Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-252-84 - EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT - TUKWILA BEND OFFICESTUKWILA BEND OFFICES Evergreen Management Co Southcetner Blvd 8z, westerly of Interurban EPIC - 252 -84 \MCI, tP6k) _meg, kuut_tect 3e5o ota 6,6 0^ 4sti City of Tukwila G� 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanOusen, Mayor January 9, 1986 Mr. Errol F. Garr, P.E. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 301 116th Ave. S.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Tukwila Bend Site, Plan Sheet No. C -1, C -2 and C -3 Dear Mr. Garr: This is an addendum to my December 31, 1985 letter requesting a resubmittal. I, wish to add the following comments under Item No. 2, Curb Curb /Access /Sidewalk Permits: It has come to my attention through the City Engineer that WSDOT will require 300 lineal feet of limited access from the center line of Southcenter Boulevard easterly on both sides of Southcenter Boulevard. This may interfere with the access currently planned for your development. Requested is your contact with Ross Earnst at 433 -1853 to discuss this matter further so that your resubmittal is in compliance with future WSDOT requirements for such limited access. Sincerely, Phil F aser Senior Engineer cc: ti a?"n ngr =Directtq� City` Engineer Building Official Tukwila Planning Permit Coordinator /cd MITIGATING MEASURES 1. Geotechnical study being submitted with the building permit application. 2. Dedication of 20 foot public access along and on top of the dike. 3. Construction of a dike and dike maintenance road per King County Hydraulics Division requirements. 4. Construction of oil -water separators in the storm water system. 5. Construction of an archeological interpretive display per requirements of the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation and City of Tukwila along the public access easement. 6. Traffic analysis of temporary and permanent street improvements submitted with the building permit application. Mnth. nnirs Lod (K6 587-035-e Ph°‘0Atrodvi5 bavoll Auo6pil )z/-- 363O . lee&W Qs9Vaize. /./-P •e. Liafzio Vietivs. /1/ bu.dia-4/6 (91er ms7Y-1 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor November 27, 1985 Ed Linardic, Lance Mueller Architects 130 Lakeside Seattle, Washington 98122 RE: Tukwila Bend Plan Review Additional information needs to be supplied on: - 1 -. E- xterior- illumination. 2. Rooftop screening per TMC 18.60.050 and 18.60/.060. 3. Large hardy shade trees along Green River.k' 4. Maximum 20% reflectivity of glass specified on plans. 5. Minimum driveway width of twenty -four (24) feet. our telephone conversation November 25, 1985. . / Jt/ PL./'i6S m 6- /UvYrN ncerely, Moira Bradshaw /wb fI/ OFFICIAL NOTICE NOTICE IS GIVEN UNDER SEPA, RCW 43.21C.075, THAT THE CITY OF TUKWILA TOOK THE ACTION DESCRIBED IN (2) BELOW ON (DATE) January 24. 1985 • 1. ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE, ENJOIN, REVIEW OR OTHERWISE CHALLENGE SUCH ACTION MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN ten DAYS PURSUANT TO (STATUTE OR ORDINANCE) Tukwila Municipal Code ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE, ENJOIN, REVIEW OR OTHERWISE CHAL- LENGE SUCH ACTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON— COMPLIANCE WITH_ THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT) SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER NOTICE; NO LATER THAN February 24, 1985 . ALL APPEALS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ROOM E609, 516 THIRD AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 98104 (344- 2530). ANY PERSON DESIRING TO RAISE SEPA ISSUES BY JUDICIAL APPEAL MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF INTENT TO DO SO WITH THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL OF THE ACTING AGENCY, Bradley J. Collins WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMMENCING ACTION SET BY (STATUTE OR ORDINANCE) Tukwila Municipal Code 2. DESCRIPTION OF. AGENCY ACTION: approval of a shoreline management substantial development permit 84-- 33 -SMP 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL (IF NOT COVERED BY (2)): five single -story office - .wa.rehouse buildings consisting of 109,300 sq. ft. per the record established in.this permit application 4. LOCATION OF. PROPOSAL (A SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO LOCATE, THE SITE, IF ANY; BUT A COMPLETE LEGAL DE- SCRIPTION IS NOT REQUIRED): easterly of_and adjacent to Southcenter Boulevard, westerly of Interurban Ave. S. 5. TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SEPA (INCLUDE NAME AND DATE OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS): Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 6. DOCUMENTS MAY BE EXAMINED DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AT (LOCATION, INCLUDING 'ROOM NUMBER, IF ANY): Planning Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Evergreen Management Company 2100 124th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 OFFICIAL NOTICE NOTICE IS GIVEN UNDER SEPA, RCW 43.21C.075, THAT THE CITY OF TUKWILA TOOK THE ACTION DESCRIBED IN (2) BELOW ON (DATE) January 24, 1985 • 1. ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE, ENJOIN, REVIEW OR OTHERWISE CHALLENGE SUCH ACTION MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN ten DAYS PURSUANT TO (STATUTE OR ORDINANCE) Tukwila Municipal Code ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE, ENJOIN, REVIEW OR OTHERWISE CHAL- LENGE SUCH ACTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON — COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT) SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER NOTICE; NO LATER THAN February 24, 1985 . ALL APPEALS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ROOM E609, 516 THIRD AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 98104 (344- 2530). ANY PERSON DESIRING TO RAISE SEPA ISSUES BY JUDICIAL APPEAL MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF INTENT TO DO SO WITH THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL OF THE ACTING AGENCY, Bradley J. Collins WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMMENCING ACTION SET BY (STATUTE OR ORDINANCE) Tukwila Municipal Code 2. DESCRIPTION OF AGENCY ACTION: approval of a shoreline management substantial development permit 84-- 33 -SMP 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL (IF NOT COVERED BY (2)): five single -story office - . warehouse buildings consisting of 109,300 sq. ft. per the record established in this permit application 4. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (A SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO LOCATE THE SITE, IF ANY, BUT A COMPLETE LEGAL DE- SCRIPTION IS NOT REQUIRED): easterly of_and adjacent to Southcenter Boulevard,•westerly of Interurban Ave. S. 5. TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SEPA (INCLUDE NAME AND DATE OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS): Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 6. DOCUMENTS MAY BE EXAMINED DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS AT (LOCATION, INCLUDING ROOM NUMBER, IF ANY): Planning Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 1 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor January 3, 1985 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 King County Department of Budget and Program Development, EIS Review 400 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Bob Edmundson RE: Evergreen Management Company Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance - EPIC - 252 - 84. Dear Sirs: This letter is to insure completion of our records on this matter. We believe this was sent to you earlier, but confirmation is not available. If this is the initial receipt of this determination and you wish to comment, please call be as soon as possible or by January 10, 1985, at 433 -1847. Thank you. Respectfly L. Rick Beeler Associate Planner WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Office /Warehouse Development of five single story buildings of a total of 109,300 square feet Proponent Evergreen Management Co. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any southeasterly corner of Interurban Ave. S. and Southcenter Boulevard and along the Green River Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 252 -84 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. Mitigating measures are attached. [[ There is no comment period for this DNS 0 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 day /from the date below. Comments must be submitted by January 2 , 198, Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date 1i c4 g1 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. MITIGATED DETERMINATION QIIVONSIGNIFICANCE EPIC- 252 -84, Evergreen MGM__ gement Co. MITIGATING MEASURES 1. Geotechnical study being submitted with the building permit application. 2. Dedication of 20 foot public access along and on top of the dike. 3. Construction of a dike and dike maintenance road per King County Hydraulics Division requirements. 4. Construction of oil -water separators in the storm water system. 5. Construction of an archeological interpretive display per requirements of the State Office of Archeol ogy _and_Hi.stor_i.c_P_reserv_ati on ,and City of Tukwila along the public access easement. 6. Traffic analysis of temporary and permanent street improvements submitted with the building permit application. • d e -*6 W/1-70.0,11 Afger PZ-.*vfigtir=v4;"4 ."722"WerlAr nire.gr LeuveAcreav rutorna.•■ rcg•-■-~ CD,-,21,gre.=... - Groover' , ficavairmur Cowyvrzeys.ftorgaw, ei..44 (=Au "st.cpsvve rZust7v6 411E1 Teccer.ovnfter), emtrzawra40. ,.ituAravtiv e•J GO cr. icy546.- "4,inarecenwzo-t e**.c n,w7.1) arrur.4 CtP3 VAZZIA:1•=r,=-13,se e•COTA4G4, lt4M17, /c.Z.0404 4.4131:X.b.(Arri , ' lance mueller & associates architects November 26, 1984 Mr. Rick Beeler CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: TUKWILA BEND SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Dear Rick, Enclosed is a supplemental narrative to environmental checklist as discussed at the meeting November 8th and 9th, 1984. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, LANCE MUELLE & SSOCIATES /ARCHITECTS LA EDI LINARDIC Project Architect EL:nk 130 lakeside • suite f • seattie, Washington 98122 (206) 325.2553 lance mueller ale, cal • senior associates: robert oischewsky, eiieen furney associates: robert Fadden, michael galbreith, richard hernish, robert wells a washinaton corporation furnishing architectural services by and under the supervision of registered architects RECREATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT • Fort Dent Regional Park is immediately adjacent to the proposed complex. The publicly owned river bank along the site is presently used lightly for recreation. Some of the employees from the proposed complex would use Fort Dent Regional Park for picnicking or informal athletics during favorable weather. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure the land for a trail and benches along the river front would be deeded to the city. The city could then construct a trail and install benches. This would increase the opportunity for public recreational use of the site. Each building would be provided with showers and lockers, thus reducing impact on the park. The park is very lightly used during the week at mid -day, and with the addition of a river trail and benches, such additional use would not have a significant adverse impact. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The site is surrounded on two sides by the Green River. The River bank is presently covered with low grass and few small groves of young cotton wood trees. The proposal calls for parking next to 40' -0" wide management zone, possible diking as required for bank stabilization and construction of foot path or trail in the 20' -0" wide land deeded to the City. A drainage system with oil /water separators and silt would have to be constructed with discharge to the Green River. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure, benches will be installed along the trail. The trail will be landscaped with low growth and large shade trees at maximum 30' -0" on center. The trees will be primarily used to screen the project due to location of the property and will not provide shade to the River. The trail will connect to the Fort Dent Park, thus opening the river bank for recreation. SOILS REPORT The site has been graded and filled many years before and is nearly level. The fill is medium- dense -to -dense and slightly -to- moderately compressible. Prior to constuction and /or working drawings a soils analysis will be performed on the site. The soil report will be submitted to the City at the time of Building Permit application. TRAFFIC See report prepared by Entranco Engineers. 2 November 26, 1984 Re: TUKWILA BEND SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project would be visible from adjacent streets, but would be set back from Interurban Avenue. All visitors entering Fort Dent Regional Park pass down this street and by the proposed complex, thus, the appearance of the project would become a part of the park experience. The proposed complex will not block any residential views on the hillside west of the site, thus, the project would not create a significant impact on views of nearby residents. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating measures included in the the project are master plan of the site as unified visual element. The site will be landscaped and there will be provisions made for a perimeter trail and green belt along the river. In order to heighten visual experience of employees and park users, each building will have different architectural articulation. All the buildings will be the same height, yet, each one will have different wall treatment (see enclosed pictures). Glazing will be either tinted and/or reflective glass. In either case reflection would be'confined to the site due to location of the site and its relationship of the hill west of the site. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The site was investigated by the University of Washington of Public Archaeology to identify the potential for historical or archaeological resources on the site. Since the site was filled and graded many years ago, any potential cultural remains have been covered by several feet of fill. Construction of the poject will occur entirely on previous fill, and will not cause any additional impact to potential cultural resources on the site. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure to the previous filling of the site, an interpretive display describing local history could be constructed along the river trail. 1 November 26, 1984 Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company 2100 - 124th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98005 Re: Traffic Impact for Tukwila Bend Development Entranco Project 85024 -65 Dear Mr. Miller: ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1515 -116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 200. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-0683 Per your request, we have conducted a study of the traffic impact of the Tukwila Bend development on traffic flow performance on the Southcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue intersection, which will serve as the sole access gateway to the development. Traffic impact on the nearby Interurban Avenue /Grady Way intersection was also assessed. We note that the proposed development is markedly reduced in scale from the previous development proposal as described in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Tukwila Bend Development," April 1983, and will generate considerably less traffic volume. (Entranco Engineers conducted the traffic impact study for the previous development.) The following table summarizes the building area, use profile, and traffic generation for the present proposal and compares it with the previous proposal. Daily traffic generation for the present proposal is estimated to be 1,320 vehicle trips, or 27 percent of the total traffic generation of the previous proposal. The p.m. peak -hour traffic generation for the present proposal is 210 vehicle trips (170 outbound from the site plus 40 inbound to the site), or 24 percent of the previous proposal. Traffic generation for the present proposal was estimated from national average data presented in the third edition (1982) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" handbook, which became available in 1983. Traffic generation for the previous proposal was via the 1979 second edition. The third edition shows a daily traffic generation rate of 14.3 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of building area, which is an increase of 16 percent over the 12.3 trip ends per 1,000 square feet shown in the second edition. Alex J. Redford, P.E. John T. Bannon, P.E. Patrick H. McCullough, P.E. Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 2 Percent A B Ratio: Present Original Present Development Development Original Project* Project ** (A /B)(100) Building Area & Use, sq. ft.: Office 82,000 (75 %) 401,000 (100 %) Warehouse /Distribution, Light Manufacturing 27,300 (25 %) 109,000 (100 %) 401,000 (100 %) 27.3% Site Development Traffic Generation Daily Vehicle Trips 1,320 4,930 26.8% Peak Hour Trips: Inbound 40 130 Outbound 170 750 210 880 23.9% * Evergreen Management Company /lance Mueller Architects, September 6, 1984 site plan. ** Draft Environmental Impact Statement for original development proposal, City of Tukwila Planning Department, April 29, 1983 (traffic impact study element conducted by Entranco Engineers, July 1982). Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 3 Level of service analysis at the key site gateway intersection of Southcenter Boulevard (Fort Dent Access Road east of Interurban Avenue) at Interurban Avenue was performed for the year 1986, when the Tukwila Bend project will be fully developed at its 109,300 square foot building area. Level of service was estimated for the p.m. peak hour with and without the Tukwila Bend project development. Current traffic volumes were projected forward to 1986 via the annual average 2.9 percent increase in traffic which has prevailed at this location in recent years. The 1986 p.m. peak hour level of service without the Tukwila Bend project is estimated to be at the borderline between of service B and C, with a volume /capacity ratio of 0.70. The 1986 level of service with the Tukwila Bend project is C, with a volume /capacity ratio of 0.78. The Tukwila Bend project traffic will thus increase the volume /capacity ratio by 11 percent, but overall traffic flow performance will remain in the "C" level of service range. Level of service C provides quite acceptable traffic operation conditions and is a desirable level for new_urban street projects. The next lower level of service, D,_ is increasingly accepted as a suitable level for heavy use existing urban streets and highways in highly constrained right -of -way corridors; moderate congestion obtains with D. Level of service E is full capacity, with severely congested operations. The next nearest intersection to the Tukwila Bend site is some 500 feet south on Interurban Avenue at the Grady Way /I -405 southbound ramps junction. This intersection currently operates with moderate p.m. peak hour congestion (level of service D), and will operate at level of service D for the 1986 p.m. peak hour with or without the Tukwila Bend traffic generation. The Tukwila Bend traffic will increase total approach volume for the four legs of this intersection by less than four percent. It should be noted that substantial changes to the area's traffic circulation system are planned. The Grady Way Bridge will be replaced with a four -lane facility and will be widened to provide a four -lane section from Interurban Avenue to Renton. There are also plans to widen and realign Southcenter Boulevard between Interurban Avenue and 62nd Avenue South. The new section would intersect Interurban Avenue at Grady Way, rather than at the Fort Dent Park entrance. The I -405 southbound ramps would be aligned with the Fort Dent Park entrance rather than Grady Way. Four approach lanes will eventually be provided at the Grady Way approach to Interurban Avenue. The reduction in turning movements (Southcenter Boulevard to Grady Way would have a straight through movement rather than a Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 4 right turn and then a left turn), together with improved approach lane configuration on Southcenter Boulevard and the off -ramp, will improve the level of service at the intersections. The Grady Way project is now under construction and the Southcenter Boulevard realignment could be completed as early as 1988. Additional transit service is expected to be implemented by Metro. The increased service is linked to the construction of a transit center in the Tukwila commercial district and a park- and -ride lot on Interurban at I -5. New routes will provide direct service from Tukwila to areas currently without service. Service will also be improved on existing routes. The Tukwila Bend site is easily accessed by transit passengers. In addition, the Seattle -King County Commuter Pool continues to improve carpool programs for the region, with heavy emphasis on major generators such as the nearby Southcenter /Tukwila commercial - industrial district. Finally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has programmed the construction of transit /carpool lanes along I -405, from Bellevue through Tukwila, to I -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to transit, carpools, and vanpools during peak periods, thereby enhancing the accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend site and reducing vehicular travel growth pressures in the site area. The HOV lanes are now being constructed in the I -90 to Renton segment of I -405. All of the above projects and programs will contribute to improved traffic flow and circulation in the Tukwila Bend site area. We note that a Burger King restaurant has been proposed by others for the northeast corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue inter- section, with access restricted to driveways along the Fort Dent Access Road. Traffic generation for the Burger King project is not included in the foregoing analysis. Fast -food restaurants in such locations usually generate their highest hourly traffic at noontime, while the Tukwila Bend hourly traffic generation will be greatest during the p.m. peak hour. At some future date when all property accessing the Fort Dent Access Road is fully developed, minor widening of the road will likely be required to provide a three -lane approach to Interurban Avenue (separate left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes) and to provide a two -way left -turn lane along the road between Interurban Avenue and the 90- degree turn north to Fort Dent Park. Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 5 Should you have any questions or comments about our study findings, please contact me. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. Dennis Neuzil, P.E. Associate DN:lbc cc: Ed Linardic * ' C tY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTALAEVIEW ROUTING FORM •CN&46 EPIC 252 -&4- FILE TEL TO: BLDG n PLNG n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R. PROJECT 7U4) ',() ) • LOCATION cOG Ijiij j $ v -,14101 _t FILE N0. DATE TRANSMITTED 1l-24'Yy RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /07.47-6-8c/ -STAFF COORDINATOR' er RESPONSE RECEIVED 11 - ZY - c3 THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. .PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. -THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR, COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 TO: OFFICE MEMO CITY o F TU KWI LA FROM: R` e. DATE: 10.9 184" SUBJECT: CC - 252-- $4 )If .Q - 3331' ( 4&)■Nl? NAR � 17CC1aJAst t �) c�� P- �t�1t�l 1.0IU WAs W.q0 c1J) PsiQ nzsN tO @D , Psto0 , .... . . .. ..... . ---- .- .- .. -....- - - - ... .......... ..................... ........ .................. ............. _. .............................................. ....... _........ WAC'197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Office /Warehouse Development of five single story buildings of a total of 109,300 square feet Proponent Evergreen Management Co. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any southeasterly corner of Interurban Ave. S. and Southcenter Boulevard and along the Green River Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 25a -84 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. Mitigating measures are attached. J There is no comment period for this DNS El This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by January 2' 1984 Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date Iit 081 Signature C*- -1.� 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. -,,-MLIGATED.DETERMINATION QihNONSIGNIFICANCE EPIC- 252 -84, Evergreen M ement Co. MITIGATING MEASURES 1. Geotechnical study being submitted with the building permit application. 2 Dedication of 20 foot public access along and on top of the dike. 3 Construction of a dike and dike maintenance road per King County Hydraulics Division requirements. 4. Construction of oil -water separators in the storm water system. 5 Construction of an archeological interpretive display per requirements of the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation and City of Tukwila along the public access easement. 6. Traffic analysis of temporary and permanent street improvements submitted with the building permit application. 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor ■••■•••••••■•Mle NOTICE OF APPLICATION SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that Evergreen Management Company who is purchaser of the below described property has filed an application for a substantial development permit for the development of an office park of 5 one -story buildings totalling 109,300 square feet located at the S.E. corner of Interurban Ave. S., and Southcenter Boulevard, within NW and SW quarter of section 24 of township 23 N., Range 4, W.M., in Tukwila, Washington. Said development is proposed to be within Green River and /or its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express his views or to be notified of the action taken on this application should notify Rick. Beeler, Associate Planner, in writing of his interest within thirty days of the final date of publication of this notice which is October 28, 1984. Written comments must be received by November 29, 1984. Published: Record Chronicle, October 21 and October 28, 1984 cc: Applicant City Clerk Mayor File • AFFIDAVIT OF D I ST R I B UT I OPT I, Becky L. Kent Hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Public Hearing E Notice of Public Meeting ©Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit ED was mailed to each of the following addresses on October 19 Melin, John T. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. 150 Chestnut Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Wells, Duane Evergreen Building 15 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Neilson, Jacob 1602 Monster Road S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Puget Sound Power & Light 620 S. Grady Street Renton, WA 98055 Burlington Northern BNSF Tax Dept. 208 Central 810 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Evergreen Management Company 2100 124th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Name of Project Tukwila Bend File Number 84- 32 -SMP ,19.84. Signature lance mueller & associates architects November 26, 1984 Mr. Rick Beeler CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: TUKWILA BEND SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Dear Rick, Enclosed is a supplemental narrative to environmental checklist as discussed at the meeting November 8th and 9th, 1984. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, LANCE MUEL & SSOCIATES /ARCHITECTS EDI LINARDIC Project Architect EL:nk 130 lakeside • suite f • seattle, washington 96122 (206) 325 -2553 lance mueller aia, csi • senior associates: robert olschewsky, eileen furney associates: robert fadden, michael galbraith, richard harnish, robert wells - a washington corporation furnishing architectural services by and under the supervision of registered architects RECREATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT V 2G 19841 CFPT. Fort Dent Regional Park is immediately adjacent to the proposed complex. The publicly owned river bank along the site is presently used lightly for recreation. Some of the employees from the proposed complex would use Fort Dent Regional Park for picnicking or informal athletics during favorable weather. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure the land for a trail and benches along the river front would be deeded to the city. The city could then construct a trail and install benches. This would increase the opportunity for public recreational use of the site. Each building would be provided with showers and lockers, thus reducing impact on the park. The park is very lightly used during the week at mid -day, and with the addition of a river trail and benches, such additional use would not have a significant adverse impact. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The site is surrounded on two sides by the Green River. The River bank is presently covered with low grass and few small groves of young cotton wood trees. The proposal calls for parking next to 40' -0" wide management zone, possible diking as required for bank stabilization and construction of foot path or trail in the 20' -0" wide land deeded to the City. A drainage system with oil /water separators and silt would have to be constructed with discharge to the Green River. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure, benches will be installed along the trail. The trail will be landscaped with low growth and large shade trees at maximum 30' -0" on center. The trees will be primarily used to screen the project due to location of the property and will not provide shade to the River. The trail will connect to the Fort Dent Park, thus opening the river bank for recreation. SOILS REPORT The site has been graded and filled many years before and is nearly level. The fill is medium - dense -to -dense and slightly -to- moderately compressible. Prior to constuction and /or working drawings a soils analysis will be performed on the site. The soil report will be submitted to the City at the time of Building Permit application. TRAFFIC See report prepared by Entranco Engineers. 2 November 26, 1984 Re: TUKWILA BEND SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT U )4 r..'LANNIN G DEPT. The project would be visible from adjacent streets, but would be set back from Interurban Avenue. All visitors entering Fort Dent Regional Park pass down this street and by the proposed complex, thus, the appearance of the project would become a part of the park experience. The proposed complex will not block any residential views on the hillside west of the site, thus, the project would not create a significant impact on views of nearby residents. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating measures included in the the project are master plan of the site as unified visual element. The site will be landscaped and there will be provisions made for a perimeter trail and green belt along the river. In order to heighten visual experience of employees and park users, each building will have different architectural articulation. All the buildings will be the same height, yet, each one will have different wall treatment (see enclosed pictures). Glazing will be either tinted and /or reflective glass. In either case reflection would be confined to the site due to location of the site and its relationship of the hill west of the site. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The site was investigated by the University of Washington of Public Archaeology to identify the potential for historical or archaeological resources on the site. Since the site was filled and graded many years ago, any potential cultural remains have been covered by several feet of fill. Construction of the poject will occur entirely on previous fill, and will not cause any additional impact to potential cultural resources on the site. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure to the previous filling of the site, an interpretive display describing local history could be constructed along the river trail. 1 November 26, 1984 Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company 2100 - 124th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98005 Re: Traffic Impact for Tukwila Bend Development Entranco Project 85024 -65 Dear Mr. Miller: !,,l V 6 9 1984 1 CITY ! PLANN\MG I, ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1515 -116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 200, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-0683 Per your request, we have conducted a study of the traffic impact of the Tukwila Bend development on traffic flow performance on the Southcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue intersection, which will serve as the sole access gateway to the development. Traffic impact on the nearby Interurban Avenue /Grady Way intersection was also assessed. We note that the proposed development is markedly reduced in scale from the previous development proposal as described in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Tukwila Bend Development," April 1983, and will generate considerably less traffic volume. (Entranco Engineers conducted the traffic impact study for the previous development.) The following table summarizes the building area, use profile, and traffic generation for the present proposal and compares it with the previous proposal. Daily traffic generation for the present proposal is estimated to be 1,320 vehicle trips, or 27 percent of the total traffic generation of the previous proposal. The p.m. peak -hour traffic generation for the present proposal is 210 vehicle trips (170 outbound from the site plus 40 inbound to the site), or 24 percent of the previous proposal. Traffic generation for the present proposal was estimated from national average data presented in the third edition (1982) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" handbook, which became available in 1983. Traffic generation for the previous proposal was via the 1979 second edition. The third edition shows a daily traffic generation rate of 14.3 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of building area, which is an increase of 16 percent over the 12.3 trip ends per 1,000 square feet shown in the second edition. Alex J. Redford, P.E. John T. Bannon, P.E. Patrick H. McCullough, P.E. • • Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 1 ` ° 2 �, � , � 1984 Page 2 CITY PLANNING £;FP Percent A B Ratio: Present Original Present Development Development Original Project* Project ** (A /B)(100) Building Area & Use, sq. ft.: Office 82,000 (75 %) 401,000 (100 %) Warehouse /Distribution, Light Manufacturing 27,300 (25 %) Site Development Traffic Generation 109,000 (100 %) 401,000 (100 %) 27.3% Daily Vehicle Trips 1,320 Peak Hour Trips: Inbound Outbound 4,930 26.8% 40 130 170 750 210 880 23.9% * Evergreen Management Company /Lance Mueller Architects, September 6, 1984 site plan. ** Draft Environmental Impact Statement for original development proposal, City of Tukwila Planning Department, April 29, 1983 (traffic impact study element conducted by Entranco Engineers, July 1982). • • Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 3 b?`.11,7 2 3 1984 PLANK NG DEPT. Level of service analysis at the key site gateway intersection of Southcenter Boulevard (Fort Dent Access Road east of Interurban Avenue) at Interurban Avenue was performed for the year 1986, when the Tukwila Bend project will be fully developed at its 109,300 square foot building area. Level of service was estimated for the p.m. peak hour with and without the Tukwila Bend project development. Current traffic volumes were projected forward to 1986 via the annual average 2.9 percent increase in traffic which has prevailed at this location in recent years. The 1986 p.m. peak hour level of service without the Tukwila Bend project is estimated to be at the borderline between level of service B and C, with a volume /capacity ratio of 0.70. The 1986 level of service with the Tukwila Bend project is C, with a volume /capacity ratio of 0.78. The Tukwila Bend project traffic will thus increase the volume /capacity ratio by 11 percent, but overall traffic flow performance will remain in the "C" level of service range. Level of service C provides quite acceptable traffic operation conditions and is a desirable level for new urban street projects. The next lower level of service, D, is increasingly accepted as a suitable level for heavy use existing urban streets and highways in highly constrained right -of -way corridors; moderate congestion obtains with D. Level of service E is full capacity, with severely congested operations. The next nearest intersection to the Tukwila Bend site is some 500 feet south on Interurban Avenue at the Grady Way /I -405 southbound ramps junction. This intersection currently operates with moderate p.m. peak hour congestion (level of service D), and will operate at level of service D for the 1986 p.m. peak hour with or without the Tukwila Bend traffic generation. The Tukwila Bend traffic will increase total approach volume for the four legs of this intersection by less than four percent. It should be noted that substantial changes to the area's traffic circulation system are planned. The Grady Way Bridge will be replaced with a four -lane facility and will be widened to provide a four -lane section from Interurban Avenue to Renton. There are also plans to widen and realign Southcenter Boulevard between Interurban Avenue and 62nd Avenue South. The new section would intersect Interurban Avenue at Grady Way, rather than at the Fort Dent Park entrance. The I -405 southbound ramps would be aligned with the Fort Dent Park entrance rather than Grady Way. Four approach lanes will eventually be provided at the Grady Way approach to Interurban Avenue. The reduction in turning movements (Southcenter Boulevard to Grady Way would have a straight through movement rather than a • • i° Ohli I Mr. Mark Miller ;:!� � 84 Evergreen Management Company November 26 1984 �+t Page 4 l.A(1ii:4iN;;; �: :P;°. right turn and then a left turn), together with improved approach lane configuration on Southcenter Boulevard and the off -ramp, will improve the level of service at the intersections. The Grady Way project is now under construction and the Southcenter Boulevard realignment could be completed as early as 1988. Additional transit service is expected to be implemented by Metro. The increased service is linked to the construction of a transit center in the Tukwila commercial district and a park- and -ride lot on Interurban at I -5. New routes will provide direct service from Tukwila to areas currently without service. Service will also be improved on existing routes. The Tukwila Bend site is easily accessed by transit passengers. In addition, the Seattle -King County Commuter Pool continues to improve carpool programs for the region, with heavy emphasis on major generators such as the nearby Southcenter /Tukwila commercial - industrial district. Finally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has programmed the construction of transit /carpool lanes along I -405, from Bellevue through Tukwila, to I -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to transit, carpools, and vanpools during peak periods, thereby enhancing the accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend site and reducing vehicular travel growth pressures in the site area. The NOV lanes are now being constructed in the I -90 to Renton segment of I -405. All of the above projects and programs will contribute to improved traffic flow and circulation in the Tukwila Bend site area. We note that a Burger King restaurant has been proposed by others for the northeast corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue inter- section, with access restricted to driveways along the Fort Dent Access Road. Traffic generation for the Burger King project is not included in the foregoing analysis. Fast -food restaurants in such locations usually generate their highest hourly traffic at noontime, while the Tukwila Bend hourly traffic generation will be greatest during the p.m. peak hour. At some future date when all property accessing the Fort Dent Access Road is fully developed, minor widening of the road will likely be required to provide a three -lane approach to Interurban Avenue (separate left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes) and to provide a two -way left -turn lane along the road between Interurban Avenue and the 90- degree turn north to Fort Dent Park. • • Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 5 Should you have any questions or comments about our study findings, please contact me. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. (c,,„..AA._ N-euedt Dennis Neuzil, P.E. Associate DN:lbc cc: Ed Linardic CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • •CN43410 EPIC 252 -8- FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM L. TO: 0 BLDG PLNG n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R. PROJECT 7;; u) GO )62.4 ' LOCATION .2fLL /t4 XkGn /9-P FILE N0. DATE TRANSMITTED 1/242 -, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY //°7o-5 STAFF COORDINATOR " ieiCAlt., RESPONSE. RECEIVED/2...-3-S/- THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT / ==-Ade ■■■■ _ //. _4".4/ .411.-.4.4=L �- DATE /z-3-�'1- COMMENTS PREPARED BY i_ C.P.S. Form 11 • • OFFICE MEMO CITY OF TUKWILA TO: FROM: giC‘ t5ELAEF- DATE: 1112.91e4 SUBJ ECT: 252- g4 4a.Nig_ckSmielsrts_ r_e■itt Noanwpst 1k v\t/As W.c0-s10 A130 PizsN100, 465,00 _ . PRBMiARY UNDSCAPE PLAN r 1 WW2 •••• • • .u. ■■• 11101P•6013 W 11106i promoted development for EVERGREEN COMPANY MANAGEMENT TUKWILA BEND Tt iwia, Washington MO ma. Orwara Sete M, wmlelow p.` lance mueller & associates architects November 26, 1984 Mr. Rick Beeler CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: TUKWILA BEND SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Dear Rick, Enclosed is a supplemental narrative to environmental checklist as discussed at the meeting November 8th and 9th, 1984. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, LANCE MUEL E' & .SSOCIATES /ARCHITECTS EDI LINARDIC Project Architect EL:nk 130 lakeside • suite f • seattle, washington 98122 (206) 325 -2553 lance mueller ale, csl • senior associates: robert olschewsky, eileen furney associates: robert fadden, michael galbraith, richard harnish, robert wells a washington corporation furnishing architectural services by and under the supervision of registered architects RECREATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT y 2 G 1°Q4 'r A Fort Dent Regional Park is immediately adjacent to the proposed complex. The publicly owned river bank along the site is presently used lightly for recreation. Some of the employees from the proposed complex would use Fort Dent Regional Park for picnicking or informal athletics during favorable weather. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure the land for a trail and benches along the river front would be deeded to the city. The city could then construct a trail and install benches. This would increase the opportunity for public recreational use of the site. Each building would be provided with showers and lockers, thus reducing impact on the park. The park is very lightly used during the week at mid -day, and with the addition of a river trail and benches, such additional use would not have a significant adverse impact. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The site is surrounded on two sides by the Green River. The River bank is presently covered with low grass and few small groves of young cotton wood trees. The proposal calls for parking next to 40' -0" wide management zone, possible diking as required for bank stabilization and construction of foot path or trail in the 20' -0" wide land deeded to the City. A drainage system with oil /water separators and silt would have to be constructed with discharge to the Green River. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure, benches will be installed along the trail. The trail will be landscaped with low growth and large shade trees at maximum 30' -0" on center. The trees will be primarily used to screen the project due to location of the property and will not provide shade to the River. The trail will connect to the Fort Dent Park, thus opening the river bank for ecreation. Gll SaPAVAIZAz -S SOILS REPORT The site has been graded and filled many years before and is nearly level. The fill is medium- dense -to -dense and slightly -to- moderately compressible. Prior to constuction and /or working drawings a soils analysis will be performed on the site. The soil report will be submitted to the City at the time of Building Permit application. TRAFFIC See report prepared by Entranco Engineers. 2 November 26, 1984 1 L 'J '. 1 Re: TUKWILA BEND SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AESTHETICS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The project would be visible from adjacent streets, but would be set back from Interurban Avenue. All visitors entering Fort Dent Regional Park pass down this street and by the proposed complex, thus, the appearance of the project would become a part of the park experience. The proposed complex will not block any residential views on the hillside west of the site, thus, the project would not create a significant impact on views of nearby residents. MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating measures included in the the project are master plan of the site as unified visual ele ent. The site will be landscaped and there will be provisions made fo perimeter trail and green belt along the river. In order to heighte isual experience of employees and park users, each building will have different architectural articulation. All the buildings will be the same height, yet, each one will have different wall treatment (see enclosed pictures). Glazing will be either tinted and /or reflective glass. In either case reflection would be confined to the site due to location of the site and its relationship of the hill west of the site. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The site was investigated by the University of Washington of Public Archaeology to identify the potential for historical or archaeological resources on the site. Since the site was filled and graded many years ago, any potential cultural remains have been covered by several feet of fill. Construction of the poject will occur entirely on previous fill, and will not cause any additional impact to potential cultural resources on the site. MITIGATING MEASURES As a mitigating measure to the previous filling of the site, an interpretive display describing local history could be constructed along the river trail. 1 November 26, 1984 Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company 2100 - 124th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98005 Re: Traffic Impact for Tukwila Bend Development Entranco Project 85024 -65 Dear Mr. Miller: ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1515 -116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 200, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-0683 Per your request, we have conducted a study of the traffic impact of the Tukwila Bend development on traffic flow performance on the Southcenter. Boulevard /Interurban Avenue intersection, which will serve as the sole access gateway to the development. Traffic impact on the nearby Interurban Avenue /Grady Way intersection was also assessed. We note that the proposed development is markedly reduced in scale from the previous development proposal as described in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Tukwila Bend Development," April 1983, and will generate considerably less traffic volume. ( Entranco Engineers conducted the traffic impact study for the previous development.) The following table summarizes the building area, use profile, and traffic generation for the present proposal and compares it with the previous proposal. Daily traffic generation for the present proposal is estimated to be 1,320 vehicle trips, or 27 percent of the total traffic generation of the previous proposal. The p.m. peak -hour traffic generation for the present proposal is 210 vehicle trips (170 outbound from the site plus 40 inbound to the site), or 24 percent of the previous proposal. Traffic generation for the present proposal was estimated from national average data presented in the third edition (1982) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" handbook, which became available in 1983. Traffic generation for the previous proposal was via the 1979 second edition. The third edition shows a daily traffic generation rate of 14.3 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of building area, which is an increase of 16 percent over the 12.3 trip ends per 1,000 square feet shown in the second edition. Alex J. Redford, P.E. John T. Bannon, P.E. Patrick H. McCullough, P.E. Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 2 Percent A B Ratio: Present Original Present Development Development Original Project* Project ** (A /B)(100) Building Area & Use, sq. ft.: Office 82,000 (75 %) 401,000 (100 %) Warehouse /Distribution, Light Manufacturing ° 27,300 (25 %) 109,000 (100 %) 401,000 (100 %) 27.3% Site Development Traffic Generation Daily Vehicle Trips Peak Hour Trips: Inbound Outbound 1,320 4,930 26.8% 40 130 170 750 210 880 23.9% * Evergreen Management Company /Lance Mueller Architects, September 1984 site plan. ** Draft Environmental Impact Statement for original development proposal, City of Tukwila Planning Department, April 29, 1983 (traffic impact study element conducted by Entranco Engineers, July 1982). • Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 3 Iro Level of service analysis at the key site gateway intersection of Southcenter Boulevard (Fort Dent Access Road east of Interurban Avenue) at Interurban Avenue was performed for the year 1986, when the Tukwila Bend project will be fully developed at its 109,300 square foot building area. Level of service was estimated for the p.m. peak hour with and without the Tukwila Bend project development. Current traffic volumes were projected forward to 1986 via the annual average 2.9 percent increase in traffic which has prevailed at this location in recent years. The 1986 p.m. peak hour level of service without the Tukwila Bend project is estimated to be at the borderline between 'level of service B and C, with a volume /capacity ratio of 0.70. The 1986 level of service with the Tukwila Bend project is C, with a volume /capacity ratio of 0.7 The Tukwila Bend project traffic will thus increase the volume /capacity ratio by 11 percent, but overall traffic flow performance will remain in the "C" level of service range. Level of service C provides quite acceptable traffic operation conditions and is a desirable level for new urban street projects. The next lower level of service, D, is increasingly accepted as a suitable level for heavy use existing urban streets and highways in highly constrained right -of -way corridors; moderate congestion obtains with D. Level of service E is full capacity, with severely congested operations. The next nearest intersection to the Tukwila Bend site is some 500 feet south on Interurban Avenue at the Grady Way /I -405 southbound ramps junction. This intersection currently operates with moderate p.m. peak hour congestion (level of service D), and will operate at level of service D for the 1986 p.m. peak hour with or without the Tukwila Bend traffic generation. The Tukwila Bend traffic will increase total approach volume for the four legs of this intersection by less than four percent. It should be noted that substantial changes to the area's traffic circulation system are planned. The Grady Way Bridge will be replaced with a four -lane facility and will be widened to provide a four -lane section from Interurban Avenue to Renton. There are also plans to widen and realign Southcenter Boulevard between Interurban Avenue and 62nd Avenue South. The new section would intersect Interurban Avenue at Grady Way, rather than at the Fort Dent Park entrance. The I -405 southbound ramps would be aligned with the Fort Dent Park entrance rather than Grady Way. Four approach lanes will eventually be provided at the Grady Way approach to Interurban Avenue. The reduction in turning movements ( Southcenter Boulevard to Grady Way would have a straight through movement rather than a • • Mr. Mark Miller Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 4 right turn and then a left turn), together with improved approach lane :configuration on Southcenter Boulevard and the off -ramp, will improve the level of service at the. intersections. The Grady Way project is now under construction and the Southcenter Boulevard realignment could be completed as early as 1988. Additional transit service is expected to be implemented by Metro. The increased service is linked to the construction of a transit center in the Tukwila commercial district and a park- and -ride lot on Interurban at 1-5. New routes will provide direct service from Tukwila to areas currently without service. Service will also be improved on existing routes. The Tukwila Bend site is easily accessed by transit passengers. In addition, the Seattle -King County Commuter Pool continues to improve carpool programs for the region, with heavy emphasis on major generators such as the nearby Southcenter /Tukwila commercial- industrial district. Finally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has programmed the construction of transit /carpool lanes along I -405,. from Bellevue through Tukwila, to I -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to transit, carpools, and vanpools during peak periods, thereby enhancing the accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend site and reducing vehicular travel growth pressures in the site area. The HOV lanes are now being constructed in the I -90 to Renton segment of I -405. All of the above projects and programs will contribute to improved traffic flow and circulation in the Tukwila Bend site area. We note that a Burger King restaurant has been proposed by others for the northeast corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue inter -. section, with access restricted to driveways along the Fort Dent Access Road. Traffic generation for the Burger King project is not included in the foregoing analysis. ;Fast -food restaurants in such locations usually generate their highest hourly traffic at noontime, while the Tukwila Bend hourly traffic generation will be greatest during the p.m. peak hour. At some future date when all property accessing the Fort Dent Access Road is fully developed, minor widening of the road will likely be required to provide a three -lane approach to Interurban Avenue (separate left -turn, through, and right -turn lanes) and to provide a two -way left -turn lane along the road between Interurban Avenue and the 90- degree turn north to Fort Dent Park. Evergreen Management Company November 26, 1984 Page 5 Should you have any questions or comments about our study findings, please contact me. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. Dennis Neuzil, P.E. Associate DN:lbc cc: Ed Linardic CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM Q BLDG ri PLNG P.W PROJECT 7,00,, i 7 ) zma LOCATION c. a.1.V-lj/(1 W DATE TRANSMITTED 11- -24- y STAFF COORDINATOR' 'CL; TO: [l FIRE •CN 84- - 3446 EPIC 252 —M- FILE pir L. POLICE 1-1 P & R ,-- fIFILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /1, -p 4 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART - MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT A s&4Um of LcrlLrr 1 Pam rrs INC 0 0 iN t- P F b0 "&o.,E cute r_ pguNiN is C 1 1 ■ mow, t o $ 1- cfry' z1 ?t6i(tip N thy 13 ( sapatit 1 Mifl. C tr-� lU IJ(ar c m4 w A IMVIi A- trtr►M (mg-- 0LT fi\u . l CA tet rcz,v.R u I ar aN (L..q-.d \, c,\, krep av 6uS ?mow` crs PrK__c.tss -rb FT D Act xsc 20 Y1A --44 uiken 1 *IA '1S new ma-y\-1(\t, : . - 'EMT _ TH-1 s 1i -GCkS S L._ V M ► ` - 3S r.■NI t ef N I Z S t c - r ' � l c -1 4a AFT - /mss 207,10 gzpu I a, uvc- ntakk P �1A• � -y r-o nr,L s T7J41J2)LJF - `)/1J T7v Plc\ri\ DATE Lai 1 %$ �I COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM $CN43460 EPIC 252-84 FILE TO: n BLDG r PLNG n P.W. FIRE n POLICE n P & R. PROJECT 77 i )i (A) 166/44 LOCATION cOG1.-V-GJ eG "f-A FILE N0. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /,7.6-8V STAFF COORDINATOR %rAl..2 RESPONSE RECEIVED /Z--3-*. • THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. DATE TRANSMITTED 11- 2Q4V ITEM COMMENT ' DATE 7A114, COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • $CN454 6, EPIC 252 -84 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: n BLDG F7 PLNG n P.W. n FIRE 41.11Crl n P & R PROJECT 77,00,0 Co) ierma LOCATION ,,,106 GIjI►_J /01 - / - / -, Y-` _ FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 1l 2Y ' Y y RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /.,76-,56/ STAFF COORDINATOR / *(;lC� RESPONSE RECEIVED /( /39/dI. • THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. • PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT Mt4-z- DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 /• OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: [] BLDG J PLNG Q P.W. PROJECT 77a'24 6%) ,6e...pme � CN 84 34 EPIC 252 -84 FILE L. ED FIRE Q POLICE LOCATION �O, /L J(1 gW7/ C DATE TRANSMITTED 1/7242-Ye/ STAFF COORDINATOR' -/- Jz.r FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /_7.6_5t/ RESPONSE RECEIVED 12_ '- THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. • PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF. ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE ��/5/�y COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: 164LDG PLNG P.W. FIRE POLICE P & R 7,a0,) /'6a) 6i LOCATION keY, I L E N 0. DATE TRANSMITTED /l (2'Yy STAFF COORDINATOR �0' • CN 34(p EPIC 252 -8# FILE PROJECT RESPONSE REQUESTED BY j;7-6-(-/ RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 • OFFICE MEMO CITY of TUKWILA TO: M,C.- FROM: g` DATE: 10 04' ¢ SUBJECT: L O 2n2- 4 UIEQL31C331. e:\t.t ?OkSt•AzwC-t3k._ tt 1 1ij OCC1cOht. tor-oV_i\APs11,010 NAL,Ps J PsosO pt2 i tO m , �i. �. iE_Nik •a iO cOMAA cr1�S-r , • PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN gresens=1,1= architects ale 120 ialassitle • •ttttt wash. 1110122.200 325 •ISEI2 Propsoeed development for EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA. BEND Tukwila, Washington ) data pa. dolga CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT ER MIT SYSTEM II/ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM 410 CN 84-34 Epic 252. -84 FILE ?jZ "5 TO: BLDG PLNG j ( P.W. I (FIRE n POLICE' ( P & R PROJECT ` j ._\ AL (cpcas) LOCATION I kk) �j,L. $L4() C121 > FILE NO.. 5 S34- DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR , 5. THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART - MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. 'ate itSwLS1,(5c1. ITEM COMMENT `(�OM1�1 tc 5 tla''.,44 , it • VVIK ltA- O F61-V- °Orr EIS OKS L . RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED 2172 ti C' -c c -ss DATE /m- - - ,�� COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPIC 2 2. '84 FILE e4 - 32. -S( CN -544, TO: 1 ( BLDG 'LNG P.W. 1 ( FIRE POLICE 1 P & R PROJECT - wLAs t55.R (opicJa5) LOCATION (o _ kN yQs,L-. $L\t.D DATE TRANSMITTED ICS45.1PA RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR' 5, RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD 'DETER1INATION. .THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON'THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT.SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. IINZI• k 'E ;U 5. R�� kL� h ITEM COMMENT �Nr4�J 1Z , • • ``UV-- Ukr 21& OP/Ft EIS ' C5 S Vile, FILE FILE NO. DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 WAG 197 -11 -960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement ,(EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify irnpacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen- cies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best de- scription you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. if you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write 'do not know" or 'does not ap- ply'. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach an additional information that will hel describe our •ro.osal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you su•mit t is checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in- formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered 'does not apply.' IN AD- DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject, actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project,' "applicant," and "property or site' should be read as 'proposal,' 'proposer,' and 'affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: TUKWILA BEND 2. Name of applicant: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2100, 124th Avenue N.E., Bldg. 'D' c/o Mark Miller Bellevue, WAshington 98005 (206) 881 -2212 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: ( 'Y tf -1X∎ NtL,A 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Phase One: April - August 1985 Phase Two: August - December 1985 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will he prepared, directly related to this proposal. . � • Environmental checklist dated July 9, 1982 EIS dated June 3, 1983 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO 10. Listany government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, Shoreline permit King County Hydraulics permit Building permit. Sewer hook up permit Water hook up permit Storm water system permit • Curb cut permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, There are several questions later in this checklist that need to repeat those answers on this page. -5cctiert obj.e :∎tcS anti afttw.otive -S your proposAi .Five one -story buildings totaling 109 smooth painted concrete walls with re Electrical permit Plumbing permit including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not - resp>ires aco",pl eft_ at SO- p-t al' t_ 4t.1 sit tc.1 %J� cl 6< s s.4,ctrize4 tick, • ,300 sq.ft. (approx.) Buildings features are flective glass windows. l2. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a -range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not •required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site butts Green River on two sides, with Southcenter Boulevard to the west and property under development to the north. Dses4M.tprtpe Q( llv_ tukt.t qh abt1L cte-s j•kctl'GCtf oe�"�i.< Clky1s %Gi,prtl.t.kslY.t Policy Nut I-' a ai 1:14■14oKA(e..1.4 «Y svasi�i�tc; Yes Commercial TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS AGENCY USE ONLY 1. Earth • a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling. hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other flat • b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent scope)? One percent (1%) 2. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • • c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay. sand, gravel, peat, muck)? lf', you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.; Silt and sandy silt d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO e. Describe the purpose, type,..and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro- posed. Indicate source of fill.'- Footing and structural fill f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO g. About; what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after projcct construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 78% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Install filter fabric, ditches and rocked layed entrances. 2. Air a. What 'types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.c., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction- and when the projcct is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust and vehicle emissions during construction. Vehicle emission during regular use. b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, . generally describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or othcr impacts to air, if any: During construction, use of good operational techniques such as watering of exposed areas and regular street cleaning. Efficient layout of parking, driveways to reduce traffic congestion; there- fore, less idle time and lower car emissions. 3. E''APJATION FOR AGENCY l'SL ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. 3. N\'ater 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, lake's, ponds, wetlands)? If )es, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. • Green River 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, construction of parking, landscaping and proposed buildings 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. In- dicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de- scription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Construction of new storm drainage system that will collect run -off and directly discharge it to Green River 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 —year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 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. NO b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NO 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the numbcr 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. NONE INALUATION FOk AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • • c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See 4 on Page 4 •2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, possibility exists though if any of sewer pipes break d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground. and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm' drainage system including catch basins, underground pipes and oil separator 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs x grass /fist u re _ 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? Addition of new landscpaing, possibly removal of existing trees if required by city of Tukwila, as walk along Green River is install c. List threatened or endangered spec es known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See Landscape Plan L -1 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: Crows, sparrows, robins birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: finches mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE 5, ed EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Construction of buffer area along Green River bank as proposed by City of Tukwila 6. Energy and natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manu- facturing, etc. Electric or Natural Gas HVAC units and manufacturing 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: Insulation of roof, slabs and walls 7. Environmental Health a. Are 'there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO . 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Each individual tenant will provide emergency services as requi red. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: See 1 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for . example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise (60 dba) from Interstate 405 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short —term or a long —term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise during construction between 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Traffic noise between 6:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. - 5:30 P.M. 6. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: • Limiting construction to daylight hours and use of quite equipment. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is undeveloped. The site to the north is presently being commercially, developed. To . the south and east is Green River. To the west is hjllside undeveloped lop d with apartment buildings on t b. Has the site been used tor. agriculture. 1i so, describe. NO c. Describe any structures on the site. NONE. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C2 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an 'environmentally sensitive' area? If so, specify. Yes, Shoreline Master Program i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 500 - 600 people j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NONE k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NONE I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and,plans, if any: Buildings are designed to accomodate primarily office use, with less than 50% of space allocated for manufacturing. Primarily high -tech usage is anticipated. TO 'BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low— income housing. NONE b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low— income housing. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materials) proposed? Buildings are constructed of smooth painted concrete walls and reflective glass b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Heavily landscaped parking areas and building elevations 11. Light and Clare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What timc of day would it mainly occur? Parking and building lights at night, low glare during some hour due to the reflective glass b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO c. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NONE d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Use of low glare fixtures 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Proposed walk along Green River 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation. a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Fort Dent was constructed across the river from the site b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. FORT DENT c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: The site has beenfilled approximately 8 -9 years ago and archeologist have searched the site and not found any artifacts. No measures are presently in works unless artifacts are found during construction 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Interurban Avenue South Southcenter Boulevard Interstate 405 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, there is a bus route presently along Interurban Avenue. c. •How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will provide 323 parking spaces and none will be elimina e d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to cxisting roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Construction of dual left turn lane on Southcenter Blvd. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) watcr, rail, or air transporta- tion? If so, generally describe. Project abuts Green River f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Estimated trips per day would be in neighborhood of 240 -250 trips. Mainly between 7:30 A.M. - 8:30 A.M. and 4.40 P.M. - 5:30 P.M. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANO g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Proposal of dual left - turn lane, altering of existing traffic light, phasing and. timing to accomodate extra traffic b. Proposed measures to (educe or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Yes, emergency only 16. Utilities . a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water refuse serv- ice, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the and the general be needed. Bringing of sub - station. utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might natural gas line, pick -up of refuse and telephone C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and the lead agency is relying Qon the • Signature: err r t plete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that e its decision. Date Submitted: October 16, 1984 (A00+-6- orj roper-. E... SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET Eli ALL Pg 7ax Pd- D 1Jz N IWKi f;c15Fit.S The objectives and alternative means of reaching it c. o123e4.7•1t(t)- .,- a p►bpos,41 will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What is the cbiegi+vt(s)of the proposal? The objective of this proposed project is to provide aesthetically pleasing, efficient and economically feasible complex of buildings without significantly disturbing existing environment. I!. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? An alternate to proposed project would be to increase the number of floors per building and decrease number of proposed buildings. This would accomplish two things; reduce building footprint and increase landscape area'. 4. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the prefered course of action: The proposed project calls for single -story buildings, approximately 17'0" tall with landscape at parking and at building elevations. The alternate calls for two to three story buildings, approximately 35'0" tall. Both of these schemes are economically feasible and can be aesthetically pleasing. I think that the proposed scheme will,less visually dominate .. and it blend with neighborhood better due to its scale. Even though alternate scheme would provide more 'open' landscape area, I think that taller buildings negate the added advantages of open areas. Therefore, one story buildings with adequate landscaping is the preferred course of action. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CN EPIC 222 -84 FILE 64 -;2. -5e TO: E1 BLDG i 1 PLNG [L/]"P.W. ( ( FIRE POLICE PROJECT lk j�- tk__ s fj5 o (crLCiE5' LOCATION ( N ilS,[_. j(_\LO et FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED- -+,a- 45.S4- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR 5. P &R RESPONSE RECEIVED ///1184- THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. p�m ���� ITEM `COMMENT � ��u��S tc Corv� IM,I ��� �^ �2�L b�2.� EIS it Ptle N�Wn (La rp v [[s wI41c44 will. . Z ! 4' . TS/ *10 PLta F� ova n ��N� C, � , Peost, a RA" sr (yttiutuf:6--r-t410,4;) P Vt (L . P . „ s i �� : 1-1) . ` ties 71\ f'zv) IL_ f J LA-1.x "Pdtarn a `l'+-,-ss i s t 4 Ft Rt. 1.4-1v P/ ! y D 4LVW-T 1 C0A;P S of �� wAS �rlw+lir' -"V 1^I`MtTR°finos. -t-a A:ct..,s.S nnw,� �� �' Aa. T1 ti toa/S.4 • DATE III r /6 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 (Icaog-N CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM •CN54+ EPIC 2252 _84 FILE 04C - ?jZ - 5Nl(p TO: n BLDG PLNG [ P.W. POLICE PROJECT ` j . \MUNs o (cpc' LOCATION MT '4-SgE3 ) S. L� StN ID Cdr > DATE TRANSM- ITTED__1 5 `PA RESPONSE REQUESTED BY P &R FILE NO. STAFF COORDINATOR ,( 5, RESPONSE RECEIVED ic\2C THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED. REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE.PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. �LO� ITEM • COMMENT ��,�, � u��S tc COh/IIM,I ��'�� '� Rsi2tL LioC'fi rc1S /bILS NO VISIBLE IMPACT UPON FIRE SERVICES. DATE October 25, 1984 COMMENTS PREPARED BY H. Crawley C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM 341-4 EPIC 2 2. -84 FILE 84 -?j2. - 5Nl(jo ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: BLDG PLNG ( ( P.W. (FIRE FrPOLICE PROJECT J WL.P t5 (oPrcJa LOCATION PIlarlIgai5Ns AS,t± . &N D (1/19.,3:17 DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR M 5, THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD- DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. �1�� ITEM COMMENTL�, Vt.-PANS • tt COh/1IM,l (2��L�� '- ��L Ord- rc1S'bkS P &R FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED Gv v 7/71/9 r" 77/i s ,,,'d T G uJ /GG ,4j 9 To 77/1, Ee9/J y EXis7-/ti6 74/�■9ic7G CoNG'LA-ST7 d ./(/ 7- ti TrA 4e 7%/P/4 • ,i9.�r/D Sa Lir/ c r. 17i /��!/i //1/ G .tJ //l/ 6 ,Pf5 // /Y/4- • ~/c s Al/c/-/z4./ 7---a ,77-- t/7.1 W/3/94/ / /J2 2'24/D • /T // Cis /i.e. 77 00 , , / 7 /- JiPoi�',�,��'.� y AA ti6 J4/J S/7`• T/4�1/ Gt/orilL� 5o,4 /c/ T 7 /•/g //r G" ©�SriiG 77W6 ®� Cti 7 , /iii /S, DATE COMMENTS PREPAREDBY c sy)4 .P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA. CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: I ( BLDG PLNG P.W. PROJECT ' a--Wt As t \() (ocJa LOCATION A.j,(. FEND C��_ DATE TRANSMITTED t(345 1S4- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR 5, I( FIRE CN84- ( !PIC 2s2. -84 FILE ;2— "-SW POLICE IviP & R FILE NO. RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ��COh/11M,1 cZ � 11 DATE 1 Or COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 -CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN 54 -34, EPIC 252 _84 FILE 194 - 3Z -slot ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM T0: BLDG ri2PLNG � .W. IRE (POLICE 1-7')14 & R PROJECT 1U V__W (OpriCE5) LOCATION I ___ ;.17; tau- DATE TRANSMITTED LV. t84 -STAFF COORDINATOR 4 e, THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR., COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT, YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE'ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FOR M. u S o�tu� ITEM COMMENT Con/ �sl C 2 ? �L q EIS �c' S ll . FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 • • VAC. 197 -11 -960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RC\'V, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: • This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen- cies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best de- scription you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not ap- ply'. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in- formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN AD- DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL. SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as 'proposal,' 'proposer,' and 'affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: TUKWILA BEND' 2. Name of applicant: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2100 124th Avenue N.E., Bldg. 'D' c/o Mark Miller Bellevue, WAshington 98005 (206) 881 -2212 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: e_rn 11310,�ILA 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Phase One: April - August 1985 Phase Two: August - December 1985 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO 8. List any environmental inforr> n you know about that has been prepar)r will he prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental checklist dated July 9, 1982 EIS dated June 3, 1983 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, Shoreline permit Electrical King County Hydraulics permit permit Plumbing permit Building permit Sewer hook up permit Water hook up permit Storm water system permit Curb cut permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. •5e.Ctic.ri G. revives a ConA c)escri p71on cif 06,;e4.1; c.s itYKf a Pft(AIM e-S, aF yaw^ propose( a„a st,00ld haf-6< sz,wiA (A,itc.4 'Five one -story buildings totaling 109,300 sq.ft. (approx.) Buildings features are smooth painted concrete walls with reflective glass windows. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site butts Green River on two sides, with Southcenter Boulevard to the west and property under development to the north. tees -('fit rope Q( lip ti rl& aN arum, d�si k44-e o�, -Ft,� P f � C.i�ys issct,pr siv.z 1nPA U5� Polity ?lab( PAap as <14,4■1-oKn.tAT4 11■ seKSi4i t Yes - Commercial TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth • a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other f l at b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? One percent (1 %) 2. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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. Silt and sandy silt d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro- posed. Indicate source of fill. Footing and structural fill f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 78% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Install filter fabric, ditches and rocked layed entrances. 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. Dust and vehicle emissions during construction. Vehicle emission during regular use. b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or othcr impacts to air, if any: During construction, use of good operational techniques such as watering of exposed areas and regular street cleaning. Efficient layout of parking, driveways to reduce traffic congestion; there- fore, less idle time and lower car emissions. 3. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN. 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. Green River 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, construction of parking, landscaping and proposed buildings 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. In- dicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de- scription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Construction of new storm drainage system that will collect run -off and directly discharge it to Green River 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 —year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 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. • NO b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.' NO 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE TO 'BE •COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See 4 on Page 4 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, possibility exists though if any of sewer pipes break d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm drainage system including catch basins, underground pipes and oil separator 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs x grass -pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass; milfoil, other _, other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Addition of new landscpaing, possibly removal of existing trees if required by City of Tukwila, as walk along Green River is installed c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See Landscape Plan L -1 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: Crows, sparrows, robins birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: finches mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE 5' TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT' EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Construction of buffer area along Green River bank as proposed by City of Tukwila 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manu- facturing, etc. Electric or Natural Gas HVAC units and manufacturing 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: Insulation of roof, slabs and walls 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO . 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Each individual tenant will provide emergency services as required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: See l b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the arca which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise (60 dba) from Interstate 405 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short —term or a long —term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise during construction between 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Traffic noise between 6:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. - 5:30 P.M. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: • Limiting construction to daylight hours and use of quite equipment. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is undeveloped. The site to the north is presently being commercially developed. To the south and east is Green River. To the,wesstt is hillside undeveloped with apartment buildings on t b. Haste site been used for agriculture. let so, esc e. NO c. Describe any structures on the site. NONE d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, Shoreline Master Program i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 500 - 600 people j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NONE k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NONE - I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Buildings are designed to accomodate primarily office use, with less than 50% of space allocated for manufacturing. Primarily high -tech usage is anticipated. 7, EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low— income housing. NONE b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low— income housing. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE 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? Buildings are constructed of smooth painted . concrete walls and reflective glass b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control acsthetic impacts, if any: Heavily landscaped parking areas and building elevations 11. Light and Clare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking and building lights at night, low glare during some hour due to the reflective glass b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO c. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NONE d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: Use of low glare fixtures 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO 8 s EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Proposed walk along Green River 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Fort Dent was constructed across the river from the site b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. FORT DENT c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: The site has beenfilled approximately 8 -9 years ago and archeologist have searched the site and not found any artifacts. No measures are presently in works unless artifacts are found during construction 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Interurban Avenue South Southcenter Boulevard Interstate 405 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, there is a bus route presently along Interurban Avenue. c. •How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will provide 323 parking spaces and none will be elimina 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). Construction of dual left turn lane on Southcenter Blvd. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transporta- tion? If so, generally describe. Project abuts Green River f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Estimated trips per day would be in neighborhood of 240 -250 trips. Mainly between 7:30 A.M. - 8:30. A.M. and 4.40 P.M. - 5:30 P.M. e EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1 g., Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Proposal of dual left -turn lane, altering of existing traffic light, phasing and timing to accomodate extra traffic b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Yes, emergency only 16. Utilities . a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water refuse serv- ice, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the •and the general be needed. Bringing of sub - station. utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might natural gas line, pick -up of refuse and telephone C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and c plete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is relying on the i to m e its decision. Fe—Ye— ok.)•3 Signature: . Date Submitted: October 16, 1984 - E.. _SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET* ALL FV=1ZS' PdJO kAN F}Zb SfitS The objectives and alternative means of reaching -mac objec&■,tc(s)-f,,..- a prorosal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What is the cbj . t(S)of the proposal? The objective of this proposed project is to provide aesthetically pleasing, efficient and economically feasible complex of buildings without significantly disturbing existing environment. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? An alternate to proposed project would be to increase the number of floors per building and decrease number of proposed buildings. This would accomplish two things; reduce building footprint and increase landscape area. 4. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the prefered course of action: The proposed project calls for single -story buildings, approximately 17'0" tall with landscape at parking and at building elevations. The alternate calls for two to three story buildings, approximately 35'0" tall. Both of these schemes are economically feasible and can be aesthetically pleasing. I think that the proposed scheme will,less.visualjy dominate .. and blend with neighborhood better due to its scale. Even though alternate scheme would provide more 'open' landscape area, I think that taller buildings negate the added advantages of open areas. Therefore, one story buildings with adequate landscaping is the preferred course of action. • A PREUVIINARY LANDSCAPE RAN greceasswageers architects ale 150 lalmehle • seatIlowseh. 51111511•1100 555 1118133 promised development for EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA. BEND Tukwila, Washington I b else k 551. ro revi•len 0 IT Liencees=117; architects ale 130 Iskeside • wattle waoh. 61•1111111.0011 335 3553 propsosed development tor EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA BEND . Tukwila, Washington Nab eleaf.1.7n 41 • 4 2.4, tl•e• Pavia len data IM A tncease=ltisz architects eta 130 lakeside • weirdo area, Mile1311•8011 MSS 511E13 Maimed develoPment to EVERGREEN • MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA BEND Tukwila, Washington leb ea. drown lat1413* re. reshilen deal c . ; :ii. . .- 11111=11rI• PamIM I ir if WI'NACl51IIM Lt1IIi1I IIn N11I 1 I . 1' Mr, 1111L,,,, 111, 1111 WI 1111 !MI OP IL, , NM /1111 NE 1 illr 1116. III lig IIII IMP 1111L.....1 sum. Emmons or - rceasswilittz architects ale 130 lak•al•• • • woes. •11•11111.a130 3215•053 propeosed development for EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA BEND Tukwila, Washington rewlellon d••• -1 L L 111 b E L 0 t 0 4 • • • • • 1 • ressesscwatzt architects ale 1210 laY.1■• • ....... Safl. 111101.1113411311 Jae 11553 Drowsed development for EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA BEND Tukwila, Washington 0.6 IP 15,11LJ 1.44y -1) I rocesse=litz; architects aka 150 lakeside • sea2le wean. 0112122.1200 520 •1550 Propeosed development tot EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA BEND Tukwila, Washington nab no. Or. n no, eminrionan • 1►a IL' AN 1• u n =.0 ME ing 1■ redr � .,r. �e.IM gee: in sr- NW in 'Pa r■ , ra• NJ ►c Ili ■ LA es t■ 1■ 1■ -NCI A WOK • SAM V W. r PSW�D��tw 'G' Oi architects Ntect c ala 120 1•■••i0• • ...to . •••R. eelee•UOe Zee SUBS propso..d do•ebpment for EVERGREEN COMPANMENT TUKWILA BEND Tukwila, Washington ••■l•lon mt4mmmt-n-tz__ anceasmwsitt; architects ale 1110 Isinesies • ...lt. wool, 001110.0011 300 •1103 propeosed development for EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TUKWILA BEND Takata, Washington lee ne el oneekeel [•oo roo., revision