article in the March 2003 Hazelnut; 2. mailed the Scoping Notice and DS to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject site and to affected and potentially interested agencies; 3. published a copy in the April 25, 2003 edition of the Seattle Times, the City's official newspaper; and 4. posted a copy on the City's web page under "Legal Notices." A second 21 day comment period will occur when the Mall property has been posted so that the general public has on opportunity to understand the proposal and comment on project. HWA and it's subconsultant, Transpo, are proceeding with Phase 1 of the contract, which includes assessing existing mall trip generation; estimating project trip generation, and trip distribution and assignment; and preparing an alternative or options. In addition to the scoping letters, attached is the list of contacts and interested parties. Please call me at 206 431 -3651 if you have any questions or additional comments. Attachments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 o Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Moira Bradshaw - 5- 15- 03EISWestfieldcr ents.doc PUG ET SOUND ENERGY w w w . p s e. c o m May 15, 2003 Ms. Moira Bradshaw City of Tukwila Senior Planner Department of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Puget Sound Energy (PSE) appreciates the opportunity to provide brief, initial comments in the EIS Scoping process on the proposed Westfield Shoppingtown at Southcenter expansion. We look forward to working with both the management of Westfield Shoppingtown and the City of Tukwila on this major commercial development. A load addition of this magnitude would have an impact on the capacity of existing PSE utilities in the areas of both natural gas and electric service. The existing electric load at Southcenter Mall is approximately 8Mw. The proposed additions could increase this load by about 50 %. PSE would need to expand the electric service to the Mall both on and possibly offsite. The addition of parking garages and other structures in areas that are now open parking could be a major impact to the existing PSE electric and natural gas systems within the property. Some of the existing natural gas and electric facilities are located on the roofs, which could also present a challenge to maintain service and accommodate structure expansion. PSE should be included as early as possible in the design process for this expansion to address these items in a timely and collaborative manner. If you have questions, please contact me at 425 - 456 -2838. Sincerely, Susan Hempstead Local Government & Community Relations Manager Puget Sound Energy cc: Joe Jainga, PSE Muncipal Liaison Manager Wayne Harris, PSE Sr. Engineer Energy System Planning Moira Bradshaw - estfield Shopping1 Determination of Significance , From: Moira Bradshaw To: Susan.hempstead @pse.com Date: 5/13/03 3:21 PM Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Determination of Significance Dear Susan: Attached is a copy of the DS issued for the mall's expansion. We sent a copy of this to: PSE; P.O. Box 90868; Bellevue, WA 98009. Please let us know if that is NOT a good address for future mailings. I appreciate the time taken for your review of the above proposal. I look forward to meeting you next week. Regards, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX February 2003 S M T W T F S February 2003 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 2 9 16 23 31 3 10 17 24 4 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 1 8 15 22 29 10 Monday 11 Tuesday 12 Wednesday 13 Thursday 14 Friday 15 Saturday 16 Sunday —CTR 8 — — (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM) day (8:00 AM - 9:00 AM) review incoming permits (8:00 AM - 5:30 PM) jury duty — — — — -jury (8:00 AM - 5:30 PM) duty (8:00 AM - 9:00 AM) review incoming (8:00 AM - 5:30 PM) jury duty 10 — - (10:00 AM - 11:00 AM) Staff Meeting - - -- - 11— - - -- - - -- (11:45 AM - 1:15 PM) fitness 12- - - -- - - -- a Carol Lumb 1 02/07/2003 - 5:56 PM Moira Bradshaw - SEPA- DS.doc Page 1 Determination of Significance Request for Comments on Scope of EIS Description of proposal: Westfield Corporation, Inc. plans to expand and renovate the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. The planned expansion includes 289,517 square feet of retail shops, 162,650 square feet of anchor stores, restaurants and expanded food court of 29,081 square feet, a 75,200- square -foot theater, and possibly a 174,587- square -foot hotel. The expansion extends the footprint of the shopping center generally to the south, establishes a second level of retail shops, and provides one or more parking structures. All development occurs within the existing shopping center site. Proponent /applicant: John Goodwin, Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location of proposal: The block bounded by Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Andover Park West. (See the attached map.) Lead Agency: City of Tukwila_ EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared per RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). The City and applicant agreed that a checklist is not needed and that an environmental impact statement will be prepared as allowed per Tukwila Municipal Code 21.04.140. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: elements of the natural environment, specifically air quality, and storm water quality and its fisheries impact; and the built environment, specifically transportation and utilities. The fiscal implications of public service and infrastructure impacts will also be analyzed. Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and approvals that are required. The comment period is 21 days from the signature date below. Comments must be in writing and must be received by 5:00 p.m. May 15, 2003. The address, fax number and email are as follows: Responsible official: Steve Lancaster Position /title: Director, Department of Community Development Address: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Phone: (206) 431 -3670 Tukwila, WA 98188 Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Project Planner: Moira Carr Bradshaw Email: mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Date Signature WAC (8/2/99) C: \m eb\m all \SEPA - DS.doc SEPA Responsible Official [Ch. 197 -11 WAC -p.671 February 2003 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 February 2003 March 2003 S M T W T F S 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Wednesday, February 12, 2003 (8:00 AM - 5:30 PM) jury duty Thursday, February 13, 2003 (8:00 AM - 5:30 PM) jury duty (8:00 AM - 9:00 AM) review incoming permits Friday, February 14, 2003 (8:00 AM - 5:30 PM) jury duty Carol Lumb 2 02/07/2003 - 5:56 PM Jesse Tanner, Mayor CITE RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator May 13, 2003 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste. 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: RECEIVED MAY 14 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VFpILE NO. E03 -010, JOHN GOODWIN, WESTFIELD CORP., INC. Dear MrrLkncas e : Renton's Planning/Building /Public Works Department would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above proposal. In anticipation that a comprehensive traffic impact analysis will be included in the scope of the EIS, we request that: 1. Early in the development of the traffic impact analysis, City of Renton staff be provided the opportunity to review assumptions regarding trip generation, trip distribution, and mode split. 2. • Impacts on Renton streets, such as S.W. Grady Way, Oakesdale Ave. S.W., S.W. 43rd Street and the planned extension of Strander Boulevard to the east of West Valley Highway be addressed in the traffic impact analysis. 3. Impacts on 1 -405, with and without W.S.D.O.T.'s planned I -405 Corridor Improvements, also be addressed in the traffic impact analysis. Sincerely, !( L /I/Se/A/al Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building /Public Works Dept. cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lys Hornsby Sandra Meyer Nick Afzali Bob Mahn \\DAEDALUS \SYS2 \SHARED\File Sys\ADM - PBPW Adminstration\ADM - 03 Correspondence \SEPA No. E0 10 John Goodwin.doc \cor E N T O N 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Moira Bradshaw - Westfield Corporation — equest for Comments on Scope of EIS Page 11 From: "Segami, Phil" <SegamiP @WSDOT.WA.GOV> To: "'mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us "' <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 5/12/03 3:34PM Subject: Westfield Corporation- Request for Comments on Scope of EIS Hi Moira- Thanks for giving us an opportunity to comment on this project. Mark Bandy, our Traffic Engineer is on vacation this week, therefore we are unable to provide specific comments in regards to the transportation element. He may, if the City allows, submit comments after the May 15 deadline. Anyway, we have the following comments for you at this time: 1.The EIS must propose a set of measures to mitigate traffic, drainage and other environmental impacts to all affected state facilities. WSDOT must be involve in the identification and development of mitigation measures for each alternative considered for the EIS. 2.The city's transportation element of the comprehensive plan should be updated to include this development. 3.The EIS for this project will have to take into account the cumulative impacts other developments such as the JC Penney warehouse redevelopment, that are being reviewed concurrently by the City. Thanks again. Phil Segami Assistant Planning Manager WSDOT NW Region - King Area, MS 240 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 206 - 440 -4711 fax 206 - 440 -4806 segamip @wsdot.wa.gov CC: "Pazooki, Ramin" <PazookR @WSDOT.WA.GOV >, "Bandy, Mark" <BandyM @WSDOT.WA.GOV >, "Lefotu, John" <LefotuJ @WSDOT.WA.GOV> Moira Bradshaw - Information Page 1 From: "Gloria Ramirez" < ilseattle @msn.com> To: <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 5/7/03 12:22PM Subject: Information Moira, Thank you for your time today to discuss an array of questions regarding planning and the Westfield Shopping Center. Following is my information for future notices on events or meetings. I look forward to possibly meeting you and learning more on planning. Thank again. Gloria Ramirez ilseattle @msn.com # 425.443.7649 Urban Studies, UWTacoma Marketing Associate, AU Engineering, LLC Intern, Low Income Housing Institute April 30, 2003 • Ciz of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director John Goodwin Westfield Corporation 12 Floor, 11601 Wilshire Bl. Los Angeles, CA 90025 -1748 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear John: Environmental review of your proposal is underway. Enclosed is your copy of the signed contract for consultant services to perform the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the mall expansion. Based upon the signed contract and the $1,000 fee to the City for the preparation of the EIS, the consultants are proceeding with the first phase of work. Deposit of 50% of the cost of preparing the Draft EIS, which is $82,000, is required at this time. You have the option of making a cash deposit with the City, or opening an assigned savings account approved by the City. Billings occur on a monthly basis so please choose and execute an option by May 15. Please have your sign representative contact me if there are any questions regarding the email with attachment that I sent you on April 23, 2003. You must have the required notice boards installed by May 8, 2003. Design review of your proposal needs to proceed as soon as possible. Accurate environmental review depends on knowing as much as possible about the layout and size of the project. As you know, the City has retained Freedman Tung & Bottomley (FTB) to provide the City with design consulting services. In order to minimize the cost of their services we would like to piggyback any meetings regarding Westfield with meetings that we are scheduling for our urban center work. You have been invited to the first urban center workshop, which is scheduled for May 21, from 1:00 — 3:30. As you wanted to wait until after the International Council of Shopping Center's spring convention, our next urban center meeting is June 10 and 11. A four hour session in which your design team, FTB and the City can work collaboratively on design options for your project will be organized. As we plan the June 10 — 11 work program, I will contact you with specifics on time, place and any materials needed before the meeting. - We look forward to working with you on the possibilities and growth of your property. Yours truly, AILMoira Bradshaw Enclosure 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • AG c3-o8q CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into thisZ -G day of ,4pI i f , by and between the City of Tukwila ( "City "), a municipal corporate n of the State of Washington; Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. ( "Consultant "), a Washington Corporation; and Westfield Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation ( "Proponent "). WHEREAS, the City has determined that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for the proposed Southcenter expansion project; and WHEREAS, the. City desires to retain the services of a Consultant skilled in the preparation of EISs to prepare the EIS for the project; and WHEREAS, the Proponent has recommended and the City has selected Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. to prepare the EIS and the Consultant is qualified, willing and able to prepare the EIS; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, to be kept, performed and fulfilled by the respective parties to this agreement, and other valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: I. SERVICES BY CONSULANT A. The Consultant shall perform all services and carry out all work necessary to prepare the Southcenter Project EIS pursuant to the Scope of Services attached to this Agreement as Attachment "A," including the management of any subcontractors in the fulfillment of their scope of services. The EIS shall be prepared under the supervision and direction of the City. B. The services include preparation of a detailed scope of work. Prior to completion of a detailed scope of work, the Consultant may perform orientation, planning and scoping assistance. C. The services and work shall be performed diligently and competently, in accordance with professional standards of performance and the scope of work. D. The Consultant shall, during the life of this agreement, perform no other services for Proponent with respect to the subject property. In addition, the Consultant shall not perform services for the Proponent with respect to other property or proposed developments without full disclosure thereof to the City. Proponent specifically agrees not to communicate with the Consultant with regard to the proposal, except for such communication as may be necessary for the Consultant to carry out the performance of this agreement. Any such communication between the Proponent and Consultant shall be documented by the Consultant and reported to the City within seven (7) days of said commu ca on. ORIGINALS Consultant Services Agreemela • Southcenter Expansion EIS • The documentation shall be in the form of a telephone log e- mailed or faxed to the City on a weekly basis with a short summary of the nature of the contact. II. COMPENSATION A. The City shall pay the Consultant for the services and work authorized by this Agreement an amount not to exceed $36,070.00 for Phase 1. A detailed cost estimate for Phase 1 is included with this agreement as part of Attachment "A ". The estimated amount for Phases 2 and 3 (preparation of the preliminary Draft EIS and Draft EIS) ranges from $103,000.00 to $152,000.00. Detailed budgets and scopes for Phases 2 and 3 will be prepared at or near completion of the prior phase. The estimated amount for preparation of the Final EIS (Phase 4) ranges from $12.,000.00 to $25,000.00. A detailed budget and scope for Phase 4 will be prepared after issuance of the Draft EIS and when the extent of comments received on the Draft EIS can be determined. The services and work authorized by this Agreement shall be invoiced *on a time and materials basis. B. Upon deposit of the first funds pursuant to Section II (D) and authorization to begin work, and with the exception of work authorized in I.B. above, payment shall be made monthly by the City on the basis of the work completed in that period in accordance with invoices submitted by the Consultant detailing all costs incurred in connection with the scope of work. Consultant shall submit such progress reports as requested by the City. Payment by Proponent to Consultant for work performed pursuant to Section I.B. shall be made regardless of whether the first funds are deposited and authorization to begin the remainder of the work is rendered. The Consultant shall submit the original invoice to the City and a copy to the Proponent. Should the Proponent have any reasonable questions or objections about the invoice, the parties to this contract will conduct a conference call to discuss the issues and resolve the concerns C. The City may withhold payment to the Consultant for any services and work not completed in a manner satisfactory to the City at its sole discretion, until such time as the Consultant modifies the services and work to the satisfaction of the City. The Proponent may request that the City withhold-payment if the Proponent determines that the work is not being completed in a satisfactory manner, but the determination to withhold payment is in the City's sole discretion. D. The Proponent shall make a cash deposit with the City, or shall open an assigned savings account approved by the City, in an amount equal to 50% of the Draft EIS (DEIS) costs in the estimated budget prior to the start of work on the DEIS. At any time thereafter, upon demand of the City, the Proponent shall deposit with the City or into the assigned account the remaining 50% of the DEIS cost. Prior to the start of work on the Final EIS (FEIS), the Proponent shall deposit with the City or into the assigned account 100% of the agreed upon amount of the FEIS costs. (As set forth in Attachment "A ", the cost of FEIS preparation will be determined following receipt of public comments on the Draft EIS. The estimated cost of the FEIS is between $15,000.00 and $25,000.00. March 25, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Consultant Services Agreemen• Southcenter Expansion EIS The deposit and account funds shall be disbursed by the City to pay for Consultant services performed in accordance with this contract. The account funds will be under the control of the City until the project is complete, or until the agreement is terminated, whichever occurs last, and will be paid in the manner stated in this Agreement. At expiration of City control of the account funds, all unspent funds and any and all interest or dividends will revert to the Proponent. HI. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT A. The City shall own any reports, data, studies, surveys, charts, maps, figures, photographs, memoranda, and any other documents that are developed, compiled, or produced as a result of this Agreement, whether or not completed, except for such architectural drawings and plans prepared by the Proponent, which shall remain in the ownership of the Proponent. While the EIS is City property and part of the public realm, the Proponent enjoys the same rights as any other member of the public in using the EIS and any associated studies and materials B. Methodology, materials, software, logic and systems developed under this Agreement are the property of the Consultant and the City, and may be used by the Consultant and the City without the consent of the other. This use shall include the right to revise or publish without limitation. C. Consultant agrees to retain research notes and any other work products for reproduction until any and all appeal periods related to the project proposal have expired and to make such materials available to the City and Proponent for reproduction upon request by the City and Proponent. IV. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement is personal in nature and may not be subcontracted, assigned or transferred in whole or in part without the express written agreement of the City and the Proponent. V. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR In the performance of its duties under this Agreement, the Consultant shall act as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. A relationship of employment shall not exist or be deemed to exist between the City and the Consultant. VI. SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT A. The City retains the right to terminate or suspend this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports, or other material prepared by the Consultant pursuant to March 25, 2003 . Page 3 of 6 Consultant Services Agreemen• Southcenter Expansion EIS this Agreement shall be submitted to the City, and the Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for such work. B. If the City requests termination of the work prior to completion, the Consultant reserves the right to complete such analyses and records as may be necessary to place its files in order, provided that the cost to the Proponent shall not exceed $500.00. C. The Proponent reserves the right to suspend or terminate this agreement on ten (10) days written notice to the Consultant and City, and withdrawal of all related permit applications. If terminated or suspended, Consultant shall be entitled to receive reasonable compensation in accordance with Attachment A for services rendered to the date of termination or suspension. VII. NONDISCRIMINATION The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, physical or other motor handicap, unless based on bona fide occupational qualification. VIII. MODIFICATION No change, alteration, modification, or addition to this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and properly signed by all parties. IX. HOLD HARMLESS The Consultant shall hold the City and the Proponent and their officers, agents, and employees, harmless from all suits, claims or liabilities of any nature, including attorneys fees, costs and expenses, for and on account of injuries or damages sustained by any person or property directly caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its agents or employees pursuant to this Agreement, or on account of any unpaid wages or other remuneration for services; and if a suit in respect to the above be filed, the Consultant shall appear and defend it at its own cost and expense, and if a judgment be rendered or settlement made requiring payment of damages by the City and /or the Proponent, which damages are directly caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its agents or employees, the Consultant shall pay the damages. X. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Consultant shall comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws and safety regulations. XI. SUBCONTRACTING March 25, 2003 Page 4 of 6 Consultant Services Agree• ment Southcenter Expansion EIS A. The EIS Consultant will not subcontract any portion of this contract, or transfer or assign any claim arising pursuant to this contract without the written consent of the City and the Proponent. Said consent must be requested in writing by the EIS Consultant not less than five (5) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. Failure on the part of either the City or the Proponent to respond to said request for consent within five (5) days of receipt of said request will be deemed to constitute that party's consent. Said consent will not be unreasonably withheld by either party. The following subcontractors will be used for the preparation of the Southcenter expansion project EIS under the supervision of the Consultant: The Transpo Group, HartCrowser, and MFG, Inc. B. The Consultant will obtain appropriate assurances from any and all subcontractors that said subcontractor shall, during the life of this agreement, perform no other services for Proponent with respect to the subject property. In addition, the subcontractor shall not perform services for the Proponent with respect to other property or proposed developments without full disclosure thereof to the City. C. Proponent specifically agrees not to communicate with any subcontractor with regard to the proposal, except for such communication as may be necessary for the subcontractor to carry out the performance of this agreement. Any such communication between the Proponent and subcontractor shall be documented by the subcontractor and reported to the City within seven (7) days of said communication. XI. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In the event that there is, in the City's opinion, the need for additional studies or further work on either the Draft or Final EIS beyond the scope of services identified in Attachment A, the City shall obtain from the Consultant an estimate of the total added costs and seek Proponent's written approval which shall not be unreasonably withheld. XII. WAIVER Any waiver of the parties of any term or condition of this Agreement or of any breach by the other party shall not be deemed as a continuing waiver and shall not operate to bar or prevent the damaged party from exercising any and all available rights or remedies for any succeeding breach. XIII. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties. March 25, 2003 Page 5 of 6 Consultant Services Agreemen Southcenter Expansion EIS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF TUKWILA HUCKELLIWEINMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. By: By: (11/41' Mayor Steve Mullet Date: F `' ; 7,q.) Z-003 Date: Approved as to form: By. Date Robert N City Attorney 3 By: Steve Lancaster, Director, DCD Date A p -A 2-2, Zap 3 C: \mcb \mall \EIS Con 3- 25- 03.doc V7-71 WESTFIELD CORPORATION, INC. By: ( *V John Goodwin, Vice President of Development % 2403 Date: /6 March 25, 2003 Page 6 of 6 • RECEIVED 'APR 17 2003; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 16, 2003 Ms. Steve Lancaster Director Dept. of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear Steve, Westfield Corporation, Inc. 11601 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 -1748 Telephone (310) 478-4456 Facsimile (310) 478 -1267 Enclosed please find the executed Consultant Services Agreement and corresponding Attachment A - Initial Scope of Services as well as a check for $1,000.00 for the EIS Processing Fee. I appreciate all that you have done to help accelerate this project and look forward to proceeding with you. Thank you. Sincerely, (5144/LN# John Goodwin Vice President Development Enclosures cc: Buck Gordon JG:ms \ \wfdnc2\Assistants \_ developers \jgoodwin \Southcenter \City of Tukwila - 030416 -S Lancaster.doc Fedex Priority ATTACHMENT A INITIAL SCOPE OF SERVICES SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION EIS March 25, 2003 This document provides a detailed scope of services for Phase 1 of the Southcenter expansion EIS, and a general scope and cost estimate for subsequent phases. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that Westfield Corporation, Inc. plans to expand and renovate the Westfield Shopping Town at Southcenter. The planned expansion would include 289,517 sf of retail shops, 162,650 sf of anchor stores, a restaurant and expanded food court (29,081 sf), a 75,200- square -foot theater, and possibly a 1 74,587-square-foot hotel. The expansion would extend the footprint of the shopping center generally to the south, establish a second level of retail shops, and provide one or more parking structures. All development would occur within the existing shopping center site. Westfield has agreed that an EIS will need to be prepared to disclose the potential impacts of the project. The EIS will address the impacts of the proposed action and the no action alternative; development would occur in one phase with the possible exception of the theater and hotel, which may be developed in a second phase. We understand that a final decision has not been made on whether to build a hotel. EIS APPROACH Huckell/Weinman Associates and subcontractors will prepare a limited scope EIS on the Southcenter expansion project under the direction of City of Tukwila. The EIS will address the cumulative impacts that reflect the proposed redevelopment of the JC Penney site, and will be coordinated with ongoing transportation studies for the Klickitat/Southcenter Parkway area and with the Urban Center plan. Environmental elements that have preliminarily been identified for inclusion in the EIS (either qualitatively or more rigorously) are air quality, storm water quality and quantity and how it affects fisheries, transportation, public services and utilities, and fiscal implications. The elements and /or the emphasis on them could change as a result of public scoping and project definition. Our services will be provided in four phases: I . EIS initiation and scoping 2. Preliminary Draft EIS 3. Draft EIS 4. Final EIS This scope principally addresses Phase I . Where needed, the scope of work for Phase 2 — 4 will be refined prior to the subsequent phases to detail and confirm agreement on the work that will be completed at the beginning of each of the following three phases. Attachment A: Initial Scope of Services 1 Southcenter Expansion EIS Huckell/Weinman- Associates, Inc. March 25, 2003 • • SCOPE OF SERVICES Phase I: EIS Initiation and Scoping The purpose of this phase is to gain an informed understanding of the proposed action, other planning and project activities in the area, and potential issues to be addressed in the EIS in order to establish an organized approach and work plan to complete the EIS. Specific tasks to be accomplished in Phase I are outlined below. I . Kick -off meetings and review of information — Introduction of the project, participants, setting, issues, and other on -going studies. 2. Establish initial scope and budget for Phase 1; draft consulting agreement — Formulate overall approach to EIS and execute agreement. 3. Preliminary analysis: Increase level of knowledge and understanding about the project and the methods of investigation. No formal products will be prepared as part of this effort. Specific memos may be developed to provide the City of Tukwila a basis for defining and agreeing on a specific scope for the EIS analysis. Transportation — The following tasks will be undertaken for the transportation analysis: • Assess Existing Mall Trip Generation. Conduct traffic counts at the Mall driveway to assess existing trip generation characteristics. We propose the following counts to accurately assess existing patterns and cover all potential time periods needed for the analysis: a. Conduct 24 -hour counts on each driveway to record ins /outs on a Thursday through Saturday (or Saturday through Tuesday) time frame. This would capture typical weekday and weekend trip generation. A total of 13 tube - counters would be needed to capture all the driveways for a period of 3 -days. b. Conduct weekday PM peak hour and weekend peak hour turning movement counts at the site driveways. The turning movement counts will help determine traffic patterns, in addition to confirming trip generation. The tube counters have a degree of inaccuracy in them, and manual counts can be used to calibrate the results. The manual counts can also determine how much peak hour traffic is related to outparcel pads not associated with the Mall (Key Bank, Post Office, Firestone, and BOA). Two -hour counts would be conducted at a total of 13 locations under two time periods. • Estimate Project Traffic Generation. Once the preferred alternative is defined, weekday daily, noon hour, and PM peak hour trip generation and weekend peak hour trip generation will be estimated for the preferred build alternative based on rates and mode splits appropriate for the site. Existing trip generation rates will be used to calibrate the results, combined with seasonal factors to normalize the traffic count data. The net traffic generation impact will also consider the amount of traffic that will be removed from the site as a result of the displacement of existing on -site uses. Credit for pass -by, captured, and diverted trips will also be taken into account. Attachment A: Initial Scope of Services 2 Southcenter Expansion EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. March 25, 2003 1 • • Estimate Trip Distribution and Assignment. Transpo will coordinate with Mirai & Associates to utilize the transportation demand model to identify a local and regional distribution for Southcenter. The model results would likely be manually refined to account for access and circulation with the proposed site plan. An assignment of new project trips to the street system would determine the range and magnitude of likely project traffic impacts. The distribution and assignment will be developed and illustrated preliminarily in mapped form within a probable study area for the traffic analysis. • Prepare Traffic Scoping Memorandum. Transpo will summarize the trip generation, distribution, and assignment assumptions and propose, a study scope based on the results of the preliminary analysis. The results will be summarized in a memorandum to City staff for review and comment. It will also document our understanding of approach and methodologies on horizon years, forecast volumes, and pipeline projects and seek confirmation or comment. Other Elements -- Gather and preliminary review of project plans and empirical information for stormwater, utilities, construction plans, and mall operations. Gather and preliminary review of existing City planning documents and information about ongoing planning efforts, public services, other projects, and City budget. The purpose of this task is to size up the information base relative to project actions. 4. Public scoping — City will prepare and mail Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice. The consultant team will review scoping comments and prepare a scoping summary. 5. Define proposed action and alternatives /options — Confirm that there is common understanding of what is going to be evaluated in the Draft EIS for the proposal, no action, and any options that may be addressed (e.g., theater and hotel phase, optional transportation improvement packages). 6. Prepare Phase 2 scope — Prepare draft scope of work and budget, review and reach agreement with City, and prepare final scope and budget. For the transportation analysis, a proposed preliminary study scope based on the anticipated traffic assignment will be presented to the City of Tukwila for review and approval. This presentation may take the form of a brief memorandum, submitted for review and feedback, or may occur during a meeting with City staff, depending on their availability. The scope and approach will be refined as appropriate based on staff feedback and discussion with the team. We anticipate one round of comments from the project team and the City. 7. Coordinate with EIS team and City — This would occur throughout Phase I through phone and email communications and meetings. In addition to the initial kick -off meetings (2), we assume participation in one additional meeting during Phase I. Phase 2: Preliminary Draft EIS The EIS team will prepare a preliminary Draft EIS responsive to the scope established in Phase I and consistent with SEPA Rules and the City's SEPA ordinance. The EIS will address impacts of the proposed action and no action alternatives and cumulative impacts. Pending completion of scoping, it is assumed that qualitative analyses will be carried out for air quality, storm water quantity and quality relative to fisheries, and some aspects of public services and utilities. The fiscal analysis will examine incremental revenues and costs accruing to the City that are attributable to the proposed action to determine the Attachment A: Initial Scope of Services 3 Southcenter Expansion EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. March 25, 2003 infrastructure funding capacity represented by a net fiscal surplus. It is assumed that City staff will assist in compiling information needed for the fiscal analysis. For the transportation analysis, Transpo will provide an early assessment of the combination of the proposed Mall Expansion and the potential local infrastructure modifications. The study area for this assessment would be limited to the Southcenter Parkway, Klickitat Drive, and Strander Boulevard corridors, where the City of Tukwila and the proponent propose substantial changes. Specific tasks could include the following: I . Assess Cumulative Traffic Characteristics. Use the forecast model information available through the City's consultants and the anticipated project characteristics to determine cumulative with - project conditions. 2. Evaluate Local Circulation and Operations. Determine what the potential operations would be without any substantial changes in local infrastructure. Evaluate operations with alternative- measures per City preliminary plans. 3. Identify and Resolve Conflicts. This phase will identify potential impacts to the Southcenter Mall preliminary site plan and /or conflicts the Mall may create with plans being evaluated by the City and its consultants. Recommend measures to resolve these conflicts, if any. This task would be supported by preliminary Phase I work, coordination with the City transportation modelers (Mirai), as well as the Proponent's traffic representative (TSI). The budget for this early assessment will be confirmed during Phase I . No formal products would be prepared; the results of this work effort would be rolled into the approach for the DEIS and potentially the City's long -range plans and /or the Southcenter Mall site plan. Subsequently, Transpo would complete the transportation section of the preliminary DEIS. The, extent of services required under this phase is dependent on the number of alternatives (we anticipate up to two build alternatives and the possibility of a mitigated scenario to the preferred alternative), the number of analysis horizon years (we anticipate up to two), the number of analysis time periods (could range between one and three time periods), the potential range of impacts of the alternatives, coordination efforts to work with the City's consultants on concurrent plans, and the specific direction provided by the governing agencies. We will submit the preliminary Draft EIS to the City for review by the City and Westfield Corporation. Phase 3: Prepare /Issue Draft EIS , After receiving comments on the preliminary Draft EIS, we will revise the EIS document. The cost estimate assumes revisions will be minimal and is based upon our current understanding of the potential issues and study requirements.. If the comments require additional analysis and hence changes to the identified estimates, then the Consultant shall follow the procedures established in the contract for Additional Services. After approval we will print the Draft EIS for distribution by the City for a 30 -day public review period. It has not been determined whether there will be a public meeting during the public review period. Phase 4: Prepare Final EIS Attachment A: Initial Scope of Services 4 Southcenter Expansion EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. March 25, 2003 Upon completion of public review, we will review and summarize comments received on the Draft EIS. It is assumed and likely that a preliminary document will be prepared and it will be revised in response to comments from the City and Proponent. We will conduct any additional analysis that may be necessary, prepare responses to comments, and compile the Final EIS document. The scope assumes approximately 32 comment`'!. If the number of responses and or additional analysis is required that exceeds estimates, a revised udget will be prepared in accordance with the Additional Services section of the contract. P/€76/— ectsZ7 Attachment A: Initial Scope of Services 5 Southcenter Expansion EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. March 25, 2003 SCHEDULE Our estimated schedule is set forth below. Phase I assumes a 21 -day public scoping period will begin within four weeks of project kick -off (which is presumed to be February 10th) and that one week will be needed to finalize the scope of work and budget for Phase 2. Estimates for the remaining phases are our preliminary assessment of what will be required. Duration Completion Phase 1: EIS Initiation and Scoping 1. Kick -off meetings and review of information 1 week Week 1 2. Establish initial scope and budget for Phase I; draft consulting agreement 1 week Week 2 3. Preliminary analysis 4 weeks Week 6 4. Public scoping (concurrent with above task) 3 weeks Week 6 5. Define proposed action and altrntvs. /options 1 week Week 7 6. Prepare Phase 2 scope I week Week 8 7. Review and revision for Tasks 5 and 6 I week Week 9 Phase 2: Preliminary Draft EIS Preliminary traffic assessment Conduct analyses Compile, prepare document Phase 3: Prepare /Issue Draft EIS 2 to 3 weeks 4 to 8 weeks 2 to 3 weeks Week 11 to 12 Week 15 to 20 Week 17 to 23 Review of PDEIS by City/Westfield 2 weeks Week 19 to 25 Prepare Draft EIS 2 to 3 weeks Week 21 to 28 Public review 4 to 5 weeks Week 25 to 33 Phase 4: Prepare Final EIS 4 to 8 weeks Week 29 to 41 Total Phases 2 through 4 20 to 32 weeks Week 1 I to 29 To Week I I to 41 Attachment A: Initial Scope of Services 6 Southcenter Expansion EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. March 25, 2003 • • COST ESTIMATE Our estimated costs are provided-below by task for Phase I and by phase for the remainder of the environmental review process. Because of the uncertainty associated with Phases 2 through 4, we have provided a range of possible costs. Detailed estimates will be made prior to the initiation of each phase. Phase I: EIS Initiation and Scoping I . Kick -off meetings and review of information 2. Establish initial scope and budget for Phase 1; draft consulting agreement 3. Preliminary analysis 4. Public scoping 5. Define proposed action and alternatives /options 6. Prepare Phase 2 scope 7. Coordination /meetings Expenses and handling Total Phase 2: Preliminary Draft EIS Phase 3: Prepare /Issue Draft EIS .. Phase 4: Prepare Final EIS Total Phases 2 through 4 Combined Total Phases 2 through 4 Combined Project Total Huckell/Weinman Associates Transpo Group $2,040 2,940 1,400 840 I,I20 1,560 2,800 2, 770 $15,470 $45,000 to $50,000 $8,000 to $12,000 $10,000 to $20,000 $63,000 to $82,000 $2,400 900 9,600 200 600 900 6,000 $20,600 $36,000 to $60,000 $2,000 to $5,000 $2,000 to $5,000 $40,000 to $70,000 $103,000 to $152,000 $139,070 to $188,070 Attachment A: Initial Scope of Services 7 Southcenter Expansion EIS Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. March 25, 2003 Moira Bradshaw - Re: EIS comments for. No. E03 -010 From: Steve Lancaster To: Suburban_Cities Date: 4/30/03 10:51 AM Subject: Re: EIS comments for File No. E03 -010 Thanks for the comments, Alice. I'm passing them on to Moira Bradshaw, who is the lead planner for this EIS. For what it's worth, we have been putting in a lot of effort to try to figure out solutions to the Southcenter Parkway /freeway ramps /Strander problems you mention, and this will be thoroughly anlaysed by the EIS. The problems along Andover you mention I have not observed, and now that the folliage is coming back, my view of the intersection is partly blocked. I'll try to pay more attention! Again, thanks for your comments. We'll make sure they are addressed by the EIS. »> " Suburban_Cities" <sca @suburbancities.org> 04/29/03 11:23AM »> As a citizen who must travel the perimeter roads surrounding the mall, I wish to comment on three areas of traffic congestion that should be improved before expansion. I am not a traffic engineer, but I hope my suggestions will help. The first problem is the exit from North -bound 1 -5 which ends with a stop sign at Southcenter Parkway. It is a very short distance to the left turn lane onto Strander Blvd. Two problems occur here, 1) traffic backs up nearly onto the freeway during busy seasons when cars try to find a way to cross two thru lanes to get into the two turn lanes; and 2) intersection becomes blocked by those that move through one last at a time to get to the turn lane. For consideration: close that portion of the exit, forcing traffic to the next, lighted entrance to Southcenter Parkway. The second problem is the turning traffic off Strander Blvd onto Southcenter Parkway that moves across two lanes of traffic to get into the two left -hand turn lanes. During busy hours they effectively block . both thru lanes which in turn blocks the intersection. For consideration: no turn on red. With enforcement. The third is one I see outside my office window and provides endless entertainment if near accidents are considered entertaining. This is where the mall exit (I don't think it has a street number) which passes to the south of the Bank of America, meets Andover Park West. Cars turning left block the two south bound lanes until they can get into the north bound lane. Cars that need to be in the right hand turn lane (east on Tukwila Parkway) cause amazing tangles for traffic in all directions on Andover West. Traffic north bound on Andover West that turns into that street frequently block the south bound lanes. For consideration: making that road a right turn only and placing a barrier of some sort to keep north bound Andover West traffic from turning into that street. Thanks for letting me put in my two cents worth. Alice Neiffer Suburban Cities Association ph: 206 - 433 -7168 fax: 206 - 242 -8031 Page 1 Clean Air Agency www.pscleanair.org Ph 206.343.8800 1.800.552.3565 Fax 206.343.7522 110 Union Street Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 -2038 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dennis J. McLerran BOARD OF DIRECTORS TACOMA CITY COUNCIL, CHAIR BB! Evans KING COUNTY Ron Sims, Executive SEATTLE Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor KITSAP COUNTY Jan Angel, Commissioner BREMERTON Cary Bozeman, Mayor PIERCE COUNTY John Ladenburg, Executive SNOHOMISH COUNTY Jeff Sax,'Councilman EVERETT Frank Anderson, Mayor MEMBER AT LARGE Janet Chalupnik 50% recycled fiber} 30% post- conswner waste Pub. No. 30-7 1 Revised 02 -14 -2002 Working Together For Clean Air April 29, 2003 ii•Ecei v APR 3 0 2003 bE �MUUNITl✓ PMEA►T Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: File No E03 -010 Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the subject project. We appreciate Tukwila's concern for air quality. Historically, air quality analyses have focused . on compliance with state and federal conformity regulations, control of fugitive dust emissions, and particularly at the project level, on carbon monoxide. However, as our knowledge and conditions change, it is'important that our analyses and responses a lso change. Monitoring data and local trends confirm that carbon monoxide is being eliminated as an air quality concern and so should not be the primary focus of air quality analyses. Recent studies confirm that in addition to concerns about fugitive dust, there are public health concerns from fine particle emissions and toxic air pollutants. Fine particles, 2.5 microns in diameter or less, can lodge in the lungs and cause health problems, and also contain toxics. The central Puget Sound region has some of the highest levels of toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, in the country. Gasoline and diesel engines in vehicles and equipment are major sources of fine particles and toxic air pollutants. Mitigation of the impacts from these pollutants is important to protect public health and should be considered in the analysis. The region is at risk . for violating the national standards for ozone and particulate matter during the next 5 to 10 years. Therefore, short-tern impacts, such as construction activities, are as important as long -term operational impacts in any analysis and mitigation. The conformity regulations are complex, but the following statements can help you . determine if they apply: Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila April 29, 2003 Page Two (1) If the project involves federal transportation dollars or affects a regionally significant transportation facility, it must comply with the transportation conformity regulations. (2) If there is federal non - transportation funds involved, the project must comply with the general conformity regulations. In addition, conformity on the regional level or on the project level does not confer compliance with, or serve as mitigation to achieve compliance with, other environmental requirements such as the National Environmental Policy Act or the State Environmental Policy Act. To further assist you in scoping the EIS, I have enclosed a description of the key SEPA air quality issues from our Agency's perspective. All of the issues, except wood burning, should be considered. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (206) 689 -4085 or e-mail to paulc @pscleanair.org. Sincerely, Paul D. Carr Air Resource Specialist PDC /lh Enclosure cc: Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Planner Dave Kircher, PSCAA John Anderson, PSCAA • Puget Sound Clean Air Agency SEPA Document Review Key Issues Demolition Activities Prior to any demolition activities: (1) an asbestos survey must be performed to identify all asbestos - containing materials present, (2) a project notification must be submitted to PS Clean Air at least ten days before asbestos removal or demolition activities begin, and (3) all friable asbestos - containing materials must be removed prior to demolition. Forms may be obtained by calling 206.689.4090. Construction Dust Emissions Reasonable precautions to control the release of dust include: (1) installation of a wheel- washer to reduce dirt and mud track -out onto paved public roadways, (2) formulation of a dust suppression plan to control dust generated on -site, and (3) implementation of a dust management policy for trucks transporting excavation and other dust generating materials to and from the site (e.g. provide adequate freeboard and cover all loads). Vehicle Idling To reduce emissions and the exposure to toxic air contaminants by the surrounding community, do not leave trucks, cars, or construction equipment idling unused for longer periods than five minutes. Diesel Emissions The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, along with a consortium of partners, has developed the Diesel Solutions program to make diesel vehicles in this region dramatically cleaner. To reduce diesel emissions for improvement in air quality related to air toxics and fine particulate matter, we encourage the use of ultra low sulfur diesel (15 ppm sulfur), bio- diesel, or alternative .fueled vehicles (e. g. compressed natural gas, propane, hybrid, electric and fuel cell), depending on the particular circumstances. New Facilities The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency performs a pre construction review of projects involving significant air contaminant emissions. Examples include automobile repair /painting, dry- cleaning plants, gasoline stations, coffee roasters, crematories, rock crushers, soil /groundwater remediation, and miscellaneous surface coating operations. A Notice of Construction approval is required before construction activities begin. Forms may be obtained from our web site at < http:// www. pscleanair. org /businfo /formsprocedures.shtml> or by calling 206.689.4049. SEPA Key Issues.doc 1 Feb 10 2003 let Sound Clean Air Agey SEPA Document Review Key Issues • Conformity On larger projects air quality analyses are required to insure conformity to the existing state implementation plan for meeting national ambient air quality standards. The Puget Sound region was designated as an attainment area for carbon monoxide, effective October 11, 1996 (Federal Register 10- 11 -96, page 53323); for ozone, effective November 25, 1996 (Federal Register 9- 26 -96, page 50438); and for particulate matter, effective. We were also designated as attainment for particulate matter, effective May 14, 2001 (Federal Register 3 -13- 01, page 14492). A regional conformity review at the program level does not preclude further emission reduction mitigation measures being required at the project level, particularly related to diesel exhaust and other toxic emissions. Regionally significant transportation projects require a project level conformity determination. Major, federally funded, non transportation projects may require a general conformity determination. Wood Smoke For residential construction we recommend incorporation of natural gas or propane burning fireplaces instead of wood burning fireplaces or wood stoves. Open Burning Open burning of land clearing debris and yard or household waste is prohibited in urban areas designated as growth management areas. We discourage open burning in any areas of our jurisdiction. Generally, there are reasonable alternatives to open burning, such as mobile chipping -and waste pick -up. Lawn Care We encourage the use of low- emission equipment to maintain lawn and grounds. Electric or manual yard equipment and mulching mowers will eliminate air contaminant emission during routine maintenance of landscape facilities. SEPA Key Issues.doc 2 Feb 10 2003 • Affidavit of Publication 2020858 / 1 State of Washington, Counties of King and Snohomish, RECEIVED i MAY 0 6 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Daniel S. O'Neal being duly sworn, says that he /she is the Authorized Agent of Seattle Times Company, publisher of The Seattle Times and representing the Seattle Post - Intelligencer, separate newspapers published daily in King and Snohomish Counties, State of Washington: that they are newspapers of general circulation in said Counties and State; that they have been approved as legal newspapers by orders of the Superior Court of King and Snohomish Counties; that the annexed, being a classified advertisement, was published in: Newspaper Publication Date The Seattle Times 04/25/03 And not in a supplement thereof, and is a true copy of the notice as it was printed and/or distributed in the regular and entire issue of said paper or papers during all of said period, and that said newspaper or newspapers were regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of May, 2003 6,..�^ /)`,%%.1 Notary Public in and for �the State of Wash g4hi tojr� a tli O� WOi Ili ,) NOTgq y Z l lm i / PUBLIC , (/) it N ve LIC °•AS N Determination of Significance Request for Comments on Scope of EIS Description of proposal: Westfield Corporation, Inc. plans to expand and renovate the West- field Shoppingtown Southcenter. The planned expansion includes 289,517 square feet of retail shops, 162,650 square feet of anchor stores, restaurants and expanded food court of 29,081 square feet, a 75,200-square -foot theater, and Possibly 'a 174,587 - square -foot ho- el. The expansion extends the footprint of the shopping center generally to the south, establish- es a second level of retail shops, and provides one or more parking structures. All development oc- curs within the existing shopping center site. Proponent/applicant: John Goodwin, Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location of proposal: The block bounded by Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Ando- ver Park West. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No.: E03-010. EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant ad- verse impact on the environ- ment; therefore, an environmen- tal impact statement (EIS) will be prepared per RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). The City and applicant agreed that a checklist is no needed and that an environmen- tal impact statement will be pre- pared as allowed per Tukwila Municipal Code 21.04.140. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: elements of the natu- ral environment, specifically air quality, and storm water quality and its fisheries impact; and the built environment, specifically transportation and utilities. The fiscal implications of public ser- vice and infrastructure impacts will also be analyzed. Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may com- ment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and approvals that are required. The comment period Is 21'days from the signature date below. Comments must be in writing and must be received by 5:00 P.M. May 15, 2003. The address, fax number and email are as follows: Responsible official: Steve Lancaster Position/title: Director, Department of Community Development Address: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 0100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206) 431 -3670 Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Project Planner: Moira Carr Bradshaw Email: mbradshaw@chtukwila.wa.us. Date Signature SEPA Responsible Official X There is no appeal of this deci- sion of significance. CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING /PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2003 TO: Jim Gray/Fire Department Lys Hornsby/Utility Systems Sandra Meyer/Transportation Lesley Betlach/Parks Director CC: Gregg Zimmerman; P/B/PW Administrator FROM: Jennifer Henning; Development Planning MD-car-WI SUBJECT: City of Tukwila Request for Comments on Scope of EIS File No.: E03 -010 Applicant: John Goodwin, Westfield Corp., Inc. Enclosed is a copy of the subject notice. Comments may be submitted in writing to the City of Tukwila by 5:00 PM May 15, 2003. Please refer to the notice for details. Please provide comments to Gregg's office in a timely manner in order to meet the due date / ,-(k 5.i,5.-c?- i4 ? ! Enclosure •W /��.... ip ✓rVrc ar/ Ciz of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Determination of Significance Request for Comments on Scope of EIS Description of proposal: Westfield Corporation, Inc. plans to expand and renovate the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. The planned expansion includes 289,517 square feet of retail shops, 162,650 square feet of anchor stores, restaurants and expanded food court of 29,081 square feet, a 75,200- square -foot theater, and possibly a 174,587- square -foot hotel. The expansion extends the footprint of the shopping center generally to the south, establishes a second level of retail shops, and provides one or more parking structures. All development occurs within the existing shopping center site. Proponent/applicant: John Goodwin, Westfield Corporation, Inc. Location of proposal: The block bounded by Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Andover Park West. (See the attached map.) Lead Agency: City of Tukwila - File No. 1E03 -010 EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared per RCW 43.21 C.030 (2)(c). The City and applicant agreed that a checklist is not needed and that an environmental impact statement will be prepared as allowed per Tukwila Municipal Code 21.04.140. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: elements of the natural environment, specifically air quality, and storm water quality and its fisheries impact; and the built environment, specifically transportation and utilities. The fiscal implications of public service and infrastructure impacts will also be analyzed. Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and approvals that are required. The comment period is 21 days from the signature date below. Comments must be in writing and must be received by 5:00 p.m. May 15, 2003. The address, fax number and email are as follows: Responsible official: Steve Lancaster Position/title: Director, Department of Community Development Address: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Phone: (206) 431 -3670 Tukwila, WA 98188 Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Project Planner: Moira Carr Bradshaw Email: mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Date kc e;1 2 �(� Coo 3 Signature SEPA Responsible Official You may appeal this determination of significance. Y There is no appeal of this decision of significance. Wi C (8/2/99) C: mmcb \mall \SEPA- DS.doc [Ch. 197 -11 WAC -p.671 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Moira Bradshaw -,Westfield Southcenter. ansion EIS Page 1 From: "Jonathan Pool" <pool @centerplex.net> To: "Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner" <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, "Rebecca Fox, City of Tukwila Recycling Coordinator" <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 4/22/03 7:14AM Subject: Westfield Southcenter expansion EIS I write to ask about the City's requirements for the environmental - impact statement to be submitted by Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter for its proposed expansion. In the March issue of "Hazelnut ", you wrote that the EIS would "primarily address traffic impacts ". However, solid waste impacts may also be significant, and the proposed expansion may offer the City an opportunity to ameliorate adverse impacts in this respect. I recently received information from the operator of a business within Southcenter Mall. He informed me that Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter does not offer him any opportunity to segregate recyclables from the solid waste stream that his business generates. He said that he goes to great lengths to take recyclables off the premises so as to recycle them. He said that the absence of recycling opportunities applies to all businesses operating in the Mall, not only his. Any Mall visitor can also see that the public corridors are equipped with numerous trash receptacles, but no receptacles for recyclables. This information suggests to me that the EIS may offer an opportunity to give an incentive to Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter to prevent any increase in nonrecyclable solid waste incident to its expansion by diverting a substantial fraction of its solid waste into recycling. Does the City intend to require that solid -waste exacerbation be one of the issues addressed in the EIS? Is the City working with Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter to make it a partner and leader in recycling instead of a firm that appears to be ignoring recycling and (allegedly) preventing its tenant businesses from recycling? Thank you for your consideration. http: / /centerplex.net CC: Mike Hansen <southcenter @westfield.com >, King County Green WorksServices <greenworks.swd @metrokc.gov >, "Christie Evans" <geek @centerplex.net> • City of Tegicwg 1L,? Department of Community Memorandum To: Tukwila City Council W _ From: Steve Lancaster 19 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor evelopment Steve Lancaster, Director Date: rApri122, 2003 Subject: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter This is an informational item, no action is required. Environmental Decision Westfield Corporation, the new owners of the mall are proposing an approximate 700,000 square foot new floor area square footage on the Mall site. The new square footage' will expand the existing mall by approximately 55 percent. Due to the size of the proposed expansion, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being required. The environmental analysis will primarily focus on transportation but will also consider the air quality impacts from the additional vehicular trips, fisheries impacts due to storm water quality, and the impact on existing utilities, specifically sanitary sewer, which is at capacity in this location. Because of the potential impacts and needed mitigation, the fiscal implications for the City of Tukwila will also be evaluated. Attached is a copy of the Determination of Significance. There is a 21 day comment period for the public to comment on the proposed scope of work. The comment period ends on May 15, 2003. Environmental Impact Statement Consultant Contract The applicant, Westfield, provided the City with a list of three environmental consultants, after a review and evaluation, the City chose one of the three, Huckell Weinman Associates (HWA) to prepare the EIS. The City, HWA and Westfield agreed on a scope of work and signed a three party contract to undertake the work. Westfield funds the three party contract, which is signed by the Mayor. 1 Expansion includes: 289,517 square feet retail; 162,650 square feet anchor retail; 75,200 square foot cinema; 21,101 square feet restaurant space; 7,980 square feet food court; 174, 587 square foot hotel. 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206- 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Future Action The EIS gives the City's decision makers the information to adequately approve, condition or deny any approval or permit required for the project. At this time, the proposal requires Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approval and Building and Public Works permits. The City Council may have a future direct role if the BAR decision is appealed. (Any appeal of the adequacy of the EIS must be consolidated with a permit or approval on the project, such as the BAR.) In an indirect way, the Council will potentially need to review transportation standards (i.e. LOS levels in the urban center) and infrastructure needs (improvements that may not be budgeted for in the City's CIP or TIP,) which are identified in the fiscal and transportation impact analysis. The City Council may have to choose to either revise it's CIP in order to meet obligations within the six year time frame for completing improvements or revise its standards to ensure that concurrency is met. Again this is an informational item; no action by the City Council is required at this time. C:\mcb \mall \03memcap429.doc 2 • MAIL From: <palenoue @mac.com> RCPT To: <mbradsahw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Received: from smtpout.mac.com (A17- 250 - 248- 89.apple.com [17.250.248.89]) by CT -BM1; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:57:16 -0800 Received: from asmtp0l.mac.com (asmtp0l -gfe3 [10.13.10.65]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve /MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h2GKvFLa025527 for <mbradsahw @ci.tukwila.wa.us >; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:57:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mac.com ([12.231.54.40]) by asmtp0l . mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HBVOVFOO.NJL for <mbradsahw @ci.tukwila.wa.us >; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:57:15 -0800 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:57:09 -0800 Mime - Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content -Type: text/plain; charset =US- ASCII; format =flowed Subject: Southcenter Expansion comments From: Paul Lenoue <palenoue @mac.com> To: mbradsahw @ci.tukwila.wa.us Content - Transfer - Encoding: 7bit Message -Id: <DAAEDC58- 57F1 -11 D7- 8519- 000393D12892 @mac.com> X- Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) As a recent resident who plans to stay here for many years to come, I would like to offer you my comments and observations concerning the proposed expansion of the Westfield Mall. I am living in an apartment complex among many other such complexes all along the hillside to the north of the mall, and I understand that there are more apartment complexes planned to be built in the immediate area. Unfortunately, despite the population concentration here, the nearest grocery stores are miles away atop steep hills. It is actually easier to catch a bus to Pike Market than to shop at the nearest grocery store. If they expand the mall, I would like to see you require them to add either a large grocery store or, much more preferable, a small specialty food store along with a separate bakery (offering artisian breads), a meat market, and a good vegetable /fruit market so the residents living near the mall don't have to catch a bus to Seattle every time they want some fresh tomatoes or a loaf of french bread. The advantage of using different shops instead of one big supermarket is that they can alter their offerings, sell more locally grown produce and food, and cater to the regional customers which would draw more consumers to the mall looking for items they can't get at their ordinary supermarket. Furthermore, diverse separates stores would not require a large area of parking space as they are when devoted to a big supermarket. Talk to you later PAL • Attorneys at Law Peter L. Buck VIA FAX AND FIRST CLASS MAIL RECEIVED JAN 15 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT January 14, 2003 Mr. Steve - Lancaster ,,. Director, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Westfield Southcenter - EIS Consultants 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -1097 206- 382 -9540 206 -626 -0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com Dear Steve: Westfield would be pleed if the city would select an EIS consultant from among the following.threekwhich are Precl4rn alphabetical order: Blumen Consultant Group, Herrera Environmental,�Consultants, or Huckell/Weinman. We anticipate that Blumen would use Gretchen Brunner as a project manager, Herrera would use Art Campbell as a project manager and Huckell/Weinman would use Duane Huckell as a project manager. Westfield is standing by and ready to execute a third -party contract with the City and whatever environmental consultant is selected. Thank you for your help in this matter. PLB:IkI cc: John Goodwin Gretchen Brunner Duane Huckell ,ArtCampbell:; Y: \W P \WESTFIELD \L011403. PLB. DOC 12/18/02 08:38 FAX 206 626 0675 Buck@ Goron LLP Attorneys at Law • BUCK & GORDON LLP December 18, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE AND E -MAIL Mr. Steve Lancaster Director, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd ' Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Dear Steve: 21002/003 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -1097 206- 382 -9540 206 - 626-0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com This firm represents Westfield America, Inc. in connection with redevelopment of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. Westfield has determined that it will immediately proceed with redevelopment. The proposed expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter will include a two level mall addition with anew court connections to Sears, JCPenney and Bon Marche. The existing food court will be demolished and relocated to level two of the expansion adjacent to the proposed stadium seating cinema complex. A two level, sixth anchor store will be located at the mid point between Sears and JCPenney of the new mall addition. A new parking garage will be constructed to accommodate the additional parting requirement. The existing hotel site will be purchased by Westfield. The structure will be demolished to provide additional surface parking. A new hotel is proposed as part of the redevelopment and will be included on the proposed master plan. It is Westfield's position that a positive threshold determination should be made and that a scoped EIS should be prepared. Westfield requests that the City follow such a course. We note that under TMC Section 21.04.140B a checklist is not required if the City agrees that an EIS is required. We request your guidance as to how best to proceed vis -a -vis other documentation that you desire to commence that EIS process. YAWKWESTFIELD L120302.CMW.DOC 12/18/02 08:39 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP • Mr. Steve Lancaster 11003/003 • 2 December 3, 2002 Over the next week, Westfield will interview environmental consultants and provide you with a list of three consultants that it finds appropriate for the EIS work. PLB:CMW cc: John Goodwin (via fax) y:\WPWVESTFIELCAL120302.CMWDOC Very truly yours, BUS :.�� OR LLP Pet'r • 1 WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER Vi�wILA, 'WA 4 /27 /2UU3