Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-01-88 - CITY OF TUKWILA / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - RIVERTON ANNEXATION
ANNEXATIONS: RIVERTON, FOSTER, THORNDYKE INCORPORATION BY ANNEXATION OF OLD RIVERTON INDUSTRIAL & RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF OLD RIVERTON EPIC 1 -88 City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 1 FISCAL IMPACT OF COMBINED RIVERTON, FOSTER, AND THORNDYKE AREAS ANNEXATION I. Introduction The City of Tukwila has proposed annexation of Fire District #1; this annexation proposal is presently being considered by the Boundary Review Board. In early 1988, the City received annexation petitions from three other areas and has been examining these potential annexations for the past three months. The three areas are called Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke. In combination, these areas are contiguous with the boundaries of Fire District #18 (a district that is now defunct, having merged with Fire District #11 as of June, 1988), except for the north portion of Riverton between the Duwamish River and South 124 Street (an area which is not part of any fire district). The three annexation areas "fill in" the area between the western boundaries of Tukwila and Fire District #1 to Highway 99 (Pacific Hwy. South). Scope of Study: This study provides a planning analysis of the fiscal impact of annexation of the three areas. The estimated cost impacts on Tukwila are based on a department level review of the area characteristics, and the staffing levels that departments would request for providing services to the area. The City will review these results internally. Final decisions about the staffing requirements for the annexation area will be made when the City adopts an amended budget for the annexation. The Riverton area is the northern portion of the combined area and extends from the Duwamish River to South 138th Street. Foster is the middle portion between South 138th Street and South 144th Street. Thorndyke is the southern portion extending from South 144th Street to South 160th Street. Presently, general government services in the area are provided by several agencies including King County, Fire District #11, the King County Rural Library System, Water District 125, the ValVue Sewer District, Seattle City Light, and Puget Power (Puget Power serves a small portion of the annexation area, east of 51 Avenue South). Solid waste collection and disposal is provided by private companies under franchises with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Based on current policies and practices, only the municipal services now provided by King County, fire protection services and library services would be governed by Tukwila after annexation. Regional services would continue to be governed by King County. The existing long term franchise agreements between Tukwila and the two electric utilities would extend to the annexation area, based on existing service areas. Solid waste collection and disposal would continue to be provided by private companies. Under RCW 35.13A.070, if a City does not choose to assume sewer or water district responsibilities, it need not. Because sewer and water services in the area, provided by Water District 125 and the ValVue Sewer District, are adequate, they will continue to provide service, and there would not be a City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 2 direct fiscal impact on the City. For these reasons, the operating costs of water, sewer, and other utilities are not examined in this study. Characteristics of Area: The combined annexation area is primarily residential, with commercial development along the Highway 99 strip and along East Marginal Way. The northern end of Riverton (e.g. north of South 124th Street) is commercial/ industrial property. The community facilities in the combined annexation area include an undeveloped county park (Southgate Park), a King County swimming pool (South Central Pool), a library (Foster Library), and a fire station (this was the Fire District #18 station and is now owned by Fire District #11, subsequent to the merger). Table 1 summarizes some basic data on the area, including population estimates, land area and county road miles. It is important to note that the population in the combined annexation area is greater than Tukwila's current population, 6,580 versus 4,760. Population Percent of Tukwila Pop. TABLE 1 GENERAL DATA RIVERTON FOSTER THORNDYKE TOTAL 1,224 752 4,604 6,580 25.7% 15.8% 96.7% 138.2% Housing Units 597 367 2,074 3,038 Registered Voters 414 355 1,106 1,875 Area (acres) 223 196 469 888 Road Miles II. Revenue Impacts 5.77 3.17 6.34 15.28 The most significant sources of potential revenue to the City from the combined annexation area are property tax and sales tax. Three property taxes that are presently levied in the area would no longer be levied after annexation: the Road District Levy, the Rural Library Levy and the Fire District Levy. The services that are presently supported by these levies (i.e. road maintenance and construction and partial funding for other County services such as police protection, library services and fire protection services) would become the responsibility of the City. After annexation the City would levy its general property tax. The annual impact of these City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 3 different property tax levies, based on the 1988 assessed valuation and levy rates for the area, are shown on Table 2. ASSESSED VALUATION: Annexation Area Fire District #18 1988 TAX RATES & LEVIES WITH ANNEXATION: Tukwila Tax Rate \1 Tukwila Levy TABLE 2 PROPERTY TAXES RIVERTON FOSTER THORNDYKE TOTAL 43,039,680 28,062,113 80,339,726 151,441,519 38,222,680 28,062,113 80,339,726 146,624,519 2.937 2.937 2.937 2.937 126,408 82,418 235,958 444,784 WITHOUT ANNEXATION: FD #18 Tax Rate \2 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 FD #18 Levy 57,334 42,093 120,510 219,937 Road District Tax Rate Road District Levy Rural Library Tax Rate Rural Library Levy 1.681 1.681 1.681 1.681 72,350 47,172 135,051 254,573 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 21,520 14,031 40,170 75,721 TOTAL LEVY W/0 ANNEXATION 151,204 103,297 295,731 550,231 1. General levy for Tukwila, excludes Golf Course Levy. 2. The 1988 tax rate for FD #18 is S1 per S1,000 in assessed value; however, with merger with FD #11 the rate will be S1.50 per $1,000. During the first two years after annexation, revenue from property taxes are affected by various timing considerations. Property tax levy rates are set in one year and assessed and collected in the next year. This means that, regardless of when an annexation occurs, the property taxes for the current year would already be set and cannot be changed before the following year. Revenue from the City's general tax levy is affected by the timing of the annexation. If the annexation takes place before March 1, the City can levy property tax in the current year for collection in the following year, and there would be no revenue from the City property tax until the following year. If annexation takes place after March 1, the City cannot levy the tax until City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 4 the following year, which means it is not collected until the second year after annexation, and there is no revenue collected during the first two calendar years after annexation. To some extent, this delay in collection of the City's general property taxes is made up by the provision that any Road District taxes that have been levied but not been collected as of the annexation date are distributed to the City upon collection. However, the Road District tax levy is smaller than the City's general tax levy, and would make up only a portion of the City's potential annual property tax revenue. The following examples show the relationship between timing of the annexation and property tax revenue. Example A is for annexation occurring before March I, Example B is a hypothetical date (June 30) for annexation occurring after March 1. As these examples show, the timing can affect revenues for up to three years. A 8 Amexat i on by Annexation by Feb. 28, 1989 June 30, 1989 1989 Property Taxes: Fire District 219,937 219,937 Rural Library 75,721 75,721 Road Tax: County \1 63,643 165,473 Tukwila: Uncollected Road Tax \1 190,930 89,101 General Levy 0 0 Tukwila Total 190,930 89,101 1990 Property Taxes: Fire District 0 219,937 Rural Library 0 75,721 Road Tax: County 0 0 Tukwila: Uncollected Road Tax 0 254,573 General Levy 444,784 0 Tukwila Total 444,784 254,573 1991 Property Taxes: Fire District 0 0 Rural Library 0 0 Road Tax: County 0 0 Tukwila: Uncollected Road Tax 0 0 General Levy 444,784 444,784 Tukwila Total 444,784 444,784 1. Estimates of Road Taxes going to the County and to Tukwila are based on the assumptions that 25 X of the tax would be collected as of February 28 and 65 % as of June 30. Tukwila receives only the uncollected amount. City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 5 As indicated by this example, delays in annexation can result in less revenue for the City in the first two years. However, since the timing of annexation also affects the City's costs, some of the decrease in revenue would be offset by timing related decreases in costs. For example, under Example B, the City would be responsible for services to the annexation area for only six months in the first year, compared to the 10 -month period under Example A. Also, if the Fire District and Rural Library System continued to collect property taxes, they could continue providing services during the same period for which they collect taxes. This could be done through an interlocal agreement, and the City would not have to bear these additional costs until it was able to collect the general tax levy from area residents (in the second or third year) and phase in its own services. The retail sales and use tax is another source of revenue from the annexation area. The estimate of retail sales tax is shown on Table 3. A list of businesses was gathered from a drive -by survey of the annexation areas. This list was sent to the Department of Revenue, who provided information on the amount of taxable sales for these businesses in 1987. Tukwila's sales tax rate is one percent; fifteen percent of the local sales tax revenue collected within the City is allocated to the County. Table 3 reflects the County's share and the amount of revenue remaining for the City -- approximately $243,000 for the combined area. TABLE 3 SALES _TAX RIVERTON FOSTER THORNDYKE TOTAL Taxable Retail Sales 19,995,177 2,134,568 6,541,413 28,671,158 Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Local Sales Tax Revenue 199,952 21,346 65,414 286,712 Less County 15 % (29,993) (3,202) (9,812) (43,007) Tukwila Sales Tax Revenue 169,959 18,144 55,602 243,705 Other significant revenues for the area would be generated by state distributed revenues and locally imposed fees and fines. These are shown on Table 4 which includes footnotes on the method of estimating each revenue. Some of the revenues are restricted to specific uses. The motor vehicle fuel tax must be used for roads purposes, the real estate excise tax must be used for capital projects, and block grant funds must be used for specific grant City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 6 programs. Unrestricted revenues can be used for any purposes designated by the City. As shown on Table 4 the estimated annual amount of revenue that would come to the City from the annexation areas is over $1.1 million in unrestricted sources and about $142,000 from restricted sources. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF REVENUE IMPACT 1988 * ANNEXATION TUKWILA RIVERTON FOSTER THORNDYKE TOTAL UNRESTRICTED REVENUE: PROPERTY TAX 2,643,640 126,408 82,418 235,958 444,784 SALES TAX 7,639,674 169,959 18,144 55,602 243,705 BUSINESS LICENSES /PERMITS \1 90,000 2,475 525 1,800 4,800 BUILDING PERMITS \2 90,000 7,074 4,349 24,577 36,000 MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX \3 60,000 15,569 9,565 83,698 108,832 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX \3 20,000 3,721 2,286 20,003 26,010 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS \3 30,000 12,044 7,400 64,747 84,191 COURT FINES & FEES, NON- TRAFFIC \4 55,000 3,135 1,925 11,770 16,830 COURT FINES & FEES, TRAFFIC \5 97,100 24,955 15,342 93,896 134,192 PLANNING FEES \6 102,000 4,009 2,464 13,927 20,400 UNRESTRICTED TOTAL 10,827,414 369,349 144,418 605,977 1,119,745 RESTRICTED REVENUES: MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX \7 64,000 16,448 10,112 61,888 88,448 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX \8 70,000 3,551 2,315 6,628 12,494 BLOCK GRANT \9 30,000 7,710 4,740 29,010 41,460 RESTRICTED TOTAL 164,000 27,709 17,167 97,526 142,402 GRAND TOTAL 10,991,414 397,058 161,585 703,503 1,262,147 1. Based on estimated number of employees, businesses, and average charges of S75. 2. Assumes overall increase of 40 percent in building permits. 3. Based on estimated per capita amounts for state formulas. 4. Accounts 341310, 356900, 357300 increased based on estimated increase in Part I crimes of 592 (30.6 percent) over current level of 1,936. 5. Accounts 353100, 354000, 353700, 355200 increased based on population. 6. Assumes an increase of 20 percent in zoning fees. 7. Based on increase in population 8. Based on an assumed turnover of 3.3 percent of assessed value 9. Estimate based on increase in population (grant is allocated based on moderate and low income population.) * 1988 budgeted estimates of revenues. III. Cost Impacts for Annual Operations The impact of annexation on Tukwila's costs for annual operations derive primarily from the additional personnel that would be needed to serve the areas. There are some one time costs for additional equipment (e.g. vehicles, desk and chairs). A range of cost estimates were developed based on information supplied by department heads as to personnel and equipment needs. (Personnel costs were estimated using the mid -range monthly salary for the same or similar positions that currently exist in the City; benefits were estimated at 25 percent of salary costs). City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 7 The estimated cost impacts are based on a department level review. The City will review these results internally; final decisions about staffing requirements for the annexation area will be made when the City adopts an amended budget for the annexation. All costs are shown as a range of estimates. A range was used to reflect: 1) the uncertainty about the overlapping impacts on services with and without the annexation of Fire District #1 and 2) variation based on annexation of all or part of the combined annexation area, with annexation of Foster only as the low end of the range and annexation of all three areas as the high end of the range. The range for general costs, such as facility needs, depends on the actual level of personnel additions and decisions about accommodating added staff within existing space. Facility costs also depend on the extent to which existing facilities can be reconfigured to house additional personnel and equipment. General: With the addition of personnel with annexation the City may need to provide additional office space. The high end of the range reflects the cost if all of the additional personnel were hired and all of them required new office. If this were the case, a short term measure would be to lease the additional office space in facilities located near to the current City Hall. There are office parks and similar facilities available in the area. Over the long run, the City will need to examine its long term facility needs. This should be done in the context of considering all likely annexations and other long term growth in City requirements. Estimates of office space needed for additional postions were based on the average amount of space needed for each type of position, ranging from 74 square feet for clerical staff to 150 square feet for mid - management staff. A factor of 20 percent was added to account for common areas, such as hallways and conference rooms that would be needed in addition to individual office space. Based on the range of postions identified for the annexation area, office space needs would range from 581 to 3,215 square feet. If all of this were for additional space that could not be accommodated in existing City facilities, the cost for leasing the space would range from $9,296 to $51,440 per year. There would also be some additional one time costs for furnishing work stations; this cost would range from $4,800 to $21,600. Facilities for other uses, such as fire protection and public works maintenance, may also need to be considered. There are plans to remodel the fire station in the Foster annexation area. If the area is annexed, the City would become owner of some of the Fire District's assets; it is assumed this would include the fire station. Public Works anticipates that it would need some additional maintenance facilities convenient to the annexation area, for sand piles and certain pieces of equipment. The potential cost of these maintenance facilities have not been included in the cost estimates, because it may be possible to locate them on existing governmental properties in the City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 8 area through an arrangement with the owners. Police Services: The impacts on police service relate to both the size of the geographic area, the density of the population, and the nature of criminal activity in the area. The three annexation areas are mainly residential, with but there are some commercial areas (e.g. along Highway 99) that may attract a different type and frequency of criminal activity. For all three annexation areas, the Police Department has estimated that it would need an additional 14.5 FTEs. This impact assumes the addition of a patrol district. It also assumes the annexation of Fire District #1 takes place. A patrol district would be added with the annexation of Fire District #1 and this would allow for certain efficiencies in departmental organization and provision of backup for patrol. If the Fire District #1 annexation does not occur, police staffing for the combined annexation area would likely be higher. The additional personnel estimated by the Police Department for annexation (with Fire District #1) include 5 patrol officers, which is sufficient to have one officer on duty 24 hours a day. A smaller number of patrol officers would be sufficient to man only one or two shifts per day, instead of three. The estimated costs at the low end of the range (i.e. for the Foster area only) is generally based on the relative size and population of the area, and would result in patrol staffing for less than 24 hours a day. However, the existing patrol staffing of the City would be available for back up. Costs for police services include some one time costs for equipment. The total annual cost impact for the Police Department, including both labor costs and a 15 percent factor for other costs (e.g. uniforms, training, equipment), ranges from $120,632 (with 2.5 FTEs) to $606,562 (14.5 FTEs); one time costs range from $11,000 to $77,000. Fire Protection Services: The costs for providing fire protection services to the annexation areas are primarily personnel costs. These costs reflect the fact that Tukwila would obtain a portion of the assets of Fire District #11 upon annexation, and that these assets would include the fire station in the Foster area and some equipment. The amount of assets that the City would receive is based on the proportion of the assessed valuation of Fire District #11 that is within the annexed area. However, the value of the Fire District's assets have not been re- evaluated since the merger with Fire District #18. An accurate figure on the Fire District's assets, and the assessed valuation for the annexation area would be needed to be more precise about the potential impacts for Tukwila. A certified valuation of Fire District #11 would be requested upon annexation. At present, the estimates of cost impacts assume that existing City equipment and the facilities in the Thorndyke area would be sufficient, so that the only impact is from additional personnel. The allocation of personnel among the three annexation areas results in problems similar to those for the police department. The smaller numbers of firefighters for an individual area would not allow for 24 hour staffing of a City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 9 position or slot. However, in combination with existing fire department staff, the City would still be able to provide 24 hour response. The range of estimated costs for the Fire Department is $89,490 (2.5 FTEs) for Foster only to $ 278,048 (5 FTEs) for the combined annexation. Municipal Court: The annexation will affect Municipal Court costs because of the additional criminal and traffic cases that must be handled by the City. The Municipal Court has estimated that a half -time Court Clerk will be needed to handle the additional caseload. This cost is only estimated for the total combined annexation area, as it would be difficult to divide a half time position among the three areas. Other Municipal Court costs include judicial time, prosecuting attorney time, public defense payments and payment for the Southeast Community Alcohol Treatment Center. The estimated costs for Municipal Court range from $5,167 for Foster only to $58,072 (with .5 FTEs) for the combined annexation. Planning and Building: The Planning and Building Divisions would be affected by increases in building permit applications and development review tasks generated from the annexation area. The Planning Department has estimated the staffing impact of annexation based on an assumed 20 percent increase in zoning applications and a 40 percent increase (150 over the current level of 372) in building permit applications, with combined annexation. There is potential for additional commercial /industrial development in the Riverton area, and the Thorndyke area has experienced significant development of multi- family units is recent years. The Planning Division would also be affected by additional workloads in the long range and policy planning areas. The estimated annual costs for the Planning Department range from no cost (for Foster only) to $117,465 (4.3 FTEs) with combined annexation. With combined annexation there could be an additional one time cost of $11,000 for purchasing a vehicle for building inspectors Parks and Recreation: The Parks Department estimates that the impact of annexation would be relatively small, since residents in the area already use Tukwila's recreation programs. It is not anticipated that any of the existing parks in the area (e.g. Southgate County Park) would be further developed, although the City may seek ownership of the County park. (Parks maintenance costs are reflected in the cost estimates for Public Works, Division II.) There would be some increase in costs for staffing recreation programs, mailing notices of classes and program, and providing transportation services for senior citizens. The estimated costs for the Parks Department, range from $7,000 (.33 FTE) for Foster only to $21,000 (1 FTE) for the combined annexation. Legislative and Administrative: The City's various legislative and administrative functions would be affected by the overall increase in responsibilities resulting from annexation, with impacts for the City Clerk, Finance Department and Personnel Department. Annexation would also affect the responsibilities of the Mayor and City Council, but this increase cannot be easily translated into dollar amounts; some additional assistant staff may be City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 10 needed for the elected officials. The total cost impact for the Finance Department reflects that assumption that operation of sewer and water utilities would be through contracts with existing providers, and that the Finance Department would not be responsible for any billings to sewer and water customers in the annexation area. The total cost for these general administrative functions ranges from $11,805 (.5 FTE) for Foster only to $85,025 (2.5 FTE) for the combined annexation. Public Works: The Public Works Department would be affected by the addition of roads, surface water management needs, facilities and parks maintenance that would result from annexation. The Department has determined the number of road miles in the area, reviewed the surface water problems, and looked at facilities in the area. The Department has identified staffing requirements for the annexation area based on this review. In addition to staffing requirements, there would be equipment rental costs. The estimate of the equipment costs was made by calculating the percent increase over 1988 staffing for Maintenance Divisions I and II, and increasing equipment rental costs by the same percentage. Public Works costs are divided between the General Fund and the Street Fund. The General Fund portion includes Administration, Engineering Services, Parks Maintenance and Facilities Maintenance. The Street Fund portion includes maintenance of City streets and surface water management. The cost impact ranges from $3,438 for the General Fund and $48,551 (1 FTE) for the Street Fund with annexation of the Foster area, to $127,383 (4 FTEs) for the General Fund and $200,019 (4 FTEs) for the Street Fund with combined annexation. Community Services: Several community service costs are budgeted in the Mayor's Office, including the costs for the City's library contract and health service contract. The City pays the King County Health Department for services provided to City citizens based on a contractual agreement; the estimates for this contract are based on population in the annexation areas. The library contract provides for payment of $19.53 per capita and the estimates are based on this per capita amount. It should be noted that the amount that would be paid to the King County Rural Library System under this contract for the combined annexation area ($128,507) is greater than the amount of revenue the System would lose from its property tax levy for the area ($75,721). In combination with annexation of Fire District #1, the Library System would loose about $144,000 due to the differences between the contract and tax levy amounts. The City contributes to various other programs on a voluntary basis; since these programs provide direct services to individuals, it is assumed that contributions would be increased in proportion to the increase in population related to annexation. The total estimated cost for these community services ranges from $22,399 for just the Foster area to $195,987 for the combined annexation. City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 11 Summary of Operating Costs: Table 5 summarizes the range of costs for each department and for "general" costs. The low end of the range reflects annexation of Foster only. The high end of the range reflects departmental estimates for annexation of all three areas, and the general costs if new office space was needed for all positions. These estimates may or may not reflect economies of scale that could be achieved with annexation of Fire District #1. Economies of scale could be achieved through more efficient organization of departments, through substitution of equipment for labor costs, pooling of capital resources, reorganization of service areas, and so forth. These potential changes were not addressed in any detail by the departments, so the high estimate may not reflect these types of efficiencies. The table also shows the one time costs for purchases of equipment and work stations. The total annual cost to the General Fund for all three areas ranges from $259,931 to $1,514,982. The annual costs for the Street Fund ranges from $48,551 to $200,019. In addition there are one time costs for equipment and vehicles ranging from $11,000 to $51,500. The range for all costs is $319,482 to $1,850,601. TABLE 5 RANGE OF OPERATING COSTS FOR ANNEXATION AREA Low High Estimate Estimate Annual Operating Costs: Police Department • Fire Department Municipal Court Planning Department Parks Department Administration Community Services Public Works: Gen. Fund General Annual General Fund Total Annual Street Fund Total Equipment Costs Police Department Planning Department Finance Department Work Stations Total Equipment Costs TOTAL ALL COSTS 120,632 606,562 89,490 278,048 5,167 58,072 117,465 7,000 21,000 11,805 59,025 22,399 195,987 3,438 127,383 51,440 259,931 1,514,982 48,551 200,019 11,000 77,000 11,000 26,000 21,600 11,000 135,600 319,482 1,850,601 City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 12 C. Capital Improvements Based on a review of King County's capital improvement plans, and discussions with Tukwila's Public Works Department, four capital improvement projects have been identified for the combined annexation area. Since sewer and water services would be provided by existing purveyors, no capital improvements for these services were identified. The annexation area has some surface water problems, and two specific capital projects have been identified by King County to address these problems. With annexation, Tukwila would be responsible for these projects. The costs of the projects have been estimated by the County, but could vary depending on cost of acquiring rights of way. The cost for these two projects totals $307,000. The surface water projects are identified in Reconnaissance Report No. 24 (for the Lower Green River Basin) and Report No. 26 (for the Duwamish River Basin). Report No. 24 identifies a project to "install a control structure and excavate two existing stream channels to provide 2.5 acre -feet of storage" at a site located just north of 154th Street and east of 42nd Avenue, in the Thorndyke area. Report No. 26 identifies a project in the Riverton area for construction of a retention /detention facility at the intersection of 133rd Street South and South Marginal Way East. Another impact of annexation is the potential shift in funding for Surface Water projects included in Tukwila's current capital improvement program. County contributions totalling $620,000 for drainage from the Riverton area cover part of the capital improvement costs; after annexation, Tukwila would be the sole source of funds. Two road projects have been identified in the annexation area. Neither of these projects were given a high priority in the King County Transportation Plan, so they are not part of the County's Capital Improvement Plan. The projects are 1) installation of traffic lights at the intersection of 42nd Avenue South and South 144th Street, and, installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the 40th to 42nd Avenue South arterial which extends the length of the combined annexation area. These road projects address problems that are less immediate than the surface water problems, and they could be funded and implemented over a longer time period. However, since there are schools in the vicinity of the 40 -42nd Avenue arterial, the need for sidewalks and improved signals may be significant. Also, the installation of gutters may have some advantages for surface water management. These issues should be examined before the City determines whether these costs are likely to be incurred in the near future or not. City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 13 TABLE 6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Riverton Foster Thorndyke Total Surface Water: 222,000 85,000 307,000 Roads: Intersection Improvements (S. 144th & 42nd Ave. S.) 38,500 38,500 77,000 Curbs, Gutters, & Sidewalks (40th - 42nd Ave. S.) TOTAL IV. Summary and Discussion 935,000 460,977 1,459,813 2,855,790 1,157,000 460,977 1,583,313 3,239,790 The estimated annual revenues for the annexation area ranges from about $161,000 (for Foster only) to $1,262,000 for the combined annexation. Estimated annual operating costs range from $308,000 to $1,715,000, including Street Fund cost. The following table summarizes the cost and revenues estimated for the annexation. TABLE 7 SUMMARY TABLE General Fund Annual Costs Street Fund Annual Costs Equipment Costs TOTAL COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES Low High Estimate Estimate 259,931 1,514,982 48,551 200,019 11,000 135,600 319,482 1,850,601 161,585 1,262,147 Potential capital costs range $307,000 for more immediate surface water projects to $3.2 million with less urgent roads projects. Funding contributions from King County for Surface Water Management in Riverton, totalling $620,000, would likely be withdrawn after annexation. The range of estimates for annual costs are based on department level review of the personnel needed to provide services to the annexation area. Should City of Tukwila: Fiscal Impact of Combined Annexation September 22, 1988 Page 14 annexation occur, these costs will be reviewed prior to adoption of an amended City budget. During this review, the City will need to examine its fiscal requirements in order to achieve a balance between costs and revenues for the annexation area. This balance can be achieved by actions to reduce costs or increase revenues. Options for increasing revenues include allocating more of current revenues to support annual costs by using debt financing for capital projects. Tukwila now pays for almost all of its capital projects directly from current revenues. The City's total debt capacity for non -voter approved general purposes is about $6.75 million. The City has about $1 million is reserved debt capacity (for the 1977 Limited G.O. Bonds for City Hall and 1978 Limited G.O. Bonds for the Golf Course), leaving about $5.75 million is unreserved debt capacity. The practicality of using this approach to finance capital projects would require a review of long term projections of City wide capital improvements, operating expenses and revenues. Another way to increase revenues would be to exercise certain local tax options increase local fees and charge new fees for current services. For example, the City does not impose a utilities tax or a local business and occupation tax. Increases in taxes may not be desirable, but might be preferable if needed to provide adequate services for future City residents. Surface Water management costs may be funded from sources other than current General Fund revenues. The options for funding surface water management are currently being studied by the City. Options for reducing costs include examining ways in which efficiency can be increased through restructuring of department management, substitution of equipment for labor costs, redefinition of service areas (e.g. patrol districts), and re- evaluation of service standards. Using these techniques, there may be areas where the City can trim the costs of providing services to both current and future residents without making unreasonable reductions in the quality of service. City of Tukwila ANNEXATION PHASE 11 BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY EXPENDITURES Labor and Benefits $1,057,700 Supplies and Other 359,800 Capital 625.300 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,042,800 REVENUES Foster /Riverton/Thorndyke • $650,000 Estimated Ending Fund Balance - Fire Dist. #1 277.500 TOTAL REVENUES $927,500 DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY CITY CLERK Personnel Court Clerk Extra labor - City Clerk Benefits Subtotal - Personnel Capital Work Station - Court TOTAL CITY CLERK FINANCE Add'I staff - 1 $12,000 6,000 3.000 $21,000- 3,000 $24,000 Personnel Accounting Technician III Add'I staff - 1 $15,000 Accounting Clerk 8.000 1.5 23,000 Benefits 5.000 Subtotal - Personnel $28,000 Capital Computer Upgrade Components $30,000 TOTAL FINANCE $58,000 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Personnel Building Inspector Add'I staff - 1 $15,000 Planning Technician 1 13,000 Assistant Plan Checker 1 12,000 Graphics Technician 1 12,000 Code Enforcement Officer 1 13,000 Upgrade of Permit Coordinator - 3.000 Subtotals 5 68,00.0 Benefits @ 25% 17.000 Subtotal - Personnel $85,000 Supplies and Other Supplies and Printing 8,000 Capital Inspector Cars (3) 50,000 Car Telephones (5) 4,500 Fax Machine 2.500 Subtotal - Capital $57,000 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $150,000 RECREATION /PARKS Personnel Extra labor - Van Driver, Rec. Staff, Parks $12,200 Supplies and Other Recreation Services - Miscellaneous 9,000 Parks Maintenance: Proffessional Services /Supplies 2.000 Subtotal - Supplies and Other $11,000 Capital Passenger Van 20,000 Tables and Chairs 2,000 Office Equipment 1.000 Subtotal - Capital $23,000 TOTAL RECREATION /PARKS $46,200 POLICE Personnel Patrol Officers (Patrol) add'I staff - 3 63,000 Lieutenants (Administrative) 2 49,000 Clerks 3 37,800 InvestigationsNice Officers 3 63,000 Crime Prevention Officer 1 21,000 K -9 Officers _2 42,000 Subtotal - direct labor 14 275,800 Benefits © 25% 69,000 Overtime 7,200 Uniforms - New Issues 15.000 Subtotal - Personnel $367,000 2 Supplies and Other Miscellaneous Supplies - All Divisions 10,400 Professional Services: Dog Vet 1,500 Professional Services: New Hire Exams 10,500 Travel/Training 6,600 Repairs /Maintenance 6,000 Cellular Phone - Communication 1,800 Vehicle Rental - Undercover 3,000 Investigation Operations 10,000 Valley Com 15,000 Jail Costs 20.000 Subtotal - Supplies and Other $84,800 Capital Portable Batteries (2) 1,300 K -9 Dogs (2) 1,600 K -9 Kennel 1,600 MT -1000 Radios (3) 3,800 Cellular Telephones (2) 1,700 Computer 3,500 Dictaphone Upgrade 8,000 Crime Prevention /Dare Van 20,400 Citizen Alert Program 2,500 Clerical Work Station 2,500 Patrol Vehicles (2) 40,000 Investigation Vehicles (2) 35.000 Subtotal - Capital $121,900 TOTAL POLICE $573,700 FIRE Personnel Firefighters - Ladder Truck Add'I staff - 9 $135,000 Firefighters - Kelly Days /Station 52 6 90,000 Training Officer 1 15,000 Secretary/Receptionist J. 10.000 Subtotals 17 $250,000 Benefits @ 25% 63,000 Uniform Allowance 9,000 Overtime 10.000 Subtotal - Personnel $332,000 Supplies and Other Bunker Gear - New Employees 12,000 Medical Exams - New Employees 8,000 Miscellaneous Supplies 2,000 Valley Com 6.000 Subtotal - Supplies and Other $28,000 TOTAL ARE $360,000 3 PUBLIC WORKS Personnel Clerks (Engr'g /Permits /Shops (2)) Add'I staff - 4 $44,000 Associate Engineer - Permits 1 20,000 Public Works Inspector 1 20,000 Utility Persons - Street (3) Surface Water (2) 5 38,000 Mechanic Foreman 1 15,000 Building Maintenance Technician 1 13,000 Associate Engineer - Transportation 20.000 Subtotals 14 170,000 Benefits @ 25% 42.500 Subtotal = Personnel $212,500 Supplies and Other Supplies - Street/Surf. Water /Engr'g /Admin. 42,000 Supplies - Equipment Rental 43,000 Signal Maintenance by King County 20,000 Street Outside Services - Lighting, Cleanup, etc. 68,000 Surface Water - Outside Services 5.000 Subtotal - Supplies and Other $178,000 Capital 3/4 -ton Step Van - Equipment Rental /Bldg. Maint. 20,000 Pick -up Truck - Engineering Inspector 14,000 Sign Truck 26,000 Saw Blades - Asphalt Saw 3,000 Portable Generator 600 Portable Radios (2) 1,800 Tarpot 12,000 Flail Mower 30,000 Backhoe 65,000 Epoxy Mixer 5,000 Street Sander 7,000 Snow Plow 7,000 Storage Mezzanine at City Shops 60,000 Tripod Manlift - Jet Truck 4,000 Signal Controllers - East Marginal Way 30.000 Subtotal - Capital $285,400 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS • $675,900 4 GENERAL Supplies and Other Office Space Rental $50,000 Capital Computer Equipment 35,000 Permit Center Furniture 70,000 Subtotal - Capital $105,000 TOTAL GENERAL $155,000 TOTALS - ALL DEPARTMENTS Additional staff - 52.5 $2,042,800 5 City y T u wila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 July 25, 1988 Mr. Paul Tanaka, Acting Director King County Public Works Department 956 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Subject: ANNEXATION /COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS/ PRE-'ANNEXATION ZONING FOR "RIVERTON ", "FOSTER" AND "THORNDYKE" 1'1 J Dear Mr. T� The responsible official has modified the Determinations of Non - Significance on EPIC Files 1 -88, 14 -88 and 15 -88, Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke, respectively, to include in the proposals an interlocal agreement between King County and Tukwila for the subject annexation areas. In addition, the following comments are in response to your observations and questions. 1. Tukwila is in the selection process for an engineering consultant who will prepare a scope and outline for a Comprehensive Surface Water Plan and a Surface Water Program with funding and implementation mechanisms. 2. The Riverton proposal has approximately 750 feet of Duwamish riverfront contiguous to the Fire District No. 1 proposal. Like the first annexation area, the appropriate and consistent approach for the currently unincorpor- ated portions of the Duwamish riverbank would be to amend and include these issues (stabilization, protection and maintenance) into the Green River Basin Agreement. 3. The two Surface Water Management (SWM) capital improvement projects planned for the areas would be discussed in the interlocal agreement between the County and the City. 4. An inventory of existing SWM facilities would be appreciated. Thank you for your timely comments. MCB /sjn Si ncere, Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner Christine Gregoire MitMkgkkkkkkkkxx Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • G (206)I' 594-61:190-1F1 (, ;' (C, Ef' ' IJ July 14, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: JUL 18 1988 CiTy 5 PI Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the annexation of Riverton (EPIC- 1 -88). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. The Tukwila Shoreline Master Program should also be updated. WAC 173 -16 should be consulted for guidance in setting ap- propriate shoreline designations. If you have any questions or need assistance, please call Mr. Barry Wenger of the Shorelands Program at (206) 459 -6767 (Scan 585 - 6767). Sincerely, Barbara J. •itchie Environmental Review Section BJR: cc: Linda Rankin, Shorelands Rainier Beach 38 ANNEXATIONS FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 ° FILED DECEMBER 1986 SEA•TAC INCORPORATION ° FILED JANUARY 1988 RIVERTON ANNEXATION FILED FEBRUARY 1988 FOSTER ANNEXATION • FILED MAY 1988 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION FILED JUNE 1988 1:5 TUKWILA CITY LIMITS 0 TUKWILA PLANNING AREA Keninplal ugh iiitr=PIMENIERIC 11 IR =NE grel NIONLINZ COMMUNITY COLLEGE .1 1111119 lips I ii6kwai NH I. Nomt 116•11M. /I kill loaroid pasodoid LogLe JoqwnN Anlnqui woo weans lu!od uogoalloo Aiepunog luauJuonoqns Aiepunog upeg oN00 • • .4 King County Division of Roads and Engineering Department of Public Works 956 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-7490 July 14, 1988 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200.Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Pre - Annexation Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Amendment, for "Foster," "Thorndyke," and "Riverton" Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Declarations of Non - Significance issued by the City of Tukwila for the subject proposed annexations. The Roads Division of the Department of Public Works has reviewed the environmental checklists issued for the three areas and has no comment. Information regarding road maintenance activities in these areas was provided to you in a June 30, 1988 letter from Doug Mattoon, Maintenance Engi- neer addressed to Laurie Bender of the consultant firm CCA Incorporated. Comments from the Surface Water Management Division are enclosed for your consideration. If you have any questions, please call Sandy Adams, Intergovernmental Relations Coordi- nator at 296 -3724. Sincerely, Paul Tanaka Acting Director PT:sr Enclosure cc: Lou Haff, County Road Engineer ATTN: Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section Doug Mattoon, Maintenance Engineer John Logan, Traffic Engineer Jim Kramer, Manager, Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Susan Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator • • King County Surface Water Management Division Department of Public Works 701 Dexter - Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2583 July 12, 1988 TO: Paul Tanaka Acting Director, Department of Public Works ATTN: ✓sandy Adams, Program Analyst VIA: Jim Kramer, Manager FM: Susan Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinate, RE: Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke Annexations Comments f �� `Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Declaration of Nonsignificance � �\ f (DNS) issued by the City of Tukwila on the proposed annexations of the \q),' Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke areas. Based on a limited review of the DNS, +. King County Qivision of Surface Water Management has the following obser- v,ations:..., 1- )0(ing County, through its Division of Surface Water Management and related policies, procedures and programs, advocates a watershed context -.,_- for consideration of storm and surface water quantity and quality control measures. We are not aware of any storm and surface water management program providing comprehensive watershed planning and manage- ment services in Tukwila, at this time. The DNS does not address strategies for resolving present or future drainage problems within a watershed management context. 2) Portions of the Duwamish River appear to be within the proposed Riverton annexation. The DNS is not explicit regarding the extent of the pro - posed annexation along the River, including what portion of the river- bank will be annexed and how the riverbank will be stabilized, protected, and maintained. 3) King County has two capital improvement projects scheduled in the pro- posed annexation areas. The first to be built (scheduled for 1989 construction) is a siltation and detention facility to be located in an area bounded by South 133rd and South 137th Streets just east of Pacific Highway South (99). This project is part of the Soil Conservation Service Westside Watershed Plan for the P -25 Outlet Improvements proposed for the Riverton area. • • Paul Tanaka July 12, 1988 Page Two The second project in the proposed annexation areas is located in the vicinity of South 152nd Street and 42nd Avenue South in the Thorndyke area. This project, scheduled for 1991, was identified in the Fostoria Drainage Basin Study undertaken by Tukwila and King County completed in 1987. 4) The maintenance of any King County retention, detention, or other drainage related facilities is not discussed in the DNS. King County could provide Tukwila with an inventory of existing facilities and / ; maintenance procedures. Since storm and surface water management issues are not limited by political boundaries, King County and Tukwila should begin discussions regarding cooperative management of surface water and river resources. Because the DNS format does not lend itself to a complete discussion of the impacts on the surface water and river management aspects of Tukwila's annexation, it is SWM's recommendation that consideration be given to a mitigated DNS which includes interlocal agreements between King County and Tukwila to address shared drainage concerns. V/ Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Tukwila \.% annexations. !`ST:ds(C -M276) r'cc: Ken Guy, Assistant Manager, Surface Water Management Division Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resource Section, Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer WAC 197 -11 -970 MODIFIED* DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal PRE- ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING AND ANNEXATION OF "RIVERTON ". * PROPOSAL IS MODIFIED TO INCLUDE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND TUKWILA ON SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT. ( THIS DOES NOT EXCLUDE OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN FROM BEING ADDRESSED LN "THF INTERLOCAI PROCFSS_) Proponent CITY OE TUKWILA Location of Proposal, including street address, if any APPROXTMATFIY ROUNDED BY THE DUWAMISH RIVER, PACIFIC HIGHWAY, 139TH STREET. TUKWILA CITY LIMITS AND INTERURBAN AVENUE. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC_1_88 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. J There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by JULY 15, 1988 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Address Date Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwi,Ag" °81:8 Signature a�� 9 I° • You may appea this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS Rainier Beach 11011117 DI; 11111 NA f UONII cense NEN ER Walga. FR mow maIminnim ...u• 41 wag unstmlwannomm1;; \ 111 11111111111111ff I= dek. 1111=7:1711111111111119 r_11111"' ' • NIMIINVII111111111111 I I . mono: 1- 36 ANNEXATIONS FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 FILED DECEMBER 1988 4.2 SEA•TAC INCORPORATION wFILED JANUARY 1988 RIVERTON ANNEXATION FILED FEBRUARY 1988 —., FOSTER ANNEXATION FILED MAY 1988 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION "I FILED JUNE 1988 sin TUKWILA CITY LIMITS 0 TUKWILA PLANNING AREA Kennyda II t, „jowl eri-tiew, NIONLINg COMMUNITY OOLLIOZ DNS, DISTRIBUTION .. 'EPIC-15-88 FOSTER ANNEXATIO EPIC -14 -88 THORNDYKE ANNEXATI EPIC- 1 -88 RIVERTON ANNEXATION S "SATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHORELANDS DIVISION MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 ATTN: KAREN BEATTY • SKATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MALL STOP PV -11 • OLYMPIA, WA 98504 ATTN: KAREN BEATTY KiI G CO PARKS, PLANNING & RES 1108 SMITH TOWER 506 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: JIM TRACY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE DIST NPSEN -PL -RP P.O. BOC C -3755 SEATTLE, WA 98124 WASHINGTON ST TRANSPORTATION DPT TSM & P /LAND DEVELOPERS 9611 S.E. 36TH STREET MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 FIRE DISTRICT #11 1243 S.W. 112TH SEATTLE, WA 98146 SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST #406 9690 SOUTH 144TH SEATTLE, WA 98168 KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 300 - 8TH NORTH SEATTLE, WA 98109 PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL ATTN: ENGINEER (EIS REVIEW) 300 S.W. SEVENTH STREET RENTON, WA 98055 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPT 1015 3RD AVENUE ROOM 922 SEATTLE, WA 98104 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ATTN: WILLIAM FRY P.O. 1869 SEATTLE, WA 98111 VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 68063 SEATTLE, WA 98168 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT - FISHERIES WATER DISTRICT #125 115 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BLDG P.O. BOX 68147 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 SEATTLE, WA 98168 FIRE DISTRICT #18 4237 SOUTH 144TH SEATTLE, WA 98168 KING CO. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 3600 136TH PLACE S.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98006 ATTN: BRICE MARTIN CITY OF DES MOINES PLANNING DEPT 21630 - 11TH SOUTH DES MOINES, WA 98198 METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DN. ATTN: MANAGER MS 92 821 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 HIGHLINE TIMES 207 S.W. 150TH P.O. BOX 518 SEATTLE, WA 98166 SEA -TAC TUKWILA CHAMBER OF COMP 5200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD SUITE 11 TUKWILA, WA 98188 VALLEY DAILY NEWS P.0 BOX 130 KENT, WA 98135 AF•DAVIT OF 0ISTR•B.UTION I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: [( Notice of Public Hearing [I Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet (J Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet x4i3 Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [I Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action Q Official Notice O Notice of Application for [] Other Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, JULY 1, 1988 , 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project FOSTER, RIVERTON, THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS File Number c- f(G —/S i62 /c —! Signature ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan Amendments Zoning and annexation of area known as Riverton. City of Tukwila Jack Pace Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1849 4. June 23, 1988 5. City of Tukwila CEPIC FILE NO: -1: -:8 ) 6. Comprehensive Plan review and amendment and pre - annexation zoning are scheduled for July through November 19885 Annexation election is scheduled for February 1989. 7. There are no future plans for additions or expansions of the subject proposal and its area; however, future annexations contiguous to the subject area are possible. Text amendments to the zoning code are possible in order to reduce land use conflicts and provide comparable zoning. 8. If text amendments are proposed additional environmental work will be done. 9. There may be land use applications and permits that are pending on individual parcels with King County that would be affected by this proposal. In addition, King County has scheduled an area -wide Community Plan update that would include area covered by this proposal. 10. The governmental approvals and permits that are needed are included within the annexation process. City Council adoption of pre - annexation Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning and annexation. A notice of intention will be submitted to the King County Boundary Review Board where review may be invoked. The County Council must pass an ordinance placing the election on the ballot. 11. The proposal is an annexation by election of the below described property. The proposal also includes a review of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan of the area with amendments, pre - annexation zoning to allow for simultaneous adoption of zoning if area is annexed. 1 • • 12. The proposed site is roughly bounded by the Duwamish River, SR 99 (Pacific Highway), S. 139th Street, the Tukwila city limits and Interurban Avenue on the east, and is referred to as "Riverton." The size of the area is approximately 162 acres. 13. Some of the areas within the proposed annexation areas do lie within environmentally sensitive area B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. The Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke annexation areas have a combination of flat, rolling, hilly, and steep slopes. There are no mountains. b. The steepest slope in these sites is 100 percent in some areas. c. The different types of soils are varied and include clay, sand, silt and gravel. d. The general area of the Duwamish River Basin has a history of landslides and areas of instability. e. There is no proposal for any filling or grading to be done. f. There will be no construction clearing during this project. g. Impervious surfaces will not need to be built after this annexation because there is no construction occurring during this project. h. Currently, there is no proposal to reduce or control erosion to the earth. 2. AIR a. The study of emissions is not applicable to this project. b. There is no off -site sources of emissions that will effect this project. c. There are no proposals to reduce or control emissions because it is beyond the scope of this proposal. 3. WATER a. The surface body of water that is located in the proposed annexation area is the Duwamish River Basin and its tributaries. See attached map of basin for stream information. • • bn No work in the vicinity of the above waters is required in order for this annexation to take place. ce Fill and dredge materials are not needed in the annexations of these areas. da There is no need for surface water withdrawals or diversions given the nature of these annexations. ee A portion of the proposed annexation area does lie within a 100 year floodplaine fe No waste materials will be dealt with in this project. ba Ground 1. Ground water will not be withdrawn during this projects No waste materials will be dealt with during this project. ce Water Runoff 1e Major runoff occurs from the highways that traverse the areas - SR 518, SR 99 and Interstate I -5e Other runoff occurs from local streets, roofs and paved parking and driveways. The method of collection is varied. The majority of the streets are ditched and the culverts are the primary means of collection for eventual discharge to the Green /Duwamish River. The discharge and seepage of waste materials is not effected by this annexation project. Currently listed surface water improvements will be reviewed for consideration in the City of Tukwila's CIF. Engineering personnel will be allocated time to continue drainage planning and analysis. However shoreline impacts will be regulated through an amended shoreline program to include new portions of the Duwamish River. 4. PLANTS an The types of vegetation found on the site are deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, grass, and wet soil plants. be No vegetation will have to be removed from the site • • ce No endangered species are known to be located in the area de There is no proposed landscaping for the proposal. 5. ANIMALS a. The animals which are located on or near the site are as follows: Birds: Hawk, Heron, and Songbirds Mammals: Raccoons, Foxes, Coyotes, and Musk Rats Fish: Steelhead, Bullheads bap! Ca There are no endangered species known to be located on or near the site The area is part of a migration route but the swamps and wetlands have been filled to discourage the large gathering of waterfowl. da There are no measures proposed to enhance the wildlife. 6e ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ae There are no changes to be made in the sites energy requirements bn This project will not affect the potential use of solar energy in adjacent properties. cs not applicable 7 ENVIRONMENTAL TH as There are no environmental health hazards as a result of this proposals ba The City of Tukwila would assume responsibility for all fire and police services. cn There is no need for proposed environmental health precautions due to the fact that there are no hazards involved in this proposal. bo Noise a. Vehicular traffic would be the major noise effecting the site area be There would be no construction noise occurring in the area as a result of this project. 4 • c. There are no changes proposed to control the nbise impact on the area The City of Tukwila will enforce its noise ordinance to control the noise. S. LAND AND EMMELINE0SE a. In the Riverton annexation area there are heavy and light industrial and commercial uses located in the north with residential uses in the southern half of the proposals are In the Foster annexation area there are commercial, residential and public facility land uses. In the area of Thorodyke, commercial, residential and public facility uses predominate. b. The Riverton area has been used agriculturally for farmlands. c. Some of the structures in the annexation areas are comprised of fast food restaurants, motels, commercial businesses, heavy and light industries, and various densities and types of residential dwellings. d. No structures will be demolished in this annexation process. e. The existing King County zoning : Riverton -MH Heavy Manufacturing MP Manufacturing Park ML Light Manufacturing CG General Commercial BN Neighborhood Business RM 900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RD 3600 Two Family Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling SR Suburban Residential Foster CG General Commercial BC Community Business RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling RM 1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Swelling SR Suburban Residential Thorndyke CG General Commercial BC Community Business BN Neighborhood Business RM 900 Maximum Density Multiple Dwelling RM 1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling RM 240() Medium Density Multiple Dwelling RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling • • f. The current plan for the. areas is as follows: Riverton - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates this area as urban with Southgate park designated as park. The HighIine Community Plan designates the area with the following uses in a north to south direction : Industry, Light Manufacturing, Single Family, High/Maximum Density Multi- Family, Neighborhood and Community Business~ Park and Recreation, Low/Medium Density Multi-Family. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan currently designates the area as follows: Light Industry, Commercial, Low Density Residential~ High Density Residential, and Parks and Open Space. Foster - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as urban. The Highline Community Plan designates the area with Highway oriented Commercial; Low Density Residential~ High/Maximum and Low/Medium Density Multiple Family, Community Facilities and Parks and Open Space. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area with the following Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Commercial, Public Facilities, and Parks and Open Space. Thorndyke - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as urban. The Highline Community Plan designates the area with the following: Highway Oriented Commercial, High/Maximum Density Residentialv Community Facilities, Park and Open Space, Neighborhood and Community Businessn Low/Medium Density Residential and Single Family. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area with the following: Commercial, High Density Residential, Public Facility, Park and Open Space, and Low Density Residential. There is no shoreline in the Thorndyke or Foster area however a small section of the Duwamish River is located along the north boundary of Riverton. h~ The followino areas have been classified as environmentally sensitive. Riverton - The hill east of E. Marginal Way and north of S. 126th Street and south of the Rainier Bank Processing Center is classified as environmentally sensitive as well as the hillside running generally northwest to southeast from Pacific Highway around S. 133rd Street across 42nd Avenue around S. 135th street to Macadam Road and the hillside running north to south along the west side of Macadam Road from approximately 135th South into the Foster annexation area Foster - The hillsides just northwest of the Foster Park at 52nd and B. 137th and along the west side of Macadam Road for its entire length through the annexation area are designated as environmentally sensitive. 6 • • Thorndyke - The hillside running north and south along the west side of 51st Avenue S. and the ravine and hillsides running west and east south of 150th and north of S. 154th Avenues between 51st and 40th are designated as environmentally sensitive. �. No new construction is associated with the project that would cause a change in the number of people who reside of work in the area however, a few comprehensive plan changes are proposed that will change potential residential densities. In the Riverton area, a high density multiple family area will be changed to low density and the overall permitted densities in the low density areas will be increased to urban maximum standards. Riverton's residential population is estimated to be 1200. j. This project will not displace any people. k. Since there is no displacement of individuals, there are no proposed measures to deal with this issue. 1. A pre-annexation zoning ordinance will be used to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses. Existing land uses would be protected through the zoning code's non- conforming section. For the most part the proposed zoning will be reflective of the existing uses. Text amendments to the City's zoning code are potential mitigation to impacts associated with the land use/zoning changes. 9. HOUSING a. No new housing will be provided during this proiect. b. There is no need for any of the housing units to be eliminated due to the nature of this project. c. No housing impacts will be caused by the annexation process under review. 10. AESTHETICS a. The tallest height of any proposed structure allowed by the Tukwila Zoning Code is 45'. However, height exception areas to this height restriction allow building heights of up to 115' and greater if identified on the Height Exception Map. b. CurrentIy~ there are no views which are being altered or obstructed. c. There are no proposed measured to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. 7 • 11. LIB AND BLARE a. Light or glare is not applicable to this proposal. b. Light or glare is not a safety hazard in this proposal. c. There are no off -site sources of light or glare considerations. d. There are no proposed measures to control light and glare. 12. RECREATION a. The recreational opportunities in the annexed areas are Southgate F'ark, Tukwila Community Center, the Duwami_sh /Gr_een River riverfroan t_ ail, Foster pool and playgrounds and ball fields, the Thorndyke playfield and the Foster ball fields and tennis court. b. There are no construction activities within this annexation process that will displace any recreational areas. c. There is no need for proposed measures to lessen the impact on recreational areas. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. The King County Historic Landmarks Office provided the following list of historic properties: Riverton - Harrison Cabin 13017 40th Avenue S. - 1903 Delta Masonic Temple 1.3034 41st Avenue S - 1926 Nash House 4106 S. 130th Avenue 1910 -1920 Albert Trutt 13000 E. Marginal Way 1920's Riverton Park United Methodist Church 13001 37th Avenue 1910 Thorndyke -Carey Bungalow 14454 51st Avenue S. - 1917 There are currently no measures to reduce or control impacts to these landmarks. 14. TRANSPORTATION The Metro bus route serves Pacific Highway South between 160th and 112th Streets. Metro also serves some of the area along East Marginal Way South. b. The area is currently served by Metro bus service. c. There would be no parking spaces eliminated from the sites. d. The proposal will not require any new roads. 8 • • e. Due to the nature of this project; there is not need for water, rail or air transportation. f. The number of vehicular trips is not necessary to this project. g. There are no measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. There will be an increased demand on Tukwila municipal and legislative services. The following is a needs projection to provide urban level services to the area b. There are no proposed measures to reduce impacts on Tukwila services. To try and control the impact, a fiscal budgetary study will be completed that refines the revenue projections. Lateral transfers of personnel in health, life safety departments will be made to handle the immediate impact. The budget process will review the needs and adjust personnel levels to accommodate the service demands. 16. UTILITIES a. The utilities available in the area are electricity, natural .gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, and septic systems. These services are provided by Seattle City Light, WNG, Water District 125, Sea-Tac Disposal, PNB, Val-Vue Sewer District. b. There are no utilities proposed for this project. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS 1. There are no changes to the existing environment because this is only an annexation. Land uses in Tukwila will be substantially the same as the current King County uses and districts. Because no intensification of use is projected the environmental impacts to water, air, and of toxic and hazardous substances and noise are not expected to increase. 2. The City of Tukwila will enforce its codes in the annexed areas and comply with SEPA to control the environmental impacts. 3. This annexation process does not effect plants, animals, fish, or marine life nor is it expected to deplete energy or natural resources. 4. The City of Tukwila has mapped the environmentally sensitive areas of the annexation areas. The County in contrast with the City has legislation which protects and regulates development adjacent to and of sensitive sites. Tukwila does not Therefore development of or around these areas while covered by SEPA review in Tukwila will be more subjectively treated with perhaps uncertain outcomes. 9 J e • • To avoid or reduce impacts, the environmental review process will be continued and used to protect sensitive sites. No impact is to be expected on the use of the shoreline or the land. Tukwila will designate the one area of shoreline as urban which is compatible with its current designation and with the Tukwila Program. ,The effect on land use is expected to be minimal because the objective is to provide compatible zonings The overall density of single family dwellings is expected to increase because Tukwila does not have the Suburban Residential density of =35,000. Some residential areas will be lowered from their current high and medium densities yet some areas of low will be raised to medium or high. To avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts, a pre - annexation comprehensive plan and zoning analysis is being conducted. If necessary, to mitigate zoning impacts the zoning code will be amended. The Tukwila shoreline program will be amended if the area is annexed. The shoreline is protected in the interim because shoreline development would continue under the county's regulations until it is added to the Tukwila Program. bo The annexation will increase the usage of Tukwila police, fire, judicial, administrative; legislative, planning and engineering services. As was mentioned in 15e above, a fiscal /budget projection is being done to plan for the increased needs The increase in police security on Pacific Highway South (old 99) due to the social problems existing there in the form of drugs and prostitution; etc. 7. The annexation and Comp Plan and zoning proposals do not conflict with local, state, or federal laws with regards to the protection of the environment. B The annexation proposal does not conflict with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan as it lies within the City's Planning Area The amendments proposed for the Comp Plan primarily reflect existing uses in the areas or are being made to be more comparable with surrounding land uses. E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS 1. The objectives of the proposal are to respond to the requests of residents in Tukwila Planning area In addition, the proposal would expand city boundaries to include adjacent service, impact and planning area and co- locate with South Central School District and provide urban level services to an urban area. 10 1 An alternative means of achieving some of the above objectives would be through the formation of an alternate municipal government as Tukwila is the only city agency whose boundary is contingent to the area or in close proximity. Of the two alternatives, annexation is preferable to incorporation because: an Policies and economics would support a lid on the number of governmental agencies. b. Tukwila is small in size and population and should be encouraged to assume a stature comparable with other suburban municipal governments. c. Tukwila is logical urban service provider. 4. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's General Goal #3 p.12 ..."encourages the planned expansion of the corporate boundaries of Tukwila while providing adequate service levels and improvements to all areas..." Any expansion of the City's area especially into residential areas will create greater demands than revenues generated to serve those areas on a one to one basis. But service levels and improvements can be maintained at adequate levels for the proposed annexation area In addition, the increase in the residential area of the City would create a more even balance in the land use pattern of the City. (General Goal #6 p.13) To reduce potential conflicts in equitable allocation of services a plan for the proposal is prepared by the City departments to assist in budgetary; personnel and service decisions. 11 _ ate 70l 1, i1 // //9/-1 Subject —No 98 10FOLD From Spasid .WW(e) Day. Reply �J/ _ /I/ //1. fJ6 A ik%k5 e .ir.,' %lif / iiiti ier- s i4/JaO(L — 110 9FOLD — No 10FOLD WilsonJones GRAYLINE FORM 44-903 3 -PART 01983 • PRINTED IN U.SA. Signed Signed. SENDER—DETACH AND RETAIN YELLOW COPY. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT. Economics 1001 4th Avenue Finance Suite 3025 Policy Analysis ll1C Seattle, WA 98154 -1107 (206) 223 -0767 June 1, 1988 MEMORANDUM To: Jack Pace, Planning Department From: Laurie Bender, CCA Subject: Schedule for Combined Annexation Study June 6 - -10 CCA Collect information from County CIP, surface water management, and -se.3;..ei—attf1-.wfrte.p-E14&frie&on planned capital improvement$. Prepare information for City review. Develop property tax information (to be discussed). Planning. Develop information on significant impacts on municipal services (e.g. will annexation(s) require additional patrol districts, f acilities or major uipment ?). Also examine issue of unsewered areas, if any - -how will City handle these, and are significant capital improvement costs anticipated? Collect (create ?) data on road-miles, populations, housing units. y� /.065 hme eadline June 10: CCA provides Planning with information on planned capital improvements in areas, and information on water and sewer districts for City review. Planning. provides CCA with information on significant impacts and data on population, etc. Planning also indicates most likely method of managing special purpose districts under annexation (e.g. City takes over services or contracts with existing purveyors). Combined Annexation Study Schedule page2 June 13 -17 • CCA Develop cost estimates for municipal services based on "significant impacts" and data provided by Planning. Develop revenue estimates. Identify timing issues related to flow of revenues and costs that will impact City budget. Planning Review information on planned capital improvements, and water and sewer districts plans, and, if indicated, estimate additional capital costs based on City's knowledge of annexation areas, and identified signficant impacts for municipal services (e.g. for City facilities, major equipment needs, etc.). Deadline June 17 Planning identifies capital projects that City thinks are need beyond those identified in County CIP and by sewer and water districts, and provides rough estimate of cost and when needed. Planning and CCA discuss and identify significant impacts that would result from combined annexation as distinct from impacts of individual annexations. June 20 -24 CCA Using information on capital projects and municipal service requirements, develop combined and separate fiscal impact information; pursue follow -up questions, etc. As available, provide preliminary results to Planning. Begin write up of report. June 27 -30 CCA Complete written report, meet with Planning. Deadline June 30 CCA deliver report. j Rainier Beach • ANNEXATIONS in FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 FILED DECEMBER 1986 SEA•TAC INCORPORATION FILED JANUARY 1988 • ::-:71RIVERTON ANNEXATION FILED FEBRUARY 1988 FOSTER ANNEXATION t77: FILED MAY 1988 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION FILED JUNE 1988 I TUKWILA CITY LIMITS 0 TUKWILA PLANNING AREA ee, Wee. • ....... ....................... ......................... 111!11 !!!I119! Nlk RIVERTON ANNEXATION STREET INVENTORY - 1986 NO.! - - - -+ STREET NAME : 1 ;34th Avenue S. 2 135th Avenue S. 3 135th Avenue S. 4 :37th Avenue S. 5 137th Avenue 5. 6 140th Avenue S. 7 141st Avenue S. 8 142nd Avenue S. 10 143rd Avenue S. 11 148th Avenue S. 12 148th Place 5. 13 :East Marginal Way S. 14 :East Marginal Way S. 15 :5. 124th Street 16 :S. 125th Street 17 :5. 126th Street 18 :S. 128th Street 19 :S. 129th Street 20 :S. 130th Street 21 :S. 131st Street 22 :S. 133rd Street 23 :5. 134th Street S. 134th Street 24 :S. 135th Street FROM 4111; TO ; LENGTH 1R /W WIDTH: Mu LANES:LANE FEET; + + + + + + S. 124th Street :S. 126th Street 1 847.60 ; 40.00 ; : 2 ; 1695.2 S. 124th Street ;S. 126th Street ; 860.00 40.00 1 2 ; 1720.0 1 :S. 128th Street ;Pacific Highway 1 930.00 60.00 1 2 ; 1860.0 1 :S. 128th Street ;Pacific Highway 11,440.00 1 60.00 ; 2 : 2880.0 :Cul -de -Sac ;Pacific Highway . 12,400.00 1 40.00 1 2 ; 4800.0 1 :5. 125th Street S. 135th Street 13,122.00 1 40.00 ; 2 1 6244.0 1 :S. 130th Street :S. 131st Street 1 400.00 1 40.00 1 2 : 800.0 1 15. 133rd Street :S. 135th Street 1 700.00 1 60.00 1 2 1 1400.0 1 :S. 135th Street 1S. line Lewis D.C. 1 875.00 1 60.00 1 2 : 1750.0 1 :S. 135th Street 1I -5 ! 900.00 1 40.00 1 2 1 1800.0 :48th Avenue 5. IS. line Lewis D.C. 1 220.00 1 50.00 1 2 1 440.0 :S. 124th Street 1S. 133rd Street 12,811.00 1 60.00 1 2 1 5622.0 :SR 599 :S. Line Gov't Lot 6 1 920.00 1 70.00 1 1 1 920.0 :Pacific Highway :East Marginal Way 5.11,482.00 1 ; 2 1 2964.0 :34th Avenue S. :35th Avenue S. ; 360.00 1 30.00 1 1 1 360.0 !Pacific Highway 141st Avenue S. 12,270.00 1 50.00 1 2 1 4540.0 :34th Avenue 5. :42nd Avenue S. :2,523.00 1 40.00 : 2 1 5046.0 1 :Cul-de-Sac :East Marginal Way S.: 534.74 1 40.00 1 2 1 1069.5 1 :Pacific Highway :42nd Avenue S. :2,130.00 1 60.00 1 2 1 4260.0 ; 141st Avenue 5. :42nd Avenue S. 1 500.00 1 40.00 1 2 1 1000.0 1 :East Marginal Way S.:Tukwila City Limits 1 200.00 1 60.00 1 2 1 400.0 1 :40th Avenue S. 142nd Avenue S. 1 907.45 1 40.00 1 2 1 1814.9 1 147th Avenue S. :48th Avenue S. : 177.51 1 40.00 1 2 : 355.0 1 142nd Avenue S. :S. line Lewis D.C. 11,319.40 1 60.00 : 2 : 2638.8 TOTAL MILES 5.46 Rres TOTAL in FEET 1 28829.7 TOTAL in MILES : 5.46 LANE -FEET= 56379.4 LANE - MILES= 10.68 RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 26 DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington my i pt /"DECEIVED MAY - 6 1988 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORK;= King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Resource Section Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Arny Stonkus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist & Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. FINDINGS IN DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 4 C. Specific Problems 4 1. Erosion of channel banks and streambeds 4 2. Flooding in some locations 5 3. Further degradation of water quality 5 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 6 A. Safeguard against continued erosion 6 B. Improve overall effectiveness of surface water management 6 C. Improve habitat conditions, particularly in tributaries 7 V. MAP 9 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Project Ranking APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations A -1 B -1 C -1 • • L SUMMARY The Duwamish River Basin, in western King County, is intensely urbanized. Commercial and industrial land uses dominate the basin on either side of the Duwamish River and along its valley. Single- family residences are located along the valley walls and on the plateau above the valley; residential land uses are expected to reach saturation by the year 2000. In the process of urbanization, nearly all of the basin's tributaries have been piped and chan- neled. Outfall pipes within the tributary network are fitted with flap gates to minimize the effects of flooding when the Duwamish River rises during flood stages or as a result of tidal influences. Other alterations to the stream system in the lowland areas include the placement of numerous artificial channels and culverts underneath State Roads (SR) 99 and 599. These carry runoff from three major freeways, as well as from extensive parking lots, one airfield (Boeing), and industrial areas, to the stream system. All wetlands except one have been eli- minated in the basin. Not surprisingly, there are serious environmental problems throughout the basin. The most serious of these, water quality, is being studied by numerous public agencies. The recon- naissance, which focused on drainage and erosion problems and resulting contamination of the stream system, identified several problems. First, bank erosion and mass - wasting were observed in many locations, the most serious instances occurring along steep valley walls. Second, flooding occurs in some places, most notably in the Allentown area. And third, degradation of the tributaries from sidehill drainage is one of many factors accounting for the fact that fish habitat is nearly nonexistent. The field team investigating the basin recommends that 1) erosion be slowed by implementing planning, engineering, and regulatory measures; 2) the general effectiveness of surface water management be improved with a combination of enhanced maintenance on existing facilities and the construction of new facilities where needed; and 3) habitat conditions be improved where feasible, particularly those related to poor water quality from sidehill drainage. II. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins -- Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recom- mend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat con- ditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to he completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important ele- ment of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage con- ditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in deve- loping more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are P:DU 1 Duwamish River Basin (continued) not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive .environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case -by -case basis by County offi- cials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among com- peting projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site - specific basis for any proposal. OT. FINDINGS IN THE DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN The field work in the basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner, Lee Benda, geologist; and Arny Stonkus, engineer. Their findings and recommendations follow. A. Overview of the Basin The part of the Duwamish River Basin under King County jurisdiction is located in western King County along the Interstate 5 (I -5) corridor, just south of Seattle and north of Tukwila (the basin's northern and southern boundaries, respectively). The western boundary abuts the Miller and Salmon Creek Basins, while the eastern boundary abuts the Lake Washington Basin. The basin contains the King County Airport at Boeing Field and portions of SR 99, 509, and 599 as well as I -5. Historically, the Duwamish River flowed north from the confluence of the Green and Black Rivers. The Black River no longer exists, but the Green River north of its historic confluence is still referred to as the Duwamish and this report identifies the associated basin as the Duwamish River Basin. The Duwamish River flows north through the communities of Allentown and South Park and through the Duwamish industrial area in south Seattle. The river -- known as the Duwamish Waterway near its mouth -- splits around Harbor Island into the East and West Waterways before • discharging into Elliott Bay, adjacent to downtown Seattle. The reconnaissance excluded subbasins wholly within the city of Seattle. The Duwamish River Basin is intensely urbanized, with commercial and industrial land uses predominating on either side of the river along the valley bottom. The sideslopes and plateaus above the valley are mainly used for single- family residences, with multi- family residential and commercial land uses also present in various locations. All of the unincorporated portion of this basin is within the Highline Community Planning Area, which lost population between 1970 and 1980. The population level has stabilized and moderate growth is expected in all types of land use by the year 2000. Most future growth in commercial and industrial land uses will be in the river valley bottom currently used for these purposes. Single - family and multi - family housing will reach saturation on the valley sideslopes and on the upland plateau. P:DU Duwamish River Basin (continued) Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. The geology of the Duwamish River Basin consists of sedimentary and volcanic bedrock, glacial deposits of various ages and types, and alluvium in the valley bottoms. The major bedrock outcrops appear in the southern portion of the basin near Tukwila and consist of sandstones and intrusive volcanic rocks. Glacial sediments include undifferentiated pre - Vashon sand and gravel, Vashon till, recessional outwash sand, and glacio - fluvial sand and gravel. Till is found along most of the highlands and generally caps the drumlinoid hills. Recessional out - wash sand is interspersed throughout the till and is commonly found along shallow stream valleys and other depressional areas. Landslide deposits exist within steep - walled tributary valleys. Recent alluvium, composed of gravel, sand, and silt, fills the Duwamish Valley and the bottom of the tributary valleys. The morphology of the basin is dominated by the valley of the Duwamish River. The valley is cut into sedimentary and volcanic bedrock. While the Duwamish River once meandered across its floodplain on the valley floor, it now flows through a diked chan- nel, as do its tributaries. During the last several glaciations, sediments were deposited on the bedrock in the form of glacio - fluvial sand and gravel, recessional outwash sand, and till. These glacial deposits were shaped into drumlinoid hills, with axes trending northwest - southeast. Drainage channels in the uplands are not well developed or integrated. Where drainage was routed over the valley walls, deep narrow valleys were formed through the glacial sediments. Landslides formed hummocky and chaotic terrain along the steep walls of tributary valleys and of the Duwamish Valley. Hydrologic and hydraulic features. Several highly urbanized subbasins, all distinct in character from one another, make up the Duwamish River Basin. Some natural drainages display undisturbed riparian environments, while severe erosion, scouring, and downcutting typify others. The majority of the basin's tributaries are either piped or ditched as they approach the lowland areas and their confluences with the Duwamish River. Outfall pipes within the tributary network are usually fitted with flap gates to minimize the backwater effects of flooding in the river. Alterations to the stream system in the lowland areas include many artificial open channels and major culverts that cross SR 99 and 599. Drainages in the upper subbasins flow through natural swales, steep natural channels, and ravines, as well as through numerous culverts. Many of the streams flow peren- nially from groundwater sources. Reconnaissance revealed that natural storage systems are nearly nonexistent in this basin: There are no lakes and only one small wetland. Habitat characteristics. The fate of stream habitat and fish in this basin was deter- mined during the late 1800s through the 1950s. During this time the Duwamish floodplain was almost totally filled, and the river was dredged and diked. As already described, this process of urbanization completely eliminated the natural features of the river and its corridor. In addition, the discharge of oils and other toxicants from thousands of acres of industrial land and the dumping of domestic garbage (which is common although illegal) have produced serious water quality problems along the waterway. Water pollution has caused documented fish kills in recent years, resulting in fines against the responsible parties. In addition, Metro, King County, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency P:DU 3 • • Duwamish River Basin (continued) (EPA) have initiated studies to better define problems and solutions in order to improve water quality along the river. No anadromous fish were found in any of the streams at the time of reconnaissance. Resident fish may exist but were not observed during the reconnaissance study. Streams on the valley slopes and upland plateau are also devoid of fish. The tribu- taries in these upland areas show evidence of damage from the high flows of urban runoff, contamination from garbage dumping, introduction of other toxicants, alterations, filling, and high sediment loads. Most streams have few pools or the large organic debris necessary for fish refuge. Two streams (Trib. 0002, 0003) do have some instream and riparian habitat structures (e.g., protective streamside vegetation, pools, and large organic debris) that might support trout. The possibility of enhancing these fish habitats should be explored and if feasible pursued. B. Effects of Urbanization in the Basin The same process of urbanization that has contaminated the waters of the Duwamish River Basin and destroyed most of the fish and fish habitat has also severely impacted the basin's drainage system. Erosion of channel beds and banks has produced heavy sediment Toads, which have been carried down steep gradients and deposited on the valley floor. Deposition points have too often been within artificial conveyance systems, which have become clogged and constricted during times of heavy flows. This inability of the drainage system to handle higher flows is particularly noticeable in the lower stretches of Tributaries 0001A, 0001B, 0002, 0003, and 0003D. When high flows in the Duwamish river cause floodgates to close at tributary outfalls, flows that originate in the eastern subbasins back up in local conveyance systems in Allentown and cause flooding. Pipe outfalls exist at river miles 7.70 and 7.80. Highway contaminants produce many of the water quality problems in the basin. Most contaminants enter the stream and storm systems unabated by pollution - control devices such as oil /water separators. One drain pipe outfalls onto a steep slope at South 112th Street, just above SR 509. This pipe is discharging noticeable amounts of gasoline and oil from an unknown source, killing insects and plant life on the slope. C. Specific Problems Identified As noted earlier, there are a number of public agencies presently studying the severe water quality problems present in the Duwamish River Basin. The goal of these studies is to recommend mitigation measures in the Duwamish Waterway. The reconnaissance work presented here focused primarily on drainage problems in the tributary subcatch- ments, with secondary emphasis given to water quality and habitat problems. 1. Erosion of channel banks and streambeds was found in numerous locations throughout the basin. However, urbanization is so advanced in this basin that development - related erosion is actually at a minimum. In general, streams and bluffs in the lower Duwamish River Valley are stable and show only moderate increases in erosion. Serious erosion found during reconnaissance was restricted to the steep - walled tributary valleys and areas along valley walls of the Duwamish River. For example: P:DU 4 Duwamish River Basin (continued) a. Channel -bed erosion occurs on Tributary 0003G at river mile .95. The cause is uncontrolled urban runoff; the problem will continue if not addressed. b. Bank erosion and scouring occur on Tributary 0003E at river mile .00. Debris is building up at the headwall, causing flows to damage the bank. Increased . storm flows from development are apparently the cause. c. Instream bank erosion is occurring on Tributary 0002 at river mile .55, with no apparent abatement. Bank erosion also is occurring along the channels of Tributaries 0002 and 0003, presumably from development - related increases in flows. d. Road embankment erosion is occurring on Tributary 0002E at the 47th Avenue and South 109th Street intersection. The resulting sediment is filling two 36 -inch culverts at the lower end. The flows will back up onto private property if the culverts are not cleaned. e. Hillside erosion is occurring at South 112th Street above SR 509, where a pipe discharges directly onto a steep slope. There is no energy dissipation for flows. f. Two landslides were observed on the valley wall beneath residences in the valley of Tributary 0002 at river mile .70. These may have occurred because of the stormwater that is routed directly onto steep slopes, a situation made worse by vegetation removal along the slope. Another landslide has occurred in bedrock at Tributary 0003, river mile .16, along the main valley of the Duwamish River. 2. Flooding occurs in some locations along the Duwamish River system. For example: a. Outfall from Allentown to the Duwamish (Trib. 0001, RM 7.70 and 7.80) will continue to back up when the floodgates are closed at times of high flows. b. Flooding of the storm system at the intersection of Eighth Avenue S and South 100th Street is being caused by sedimentation, which fills and constricts the pipes there. If allowed to continue, flooding could lead to accelerated road failure. 3. Water quality is being further degraded in several locations: a. The illegal but common practice of dumping domestic garbage in streams is very prevalent. Tributaries 0001E and 0001F both had large amounts of garbage in them. b. There are possible leakages of septic tanks into Tributary 0001F at river mile .12. The stream had a septic odor on the date it was examined. Sediment from an upstream fill is producing water quality problems on Tributary 0002A, river mile .15. Sediment in turn is filling pools. Downstream from the Glendale golf course on Tributary 0001E, there are P:DU 5 Duwamish River Basin (continued) excessive amounts of sediment and algae in the water. Algae could be the result of fertilizers and sprays at the golf course. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Controlling erosion and increasing the overall effectiveness of surface water management are the main goals in the Duwamish River Basin. A. Use planning and regulatory measures as a long -term safeguard against continued ero- sion and other mass - wasting. 1. Enforce the County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and slope regulations along steep slopes of tributaries and the Duwamish River Valley. 2. Prohibit the routing of stormwater onto steep slopes without energy dissipation and other appropriate measures to control runoff in a safe, nonerosive manner. 3. Designate certain portions of the tributary valleys as landslide hazard areas in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio. 4. Establish native growth protection easements in tributary valleys. This will make banks more stable and provide a source of large woody debris for energy dissi- pation in streams. Both are erosion - control measures. B. Improve the overall effectiveness of surface water management in the basin. 1. Increase maintenance of present conveyance facilities to assure they are functioning properly. a. Clean debris and silt from two 36 -inch culverts on Tributary 0002E at the 47th Avenue S and South 109th Street intersection in order to reduce moisture intrusion into the base course of the road. b. Repair the damaged manhole at the intersection of Eighth Avenue S and South 100th Street. Construct an inlet structure with sediment /silt control to alleviate overtopping of the channel and to prevent further destruction of the road. 2. Construct new facilities for conveyance and R/D as needed for flood control and overall drainage efficiency. a. Install a pumping station in Allentown on Tributary 0001 at river miles 7.70-7.80 to reduce flooding when the Duwamish River is running high at the outfall of these two points. Pump flows into the Duwamish River. b. Tightline flows using energy dissipatoos at South 112th Street above SR 509 to disperse water beyond the steep slopes, which are now being eroded. P:DU 6 Duwamish River Basin (continued) c. As a measure of additional storage, encourage the city of Tukwila to construct an R/D facility on Tributary 0003G, near the intersection of 44th Street S and South 31st Place, to aid in controlling peak flows. Conveyance pipes in this vicinity are presently undersized. 3. King County should work with the cities of Seattle and Tukwila where drainage basins are shared. Some tributaries may call for basin plans. 4. Surface water management and discharges into the Green and Duwamish Rivers should be coordinated with the principles and requirements of the Green River Management Agreement. C. Improve habitat conditions, where feasible, particularly those related to the contamination of tributaries by sidehill drainage. 1. Improve enforcement of no-dumping ordinances by King County and the city of Seattle. 2 Establish stream corridor guidelines, including setbacks limiting clearing, and other regulatory measures as appropriate to protect the remaining habitat in the basin. F':DU 7 DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN 0001E Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary . CI Collection Point Stream 0001 Tributary Number 01301 Proposed Project 0 y2 1Mile 128 P118) 110 t-0.,d/S1 APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management office prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map included in this report. Project Collect. Number Point 1301' 7 Project Description Construct R/D-siltation pond adja- cent to 8th Ave. S. and between S 100th St. and S 96th St. (4 acre - ft. of capacity). 1304 21 Installation of pump station. 1306 27 Construct R/D facility at 133rd St. S and S Marginal Way E. Problem Addressed Reduce downstream flooding and siltation. Reduce flooding in Allentown from con- veyance system backups when high flows occur in the Duwamish River. Reduce downstream flooding in Tukwila. P:DU.APA A-1 Estimated Costs and Comments $140,000 (dependent on acquir- ing right-of-way from Seattle City Light) $100,000 $222,000 (dependent on land acquisition costs) APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN Prior to the field reconnaissance of the Duwamish River Basin, five projects had been identified and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, three projects remain pro- posed for this area. Three projects were eliminated based on the consensus of the reconnaissance team. One of the projects has already been completed, one had no apparent problems, and the other project could not be located. One project (1306) was added. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Duwamish River Basin had an estimated cost of $1,230,000, while the revised cost estimate changes to $462,000 for the three projects. This 64% reduction is due mainly to the elimination of three previously identified projects. The following table summarizes the scores and costs of the proposed CIPS for the Duwamish River Basin. The projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, ELEMENT 1: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. These projects can now be con- sidered for merging into the "live" CIP list. Any project scoring over 100 points should be con- sidered for incorporation into the six-year CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 1306 127 $222,000 2 1304 45 100,000 3 1301* 30 140,000 TOTAL $462,000 * Indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. P:DU.APB B-1 APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN ° All items listed here are located on final display in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item` River Mile Point Category Prop. Prof. Conditions and Problems 1 3 7 Hydrology 1301 Flat area with stream meander under Seattle City Light transmission towers. SWM -proposed . CIP site. 7 Hydrology 9 Hydrology Altered manhole (hole knocked into side). Sedi- ment buildup in system. Road failing just down- stream. Hillside above State Road 509 and below S 112th St. suffers from erosion caused by outfall. No energy dissipation. 4 0001 21 Hydrology 1304 Water backs up in con - RM 7.70 & veyance system into 7.80 Allentown when the Duwamish rises and floodgates close. P:DU.APC C4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems None. Siltation of conveyance system will restrict flows in the future causing overtopping onto road and road failure. Increased scouring and incising of hillside; sediment/silt outwash onto SR 509 will worsen. No relief from Duwamish River high flows. Local flooding will continue from conveyance system backups. • Recommendations Construct the proposed R/D and siltation -control facility if right-of-way can be obtained from City Light. Reconstruct the altered manhole to function as intended. Construct an inlet structure with sediment/ silt control to alleviate over- topping of the channel and to prevent further road destruction. Tightline pipe system beyond ero 41, sensitive slopes. Construct an energy dissipator at outlet end of tightline. King County Roads should investigate this problem. Install a pumping station to reduce flooding of Allentown, near outfall points of RM 7.70 and 7.80. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Prot. Conditions and Problems 5 0001B 6 0001E RM 1.00 7 0001F 0002 RM .50 9 0002 RM .60-.75 4 Habitat 8 Habitat 22 Habitat 10 Habitat 10 Geology No visible problems in stream or stream corridor. Very little fish habitat due to excessive flows, erosion, sediment, and garbage. Algae is growing profusely in the stream, indicating possible nutrient loading from fertilizer at upstream golf course. Septic odor in stream and loads of garbage below 47th Ave. S. Ditched stream with check dams to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Streamside banks are bare. Prehistoric landslide terrain. P:DU.APC C-2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Future development could encroach into the stream corridor and increase flows to erosive levels in the stream. Problem will continue. Problem will continue. Problem will continue. Removal of vegetation or routing stormwater over steep slopes may cause land- slides. Recommendations Coordinate with city of Seattle to establish and protect a stream corridor at least 25 ft. back from the top of the stream -bank on each side of the stream. Existing and future flows should be kept at nonerosive levels. • Basin plan should consider R/D facility in golf course above problem site to reduce existing and future flows. Future development runoff should be kept at nonerosive levels. - Require all future residences to connect to sanitary sewer, if available. - Improve enforcement of no -dumping laws. - Notify Seattle -King County Health Dept. of problem. • Revegetate banks. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Map inner valley as landslide hazard in Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 10 0002 RM.70 11 0002 RM.70 12 0002A RM.10 13 0002A RM.75-.90 14 0002A RM.75-.90 15 002A RM.95 10 Habitat 10 Geology 10 Habitat 10 Geology 10 Geology 10 Hydrology Ham Creek. Good trout habitat. Small pools and some large organic debris are present. Sediment is a problem. Two landslides beneath residences. Poor fish habitat. Lots of algae growing within the stream. Lots of garbage, sediment from upstream fill and possible nutrients exhibited by the algae presence. No benthic organisms present. Landslide terrain. Channel bank erosion of moderate intensity. Undersized pipe capacity due to a partial siltation of the conveyance system. P:DU.APC C-3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Future development could increase flows, erosion, and resulting sediment that will fill pools and clog gravel. Stormwater has been piped down one landslide. Continued surface erosion. Possibility of future landslides. Conditions will continue. Removal of vegetation or rout- ing stormwater over steep slopes may cause landslides. Continued erosion. Continuation of present prob- lems, which will become more severe as pipe capacity diminishes with added silta- tion. Recommendations Restrict present and future develop- ment runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the stream system. • Map valley landslide hazard in SAMF. Discourage or prohibit vegetation removal and routing of stormflow onto steep slopes. Remove or stabilize fill at upstream end of ravine. Map inner valley landslide hazards SAMF. None. Check grate capacities for street drainage system. Remove flow obstructions in pipes. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 16 0002E 17 0003 RM.10 18 0003D RM1.10 19 0003E RM.02 20 0003G RM.02 21 0003G RM.195 0003E RM.00 22 Hydrology 15 Habitat 23 Habitat 27 Geology 27 Habitat 27 Hydrology/ Habitat Series of two 36 -in. cul- verts passing under road. Lower pipe almost silted in in at downstream end. Road erosion at turn radius of intersection. Septic odor from swales. Location is 47th Ave. S and S 109th St. Stream corridor and in - stream habitat seems ade- quate for trout. Anadromous usage blocked at the river. Steep gradient, little fish habitat, corridor fairly stable. Bank erosion along both sides of channel. Upstream erosion has caused minor sedimentation just south of S 133 St. Some localized flooding also occurs. Severe downcutting and in - stream scouring of channel. P:DU.APC C-4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Water will overtop drainage swale if sediment/silt build- up goes unchecked. Road will have water intrusion also. Road failure is probable. Future development could increase flows to erosive levels, causing sedimenta- tion. Future development could increase flows and instream erosion. Continued erosion. Future development could in- crease sediment problems in this area. Accelerated erosion will increase. Siltation of conveyance systems will in- crease flooding. Recommendations Increase maintenance of culverts. Problem has been referred to King County Roads Division. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Resident should be asked to revege- tate bank. Sediment and R/D ponds could be constructed both north and south oil 133 St. Install energy dissipators in stream and vegetate banks where possible. Evaluate at time of basin planning as a habitat project. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 22 0003G 23 0003G 24 0003I 27 Hydrology 1306 Incised stream segments. Downstream flooding in Tukwila. City of Tukwila. 26 Hydrology 31 Geology • Horse pasture with old farm buildings. City of Tukwila. Landslide in bedrock hollow directly above residence. P:DU.APC C-5 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Accelerated incision along with other adverse stream processes. Continued down- stream flooding in Tukwila. Undersized channels and pipes will back up flows. Continued surface erosion. Possible continued land - sliding (though minor). Recommendations Construct an R/D facility. City of Tukwila should consider an R/D facility for control of flows. - Investigate more thoroughly to determine if cause is stormwater from impervious surfaces above. - Add this section of hilislope to landslide hazard in the SAMF. • • ER RATA Volume 3 Basins Lower Puget Sound Duwamish River Salmon Creek Miller Creek Des Moines Creek Lower Green River Black River Hylebos C.teek" Mill Creek White River , RECEIVE: MAY -6 1988 TUKWiLA PUBUC WORK •• 1 12/21/87 • ERRATA • These errata correspond to the three volumes of basin reports. Corrections and supplemental information for each report f� the same outline as the report itself. Page Number. itad`ltiem: Table of Contents -V Map Pg. A -1 Appendix A Pg. A -3 Pg. B -1 Pg. C -2 Pg. C -2 Pg. C -3 Project 3301 Item 8 Item 9 Item 11 Pg. C -3 Item 14 Pg. C -5 Item 22 Pg. C -6 Item 28 Pg. C -7 Item 35 Pg. C -10 Item 52 Pg. C -11 Item 56 Pg. C -11 Item 57 Pg. C -12 Item 58 Pg. C -12 Item Pg. C -12 Item VOLUME 3 = LOWER PUGET SOUND BASIN For Pg. 9 Appendix A Note (top of page): All projects are located on map included in this report. Following Proj. 3311, enter: Project 3301 River Mile .60 - .70 River Mile .84 - .70 River Mile (blank) Collection Point 39 Tributary 0380A, River Mile .25 Collection Point 24 River Mile 5.51 Tributary 0385, River Mile .05 Tributary 0388A, River Mile .10 Tributary 0391 Tributary 0391 Tributary 0391 Tributary 0391 Tributary 0391 Read Pages 9, 10 NOTE: All ranked proposed projects (see Appendix B, B -1) are locate on map included in this report. The King County Surface Water Manage- ment Division, Project Management and Design Section along with the City of Seattle Engineering and Planning Departments have identified a proposed re oval detention pond in the vicinity of 30th Ave SW and SW 104th St. to resolve downstream erosion and flooding problems in Tributary 0361A. Project 3301• River Mile 0.42 - 0.6 River Mile 0.6 - 0.84 River Mile 0.0, Collection Point 40 Tributary 0369A, River Mile 0.3 Collection Point 23 River Mile 1.7 Site is a drainage ditch near Tributary 0385. Delete tributary and river mile reference, location described at right. Tributary 0391A Tributary 0391A Tributary 0391A Tributary 0391A Delete tributary reference, location described at right. NOTE Lowe: sPugef °Sounds Basin is a coastal area stretching from the Seattle city limits to the Pierce -King Co infytborder. It is represented by a set of four maps. Each set is on display at the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Resource Planning. The south section of Lower Puget Sound Basin contains Appendix C items 1-4, 16-60, and projects 3301, 3304, 3305, 3306, 3307, 3309, 3310 and 3311. The northernmost area of the basin adjoins Salmon Creek Basin and displays Appendix C items 8 and 9. There are two central areas of the Puget Sound Basin; one adjoins Des Moines Creek Basin (includes items 15 and 16), and one adjoins the Miller Creek Basin (includes items 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14). R:ERR3 2 •12/21/87 Page Number and Item Pg. A-1 Apper4iX,A Pg. C-1 Item4 Pg. C-1 Item 2 Pg. C-1 Item 3 Pg. C-2 Pg. C-2 Pg. C-4 Pg. C-4 Pg. C-4 Pg. C-5 Pg. C-5 Item 5 Item 7 Item 16 Item 19 Item 21 Item22 Item 23 C-5 Item 23. Pg. C-5 Item 24 • VOLUME 3 - DUWAMISII RIVER IIN For Read Appendix A Note (top of page): All projects are located on map included in this report. Tributary and River Mile (blank) Tributary and River Mile (blank) Tributary and River Mile (blank) River Mile (blank) River Mile (blank) Tributary 0002E, River Mile (blank) Tributary 0003E Tributary 0003E, R.M. 0.0 River Mile (blank) River Mile (blank), Collection Point 26 Under Existing Conditions and Problems, add: River Mile (blank) NOTE: All ranked proposed projects (see Appendix B, B-1) are •located on map included in this report. Tributary 0001E, River Mile 0.95 Tributary 0001E, River Mile 0.95 Tributary 0001 - point 1.4 map miles west of River Mile 6.5 (SW5-23N-4E) River Mile 0.0 - 0.4 River Mile 0.1 Tributary 0002F, point south of River Wile 0.11 Tributary 0003G Tributary 003G, River Mile 0.02 River Mile 0.02 River Mile 0.01, Collection Point 25 Undersized channels and 'pipes are present. River Mile 0.18 NOTE: The Duwamish River Basin is represented by two maps, a north and south section. A set of these maps is on display at the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Resource Planning. The north section map illustrates the locations of items (listed in Appendix C) numbered 1-16 excluding #4. Project 1301 is also shown on the north section map. The south section map illustrates the location of items (listed in Appendix C) numbered 4, 17-24 and projects 1304 and 1306. Page Number and Item- Pg. 9 Map Pg. A-1 VOLUME 3 - SALMON CREEK BASIN Project 5005 is missing from map Appendix A Note (top of Appendix , 1.k , -le): All projects are pa): on map included in this report. Pg. C-1 It Pg. C-2- Ite Pg. C-3 Item Collection Point (blank) t 54) Proposed Project 5002 • Collection Point Project 2 Page Number and Item Pg. 1 Paragraph 1, line 1. Pg. 9 Map R:ERR3 Read Project 5005 is located west of Ambaum Blvd. & North of 126th Street. NOTE: All ranked proposed projects (see Appendix B, B-I) are located on map included in this report. Collection Point 1: Project was dropped - delete reference Collection Point 1 VOLUME 3 - MIIIER CREEK BASIN For Read Harmes Project 4218 Hermes Project 4213 3 12/21/87 Pg.9 Map Pg. A -1 A Pgs. A -1, A -2, A -3,- A-4, B -1 Pg. A -1 Pg. A -1 Pg. A -1 Pg. A -1 Pg.A -2 Pg. A -2 Pg. A -2 Pg. A -2 Pg. A -3 Pg. A -3 Pg. A -3 Pg. A -3 Pg. A -3 Pg. A -3 Pg. A-4 Pg. B -1 Pg. B-1, Pg. B -1. Pg. B -1. Pg. B -1 Pg. B-1 Pg. B -1 Pg. B -1. Pg. B-1 Pg. B -1 Pg. B-1 Pg. B-1 Pg. B -1 R:ERR3 Project 4201 Project 4202' Project 4203 Project 4204 Project 4205 Project 4206 Project 4207 Project4208 Project 4210 Project 4211 Project 4212 Project 4213 Project 4216' Project 4216 Project :4217 Pae 1 raraph 2, lin ... Paragraph 4, line Paragraph: line 2 Project', Volume 3 - Miller Creek Basin - con Tributary 0371C not labeled Tributary 0371C is located in Collection on map Area 5, joining Tributary 0371A near 1st Ave. So. Appendix A Note (top of NOTE: All ranked proposed projects page): All projects are (see Appendix B, B -1) are located on located on map included in map included in this report. this report. The following cost revisions correct errors caused by an inaccurate cost caused by an inaccurate cost estimating spreadsheet. These errors were detected after the report was printed. Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Cost 597,700 Cost 5497,100 Cost $21,500 Cost 5289,800 Cost 575,200 Cost 580,100 Cost 5216,000 Cost $17,300 Cost 5119,500 Cost • 575,600: Cost 5218,800 Cost 5131,800 Cost $54,400 Project 4216' Estimated Cost 5154,100 cost of 522,000 Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Cost 5186,000 Cost 5429,000 Cost 515,000 Cost 5334,000 Cost 581,000 Cost 587,000 Cost 5218,000 Cost $18,000 Cost $126,000 Cost 577,000 Cost 5227,000 •Cost 5139,000 Cost 559,000 Project 4216. Estimated Cost $159,000 cost of 515,000 estimated 52,034,000 estimated 52,140,000 this 65 percent $290,000 Proj #4207!x:. 5216,000 576,000 Prof 4201 {'' 598,000 Project: #4213'x= • (G:57; 5132,000 Project #4210'• I., 5120,000 Project #4211' 576,000 Project #4206' 581,000 Project #4217 $155,000 Project #4202! . ' 5498,000 this 63 percent 5334,000 5218,000 $81,000 5186,000 5139,000 5126,000 577,000 587,000 5159,000 5429,000 4 12/21/87 • -•••••:, • • - Pg. B-1 #4216*. Pg. B-1 Project f4212* Pg. B-1 Piojeit ;1142161— T301: Project Page Number and Item Table of Contents, II. Introduction Volume 3 - Miller -Creek 3219,000 355,000 32,034,000 Project 4216* •• : 3227,000 359,000 32,140,000 Project 4216 VOLUME 3 - DES MOINES CREEK BASIN For Read Page2 Pg. 9 Project 1101- ..• , Project. 1101 Pg. A-1 Appendix A Appendix A Note (top of page): All projects are located on map included in this report. Page 1 Delete Project 1101 from map - project was dropped. NOTE All ranked proposed projects (see Appendix B, B-1) are located on map included in this report. VOLUME 3 - LOWER GREEN. RIVER BASIN Page Number and Item For Table of Contents, IV Tableof Contents,V,Map Pg. A-1 Project 3205 Pg. C-1 Item 2 Pg. C-2 • Pg. C-2 Item- 67z' Pg. C-2 Pg. C-2 Pg. C-2 Pg. C-2 Pg,. C-3 Item 7 Item 8 " Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Read Page 6 Page 5 Page- Pages 9, 10 Collection Point (blank) Collection Point 4 River Mile .29 - .30 River Mile 29.0-- 30.0 Item 3 Delete Item 3 (it is identical to item 5). River Mile .80 River Mile 0.6 River Mile (blank) River Mile 0.0 River Mile (blank). - • River Mile 0.0 River Mile (blank) ,- 'River Mile 0.0 River Mile (blank) River Mile 0.0 t . River Mile (blank) • River Mile 0.0 Note- Lower GreeirRitior„Basitii is represented bY: Kid maps,-',..Ei north and a south ,-:'Section. A set of these_maps,is. on' diapl4ty- at the offices of Surface Water' Management, Building- and Land Developm ritgandkResource.:;Planning. The north section,_map illUstrates the.locations of .- items (listed itr':APperidb#C)V6;11, and project #3205; -The-Sbuth section-map illustrates the locations ,'of • •,n appendix C) 2, 4, 5, 12-26 and projects 3201 and 3204. •••••• '•••. • '• Page Dggi t'S•?. 1. Rad • 'Pg. A...,k„,Appendixr,A Appendix A Note NOTE:. All ranked-proposed projects . . page): All projects (see Appendix B, are located on located on map included map included in. this 'report. report. .. Pgs. A71, A-2„.&I The following cost revisions7correct,errors caused by- an., inaccurate cost .. , •• ;:• estimating spreadsheet. These errors were detected after the report was ,: • - printed. Pg. A-1. Project 0301 • Estimated Cost $345,000'. Estimated Cost $358,000 Pg. A-1 Project 0302` Estimated Cost $208,000. Estimated Cost 3224,000- it:ERR3 5 . 12/21/87 Pg. A -1 Pg. A -2 Pg. A -2 Pg. A -2 Pg. A -2 Pg. B -1 Pg. B -1 Pg. B -1 Pg. B -1 Pg. B-1 Pg. B-1 Pg. B -1 Pg.B -1 • Project 0303 Project 0304 Project Project Project 0309 Project' 0302' Project 0303 Project 0309 Project 0301 Project 0305 Project 0307 Project 0304 TOTAL Pg. C -10 Item 40 Pg. C -11 Item 43 Table of Contents III B= Table of Contents P/ D Pg. 9 Map Pg. A3 Pg. A-4 Pg. A-4 Pg. B -1 Pg. B -1. Pg.• Pg. B-1. Pg. B -1 Project 2409 . Project 2415 • Estimated-Cost $125,0001 Estimated Cost $151,000 Estimated Cost $116,000 Estimated Cost $309,000 Estimated Cost $26,000 Cost 3208,000 Cost 3125,000 $Cost $26,000 Cost $345,000 Cost 3116,000 Cost 3309,000 Cost 3151,000 31,280,000 Recommendations: See Item 40 • Estimated Cost 3148,000 Estimated Cost 3168,000 Estimated Cost 3173,000 Estimated Cost $595,000 - Estimated Cost $35,000 Cost $224,000 Cost $148,000 Cost $35,000 Cost $358,000 Cost $173,000 Cost $595,000 Cost $168,000 $1,701,000 line- 2- along= Garrision Creek and tributaries along Garrision Creek. See Items 40 and 48 VOLUME 3 - HYL EBOS CREEK BASIN Page 4 Page 7 Projects 2410 and 2411 • Project 2409 Collection Point 5 Project 2419, . Project description, para.. graph 1, line 2: east • - Paragraph 1' € - initial° 11 projects.... +ojec lisi. for: The revised list increases scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for Pg.:B -1} Para - Dr: Item 9 Pg. C -2 Pg. C -5' :'Item. 23 Pg. C -5 Item. 24 Pg. C -5 Item 26 R:ERR3 �SWM m Citizen Advisory Committee Collection Point 1 Project 2314.'' River Mile (blank) River Mile (blank) - Page 3 Page 6 Pi o'ects 2410 and 2411- have been drop- ped; delete from map... Project 2409• Collection Point 8A. . 20''projects unrated projects, plus 9 of the initial 11projects • • . .. _ - - project'. list (11:. projects)_ for . .. The revised list (Appendix A, 20 projects) increases scores and costs for 9 of the 20 CIPs proposed (AppendixA): for SWM Division Citizen''Advisory Committee • 'Collection Point 12 Delete reference to-Project 2314; project was` dropped. River Mile 0.0. - 1.5 River Mile 0.0• 6 12/21/87 Pg. C -7 Item 35 Pg. C -9 -Item; 43;7 Pg. C -9 Item Pg. C12 Item vA. Pg. C14 Item; Pg. C16 Item 74' Pg. C17 Item 77 Pg. C19 Item 89 Pg. C19 Item 0 Pg. C20 Item 94 Page Number and Item Pg. 13 Map Pg. 13 Map Pg. A -1 Appendix A Pg. B -1 Pg. C -2 8th Ranked Item 2 Pg. C-8 Item 15 Pg. C -14 Item 31 Pg. C -15 Item 35 Pg. C -21 Item 43 Pg. C -23 Item 48 Pg. 1Pg. C -30 1Pg. C -31' Pg. C -31 l[ Pg. C -32 Item Project 2410 River Mile (blank) Proposed Projects 2405, 240408 Collection Point 10 Item 64 is missing River Mile (blank) Collection Point 8 Collection Point 6 Item 0, Collection Point 8A Collection Point 9 • Project 2417 River Mile 0.0 - 13, Proposed Projects 2405, 2406, 2408, and 2418 Collection Point 2 Item 64 was deleted. River Mile 0.0 - 0.8 Collection Point 12 Collection Point 8 Item 90, Collection Point 8 Collection Point 8A VOLUME 3 - MILL CREEK BASIN For Read Project 4106 Collection Point 21 not shown Appendix A Note (top of page): All projects are located on map included in this report. Project Project 4423 Collection Points 2, 3, 4, 32, 33 Mistaken reference to item 4 in margin Collection Point (blank) Collection Point (blank) Collection Point (blank). Collection Point (blank) River Mile (blank) „River Mile 1.55 Collection Point (blank) River Mile (blank) Tributary 0058, River Mile. 0.0 - Tributary 0051, Collection Point 21 River Mile 6.80 Pg. C -33 Item 69 Pg. C -33 Item 70: Page Number and Item R:ERR3 Project 4106 has two sites:. one is at Lake Geneva, the other is indicated by an arrow. Collection Point 21 is located 0.1 map mile NE of Collection Point 12. NOTE: All ranked proposed pprrooj�ects (see Appendiic B, 8-1) are loca-ted5 on • map included in this report. - Project 4123 Collection Points 2, 32 and 33 Delete Item 4 Collection Point 6 Collection Point 6 Collection Points 4, 30 and 31 Collection Points 18 and 22 River Mile 1.6 River Mile 1.6 Collection Point 9 River Mile 0.4 Delete reference. Tributary 0051E, Collection Point ,13, 21 River Mile 5.6 VOLUME 3 - WHITE RIVER BASIN For Read. 7 12/21/87 • • Table of Contents V Map - Page 7 Pg. A-1 Append& *1,1:2 - Appendix A Note (top of page): All projects are located on map included in this report. Pg. C-2 Item Existing Conditions, paragraph 1, line 2: 376th St • 8 12/21/87 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM •CN EPIC F1L - J -ee8 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: n BLDG n PLNG (n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE t'P & R PROJECT IUG �i� /6Ar12�C4 1 ( LOCATION FILE NO. tS -1--A DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR ,�. RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ■ DATE jet a'a' 3 //f) COMMENTS PREPARED.BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: EPIC '1L - 1 -fig FILE TO: [] BLDG J PLNG Q P.W. PROJECT A17r12sc41,6; . FIRE Q POLICE (i P & R LOCATION FILE NO. t2-/-A DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR :,,,. 4 L RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT I Iv�{G '! Zis Gtr' 74 & �/1J/ 1)1� - 1 [ ' ANI4rA-//44J 454,447 9/64feet a4e,gc E✓ /.. %l. ; .i°4npre �lie 1 ' .��/Oa✓�/7l In '14e F i / /,h y !.�✓Q. y f: f1 /� _rdcased Serve, a, 41?a, resa /fj, 4 J _. "nG ee ' , ae Mlifl4. Frf e,we ye icy resprare. .1,9 c ■e4 de in 'i e /ia/h 6e e groom,. ani �//I�ee 4MS - ∎'erekre I% reed Chilli44d ;. p iry ke Aizotke : /1�/4!iA 4#1 fi'firiA * - -4 </eArd- � d i,ew,k,l £a r�o_ � , ;�� /fr- o �w /� fn ''V/i, . r ,ZO ,Zse v 9,44 .resew, /ade enietereivesn L dee - .41;ne M ly 6e fejr a /R. / ore 6t1✓1exa res., 1: a 044 6;n4 It ire / ve06 ✓► M C( j- /l eede,s. DATE 2/4-y48 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: CN EPIC 1[. -1-A8 FILE TO: R1 BLDG i PLNG n P.W. El FIRE n POLICE (i P & R PROJECT k juey<l arr LOCATION FILE NO. "ES - /-A DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT Wl // ),e; his �� i ecipw,u/ DATE 34163 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA • CN CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC fAL -) -Rg FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: r] BLDG F1 PLNG P.W. [1 FIRE [ POLICE n P & R PROJECT LOCATION FILE NO. tS -) -A DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED•BY STAFF COORDINATOR 36(A. 2 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT 1Ik Dak. ; -il. etpmdk, ' 'CT ,�+;� d1s a e 3Jiv15 �i / __ /�s 0L.2 -ot, CYO- �tivtis —P-w- DATE 4-„43 COM ENTS PREPARED BY N C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM III CN EPIC FA_ - l -egg FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: n BLDG ri PLNG ri P.W. r FIRE ri POLICE ri P & R PROJECT k / L ,C" rr' /QI�rI ?i:a�"S`djr LOCATION FILE NO. L . -)--A DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR G'G<L. RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 (-KV M FIB 1 1988r C:I ry r' uo.vviI v PLANNING DEPT. A. BACKGROUND IlIntrol No. Epic File No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: AO J Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 3. Add -ess and phone number of applicant and contact person: ..5� I033 5 l28 C_ q-'/‘ 911/n_ 9'g• 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 4., Date checklist prepared: 0241 - 4'/ 3d 6. Proposed ti ing�or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):_Z�� Cc 7. Do you have any plans for future additions,- expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. � o 8. List any environmental information you know about be prepared, directly related to this proposal. , e 6 t m , L c . /-z'_Z that has been prepared, or will 13 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other %proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, _ai n • k Sitiboi-r rjte , fr optonca 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. O /I 01.041.4_2■ _06.'lil 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi . checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no . need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. cf /rt- o 4.6.1-7-61,-) irO z4 : 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions �r,elat�,ed to this checklist. GWf C C� -Q-�_1 / l-e gar_' . ; _ • _ n`" aZ , '1 __A1/22-4.1 cc_ -,40 ` 9 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? )42e01_69 ^ n � d .� 4 e ‘,/,_ � _ -3- • TO BE COMPLETED BY APSCANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth • a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? C!Qi / a .44/C jj G c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 16 v4viteh 4 LZ aeon 0). • , i ice , • // d.. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. -74. X:27/,tr- e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. L)NP . f.. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. QN4- g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? ()/V449 • • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 0/Ve' 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. „QM/9 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. L2i1(/ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 6/1.,q 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it-flows into fia Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, plpfse describe and attach available plans. � 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be aff ct Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purposg, and approximate quan- tities, if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year ffloodpla n ?� If so, note location on the site tan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of 1ste and anticipated volume of discharge. jyy Evaluation for Agency Use Only • b. Ground: Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. J)/V/} 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.oxey c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Oescribe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.�fj, bb a- /.. / -iii. .Ii. ♦.4' .1,.0414 J'i_ _ ) '1 i►'• _ • � /�__ /L_ / .(/ /% 1 202, 741 .t. /._i L. r/ • • 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 6/61? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 2909- 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ✓ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ,/evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? /)N,* c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the s ite._Acd.— c4,1 l �x tct Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: „O/1/fr- 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: eagle, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: /)7O, - )141.64 i? fish: bass, A", eou ? herring, shellfish, other: th eX a d� k5td &aelirco b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. = LjZez:g Act c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. imp _we au=__ _ e_ r 14 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: piet(Q Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether •itwil be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 4/1/,3 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: /� A04 7. Environmental Health . a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. ,DAM 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: O/V)- Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, esuipment, operation, other) ?j "'qr. / 4 d / / OAIMS _LAP Al hq 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? ' b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, c. Describe any structures on the site._fX o 466vD !d_., .• ems, Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1_,Zde0.,. 60. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N �J e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? NjP, M - N. (SAP-/j eD 'W/ - " & (8,V OP/v! -946. -,t Ir'tr . �/ -L f. What is the current c p ehensive plan designation of the site? gca..Q_e_ j- If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? /yam g. h. Has any part of the site "environmentally sensitive" ,o) _ n od 8— been classified as an area? If so, specify. r�c°-4; y , Evaluation for Agency Use Only eiRezX i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? O4 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? ,D /V,4 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: `)N19 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: ' _F' *,9 ' -A,/ ea-or/ ci r,�o42,y , i. , c A_ /.ly 'ate y, y l , sakrgPz a,u- ed -z-bo , LQ ,to,. /-y /L4.0 e , so r2,,,,iy_ -12- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? 1L)Af/J b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing.,p/109 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 0/0 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 42LLA- b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? / A,4 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 4.r. r _ /1" �! �4i� AP , 4ix_---A2 .Air • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly /YV4- b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? ✓,q c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may af'� ^��our proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? i22.re2 _.erA -��- L / b. Would the proposed project displace any existing . recreational uses? If so, describe..„10 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: yDN4?- • • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. /a) N07— ,C�jVD/rr b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 0/VP 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Aa.2z, Z b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the neares transit stop? ,- ■ . .f_411P ,,,. e', c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 70/1/'9 -- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally descrlb (indicate whether public or private).-A-6/ y96oa. dr / - -� _4024111 6 i 1. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe._.- i f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. )/V g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: �L 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.,,,ro b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct . impacts on public services, if any. i Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitar sewer, septic system,, other, /Jew 0040426-, b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY A*ICANT 0. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? L, �� _� �_ AVO Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: f� ,e.y,E "7 /f) 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? do Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: ._,a Akze 0--` Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? A/219- Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: ,W.9 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? AOL1_•._III i • I _ i 1# Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: toGD'YI 4/44 A Ate./ t • is �p�011�� �� !�T / /D ii_ . o� 5. Now would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? do , ,f 47-710 e`' Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4 A) .Pik 010 Veiw6c4s0 6f /662i-rAfj a/kid Fir //all a/xd a t,/- aizA. a/)( _gzwy. 7/z.ern 71O--x.) taie.01..ea, /73 _Joe.61-64c1; aval Lia/r1A-dz-, anAd 40,44-a," U Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: A! Au_ .AAJI Aro ,y Q, /1.:- _AI How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? • 0-e car. fo AE',e,ve2. i`zm adz i 1 Proposed measures to reduce o /respond to such demand(s) are: vi OIL1h [�y0> /, .Q . /0/9-6 ea_ one) 1.0 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. `pf fit!' Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan `, 1 ■1 ,r_ /._. A - =— ,� .1/ / I. 01L. / :tAIF9./ • It .�__Ia:-. _ . i. • t ' •411.•_.1 ..0 ..... '!_' CJ 4 L_ t' I• J t -uZ- "y P a- ii. ,®a-mA. n a m,e6 13t -.('/ Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are N . ,Pi . 11.°!44.1/..... --/`'.J .i A 4.1 i1�.f - i 0 lf� /� (_ • . _••1i ! .J /.��rlT is l/. li�i _I /__..fir► Jf_ . .Mp .L' ii I / do `A / Jt 1._0 / .4 , �11_'.I AA_ ..1 / /s. ./ . / A t /_. _ / i Ai f� '4 ..I /'4, i L/AO _I_ ' •i e z, TO BE COMPLETED BY ACANT • E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the oNective(s) of the proposal?�O / D_ .i i4. AL .1i . _/A. -La. iA _i i . ✓ i ,i" - / J � Ilinimisc lYev rn - - a C c fit' �r.�.kdA) LQ J L) , 71 9 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? o`� Gil i 1.c7 G1t 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: 2 ,4docez��J 60.6 X 62. — /a — f/z)__TZ • • i•tct !/ 81—n ( 2Q. — "ra h,i,i ,t.dd ag Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? P-n- �o �� z 1 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: G�1n ao,60e ern Z/ -23- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Cole)] No. Epic File No. Fee $10 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Rtventon An 5i L'i ji: V1 27 1988 CiTY'..0F TUK`v'U!L exaPiA N i, .' : ag" 2. Name of applicant: Peop.2e Living in propo4ed annex ahea. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Bitt 8 Janice Sche.66ten. 4033 South 128th, Seattle., WA. 98168 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared., directly related to this proposal. Hightine Community P.2an. December 1977, Ond-nance 3530 Hightine ahea zoning. 1981. Ord- nance 5453. Cunnent zoning 4tudy under way by King County coun - -t undeA 4ub4titute motion 87 -526. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals .directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Sabititute ; motion 87 -526by King Co. Counc.it Some 4pot zoning has been applied for in the Recent paAt. Not 4une to tht.4 day where they 4tand. 1 Pro o4ed. ondinance 87-3J, ii.2e I. A I , I. , es , Location: South 4-de. 64 S. 124th St. Between 33rd Ave I.i4 oxtovrdodj 8 35th Ave S. May 14t. 1987 2) Pnopozed ordinance 87 -195 We No. 215 -87 -R Location 35 acne .dying to the eazt 4ide ob SR 99 between S. 120th 8 124th tb extended -2- 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. • / • I • 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi . checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no- need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Incoxponat-ion by annexation of a. cant oA .K-inq County known az "Old Rtventon" tn.= _avc:anea= wGi'�ch h.a� __a ex��ttt�g indurtnial and ne4identi.a.e ,iAPn and_u1ha,Ji b� wa location. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yo, h/ w 1 9 4 R 19g. St— nh n w a. vi,t_._ii,.i, and o t h e L' p 9-L-dp-z ,Pn'ntpd apilnx,rmatP!y ttihu_Snuth Gatp.Yahh avtd_('nntir�l ?fit -3- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIST B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth • Evaluation for Agency Use Only General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,. other Combination o4 att above except mountainou4 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? C.ei4& at 126th. We's toi E. Manginat Way See Map # 1 ! c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Becau )se o{y vaxied .tenna1n (See above A I 4o i14 atzo vazc y conzizting aU above types in d-iiexent dzca1nage anea- with the exception 06 much. cfnd Uanmtand4 no tongen ex..4. d.. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Do nod Fznow. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate . source of fill. DMA f.• Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. DNA g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? DATA • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: DNA 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. DNA b. Are .there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. DNA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: DNA 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. cpA i 04_ 6orl ,pning4, MUU CAeeh. -L the onto one - a. thnee 4.tneam4 to be i onmatty named with Aiish & acqua.i.c See Map #1 • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. DNA 3) Estimate -the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. DNA 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. DNA 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Do not know 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. DNA • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general . description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. DNA 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. DNA c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will . this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. There 4:4 a nuno“ pnob!em cxeated by Ri_venton Hozn -itat panh.-i.ng .dot and zuxxoundi.ng devetopment. Thi4 paved area .bs very cto -e to headwater 45pning4 that .6 eed- Cneeh.. $QQ Ma_p #1 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. DNA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: DNA 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass _ pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? DNA . c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Red- Ta.ifed Ha _ • Evaluation for . Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: DNA 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Raccoon4, Foxe4 Coyote4s, Mu4fz Rat4 fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: S.teahead, BuUUhead4 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Red Tait Hawk c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Ye 's, We axe in the j1 qh-t path but mort ob the - wamp45.g wettand4 have been Uitted d ouxagi g watexj'owt gathexi.ng xn �a�e numbex4. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: DNA • 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs ?. Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. DNA b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. DNA c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: DNA 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. DNA 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: DNA Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ?Lica¢4.c .inc.2ud.ing tnucfz4 fnom neanby indurtn.ie4 and Memo. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. NO change cumociated with annexat�i.on. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: City CndQA, nndinancQA on po.E.ic.ie4 whene ct.p p.LisaL _ • 11 I ' I • 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? comp figha f, }Loyg induAt')ty and nnmmohr inP, rh.imair,i,Py SFD N Ru�,iv►Q�,� b. Has the site been used for agriculture? describe. Fon II, • , . , /I ' , , • . . , , I 0 , • is now Poroted If so, c. Describe any structures on the site. Me to o. Rainien Bank Coxp.. Boeing. Commenc.iat buz.ine -6- and nez.ident.ia.e homez bu.i.2t in eahty 1900'4 to within the mean on 40. ita • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the 04; MP, MH. SR-15000 MH -;P CG. SN, RM -900, RM -1800, RS -7200 M -L f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? M_ - M -H MP SR-1500 - N- 1i -R -M 2,400 l— gh��ne p.Ean: Indu4tny, Light Mbg., communit-ty ba4- ne44, High den4.ity If applicable, what is the current shoreline master Cont. o4 xeven -e program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Ye4, hilt o.6 W. 124th and 128th appxoxima.te.2y. A!iso 'some others 4i ope4. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? DNA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? DNA k. Proposed measures to. avoid or reduce displacement, imppWts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Pne annexat.i.on zone ondi.nance • • Continued Mu.Ctip!e Commun..ty g Sagte. Fam.ity. Tufzwita Pkan: Light I ndu4tnia.e, •Commenciat pubs i bac� 2t� eb, tow den -.i..ty nez.i.dent- at. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? DNA. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. DNA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: DNA 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? DN�1 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? DNA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: New rufawi a. zoning Cta44i_Ai.ca.t�.on4 exiAti ig -King County Zoning • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? DNA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? DNA c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? DNA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: DNA 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? South vto, Pnurb Tu.kw -ita community center., Duwnm,ij h R,i veA6Aont Tnai.e See Map# 1 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing . recreational uses? If so, describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: DNA • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. DNA b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Duwami-h R ven c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: DNA 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See Map #2, #3 neztnic.tion, on indu4-tn.taX tnaWc. now in i,o'tce by King County Metno Buz Ba4e, Becket -tnan4en b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Route S on E Mang. way S Route 99 .4envice c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? DNA • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No, poimi.b1e detou.'t duning con- txucti.on of SR 181/E. Mang. Way pnopooed (midge 'see map #3 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. ND f. Now many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. DNA g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Comp.ey w-.th Tukwila Cita code4 o)c ondi.nance4 wh�.ch may app.2y 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NO b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. . , • 1 4 • , 1 "Void above a LAIL .t" 16. Utilities • Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electPicity, natural -gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Seattle Cita Light. lMG. (°Ja-ten Diistx -et' 125, Sea -Tae d zpo4at . PNB. Vat -Vue isewen diAt. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the . general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. DNA "In nego.ti_at.ion" C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL •T D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to .read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. Evaluation for Agency Use Only When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Dependent on. new Tazw.ita zon- nq, code4 txa6U.c contxot. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: To comply with code4 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? DNA Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are:DNA Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: DNA , 4. Now would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Tufzw -.Pa ha4 .identified 45ome env.ixonmentat 4en- -itve axecus in it- compxehen4.ve atanning map and awaxe of the need's of the axea. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: PxeiseAvat.ion of xez.ident..at axeais g ztx.ictdx codes with with xezpec•t to zet back's and tand4scaping with xegaxd4 to development S xeispect to the envt.xonmen.t 1.- 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with - existing plans? Dependent, on Tukwila City nndeA and oxd,inannes appl ioat.innA and butuhe development. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area:Rorxe,�entat i _on by a city govetnmen-t �n an utban envictonment. How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? • DNA 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Annexat -.on to Tuh.w-ita w.itt - incteause Pub!.ic AetvJce to R.ivetton g £ezzen the need box 4etv.ice)s Ptom King CountyGovetnment. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: A 1 We expect an .inctea .se in pn.P,r oc i► oApnnAe .t-me from Tukw,i.ta City. o!ice and tn add to tho Pa.tto2 ob 99 whine pto(tat.rnvr and Jrofatod dhr,3 .taf i c.ing ate A ptob!em b) Ta!zwi_ta',s b.ine rxateot, inn haA a o,PnAA 4 bite, - in4utance ta.t.ing and cnvrvon iont tn Rivoiltnn 1' • 0 • 11 II and the bac.t that city counc -it heat.ing4s ate head in the even..ng4 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. • • No. 6 Cont. w.Ut give oux ode citizen4 and a!zo the wotfa rig citizen4 a bettex chance to become t.nvotved to the pxoce44e4 ob govexnment. V) The Road 4y4tem4 o.6 Tuh.wita and R- vexton axe cuxxentty intex- xetated and both, Tufzw t t 6 Rivexton bene6 -Lt Uxom annexation. • iEvaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The King Co. zoning in e66ec-t wh..ch contAcut y to Turzw.cka' 4 wom nehen4ive pean, bazic- aJ2y, hav -.nqq to do with HM in p.ace4 whene tn:du45-txcy wa4 mended, howeveA SFD nemain4 conziztent with theiA compnehen4ive ptan Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: F 1 : Tufzwita cuitnenU g enjoys a bnoad tax base, ,1du4sion oU R-venton w._th 'some buzine4)s and 'some nezidentiat and a.J4so -t4 undeveJ oped pnopentie4 4houJd inuceaze 4senvice- and with caneAut conzidexation4 to development, w�.thout due co4t4 to bu4ine- 4, ne4sident4 on Tufzw- a.. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL•NT E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information 'provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To maintain O.ed Rivehton ass a £iab!e community and to iYicohpoh.atP thxu annvxation to City o� Tulawita. a) to gain acce- -s to goveicning bodie4 S AeAviceA os6 a city. 61 to Uxban.i ze to h'ni' t 1 itom tho cihc.umAtance4 o.6 g&owth AuhAofLVCd,i ng apt. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Tubmii,', iA .ho nnl y r it y wh,Ao hnhiidh,ioA nho pi-Int./pivot 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? DNA Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: DNA -23- (7 -------- ,,,,,,m, ,\---- ,, II • 'w$ c i \. h t ` \ I� \7-Z N yciwomfig b V. ' ' 1 2ci ;' ivQ7 Y �.2L /V2 ow ki 2PW Tan vq?zoo I ?-77 oq.22. u� /e it c61 a cin-72/0" bb • dog * - • JJ 1. r • 'F2G —U+VAL) 1 at q9 LM 1 access)) cr k Mtto ri4 ro O L e u , r,N C � 06 . AY ' IT l-z C C.LC o7# s / I8'r, �s L0 AIS i gr ,97 /`i"/'4A. \�. peYKa6.. i � 4 L M uni �� d )N FACT SHEET proposed Action Action Sponsor and Lead Agency Licenses/Permits Reauired Authors and Principal Contributors Date of Issue of DEIS Date of Comments Due on DEIS DEIS Public Hearing Date of Issue of FEIS Date of Final Action Subseauent Environmental Review Back around Data Annexation of Fire District #1 to the City of Tukwila and the adoption of a pre - annexation Tukwila Comprehensive Plan amendment and pre- annexation zoning. Citv of Tukwila Comments and questions about the EIS should be addressed to: Department of Planning Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, WA 98188 Moira Bradshaw, Projcct Manager (206) 443 -1848 Pre - annexation Comprehensive Plan Map and zoning amendment must be adopted by the Tukwila City Council. The annexations must be reviewed by the King County and Tukwila City Councils and The Boundary Review Board (BRB). There must be a vote of registered voters living in the annexation area. EIS has been completed under the direction of the City of Tukwila Department of Planning. CCA inc (public services & financial analysis) Stalzer and Associates (EIS preparation) TDA (Transporation) Hugh Goldsmith & Associates (Utilities) February 4, 1988 March 7, 1988 February 18, 1988, Tukwila City Hall March 24, 1988 Election planned for November, 1988 Further environmental analysis will be done as private development and City capital improvement projects are implemented and when the City amends its Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code. King County Annual Growth Reports, King County Duwamish Reconnaisance Report #26, Boeing Development Center EIS, King County Community Development Needs Assessments, Green River Trail Master Plan, and the King County Draft Transportation Plan. All are available for review from the Tukwila Planning Department Tukwila City Hall Cost of Publication 55.00 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: March 21, 1988 TO: TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: L. RICK BEELER, PLANNING DIRECTO SUBJECT: FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATION EIS The City of Tukwila received a petition calling for an election on the annexation of the area described as Fire District No. 1 to Tukwila. In response to the petition, an environmental impact statement was prepared. The subject proposal and alternatives are described in the DEIS issued February 3, 1988. The major environmental issues include service, fiscal and land use impacts to existing and potential providers, property owners, and governmental agencies. The issues have been addressed in the DEIS issued on February 3, 1988. Comments and questions on the information contained in the DEIS and responses are the subject of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and contained herein. TABLE OF CONTENTS FACT SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures SUMMARY LETTERS AND COMMENTS DISTRIBUTION LIST Page 1 8 FIGURE I FIGURE II FIGURE III FIGURES Tukwila Proposed Zoning - Sub -area 1 Tukwila Proposed Zoning - Sub -area 3 Tukwila Proposed Zoning - Sub -areas 2 and 4 SUMMARY The narrative below is very similar to the Summary printed in the DEIS. Some additional information has been provided for clarity. The additions are marked with a black line in the right hand margin of each page. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Fire District #1 Annexation Study Area is located between Seattle on the north and east, Renton on the east, Tukwila on the south and west, and unincorporated King County on the west. Three alternatives for annexation of all or portions of the Study Area were analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In addition, where appropriate or important to the overall decision, the No Action alternative was analyzed. The alternatives are described below: Alternative I, the "Proposed Action ", involves the annexation of Fire District #1 as requested in the petition submitted by property owners within the District to the City of Tukwila. Alternative IA, a refinement of Alternative I, involves the annexation of Fire District #1, plus the property between the boundaries of the District and the City of Seattle to the north and the City of Renton to the south. Alternative II involves the annexation of a portion of Fire District #1, including the Boeing industrial area and the Allentown and Foster Point residential areas. Alternative III, the "No Action" option, leaves all of the Study Area in unincorporated King County. ASSUMPTIONS The underlying assumptions for the analysis of the Fire District #1 Annexation are listed below: * The annexation Study Area is urban in nature and as such is an appropriate area to be included within the boundaries of a city. The interest and opinions of property owners in the area should be given strong consideration in determining which municipality annexes the area. * The Study Area should be, and for the most part is, served with urban level services. * Land use patterns are established in the area and should not change with annexation. As such, Tukwila's proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations are consistent with those currently in place under the authority of King County. Consequently, annexation will result in minimal impact to the area's physical environment and character. See Figures 1, 2, and 3 for pre- annexation zoning. 1 * The population in the area is not expected to increase significantly in the future. Future growth is expected to occur only in the industrial and commercial areas and, therefore, in the number of people employed in the area. * Upon annexation, Tukwila will become responsible for most municipal services in the affected area. Such services include transportation, fire, police, parks, and other governmental duties. Some shared responsibility with adjacent jurisdictions may be appropriate in some cases. Tukwila would not take over the responsibility for sewer and water service to the entire annexation area as continued service by existing purveyors would be more appropriate. The exception is Water District #25. The District will be completely within the city limits and has indicated a desire to be relieved of service responsibilities. * Planning costs estimates for facility maintenance and operations are based on existing levels of service for Tukwila. Actual service levels are City Council policy decisions that are set during the City's yearly budget process. * A major issue to be considered, is the fiscal impact of annexation on the City of Tukwila, other jurisdictions, and the residents and property owners of the area. * The DEIS assumes that Tukwila will have a surface water or drainage utility which implies utility rates. Rather, the City in fact will have a Surface Water Program. Tukwila is in the process of determining a source of revenue to support this approach. IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES As stated above, a decision to annex the Study Area to Tukwila will have few direct impacts on the physical environment. Instead the major impacts will relate to level of services and fiscal responsibilities. The most significant impacts are listed below. * Tukwila's population and land area will increase substantially. The City will almost double in size, adding both a large industrial area and a residential area different in character from what currently exists in the City (ie more low income and elderly residents). The result will be a change in the nature of the service demands placed on the City as well as the response expected from City officials. A change of this magnitude will require the City to both clarify existing policy and establish new policy on issues such as: Sewer and Water Service - relationship with existing purveyors, appropriate levels of service, funding etc. Road Improvements - relationship to existing City standards and conditions, need for new streets, timing of needed improvements, funding etc. 2 Fiscal Impacts - what level fiscal impact created by annexation is acceptable to the City, what approaches will be used to fund needed improvements (general fund, LIDs, bonds), etc. The political process related to such policy decisions as those listed above could be changed with the addition of new interest groups in the City. * Annexation of the Study Area to Tukwila will limit the annexation options of Seattle and Renton, although they may continue to provide some utility services to the area. * There are some properties that are currently divided by the boundary lines of King County and Seattle. This creates some service and tax questions. The annexation as proposed under all alternatives, continues to split these properties. The situation will become more permanent if the annexation is approved. To mitigate this potential impact, the Boundary Review Board if jurisdiction is invoked, could adjust the boundaries of the annexation to ensure that every property is within one jurisdiction. * Police services should improve with annexation. Allentown Park would be developed into a neighborhood park, in accordance with Tukwila's Parks and Open Space Plan. Based on Tukwila's current level of expenditures for infrastructure maintenance, there may be some improvement in this area also. There should be little change in the level of service with other municipal services to the area. * Tukwila will become responsible for utility service in the Allentown area, where sewer and water systems are either nonexistent or inadequate. If improvements are initiated to bring the systems up to code, the fiscal impacts on the residents or the City and its existing rate payers could be significant. To mitigate the potential increases in monthly sewer and water charges to residents, the City has reduced rates to low income, senior, and disabled residents. The impact of charges for capital improvements could be mitigated by the City paying for sewer and water improvements through general funding sources, rather than assessments or increased rates. This would be inconsistent, however, with the City's current practice for funding sewer and water improvements. Potential increases in service costs to the City could be reduced by generating new revenues or developing alternative financing strategies (e.g. general obligation bonds for capital projects). * The increase in Tukwila's population and land area will result in an increased demand for municipal service that will have a significant impact on the City's annual operating costs. To offset these costs, the City will gain additional revenues from the added tax base of the annexation area (e.g. property taxes). 3 Net fiscal impacts on Tukwila for each annexation alternative are summarized below. The fiscal impacts are based on planning cost estimates and do not reflect every cost that would be incurred by the City. Many minor costs, such as membership dues, monthly charges for fire hydrants and so forth, are not reflected in these estimates, but could add another $20,000 to $30,000 in costs. The planning costs provide an estimate of the fiscal impact of annexation on Tukwila; they do not provide a basis for budgeting City expenditures. Expenditure requiremenets can only be determined after actual experience with the annexed area, and must be based on overall City priorities, and various timing considerations related to the phase in of cost responsibilities and revenues. The estimates reflect the impact to the City's general funding sources. For the revenue estimates, the low end of the estimate range is shown. Alternative I Alternative I.A Alternative II Annual O &M ($1,820,000) ($1,820,000) ($1,510,500) Annual Revenues Net Impact $1,893,500 $2,088,000 $1,945,000 $ 73,500 $268,000 $434,500 In addition to the above annual O &M costs, Tukwila will incur capital costs for roads, surface water, parks, water and sewer improvements. These costs have been projected in five -year phases for 20 years (in 1987 dollars). 1987 -1991 1992 -1996 1997 -2001 2002 -2007 Total Estimated Capital Costs Alternative I -IA Alternative II $ 5,435,000 $ 3,460,000 $ 4,060,000 $ 310,000 $13,265,000 $ 5,180,000 $ 3,460,000 $ 4,060,000 $ 320,000 $12,920,000 Some of the above capital costs are more optional than others. For example the estimates for the first five year phase include the cost of retrofitting all sewer and water systems for operation by Tukwila. It is more likely that Tukwila would only make sewer and water improvements where they are needed to improve sub - standard systems. On this basis, Tukwila would incur costs totalling $5,113,000 with Alternative I and IA (2.4 million for water and sewer projects) and $4,760,000 with Alternative II (2.3 million for water and sewer projects) in the first five years after annexation. 2.7 million of the first five year total for Alterntative I and IA and 2.4 million for Alternative II is for roads, surface water and park projects. In recent years, Tukwila has funded such projects through general fund sources and with state, federal, and developer funds designated for road projects. If these capital costs were financed through 20 year bonds, the 4 annual debt service would be about $265,000 for Alternatives I and IA and $235,000 for Alternative II (assuming an average borrowing rate of 7.5 percent). Based on the estimated revenue surpluses (indicated as the net impacts of the annexation alternatives), it would be feasible to finance, from general fund sources, the roads, surface water and parks capital projects for the first five year phase under Alternatives IA and II, but not under Alternative I. Under Alternative II, capital costs for the second five year phase could also be paid from from the "current" revenue surplus. For all alternatives, increases in revenue sources from normal growth (e.g. in sales tax and property tax) would help to support future capital costs. The ability of the area to support future capital costs depends on several factors which cannot be accurately projected for the twenty year period, including revenue growth, financing options, availability of federal and state funding and implementation of local tax options. Water and sewer improvements in Tukwila historically have been funded through utility rates and charges or, in some cases, through ULID assessments. If sewer and water improvements for the annexation area were funded in accordance with past practice, there could be an impact on the City's existing utility customers and on annexation area residents that become City utility customers (e.g. Allentown residents). The City has other options for financing capital costs; these alternatives would have varying impacts. Options include using designated state or federal funding for road improvements, financing surface water improvements through a potential new surface water program, using new revenues from local option taxes that are not currently imposed (e.g. utility tax), and property tax assessments from voter - approved bonds. Another consideration is the impact of annexation on Tukwila municipal facilities. The Tukwila City Hall was constructed in 1978. The facility is already to small to accomodate the space needs of all city departments and Public Works Administration and Engineering staff are located in rented space in a building near City Hall. With the staff needs created by annexation, city facilities will continue to operate beyond capacity. * There will also be fiscal impacts on King County. The annexation area is a small portion of the total land area (.2 percent) and unincorporated population (.34 percent) currently served by King County. Thus, annexation will not have a significant impact on the costs of municipal services provided by the County. There will be some impact on parks maintenance, police staffing for traffic enforcement and on road related maintenance and capital costs. There will be a significant impact on King County revenues, particularly on road district property tax, because of the high assessed valuation of industrial properties in the annexation area. 5 Planning estimates of the fiscal impact on King County Current Expense and Road Funds are summarized below. Annual Annual O & M Revenues Net Impact Saving (Loss) (Loss) /Saving, Current Expense: Alternative I & I.A. $44,000 ($727,000) ($683,000) Alternative II $44,000 ($729,500) ($685,500) Road Fund: Alternative I $109,000 ($617,000) ($508,000) Alternative I.A. $109,000 ($721,000) ($612,000) Alternative II $ 79,000 ($685,000) ($606,000) In addition to the M &O expenses shown above, King County will save $3.4 million in capital costs with each alternative for projects currently in their six year Transportation Capital Improvement Program. The savings will occur over the first six years after annexation. * The King County Rural Library System will experience a significant decrease in revenues upon annexation, given existing agreements. The Library will no longer be able to collect its property tax levy in the annexation area resulting in a loss of over $200,000. The potential impact to the Library District due to lost revenue could be mitigated by negotiating a new agreement with Tukwila. However, a new agreement could increase costs to Tukwila; the estimated fiscal impact of annexation for Tukwila reflects only the current agreement. * There will also be annexation impacts on residents and property owners in the area. Given Tukwila's current property tax rates, residents of the annexation area will experience a slight decrease in property tax rates for general tax purposes. Annexation should increase service levels for residents and businesses, particularly for police protection services. In the Allentown area, water and sewer services could be upgraded because the water system is substandard and the area is unsewered (served by septic tanks). Tukwila could choose to recover the capital costs of sewer and water improvements through assessments or increased rates, in which case there would be a cost impact to area residents and other rate payers in the system. Residents on septic tanks have no sewer charges; if sewers were built, there would be monthly sewer charges and a one time charge for sewer hook ups. There are no City regulations that would require the conversion of septic tanks to sewers or the upgrading of the water system if annexation takes place. If for health reasons or because of the desire of property owners, the systems were upgraded, special rates for low income and /or elderly could be applied by the City to mitigate financial impacts on some 6 residents. The City could also choose to pay for improvements through their general fund or other funding mechanisms. The above summary describes the most significant impacts of the annexation alternatives under consideration for the Fire District #1 annexation proposal. Some minor land use impacts could occur because of differences in the King County and Tukwila codes and regulations. Since the City's intent is to maintain the status quo, these could be easily mitigated through additions or modifications to their regulations. Below are the impacts associated with Alternative III, No Action. * The Cities of Seattle and Renton would be free to pursue annexation of portions of the Study Area. * Because municipalities can better serve highly urbanized areas, the King County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the appropriateness of annexation of areas such as the Study Area. Under the No Action alternative, future annexation of the industrial portions of the Study Area may not be feasible because of the opposition of property owners to past City of Seattle proposals. * If because of health issues, sewer service was necessary to the Allentown area, it would be provided by installing a system and connecting to METRO's Intururban line. Under such circumstances, the cost to effected residents would likely be higher than if the area annexed and sewers were provided through a planned approach by Tukwila. In addition, because the impacted residents would not be within the boundaries of the purveyor providing the service, their influence on decisions would be greatly reduced. * King County would not experience the decrease in net revenues that would occur with the other alternatives, however, they would continue to be responsible for the significant amount of urban level capital improvements needed in the area. Because the County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) must allocate funds to a very large area, the funding of the improvements needed in the Study Area may occur at a slower rate. 7 SCOPE OF FINAL EIS The City of Tukwila has reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIS for the Fire District # 1 Annexation, and has determined that a Final EIS on the proposal need only incorporate an addendum responding to comments, and an updated Fact Sheet. This Final EIS is, therefore, issued under the provisions of the SEPA Rules, WAC 197 -11- 560(5) and WAC 197 -11 -460. 8 February 23, 1988 Department of Planning Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Moira Bradshaw, Project Manager SUBJECT: COMMEUTS ON DEIS - FIRS DISTRICT 01 ANNEXATION Dear Ms. Bradshaw: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed City of Tukwila Fire Diotrict 01 Annexation. Ne respectfully submit the following commente: 1. The proposed zoning designation for Airport ae shown on Figure 9 is unclear. Would there be any zoning restrictions that might limit the continued operation of Boeing Field/Ring County International Airport? 2. Related to the zoning is the need for a restriction on building and st structure heights around the Airport to protect the safe use of the airspace. Ring County Code 21.48.040 Height Regulations Around Major Airports now covers this matter. St 3. We are concerned about the change from the Seattle /King County Noise Control Ordinance to Tukvila's Noise Ordinance as noted on page 66. Obviously, there are spacial issues pertaining to aircraft noise which mast be addressed. 4. We would prefer to continue our procedure to obtain King Countp Building Permits for on- Airport development rather than through Tukvila's permit system as noted on page 69. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, - RING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Donald W. Smith Airport Manager - DWS :pj cc: Paul Tanaka, Deputy Director, Ring County Department of Public Works 9 1. Comments acknowledged. Please see Figure - in the FEIS. The City of Tukwila zoning designation for the King County International Airport will be M -2. The current King County designation is Heavy Manufacturing (MH). The Airport is considered an unclassified use in both the King County and Tukwila zones. The Tukwila Code specifically list criteria to be followed in granting unclassified use permits. The criteria are directed toward protecting the public welfare; ensuring reasonable standards for parking, landscaping, yards etc; maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses and the adopted policies of the City; and generally minimizing the impacts of the development. King County does not list general criteria for review of unclassified uses, but takes into account the same type of issues during permit review. 2 and 3. The King County Code contains several sections specifically related to the Airport: Sections 21.48.040 Height Regulations Around Major Airports which are designed to accommodate the needs of the Airport. As a mitigating measure, Tukwila is proposing new sections to the City Zoning Code duplicating the King County Code sections. The addition will be reviewed as part of the pre- annexation zoning proposal and will require adoption by the Tukwila City Council. The King County Code also contains the following Airport related sections: 12.94.010 and 040 Noise Regulations /Boeing King County International Airport; and 15.12 Boeing /King County International Airport Regulations. Section 12.94.010 actually exempts noise that originates from aircraft in flight and noise that originates from the airport or is directly related to flight operations at the airport. Section 12.94.040 exempts noise from aircraft testing and maintenance during daytime hours. As a mitigating measure, Tukwila could revise its Noise Ordinance in accordance with the current King County regulations. 4. The Washington State RCW 14.08.330 gives King County the exclusive jurisdiction and control for the Airport, its properties and adjacent territories and states that the Airport shall be subject to King County rules and regulations. Therefore, Boeing Field will not be subject to Tukwila's codes or permit process if annexed. 10' 19Y;1 Take Pride in America 14 USA /?A(./ g a,6L.; 0 /2e-h-fAv/ za-4; e>/dd (4/.-ZetA - VeP4P ),1„4.• ;At-1—r L YYL-c' o /) 1 (IL/ -{ ,• ' ,,, ,i. ...r, ,..; ( /Le, !.. -11,1-1 ----) 7-1-A41-. i.,t--e--. i I , • % - . , /..) ,, ___ I -- • I i o I a, /::.1.5iLLKIX.1 eZ2,0-•-••• (t) / C; .. . ...•)j:: (1)-7 7 ' Vija:•11 ''Z./- 11...!2-4 CI ..2-'1. 1_, c , , . .1 7-1 TY\ 1:_ r1. T14-.%"7„/ L it. .274,0 -. II (Lcct-_..ntc-cA_L-YL. 4...L4-4N: '') 1 (....i.‘'. .-; 1 i...-in 0...GU-- P.r. ti-I:v_i__ di .";sLt-vu.ii (..4",. i 7--,! ( ../. (1)..zz'af..,-A-2.4'--rvk ,i1-----e-1 1 4 cr li • , . e. Ti/ 01 /, f , ji_1., .-1vu_ .-/- (..,,,.,,,.)/41z-.„' _;,..z,c4 r i?.17.c, .-)., r• 4.."1 _ 2 t.4 i.r A.• .... .p„ l24-1-4 0. -. ir A, - vec r _1 .... e—rt- — 0---n 0. (1-) .../....i.J.t.i.d L ,.. i--2. ./L.e 4 .,..,,.,',..1 Ctu.., ,4..t ,.... t"---N.0, A- -71i/ (...,. - 0, (w.f. ct, c ta • b i . . 4 „:„. 1:re CI- K.: 4.4 . . / • - ) '11. Me . _ , '.1, , ..St ...k: P 7.1" ,C; 1. The amount of property taxes paid by annexation area residents would not increase upon annexation. Based on 1987 rates, property taxes for general municipal purposes (i.e. Road District, Library System and Fire District) were $3.54 per $1,000 in assessed valuation; comparable taxes for Tukwila residents were $2.88 per $1,000 in assessed valuation. Property tax exemptions for retired citizens with low incomes are provided by state law. (Revised Code of Washington 84.36.381) and are applicable to all property taxes, regardless of the taxing jurisdiction. Therefore, any exemptions currently received would continue upon annexation. 12 March 4, 1988 L. Rick Beeler Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: DEIS FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION TO TUKWILA Dear Mr. Beeler: The document is felt to be well written and complete. Several unaddressed con- cerns however are raised by members of the Fire District No. 1 Annexation Task Force members who have been reviewing the area and annexation issues since October 1987. The Task Force is composed of property owners and representatives of businesses and agencies of the area. 1. Alternatives What are the assessed valuation figures that make exclusion of Sub -area 1 fiscally inequitable as noted on page 9? 2. Land Use The analysis mentions no impacts associated with the garbage incinerator proposed for the Black River Quarry site. The decision on the unclassified use permit would become that of a local jurisdiction versus the decision of the King County Council, a regional body. What would this change in venue mean? 3. Transportation The intersection of 50th Place South and South 129th Street is a non - signalized intersection that is not addressed on page 31. The transition and length of South 129th Street into 50th Place South then into South 124th Street is designated a collector arterial. Heavy flows of truck traffic from the Hub Center as indicated on page 32 must join the flow along the collector arterial at the subject intersection. Eastbound truck traffic heading into the Hub Center are not controlled at this intersection and create hazards to westbound traffic, who have the right -of -way, making the turn onto 124th Street. 4. Other Jurisdictions No mention was made of the various franchises in the annexation area other than City Light. What about telephone, cable TV, natural gas and others who become subject to RCW 35A.14.900., which cancels all existing franchises in the area? 13 Mr. L. Rick Beeler ' March 4, 1988 Page 2 ' 4. (continued) Why does the City not enforce their undergrounding ordinance as is implied ' on page 105? There is the possibility that practice could change anytime in the future and therefore have a significant impact. 5. Summary The actual costs and the potential mitigating costs of annexation are not clearly stated in the summary table on page 3. A table which includes the capital costs and library mitigating costs which would more accurately reflect the net impact. , Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Yours truly, , Pcf Daniel P. Wolf, Chairma Annexation Task Force (20 /MB.DEIS) ' 14 1. Assessed valuation figures for the sub -areas were provided in an Existing Conditions report for the annexation study, but were not duplicated in the DEIS. These figures are provided below: Total 1987 AV ($ thousands) Sub -area 1 (North Industrial) Sub -area 2 (East I -5) Sub -area 3 (Empire Way South) Sub -area 4 (Allentown) $ 375,252.4 $ 8,236.1 $ 15,271.8 $ 69,550.1 2. King County is considering several sites, including the Black River Quarry, for the garbage incinerator project. Tukwila has taken a formal position against the location of the incinerator at the Quarry. If the area annexes, the City will be in a stronger position to eliminate the site from consideration. 3. Comment acknowledged. This intersection was not analyzed because, based on observation, traffic along this collector arterial appeared to be free flowing and the incident of recorded accidents is low. It is agreed that the high volume of eastbound truck traffic making left turns across the flow of westbound traffic could be a hazard. However, a signal at this intersection would restrict the free flow of traffic along the arterial, and does not appear to be warranted based on the total volume of traffic. Currently, there is a flashing yellow light (caution signal) at the intersection. A measure that could be pursued to address concerns, is the installation of center line "buttons" to force trucks to slow down before turning. Traffic volumes, delays, and accidents could also be monitored on a periodic basis by the City Engineering Department, Division of Public Works, to determine if additional actions were warranted. 4. Comments acknowledged. All franchises in the annexation area, except the existing Seattle City Light franchise, will be affected by RCW 35A.14.900. Upon annexation, they will be cancelled and reestablished with the City. The impacts will not be significant, however, as the new franchises will be for a five year period and will contain the same terms and conditions as now exist. Further, there is no reason to assume significant alteration of the franchises by the City after the five year period is ended. The City does follow its policy of undergrounding utility lines. The ordinance stipulates undergrounding of existing lines in the M -1 and M -2 zoning districts. Undergrounding in residential zones is only required on reconstructed or new streets. The majority of the City's commercial/ industrial areas were developed after adoption of the ordinance. As the valley developed, the utility lines were placed underground by the developers. The question of retroactively requiring utilities to pay the cost of undergrounding existing lines, and consequently bearing a high cost, is a legal issue that remains to be formally resolved. The State Court recently (1985) rendered a decision on the City of Bothell's ordinance and the cost question, and determined that the majority of the costs for undergrounding would be born by the City. 15 5. The table on page 3 does not include cost of mitigating measures or capital costs because both of these are affected by policy decisions which have not yet been made. The mitigating measures are optional. As noted on page 5 of the DEIS, the mitigating measure for the library systems could have a significant cost impact on Tukwila (e.g. around $200,000). The table on page 3 of the DEIS presents annual costs and revenues for the City and the narrative discusses capital costs. The annual impact of capital costs depends on financing options chosen by the City, and this is a policy decision which had not yet been made. As noted, L capital projects for the identified roads, surface water and parks are funded from the general fund and !f they are financed through 20 year bonds, the annual 20 year cost would be about $235,000 to $265,000. 16 T ' Mc' cL Carr `3i ac6ha Lo Fibm ' Mr. et irks. M. P bu h lc..h Jr. bate' March ItiEe suhjet b . L .1..S S. Rc,��,�s� We_ be. I • +he, st.. -my\ r'`� cr•nkatn�✓�� 6L)* 41:5 oft\ iiJhc Q r 110+i-f-; cot io )OWOL1/4CJ h 1 j Liot..kr PrOces.s. TJ►2. p repo :Je d t 716 hbori o ' h�•,�����; r -- an 0.3 44/) 5er /IGe.S -Car 4i) +') Current �erVtce, Y,�e� -ks b`l hir cc +he. d ,scr ;Pi-;on eve_. .,; (ed ;-s,tteceAk\ 'Je_ c�Ct�Gn s iNculd 1no.v e. beer the t� e. (S. mE ei-i1 ) Fe.b. 14 k. �,�>Id r�ct c� +tend c1/41-ec•. And C1 ` ,, �o��n�, \ \� bel�eV&A � • tJ..L. or v ;;ntc�Qa �s h more. w�. �a� t•�v �. I t oc.r .�n re s pon sue. -pct -4 4_)4 _ a \4ZxtNedrl t1e.- uc:i-lat1S 2 Qr� f11kc.; <‘„� ±,im I \c. {col, ccliecno,4%vt�, i 1OyN u)t1\ o1p�+c� cot' 4\ cOWc) kL nc) 1 J RQ1 r\;,(- \t, t _ t t 1Ck C C' � � c, � C 11 ). ;( 19, La 1"Z._ f* ovt c PS Ice dQp+. ) oct.c.19uc,;1c. < -e (irks. 1•)‘...1 c, -:■ire, dQp . `t' e:( n OIrC , . 1)(-c (: u' ■ ) Iea`.>Ci of, \ profs n,Q.\ We. sev feCarc't(NI a) uke. pre en4ki ate_ tAJo,,Jd u11'I . come, ne`nslblP Ater and +n- 1'lo . -25 ouor u,)c e c' ,5e-ry c:e... ? 1 2 • .6) WV.. bdituC uAt,ucLv,,I',ha z.Yk'y vet u.)0 %.k1(.1 1)Q. Ct4.«ka o. \-ker uc.A4on pro fc 1 . Thi5 proP050\ cueo, An j�lo.(1C) oC rS r1c, Cu t1/41)1(...\ 1_> itJt,.li'tX \Ott SCR le.., Rooloc 3 and uk ' Ic` . f�nown u-'z- w � I I CI Tit for L e+ ,'f b� #3 the no ac +icn PP' , ccs.lhvzx.. 4 hay. Glkicr .+'ve i 4 1. Notice of the February 18, 1988, public hearing and the availability of the DEIS was mailed to the Fire District # 1 mailing list of all property owners businesses and people who indicated an interest in the proposal. 2. Comments acknowledged. 3. Under Alternative II, the Rainier View Community (East I -5 - Sub -area 2), would remain in unincorporated King County. Police service would continue to be provided by the King County Sheriff. Water service to the northern two thirds of the area is currently provided by the City of Seattle. This situation would not change. The southern portion of Sub- area 2 is within the boundaries of Water District * 25. Since under Alternative II Tukwila will become responsible for the District's service area they could either extend their service to this area or contract with the City of Seattle for the service. The service option selected will depend on the recommendations of the Skyway Critical Water Supply Study. 4. The City of Tukwila has presented alternatives in the DEIS only to provide options for review by the residents, Tukwila officials, and the Boundary Review Board. Although the alternatives represent logical options given the land characteristics and uses, physical barriers, service conditions, and adopted plans of other jurisdictions, they are not meant to limit the actions of the decisionmakers. In fact, the analysis has been completed by sub -area so other combinations can be considered. More specifically, Alternative II could be modified to include the East I -5 or Sub -area 2 in the annexation area, which would be an acceptable option to the City. The final decision on the area to annex will be made by the Boundary Review Board. It is acknowledged that Alternative II, as presented in the DEIS will result in an "island" of unincorporated King County surrounded on all sides by Tukwila and Seattle. 19 William J. Mackay 525 Lake Louise Drive Southwest Tacoma, WA 98498 March 3, 1988 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Draft environmental impact statement for annexation of King County Fire District Number 1 (DEIS) Objection to Alternative II Dear Ms. Bradshaw: I write to object to consideration by the City of Tukwila of Alternative II in the Fire District Number 1 annexation study area. Specifically, I strongly object to the exclusion of Rainier View from the proposed annexation area. I do not believe that the City of Tukwila has been behaving in a forthright manner by presenting this proposed alternative for the first time, after a series of public meetings made no mention of this alternative. I own a residence in Rainier View, part of King County Fire District Number 1. My business requires that I rent a home south of Tacoma, on a temporary basis. At some point, I expect to reside in my house in Rainier View. I support the annexation of Fire District Number 1 to the City of Tukwila, as originally presented (Alternative I). I have no particular objection to Alternative IA. If Alternative III (no action) is followed, so be it. I would prefer to be a part of the City of Tukwila. However, even the 'no- action' proposal of Alternative III is much preferable to the selective land grab of Alternative II, for the reasons that follow: Adoption of Alternative II would have devastating impact upon Rainier View. We are already surrounded on three sides by Seattle. Alternative II would cut us off from King County on the fourth side; a face -off with another municipality. In terms of police and fire protection, we would be rendered an island in a sea of municipalities, with King County left far removed. King County would be foolish to expend any significant amounts of resources to maintain fire protection within a reasonably close range; to say nothing of wasting police cruiser units in an area that would require large amounts of travel time crossing over through either Seattle or Tukwila, areas in which their time and 20 . observations would be legally useless. Alternative II would effectively strip Rainier View of any meaningful police and fire protection. To provide any level of police and fire services will result in an enormous financial drain to King County. I understand that Water District Number 25 has indicated a desire to be relieved of its responsibilities by the City of Tukwila. This would not be accomplished under Alternative II, as Water District Number 25 serves my house. I have done my best to keep current on the proposed annexation. Knowing that I would be out of state during the February 18, 1988 public hearing on the DEIS, I did take the precaution of calling City Hall prior to my departure, to make sure that Rainier View was still included in the proposed annexation. As I was not able to reach you, I spoke to L. Rick Beeler by telephone on February 8. Mr. Beeler assured me that no areas had been deleted from the proposed annexation. Upon my return last week, a neighbor dropped off a copy of a six -page handout entitled Summary: Description of the Proposed and Alternative Actions, that he had received at the February 18th public meeting. This was the first I had heard of "Alternative II ". I have not yet had an opportunity to review the complete DEIS. However, it is quite obvious from the Summary that Alternative II would maximize the gain in tax base from select portions of Fire District Number 1 that are included, while minimizing the tax liabilities by excluding portions; specifically, Rainier View. This belated exclusion of Rainier View even presented as a "proposal ", is a cheap shot. Why was "Alternative II" never mentioned during the public meetings in Fire District Number 1 designed to generate grassroots support for the proposed annexation? While Alternative IA, expanding rather than restricting from Fire District Number. 1, makes sense in not leaving a pocket of unincorporated King. County isolated between the municipalities of Seattle, Renton and Tukwila; Alternative II can only be seen as a machiavellian effort to cut out those residents of Rainier View, after they have decided to support Tukwila's proposal for annexation. Alternative II has an extremely negative impact on both King County and residents of Rainier View, in terms of revenue, police and fire protection respectively. Unless Alternative II is dropped from consideration, I will vociferously oppose any annexation whatsoever. Thank you for your consideration of these DEIS comments. WILLIAM J. MACKAY 21 1. Comments acknowledged. Please refer to the response to the issues raised in the Mr. and Mrs. Dukich, Jr letter. 22 Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March 7, 1988 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 SUBJECT: FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATION DEIS Dear Mr. Beeler: The City of Renton has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of King County Fire District #1. We support Tukwila's annexation of Alternative II due to its consistency with both the Renton - Tukwila Boundary Line Adjustment and the Washington State Boundary Review Board's guidelines as set forth in RCW 36.93.180. It is our understanding, based on recent discussions between the two cities, that Tukwila is equally supportive of Alternative II. We are also of the understanding that Tukwila recognizes that the residual area left by the annexation of this alternative is within Renton's potential annexation and municipal service areas. As such, we have several concerns regarding the adequacy of the information contained in the DEIS in regards to Alternative II. Approval of Alternative II would enable Tukwila to annex that portion of Fire District #1 lying west of the BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad right -of -way. The industrial and multi - family areas west of Empire Way South are excluded because these areas represent "a logical extension of the City of Renton as recognized by the Renton - Tukwila Boundary Line Adjustment agreement" (page 8 of the DEIS). The DEIS indicates that the residual portion of the district lying east of the right -of -way will remain in unincorporated King County and that Tukwila will provide limited services to this area on a contractual basis. The DEIS does not explore the logical and preferable alternative of Renton providing services to this area or the possibility of this area annexing to the City of Renton. As such, the City of Renton requests that the following information be added to the EIS in order to provide decision- makers with the appropriate information necessary to ensure that the annexation boundaries are logical and cost - effective: 23 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2552 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Fire District #1 Annexation DEIS March 7, 1988 Page 2 City of Renton's Comprehensive Land Use Policies and Zoning Cate¢ories The DEIS should include a discussion of the City of Renton's land use and zoning regulations which would be applicable to the residual area upon its possible annexation to the City of Renton. Currently, the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the residual area as a combination of Greenbelt, Medium Density Multiple - Family, and Heavy Industry. The City of Renton's Administration recognizes that these designations are no longer the most appropriate for this area, and we are committed to amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to indicate a combination of Greenbelt, Medium Density Multiple - Family, and Office Park. These comprehensive plan designations and corresponding zoning categories are as follows: Greenbelt An area intended for open space, recreation, very low density residential uses, agriculture or other compatible low intensity uses. Greenbelt areas are characterized by severe topographic, groundwater, slope instability, soil or other physical limitations that make the area unsuitable for intensive development. Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential An area intended for medium scale multiple - family residential uses, such as apartments, townhouses and condominiums, ranging in density from 12 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. R -3 Medium Density Multiple- Family Residential Zone Principal uses include single- and multi - family dwellings up to 25 units per net acre. Office Park An area intended for a broad range of commercial, professional or administrative offices. Office park developments should be situated in a park -like or campus setting and should be characterized by a high degree of architectural compatibility with their sites, major setbacks from public streets and adjacent uses, a minimum of 20% of the site in landscaped open space, and integration of significant natural elements into the site's design. O -P Office Park Zone Principal uses include administrative and professional offices, medical and dental offices and clinics, financial offices, businesses and professional services, research and development, manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing and storage. Transportation (Oakesdale Avenue SW) The DEIS makes no mention of the City of Renton's efforts to extend Oakesdale Avenue SW north to State Route 900 in the residual area of Alternative II. The City of Renton has made a substantial financial commitment to upgrade this roadway to the standards of a major arterial, and we expect that this transportation corridor will become an important north -south "gateway" to the City of Renton. 24 3 Mr. L. Rick Beeler Fire District #1 Annexation DEIS March 7, 1988 Page 3 Public Services The DEIS does not discuss the possibility of the City of Renton providing sewer, water and fire protection services to the residual area. Renton is able to provide these services in a more logical and cost effective manner due to the physical barrier created by the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. The DEIS should include an analysis of the City of Renton's costs to provide these services to the residual area upon its possible annexation by the City of Renton. In addition, the DEIS should include a discussion of the possibility of Renton providing fire protection services in the residual area until such time as the subject area is annexed by Renton. In conclusion, the City of Renton is supportive of Tukwila's annexation of Alternative II, and we ask that the above information be included in the final environmental impact statement. We reaffirm our commitment to proceed with drafting an interlocal agreement addressing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning designations, joint developmental review between the two cities in the residual area, transportation and utility facilities, and the provision of public services in the residual area upon the possible annexation of the area by Renton. In addition, the City of Renton recommends that the interlocal agreement include a provision indicating that the cities of Renton and Tukwila will jointly request the King County Boundary Review Board to approve Tukwila's annexation of the property encompassed by Alternative II. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Earl Clymer t` Mayor ct:dsk3a:fd I -2 25 1. Comment noted, please see following comments. 2. Alternative II as described on page 8 of the DEIS assumes all of the Empire Way South area (Sub -area 3) would remain in unincorporated King County with the strong possibility of its annexation to the City of Renton. This includes the industrial and multi - family areas west of Empire Way South to the current Tukwila city limits. See Figure 5 in the DEIS for a graphic description of Alternative II. Page 82 of the DEIS identifies the sewer service providers in the Empire Way South area and the properties currently served by septic systems. The DEIS assumes that if sewer service was extended into the area currently on septic systems such service would best be provided by the City of Renton. 3. Page 18 of the DEIS recognizes the land use designations applied by the Renton Comprehensive Plan to the portion of the Empire Way South area south of South 133rd. The Greenbelt designation may be labeled incorrectly as it is called Open Space in the DEIS. The appropriateness of the Renton designations are not examined in the DEIS nor is the Office Park designation included as it is not formally adopted as part of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The DEIS assumes that an annexation proposal by Renton would examine in detail the impact of changes to the City's land use designations for the Empire Way South area. Such an impact analysis is outside the scope of this EIS. 4. The Oaksdale Avenue extension will connect to SR 900 in the southeastern portion of the Empire Way South area. 5. As noted in 2 above, the DEIS recognizes that Renton currently provides sewer service to a portion of the Empire Way South area. It also assumes that if sewer service replaced septic systems, such service would be provided by Renton. The discussion on page 54 of the DEIS states that under Alternative II the Empire Way South area would receive fire protection services through a contract with Tukwila. This assumes that the area is in unincorporated King County. It should be noted that if the area were to annex to Renton, the fire service would logically be provided by Renton, and that it would also be feasible for the area to contract with Renton for fire services prior to annexation. Similarly, in the case of water service it is assumed if Alternative II was adopted, and the Empire Way South area was eventually annexed to Renton, service by Renton would be appropriate. Service by Renton could also be appropriate while the area remained in unincorporated King County. This approach is consistent with the conclusions evolving in the Skyway Critical Water Supply Study. The service and fiscal impacts of the annexation of the Empire Way South area to the City of Renton are outside the scope of this EIS and would require further study at the time such an annexation proposal was under 26 consideration. Because the analysis in the DEIS was completed by sub- area, a very general understanding of the costs of providing service to the Empire Way South area can be gained by reviewing the tables at the end of each chapter. It should be noted, however, that these estimates are for planning purposes only and are based on City of Tukwila rather than Renton assumptions and standards. A more detailed analysis would be required as part of an annexation proposal by the City of Renton. 6. Comments acknowledged. The City of Tukwila intends to work with the City of Renton to develop an interlocal agreement acceptable to both jurisdictions. 27 METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 March 4, 1988 Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Draft Environmental Impact Draft File Name: Fire District #1 Annexation City of Tukwila Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities. Please be advised that some of the information provided in the description of existing sewer facilities provided on page 80 is not clear. The following information is provided to clarify the status of referenced Metro facilities in the area. 1. Both of the referenced 42 inch lines belong to Metro. Currently the lines are tributary to Metro's West Point Sewage Treatment Plant. Flows south of Norfolk Street may be directed to the Renton Plant in the future. 2. Metro's twin 12 inch sludge force mains are being deactivated. 3. The facility described in the last sentence of the first paragraph is apparently the effluent transfer system which is not tributary to the West Point plant or related to the sewers in the area. Upon annexation of Fire District #1, the City of Tukwila is proposing to provide sewer services to the Allentown residential area which is currently unsewered. Discussion of the preliminary design of the system which would be needed indicates that the flows will be conveyed to existing Metro facilities. Future clarification will be needed regarding which Metro facilities will receive the flow and the quantity and quality of 28 M. Bradshaw March 4, 1988 Page Two the wastewater. Under the secondary treatment program which Metro is developing, wastewater flows from the service area currently served by the Alki Treatment Plant, or an equivalent amount of flow from the Duwamish Valley will be rerouted to the Renton Treatment Plant to receive secondary treatment. Although the specifics of this aspect of the secondary program have yet to be finalized, development of the sewering plans for the Allentown residential area should be coordinated with relevant portions of Metro's secondary treatment program. Flows within a portion of the study area are currently conveyed to Metro's West Point Treatment Plant. Metro has been ordered by the State Department of Ecology to upgrade its Puget Sound treatment plants to a secondary level of treatment. Unless compliance with this requirement is achieved in a timely fashion enforcement actions could be taken which could include a sewer connection and reconnection ban. With reference to the discussion of general impacts on page 53, please note that Metro would most likely not continue the service contract once the South Base Annex became part of Tukwila. This would mean a loss of revenue for fire service. Public Transportation The area encompassed by the proposed annexation has been experiencing significant development of concern to Metro with regard to traffic and transportation impacts. Within the current project review process involving King County, several new development projects, including the Oxbow Corporate Park and the East Marginal Corporate Park, have been conditioned to require development and implementation of transportation management programs. The Bedford Manufacturing Park development is currently under review and may also be conditioned with measures to control traffic generation impacts. Metro has not consistently received timely information and environmental review documents from the City of Tukwila regarding new developments within its jurisdiction. Additionally, Tukwila has not always been receptive to transportation management conditions suggested by Metro for proposed developments within the City. Metro would like to implement a project review process 29 M. Bradshaw March 4, 1988 Page Three with Tukwila which is more responsive to Metro's concerns with respect to the conditioning of development proposals to mitigate potential adverse traffic impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:plg 30 1. Comments acknowledged. 2. It should be noted that upon annexation the Allentown residential area will be within the Tukwila sewer service area. The City does not intend, however, to install a sewer system in the area unless sewers are desired by residents or there is a health hazard identified by the Seattle King County Health Department. If sewers were installed, further analysis of their impact on METRO facilities would be necessary. 3. Comments acknowledged. 4. The METRO fire services contract is required under RCW 52.30.020 as payment in lieu of taxes to the fire district and provides about $12,000 in revenue per year. This requirement will not apply if the area is annexed; Metro will not be obliged to pay for fire services, and the City will lose this amount of revenue. This loss is not reflected in the revenue estimate for Tukwila. 5. It is acknowledged that there is a great deal of private development going on in the annexation area that requires review by METRO. Upon annexation, the City of Tukwila will initiate a procedure with METRO that results in a satisfactory review process for both jurisdictions. 31 Your Seattle Lit. Light Randall W. Hardy, Superintendent Charles Royer, Mayor. March 4, 1988 Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Manager Department of Planning Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, WA 98188 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Fire District #1 Annexation (5:4 Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Seattle City Light staff have reviewed the above referenced document and have the following comments: o We are concerned about impacts to City Light's franchise in the proposed annexation area. On page 105, the DEIS states that there appear to be two interpretations of this impact; "either the franchise for that area would be reinstated for a period of five years with Tukwila, or the existing franchise with Tukwila would extend to the newly annexed area." We feel that these two options do not adequately describe City Light's options in this case. RCW 35A.14.900 states that where new territory is added to a city, a franchise holder has the right to extend its operation into such territory under the terms and conditions of its existing city franchise. Since City Light already holds a franchise to operate over all streets and public places, "now or hereafter existing in Tukwila ", it follows that City Light may continue to operate in annexed territory under the terms and conditions of its existing Tukwila franchise. o We are also concerned about the interpretation of the Tukwila Ordinance 486 and its impact on City Light in this annexation proposal. Ordinance 486 requires, with some exceptions, the undergrounding of existing overhead wiring and new wiring of less than 110kV. Ordinance 468 further states that the cost of this undergrounding is to be borne by the serving utility. It is our opinion that the provisions of Section 20 of the Seattle franchise (Tukwila Ordinance 262) make ordinance 468 invalid as it pertains to the Seattle franchise. Section 20 states that "electric rate schedules of the grantee provided in present and future ordinances of the City of Seattle "An Equal Employment Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" City of Seattle - City Light Department, City Light Building, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 625 -3000 32 Moira Carr Bradshaw Page 2 March 4, 1988 shall apply to consumers of electric energy in the town ". Seattle ordinance 112738, enacted in 1986, provides that all customers receiving the conversion of an existing overhead electrical system to an underground system shall reimburse the utility for materials and labor costs (in excess of the salvage value of the existing overhead system), required for conversion from 4 -6kV, to underground, and /or to replace or install street lights. Legal support for the provisions of Section 20 of the Seattle franchise can be found in a 1966 State Supreme Court decision, which stated that "franchises, whether statutory or by ordinance, have the legal status of the contracts." The decision further stated that if an ordinance prohibited the rights granted in the franchise, it constituted an unconstitutional and void impairment of the franchise and was held to be of "no force and effect ". Seattle City Light therefore maintains that under Section 20 of the Seattle franchise, the City of Tukwila, or any other applicant or customer in the City of Tukwila, who requests a conversion from an overhead to an underground is required to pay all costs in making the requested conversion. For new electrical lines, Seattle City Light's standard practice has been to install overhead electrical lines, or to have the customer pay cost differential for new installation of underground lines. The DEIS states that "Tukwila's practice has been ... to require the utility purveyor to pay for undergrounding of lines in newly platted streets where there currently exists no electrical lines." The economic impact to Seattle City Light ratepayers if the utility bears the cost of undergrounding new lines in this proposed annexation should be more fully addressed in the DEIS. Requiring ratepayers throughout the service area to pay for underground new lines in one area raises equity issues. o We also note that there is no discussion of energy impacts in this DEIS. Even if such impacts are expected to be minimal, the DEIS should include a statement to that effect and supporting discussion. One area of potential energy impacts concerns different development options. Since several jurisdictions are involved under the various alternatives, development options may involve different zoning controls. Zoning provisions which allow greater density, or which allow industrial use, may clearly result in considerably more intensive energy use for An Equal Employment Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" City of Seattle - City Light Department, City Light Building, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 625 -3000 33 Moira Carr Bradshaw Page 3 March 4, 1988 construction, operations, water /sewer pumping, etc. We suggest that a revised energy section include some discussion related to this issue. o Page 105 of the DEIS refers to "Ordinance 13.08" which is in fact not an ordinance number but a code section. As previously mentioned, the undergrounding ordinance number is 486. Line 4 of paragraph 3 on page 105, should state "transmission lines of 110kV or more." Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this DEIS. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Lynn Helbrecht of my staff at 684 -3799. Sincerely, Lynn Davison, Director Environmental Affairs Division LH:er An Equal Employment Opportunity - Affirmative Action Employer" City of Seattle - City Light Department, City Light Building, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 625 -3000 34 1. Comments acknowledged. Tukwila agrees with the interpretation that City Light's franchise provisions would extend to the annexation area. 2. Tukwila's ordinance, Tukwila's practice and City Light /Seattle's ordinance differ regarding who pays for undergrounding. The interpretation of which jurisdiction's ordinance is applicable may be a legal question. As indicated in the DEIS, a possible mitigating measure would be for Tukwila to revise its undergrounding ordinance to more closely reflect current practice and to develop provisions that are mutually acceptable to City Light and Tukwila. Tukwila could consider such revisions, as the ordinance may not meet the assumption for under which it was originally implemented, i.e. to increase safety, reduce maintenance costs and improve aesthetics, and because it results in excessive construction costs. These interpretations would be the subject of a new study and any ordinance revisions will require public review and City Council adoption. 3. The DEIS should state that in practice the undergrounding costs in new lines along new streets is paid by the developer (e.g. for digging and covering up the trenches for utility lines). If City Light had to pay for undergrounding under existing Tukwila practices, it would do so for provision of electrical line of less than 110kv. Since the annexation area is substantially developed with few undeveloped streets, it is not feasible to estimate the potential economic impact on City Light - -under existing conditions there would be no impact. 4. SEPA intends that only those elements of the environment impacted by a proposal be studied. In this case, the proposed annexation will not result in future land use changes. More specifically, Tukwila intends to adopt land use designations and zoning for the annexation area similar to that applied by King County. The only impacts will be minor differences in the code requirements of the two jurisdictions. These differences are not expected to result in impacts on energy usage by existing or future land uses in the area. 5. Correction noted. 35 ROBERT R. MACKIN• MICHAEL R. SORENSEN ALAN J. PEIZER THOMAS G. RICHARDS BRUCE N. EDWARDS •ALSO MEMBER OF MAW... BAR LAW OFFICES OF MACKIN, SORENSEN, PEIZER, RICHARDS 8c EDWARDS, P.S. 1301 AETNA PLAZA 2201 - 6TH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121.1832 City of Tukwila 5200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTENTION: Moria Carr Bradshaw March 4, 1988 TELEPHONE (2061 728.8800 Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mrs. Bradshaw: This will confirm in writing my testimony at the February 18, 1988 hearing. I represent McConkey Development Company owner of a group of buildings in the area of 11000 East Marginal Way South. As stated earlier, I am also authorized to speak for several other owners in that immediate area. We take exception to the following paragraph on page one of the Statement: Land use patterns are established in the area and should not change with annexation. As such, Tukwila's proposed Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations are consistent with those currently in place under the authority of King County. Consequently, annexation will result in minimal impact to the area's physical environment and character. (Emphasis supplied) In the event of annexation, the businesses I am referring to would fall into the "M -2 District - Heavy Industry whereas they are now in the "M -H Heavy Manufacturing Classification" in King County. Without knowing all or intending to presently cover all inconsistencies, the following are examples wherein Tukwila's current M -2 zoning is inconsistent with the M -H zoning currently in place in King County: Tukwila's ordinance Section 18.52.010 provides for a 15 foot front yard landscaping requirement in M -2 zone district with no provision for modification other than by Variance. King County's comparable front yard landscaping requirement for M -H zone is 8 feet under 21.51.030 B -2 which can be reduced to 4 feet under appropriate circumstances pursuant to 21.51.050(3). A 15 foot front yard landscaping requirement would not only be inconsistent with current King County zoning, but would make it essentially impossible for many of the property owners, to which I am referring to operate their businesses which are heavily dependent on truck and truck trailer usage. 36 City of Tukwila March 4, 1988 Page 2 A second example is that both truck terminals (18.42(4)) and auto towing and storage businesses (see zoning comparison material distributed by Tukwila) are conditional uses. Both these uses are acceptable uses in the M -H zone of King County. It is significant that King County Code 21.36.010 covering " purpose of classification" makes reference to "warehousing and heavy trucking ". The necessity of applying for, and perhaps not even obtaining, uses of this kind obviously reflect inconsistency between Tukwila and King County zoning. I raise these issues without being informed of any "proposed" changes to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. I suggest that if changes are proposed the affected business communities be given opportunity to provide their views and experiences in order to effect amendments. Finally, from the thorough comments of Mr. Wilkinson at the hearing, it appears that the annexation review panel is serving a valuable purpose. However, I am concerned that this panel is made up predominately from the large businesses and the residential community of the proposed areas. I believe the potential problems of the important small businesses segment of the proposed annexation area should be addressed as well. Very truly yours, MACKIN, SORENSEN, PEIZER, RICHARDS & EDWARDS, P.S. RRM:dm /5148N cc: Fred McConkey Bob McConkey 422rr61 1 Ro ert R. Mackin 37 2 1. The difference in the landscape requirements of the King County and Tukwila zones are acknowledged. The King County Code requires an 8 ft rather than a 15 ft (Tukwila Code) landscape area along arterial and local access streets. The County Code allows a reduction in the requirement under very specific circumstances related to building location, incorporation of berms or other architectural barriers in the landscape plan, percentage of the landscaping on the site, physical site conditions which restrict the feasibility of landscaping, and size of the lot. It should be noted that the Tukwila landscape requirements will not be enforced retroactively on existing businesses if annexation occurs. They will, however, be required of new development. It should also be noted that, although the City Code requires a 15 ft landscaped front yard, the area does not have to be a contiguous strip. In other words, areas along the street frontage and areas along building fronts are both included in the calculation regardless of whether they are one piece. 2. As a mitigating measure, Tukwila is considering revising the City Zoning Code to allow truck terminals as a use allowed outright in M -2 zones. The change will be reviewed as part of the pre- annexation zoning proposal and will require adoption by the City Council. 38 King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks. Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206)344 -7610 March 7, 1988 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Manager Department of Planning Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, WA 98188 co ir.'I';`' .1 15, 0 1, :N ii DEPT. RE: City of Tukwila Proposed Annexation, Fire District No. 1, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation of Fire District No. 1. We recommend that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) address the following issues. Proposal Should Comply with King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) Annexation Policies PI -304 King County and its cities should work together to identify future annexation areas. Interlocal agreements should be used to ensure consistent land use policies and public improvement standards within agreed -upon annexation areas. This process should provide extensive opportunities for participation by affected residents, landowners and affected governmental agencies. No interlocal agreement exists between Seattle, Renton, Tukwila, and King County to address this policy. The FE1S should address this fact, and outline how public and agency participation and resolution of issues will be solicited. The FEIS should also identify any unincorporated islands that would be created by the proposed action and properties that would be divided and served by separate jurisdictions. PI -305 In identified future annexation areas, cities should be able to extend services prior to annexation. Pages 80 -91 of the DEIS discuss the provision of water and sewer service to the proposed annexation area. The DEIS identifies areas served by other jurisdictions and discusses "service options ". Generally, these options are either to continue service from the existing purveyor or have the City of Tukwila assume all or part of the service responsibility for the annexed area. .39 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw March 7, 1988 Page 2 The FEIS should identify all portions of the annexation area now served by Tukwila. Additional areas not served, but approved for service in Tukwila's water or sewer utility comprehensive plan, should also be identified. The FEIS should explain why all remaining areas not planned for service by Tukwila are included in this proposal and how annexation of these areas would comply with KCCP policy PI -305. A fiscal analysis should be included in the FEIS that measures the cost and feasibility of providing water and sewer service to the entire annexation area. The FEIS should also assess the cost impacts of each alternative on the current annual operating budget of the city. Can Tukwila maintain the current level of services for existing residents while providing urban services to all of the expansion area? Environmental Protection Should Be Assured Pages 20 and 21 of the DEIS state, "Tukwila uses the environmental review process (SEPA) to apply conditions that implement their policies. Under these conditions, annexation may reduce predictability for the private sector in the development process and the consistency by which environmental policies are applied. It may also reduce the amount and severity of devel4ment conditions and increase the potential for development in environmentally sensitive areas." Portions of the proposed annexation area are identified in the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio as having Class III Seismic Hazards. E -308 In areas with severe seismic hazards, special building design and construction measures should be used to minimize the risk of structural damage, fire and injury to occupants, and to prevent post- seismic collapse. The FEIS should clarify Tukwila's ability under their existing regulations to design and apply such standards. I have also attached comments from the Roads, Surface Water Management, and Airport Divisions of the Department of Public Works. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. If you have any questions, please call Carol Chan at 587 -4682. Sincerely, ;James Tracy Deputy Director' JT:CC:mg CP041 /HI /4 cc: Lois Schwennesen, Manager, Planning and Community Development Division ATTN: Craig Larsen, Chief, Community Planning Section Carol Chan, Community Planner Jim Reid, Interlocal Project Manager Bryan Glynn, Manager, Building and Land Development Division ATTN: Ralph Colby, SEPA Coordinator 40 1. Tukwila has an ongoing relationship with the City of Renton and has been working with Renton on issues related to "potential annexation areas ". Pages 15 and 18 of the DEIS refer to the Renton Comprehensive Plan designations for the Empire Way South Sub -area. Alternative II does not include the Sub -area in the Tukwila annexation, in order to provide the option for the area to be annexed by Renton. PI -304 establishes the need for a long -term working relationship between King County and suburban cities. Tukwila and King County are in the initial stages of developing an interlocal agreement that would address such a relationship. The schedule of the annexation proposal is ahead of the City and County effort because it is dictated by the submittal of the petition by residents living in the area desiring annexation. In light of the annexation petition, the interlocal agreement effort should be pursued by the City and County in a timely manner as a means of identifying concerns and joint actions in the annexation area. Tukwila is not currently involved in any effort with the City of Seattle to initiate an interlocal agreement. Such an effort could be pursued to address issues and joint actions in the North Industrial Sub -area. 2. Page 2 of the DEIS notes that some properties are currently split by the boundaries of King County and Seattle. The annexation as proposed under each alternative continues to split these properties. As indicated on page 23 of the DEIS, the situation would likely become permanent once the properties were annexed. The information submitted to the Boundary Review Board (BRB) by the City will include assessors maps with the split properties shown. The BRB could rectify the situation by removing the properties from the annexation thereby leaving them in unincorporated King County encouraging an annexation action by the City of Seattle. In addition to the split properties, issues about "unincorporated islands" are raised by the annexation. Figure 3 of the DEIS depicts Alternative I which is based on Fire District # 1 boundaries. Because of the boundary configurations of the District, this Alternative would result in "islands" of unincorporated King County. Alternatives IA and II (figures 4 and 5) eliminate these "islands ". 3. Both Tukwila's Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans include a Tukwila service area consistent with the city limits. The Plans indicate that the service areas could expand as annexation occurs, but suggest that annexed areas might also be served by existing purveyors. In the case of water service, the shared service concept is supported by the efforts currently underway through the Skyway Coordinated Water Supply Plan. As indicated in the DEIS, Tukwila currently provides water service to a few properties outside of their service area in Sub -area 3 from their line 41 running northeast to the City of Seattle Cedar River pipeline. (figure 20, DEIS). Burlington Northern (Sub -area 4) operates a private lift which pumps sewage across the Duwamish into the Tukwila system. The DEIS assumes that the current level of service to existing Tukwila utility customers will be maintained, regardless of additions to the City's service area. What could change for existing customers, is the rate they pay for such service. Tables 14 and 15 show the costs of constructing and maintaining sewer and water facilities throughout the annexation area. Some water facility costs are shown as Optional which is defined as the costs necessary to retrofit an existing system should Tukwila assume responsibility for service in an area currently adequately served by another purveyor. 4. It is acknowledged that portions of the annexation area are designated as Class III Seismic Hazards by the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio. Tukwila ensures adequate design and construction in such areas through its application of the Uniform Building Code. 42 King County Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director 900 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-2517 March 7, 1938 TO: Jim Tracy, Deputy Director Deparent of Parks, Planning and Resources At/ FM: `y Adams, Intergovernmental Coordinator epartment of Public Works RE: Fire District #1 Annexiation, DEIS The Department of Public Works has reviewed the subject uEIS. The enclosed comments are for your information and inclusion with the countywide response to the City of Tukwila. A0 -4371( If you have any questions, please call me at 344 -4051. cc: Paul Tanaka, Deputy Director, Department of Public Works 43 King County Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director 900 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2517 March 3, 1988 TO: Sandy 4a.'s J Program Analyst FM: Lou ��� H. , P.E., County Road Engineer RE: Fire District Number 1 Annexation, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Roads Division has the following comments: 0 The Roads Division is particularly concerned about the area not included in the proposed annexation north of Director Street. If the annexation takes place with the proposed boundaries, it will be an isolated service island of unincorporated county area surrounded by the cities of Seattle and Tukwila. Maintenance and operation of the abbreviated road system would remain county responsibility and would necessitate access by county crews through the two cities. It is doubtful that this situation would be in the best interest of the general public. It would also be contrary to Item 8 of RCW 35.13.173, which calls for "the elimination of isolated unincorporated areas existing without ade- quate economical governmental services." Inclusion of this potential island of unincorporated King County in the annexation proposal is further supported by statute in RCW 36.93.180 as follows: 1) PRESERVATION OF NATURAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES: The pattern of growth and development in this vicinity is similar to those areas south of Director Street, which are included in the annexation pro- posal. The area easterly of the Duwamish are industrial in nature and are linked by the common corridor of East Marginal Way South. To exclude one portion of this industrial area while including others would defeat the objective consistent comprehensive land use . plan. 2) USE OF PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES: Although the annexation as- submitted in part uses physical boundaries, it would also create boundaries based upon property lines. The proposed annexation could readily be modified to use more physical boundaries or established city boun- daries such as existing Seattle city limits in lieu of the proposed property lines. 44 Sandy Adams March 3, 1988 Page Two 3) CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF LOGICAL SERVICES AREAS: Topography, existing service patterns, circulation patterns and community iden- tity indicate that all properties along East Marginal Way South are intrinsically related. 4) PREVENTION OF ABNORMALLY IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES: The boundary as pro- posed would leave King County responsible for maintenance and opera- tion of 1,700 feet of 16th Avenue South, including the bridge across the Duwamish River. This would be inefficient, costly and necessi- tate the awkward situation of access to the area through other jurisdictions. In summary, The DEIS inadequately addresses proposed annexation boun- daries and their impact on public facilities and services. We recommend an adjustment to the proposed boundaries to include the area north of Director Street. G The geographic area proposed for annexation contains major developments recently reviewed by King County. These developments issued mitigated declarations of non - significance requiring both 100 percent and pro rata share of needed roadway improvements. If Tukwila annexes these areas prior to the fulfillment of mitigation obligations, it will be respon- sible for monitoring mitigation. Any unused funds collected by King County for roadway mitigation would be transferred to Tukwila for use on the identified roadway projects. It is suggested that an interlocal agreement between Tukwila and the County outline the procedure to be followed regarding development mitigation. -o The DEIS indicates that Tukwila has a higher standard for acceptable levels of service (LOS) than King County, i.e. LOS 0. Formal adoption of this standard would be useful in formulating interlocal agreements bet- ween the County and Tukwila for road mitigation. LJH:SLA:kw DO.SLA.14 - .15 cc: Rex Knight, Manager, Engineering Services John Logan, Manager, Traffic & Planning ATTN: Gary Samek Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Doug Mattoon, Maintenance Engineer 1. The unincorporated area north of Director Street and west of the Duwamish River is a narrow strip of land between the River and the city limits of Seattle. The legal boundaries of Fire District #1 (the annexation area) do not include this strip of land, and it is not considered in either of the annexation alternatives. Therefore, none of the alternatives discussed in the DEIS would eliminate the road maintenance and operation problems posed by this unincorporated peninsula. The Duwamish River makes a natural boundary for the northern portion of the Tukwila annexation area, and it would not be logical to extend annexation to the area west of the River. It is acknowledged that the annexation boundaries pose a problem, though not a unique one, for the maintenance of 16th Ave. South, including the portion that bridges the River. Currently, 16th Ave. South is awkwardly divided between Seattle and King County, and all of the bridge is within King County. There are four options for dividing this area among the jurisdictions, each of which pose problems: a. Tukwila could annex only the area east of the Duwamish and north to the city limits of Seattle (as proposed in Alternatives I.A and II). Under this option, 16th Ave. South would be divided among three jurisdictions. As discussed in the comments from Dave Clark on surface water and river bank maintenance, the boundary of the annexation area should extend to the middle of the Duwamish in order to clarify who has jurisdiction over river banks. The exception would be at the 16th Ave. South bridge, where jurisdiction over the entire bridge should be within one area only. However, whether jurisdiction of the bridge were with Tukwila or King County, the roadway would still be divided between three jurisdictions. b. The boundaries of the annexation area could be extended to include the small strip of unincorporated land west of the Duwamish. This option ignores the natural boundary provided by the River, and would create an awkward division of jurisdiction between Seattle and Tukwila, with Tukwila having access to 16th Ave South only through Seattle. c. The northwestern boundary of the annexation area could be established just south of 16th Ave South between the River and the Seattle City limits. This would result in an unincorporated island bordered by the River, the bridge and Seattle and would not address the island of unincorporated land west of the Duwamish. With this option, King County would still have an awkward service area, but access would continue to be through Seattle, as it is now. This option would also leave open the possibility of Seattle annexing all of the area included in the potential unincorporated islands. (The areas west of the Duwamish and north of Director Street and north of 16th Ave South, including the street itself). If Seattle did annex this area, all of 16th Ave. South would be within one jurisdiction. It should be noted that a recent proposed annexation to Seattle of the subject properties was unsuccessful. 46 d. The boundaries of the annexation area could be as defined by the legal description of Fire District #1 (as shown in Figure 3 of the DEIS) or the property line just south of the Rose Street extension to avoid bisecting a large structure. This option would create an unincorporated island east of the Duwamish, between Seattle and Tukwila. The area could be annexed to Seattle with the same results as discussed in 3 above. The above factors will be considered as well as the views of the residents and property owners by the Boundary Review Board when it determines the final boundaries of the annexation area. 2. The approach to the management, inspection, and enforcement of private mitigation obligations and the transfer of funds collected from these obligations should be articulated in an interlocal agreement. 3. The City is in the process of revising its standards. Such revisions will require public review and City Council adoption. 47 King County Surface Water Management Division Department of Public Works 701 Dexter - Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-2585 March 4, 1988 T0: Sandy Adams, Program Analyst, Department of Public Works VIA: Jim Kramer, Surface Water Management Division FM: Dave Clark, River and Water Resource Sectio RE: Fire District No. 1 Annexation, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Based on a limited review of the project summary and those sections dealing with Surface Water, Dikes and River Banks, and Public Works, the Surface Water Management Division offers the following comments on the DEIS for your consideration: 1) Neither the description of the proposed annexation area in the project summary, the description provided on page ten, nor the annexation boundaries shown in Figure 1 are sufficiently explicit regarding the precise extent of the annexation area where it borders on the Duwamish River. It is essential that the actual area to be annexed includes the entire riverbank area, to provide for proper bank stabilization and maintenance access within a single jurisdiction. To accomplish this purpose, the annexation boundary should be carefully drawn to follow the centerline of the Duwamish River channel in those areas bounded by the river, except in the northern portion which includes the 16th Avenue South Bridge. In this area, the entire River should be annexed by one jurisdiction in order to provide adequate maintenance and operation of the bridge. This configuration will allow for clear access extending from the top of the riverbank out into the bed of the River. Access throughout such areas is frequently necessary for routine bank stabilization and revetment repair work, and should be fully contained within a single jurisdiction for this purpose. 2) An interlocal agreement with King County for joint funding of the proposed Allentown surface water pumping station is proposed as a mitigation for annexation, in view of the flooding problems present in that area. The proposed annexation area boundary makes it clear, however, that the entire drainage sub -basin area contributing to this problem would be annexed to Tukwila. It is therefore not clear why King County should have any residual interest or obligation to participate in funding this facility though interlocal agreements following annexation. Such agreements would appear most appropriate, however, in the event King County should proceed 48 Sandy Adams February 29, 1988 Page Two with basin planning studies and /or design and construction relating to this facility, prior to annexation of the area. The DEIS and any subsequent interlocal agreements need to deal explicitly with the question of timing as this relates to annexation and project responsibility. 3) Interlocal agreements dealing with those drainage basin areas which will remain jointly controlled by King County and Tukwila should be broadly encouraged in the DEIS as mitigation for annexation. These interlocal agreements should address such items as comprehensive basin planning, integrated development controls, engineering studies, project construction and financing, and systems maintenance. 4) The section dealing with Dikes and River Banks fails to note ongoing riverbank stabilization projects, revetment repairs, revegetaion requirements, and continuing maintenance responsibilities as existing problems which need to be adddressed with respect to the proposed transfer of municipal jurisdiction in this area to the City of Tukwila, through the proposed annexation. The text also implies that Tukwila's recent flood zone permitting activities are somehow equivalent to an assumption of riverbank maintenance and flood protection responsibilities. Such is clearly not the case. I have enclosed with this letter copies of King County's surface water facilities inventory listings and. related maps showing the location of a number of existing revetments within the proposed annexation area. I have also included a listing of those numbers under which River Protection Easements historically conveyed to King County in this area have been recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections. As part of the proposed annexation, all flood protection, bank stabilization, and river - related maintenance activities in the affected areas should become the responsibility of the City of Tukwila. This would include: a) Subrogation to Tukwila of King County's current easement rights in the annexation area. b) Assumption by Tukwila of all responsibilities for maintenance of the existing revetment systems. c) Assumption by Tukwila of all responsibilities for any subsequent bank stabilization, levee construction, or other flood protection works which may become necessary. d) Assumption by Tukwila of all responsibilities to provide for general river - related maintenance activities, including but not limited to maintenance inspection, debris removal, vegetation maintenance, clearing, or revegetation needs and maintenance of culvert outfalls, flapgates, floodgates, or any other flood control systems or river - related surface water facilities now present, or constructed in the future. e) Assumption by Tukwila of all responsibilities for river (flood) patrol and flood warning activities throughout the proposed annexation area. 49 Sandy Adams February 29, 1988 Page Three 5) The section dealing with impacts to Public Works - related services needs to be revised to address the financial impacts which will be associated with concerns outlined in the preceding discussion. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments in response to the DEIS for the Fire District No. 1 Annexation proposal. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact River and Water Resource Section Manager, Dave Clark, at 344 -2619. JK:AL:js(RWR224.1 -.3) Enclosures cc: Byron Sneva, Director, Tukwila Public Works Department Jerry Creek, Manager, Surface Water Management Facilities Maintenance Section Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, River and Water Resource Section 1. It is assumed that the boundaries of the annexation area will follow the centerline of the Duwamish River. For options regarding the maintenance of the bridge as well as the rest of the 16th Ave. South corridor, please see the response to the King County Public Works letter regarding road maintenance in this area. 2. The mitigating measure of sharing the cost of an Allentown surface water pumping station would apply if this improvement is undertaken prior to annexation. If the improvement is not made until after annexation, Tukwila would pay the full cost. 3. Comment acknowledged. 4. The Green River Management Agreement provides King County with the technical leadership and administrative direction for activities along the River. As such, suburban cities, including Tukwila, rely on cooperation with King County with respect to river maintenance responsibilities. It is recognized that the Agreement extends north only to the I -5 River crossing, but it is assumed that the same principals would apply in the area to the north. To date there is no agreement between King County and Tukwila regarding maintenance for those portions of the River bank currently within the City limits. The assumption in the DEIS is that the existing situation will extend to the annexation area until an interlocal agreement articulating different responsibilities is initiated. As a mitigating measure the County and City could pursue a similar agreement. 5. Because there is no interlocal agreement between Tukwila and King County defining river maintenance responsibilities, it is not possible to estimate the fiscal impacts on either jurisdiction. • The King County surface water facilities inventory listings and related maps sited in and attached to the King County Surface Water Management Division letter have not been reprinted. For those who wish to review them, they are available in the Tukwila Planning Department, Tukwila City Hall. 51 gANW i Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue. Washington 98007 February 26, 1988 Department of Planning Tukwila City Hall Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Moira Bradshaw, Project Manager Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation DEIS Review Fire District No. 1 - Annexation This letter is in response to the DEIS review we received from King County. The Department of Transportation has reviewed this DEIS and has no comments. Traffic impacts of this annexation will be minor. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Chuck Gleich of my staff at 562 -4105. CG:cpw w48 Sincerely, 94 • JERRY B. SCHUTZ Development Planning Engineer 52 City of Beattie King County Charles Royer, Mayor Tim Hill, Executive Seattle -King County Department of Public Health F`CEO . Bud Nicola, M.D., !1f.H.SA., Director CITY OF "ri7KIv1LA February 26, 1988 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: 6VLL.DIN Garr. Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for City of Tukwila Fire District #1 Annexation Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the referenced DEIS. Staff have reviewed the proposal and the several included alternatives as they relate to environmental health services provided in the study area by this Department. We believe the descriptionsof these services are accurately stated, and the impact of the proposal and alternatives adequately expressed. Sin - ely, Check Kleeberg, Director Division of Environmental Health Services CK:AB:jf Encl. 53 Southwest Public Health Center 10821 -8th Avenue S.W. Seattle, Washington 98146 (2061344 -7474 February 18, 1988 Public Hearing The following questions were raised at the February 18, 1988 public hearing on the Draft EIS. The complete hearing transcript is available in the Tukwila Planning Department, Tukwila City Hall for anyone who wishes to review it. 1. Chi Chu; 4431 NE 23rd CT., Renton, WA 98056 Comment /Question: How does the City of Tukwila intend to respond to the lack of sewers in the Allentown, particularly in areas where septic tanks are failing? Response: As described in the Utilities Section of the DEIS, the Allentown and Riverton Gardens areas are currently served by septic systems. The Seattle King County Health Department has noted some problems in the area with septic tank overflows (DEIS Figure 18). The City of Tukwila does not intend to require residents in the area to hook- up to sewers once annexation occurs. If the residents request sewers, the City will work with them to arrive at an acceptable solution to the situation. If a health hazard exists because of septic tank failure, a hook -up to sewers can be required by the Seattle King County Health Department regulations. Please see pages 80 -84 of the DEIS for further discussion. 2. Roger Baker; 11662 42nd Avenue S., Seattle, WA 98168 Comment /Question: Clarify the portions of the annexation area where the City of Tukwila will take responsibility for sewer and water service and what areas they will not? Response: The majority of the annexation area is served with sewer and water by special purpose districts and the Cities of Seattle and Renton. Portions of the area, specifically Allentown and parts of the Empire Way South area, are not within a sewer district and are currently served by septic systems. The Allentown area is within the boundaries of Water District # 25, but the water system is inadequate. The southern portion of the Empire Way South area is without water service. The assumption in the DEIS, is that Tukwila will contract with existing sewer and water purveyors to continue service after annexation. Those areas outside of the purveyors service areas will become the responsibility of Tukwila. In the case of sewers, this includes Allentown and Riverton Gardens and the southern portion of the Empire Way South area. In the case of water, this 54 also includes the Empire Way South area. Because Water District # 25 will be completely within the boundaries of the City and its facilities are inadequate, it is assumed that the City will also take responsibility for most of the District's service area. The exception could be small areas best served by District # 125 and the City of Seattle. The Empire Way South Area is most logically served by Renton. The Skyway Critical Water Supply Study has supported this by recommending that the area be served by Renton. Comment /Question: The City has stated that sewers in Allentown will not be required with annexation, and yet the summary in the DEIS discusses the possibility of sewer improvements and the potential fiscal impacts on existing City rate payers and on residents in the Allentown and Riverton Gardens area. Please explain. Response: As stated above, Tukwila does not intend to require sewers with annexation. If, however, sewers are requested by property owners or there is a health hazard that requires sewers, pages 2 -5 of the Summary and 80 -85 of the Utilities Section of the DEIS discusses the potential impacts of sewer installation. Comment /Question: If sewers are required, will Tukwila provide financial support to elderly and /or low income? Response: The costs of installing an upgraded or new system are usually paid by the property owners. Because of the number of low income property owners, alternate financing options may be considered by the City Council. The City currently has a rate reduction program for financial assistance to low income, elderly and disabled persons. Comment /Question: If annexation occurs and Tukwila takes over water service responsibility for the District # 25 area, will the City immediately bring the system up to code? Response: The water system situation is the same as that described above for sewers. The City does not intend to immediately bring the District # 25 system up to code. If, however, property owners request a system upgrade or there is a health hazard, the City will address the situation. As with sewers, the DEIS (pages 85 -91) discusses the potential impact of upgrading the water system on existing rate payers and property owners in the affected area. 55 3. Bob Mackin (see letter) Comment /Question: The DEIS states that there will be no significant land use impacts because Tukwila intends to adopt zoning code designations consistent with King County's. This is not correct in respect to landscaping requirements and permitting truck terminals in industrial zones. In Tukwila, landscaping requirements are more stringent - 15 ft front yard verses 8 ft with a possible reduction to 4 ft in the King County code. Tukwila requires a conditional use permit for truck terminals and King County does not. Response: Please see the response to Mr. Mackin's letter, page 38. 4. Woody Wilkinson; Gogerty and Stark, 2505 3rd Avenue, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98121 Comment /Question: No community plan exists for the Fire District # 1 area. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan does not address this area. The County's Highline Community Plan does cover this area but only provided detail for the North Industrial area, leaving undesignated the remainder of the annexation area. Given that the area is being considered for annexation, will: a) King County proceed with their plans to update the Highline Plan? and b) Tukwila produce a plan that identifies the cost to bring all facilities in the area up to the City's standards? For example, many streets in the area are not wide enough to meet City standards; undergrounding and new sidewalks and street lights could be needed; and sewer and water systems must be upgraded. What will this cost and who will pay? If Tukwila does not bring the facilities in this area up to City standards, will the City have a different set of standards for this area? Response: King County currently has plans to update the portion of the Highline Community Plan covering the Allentown, Riverton, and Skyway areas. The update is scheduled for the Fall of 1988. If the annexation proceeds, King County and the City will likely escalate their efforts to develop an interlocal agreement to address issues of mutual concern. In addition, Tukwila could develop a "community plan" for the area that would address land use and facility issues. Currently, Tukwila relies on its Comprehensive Plan to address land use and its utility comprehensive plans to address utility issues. The DEIS identifies sewer and water facilities that are below standards or nonexistent and presents the costs estimated to correct these problems. It also identifies transportation improvements currently planned by. King County and other jurisdictions and those recommended based on the traffic analysis 56 completed for the DEIS. Planning level cost estimates are given for these improvements. The DEIS does not assume every street in the annexation area will be brought up to current City standards. Many streets constructed prior to the adoption of current standards (King County or Tukwila) operate adequately and are not identified as needing improvement. This approach is consistent with the practice currently followed by the City for streets within the existing city limits. Consequently, an inconsistent application of standards will not result. Comment /Question: What is the difference between existing Tukwila and King County policies for commercial and industrial development? Will the City have two sets of standards? Response: King County policies for commercial and industrial development are established by the Comprehensive Plan, the Highline Community Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan. The general purpose of these plans is described on page 15 of the DEIS. More specifically, the King County Comprehensive Plan presents locational and design criteria and improvement standards for industrial and commercial areas such as the North Industrial Sub -area. The criteria and standards are for planning purposes and are related to areas rather than specific properties. Their impact is more significant in areas where development has not yet been established. The Highline Community Plan designates the North Industrial Sub -area Industrial, but provides little policy direction beyond this designation. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan presents general goals and policies (Pages 57- 67 of Comprehensive Plan) for commercial and industrial development in the City. They present a general statement about the desire to support employment and healthy economic growth in the City. The Tukwila Proposed Comprehensive Plan designations for the area are shown on Figure 9 of the DEIS. In summary, King County has a greater number of policies than Tukwila but the direction set by the policies is very similar. As stated above, an interlocal agreement addressing policy issues could be pursued between the City and Tukwila and /or the City could develop a "community plan" for the area which would clarify policy directions to be pursued by the City. The community plan could be in the form of an implementation strategy for the area and could include area specific direction on land use and facilities planning. Such planning has not been done in the past by Tukwila because the size of the City did not support the need for community plans. However, as the City grows the need for such planning may become significant. 57 Comment /Question: How will the annexation affect King County's plans for siting the solid waste incinerator at the Black River Quarry? Please see the response to the Taskforce letter on page 15. Comment /Question: The DEIS identifies approximately five million dollars in capital improvements for the first five years. That may be an understatement of the need. You won't know the exact capital improvement needs until you create a make decisions on standards and create a facility plan. If more improvements are needed, what are they, how much will they cost, and who will pay for them? Response: The capital improvements identified in the EIS are based on: 1) 20 year projections of population and employment in the annexation area, 2) assumptions about the nature and extent of any development that would occur over that time period, and 3) on a study of the type of the condition of the existing infrastructure. Based on this information, the EIS identifies capital improvements needed over the 20 year forecast period to meet standards for levels of service on roadways, to address existing problems for sewers, water and surface water, and to make improvements to parks in accordance with Tukwila policy plans. If future conditions differ from the forecasted circumstances, the actual requirement for capital improvements could be different. However, based on current knowledge about the annexation area, we do not believe the estimate of capital improvement costs is understated. Payment for these cost and fund sources are discussed on page 5 of the DEIS Summary Section. Comment /Question: The DEIS only discusses the City Light franchise - What about the other franchises in the area? How are they affected? Response: Please see the response to the Taskforce letter on page 15. Comment /Question: Please clarify the City's position on undergrounding. Response: Please see the response to the Taskforce letter on page 15. 58 Comment /Question: Businesses are concerned about the differences in Tukwila and Fire District # 1 and King County codes and regulations. For example, the Tukwila Fire Code requires plastic nozzles on fire hoses and the Fire District # 1 Code allows brass nozzles; the Tukwila Building Code requires the use of dry chemicals and prohibits the use of Halon 1211 and the King County Code allows the use of Halon 1211. Response: Some differences in the Tukwila and King County Fire and Building Codes and ordinances are acknowledged. These differences are slight, however, and could be addressed with minor adjustments, where appropriate, to Tukwila codes or through variances or exceptions. Comment /Question: Another industry concern is Tukwila's procedures for inspecting military installations. Response: Inspection procedures for military facilities are governed by Federal regulations and will not change with annexation. Comment /Question: Companies in the annexation area have security officers commissioned by King County. Also in the event of any kind of incident - labor unrest - police officers are on call to assist in keeping peace. How will these situations change with annexation? Response: Security officers would continue to be commissioned by King County as is done in other suburban cities. Tukwila would provide regular police support to these security officers. In addition, Tukwila has mutual aid agreements with King County and other cities in the Green River Valley area; these agreements would provide backup police support in the event of a major incident. Comment /Question: Can the Boundary Review Board automatically annex portions of the Study Area to the Cities of Seattle and Renton? What are the financial implications of such a situation? Response: The Boundary Review Board can only act on the Tukwila annexation. Portions of the annexation area could remain in unincorporated King County allowing Renton 59 and Seattle to pursue annexation. If this were the case, another annexation process with complete analysis would be required before any action was taken. 5. Bob Feller; 3200 NE 125th, Seattle, WA 98125 Comment /Question: I represent a property owner with a parcel on Ryan Way South bordered by Seattle and a self service storage facility. What is the zoning designation proposed for the property with the annexation? The property is unsuitable for residential development. Response: The zoning designation for the property through the proposed pre- annexation zoning is Professional Office. 60 DISTRIBUTION LIST FEDERAL Wayne J. Barlow Federal Aviation Authority Northwest Mountain Region 17900 Pacific Hwy S. /C -68966 Seattle, WA 98168 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Environmental Resource Section Post Office Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 WASHINGTON STATE Washington State Department of Transportation District #1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 -6538 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division 8600 Perimeter Road Seattle, WA 98108 REGIONAL METRO Environmental Planning Division 821 Second Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Bob Wells Port of Seattle Post Office Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Jim Williams Puget Sound Council of Govt 216 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 KING COUNTY The Honorable Tim Hill King County Executive 400 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 King County Public Works Airport Division Room 900, King County Admin Bldg Seattle, WA 98104 Larry Kirchner King County Health Department Environmental Health Services 3001 N.E. 4th Renton, WA 98056 Linda LeBaron King County Library 300 - 8th Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98109 Jim Tracy King County Parks Planning & Res 1108 Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 King County Public Works Surface Water Management Room 900, King County Admin Bldg Seattle, WA 98104 G. Brice Martin Washington State Boundary Review Board King County Courthouse, Room W378 Seattle, WA 98104 SCHOOLS Renton School District #403 435 Main Renton, WA 98055 Joseph Sommers Seattle Public Schools 810 Dexter Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98109 South Central School District #406 9690 South 144th Seattle, WA 98168 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT Water District No. 25 11608 - 40th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98168 Water District No. 125 Post Office Box 68147 Seattle, WA 98168 Val -Vue Sewer District Post Office Box 68063 Seattle, WA 98168 Fire District No. 1 12026 - 42nd South Seattle, WA 98168 Gray and Osborn, Inc., PS 701 Dexter Avenue N., #200 Seattle, WA 98109 Shafer Moen & Bryan 410 Hoge Bldg, 2nd & Cherry Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Weber Creston Water Association 4621 - 104th Place S. Seattle, WA 98178 LOCAL Mayor Gary Van Dusen 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 The Honorable Earl Clymer 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Larry Springer City of Renton Policy Dept. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Seattle City Light Environmental Affairs Dept. 1015 Third Avenue, Room 922 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Dept of Community Dev 400 Yesler Building Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Water Department 821 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Jay Shanahan Human Resources Department 8201 - 10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 CITY COUNCIL Edgar D. Bauch 16603 - 53rd Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98188 Joe H. Duffie 5332 South 140th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Mabel J. Harris 14301 Interurban Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Joan Hernandez 15224 Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Clarence B. Moriwaki 15130 - 65th Avenue S. #B31 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dennis L. Robertson 16038 - 48th Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98188 Marilyn G. Stoknes 16117 - 45th Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98188 PLANNING COMMISSION Randy Coplen 17487 - 7th Avenue S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 Jim Haggerton 1200 South Dearborn Street P.O. Box 88067 Tukwila, WA 98188 Jerry Hamilton 5624 South 147th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Richard Kirsop 16816 - 53rd Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98188 Gerald Knudson 6421 South 143rd Place Tukwila, WA 98168 Dave Larson 14244 - 55th Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98188 ANNEXATION TASK FORCE Riley Adams 10428 - 47th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98178 Russ Arwine 10904 - 50th South Seattle, WA 98178 Audrey Davis 13341 - 56th Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98188 George Gomez 4504 South 124th Seattle, WA 98178 Dave & Jimmi Maulding 11136 - 49th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98178 Allen Pease Post Office Box 80021 Seattle, WA 98108 Reggie R. Ramey 4206 South 122nd Seattle, WA 98168 Daniel P. Wolf 11821 - 44th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98178 Ron Altier Jorgensen Steel Post Office Box 24026 Seattle, WA 98124 Carol Chan King County Planning and Community Development 707 Smith Tower 506 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Barbara Gladding The Boeing Company Post Office Box 3707 Mail Stop 14 -49 Seattle, WA 98124 ANNEXATION TASK FORCE continued Gerrie Jackson METRO 821 - 2nd Avenue Mail Stop 66 Seattle, WA 98104 Jon Nichols Rhone Poulenc Post Office Box 80963 9229 East Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98108 Norm Proctor Paccar /Kenworth Post Office Box 1578 Bellevue, WA 98009 Frank Waterworth Real Property Management The Boeing Company Post Office Box 3707 Mail Stop 13 -03 Seattle, WA 98124 Andre Gay Corporate Director of Facilities The Boeing Company Post Office Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Jesus Moulinet 12505 Bel -Red Road Suite 102 Bellevue, WA 98005 Woody Wilkinson 2505 - 3rd Avenue Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98121 OTHER John Mauk 6001 - 39th S.W. Seattle, WA 98136 Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce 5200 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11 Tukwila, WA 98188 OTHER continued Chi -Tai Chu 4431 N.E. 23rd CT Renton, WA 98056 Roger Baker 11662 42nd Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98168 Bob Mackin 1301 Aetna Plaza 2201 6th Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 -1832 Thelma Larson 12522 51st Place S. Seattle, WA 98168 Violet Buchanan 12560 51st P1. S. Seattle, WA 98168 Robert E. Feller 3200 NE 125th Seattle, WA 98125 William J. Mackay 525 Lake Louise Drive Southwest Tacoma, WA 98498 Milan Dukich 5001 S. 114th Street Seattle, WA 98178 LAWRENCE D. GREENE 5439 HAWTHORNE PLACE N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016 CURTIS NESHEIM 15828 - 43RD AVENUE S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 DANIEL WALTERS KING COUNTY LIBRARY 300 8TH AVENUE N. SEATTLE, WA 98109 DAVID LAWSON BUDGET OFFICE 400 KING CO ADMIN BLDG SEATTLE, WA 98104 WASH. STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIGHWAYS & LICENSES BLDG 9TH FLOOR MS PB -71 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE ATTN: CRAIG WADE P.O. BOX 9000 SEATTLE, WA 98109 VALLEY DAILY NEWS 600 S. WASHINGTON AVE KENT, WA 98035 CABLE TV (GROUP W.) TELEPROMPTER CABLE TV 15241 PACIFIC HWY S. SEATTLE, WA 98188 TCI CABLEVISION OF WASH INC. 1215 114TH AVENUE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98004 KING CO. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ROAD DIVISION KING CO. ADMIN BLDG RM 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN SANDY ADAMS WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ATTN: WILLIAM FRY P.O. BOX 1869 SEATTLE, WA 98111 FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Tukwila Proposed Zoning/ Sub-Area 1 Legend Light Industry Heavy Industry CCA inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. FIGURE I NORTH • • ••••••••:•:•:::::.;.„.f:... ..„:"....••••••••••••„;.; %.*.• ••••,... f.; • • • ..*.. .• •••.• •••• . ; •••:•:.:•• • • • • -* ,„!;••••••••••:.;:, ••••. ••• ••••:— .• .•• • • • • • • •.• . •.• ••• •:• - of' : • • • •• :' .•'. .„ '-:•. • : : • : . . . ' • '. 7 .::::::. •-•••• .. - . . „ , ::.• •. ... . '..: . . ......„:.:•-••••.•:.....:.;•.;-:..:.:..:.:•:..!::.:-:•* ••••• :f. . -:- ING COUNTY • ' • • • ; • • •••• • • • .„ • " • ......;.• ' : • . , . • • . . . •••••• ...••••• ••••:;:-!•:•:•••••••••••••:••••:•:-:••• • '•:: • •.• -•••• . • : '-' :*- - : ••••••• : • : • : . : - .• - • . : • : • :::::: ..•...•. • :. : • : • ...• . • • •.• : • : • :.:•. : • : • .•.• : . : . :-.-.• • : . :.: - . - . - ....:•: • : • . -:.. : . :. *:•.. • : .: - .: • : - :. • •. • :- '. • . :.;.....f; ..„ ......:. „. , ....„ ......,„ ................„ ::::: " . •:•.....;-::*7• .:: : •••••••• ::',.:.:''.:.:*;.:....' •:..:.: : ••• • . .• ••. ..... .• :-•:....".....:-:::::.:::: .,...7............,..*: . ::: .. . ••-• :•• . :.: ... ., .. ...: ....'•:' •:: •. „•„•:•,:f. ••• .„, • :** • : • • ; •:•„. •••■•••• • •• .• • • •••. ..:.- u04•44.44„.V. 4 4. 4' . 4, <4.,.&.-V. ' 0 N 4; 4k'• -4,'"` 4 4 4.0r44 . 4 - 4 • - 4, —4 ? ../ .•S`'.+/'—.4 It '44. 0 ' 4 . , • , 1 .,4. - , ,, V. -.. ,,A4". , , 4 , ... 04 <W4 ,V- '04.•40:4-V -V44 '2V-'4 .-* :44".4,-tit.+Afti.t,V*4V.$%\.*, . • • •••••••••••;., ••• • *: . . . . • • • • • • • • ''. • *. • • • • • • : • : • .*. FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Tukwila Proposed Zoning/ Sub-Area 3 Legend Single-family Residence 111111111111 Low Apartments Multiple Residence/High Density Regional Retail Business Light Industry Heavy Industry CCA inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. NORTH FIGURE II FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Tukwila Proposed Zoning/ Sub-Area 2 & 4 Legend LMMI 01M1-774.0 • 111111111111 N Single-family Residence Low Apartmcnts Multiple Residence/High Density Professional and Office Community Retail Business Regional Retail Business Light Industry Heavy Industry CCA inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. FIGURE III NORTH RIVERTON PROPOSED ANNEXATION 15 DEC 87 REV. Beginning at the intersection of the east margin of East Marginal Way South and the north line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, T23N, R4E, W.M.; thence southeasterly along said east margin of East Marginal Way, 442.30 feet to the south line of Tract 22, Riverside Interurban Tracts as recorded in Volume 10, Page 74 of Plats. Records of King County. WA, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence easterly along said south line of Tract 22 and the easterly prolongation thereof to the west line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way; thence southerly along . the west line of said right -of -way, 850 feet more or less to a point opposite the south line of Tract 33 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence east along the easterly prolongation of the south line of said Tract 33 to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence along said thread to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southwesterly along said east margin and the southerly extension thereof 460 feet more or less to the southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South; thence northwesterly along said southwest margin to an intersection with the southerly extension of the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said west margin of 42nd Avenue South contiguous with the Tukwila City Limits as set forth under King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309 dated 10- 11 -61, to the south margin of South 131st Street; thence westerly along said south margin and continuing westerly along the north line of Tract 58 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts to the east margin of South 131st Place; thence southeasterly along said east margin and easterly along the north margin of South 133rd Street,respectively, to the west margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along the southerly extension of said west margin to the south margin of South 133rd Street; thence easterly along the easterly extension of said south margin of South 133rd Street to the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly and continuing in a southeasterly direction along the northerly margin of South 135th Street to the north line of the southeasterly 1.86 acres of Tract 14, in Fostoria Garden Tracts as recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, records of King County, WA; thence north 40 1Z' east along said north line 226.52 feet; thence south 49`143' east, 91.43 feet to the north line of the southerly 0.86 $cres of said Tract 14; thence north 40 17' east, a distance of 132.89 feet; thence south 49 °43' east, 10 feet; thence north 40 °17' east, 119.11 feet; thence southeasterly along the southwest margin of South 134th Street 150 feet more or less to the southwesterly extension of the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams Avenue); thence northeasterly along said southwesterly extension and southeast margin, respectively. to the west line of Primary State Highway No. 1 condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County; thence southerly along said west line to an intersection with . the easterly extension of the south line of the Cyrus C. Lewis Donation Claim No. 37; thence westerly along said easterly extension and along said south line. respectively. to the west margin of Macadam Road South (46th Avenue South); thence southerly along said west margin and continuing south along the west margin of 46th Avenue South to the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue); thence westerly along said north margin to the west line of Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts. recorded in Volume 15. Page 53 of Plats. Records of King County. WA; thence northerly along said west line to the easterly prolongation of the north margin of South 139th Street; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said north line to the east margin of Pacific Highway South (Highway 99); thence northerly along said east margin to the north line of the Duwamish River; thence easterly along said north line of the Duwamish River to the west line of Section 10. T23N. R4E; thence southerly along said west line to the south line of the north 1168.66 feet of said Section 10; thence easterly along said south line to the west margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said west margin to its intersection with the north line of Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 785018 as recorded under King County Recording No. 8603240930; thence westerly along said north line of Lot 1 to the Northwest corner of said Short Plat; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Southwest corner of said Short Plat; thence easterly along the south line of Lot 4 in said Short Plat to east line of Lot 16. Block 4 of said Riverside Interurban Tracts; thence southerly along said east line and the east line of Lot 9 to the north margin of South 124th Street; thence easterly along said north margin and along the easterly prolongation thereof to the east margin of East Marginal Way South; thence southerly along said east margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Introduction I. Class III Landslide Hazard Areas II.. Class III Seismic Hazard Areas III. Erosion Hazard Areas IV Wetlands, Anadromous Fish - bearing Waters, and 100 -Year Flood Plains V Water Types VI. Coal Mine Hazard Areas .11 Ih IIIAI011l:Iv.°'1 illge � . 11 111411111118111 ®11 04 r Ii1Englllt issloIIII��� : ou 1 111 11 lII t.� , Anti 11111111. " i11111A llsi ma Is 1 Milli 1111 SIl 111 1 1 1 iflm' 11 ill II�1� 1. lailifum 111 EInnIIIi.'15 ,11111111ui, o, IA iFia .u11111.+ . 1•ir1. r." e:C11111.111�1N h1111 Mat aralllllll �llllilllll,L ° ""° ianl111 1111111111>I N ION,W 1l.Y t'l,�l 11 NIK IAAIII RV i . +�� ,1111111ir (jllAlllrrrnll�'�;. �[ x,1,31111163 // 11111r111� 1111 1>II 1 All Illlllrllll+� . U1 1111111111∎11104,.. E � . `inil 11 11 Illllllllr'q :..! ) ���5r..&11�.. �1ll.illli;7(j� 1 MP �SiAM 411111=111 ATTI.1. z�> limn No-. '*' 'iii' E1 IIgi11..1 E E�Iflti a tilt - -_ a 1�� ill II tigi 4111 11,1111111 a- lgtite li. jit. ,, n�,1,� ,.m:1114 HMI 1111116101A - ®s�1,�ri,ue � 1 -N !l �� c -l= 111. �' uiV�:, t ` )�r((1�,_I 1JrIIt!*li®Ad� �r�lri6i��/ air ' 1 17,(%�� 11 mot r '` � (1 �In �. �11h11�lfri►�.�1�!° ay Gds 14124 100 4leceis 4;:407011Vari . 11111Milra4 Ili f1 a,►:�r4 J .11 Duwamish ai i. 1:i; y �` •'gift i � t 111A1tt �;c AI +11 +IIllinrrreimcji q 'ii jr lfll]B1t:;v:6r�Ylj�r,eu ,: 11111 1111161115 /111 J, 411r ' iiiL +1'•4 N. ►1.111 :!4111117111111 ��- II 11 d11• I 1111111111111.1`", 11111111111Ma �aaa�idl l •1<i'I111111I111:' relriBM SIl� 111 I iu=,IIIli` 11 � 11111.11111111111.4 111Ii1Il�l� linfonin . u>afll9u,11111\V'��' 171 li Ill"II 11 l:a•.. .11IIflR �le,na Y�: �I ���11114II plant I11i11: ,�l�,v,►Illall IIIII iiN . },I tinli ZR,Ililii1lll 'i ti , .. �,•.,,�.���. 11n111111II li111111I111t IJ1(r�l ®®,III III11111111If1�!I : •��1 1 I t. 111 fi�lllllluit, . tip •- .1 nrIiLIilill�lpp ii 1l�;f�f1 Dr 1. .,C•1�II11.-�-,r..., 4".1. ' [ 0, 11i I 11r .► il s�� 1111 1/ 1 [I �l"f11iI� I O 1A1li ' • ' 111 4�f� '1. AILliilll1111°111 r:/ Doc. \., .�/I,.i kink :u H i.�. **. 1 11�.'n t'l°8 I; I' � gl...1111..alotr WIMVA I1�. EE11yy�ltl+'�r11f9� y1 nw� ��o d �lrR�4�BII4 .. 1 r ; IV11,6647 .4 D' Pa AIN IjIIIIII I�`'$ p �; � �►t`I`A� @. Mk 'LW tIill� it go n; l+y Ulf pink 1 Tie qat ltry 321 elli ilia if 1. a umi 1111 §111111 ,. itt ALVA . I, �I 11111119111 A, ,,e,--, : -:; t Jimi � � i � i � iti � ,,,, e �c y�� }. lmi �u- � . 1 , weight m } ii i diss il h, J1rmI ainnsp 1 1.y � \ °. WP"".': 1;iYilgl.;'ens� �\ �Ua1ii#i�'II�I��l'1, •• - 11iilirtal1®lLii .441311 L;1t 3 �1°.c:�lfiiiui, to • ��I�:i� tw1� 1I113w"t y +' -1 II, �i• �' .r•T.:. ■al' I111IiQl�;�g� Ja.`a�ltn•�`�r� ,� �I roll F ' r / 111 � !nkvi A o�I ill .i 31111111 ` . J�j / �L,�.IE�JE 41ri*Iiile I,,Api l �b ®o�il�l�.Ri .. ,' «:� r!� g I ! (/ � .� I� tili1 /1#®11111f11.crGl� �� -� „1 �I :. 11I�`° �jsl ja • '0�ie pp VI-40ort, +* q, �,r-� ®. 111 :` �F "l Class S L01 L !`430 Id ✓'CAS Duwomish 4 4141624 1 1r ` �IJ��FI1M !i t �ar ,.1 N '�s kai� :a'l NI�ii,lati ts�:tiy I •• $ 1!1!1 llllll6 IUMI81 • ,r � .a Pi llec l 3, ',lil1T.$1191Fillall ", 11%IO l /1111111111EN:- ;1,. 1; 1610111111111!4;% u' ., 14' `;�EI�Ii1B1E ►1+11 ;i1� it !fE 1;;'' "YIipEI� 11 t � il /'b Ii t!u r,ell'�g,al•'.Il4 1 � ': IIllllglli3.1 111 ! '• 1.1 �+ jslldil1111'P.e1111111i� ,r illilIIlllll'llll : s.\ ivr !y,,�.i?�6lilli�0* PAll 11111111111111 I :&•-`1/11 drrl;;A. om: s e iri i1l:B1lB ! 6�1w 9 ai N`::ler 17f1M ., M' ►PIIQ11 Qlllll i11111i4M i► ;,,, .a1SA141!�elollll X1111 � 1 . � ��?�°�6. A111111ir/ ` 1 IIIe1BB1eC :1 -� . `1 ilk' 8 ,911111e111>�%1i1111111!Ila"��' iF'n.ilAlla4 _1411l1i1 €11% ".11it ".:Il ■ 1;v'�,�rp ,g11s11 Il" 1�=p: j. rAC�U�111�111.- 111 1,4/,®®11111111111111lr1 1 IllILWW111111IIIIIQIIIUii r 1 ' 911E111111i I {(ilk iP P nit Ill SU��. •T�: l►1 l tlllillailtl ±►'t 1 `�ji'� � 1Cl. .,.�..,„ IQIIiI . u., 1 . �1 r 1, i�� i ' �� s i"QAI/iQifJl<1GD1Q if aQQ EM \� ii 111ig11QI<QQI i Ir =dL iaQ 'ALIi+Q1QQJ'. 'r .wl...��. tarn �IQQ11AQ11Q1!@Qll� & 1 "llli I li aitw QII1.. 11 Ill� 64 i ,o „, mins mornf! IMiao '1111! a e �1 w9 I1.6�� I I is� I� ,,,, 5 h7 ., +. era s iR(.11 s IC nom: v1 ' ;N .�T *.�,,�\' Ll '---iii! p 5 I Q ��rs�1. �` *-1 1411.. w 45 'Is' ii.,: 4 01 71Wita-I111111111EAVAI*. . 4w, 1111 lliitil VI �' ��. 1, '• r .. Duwamish 4 ,. It.:;::,.114., I/13 !lip! ,, kiloic,ilisil ,1 A\N., ,IF, ),*litiiri 4 fElfin Iti. rAr, i`i- ,Ilvii:Q2=--;,pae • riet.11 M. i 12110 iillti \ nawas.ti■ g . ‘:1"1 ; If V ikrija014 s.I5 L%'!..sli i5.. ----oralvirtazw;i4-1,1.\,,.. 1-'11F. 411AL:114: A 1 0.;,1-, oilt;,`'- I., -.1 .. pi! °HEM 184n, .'hi4 t iliatralr':*71aiika /11111i: A111111114 0.ii v91110 !IiIill 11 )10f.-,1•No i irgivran azisir,iipo t 1-k.=-1A , ' • Iiii:*, 0111i% ihniiiiwkiri 11P. -T-!21,.,‘' ii VIIINgigniN.,. ) - , 03111,11rastil, II.I.Ii Hi rillivtampuuyiq vkii,:m4.rat, slav, mu TivAriiii cine f 11111r Vo‘ •,,,,,...74,.::::;-1,4itik .4 itIli Nat NSW %tilt 1 • Pit NL‘;410411'.' tjioilL ‘li IA III% • nitlitha, II, illiPtialtiCrov - i IN 116,16 lint raistingionli =hill EMI& A' f IRINA ow. - ) agrillthgrik Iiiir P7sigltlitillt531 lug11111111 iii =storm ii, Iffel&MSiiiimagM , IMMIIIIIR 111151=1:t:L "wil t1+1 ' ,trzsztrarainl igiirmill'AtWounirii - 174* V4E174.0 J.; 1,7 (44W' `4/'")'°1'14c441 6.141 AAL 100— izt4 Duwomish 4 SST K i 5 4 2410 av ; : IIM f _ — Mo av � . r — 02 2NOPL [ f YL A t 1S/ AV � -.1Sr ��zM01 "Ft1$ 3 1 � '• 41TAl � V fl 3"0 11 C AV MB& 71. A • 44Zr f AV 9TH Pt. S S Ss MII +s•.a« s« • 0 1 NO AV S 4414 AV $ Ul So 141" 1.141 Pl. S $ 161' '44104 201N "4 AV NS • PTh AV Q ^� _11sTMAVS 17T44 19141 19 1 20 41 510 88 5 ? 21sT AV S 2300 AV i riih MTh t;In AV #Iri •v �i Iz 141 AJY "'~ 351N AV S 44141 45f41 AV 113H1(ll H L1 W „p. -KIMA. 49TMAV *141 5011. c 44F 4 A S• AV See /1 /up 31-