HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-14-88 - MERYHEW VERN - THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONTHORNDYKE ANNEXATION
ANNEXATION OF
THORNDYKE AREA
INTO CITY OF TUKWILA
EPIC 14 -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
25.7X 15.8% 96.7%
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 S1,000.
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
1, 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 B
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 % of the tax would be collected as of February 28
and 65 X 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 X (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 i
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 I
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
RESTRICTED REVENUES:
MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX \7
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX \8
BLOCK GRANT \9
RESTRICTED TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
10,827,414 369,349 144,418 605,977 1,119,745 _
64,000 16,448 10,112 61,888 88,448
70,000 3,551 2,315 6,628 12,494
30,000 7,710 4,740 29,010 41,460
164,000 27,709 17,167 97,526 142,402
10,991,414 397,058 161,585 703,503 1,262,147
1. Based on estimated number of employees, businesses, and average charges of $75.
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 51,514,982. 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 • 120,632 606,562
Fire Department 89,490 278,048
Municipal Court 5,167 58,072
Planning Department 117,465
Parks Department 7,000 21,000
Administration 11,805 59,025
Community Services 22,399 195,987
Public Works: Gen. Fund 3,438 127,383
General 51,440
Annual General Fund Total 259,931 1,514,982
Annual Street Fund Total 48,551 200,019
Equipment Costs
Police Department 11,000 77,000
Planning Department 11,000
Finance Department 26,000
Work Stations 21,600
Total Equipment Costs
TOTAL ALL COSTS
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
Surface Water:
TABLE 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Riverton Foster Thorndyke Total
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.
070,,031
"cI`n9
VIN3 11 15:3'15 Se 3 (1114
VselV1ti@a
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER B,L'VD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188
(206) 433-1800
T' --
WASHINGTON ST TRANSPORTATION DPT
TSM & P /LAND DEVELOPERS
9611 S.E. 36TH STREET
MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040
P *SA: �^�• o? � A
¢03113 • z',;%•61 6
OIAS.]
,o•e.MUTE7
3041952
I, JOANNE JOHNSON
IDAVIT
C1 Notice of Public Hearing
Ei Notice of Public Meeting
C7 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet
Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet
OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
O Determination of Nonsignificance
0 Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance
Q Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
Q Official Notice
O Notice of Application for (l Other
Shoreline Management Permit
Q Shoreline Management Permit E] Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on WEDNESDAY AUGUST 31, 1988
(SEE ATTACHED)
Name of Project EPIC -14 -88 EPIC -15 -88
File Number THORNDYKE ANNEXATION
FOSTER ANNEXATION
, 19 .
DNS DISTRIBUTION
EPIC -15 -88 FOSTER ANNEXATI
EPIC-14 -88 THORNDYKE ANNEXA L,
EPIC- 1 -88 RIVERTON ANNEXATION
S" +ATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SHORELANDS DIVISION
MAIL STOP PV -11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
ATTN: KAREN BEATTY
SATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
MALL STOP PV -11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
ATTN: KAREN BEATTY
K:P: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
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
WASHINGTON ST TRANSPORTATION DPT VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
T 153 .2s PL P.O. BOX 68063
3
0riii c.r ']LTL cam.+ -� T 5� °
MFRrGO rci eNn�,�re, SEATTLE, WA 98168
- --�4(1 BcUev�.e �J•
QtiUC.t GS 3$
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 DIV.
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 COMI
5200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
SUITE 11
TUKWILA, WA 98188
VALLEY DAILY NEWS
P.0 BOX 130
KENT, WA 98135
•
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
rte, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
DATE: August 30, 1988
TO: FOSTER AND THORNDYKE EPIC -14 -88 and EPIC -15-
FROM: MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO FOSTER AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATION FILES
The proposal for pre - annexation zoning is modified slightly. The
areas proposed for change are identified by "Issue Areas" as
shown on the attached maps. Within these issue areas, the
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and /or King County Highline Community
Plan and Zoning conflict. Therefore, modifications are proposed.
Impacts for Thorndyke and Toster range from lowering residential
densities from high to low or high to medium for approximately 40
acres. There are also several areas of changes from residential
to office and /or commercial which encompass approximately 65
acres.
As part of the proposal, a Tukwila Zoning Code amendment for the
PO zone is proposed. The PO zone is proposed to be placed
between the R -3 and R -4 districts. Due to the cascading nature of
the zoning code, the intent of the amendment is to exclude high
density housing from PO districts. An amendment to the Code will
have City -wide impacts. Current Tukwila PO Districts are located
along 52nd Avenue S., Southcenter Boulevard, and S. 178th Street.
Several parcels already are limited through concomitant
agreements. The impacts are generally a decrease in the
potential residential densities of high to medium allowed
throughout the City.
FOSTER ANNEXATION
TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING
ill
EEE!
MEL
IF/4
-
AI
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R-3 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS
R-4 DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS
C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS
REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS
P-0 PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS
RMH MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
C-2
ATTACHMENT G
11041k
11111rg
11 0 III 1114 1111 (11111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111„ 111111111
II
S 136TH ST
111
1111111110 11111 1111111 1111
111 111111111111
I 111111111k 01411111
1
1 1111110N1/11 11111111101
11111 ill 111
11111111111111
II
137TH ST
l•
A rel..
S. 139TH ST.
71-1••••
S 140TH ST..
• :**.•.•
NORTH
-- S. 141ST ST
41.
71771:11=OZZKS
LEGEND
• HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
E3 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
tig PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
fir 0 PUBLIC FACILITIES
I- 0 COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
MED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
111111
0...11111.
MIN 1111111111
11•111111■1
MN '
MIN IMO
mom our-
moo I.
mmi
mos as
mos Ns
111
..,10N?regfic::
—r
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ATTACHMENT F
FOSTER ANNEXATION
IN ii __,
IOii�iiii mi mi
�iiiuIiiiuI itim
.iiIIIiiii!
iiihIiilll 1111E
1!IIU1U
__mom �.. ,.,
!U11! MBE- to -„
r. _
.-
_ .r
NM
S Jii► HI SP
1111111
jIuIHlHH
3AV AS
11111111
I . x!5111
r. 14
..14KR AREA 1 h
•
astam • n
7712. ggpm ,megin w;RPE'Re
Ing WPM %WW1 a-aw•
211=1:1=ZMIMIIVICI
'2
13111MIETC:1524.
or.
'17
•
2 0
&, •
• 6
firm
'1.11.W111•11Fdlall...P.
g 4.!
AREA 3
.0!
TEN
•
7 ,11"41M-11111111" 111
-111111111:310:1CM"
1111111EiViNgra
11.11:WMIN.
: : :
•
MIN
Nil
plAt 1101
'111411216
•I...Ma, • Ie.Saa MAW ■211/1,' •
/2■1,11171./M.DTF...'4.7
I■1
2'
:73:1
Fi
olTall
• en
51011:11EINERM
a, CM
Eliiiiiin WEI
L ERE
al=
vt. witp■Agi
v7itiNft
-■
20
1i1
2
21
215250
ot,Wiff
.4.
011
■••
Ou
NORTH
Tow,
lit
131
3.4
AREA 5
LiiLIj , `11
fr
S. ••, 134TH LN
Nn2N-n1-2,10,-
1 4,
1
55 TA
Sr
• ••■••
)41
AsP,
21;
TW
mir
405
n •
Di
ATTACHMENT D
158TH ST
THORNDYKE ANNEXATION
0
.......... .........
SOUTHCENTER;
• •i
,•
•
ISSUE AREAS
l',ti-iotzs,J14;:- TT'
S-.7:011171.=S
Ask
•
EWE 311.11011111111=M3
a �
: ! :
-it
at is •
k
.worm
EINIMina
ramps
• ;. I,,,.,in�a tlilm lainlgDe i.■AI1I1� I ra : LL
t � tt
nolit `) � 11 1 itl Itl +�f��i �E��a. S!>fllllEIIH1111 "IIINIIU. IMI IIINI 1j11JijIijl lum■uua_..,_.., ,,....
• IIu .A.M■11• MAME
�rft:� .• 'ter• �ii �/r` Sic - Sr .�r,■.•....i
LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE
EMEEMEME
S. 48th ST
411:111.61.1141
- - --
MOM MMMM
INUMONAM•••I
MONEMMUMM.
MI RENN•••UI
MEM MEM!
J -No 4110REMMEMS7.
S. 154th ST.
, 64.1.1WW■MM■A
FITW......,..
NANZZ
MEM :MO
IRENE AM
dill mong7111111
sillillillIMIIIIIIIIIiha
Ritilinia,a111•Milir
ENW•1111171111111111r
-.1. .111115 EWE- •
immunp .
mow-
'4... apr
mmm 411
THORNDYKE ANNEXATION
TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING
MAMA
MAMA
MAMA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R-3 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS
RMH MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
C•1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS
C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS
P-0 PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS ft R
S. 160th ST.
•
City of Tukwila
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/
�RENEXATION ZONING FOR "RIVERTON ", "FOSTER" AND "THORNDYKE"
Dear Mr. � a:
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
1
OMETRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104-1598
July 14, 1988
Rick. Beeler, Planning Director
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
City of Tukwila
Tukwila, WA. 98188
Determination of Non-Significance
File No.: EPIC-15-88 City of Tukwila
Dear Mr. Beeler:
JUL 1 5 1988
• . • - . • -
•
Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no
significant impacts to its wastewater facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
Gregory M.Bush, Manager
Environmental Planning Division
GMB:plg
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
•
bi: ;L tai lilyl[.L[ii
JUL 191988 i
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
v71Washington State
Department of Transportation
District 1
15325 S.E. 30th Place
Bellevue, Washington 98007 -6568
(206) 562 -4000
July 12, 1988
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
ATTN: Rick Beeler
Duane Berentson
Secretary of Transportation
JUL 14 1988
4 _
SR 99 MP 20.12 - 23.0 Vicinity
CS 1701 and 17320
Determination of Nonsignificance
for Zoning and Annexation Proposals
File Nos. EPIC- 15 -88, EPIC -1 -88,
and EPIC 14 -88
Dear Mr. Beeler:
This letter is in response to the Determination of
Nonsignificance reviews for three annexation proposals that we
received from the City of Tukwila on July 8, 1988.
The three file numbers mentioned above are for amendment zoning
and annexation of "Foster ", "Riverton ", and "Thorndyke ".
The proposed annexations should have no immediate adverse impacts
upon any state highways in the vicinity. However, upon
development of any part of the annexations, especially
development adjacent to SR 99, another evaluation will be
required to determine what impact traffic generated by the
developments will have on the area's transportation network, and
what mitigation measures will be needed, if any, to state
highways.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Donald
Hurter (562 -4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562 -4297) of my
Developer section.
Sincerely,
roe/
JAMES L. LUTZ, P.E.
District Utilities Engineer
RE:dp
tl.wk2
cc: State Aid
King County
Surface Water Management Division
Department of Public Works
701 Dexter - Horton Building
710 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 344-2585
July 12, 1988
TO: Paul Tanaka Acting Director, Department of Public Works
ATTN:2../5andy Adams, Program Analyst
VIA: Jim Kramer, Manager
FM: Susan Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinate
RE: Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke Annexations Comments
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Declaration of Nonsignificance
(DNS) issued by the City of Tukwila on the proposed annexations of the
Riverton, Foster, and Thorndyke areas. Based on a limited review of the DNS,
King County 'ivision of �Surface Water Management has the following obser-
vatio s:
g County, through its Division of Surface Water Management and
Q Kin
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.
kt
'cooi?;
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 Tukwi.la'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.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Tukwila
annexations.
/
T:ds(C -M276)
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
A F F
I, JOANNE JOHNSON
AVIT OF DISTRIJTION
[] Notice of Public Hearing
[[.Notice of Public Meeting
E] Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet
O Planning Commission Agenda Packet
(] Short Subdivision Agenda Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
E] Shoreline Management Permit
hereby declare that:
Determination of Nonsignificance
❑ Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance
[] Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice, of Action
Q Official Notice
Other
E] 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 (L — /S
Cefc -/
Signature
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 IN THE TNTERt OCAI PROCESS _ )
Proponent CITY OF TUKWILA
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any APPROXTMATFIY RnIINDED BY THE
DUWAMISH RIVER, PACIFIC HIGHWAY, 139TH STREET. TUKWILA CITY LIMITS ANn TNTFRURBAN
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.
EE
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 Planning Director
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard LTukwi .,
Date ' ` eO Signature
Phone 433 -1846
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
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal PRE - ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ZONING AND ANNEXATION OF "THORNDYKE ".
Proponent CITY OF TUKWILA
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any APPROXIMATELY BOUNDED BY
SOUTH 144TH STREET._ PACIFIC HIGHWAY. SOUTH 160TH STREET. AND TUKWILA CITY LIMITS.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -14 -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 otherr information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
[[ There is no comment period for this DNS
XCi 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 Planning Director
Phone 433 -1846
Address ''" 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukw
Date Signature
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. 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
ANNEXATIONS
is FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1
FILED DECEMBER 1988
SEA•TAC INCORPORATION
FILED JANUARY 1988
RIVERTON ANNEXATION
J FILED FEBRUARY 1988
FOSTER ANNEXATION
FILED MAY 1988
IIII THORNDYKE ANNEXATION
FILED JUNE 1988
: I1 TUKWILA CITY LIMITS
❑ TUKWILA PLANNING AREA
Kinn
NOW Mak .4
NEN
ow. 1111Libe
■p u t t1 �. Y I110Y4I1 ► ..'191fialllllllllllll!!I IIIIIIIIIIIGI
->� /j� 'f/ ' `M> 111 .,,,„„,,,,„„111.11111111 0
..1115 1111TA IiVu91111ullllq�� OMI iii
■1 : �rali lllIIIIII � 11II(
u IIU�m
MIMEO -( INE 1110111 ,,,,,„, w..
: 41! t 1
-11111
11111111g16■4 51
®IMIIIIGIV
laraa
IP !V
77' =4i�
A ■szi � �
81 11"�"r' ,per
oil FrIN
tao';\"tit.1
II I
NIONLIN[ �
COYYUNIT
WLLCO■
j
Rainier Beach
SI3T 1
•
RAIPIPIN
GO.,
•
• COUNIR •
• CLV
ANNEXATIONS
in FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1
FILED DECEMBER 1986
SEA-TAC INCORPORATION
FILED JANUARY 1988
79RIVERTON ANNEXATION
FILED FEBRUARY 1988
1:=IFOSTER ANNEXATION
FILED MAY 1988
THORNDYKE ANNEXATION
1111111i FILED JUNE 1988
I TUKWILA CITY LIMITS
0 TUKWILA PLANNING AREA
leallailig I
WEE IMM MEW MI 1111
Ems
•umEINILIP
111:111WIIICKI IMMO! IlIlIlIlIlIli
I I 111101i 1111 1
1UIWiI111lIIl :11 OHM:.
1111117417110011!10 11 1111111111h 111111111 ‘I
.101 ..... ,
-ft.777P...s 1111111111111111
................
.......-
i11111!1111;1A\.
DNS DISTRIBUTION
EP?C -15 -88 FOSTER ANNEXATION
EPIC =14 -88 THORNDYKE ANNEXATIIII
EPIC- 1 -88 RIVERTON ANNEXATION
SATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SHORELANDS DIVISION
MAIL STOP PV -11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
ATTN: KAREN BEATTY
SATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Mr\ L STOP PV -11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
' ATTN: KAREN BEATTY
K::NG 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 COMD
5200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
SUITE 11
TUKWILA, WA 98188
VALLEY DAILY NEWS
P.0 BOX 130
KENT, WA 98135
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Pre-Annexation Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zoning and
annexation of area known as Thorndyke.
3.
City of Tukwila•
Moira Carr Bradshaw or Jack Pace
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 433-1849
4. June 23, 1988
City of Tukwila EPIC FILE NO: 14-88
6. Comprehensive Plan review and amendment and pre-annexation zoning are
scheduled for July through November 1988; 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.
B. If text amendments are proposed additional environmental work will he
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 reeded are included
within . process. City Council adoption of pre-
,.,
ann ssivoa Plan amendment, zoning and annexation. A
notice will be submitted to the King County Boundary
Review Re��� �'��� review may be invoked. The County Council mJ.st
pass an or^tknancne 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-arnexation rnnirc
to allow for simultaneous adoption of zoning if area is annexed.
1
12. The proposed site is roughly bounded by South 144th Street, SR
99 (Pacific Highway), S. 169th Street, the Tukwila city limits
and is referred to as "Thorndyke." The size of the area is
approximately 469 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, Fosterr, 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.
C. The general area of the Duwamish River Basin has a history of
landslides and areas of instability.
GI
.
Thera is no proposal for any filling or grading to be done.
f. There will be no construction clearing during this project.
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.
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.
There
is b
�'�
proposals to reduce or control emissions because it
scope of this proposal.
3. WATER
a. The surface body of water that is located in the proposed annexation
area is the-Lower Greer River Basin and its tributaries. A stream
runs from approximately S. 148th Street and 42nd Avenue S. south ,o
S. 154th Street to 51st Avenue S. where it hits a collection point
and is presumedly piped to the Greer River. Another stream running
north of SR 518 from just west of 42nd Avenue joins with the above
just east of 42nd.
Ll.
No work in the vicinity of the above-waters is required in order
feir this annexation to take place.
c. Fill and dredge materials are not needed in the annexations of-
these areas.
d. There is no need for surface water withdrawals or diversions
niven the nature of these annexations.
e. A portion of the proposed annexation area does lie within a 100
year floodplain.
f. No waste materials will be dealt with in this projosct.
b. Ground
1. Ground water will not be withdrawn during this.project.
2.
No waste materials will be dealt with during this project.
c. Water Runoff
1. Major runoff occurs from the highways that traverse the
areas - SR 518v SR 99 and Interstate 1-5. Other runoff
occurs from local streetsv roofs and paved perking 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.
2. The discharge and seepage of waste materials is not
effected by this annexation project.
e ' ::
_
3. y listed surface water improvements will be
•reviewed for consideration in the City of Tukwila's CIP.
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 Dowamish River.
4. PLANTS
a. The types of vegetation found on the site are deciduous and evergreen
treesv shrubsv grass, and wet soil plants.
b. No vegetation will have to be removed from the site.
c. No. endanCered species are known to be located in the area.
d- There is no proposed landscaping for the proposal.
5. ANIMALS
a. The animals whic'el are located on or near the site are as -ollows:
Birds: Hawk, Heron, and Songbirds
Mammals: Raccoonsv Foxes, Coyotes, and Musk Rats
Fish: Steelheed, Bullheads
b.& c.
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.
d. There are no measures proposed to enhance the wildlife.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. There are no changes to be made in the sites energy requirements.
b. This project will not affect the potential use of solar energy in
adjacent properties.
c. not applicable
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. There are no environmental health hazards as a result c�f t�is
proposal.
b. The ,Tukwila would assume responsibility for all fire and
police serces.
c. There is no need for proposed environmental health precautions due to
the fact that there are no hazards involved in this proposal.
4
b. Noise
a. Vehicular traffic would be the major noise effecting the
site area..
b. There would be no construction noise occurring in the area
as a result of this project.
c. There are no changes proposed to control the noise impact
on the area. The City of Tukwila will enforce its noise
ordinance to control the noise.
S. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a..
In the Riverton annexation area there are heavy and light industrial
and commercial uses located in the north' with residential use in the
southern half of the proposals area. In the Foster annexation area
there are commercial, residential and public facility land uses. in
the area of Thorndyk«e' commercialv 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
foczd 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 CS General Commercial
Community Business
2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling
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
5
RM 1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling
RM 2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling
RS 7200 Single Family Dwelling
f. The currenenplan for the areas is as follows:
0^
Riverton - The King County Comprehensive Plan designates this area
as urban with Southgate park designated as park. The Highline
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, Commercialv Public Facilitiesr 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
Residential, Community Facilities, Park and Open Space, Neighborhood
and Community Business, Low/Medium Density Residential and Single
Family. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the area with the
following: Cnmmercialv 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 following areas have been classified as environmentally
sensitive.
Riverton - The hill east of E. Marginal Way and north of S. 126th
Street of the Rainier Bank Processing Center is cleseif/ed
as envi ~-~` tally sensitive as well as the hillside rtnning 42nd Avenue around S. 135th street to Macadam Road and
general' '-,!: thwest to southeast from Pacific Highway around S. 133rd
- --_
the hill' .- 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
,S. 137th and along the west side of Macadam Road for its entirk`
length through the annexation area are designated as environmentally
sensitive,
6
Thorndyke - The hillside running north and south along the west side
of 51s± Avenue B. 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.
i, No new construction is assoeiated with the project that would cause a
c-;ange in the number of people who reside of work in the areal
however, a few comprehensive plan chances are proposed that wi'l
change pc,tential residential densities. In the Riverton area, a high
density multiple family ,Area will be changed tn In density and the
• overall perm�tted densities in the low density areas will be
increased to urban maximum standards,
Tecrndyke's rsidentAal population is estimated to be 4500.
j. Ttis project will not displace any people.
k. Since there is no displacement of individuals, there are no prcposed
measures to deal with this issue.
l. 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 rode are potential mitigation to impacts associated with the
land use/zoning changes.
9. HOUSINS
a.
c.
No new housing will be provided during this project.
There is no need for any of the housing units to be eliminated due to
the nature of this project.
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 COOW,is 45^. However, height exception areas to this height
restrict low building heights of up to 115' and greater if
idemtifi the Height Exception Map.
b. Currently, there are no views which are being altered or obstructed.
c. There are no proposed measured to reduce or control aesthetie
impacts.
nt_ Ummir NNW MAW
a. Light or glare is not applicable to this proposal.
b. LIght or glare is not a safety hazg,rd in this. proposal.
c. There are no off-site sources of light or glare considerations.
d. There are no proposed leasures to control light and glare.
12. RECREATION
a.
The recreational opportunities in the annexed areas are Southgate
Park, Tukwila Community Center, the Duwamish/Green River riverfront
trail, Foster pool and playgrounds and ball fields, the Thorndyke
playfield and the Foster ball fields and tennis court.
b. There are no consatructfon 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 13034 41st Avenue S - 1926
Nash House 4106 S. 130th Avenue 1910-1920
Albert Tutt 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.
The Met m* serves Pacific Highway South between 16Dth a:d
- 112th Stm���*. Metro also serves some of the area along East
Marginal Way South.
b. The area is currently served by Metro bus service.
.1-here would be no parking spaces eliminated from the sites.
e. The proposal will not require any new roads.
B
9,
Due to the nature of this project, there is not need for water, rail
or air transportation.
The number of vehicular trips is not necessary to this proect.
There are no measures to reduce or control trans3ortation
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.
h. 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
adiust 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, WWG,
Water Diestrict 125, Sea-Tac Disposal, PNB, Val-Vne Sewer District.
h. There are no utilities proposed for this project.
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
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.
?, The City of Tukwila will enforce its codet in the annexed areas and
comply with. SERA to control the environmental impacts.
This anneWion process does not effect plants, animals, fish, or
'- marine Life nor is it expected to deplete energy or natural
resources.
The City of Tukwila has mapped the environmentally sensitive area ',f
the annexation areas. The County in contrast with the City has
.legislation which protects and regulates development adjacent to and
9
of sensitive sites. Tukwila does not. Therefore development of
ior
around tm areas while covered by SEPA review in Tukwila w �l bcoore suoJectivel^ +r-_+=d with perhaps
uncertain outcomes.
To avoid or reduce impacts, the environmental rev�e
continued and used to protect sensitive sites, w process
5. No _impact is to be expected
on the use of thm shore,i
Tukwila �ilI �esignate the one area of shoreline ne or the `and^
ne
compa��ible with �ts current designation and with �s urban which i�
the Tukwila Program, The effect on land use is expected to be minimal because the objective is to proeide compatible zoning. The overall density of simgle family dwellings is expected to i ncrease because Tukwila does 70f' ha«c:! the Suburhan Residential density c+ 35,00O^ Some residential arees will be lowered from thei r current
high and medium
yet some areas of low will be raised to medium or high. um ensities
To avoid cr reduce shoreline and land use
impacts ' a pre-annexation
on comprehensive plan and zoning analysis is being conducted. If necessary, to mitigate zoning impacts the zoning code will be The Tukwila shoreline program will be amended if the ar ea
is annexed. The shorelin e i s protected in the interim because evelopment would continue under the county's regulations untiI it is added to the Tukwila
Program.
Thm annexation will increase the usage of Tukwila poli ce fi
judicial, administrative, legislative, planning and sn' re'
services.
As was mentioned in 15, above, a fiscal/budget projection is b '
rg done to plan for the increased needs .
The tncrease in police security on Pacific Highway South (old d
�o the social problems existing there in the form of d ue
prostitution, etc, rugs and
will be
7. The annexation and Comp Plan and zoning proposals do not conflict
with local, state, or federal laws with regards to the protection
the environment.
o
R. The annexation not conflict with Tukwila.s
---,r_.,e..s~ it lies within the City's Planning Area T�
-in for the Comp Plan primarily reflect existing e
in the areat or are being made to be more comparable with �ur,n� uses
land uses.
nunoa�g
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS
1. The objectives of the proposal are to respond to the eequests 77H ,-�s tdents in Tukwila PIannOng area , cm In �dditi th
� the proposal wruld
10
expand city boundaries to include adjacent service, iepact and
planning area and co-locate with South Central School District And
provide urban level services to an urban area.
An alternative means of achieving some of the above objecti'es weuld
be through the formation of an alternate municipal government as
Tukwila is the only city agency whose boundary is contirgert to the
area or in close proximity.
04 the two alternatives, anne:ation is preferable to incorporation
because:
a. Policies and economics would support a lid on the number
of governmental agencies.
b. Tukwila is small in size and population and should he
encouraged to assume a stature comparable wtth 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
Any expansion of the City's area especially into residential as
will create greater demands than revenues generated to serve the
areas on a one to one basis. But service levels and improveee,ts rao
be maintained at adequate levels for the proposed annexation area.
In additionv the increase in the residential area of the City ^nuId
create a more even balance in the land use pattern of the City,
(General Goal 446 p.13)
To reduce potential conflicts in equitable allocation of servces a
plan for the proposal is prepared by the City departments to assist
in budgetary, personnel and service decisions.
11
Economics
Finance
Policy Analysis
June 14, 1988
10014th Avenue
Suite 3025
1110 Seattle, WA
98154 -1107
1206)223 -0767
MEMORANDUM
JUN 1 5 1988
To: Jack Pace, Planning Departme t
From: Laurie Bender, CCA inc
Information from King County on Roads in Combined Annexation Area
This memorandum summarizes the information available on projected capital
improvements and maintenance requirements for roads in the combined
annexation areas of Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke.
According to King County, there are no road improvements for this area in the
current Capital Improvement Program (1988 -- 1993). The County CIP only
includes "high priority" projects. The King County Transportation Plan
includes lower priority projects and some of these are within the proposed
annexation areas. These projects are listed below and should be .reviewed by
the City to determine if these should be included in our projections. (The high
priority projects listed in the Transportation Plan, have either been
completed or are in progress. The Plan also lists some improvements to SR -99,
which would be responsibility of the state.)
1. 42 Ave S- at S 144 St.
Priority -- Medium
Intersection /Operational Improvement -- $77,000
2. 42 Ave S from S 164 St to S 154 St
Priority -- Medium
Pave Shoulders -- $110,000
3. 40 Ave S et al (from S 144 St to S 128 St)
Priority- -Low
Construct Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk -- $379,000
4. SR -99 (Pacific Hwy S) from S 200 St to S 154 St
Priority - -High
Combined Annexation Study
County Road Information
page2
Conduct Feasibility Study to Construct Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk- -
$50,000 (King County share)
In order to identify costs associated with each of the annexation areas, the
projects and road miles need to be identified by area. Project 1 is
on the boundary between Foster and Thorndyke: which area should it be
attributed to? Project 2 is split between the Thorndyke area and
unincorporated King County. Project 3 is split between the Foster and Riverton
areas. Project 4 is split between the Thorndyke area and unincorporated King
County. Costs for split projects should be divided between the two areas
based the project miles contained in each area. If the City indicates
that these projects should be included in projected costs, we can either
follow up to get more details from the County, or use City estimates of road
miles to divide project costs.
The City should review this information and 1) identify which of these
projects, if any, would be done by the City if the areas were annexed, 2)
determine what portion of each project is with in each annexation areas (i.e.
using road miles) and 3) indicate any other road projects that the City thinks
will be needed in the annexation areas within the next six years and estimate
their cost.
King County Roads Maintenance is reviewing the annexation area to identify
specific maintenance costs. In general the County's road maintenance costs
average $5,000 per road mile. To estimate Tukwila's road maintenance costs we
will use an average of $4,837 per lane mile, which is based on the 1988 budget
for both labor and other costs (this was used for the Fire District # 1 EIS).
Con•1 No.
Epic File No. /7/---A,<5
Fee $100.00 Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: TNoRN'DY Y..t. AN NEXp.T ►c7 N
2. Name of applicant:
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: V E R_N
LP-13\ Soy 14-8= SeAT1-1..E, wA. 9816$ 2V1-/ 3655
- - 3 4 1 1 - 3 2 54
4. Date checklist prepared: MA`, Zo ) ► 98i3
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. p
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Nory E
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.
10. List,any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
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.
ANNEXA I i n F 'TN® N pY •A2t A IJJTC CITE
a ZXW 1LA, Se hT'A CAA t1O MM' ANb Le-CA
�-
12 1-,1,-_-1PT1D1J
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.
Sec In l 1 O J
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
'TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI•T • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
►3
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)?
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.
CLAY S A.N A-AA')
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. No k
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
NOT A-9 e Lk. CAZ Le-
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
No f PL��LC
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or .control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
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.
Iv l9 T APP
b. Are .there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. No-r- P L. t Ch-(3L.E
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
Nn'T' APeL I (�3L�
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.
1 Evaluation for
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. Non— A.PP L' GAS, 1`TS LE=
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. No'>— pifpLi (A-C3 Le'
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known._ ivoLAzpp...i c.1/4.8 1..e"
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
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.
Agency Use Only
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. Nor A -PPc-A LAa'? LE
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.
Nor Me ►.■ C r2 Le-
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.
Nor A4PLI c_14c1 Le—
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
N O i "4' C.M. LE
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
No 'r A.?Q LA c,- L.0
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
■/deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
tV evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
V 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? NONE
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. N o
•
• 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: Ni) CAArvv'E S
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:
heron, eagle, s, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:.
R.A c-v o N
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. No N
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: MJoi A$PLr C L.E
IIIEvaluation 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
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
i 6-e P L ._t C -& — No C_.A J c, € s.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. NO
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any: No°' ARPLtC.A -at
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. (V e)
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. NoAnnls,..1— rk2.E-- 4 Pok -■G.C'
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: Np N E
• 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)? ,a047:-, Pc.I3
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 f
M PLt GArISL.-
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: (r' 60LAC/1LtF
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? R,tS t De ∎ n*L. $ GaµMe2ct h
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
NO
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site?
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site?
g.
If applicable, what is the current` shoreline master
program designation of the site?
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? Nor" A-PPL' _ L-
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: NOT 4PuCeaue7
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: t.
. 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? No-i A -'Pt4 L
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing.___vo i L CA LAE°
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: Nal- 64n1W C_A-6L-dc
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?
—fi(9 c .L. '
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? Nor xi) PLi C.1%,-3 tom°
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: Ner MG icJ
. 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?
Nor ASP P Lac -.J-3 LC-
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
NoY
PIQ'PLA-cN -13L
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
iso'r— A& P L..L cmI Le`
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Nom Ad' P —L c L_ tr-
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
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:
No7' APeLAcL✓e
•
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.
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:
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.
Std hL
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? E S
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
100T- A-4 P CA..63 L
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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).
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. NO
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur. NO" A- PPL1c_(3CC"
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: Nor fo-$PL.t CASLC
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. N/ S ) No - _
AND PoLJci. P20 re-en oti wov�.7 Nev`�
13E- N C2 E1r P TD 1/4 CA- J'C er /ANN )c Er>
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts. on public services, if any. Nor t'A'0ac,9i9
•
16. Utilities
1 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. Cir tilities urc. ntly available at tit site:
ural '.as, 4 ! crefuse servic
.e.firbtiTt er , other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Nor A-P P w CA-ALE-
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 APPLIST
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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? TH-C PK.oPoSA,t_ IS rD AWAJE57A Ai-A0
Ox,Si iNG Reg IDEN'nArt... A 3 SiN Q-A S
Co Mmua/ i 1 Tv 714-e- C/ 7 o r "rid C.w ILA
,
iv0 C144, lip NC l=Nv oNME,t�TS
A-2E /140-1 C-1 P i4Tci) D%) Ta 11+6- Alu p ex #71042,
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
N0Nc -- A-PPLI J&Le—
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life? N0 Ct4 JGE`S
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are: tjoN)E7 — Nc9 T
A-PPLA c_ iv& L-E-
•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources? No (4')S. tX P% _ r
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are: NONE --PDT- /rPCL'( L..E
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 ?. /Vo /MP a- XPec. -T't"".1J
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are: I O/JtE —)07° AIPfLJCh a 1.1.E
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? No !Ake/re-1— x Per -Te`b
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area: tio0 --,4r A-)9 L.
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? i4)0._
I:MPA--c-r- oN PoI>L►C_ Se-2311 c
Core o Tv RLW 1 L.A P t Ta N
Fo-e_ w= 4E- /44440 Po LA c ` F axeT c.-r o a
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment. No- cf L
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL •T
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
To AnI C X AO tX ► ST N4.. R.ES $ .ka"1 "-L
AgAr 9 CaMj ee..c.t A t.., P, Z A t .rro
CITY A: —1-0 Kw LA
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? NaAitir
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: NDT i4.$PLIcA4Q'l
• •
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?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23-
fHORNDYKE ANNEXATION
STREET INVENTORY - 1988
Ask TOTAL STREET MILES
6.34
TOTAL AREA
4i ACRES
NO.: STREET NAME
1 135th Avenue S.
2 138th Avenue S.
3 140th Avenue S.
4 142nd Avenue S.
5 146th Avenue S.
6 151st Avenue S.
7 151st Avenue 5.
8 :Old Military Road
10 :S. 144th Street
11 IS. 146th Street
12 S. 146th Street
13 1S. 148th Street
14 :S. 148th Street
15 :S. 150th Street
16 1S. 150th Street
17 :S. 151st Street
18 1S. 152nd Street
19 :S. 154th Street
20 ;S. 158th Street
FROM
S. 154th Street
1Cul -de -Sac
:S. 152nd Street
1S. 144th Street
1S. 144th Street
IS. 144th Street
1S. 151st Street
:S. 158th Street
:Pacific Highway
:Pacific Highway
lend of road
:end of road
:Pacific Highway
lend of road
;Pacific Highway
1Cul -de -Sac
!Pacific Highway
:Pacific Highway
:Old Military Road
TO : LENGTH :R /N WIDTH! NO. LANES:LANE FEET:
IN. line of SR 518
1S. 150th Street
;N. line of SR 518
1S. 160th Street
1S. 150th Street
:S. 151st Street
:Klickitat Drive
:S. 160th Street
:53rd Avenue S.
:end of road
1I -5
:51st Avenue S.
lend of road
:51st Avenue S.
:end of road
151st Avenue S.
151st Avenue S.
:51st Avenue S.
:42nd Avenue S.
+ + + + +
1 340.00: 60.00 1 2 1 680.0
1 244.00 30.00 1 2 488.0
11,317.60 1 60.00 1 2 1 2635.2 1
15,308.41 1 60.00 1 2 ; 10616.8
12,005.22 1 30.00 : 1 1 2005.2
11,977.58 ! 40.00 ! 2 : 3955.2
11,643.87 ! 40.00 1 1 1 1643.9
1 400.00 60.00 1 2 ! 800.0
13,999.20 1 60.00 1 2 : 7998.4
13,081.40 ! 40.00 1 2 1 6162.8
1'661.50' : 40.00 1 Not Open : 0.0
1'671.3' 1 40.00 1 Not Open ! 0.0
:3,240.50 1 40.00 : 2 : 6481.0 1
1'399.6' 1 40.00 1 Not Open 1 0.0 1
13,635.00 1 40.00 1 2 1 7270.0 1
1 245.00 : 52.00 1 1 1 245.0 1
1'4306.7' 1 50.00 1 Not Open 1 0.0
:4,373.56 1 60.00 1 2 : 8747.1 1
:1,664.01 1 60.00 1 2 ! 3328.0 1
TOTAL in FEET 1 33475.4 1 LANE -FEET= 63056.6 1
TOTAL in NILES 1 6.34 1 LANE-NILES= 11.94 1
-+ - - - -+
FOSTER ANNEXATION
STREET INVENTORY -
TOTAL MILES
1988 • 3.17
NO.:
- - - -+
11
2:
31
41
5:
61
71
81
10 1
11 1
12 1
13 1
14 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 1
21
22 1
23 1
24
25 1
STREET NAME
41st Avenue S.
41st Avenue 5.
42nd Avenue 5.
43rd Avenue S.
44th Avenue 5.
45th Avenue 5.
46th Avenue S.
51st Avenue S.
52nd Avenue S.
52nd Avenue S.
52nd Place S.
53rd Avenue S.
53rd Avenue S.
53rd Avenue S.
Macadam Road S.
S. 137th Street
5. 138th Street
S. 139th Street
S. 139th Street
S. 139th Street
S. 139th Street
5. 140th Street
S. 140th Street
S. 142nd Street
FROM
:S. 144th Street
:End of Road
IS. 139th Street
15. 140th Street
:S. 140th Street
:S. 139th Street
:Macadam Road S.
11 -5
11-5
:City Limits
152nd Avenue S.
:City Limits
:52nd Avenue S.
:S. 144th Street
:S. 144th Street
152nd Avenue S.
:1 -5
:42nd Avenue S.
:Pacific Hwy.
:44th Avenue S.
:51st Avenue S.
:44th Avenue S.
142nd Avenue S.
:1 -5
TO : LENGTH :R /1i WIDTH: NO. LANES:LANE FEET:
:Cul -de -Sac
IS. 139th Street
:S. 144th Street
15. 142nd Street
:S. 142nd Street
:S. 140th Street
S. 140th Street
:5. 138th Street
IS. 142nd Street
:5. 138th Street
S. 137th Street
:S. 144th Street
:S. 137th Street
:east line of I -5
:5. 136th Street
:56th Avenue S.
152nd Avenue S.
:44th Avenue S.
:42nd Avenue S.
146th Avenue S.
:City Limits
146th Avenue 5.
144th Avenue S.
153rd Avenue S.
1 384.50
1 600.00
1,676.28
1 600.00
1 600.00
163.53
: 680.00
1 640.00
: 300.00
600.00
: 250.00
11,186.50
433.20
1,000.00
12,935.00
: 680.00
: 248.89
1 586.67
1 627.38
1 680.00
: 182.00
1 705.00
1 635.96
1 360.00
TOTAL in FEET
TOTAL in MILES
16754.9
3.17
+
+
769.0
1200.0
3352.6
1200.0
1200.0
327.1
1360.0
1280.0
600.0
1200.0
250.0
1186.5
866.4
1000.0
5870.0
1360.0
497.8
1173.3
1254.8
1360.0
364.0
1410.0
1271.9
720.0
LANE -FEET= 31073.3
LANE - MILES= 5.89
Icv
10i cDs-7)ThA\-1)
,, Q ■ u6 rodi) --;1,,fil 9cM
;pa. r ,,,c1),,,/,,,,Lv,s9A-T TV- -" c',\"'
--rn Ais\ki PY\\") -4\1911/Y:Cd): b 6 bg
s--- / '--25 1 ' QQQ21 -ITYV T . V \ "G °ILI °
'tg ,1-- Q1 Ohl ; ' ' S 9 Q*7 I -1' r, r "I /C
i (h h .i --*3,10'1,00 W . ,fib b 0
g ,s, 4-v'601? 0).:1c1 0)
,,-.i91 ii- )(23-A-Apift#pcii/7 Li N'
c911 1
-\i/ \I ' gs/m10
13A10-11 ; 1>LtO
t.r4'ita I '14997' rc 9
LIM-AP); gic_)) Avlitifir h_cM) fo)T.) :0-1Poo ), pep
t1