Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-263-85 - SPRING RIDGE INVESTMENTS - OFFICE AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (TUKWILA POND)
SPRING RIDGE (TUKWILA POND)- OFFICE AND RETAIL SPACE SW CORNER OF STRANDER BLVD & ANDOVER PARK WEST EPIC - 263 -85 GLENN J. AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY H. RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS WENDY W. CAIRNCROSS LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO FRED S. FINKELSTEIN RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS GREGORY E. KELLER LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 623 -1745 June 19, 1985 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: File No. EPIC - 263 -85 Spring Ridge Investments Dear Mr. Collins: GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN. JR. LOUIS D. PETERSON SHERYL K. PETERSON JAMES J. RAGEN STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON CHARLES B. WRIGHT [JUN 2 1985 CITY OF 'TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. We represent M.A. Segale, Inc., the owner of property located at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West, across the street from the proposed short subdivision and development described in your Request for Comments on Scope of EIS. We believe the items you have identified ought to also include potential drainage issues that might arise and impacts on surrounding properties as a result of any proposal for development on the subject property. We would like to have the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact statement and to be kept informed of the status of this development proposal. We would assume that more detailed plans and information concerning proposed development of the subject property will be made available during the draft environmental impact statement stage. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. JLH /dh cc: M.A. Segale, Very truly ours, rome L. Hillis DUANE BERENTSON Secretary STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 Brad Collins Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: June 17, 1985 JUN 19 1982 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. SR 181 MP 10.87 Spring Ridge Investments Office /Retail Development Determination of Significance This Department has reviewed the subject Determination of Significance. Attached is an outline which provides some direction for the Environmental Impact Statement document drafter to follow in their analysis. Items that appear to be particularly relevant have been checked. The outline is intended to call attention to specific areas of concern to the Department, but should not be considered as all encompassing. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact Patrick Leavy at 233 -2416. 13V/hl Attachment Sincerely, R. . JOHNSON, P. E. District Design Engineer • WS.D.O.T. CONCERN REGARDING PROPOSALS BY DEVELOPERS The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for maintaining safe and efficient transportation on State and Federal Highways within its jurisdiction. It therefore follows that our basic interests relate to any impact that would prevent us from achieving this goal. These areas of interest are listed in the following outline. \ TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION • Identify all impacted State and Federal Highways. • Discuss access and egress relationships between the project site and impacted State Highways. • Discuss AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes. • Provide accurate and recent traffic counts, turning movements and level of service (LOS) analysis as necessary. • Provide relevant Origin /Destination (OD) Trip Generation Studies. • Provide projected future traffic volumes consistent with Puget Sound Council of Governments' (PSCOG) growth factors for the scheduled year of project completion. ▪ Discuss percentage increase in trucks, turning movements and directional loads. • Discuss any pending modifications in existing or proposed roadways with respect to grade. • Discuss possible mitigation measures where potential conflicts exist (i.e. donations of land to increase right -of -way, participation in signalization projects or participation in channelization projects, etc.). PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT /CARPOOLS • Potential impacts upon Transportation System Management (TSM) should be discussed. These include: - Park and Ride /Pool Lots - Local transit operations including bus stops and turnouts • Mitigation measures such as land donations, use of the proposed facilities site by the general public and local transit and other related measures. VISUAL QUALITY Discuss visual impacts that may reduce visual quality of WSDOT highways. Discuss potential visual distractions that may reduce driving safety. These include: \ SOILS /GEOGRAPHY • Discuss significant impacts caused by excavation, embankment buildup or massive structures abuting WSDOT right -of -way. - Line of site obstructions - "Rubbernecking" On site artificial lighting or direct sunlight emanating from critical locations - Glare from on site building surface reflections Discussion of visual impacts should address temporary negative impacts caused by the construction process (i.e. visual distractions, particulate debris and dust). Address possible measures of mitigation. • References: FHWA Field Guide, Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, March, 1981. FHWA publication, Esthetics and Visual Resource Management for Highways, October 1 977. MAINTENANCE • Address the impact the proposed project may have on WSDOT maintenance activities (i.e.) will the project hamper or increase maintenance efforts or reduce safety of maintenance workers). • Discuss agreements that may be necessary to coordinate maintenance efforts when more than one agency is involved. • Discuss pertinent mitigation measures. • Summarize geotechnical studies relating to significant earthwork activities in the EIS. • Discuss potential mitigation measures. • • • RIGHT -OF- WAY /UTILITIES Address existing WSDOT rights -of -way and any encroachments that may be necessary to facilitate project development. Discuss written authorizations required to enter State owned rights -of -way including permits, franchises, air space leases and other written agreements. Address sight distance requirements, traffic control measures and levels of service when considering right -of -way access requests. Discuss drainage and other utilities which may abut or encroach upon WSDOT right -of -way. Discuss possible mitigating measures: LEAD AGENCY PARTICIPATION The lead agency is responsible for the supervision or actual preparations of the Threshold Determination (SEPA Checklist), Draft EIS and Final EIS. The lead agency is also responsible for circulation of these documents and for conducting relevant public hearings (WAC Chapter 197-11). As per WAC 197 -11, the lead agency is responsible for determining the adequacy of the environmental documents and is, therefore, responsible for determining if all mitigation has been fully resolved. The lead agency should withold acceptance of plat or issuance of permits until all WSDOT concerns and the concerns of all other agencies are satisfactorily addressed. It is the policy of WSDOT to cooperate fully with the lead agency and all other parties in expediting all environmental requirements and in negotiating any necessary mitigation measures. Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 459 -6000 June 11, 1985 Mr. Brad Collins City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Reference: Building Proposed by Spring Ridge Investments Dear Mr. Collins: Director Li UN 141985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Your scoping notice for the above referenced project did not contain enough information for us to evaluate the proposal and determine which permits, if any, will be required from the Department of Ecology. However, we do have the following general areas of concern. 1. Any discharges or potential impacts to surface and /or ground water should be identified along with possible mitigation measures. This would include storm water runoff, septic tank /drainfields, work in or near a stream, etc. 2. The source of water supply and method of sewage disposal should be evaluated along with any impacts to existing systems. I hope this information will assist you in preparing the environmental impact statement. We look forward to reviewing the draft EIS when it is issued. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 459 -6025. Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR:pk A.F F O A V IT O F D I S T R O U T I O N I, Becky L. Kent hereby declare that: (l Notice of Public Hearing f J Notice of Public Meeting Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit 'El Declaration of Significance and Scoping Notice. was mailed to each of the following addresses on See attached list. Name of Project Spring. Ridge Development EPIC- 263 -85 • File Number May 31 , 1985. r :.LL,. 19/- 11 -9/0 • • • NOTICE OF • DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS. Description of Proposal short subdivision and development of 170,850 square feet of office and retail space on a 40.7 acre parcel which includes a 15 -20 acre pond. Proponent Spring Ridge Investments Location of Proposal, including street address, if any southwest corner of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West ''Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 263-85 EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion-in the EIS: Earth lcd Air lac; Water 3a(1- 6)c(1 -2)d; Plants 4abd; Animals 5acd; Environmental Health 7a(1 -2)b( Land & Shoreline Use 8aefhl.; Aesthetics.lObc; Recreation 12abc; Transportation 14adfg; Public Services 151b; Utilities 16ab; economy and cost - benefit analysis; four alternativ varying pond retention and development density on the 40.7 acre site; impacts of constru tion of S. 168th St. Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, pro- bable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us your comments is: Submitted in writing and received'on or before June 19, 1985. • Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date May 29, 1985 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. Published:: Record Chronicle, June 2, 1935 )pr,`nyriuye kiuKwiia ronu) • Andover & Associates Thomas Yedor 3854 E. Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 J.C. Penney 6965 Regional Tax Office PO Box 4015 Buena Park, CA 98124 Rainier National Bank Controllers Dept. 086 PO Box 3966 T14 -1 Seattle, WA 98124 Chevron USA Inc. PO Box 7611 San Francisco, CA 94120 Chevron USA 220 Strander Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 T.W.C. Realty Holding Co. 400 S. Hope St. Los Angeles, CA 90071 Rosse In• c. c/o Samuel & Hazel Rosse • 808 Howell St. Seattle, WA 98010 M.A. Segale, Inc. PO Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98188 Washington State Dept. of Game 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Dept. of Ecology Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Office of the Attorney General Dexter Horton Building Seattle, WA 98104 Allied Stores 633 Southcenter Mall Tukwila, WA 98188 Doubletree Plaza 16500 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: George J. Neumann Doubletree Inc. 6225 N. 24th St. #200 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Attn: James R. Smith Hayden Island Corp. 909 N. Tomahawk Island Dr. Portland, OR 97217 Bon Marche Distribution Center 17000 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: William Hicks Audubon Society Joshua Green Building Room 619 Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. Postal Service 34301 9th Ave. S. Federal Way, WA 98103 U.S. Postal Service Tukwila Branch 225 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Firestone 215 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Dennis McGriff Larry Hanson Washington State Dept. of Transportation 9611 S.E. 36th St. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Firestone Or' Zone Marking Office PO Box 68907' Seattle, WA 98168 Attn: Russ Paris First Western Development Mike Hess 4230 198th Street Lynnwood, WA' 98036 Commercial Design Associates ,Scott Shanks 4230 198th St. S.W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Buck & Gordon 1011 Western Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Jay P. Derr Shidle r McBroom & Gates 3500 First Interstate Center Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Gary D. Huff tiycD\ L C IATES ?CIA 4230 198th STREET LYNNWOOD, WASHINGT F' ] 98036 771 -2300 May 23, 1985 Brad Collins Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 PROJECT: SPRINGRIDGE PROPERTY SHORT SUBDIVISION SUBJECT: SCOPING NOTICE Dear Brad: Pursuant to the City Council Determination on appeal of the Declaration of Significance, we request that you begin the scoping process for the enviromental impact statement. 4001erely, 1._ ,10111mk_ I cott S anks COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. SS /jd MOM MAY 281985; CITY OF TUtKWILA PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM • Appeal of DS for Spring Ridge Investments Short Subdivision (85- 05 -SS, EPIC - 263 -85) INTRODUCTION The findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been revised to reflect testi- mony provided under oath at the May 6 and 13, 1985, appeal hearings on the Determination of Significance (DS) for EPIC - 263 -85. The testimony has clarified some of the project impacts, but non - project impacts on traffic, the pond, and land use have not been identified. Changes in the Exhibit 1 Staff Report are highlighted in this revised Staff Report Exhibit 25 by crossing out deletions and underlining additions. FINDINGS 1. Spring Ridge Investments submitted a short subdivision application and part of an environmental checklist on February 21, 1985, and requested early notice of threshold determination. 2. Spring Ridge Investments submitted the remaining part of the environmental checklist on February 27, 1985. 3. City staff met with the applicants on March 11, 1985, and reviewed the areas of concern that were leading the City to consider a DS. 4. A letter of early notice that the City was considering a DS and the areas of concerns was sent to the applicant on March 12, 1985. 5. In the March 11, 1985, meeting with City staff, the applicants requested and were granted sixty days for submission of additional information. 6. The applicants submitted the additional information on April 23, 1985. 7. City staff reviewed the supplemental information and issued a Determination of Significance on April 24, 1985. 8. The applicant submitted an appeal of the Responsible Official's decision on the same day April 24, 1985. 9. The applicant submitted a letter on May 1, 1985, stating the basis for the appeal. Page -2- City Council EPIC - 263 -85: SPRING AIL INVESTMENTS May 20, 1985 • 10. The proposed short plat and development are not categorically exempt per WAC 197- 11- 800(6)(a) and WAC 197- 11- 305(1)(a) and (b)(i) and (ii). 11. Following the process specified in WAC 197 -11 -330 and Ordinance 1331 Section 13, the Responsible Official determined the proposal likely would have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, was a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment adversely. 12. The applicant proposes to build 170,850 square retail of office, retail, and restaurant on Lot 1 and leave the remaining Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel undeveloped. 13. The Level of Service (LOS) measuring traffic impacts, which wets- were found to drop to LOS E at Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway, would at LOS D or better for the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway with the improvement of S. 168th Street and without traffic generated by Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel development. (Transportation 14a,d,f,g). 14. Traffic accidents were expected to increase as a result of the proposal. (Transportation 14a,d,f,g) 15. There was some doubt that the breadth of the traffic analysis accurately described the impacts of the proposal. (Transportation 14a,d,f,g) 16. Prior to issuance of a building permit for develop- ment on Lot 1, the developer proposed submitting a 51% petition signed by the benefitting parties for the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) for S. 168th Street from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway. (Transportation 14a,d,g) 17. Street and signal improvements for Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West street frontages along Lot 1 are proposed by the developer. (Transportation 14a,d,g) 18. A sixty foot wide access easement for Lot 2 +s- as shown on the short plat map (Exhibit 1) submitted by the developer could be eliminated or relocated to align with the western curb cut on Strander Boulevard. (Transportation 14a,d,g) 19. The Lot 2 access easement from Strander Boulevard and access to Andover Park West cannot provide access to the western portion of Lot 2 without substantial modification of the current pond (see Exhibits 2a /2b). (Transportation 14a,d,g; Water 3a(1 -6),d) 20. The buffer between the wildlife main use areas and nesting sites located in the pond edge /canarygrass wetlands and development /traffic on Lot 1 will be reduced from 393 feet to 15 feet (see Exhibit 3). (Plant 4a,b,d; Animal 5a,c,d) Page -3- City Council EPIC - 263 -85: SPRING R GE INVESTMENTS May 20, 1985 21. • Provided construction is limited to the north 12 acres of the property and the pond size remains the same, the impacts to wildlife would be greater from pedestrian activity, car parking, and truck unloading than from moving traffic orproposed building height /location. (Plant 4a,b,d; Animal 5a,c,d) 22. Surface water from proposed development will be collected and piped through an oil /water separator and into the existing pond. (Water 3a(1 -6), c(1 -2), d) 23. Approximately 175,000 cubic yards of fill will be imported and placed on Lot 1 with the existing vegetation along the north pond boundary remaining undisturbed. (Earth lc,d,e; Air 2a,c; Water 3a(2- 5),c(1 -2),d; Plants 4a,b,d; Animals 5d; Environmental Health 7a(1 -2), b(2 -3); Land and Shoreline Use 8a,h,l; Public Services 15a,b) 24. Some construction is recommended in the geotechnical report to occur on 150 to 170 foot, deep pile, foundation support. (Earth lc,d,e; Environmental Health 7a(1 -2) b(2 -3)) 25. The proposed development on Lot 1 will not could promote -arty active or passive use of the pond, if the impacts to the pond were not considered significant. (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,f,h,l; Aesthetics 10b,c; Recreation 12a,b,c; Public Services 15a,b) 26. The proposal conforms to cascading use requirements but does not implement the C -P zoning purpose "to provide an area which is appropriate for a Planned Business Center" (TMC 18.34.010). (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,e) 27. The landowner and the developer have proposed preparing an EIS and following Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) guidelines prior to approval of any deve- lopment on Lot 2. (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,e,f,h,1; Water 3a(1 -6),d) 28. No development is envisioned for the southern portion of the property (Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel) at this time by the landowner and the developer, and, therefore, no cumulative impacts of Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel development are identified. (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,e,f,h,1; Water 3a(1 -6), d; Transportation 14a,d,f,g) 29. WAC 197 -11 -055 states "The SEPA process shall be integrated with agency acti- vities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems" and "In general, agencies should adopt procedures for environmental review and for preparation of EISs on private proposals at the conceptual stage rather than the final detailed design stage." Page -4- City Council EPIC - 263 -85: SPRING IRE INVESTMENTS May 20, 1985 • 30. The decision of the City's Responsible Official shall be accorded substantial weight per RCW43.21C.090 and Ordinance 1331 Section 25(4). CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed short plat and development of the Tukwila Pond property does constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environ- ment adversely. 2. Traffic impacts on Strander Boulevard -ere may be significant and adverse. 3. The cumulative impacts of traffic conditions beyond 1986 development of Lot 1 are not identified in a broader analysis of traffic resulting from the propo- sal. 4. A 51% petition for an LID on S. 168th Street figs tot may be an effective miti- gating measure if a building permit has not been issued -anti before the deve- loper canes obtain the necessary signatures. 6. The proposed mitigation of traffic impacts is substantial but significant, adverse traffic impacts still may remain unmitigated by the proposal. 7. The access as proposed for Lot 2 will cause a significant, adverse impact on either the preservation of the pond or the development of Lot 2, which would be divided by the pond from access to Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard. 8. Preservation of the natural pond habitat is made more difficult by the proposal. 9. Reduction of the wildlife habitat buffer from 393 feet to 15 feet along the north pond edge is an adverse impact requiring further analysis as to signifi- cance. 10. Surface water discharge into the pond is an adverse impact requiring further analysis as to significance. 11. Fill and construction requirements are adverse impacts, which would be signi- ficant if not carefully monitored. 12. Loss of access to the natural amenity of Tukwila Pond is a significant, adverse impact, which +s- may notvmitigated by the proposal. he, 13. The Tukwila Pond property has been zoned C -P with the intention to provide an area which is appropriate for a Planned Business Center, which could not be accomplished without destroying the pond under the proposal. Page -5- City Council EPIC - 263 -85: SPRING ARE INVESTMENTS May 20, 1985 • 14. Lot 2 EIS and PMUD commitments by the landowner and the developer do not necessarily constitute mitigating measures which can be enforced per Ordinance 1331 and TMC 18.48.100/18.46.140. 15. Ignoring the cumulative impacts, particularly on traffic and the pond, as pro- posed will not ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, will not avoid delays later in the process, and will not seek to resolve potential problems. 16. Future development on Lot 2and southeast corner parcel can be conceptualized sufficiently to project generalized traffic and pond impacts in the absence of specific design plans. 17. The City's Responsible Official's determination that the mitigation of iden- tified impacts is inadequate and that the mitigation of unidentified impacts would be insufficiently addressed at a later time is not found to be lacking, and the basis for the appeal has not been substantiated. RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Based on the findings and conclusions of significant, adverse impacts which have not been adequately mitigated and on the substantial weight accorded the decision of the Responsible Official, a determination of significance is made for the Spring Ridge Investments proposal (EPIC- 263 -85). ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2a Exhibit 2b Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 (PC.RIDGE,PC.RIDGE1) NW CORNER tr: S+/v 4 NE 4 SEC. 26 /0 0 m 0 , / 6 8 ' 2 7 " v 2667.Z4' 266'7. • SrRANDER BLVD. • NE. CORNER S W 4 NE 4, SEC.2 633. 03'- N. 88 °15'33 "w. 5' OLYIWP,C P /PELINE ESMT. /336. 47. U.G.TELEPNONE ESMT. - 4 F. No. 6397207 j60007- - '613.5!'- 4 F. No. 6683975 See DETAIL W LO r a 1 ti may 0 11. 79 1 ACRES OR 5/3, 6/1. 43 S. FT. Q Z o 0 60' wloE �' ACCESS ESMT. �a I 633. 03" 'tom► FOR LOT 2 w � W.I. 614. 34' tat t` I N. 88° /5' 33 " /307.37' 1 Lor 2 /7.365 ACRES OR 756, 407. 31 SQ. FT. 669. 67' N. 8a" 05' 42"W. Land Surveyor's Certificate: This short plat correctly represents a survey made by me or under •my direction in conformance with the requirements of appropriate state statute and has been properly staked in .accordance with the Tukwila Subdivision Code. /-23 -85 Date MO r 8 8 ' 1 0 ' 3 7 " W - 6 3 8 . . 638.95' ���UNDET GROUND ��` TELEPHONE ESMT `, A. F. No. 6397207 I In 1 CO /O' t" -1--- 1 L--- - - --=- h / OLYMPIC PIC P /PEL /NE % f■ ^1 1 ESAEST. m �' .47-. No. 6683975 11,) o / WO/ / \ DETAIL_ --__i °' -- - -- 1 o4: 639.67' ROBE E. MAR /WETHER Certificate No. 827/ `�J .‘• tom. - c „Or : ?let Po. i T a4/.1./. I 1,..'tJ 4 . Map on File in Vault Direction: Scale: ri= 200' 200 /00 0 • 200 00 Pace 3 cr 3 EXHIBIT 1 r: 8 NW CORNER • SW4 NE4 ki/ SEC. 26 STRA/TDER BLVD. NE. CORNER SW 4 NE 4, SEC.2 T ___F______ -------633.03 5' 5 M PiC • f. FO O 11. 79 r ACRES OR N. 68 'Is' "w. 1336. 47' UI.G.TELEPHONE ESAAT.-N A F. No. 6357207 - - - - - �bDODT-- --- - - - - -- -613.5/•— -- --------- 1tr.. P /PEL /NE ESMT . 1 4 F. NO. 6683975 •• See, DETAIL ......1 1 � LOT N 633. 03' : 513, 61/. 43 SQ. FT. 0 1 60 w/WE 2 I ACCESS ESMT. FOR LOT 2 1 - l' 6)4.34' N. 88° 15' 33 " w. /307. 37' 26 ....................... LO :icii 17. 365 A.'; ?36, 407. 3: ,v oil o3 Qt.. c. t fir.. .T�.v —*err— "pre-.' f---" 67•— h N.88'0S'42" and Surveyor's Certificat shoe urvey• ma n confor ppropria aroperl y 'LY.wila S 1-23 -85 Date t plat correctly de by me or under • mance with the rea to state statute staked in .accorda .bdivision Code. e: represents a my direction uirements of and has been nce with the :ertificate No. 8271 c;,cr z P: c t Po. 639.67' Neap on File in Vault Direction: scale: 1"= ?DD' 100 0 •200 400 ?ace 3 cf 3 EXHI BIT 2A NW CORNER SiN4 NE 1 /.SEC. 26 W. 88' 25'27 - w. 2667. 24' • STRANDER BLVD. NE. CORNER SW4 NE 4,SEC.26-. N. 88°15'33"w. { 633.03' -- = "--- �b000� - - - -- 613.5/'— `5' OLYMPIC P /PEL /NE ES/v►r. 4 F. No. 6683975 /336.47' U.G TE[•EPHO JE ESMT.-.\ F. No. 6397207 LOT 11. 791 ACRES OR 633. 03' LO /7.34:7, 7.5(c". Ct 1 I1 • 5/3, 6 //. 43 SQ. PT. 2 en • • IV CD tri WN 1� I Cr 1 N 26 25 See•-•`"•�_ DETAIL 0 66' WIDE ACCESS ESMT. FOR LOT 2 - I' 614.34' N. 88° 15 ' ;; 3 ` W. /3 C7. 37' 0 N ti N. 8 05 42 ' W. :and Surveyor's Certificate: "his shor ; Lr ve y• ma confor ;ppropria ,roperly . ,;kwi.2 a 5 t plat ccrrectly represents a de by me or under .my direction mance with the reouirements of to state statute and has been staked in .accordance with the ubdivision Code. _ROBE 7- E. M ETHER Certificate No. 8271 Short P2at 1•o. Map on File in Vault Direction: inim11. MVP Scale: 1" ?OO" /00 0 1 • .000 400 0 P Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 2E3 m`2- 1 L Strender Blv UMW aneeetemmtemesmotettottmetemettmeenoweteme ems lI.t. /MOO • • ' • .1.- !!;: ... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . : .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . • ... • • 17• . • • IBA Architaclute Soperteetmg Plannmp, interiors St' ink. WA 1.-01194 .2tX4,082 n33 401% • Existing Property Boundry Oven Water Wetland Veo•tett, fExtettip F..' Spring Ridge Properly Newt. %..thnetto Mon P c ..—•••••1 Orr SITE PLAN 1.: 50.— 0. BOUNDARY AHD TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION BASED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY WALKER MD ASSOCIATES, INC. AND tIERIKTHER LEACH1W1 ASSOCIATES, INC. IA034. EXHIBIT 4 • • • s. --lai 2 ... . ... — — , • S ?a 2 — — — • — -ST ' AND " • , d'''''' tEVAR il v.. - • - .— .— -- ........,,---7476.- 74 :6-241 7 r 7-2476 --. 2,. --. .— ------- ------- — ---- '''''''' --- " -------- — N. es •il.1.1 1■C 24-27:26:2-- - --.rg:T 747. I.- —EC, •3—::---. • — 4, c----74-1-29:0---es,+- — .— _ --- — ....I... al.."111111e- --- — —. — _— - — _ 11111.11•0010,1" oe. as •/5 'kV' PA is -WOOLY .............r- — „a.m. --,-.,-.-r•••••• .........--........_______ 1 ___ _........—......,.... . ........_ • 614,1 19.2 19. • .1.11KIPOMMIN _._. ..A..___ 111 iii ...rd.. 14 I I (i) a■ C2.+6 i .6 I • 19. 7 20. • 20. • 20.2 28 •••• EIDI M M / / . I 5 \ .....- ra. 5 2 5 IL - 20. 7 19. 9 „.., el re. 7 . 21 . 21. • A. I ••■■ MM./ "MEM • ,.... • . .20.5 20.0 .5 . • (77/ : : • • • 1 .1 • 21. 8 ."... 1 9.6 : I 1111 - -- . IIIIIMIIIIIINMIIIRFAIIIIMIIIIIIIIII 14111 • 2).9 ..'., i• • ____. _____ .1 I I 5:2 ----N.—fly , WIWI •-•-. '-.'s-. ...." ii 20. 2 ,-- -N-• r IL= ' :"-•q .,-1 /1111.■ fk if ----- .............„..,• • . , ' .• ' ......- , ...; . LJ.....•-• . . • ... . POND .- . . . . . . • . • • ;' • . • ' : - . • . -- . • .. . _. . . • • • . • \ \ \ . 21 i i , ' a'• " . . . . SITE PLAN 1.: 50.— 0. BOUNDARY AHD TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION BASED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY WALKER MD ASSOCIATES, INC. AND tIERIKTHER LEACH1W1 ASSOCIATES, INC. IA034. EXHIBIT 4 cx:+ -101I _ .y„■■ May 13, 1985 Brad Collins SEPA Responsible Official City of Tukwila 5200 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, Washington 98188 7711 -2.300 CITY OF T��+UKWI A ri_MNN1h1G D� EP 4 PROJECT: SPRINGRIDGE PROPERTY FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CORRECTION TO SEPA CHECKLIST Dear Brad: Please find below our revised answer to Question "H" under the "Land and Shoreline" Use Section of the S.E.P.A. Checklist submitted as part of the short plat application on the referenced project. LAND AND SHORELINE USE H. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so specify. Reads: Site is not mapped as an environmentally sensitive area. Change to Read: Proposed Lot 1 is not mapped as an environmentally sensitive area. Lot 2 is currently mapped as an environmentally sensitive area on the City of Tukwila's Land Use Policy plan map. Please make this change apart of the record of this application. Scott Shanks COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES- INC. SS /jd cc: Mike Hess. First Western Developrnent 230 J J -198th:.,TR_ -i May 13, 1985 LYNi .W00%, WASH- -^)) .i 9 Brad Collins S.E.P.A. Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, Washington 98188 PROJECT: SPRINGRIDGE PROPERTY FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT 771-2300 _..JL1 r tefn t'j} /..'I,r� 4J SlJ 'MAY 1 3 1985 CITY of TUVAIlLA PLANNING DEPT. SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS Dear Brad: Below are answers to the supplemental questions for non - project actions as you requested. GENERAL The S.E.P.A. Checklist analyzed the environmental impacts associated with filling and developing the north 393 feet of the entire 40.7 acre parcel and the impacts attributable to short platting the property into two parcels. The answer to these questions will be orientated to Parcel 2. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; Emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The act of creating an additional lot will not in itself create any environmental impacts; however, one could presume that the development potential of Lot 2 may be increased due to its smaller area and better access created by development of 168th Street. As one of the mitigating measures offered is to prepare an environmental impact statement when a development is proposed for .Lot 2. The answers to the above questions will be addressed. This proposal will not have any discharge to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise with respect to Lot 2. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None at the current time. 2. How would the proposal be liekly to affect plants. animals, fish, or marine life? As stated in 111, the development potential of Lot 2 may be increased due to the short plat action. If this is the case, the pond environment may be changed. Any development on Lot 2 will affect both the plants and animals now utilizing it. These impacts and mitigating measures will be addressed in the environmental impact statement which will be prepared for development on Lot 2. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: As the proposal to create two parcels will not have any impacts on plants or animals with respect to Lot 2, an environmental impact statement is proposed at the time a project for Lot 2 is known. cl. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal would not deplete energy or natural resources. Any impacts associated with development which may or may not be proposed on Lot 2 will be addressed in an environmental impact statement. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None proposed at this time with respect to Lot 2. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas .designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection: such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, thretened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The act or short platting the 40.7 acres and developing the north 11.7 . acres will not in itself have significant impacts to the pond or associated wetlands. The pond and wetlands are located on Lot 2 of the short plat. The environmental impacts associated with any development proposed on Lot 2 would be addressed in an environmental impact statement offered as a mitigating measure of the short plat proposal. Proposed measures to protect such measures or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Require impacts to be identified and mitigation measures proposed in an environmental impact statement, prior to any development occurring on Lot 2. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans. The proposal to short plat a 40.7 acre parcel into two smaller parcels may increase the development potential for Lot 2. This increase in potential clue to smaller size and improved access would ultimately have an impact on the land use which is now open space. The existing zoning of this property encourages development and is therefore compatible with existing plans. Proposed measures to avoid ' or reduce shoreline and and use impacts are: Development of Lot 2 would follow P.M.U.D. Guidelines which gives the City reviewing authority which would assure that the development plan is compatible and that land use impacts are minimized. In addition, the environmental impact statement to be prepared for Lot 2 will address any impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities. Should development occur on Lot 2, increased demands on transportation public services and utilites will occur. The extent of these increases and demands will be analyzed when a specific proposal for development is submitted. The analysis will be part of the environmental impact statement required on Lot 2. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Increases and impacts will be analyzed in an environmental impact statement to be prepared when development on Lot 2 is proposed. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local. state, or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. As the short plat and creation of Lot 2 is not a project - related action, and as no development is proposed on Lot 2, no conflict with local state or federal laws or requirements relating to protection of the environment willtoccur. There are no local state or federal laws relating to protection of the environment which would not allow a property short plat. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy.Plan? If so. what policies of the plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the entire parcel for commercial uses. as no development is currently proposed on Lot 2. no conflicts are present. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Should development of Lot 2 occur, it will follow P.M.U.D. Guidelines assuring conformancing with the comprehensive plan. The environmental impacts attributable to the non - project action or creating Lot 2 are non - existent at this time. The fact that the development potential for this lot may increase and the cumulative impacts associated with this have been adequately mitigated by the requirement of the preparation of an environmental impact statement when development on Lot 2 is proposed. Sincerely, Sco anks COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC: SS /jd cc: Mike Hess, First Western Development, Inc. • CDk INC. • £X%fuC31-r -' KRC AL O C IATES 4230 1981h STPEET LYNNWOO :. WASHINGTON 98036 771 -2300 May 13. 1985 City Council Members City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 PROJECT: SPRING RIDGE PROPERTY SHORT PLAT FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Dear Council Members: Subsequent to the public hearing on may 6th. we met with the SEPA responsible official to discuss the findings and conclusions which lead to a determination of' significance. As these findings and conclusions were made available to us late in the afternoon of the hearing. we were not prepared to either analyze or respond to them. We understand the time constraints the official was working .under, as it was our insistence of getting before you that required findings and conclusions to be drafted in a short period of time. Our agreement to make 168th a mitigating measure was offered after the application was submitted. It is our feeling that the measure was not accorded adequate weight in offsetting the traffic impacts. We believe that the following findings and conclusions can be revised or eliminated if 168th Street is made a mitigating measure. Finding 1113. The Level of Service [L.O.S.) measuring traffic impacts was found to drop to L.O.S. East ast at Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway (Transportation 14 a.d,f.g) Exhibit " 20 " presented at the May 6th hearing by Entranco Engineers indicated a L.O.S. "0" at Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway with the development of 168th Street. Finding 016 Prior to City approval of occupancy for development on Lot 1. the developer proposed submitting a 51 % petition signed by the benefitting _ parties for the, formation of a Local Improvement District [LLD.) for South 188th Street from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway (Transportation 14a.d.g). Our intention with regards to 168th Street was misinterpreted. A• 51% petition will be submitted prior to City approval of any building permit for development on Lot 1 being issued. Conclusion #2 Traffic impacts on Strander Boulevard are significant and adverse. With development of 168th the Level of Service is not changed at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway and is improved one letter grade at the Andover Park intersection due to the proposed lane widening and signal modifications offered as a mitigating measure. Conclusion #4 A 51% petition for an L.I.D. on South .168th Street is not an effective mitigating measure if a building permit has been issued and the developer cannot obtain the necessary signatures. This concern is removed by revising the requirement to submittal of the L.I.D. Petition prior to building permit issuance. Conclusion 115 The recommendations of the transportation consultant for street improvements to Andover Park West go beyond the Lot 1 property lines. but the proposed mitigation is only along the property Lines of Lot 1. Our intent is to provide the mitigation measures proposed in the Entranco study. and as illustrated on Figure 12 of the transportation study. Exhibit 9. It is our understanding that with these clarifications and revisions the - responsible Toff c� ial no longer' _cons_iders the iimpacts� identified in these findings- and/ [ concjusions Sign if icant.- .. - 4,- -vv- 1 DA. • .L 05 5 14 el% 4/-1AA DA . -ft-iia tAsenk_ fLe, Are-,21._ AsAis4 ti In .- C;31 C—si—K¢. 004_14' e. ' • • In addition. we would like to address certain other findings and conclusions. Finding 815 There was some doubt that the breadth of the traffic analysis accurately describes the impacts of the proposal [transportation 14a.d.f.g). Conclusion #3 The cumulative impacts of traffic conditions beyond 1986 are not identified in a broader analysis of traffic resulting from the proposal. Our reason for limiting the traffic impact analysis to the intersections and streets in the immediate area was what we felt to be the logical approach. The major impacts caused by traffic from this development will naturally occur on the adjacent streets and intersections. We are proposing substantial improvements to these adjacent streets. intersections and development of a new street. Though traffic impacts -to other streets- and_intersections may/ fbe present as traffic, either finds its way to or from thisdevelopment:_ ;Ahere Cis no meansy by - which one dev_elop_ment_either new_or e.x,isting can _solve the l traffic concerns facing_the_City of of-Tukwila: Traffic has been studied to-death- in this City. An update of the City's transportation improvement plan is about to be undertaken which will again analyze and suggest improvements to create both short and long term improvements to the traffic situation. What it ultimately comes down to is identifying funding sources for the suggested improvements. The improvements required to solve the City's traffic problems are not widening Strander or providing new signals or even construction of new streets such as 168th. INew accesses to I -5 and 1 -405 must be provided.] These are major improvements which will benefit all businesses. We support formation of an area wide L.I.D. to fund improvements such as these and others that will really make dramatic improvements. The improvements to roads and intersections we propose is significant and will be done at great cost. It is more than any other development in Tukwila of similiar size has offered. Moving away from the traffic related findings and conclusions and into those associated with the environmental and biological impacts to the pond: Finding #18 Finding 819 Conclusion 88 A sixty foot wide access easement for Lot 2 is shown on the short plat map (Exhibit 1) submitted by the developer. (Transportation 14a.d.g). The Lot 2 access easement from Strander Boulevard and access to Andover Park West cannot provide access to the western portion of Lot 2 without substantial modification of the current pond (see Exhibits 2a/2b] (Transportation 14a.d.g/ water 3a (1-6). d). Preservation of the natural pond habitat is made more difficult by the proposal. Conclusion t9 Reduction of the wildlife habitat buffer from 393 feet to 15 feet along the north pond edge is an adverse impact requiring further analysis as to significance. fPart of-the perceived- impacts -to-the -pond we_under_stand_is_due_to _the -60 -foots {easement from Strander through_ t to Lot 2.% Our inclusion of this easement was at the request of Public Works to respond to the current transportation improvement plan which identifies 58th Avenue as connecting Strander to 168th Street. The easement allows for 58th Avenue to be continued and connnected to 168th in the future. A straight alignment of 58th running through the pond is not presupposed. When 168th Street is developed. a portion of the pond must be filled so the impacts of the continuance of 58th should not be as critical. The alignment of' 58th Avenue is not fixed at this time. several alternatives were suggested in Figure 11. Exhibit 9. Shouad the cumulative% impacts associated with this access be of concern, we offer two alternatives.; (11) _Eliminate- though access between the buildings- by creatinga pedestrian- only _plaza_or 2)— .Moving_themain_ access to the_west _end- in_which_a_continuetion- (with a straight__alignment__of 58th_Avenue_across__Lot_2 will_not_requ re the_, rpond to be filled./ Conclusion 119 concerns itself with the adverse impact in reducing the buffer from 393 feet to 15 feet. Rex Van Wormer has testified that no significant impacts to the wildlife now using the pond will occur due to development on Lot 1. CShouIdth,is _remain_ a concern to the council .�w,e� wil�lyrewise our plan, (to eliminate any automobile uck traffic -along the pond end en dge)' More significantly. we feel than any of these findings or conclusions. or anything we could say or offer lies the question, as this the type of_prolect the City/ has envisioned for this -property ?j As we have stated, many times this is the only proposal we have identified that works. One that the current economic environment can support while taking into account all of the other constraints. We -feel this project will be an_asset to the City and _as_importantly, - will -make; [development on Lot 2 much closer,: We have invested considerable time effort and expense. employed the most qualified experts in an attempt to unlock the secrets of this property. If you do not feel we have adequately mitigated impacts created from development in Lot 1. tell us what you feel they are: (impacts we can deal with and offer solutions to). �CumuIative impacts for_speculetiv_e_development (we- can_ not': The property owners willingness to follow the P.M.U.O. process and prepare an environmental impact statement will address any imaginable concerns the City may have on Lot 2. If you want us to modifiy our site plan tell use. We are willing to address and respond to specifics. [A vote to require j an environmentet-impact statement: we feel,js___a no vote for our proposal,, ,The= analysis we have- proformed -and the mitigation offered adequately addresses) ;impacts associated with the development–Cm–Lot 1.) We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our proposal. • 1 May 13, 1985 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS. OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE City Hall Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Van Dusen called the continued Public Hearing to order. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Brad Collins (Planning Director), Ross Earnst (City Engineer), James Haney (City Attorney), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Don Pierce (Chief of Police), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director). Public Hearing Mayor Van Dusen stated Council Member Harris listened to tapes of continued from meeting held on May 6, 1985 so she would be able to participate 5/6/85 -- Appeal in this discussion. of Determination of Significance for Mayor Van Dusen stated Exhibit 22, 23 and 24 had been entered in Spring Ridge Invest- the proceedings of the Meeting. ments. Pond Prop- erty located at Exhibit 22. Letter from Commercial Design Associates (Scott Shanks) Strander B1. & dated May 13, 1985 to City of Tukwila; Subj: Correction to SEPA APW. Check List. Exhibit 23. Memorandum to Brad Collins (Planning Director) from Don Pierce (Chief of Police) dated May 10, 1985; Subj: Accident Frequency on Strander Boulevard. Exhibit 24. Letter from Commercial Design Associates to City of Tukwila dated May 13, 1 -985; Subj: Spring Ridge Property Short Plat First Western Development Proposal. Scott Shanks, Commercial Design Associates, Inc., read his letter to the City dated May 13, 1985 which had been written subsequent to the public hearing held May 6, 1985. They stated they were not prepared to analyze or respond to the findings and conclusions as they were made available to them later in the afternoon of this hearing, but they felt their agreement to make 168th a mitigating measure was not accorded adequate weight in offsetting traffic impacts. Mr. Shanks offered clarifications and revisions to certain of the City's Findings and Conclusions. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Shanks if it were not possible to generally lay out utilities and streets on the property without having specific developments in mind in reference to the entire property? Mr. Shanks said they have not laid out roads and utilties because they have not proposed any development on Lot 2. It is a technical matter but could be done. Councilman Bohrer said they have said a straight alignment of 58th running through the pond is not presupposed. What do they suppose then? Mr. Shanks said they were responding to a transportation improvement plan and in a preliminary meeting with Public Works it was one of the items identified as to which they should respond. Their inclusions of that portion of 58th that runs through this property was included in the hopes that some day it would be continued and connected with 168th when Lot 2 is developed. The reason for location of 58th Street was through analysis of the intersections on Strander. It was determined that location east of the west approach into Southcenter Mal was a better location. He said they have no problem moving it back to location originally anticipated where it could have a straight alignment over the portion of the already filled property on Lot 2 and connect 168th Street without filling in any of the pond. Bruce Smith, current owner of the property, stated last week Ed Schaffnit, economic consultant, addressed the meeting and outlined various companies that have come forth over the years and tried to accommodate the City's wishes in developing the property. It would have been their wish to develop the property as a whole because they have every intention of marketing the property and seeing the whole property developed. They have spent in excess of $60,000 trying to TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBI• HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 2 • PUBLIC HEARING - present a development that is acceptable to the City. Developing Spring Ridge Invest- the property in phases seems the most desirable approach. With ments Pond Property mitigating measures they hope to satisfy the Council. They look at -- contd. the pond as a total development. They cannot lay out roads and utilities on the entire site when they do not know the type of development that will be done on the other portion of the property. Councilman Duffie asked Mr. Smith if he had intentions of filling in the pond at the time he purchased the property. Mr. Smith replied that purchase of the property was as an investor not a developer. Various developers have suggested different types of development. The water is a great amenity to the development of the property. Council Member Morgan asked City Attorney Haney if one way the Council could be involved in a decision was through a PMUD process. Did that have any relationship to doing partial development on a property? City Attorney Haney said when this issue was discussed before regarding this property being considered as a PMUD he indicated to the Council that the City would have to amend its zoning code in order to allow the City to rezone the property to PMUD. The developer could, however, apply for a PMUD development on the property should they desire to do so. The developer did not do that and applied for a short plat. Council Member Morgan asked Mr. Smith if economics were the motive for short platting the property. Mr. Smith replied that was the reason they have looked at it as a phase development. Council Member Morgan asked where access to Lot 2 would be (referring to Exhibit 13). If a road is built along the south end of Lot 1 it will provide access to Lot 2. Mr. Smith replied that is correct. Although the pond may not always be the size it is now, that would determine whether or not the road would furnish access to that property. Council Member Phelps asked if the Council can approve an action that would leave a property without access? Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the Council would not be reviewing the short plat. They are reviewing the environmental review process. If Council believe the access is an environmental issue that is limited that should be a proper environmental issue. You are not approving the short plat in your deliberations. Council Member Phelps said the traffic analysis is part of what the Council is looking at. Jay Derr, attorney for First Western Development, said that part of the access proposed would be the ultimate construction of 168th which would help provide access to the property as well as the portion of Lot 2 currently being accessed by Andover, a good portion on the east side of the pond. Part of the mitigation measures is participation in a 168th LID which then provides and opens up access for the remainder of the property. Council Member Harris asked the size of the pond at this time. Mike Hess said it is approximately 18 acres depending on time of year. Council Member Harris asked Mr. Smith if he was planning to leave the pond the size that it is for later development. Mr. Smith said no, that would be impossible. Council Member Harris asked Mr. Smith for his plans for the other part. Mr. Smith said they want to make sure the first part of the development will blend with the second part. He is not a developer. The economical reality seems to be that there does not seem to be tenants to fill the balance of the property at this time. What will be the pond configuration, where the roads will be is a difficult question to answer when you do not know who the developer will be and what the density will be and what will be the uses. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUB• HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 3 • S/ ?S PUBLIC HEARING - Council Member Harris said she read there was going to be a buffer zone Spring Ridge Invest- to go across the property in which case it would divide the property ments Pond Property in two pieces. -- contd. Mr. Smith said he would visualize it as a landscaping, it would not hide the rest of the development. Councilman Duffie said the pond is approximately 18 acres now and Council wants to leave the pond at least 92 acres, which way would you go? Mr. Smith said the pond would become the focal point of the development and whether it is developed in the center of or in the corner it ultimately depends on the development that the Council would approve. Councilman Duffie asked if the pond can be moved without disturbing the wildlife? Michael Hess, First Western Development, said they are proposing to provide a project now that takes advantage of the economic situation and will be a viable project for today's market. They are also providing and giving the City all of the protection it needs for whatever happens. We would say we are not disturbing wildlife should the pond remain in the north part of the property, the proposed project does not have the impacts on the pond now, but would give the City all of the protection it needs so the future project will be what you want also. Council Member Phelps said Mr. Smith was asking for some direction from City Council. Council had some discussions last year and talked about an overlay zone on the property and in that way Council could get into review of Resolution 736 and work together on that. It did not come about, but that would have been her preference over the subdividion action now being considered. It seems that is the comprehensive way to address the recreation opportunities that are not addressed by the current plan. It is the only opportunity the City is looking at to encourage higher density development in the core of the northwest commercial district. She would like to be able to encourage the highest and best use of that. Mr. Smith said it is his understanding that the PMUD is site specific to a development. If that is the case we come to an ever - revolving circle back to the same issues in that we do not have a development on the southern portion and how can we do a PMUD when we do not have that? It comes back to Mr. Bohrer's question as to how to lay out the roads. He said he hoped they are trying to address some of the issues on the southerly portion and put the vehicle in place which may be the PMUD overlay for the southerly portion so when development occurs you are satisfied you can go through the approval process and address all of these things. He said they felt they would impede the saleability and the development by saying where the roads and utilities will be. Council Member Phelps asked the City Attorney if it is appropriate for the Council to view developments which are representative of the pond property proposal on Lot 1 that First Western might have completed? City Attorney Haney said no, that would not be evidence in these proceedings. Council Member Phelps asked for the time line on the Council response and decision on this matter. City Attorney Haney said on a SEPA appeal the Council is required to render a decision within 60 days from date of appeal. The appeal was filed April 24. Councilman Bohrer asked if this is the only potential way of doing phase development that was looked at? Mr. Smith said they looked at the purchase of the whole piece of property by the developer but carrying the balance of the property for the number of years it would take to develop would be prohibi- tive. If it were sold as one parcel it would have to be a phase development. Economics state that. There is no way the City could absorb what may ultimately be three - quarters of a million feet TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PU, HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 4 • si 96 PUBLIC HEARING - of space. The developer will only purchase what they can utilize. Spring Ridge Invest- They will then as owners go out and try to market the balance. ments Pond Property It would cut down on their holding costs. -- contd. Council Member Harris asked if the short plat they are considering will look like the pictures? Mr. Hess said that is what they intend to do -- it is the level detail in the planning that they cannot commit to. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Hess, since he has an option on the property from Mr. Smith, if they have options or plans with specific tenants? Mr. Hess said they have four or five specific tenants in mind and some specific tenants in mind for the office building portion. They are in contact with many tenants. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Collins if a PMUD process would have to be site specific. Mr. Collins said it is an option the developer uses to change interior lot lines on his property and it is dependent upon the action of the developer to complete. There is some question in staff minds if the property on Lot 2 were to be subsequently sold to another developer what obligations would be committed to a subsequent developer by the PMUD. The PMUD process does permit various site specific arrangements of property or division of uses on that property. It expects that. Councilman Bohrer asked if the PMUD requires there be a very specific development? Mr. Collins said it can be phased so it is usually accompanied by a very site specific first phase at least. The PMUD process could be very simlar to what is proposed where you have a very specific first phase and a very inexact second phase, but there is some commitment made as to say, pond size or something like that, on Lot 2. Generally speaking, there will be some phase that will be . very site specific. The entire project will not necessarily be site specific. Councilman Simpson asked if there would be scheduled changes to go through the PMUD? Mr. Collins said if the PMUD was approved with specific site plans and it was not developed then it would revert back to the previous zoning code. Council Member Morgan said Council is hearing an appeal on the part of the developer and the owner to the official's decision that additional environmental work has to be done. The official's decision was that he declared the application environmentally significant. Because of that there is additional work expected of the developer in meeting those concerns. The developer is appeal- ing the fact that they are required to do an EIS. What would be the difference in doing that process or not doing it? Mr. Collins said an EIS would reveal adverse impacts that would be created by this project and analyze them. It does not make the decision, but it would reveal requirements of the State Environmental. Council Member Morgan asked if an EIS is done which proposed that indeed the adverse impacts can be mitigated, does it include the solutions for the problems if in fact it deals with those sensitive issues. Mr. Collins said it presumably can and there may be issues that are unavoidable and those would be disclosed. For example, it is an unavoidable impact to develop Lot 2 and preserve the pond in the form that it is today. That impact would be disclosed and it would not be mitigated. If there was a mitigating measure to develop Lot 2 through the PMUD process so the pond was preserved in its present form then presumably that would not be an unavoidable adverse impact any more. It would be a mitigated impact that had been disclosed and could be acted upon. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL HOC HEARING • May 13, 1985 Page 5 Member PUBLIC HEARING - Council / Morgan said representatives of the property have said Spring Ridge Invest- they are dealing with this lot and the development of this lot ments.Pond Property in itself does not constitute a major adverse effect on the contd. property or the surrounding environment, is that correct? Mr. Collins replied that is the developer's position. Council Person Morgan asked if the object of the short plat is to separate it from the rest of the property. Mr. Collins said the object is to separate one piece of property from the other, in this case Lot 1 and Lot -2 and the review of the staff was looking at the impacts of both Lot 1 and Lot 2 development. Mr. Collins said the difference in opinion lies in that Lot 1 has a specific project proposal that can be identified in greater detail than the conceptual nature of impacts associated with Lot 2. There are certain conceptual impacts associated with Lot 2 such as the access problem or the division of Lot 2 between the west side and east side of the pond, which you do not have to have a proposal to understand there are significant impacts with the access to the different portions of Lot 2. Some understanding of what that means is necessary in the review of the staff in order to make a decision or come to a mitigated DOS on this project. They have indicated they cannot identify impacts of that cumulative nature of the conceptual nature on Lot 2. Staff has not accepted that. Council Person Morgan said if she makes a decision on Lot 1 that it is separate and apart from Lot 2, is there any fallout on Lot 2, can someone argue then later that a precedent was set in making a decision on Lot 1 and argue that in fact an EIS does not need to be done on Lot 2 if it were not required on Lot 1? Mr. Collins said if Lot 1 and 2 had been subdivided at some previous time and only the development of Lot 1 was being investigated and the City was reviewing the associated impact with the development of Lot 1 they would not necessarily review the impacts on Lot 1 as being aprecedent on subsequent impacts that would occur on deve- lopment on Lot 2. They would be treated as two separate proposals. If they were part of a larger proposal, Lots 1 and 2, then they would be associated together. Council Person Morgan said the City is not moving forward on the short plat until they have adequate information about the environ- ment. That is why the Council is here. If Council rendered a decision that it was not environmentally significant, did not require an EIS, if Council agreed with the appeal and allowed the appeal to go through, how would that relate to the City's position on the conceptual connection between the two? How would City deal then with a later one? Is there the possibility of lawyers being able to say that it is not required on the second lot because it was not required on the first one? x/97 Mr. Collins said if the City were to issue a mitigated DOS could the City be challenged on that? I believe the answer is yes, it could be. The adequacy of that could be challenged. The second question, if the City issues a mitigated DNS, in the subsequent decision on the short subdivision could the City deny the short subdivision on the basis that it would have an adverse impact, he would have to seek legal opinion on that, but his initial reaction would be probably not. What we are saying is that the significant adverse impacts are adequately mitigated if we issue a mitigated EIS. The action before the Council is the separation of Lot 1 and Lot 2. The subsequent development on Lot 1 is in addition to the initial action which is to subdivide the property. We are looking at the environmental impacts of both of those actions. We have a non - project action which is a short subdivision and the associated environmental impacts with that and we have a project action which is the development of Lot 1. The environmental impacts of a project action usually are in greater detail because they are specific physical activities. Council Person Morgan said when the City Council makes the decision to either honor the appeal or deny it, does the Council as part of its role make comments or explanation for the decision, what does the decision include? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBliii HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 6 • S / q o' PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Haney, City Attorney, said Council decision should be backed up Spring Ridge Invest- by Findings and Conclusions. If Council decision is conditioned on ments Pond Property project being modified and mitigate certain impacts, if Council -- contd. issues a mitigated DOS then you would put in qualifiers, you would definitely want to put in the Findings and Conclusions the findings of fact and the conclusions that you draw from those findings that support the qualifiers, conditions, and decisions that you do make. The decision before the Council is whether or not you believe, based upon the proposal as submitted, that the proposal has significant environmental impacts or adverse environmental impacts which are not mitigated adequately by the proposal itself and which require further environmental analysis. That is the decision that the Responsible Official is taking and that is the decision that has been appealed to the Council. Council Person Morgan asked if qualifiers separate what applies to one and what applies to the other? Mr. Collins said Council can make conditions on both the short subdivision and on the proposed development of Lot 1 in his opinion. For example, Council can impose the responsibility for a 51% petition for benefitting parties to construct South 168th Street on a short subdivision, but they can also impose that on the project they won't issue a building permit until that petition has been submitted and accepted by the City at which point you condition both of them: Council Person Morgan asked if the Council grants the appeal by the use of qualifiers is it possible to not set a precedent for the non - project action? City Attorney Haney said Council is being asked as to whether or not the short plat and the development of Lot 1 creates a significant adverse environmental impact. That is an integrated issue and Council needs to consider it as a whole and not separate it. Council President Bauch asked the City Attorney what is the vehicle that carries on these mitigations to future property owners such as the binding to the construction of 168th, the fact that they are going to go into other. How can you bind future property owners because the development has sold part of the lot and because he says he cannot develop it so naturally he is going to sell the other part so someone else can develop it. How do we bind that? City Attorney Haney said covenants would run with the land. Council Person Phelps asked the City Attorney for his position on the mitigated DNS. City Attorney Haney said a mitigated DNS generally is a declaration of nonsignificance based upon specific mitigating measures which are made part of the proposal. If the proposal contains mitigation measures, if the proposal can be modified in such a way as to miti- gate the adverse environmental impact then a mitigated DNS can be issued which in fact binds the project to be constructed in accordance with those particular mitigating measures. Essentially it is taking the project, modifying it, saying this is how the project would be developed and approving the project with the understanding that it would be developed in that manner so it would be environmentally non- significant. Council Person Harris asked what makes this division of property different from the one on the west side of Southcenter Parkway where a portion of it was developed by Wendys. Later a portion was developed by another. What makes this different? Is it because of the pond? Mr. Collins said he was not with the City then but he believed the area referred to does show up as environmentally sensitive areas on the hillside and the declaration relative to rezone of those properties was that those environmentally sensitive areas would remain undeveloped and would not be rezoned to more intensive uses. If the proposal here were to subdivide the property and rezone the southern portion R -1 -7200 to preserve the open space he thought they would be a similar undertaking as this request. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PAC HEARING May 13, 1985 Page 7 how PUBLIC HEARING -- Mayor Van Dusen asked /entrances to load and unload the stores would Spring Ridge Invest- be accomplished. ments Pond Property -- contd. Mr. Hess said they did not have any anchor tenants that would require large deliveries. Most deliveries would be between 8 and 10 a.m. at-the the front door. Mayor Van Dusen asked Mr. Hess if it was his intent that there would be no activity of the public around the pond? Mr. Hess replied there would be no activity in this first phase. Future development of Lot 2 would take the pond into consideration. Mayor Van Dusen stated if there are streets, the City requires sidewalks. The City would like to address some of the impacts due to Lot 2. It seems it would be easy to go ahead with an EIS and when a proposal is done on Lot 2 it could be updated. Mr. Hess said they could make condition that there would be no loading docks back there. Pedestrian access could be made available. They can try to create no impacts on the pond. They felt they have answered the critical mitigating items. They have the experts and they have told them what to do. An EIS will not address the traffic impacts any better than they have already done. They can make certain conditions binding on Lot 2 and in that way give the City the protection they need. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there was anyone from the general public who would like to make a comment. Gary Huff, one of the attorneys for Southcenter, 3500 First Interstate Center, Seattle, was sworn in by the City Attorney. He stated they are opposed to piece -meal development and planning of this site without proper study and consideration given to the full range of impacts that are involved and can be mitigated. There are several deficiencies that would not be offset by mitigating measures. The traffic has not been taken care of -- week day traffic is less than weekend traffic. This analysis has been to only one lot and not to the development of Lot 2. We should look at accumulative impacts. They would like to see a thorough analysis and have all of the impacts identified. Mr. Hess said they are not in agreement with Mr. Huff's remarks. He said they felt they have identified the mitigating impacts and solved them. Police Chief Pierce explained Exhibit 23 which reported on traffic accidents on Strander during the 1984 year. These are reported accidents from State records. It does not include unreported accidents. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said with reference to Scott Shanks comments regarding the 55' building setbacks from the Lot 1 property line and the 15' of undisturbed edge, this would not change any of the findings and conclusions of the staff report. In response to Dennis Neuzil's concerns about the placement of 58th Avenue South and whether or not that is better at a more eastern access, his comment is that would not be without significant adverse impacts on the pond. Once you start changing the traffic analysis we are not sure what that would do to the impacts of traffic versus the impacts on the pond. In response to comments by Rex Van Wormer, the parking surface runoff is a question that would appear to be a nonpoint versus a point source of the water going into the pond. The City concern there is that staff believes it is nonimpact to have no development of property south of the north 12 acres, that would have a significant adverse impact on the land use part of the City as well. The next concern is the statement by Jay Derr that it was approp- riate to wait on Tukwila Pond impacts. It is the City's feelings that it is not appropriate, that there can be general concepts in dealing with such issues as 58th Avenue South location or the accesses for Lot 2 which properly are discussed and have not been. Also, in his testimony and his letter, Exhibit 2, there are inferences about staff opinions and he would like to correct the record that they do not accurately reflect staff opinions as to the basis of the appeal. With reference to testimony by Mr. Hess on May 6, staff did not conclude only hypothetical and, therefore, not useful impact analysis could be done for Tukwila Pond development concepts. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLOIHEARING May 13, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING -- In reviewing Exhibit 24 which was just received, with reference Spring Ridge Invest- to Dr. Neuzil's LOS revisions that were presented at the May 6 ments Pond Property meeting, the City has not reviewed that analysis so it is hard to -- contd. come to conclusions about the adequcy of the impact of South 168th on making Strander and Southcenter Parkway reduced from LOS E to LOS D or E but he would say that generally Dr. Neuzil's information has been reliable. Mr. Collins said with reference to statements regarding the City's traffic problems as separated from the projects' traffic problems, the City's problems with traffic may be greater with Lot 2 develop- ment. Staff has not confused those problems with other City traffic problems, it is the responsibility of the applicant to let the City and the public know what those impacts are and it is not a question of confusing the City's impacts with those.of Lot 2. What the applicant has shown, in the opinion of staff, has been the minimum traffic impact that would be created by this project in its first phase and possibly mitigated those minimum impacts. They have not shown other likely traffic impacts that would occur on development of Lot 2. The access of Lot 2 from Andover Park West with the elimination of 58th Avenue South access for Lot 2 to Strander still remains a likely and, therefore, adverse impact on the pond. With reference to the relocation of 58th Avenue South to either the western edge of Lot 2 or its elimination altogether, could address the impacts on the pond but it may also have the problem of changing the traffic analysis as it has been presented and it may also have a negative impact on the other elements of the site plans that have been presented. Other comments were made relative to public access versus pond impacts and the relationship of providing access to the south property line of Lot 1 to the north edge of the pond which would satisfy providing public access but would also have the negative impact of greater pond impacts. It is precisely the EIS that defines these impact trade offs and tries to identify for those who want access what the impacts would be versus those who want preservation. That is one of the purposes of the EIS. In reference to Exhibit 24 this decision on the threshold determination of significance to the environment should not be made on whether you like or dislike this project, but should be made on whether there is a significant impact or there is not. As a Responsible Official, one cannot require an EIS if you do not like a proposal nor not require an EIS if you like the proposal. The decision before the Council is whether there is a significant impact or not. Scott Shanks said they met with Mr. Eichler and discussed the traffic in detail. They are willing to participate in LID's to relieve the problems. The improvements will be of benefit to the entire area. City Attorney Haney instructed the Council as to their procedure in arriving at a decision. Brad Collins, Planning Director, stated his recommendation still stands. Based on testimony and materials presented some of the items would be modified. His general conclusion is that there would be impacts on the pond and there are concerns about the traffic on Lots 1 and 2 that are still significant. Council Member Harris asked Mr. Collins what, in his opinion, would be adequate mitigation. Mr. Collins said he was not sure this project could be mitigated. He said an EIS is appropriate for this property -- the EIS would identify the impacts. Council Member Phelps asked if a redraft of his recommendations could be made to the Council. Mr. Collins said he could make revised comments. The City is trying to follow the State law. Once the EIS is done the Council can approve, modify or deny the project. By requiring the EIS you are saying you will make sure of the adverse conditions. The applicant says they do not want the EIS because they can modify the mitigating conditions. Staff has tried to be specific on the impacts. The EIS can be do by the applicant's consultant, the City's consultant or by statt. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBL•HEARING May 13, 1985 Page9 PUBLIC HEARING -- Mayor Van Dusen closed the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Spring Ridge Invest- ments Pond Property -- contd. - a o RECESS MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING RECESS 9:30 - 9:37 P.M. FOR FIVE MINUTS. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 P.M. The meeting was called back to order by Mayor Van Dusen, with Council Members present, as previously listed. MOVED BY BAUCH, NO SECOND, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONSIBLE.. OFFICIAL IN DOCUMENT 1 AND CONCUR WITH HIS DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE WITH THE SPRING - RIDGE INVESTMENT PROPOSAL. MOTION FAILED, NO SECOND. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT STAFF UPDATE THE REPORT AND THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THIS PROJECT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT A FUTURE DATE FOR CONSIDERATION. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Norma Booher, Recording Secretary TO: FROM:. DATE: SUBJECT: City - Tukwila 6200. Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor L /1111' -'' � �y CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. E ,: ! A UM Brad Collins, Planning Director Don Pierce, Chief of Police 'gyp - ,_ May 10, 1985 Accident frequency on Strander Blvd. Following last Monday's hearing concerning the proposed development of the Tukwila Pond site and the development's impact on traffic congestion and accidents, I researched the accident rate for 1984. The following information is the number of reportable accidents on Strander between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. A reportable accident is any accident with more than $300.00 damage to any one vehicle or injury. These accident rate statistics do not include non - reportable (fender bender) accidents or non - reported accidents (no accident report submitted). The following information is for 1984. Location Strander -- between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West On Southcenter Parkway at Strander* On Andover Park West at Strander* Totals Injury Non- Injury 0 10 15 31: 4 6 19 47 * This includes accidents up to 1,000 feet south of Strander, but none north of the intersection. This is due to reporting difficulties because of the superblock. ;1908 TO: FROM: DATE: • City :. Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor File Brad Collins May 10, 1985 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: City Council EPIC - 263 -85 Determination of Significance Appeal Exhibits Exhibit 1 Planning Division Staff Report (dated May 6, 1985) and attachments Exhibits 1, 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 Exhibit 2 Jay Derr Letter (dated May 1, 1985) Exhibit 3 Planning Department Memo (dated April 30, 1985) Exhibit 4 Scott Shanks letter (dated April 24, 1985) Exhibit 5 Determination of Significance EPIC - 263 -85 (dated April 24, 1985) Exhibit 6 Scott Shanks letter (dated April 22, 1985) Exhibit 7 Gary Huff letter (dated April 15, 1985) Exhibit 8 Transpo Group letter (dated March 26, 1985) Exhibit 9 Short Plat Application and Development Proposal (dated February 18, 1985) Exhibit 10 Independent Ecological Services Letter (dated April 24,1985) Exhibit 11 Staff Review Comments on Short Subdivision 85 -05 -ss /EPIC- 263 -85 SEPA Environmental Checklist Exhibit 12 Early Notice EPIC - 263 -85 (dated March 12, 1985) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL May 6, 1985 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers Regular Meeting MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila and City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Allegiance. ROLL CALL OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE REPORTS Fire Service Recognition Day National Public Works Week Special Recognition City Council Police Dept. Mgmt. Audit So. King Co. Activity Ctr. (42nd Ave. So.) Staff CONSENT AGENDA LIONEL C. BOHRER, EDGAR D. BAUCH, Council President, DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFIE, WENDY A. MORGAN, CHARLES E. SIMPSON. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; DON MORRISON, City Administrator; BYRON SNEVA, Public Works Director; BRAD COLLINS, Planning Director; DON PIERCE, Police Chief; DON WILLIAMS, Parks & Recreation Director. Mayor Van Dusen read a Proclamation declaring May 11, 1985 as Fire Service Recognition Day in Tukwila and urging all citi- zens to visit the Fire Service Exhibition at Southcenter Mall. He also read a Proclamation declaring the period of May 19 through May 25, 1985, as National Public Works Week in the City of Tukwila and invited all citizens to acquaint them- selves with the problems involved in providing Public Works Services. Don Pierce, Police Chief, introduced Reverend Nick Krantz of the Foster - Tukwila Presbyterian Church and presented him with a Police Chaplain Badge. Rev. Krantz has been active in the Chaplaincy program with the Tukwila Police Department. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZE THE RECEIPT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT AND PUT IT IN THE PUBLIC. SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR STUDY. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A LETTER FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SOUTH KING COUNTY ACTIVITY CENTER REQUESTING FUNDS AND PUT IT IN THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, reported that he and the Attorney met with the Metro Staff again to review their response to the City's proposal on the agreement for the construction of the Effluent Transfer System. Metro feels that there is no way they can enter into an agreement with the formation of a construction fund where they would pass along the savings to the City of Tukwila. They say it is legally impossible to do that and policy -wise they would not want to do it. They are preparing another draft agreement for the City. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL DISCUSS THE E.T.S. DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. a. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 1985 b. Approval of Vouchers • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING May 6, 1985 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA — Cont. Resolution #949 Resolution #950 OLD BUSINESS Resolution #951 - Establishing fees for excavation permits NEW BUSINESS Unanticipated Com- munity Dev. Block Grant Funds Item 6b- Voucher Approval b. Approval of Vouchers - Cont. • Claims Fund Vouchers #21690 - #21905 Current Fund Golf Course Spec. Rev. Street Fund Federal Shared Rev. Land Acq, Bldg, Dev. Unemployment Comp. Water Fund Sewer Fund Equipment Rental $ 54,369.27 6,262.92 35,322.39 2,608.83 5,191.13 4,999.70 14,959.27 722.28 21,773.79 $146,209.58 c. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Tukwila fixing the time for a public hearing upon a petition for vacation of certain public right -of -way within the City of Tukwila generally described as South 133rd Street lying easterly of South 134th Place. (Sheehan) d. A resolution of the City Council of the City of Tukwila fixing the time for a public hearing upon a petition for vacation of certain public right -of -way within the City of Tukwila generally described as that portion of South 152nd Street traversing Tracts 37 and 38, Brookvale Garden Tracts. (Hampton Heights Associates) MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.* Council President Bauch asked to have the vouchers removed. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Haney read a resolution of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Wash., establishing the fees for excava- tion permitsissued pursuant to Chapters 11.22 and 16.54 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, passed as part of Ordinance No. 1341 of the City. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT RESOLUTION. NO. 951 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO AMEND THE LOWER FOSTER PARK DRAINAGE PROJECT CONTRACT BY ADDING $1,149 TO IT. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Bauch reported that when he reviewed the voucher for Ogden, Ogden and Murphy, he noticed revision of Titles 8 and 9 listed under Special Matters, it should be a routine matter. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE VOUCHERS BE APPROVED LESS VOUCHER NO. 1241 FOR OGDEN, OGDEN AND MURPHY.* Don Morrison, City Administrator, said that the revisions to Titles 8 and 9 are so extensive they were considered a spe- cial matter. *MOTION CARRIED. • • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING May 6, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING ' Appeal of Determina- of Significance for Spring Ridge Invest- ments Short Subdivi- sion (Pond Site) Mayor Van Dusen explained that this hearing is on an appeal by the proponents of a short plat on the Tukwila pond pro- perty from a declaration of environmental significance issued by the City's Responsible Official, Brad Collins, Planning Director. The testimony taken at this hearing shall be under oath, a taped record will be maintained and Council, after hearing all of the evidence, shall enter findings and conclusions in support of its decision, and the findings must be in writing. Mayor Van Dusen stated that the City will start with the Responsible Official, Brad Collins, testifying first, followed by staff members, Don Pierce, Police Chief; Ross Earnst, City Engineer; and Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. The applicants will follow staff and then anyone from the general public may speak. After all have been heard, there will be time for rebuttal. Once all testimony is taken, the City Council may close the hearing on the appeal and proceed to consider its findings and conclu- sions. Attorney Haney explained that Council is here to determine specific rights of specific parties. Council is sitting as the City's SEPA Responsible Official. They will review the checklist and all of the documents and all of the evidence given tonight during the hearing to make a determination of significance or non - significance with respect to the propo- sal. Council should consider all of the relevant evidence and make their decision based on that. The issue is, "Is this project going to have significant adverse environmental impacts or isn't it ?" Is the determination by the Responsible Official that a Declaration of Significance is warranted a proper and correct decision? Council is to con- sider the decision of the Responsible Official and give it substantial weight. If Council determines that, on the basis of the evidence, they should make a decision other than the one made by Brad Collins, they can reverse his decision and issue a Declaration of Non - Significance. Council should also consider the mitigating measures proposed by the applicant. At the end of the testimony and closing of the Public Hearing, Council may adopt the Findings and Conclusions sub- mitted by Staff if they are appropriate or Council may adopt their own findings based on the evidence. Attorney Haney noted that since Council Member Harris is absent this evening, she can participate in the final deci- sion if she listens to the tapes. Mayor Van Dusen declared the Appeal Hearing open and appointed numbers to the exhibits submitted as evidence, as follows: 1. Planning Division Staff Report dated May 6, 1985 - Appeal of DS for Spring Ridge Investments 'Short Subdivision (85- 05 -SS, EPIC - 263 -85. 2. Letter from Law Offices of Buck and Gordon to Councilman Edgar D. Bauch dated May 1, 1985 and signed by Jay P. Derr. 3. Memorandum to the City Council from the Planning Department dated April 30, 1985 - Appeal of Responsible Official's Determination of Significance for the Spring Ridge Development Company Short Subdivision impacts. 4. Letter from Commercial Design Associates, Inc. to Rick Beeler (Project: Spring Ridge Short Plat; Subject: Appeal of D.S.), dated April 24, 1985, signed by Scott Shanks. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING May 6, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of Determina- of Significance for Spring Ridge Invest- ments Short Subdivi- sion (Pond Site) (Cont.) RECESS: 7:50 p.m. -8:05 p.m. Administer Oath for Testifying Brad Collins Proposal 5. Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on scope of E.I.S., dated April 24, 1985, signed by Brad Collins. 6. Letter from Commercial Design Associates, Inc. to Rick Beeler (Project: Tukwila Pond Site, Your File No. EPIC 263 -85; Subject: Short Plat Application Additional Information) dated April 22, 1985, signed by Scott Shanks. 7. Letter from Shidler, McBrown & Gates to Mr. Brad Collins (Re: Spring Ridge Short Plat Traffic Impact Study) dated April 15, 1985, signed by Gary D. Huff. 8. Letter from the Transpo Group to Mr. Richard Eichler (Subject: Spring Ridge Short Plat Traffic Impact Study) dated March 26, 1985 signed by James W. Mac Isaac, P.E. 9. Short Plat Application and Development Proposal, Tukwila Pond Site, Tukwila, Wash., dated February 18, 1985. 10. Letter from Independent Ecological Services to Brad Collins, dated April 24, 1985 (Impacts to Tukwila Pond from proposed development along Strander Blvd.) 11. Handwritten draft, dated March 11, 1985, Short Plat 85- 05 -SS, EPIC 263 -85 Early Notice, Threshold Determination Considerations. 12. Letter from L. Rick Beeler to Scott Shanks (Re: Tukwila Pond Site - EPIC 263 -85) dated March 12, 1985. Addition to Exhibit #1. Site Plan (Exhibit 4) was added to Exhibit 1. Council requested a short recess. Mayor Van Dusen called the meeting back to order with Council Members present as pre- viously reported. **APPEAL HEARING CONTINUED** Attorney Haney administered the Oath for Testifying to all those wishing to speak -- City Staff, Applicant, Represen- tatives of Applicant, General Public and anyone else wishing to be heard. Brad Collins described, by the use of overheads and exhibits, the nature of the decision. He reviewed the Planning Division Staff Report. There are three bases for the appeal made by the applicant. First, the proposed short plat does not constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. Second, mitigation of identified impacts is adequate. Third, mitigation of unidentified impacts is discouraged, not necessary, and can be suf- ficiently addressed at a later time. Mr. Collins read the 30 Findings and 17 Conclusions from the Staff Report (submitted as Exhibit 1) used in making the decision. The first 10 findings refer to the process that was undertaken in this application. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Strander Blvd. and Andover Park West. The entire property is roughly square, approximately 1,250 feet on a side. Of that • • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING May 6, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of Determina= of Significance for Spring Ridge Invest- ments Short Subdivi- sion (Pond Site) (Cont.) Applicant area, roughly one -half is covered by a shallow pond. The proposal on Lot 1 is to develop 11.791 acres of the property fronting on Strander Blvd. to a depth of approximately 393 feet south of Strander. This portion would be developed, by First Western Development, into a retail, restaurant and 40,000 square foot office complex. Lot 2 adjoins Lot 1 on the south, is L shaped and contains 17.365 acres. There is a square approximately 639 feet by 663 feet in the southeast corner not included in the Short Plat. Mr. Collins concluded (from the staff report) based on the findings and conclusions of significant, adverse impacts which have not been adequately mitigated and on the substan- tial weight accorded the decision of the Responsible Official, a determination of significance is made for the Spring Ridge Investments proposal. Don Pierce, Police Chief, commented that the concerns of the Police Department are related to the traffic this proposal will generate and the impact it will have on Strander Blvd., Andover Park West and the general traffic in the area. The report indicates that the proposal will generate 10,000 addi- tional trips per day to and from the area. He expressed con- cern about the impact to the outlying area. There are other intersections that will be affected. The proposal doesn't address development of the entire parcel. Basically, we need to have more study and address the larger impacted area, the total development impact and the impact past 1986. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, noted that the increase in traf- fic on Strander Blvd. is a significant adverse impact. An increase in traffic accidents can be expected. The traffic analysis should consider the total development of the site and project, the traffic for that time. Also traffic at the City entrances should be analyzed for impact. The easement to Lot 2 does not appear to be useful without modification to the pond or relocation of the easement. Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director, said that the environmental checklist for the proposed short plat does not provide sufficient information to determine the total impacts that dividing the area into Lots 1 and 2 will have on the pond. The proposed short platting is a major change from the present land lot configuration and informal use. Because of this, it is appropriate to consider the proposed short plat significant. Michael Hess, First Western Development, said that they are a local developer. They are located in Lynnwood and have been doing business in the area for over 13 years. At the pre- sent, they are constructing a project at Strander Blvd. and West Valley Highway. Also, they have just opened a Real Estate Office in the City. They have been working on the Pond Site proposal for over a year. After working with Staff, they have determined that it is not feasible to develop the entire site at this time and the decision was made to do this as a phase development. The best way to do this is by Short Plat. It is the best way to get the first phase under construction and allows the City, with the mitigating items proposed, the most flexibility and also the most control on the later phases of the project. When they started on the short plat application, they determined there were two very significant issues that needed to be addressed - -the pond and the traffic. These were addressed in great detail. Experts were hired to address the issues. • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING May 6, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of Determina- of Significance for Spring Ridge Invest- ments Short Subdivi- sion (Pond Site) (Cont.) • Mr. Hess introduced the following five people who were pre- sent to testify: 1. Ed Schaffnit, Real Estate Economic Consultant. 2. Scott Shanks, Commercial Design Associates (Architect). 3. Dennis R. Neuzil, Entranco Engineers (Traffic Consultant) 4. Rex VanWormer, Biological Consultant 5. Jay Derr, Attorney with Buck & Gordon (Land Use Attorney) Ed Schaffnit, representing Spring Ridge, the owner of the property, has been an economist on the property for two years. He reviewed past developmental history of the site. It has been assessed by several and detailed feasiblity stu- dies made. It has been concluded that the risks were too great for committing the resources to total development given the time, uncertainties of approval and a capital commitment in the marketing time for the entire property. First Western has proposed a short plat of 12 acres on Strander which will not have any critical environmental impacts on either the remainder of the property or surrounding uses which cannot be adequately mitigated through measures offered by the developer. Prior to developing the remainder of the property, Spring Ridge is prepared to commit to preparing an EIS, to the PUD Guidelines, to an LID for South 168th St., and is also pre- pared to face the mitigating measures for the accumulative affects that would impact Lot 2. He requested that Council support First Western's appeal for issuance of a mitigated declaration of non- significance and let development get started. Scott Shanks, Commercial Design Associates, said they are the Architects and Planning Consultants that have been involved on this project over this past year. The pertinent infor- mation surrounding their proposal is included in the short plat application. Because of the unique characteristics of the site it became evident that there was only one feasible approach to developing the site. Their proposal responds to all of the constraints in a way that does not compromise in giving the City what they feel is an outstanding project. He submitted the following exhibits for the record: 13. Aerial photo of the site. 14. Color rendering of the site plan illustrating their pro- posal. 15. Color rendered perspective illustrating the portion of the buildings facing the pond. 16. Color rendering illustrating the office building at the corner of Strander and Andover Park West. 17. Color rendered perspective illustrating the design approach to the retail building. 18. Aerial photograph illustrating the site when there was no water on it. The site development plan illustrates development on the por- tion of the site that was previously filled. They propose to develop approximately 11.8 acres of the total 40 acre site. They propose a mixed use specialty retail, restaurant and office complex. The total square footage of the proposal is 170,850 square feet. They intend to incorporate pedestrian oriented items. They propose a pathway along the west pro- perty line. The office building will be four stories constructed of masonary and concrete. One of the site constraints on this project is the poor soil condition. Any structure of significant weight (over one story) needs to be • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING May 6, 1985 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of Determina- of Significance for Spring Ridge Invest- ments Short Subdivi- sion (Pond Site) (Cont.) 6 %9/ supported on deep pile foundations of 150 to 170 feet in depth. The cost on this type of a foundation system is great and must be spread over more floor area. Based on this, most of the development proposed is of one story construction. The short plat application calls for filling the current site by four or five feet. Their experts have indicated that this fill will create no long term impacts either on the site or on the surrounding properties. They will work with the City to plan an acceptable system for hauling the fill in. Their building sets back 55 feet from the pond edge and we intend to keep the natural landscape buffer now existing along the pond edge. The access road into Lot 1 aligns with one of the main entrance roads into the Southcenter property and is . intended to be a signalized intersection. This road is included in the City of Tukwila Transportation Plan. Dennis Neuzil, Associate with Entranco Engineers, said their scope of work for this project was to estimate traffic volumns generated by the proposed short plat, determine the traffic impact to the immediate vicinity of the site, to eva- luate the degree of mitigation afforded by the applicant's proposed improvements adjacent to the site and to develop recommended preliminary engineering for those improvements of roadway and traffic control with cost estimates. He pre- sented the three following exhibits that were not included in the traffic report,for the record: 19. 1984 Average Weekday Traffic 20. 1986 AWDT and LOS with Spring Ridge 21. Minkler Boulevard Design Report Mr. Neuzil discussed several of the tables from Exhibit 9 and explained that Strander Blvd. is proposed to be widened by 16 feet. There will be an additional 6 feet of widening to the west side of Andover Park West and the signal will be modified with a new traffic signal being installed at the access to Lot 1. A turn -out for southbound Metro buses will be provided on Andover Park West. He compared peak -hour level of service along Strander and Andover Park West without and with the Spring Ridge development. They estimate an increase of 4 to 8 accidents per year with the development created just by the increase in traffic volumn. Scott Shanks, Commercial Design Associates, said they propose to dedicate the necessary ground and provide the improvements necessary along the north boundary line. This includes the relocation of utilities, the additional pavement necessary for the new traffic lane configurations, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. They would also pay for the installation of the traffic signal at their north entry. They will dedicate the necessary property along Andover Park West and create the same improvements along with the necessary signal changes. Public roadway cost improvements are estimated to run $306,000. In addition, they .agree to participate in an LID to extend So. 168th. Street. Robert L. "Rex" VanWormer, owner and lead Biologist of a Biological Consulting Firm, Independent Ecological Services, said he has looked at the proposed development on the north filled site as it relates to the pond and the wetland area and to the wild life uses of both. They evaluated the amount of fill in relation to the unfilled portion - -38% filled, 62% unfilled. Exhibit 18 shows the site prior to it becoming a pond. It became a pond as development occurred around the site, and it became the lowest point. Water stood on the property and killed off the existing vegetation. The pond • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING May 6, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Appeal of Determina- of Significance for Spring Ridge Invest- ments Short Subdivi- sion (Pond Site) (Cont.) Continuation EXECUTIVE SESSION 11:07 p.m. 11:40 p.m. 11:41 p.m. is formed by surface water. With completion of the P -17 Project, a significant amount of the runoff will no longer go into the pond. There is a strong probability that, in the near future, the pond will change. The bottom of the pond is soft mud that has a very low biological value. The birds that come into the pond are using it as a loafing area; it is a security area for them. With the one story concept, the flight view of birds moving in and out will not be disrupted. The project is designed to separate the pond from the main parking areas. It is possible to plant a buffer area to regulate human access to the pond. With the development, the surface water runoff would go through oil separators and should improve the quality of the water. The birds using the pond right now will not be affected by the movement around the pond. Jay P. Derr, Attorney for Spring Ridge, stated that under the mitigated negative declaration, provisions for SEPA and the local ordinances, any conditions that are imposed as mitiga- tion automatically have to be imposed as conditions of the short plat approval. The City would have the authority under SEPA to require an EIS on the southern part of the property. The experts that have testified for the applicant have indi- cated that construction on the northern part of the property can adequately address the impacts through the mitigations proposed. The questions remaining can be addressed by an Impact Statement on the southern part of the property at the time it is developed. At this time there are no plans for development of the south side. The applicant is concerned_ about having to guess at proposed development. Doing an EIS today doesn't guarantee or define the development on the southern-part of the property. The applicant is suggesting that the focus be on the development on Lot 1. and that the impacts identified on the checklist can be adequately miti- gated by the conditions that have been proposed. Mike Hess, First Western Development, said the north 12 acres were selected for development because of the soil conditions and the economics at this time. After discussions with staff about possible developments on the south, it was concluded that they were hypothetical; they don't tell anything. It was agreed that. the PMUD process was the best way to ensure that the City had very good and very strong controls on what would be developed. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL CONTINUE THE APPEAL HEARING TO NEXT MONDAY NIGHT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL EXTEND THIS MEETING TONIGHT TO HEAR THE TWO ITEMS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session called to discuss labor negotiations and the ETS Project. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING BE CONTINUED TO NEXT MOND E i allInzaw , Mayo Maxine Anderson, City Clerk CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY . COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 6 • Appeal of DS for Spring Ridge Investments Short Subdivision (85- 05 -SS, EPIC - 263 -85) INTRODUCTION After lengthy discussions with the applicant including submittal of supplemental information following early notice, a Determination of Significance (DS) was issued for the Spring Ridge proposal. Per Ordinance 1331 Section 25, the appli- cants have appealled the Responsible Official's decision to the City Council. The City Attorney's memorandum on appeal procedures explains the action required for the City Council on this appeal. The key concern of the administration is the land use conflict created by this proposal for the development of the Tukwila Pond property. The proposal will disassemble the property surrounding Tukwila Pond and build a 170,850 square foot strip development along Strander Boulevard. The results of this proposal will be either the ultimate loss of Tukwila Pond or the inability to develop the property for a Planned Business Center per the intensive C -P zoning designation. Either result would be a significant, adverse impact. To make this decision with full public review and the information necessary to fully understand the implications, an Environmental Impact Statement is required. There are three bases for the appeal. First, the proposed short plat does not constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. Second, mitigation of identified impacts is adequate. Third, mitigation of uni- dentified impacts is discouraged, not necessary, and can be sufficiently addressed at a later time. FINDINGS 1. Spring Ridge Investments submitted a short subdivision application and part of an environmental checklist on February 21, 1985, and requested early notice of threshold determination. 2. Spring Ridge Investments submitted the remaining part of the environmental checklist on February 27, 1985. 3. City staff met with the applicants on March 11, 1985, and reviewed the areas of concern that were leading the City to consider a DS. 4. A letter of early notice that the City was considering a DS and the areas of concerns was sent to the applicant on March 12, 1985. . Page -2- 111 City Council 85- 05 -SS: SPRING RIDGE INVESTMENTS May 6, 1985 • 5. In the March 11, 1985, meeting with City staff, the applicants requested and were granted sixty days for submission of additional information. 6. The applicants submitted the additional information on April 23, 1985. 7. City staff reviewed the supplemental information and issued a Determination of Significance on April 24, 1985. 8. The applicant submitted an appeal of the Responsible Official's decision on the same day April 24, 1985. 9. The applicant submitted a letter on May 1, 1985, stating the basis for the appeal. 10. The proposed short plat and development are not categorically exempt per WAC 197- 11- 800(6)(a) and WAC 197- 11- 305(1)(a) and (b)(i) and (ii). 11.. Following the process specified in WAC 197 -11 -330 and Ordinance 1331 Section 13, the Responsible Official determined the proposal likely would have a significant adverse environmental impact and, therefore, was a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment adversely. 12. The applicant proposes to build 170,850 square retail of office, retail, and restaurant on Lot 1 and leave the remaining Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel undeveloped. 13. The Level of Service (LOS) measuring traffic impacts was found to drop to LOS E at Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway (Transportation 14a,,d,f,g). 14. Traffic accidents were expected to increase as a result of the proposal. (Transportation 14a,d,f,g) 15. There was some doubt that the breadth of the traffic analysis accurately described the impacts of the proposal. (Transportation 14a,d,f,g) 16. Prior to City approval of occupancy for development on Lot 1,. the developer proposed submitting a 51% petition signed by the benefitting parties for the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) for S. 168th Street from Andover Park West to.Southcenter Parkway. (Transportation 14a,d,g) 17. Street and signal improvements for Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West street frontages along Lot 1 are proposed by the developer. (Transportation 14a,d,g) 18. A sixty foot wide access easement for Lot 2 is shown on the short plat map (Exhibit 1) submitted- by the developer. (Transportation 14a,d,g) 19. The Lot 2 access easement from Strander Boulevard and access to Andover Park West cannot provide access to the western portion of Lot 2 without substantial modification of the current pond (see Exhibits 2a /2b). (Transportation 14a,d,g; Water 3a(1 -6),d) Page -3- • City Council 85- 05 -SS: SPRING RIDGE INVESTMENTS May 6, 1985 20. The buffer between the wildlife main use areas and nesting sites located in the pond edge /canarygrass wetlands and development /traffic on Lot 1 will be reduced from 393 feet to 15 feet (see Exhibit 3). (Plant 4a,b,d; Animal 5a,c,d) 21. Because the proposed project does not involve the entire property including those portions of the property occupied by the pond, its riparian border, or the adjacent wetland in the southeast corner, the impacts to wildlife are minimal if existent. (Plant 4a,b,d; Animal 5a,c,d) 22. Surface water from proposed development will be collected and piped through an oil /water separator and into the existing pond. (Water 3a(1 -6), c(1 -2), d) 23. Approximately 175,000 cubic yards of fill will be imported and placed on Lot 1 with the existing vegetation along the north pond boundary remaining undisturbed. (Earth lc,d,e; Air 2a,c; Water 3a(2- 5),c(1 -2),d; Plants 4a,b,d; Animals 5d; Environmental Health 7a(1 -2), b(2 -3); Land and Shoreline Use 8a,h,1; Public Services 15a,b) 24. Some construction is recommended in the geotechnical report to occur on 150 to 170 foot, deep pile, foundation support. (Earth lc,d,e; Environmental Health 7a(1 -2) b(2 -3)) 25. The proposed development on Lot 1 will not promote any active or passive use of the pond. (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,f,h,1; Aesthetics 10b,c; Recreation 12a,b,c; Public Services 15a,b) 26. The proposal conforms to cascading use requirements but does not implement the C -P zoning purpose "to provide an area which is appropriate for a Planned Business Center" (TMC 18.34.010). (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,e) 27. The landowner and the developer have proposed preparing an EIS and following Planned Mixed Use Development (PMUD) guidelines prior to approval of any deve- lopment on Lot 2. (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,e,f,h,1; Water 3a(1 -6),d) 28. No development is envisioned for the southern portion of the property (Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel) at this time by the landowner and the developer, and, therefore, no cumulative impacts of Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel development are identified. (Land and Shoreline Use 8a,e,f,h,1; Water 3a(1 -6), d; Transportation 14a,d,f,g) 29. WAC 197 -11 -055 states "The SEPA process shall be integrated with agency acti- vities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems" and "In general, agencies should adopt procedures for environmental review and for preparation of EISs on private proposals at the conceptual stage rather than the final detailed design stage." ' Page -4- • City Council 85- 05 -SS: SPRING RIDGE INVESTMENTS May 6, 1985 • 30. The decision of the City's Responsible Official shall be accorded substantial weight per RCW43.21C.090 and Ordinance 1331 Section 25(4). CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed short plat and development of the Tukwila Pond property does constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environ- ment adversely. 2. Traffic impacts on Strander Boulevard are significant and adverse. 3. The cumulative impacts of traffic conditions beyond 1986 are not identified in a broader analysis of traffic resulting from the proposal. 4. A 51% petition for an LID on S. 168th Street is not an effective mitigating measure if a building permit has been issued and the developer cannot obtain the necessary signatures. 5. The recommendations of the transportation consultant for street improvements to Andover Park West go beyond the Lot 1 property lines, but the proposed mitigation is only along the property lines of Lot 1. 6. The proposed mitigation of traffic impacts is substantial but significant, adverse traffic impacts still remain unmitigated by the proposal. 7. The access as proposed for Lot 2 will cause a significant, adverse impact on either the preservation of the pond or the development of Lot 2, which would be divided by the pond from access to Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard. 8. Preservation of the natural pond habitat is made more difficult by the proposal. 9. Reduction of the wildlife habitat buffer from 393 feet to 15 feet along the north pond edge is an adverse impact requiring further analysis as to signifi- cance. 10. Surface water discharge into the pond is an adverse impact requiring further analysis as to significance. 11. Fill and construction requirements are adverse impacts, which would be signi- ficant if not carefully monitored. 12. Loss of access to the natural amenity of Tukwila Pond is a significant, adverse impact, which is not mitigated by the proposal. 13. The Tukwila Pond property has been zoned C -P with the intention to provide an area which is appropriate for a Planned Business Center, which could not be accomplished without destroying the pond under the proposal. Page -5- • City Council 85- 05 -SS: SPRING RIDGE INVESTMENTS May 6, 1985 14. Lot 2 EIS and PMUD commitments by the landowner and the developer do not necessarily constitute mitigating measures which can be enforced per Ordinance 1331 and TMC 18.48.100/18.46.140. 15. Ignoring the cumulative impacts, particularly on traffic and the pond, as pro- posed will not ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values, will not avoid delays later in the process, and will not seek to resolve potential problems. 16. Future development on Lot 2 and southeast corner parcel can be conceptualized sufficiently to project generalized traffic and pond impacts in the absence of specific design plans. 17. The City's Responsible Official's determination that the mitigation of iden- tified impacts is inadequate and that the mitigation of unidentified impacts would be insufficiently addressed at a later time is not found to be lacking, and the basis for the appeal has not been substantiated. RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Based on the findings and conclusions of significant, adverse impacts which have not been adequately mitigated and on the substantial weight accorded the decision of the Responsible Official, a determination of significance is made for the Spring Ridge Investments proposal (EPIC- 263 -85). ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2a Exhibit 2b Exhibit 3 (PC.SPRING,PC.SPRING1) added people, cars, and light glare. However, all of these can be mitigated to some degree with development designs. Use of thorny materials in the buffer and one or two public access points to the ponds edge for potential viewers will regulate people use. Heavy buffer plantings will muffle car noise and directed low glare lights can eliminate night light problems. Ap-e,AJ Yir-rj,c177 KW CORNER • SW4NE4 i/SEC. 26 10 0 0.=. 66' 25.27' ►ti'. • STRRNDER BLVD. 66:. IG N. 88'15•33•"w 1336. 47• N 0 OM IMMO •N&.CORNR SW 4 NE 4, SEC.2 1.1.6.7ELEPHOlvf ESAAT.1 F• 0+0. 6357207 •� 633.03 — '645" - - -- 613.51' OLYA'F/C P /FELINE ES Iv1T . .c F. CIO. 6683575 Lo r 11.791 ACRES OR 633. 03 • 01.12'14 "E. 1 5/3,6//.43 SQ.FT. I 60• WIDE 2 I ACCESS ES/NT. FOR LOT 1 i' 614. 34' ;Ile' 1.5' 33 W. /307.37' . s: » Via-• s=: _— �„ss».._=s • :xc:»•,,,• :::: /ii=i: _. _- _�L•'•.S .I +,." i'i:.=.+r• __ R� .. • See `� DETAIL LO W ct c V i7. 365 A` 756, 407. '::..= ft, •'1 • 639.67' End Surveyor's r 5 short plat �=vev' made by o conformance ppropriate sta -n 5e-? a st_eiced • N. 88 ' OS ' 42"W. Certificate: correctly me or under • with the : eo to statute in .accords represents a my direction ui rements of and has been nce with the »rr 2*i Map on File in Vault Direction: .{ /214- M 88' 2S'27- W. 2667, 24' N 'ORN? i • s,1v NE'` SE;C SrRA ND E BLVD. . :G • N 88'15'33"w. 1336. 47• 1-----C----633. 03•- 5' OLYMp/C PIPELINE W, 1I N • 0 • 2 0 • 1 1 NE. CORN,IR SW d NE 4,SEC2Ep- - U. 6. TELEPNO NE ESA.4y.- t,1.No. 6397207 - ..-1-... j6aoo-r----- - - - - -- 613. 5/ - - -- ,_ ESMT. R F. /v0. 6683975 See �'•- DETAIL 26 25 IL LOT 11. 791 ACRES OR C33. 03' W J 5/3,611.43 • o I 60' w/0 E ACCESS ESMT. FOR LOT 2 1 • 1• 614.34' N. Be' :5' 33 - W. /3C7. 37, — Lc) h • • N. (98 O5 ' 42 " W. us-view 211 nd Surveyor's Certificate is short plat correctly represents a ‘=vey' made by me or under 'my direction conformance with the requirements of ;p=opriate state statute and has been -open 1 y staked in .accordance with the 1 Map on File in Vault Direction: V; eri 2662. 07' PETER L. BUCK JAY P. DERR' JOEL M. GORDON, AMY L. KOSTERLITZ LAW OFFICES OF BUCK 6 GORDON A PROFCSSIONAL SERVICE CORFORST.0 WATERFRONT PLACE. SUITE -902 1011 WESTERN AvENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 282-8540 May 1, 1985 Councilman Edgar D. Bauch President Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ALSO ADMITTED IN ALASKA •ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA laglOan 1 MAY - i 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Re: Spring Ridge Short Plat, File No. EPIC263 -85 Dear Councilman Bauch: This letter will summarize the applicant's opinion on the above - referenced matter regarding the appeal of the City's Declaration of Significance currently scheduled for City Council review on May 6, 1985. Since the proposed short plat is not a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment, the proposal as submitted, including the agreed mitigation measures, is sufficient to address adequately any environmental concerns. Therefore, the project should be allowed to proceed without requiring completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The responsible official's Declaration of Significance is properly before City Council on appeal, and the applicant urges City Council to consider the evidence before it and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation and issue a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance pursuant to provisions of RCW 43.21C, WAC 197 -11 and Tukwila Ordinance 1331. A. Summary of the Facts. The Tukwila pond site has a long, controversial history regarding proposed development. The current applicants, First Western Development and Spring Ridge Investment, Ltd., first made contact with the City staff more than-two years ago:to discuss the prospects of once again pursuing development of the Tukwila pond site. Several previous attempts-had failed for various market and other development constraint reasons. .After lengthy discussions, including consideration of a variety of proposals for full site and partial site develop- ment, applicants filed a proposal for a short plat to develop • • Councilman Edgar D. Bauch -2- May 1, 1985 a combined retail and office project on the north approxi- mately 12.acres of the site (Lot 1). Future phases of development on the remainder of the property (Lot 2) are not being pursued at this time but will be developed as market conditions dictate. The application was filed for the proposed short plat on February 18, 1985. The applicant and staff conducted several meetings to discuss in detail how to proceed with the project and proposed mitigation measures. The applicant filed additional informa- tion for staff review on April 22, 1985. On April 24, 1985, the responsible official for the City of Tukwila issued a Declaration of Significance on the project. The applicant appealed that decision for review by the Tukwila City Council, which appeal is properly before you at this time. During the course of discussions with staff and as part of the supplemental information filed, the applicant has agreed to mitigation measures proposed in the original application and additional measures as follows: 1. No fill or construction activity shall occur in the pond. The size and edge of the pond shall not be altered in any way during construction on Lot 1. A vegetation buffer shall be installed between the proposed development and the pond. 2. All storm water runoff from the project shall be collected and passed through an approved oil /water separator prior to discharge into the pond. A control structure to regulate flows into the City drainage system shall be installed. 3. Applicants shall widen Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West along the property lines of Lot 1. 4. An approved traffic signal shall be installed at the proposed entrance to the development on Strander Boulevard and necessary modifications to the signal at the intersections of Strander and Andover Park West and Strander and Southcenter Parkway shall be completed. 5. Proper construction procedures, including watering down the fill during construction, shall be followed to reduce possible air pollution during construction. Councilman Edgar D. Bauch -3- May 1, 1985 6. Prior to approval of any development on Lot 2, an EIS shall be prepared addressing issues outlined by the City of Tukwila's responsible official. 7. Development of Lot 2 will follow the PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development) guidelines established in Section 18.48 of the City of Tukwila Zoning Code. 8. Prior to City approval of occupancy for development on Lot 1, the developer shall submit a 51% petition signed by the benefiting parties for the formation of the local improvement district for 168th Street from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway, along the south property line of Lot 2. It remains the applicant's position that these mitigation measures adequately address any possible impact of the project on the existing environment and, therefore, justify the City's issuance of a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance pursuant to applicable codes and ordinances. B. Discussion. The City Council should issue a mitigated negative declaration if, after reviewing all of the evidence and the proposed mitigation, it finds that the project as mitigated will not have a significant effect on the quality of the environment under the terms of Tukwila Ordinance 1331 §25(4). The City Council's review of the evidence is de novo, indepen- dent from previous staff review. 1. A Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance is Proper Since the Proposed Short Plat Does Not Constitute a Major Action Significantly Affecting the Quality of the Environment. The State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, the accompanying regulations under WAC 197 -11, and the Washington case law are all clear that an EIS is only required for those projects constituting a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. E.g., Richland Homeowners Preservation Association v. Young, 18 Wn. App. 405, 568 P.2d 818 (1.977); RCW 43- 21C.031. In this case, because of the nature of the surrounding uses, the limited scope of the proposed development on Lot 1 of the property and the proposed mitigation, the proposal will not have a significant impact on the quality of the environment and, therefore, an EIS should not be required. • • Councilman Edgar D. Bauch -4- May 1, 1985 In Richland Homeowners Preservation Association v. Young, supra, the court ruled that an EIS was not required for an 83 -unit apartment complex. The court based its decision on a consideration of adjacent existing uses and determined that the proposed project would have no environmental effects which exceeded those created by existing uses and that any addi- tional environmental effects were not significant. Similarly in Tukwila, the site in question is surrounded by intensive retail, commercial and office development. The minor impacts created by the proposed construction on Lot 1 are no different than, and of lesser degree than, the existing surrounding use. The mitigation already proposed in the application and supplemental materials more than adequately addresses any environmental concern. The applicant retained the services of Rex Van Wormer, biological consultant, and Entranco Engineers, transportation consultant, to determine the degree of impacts created by the proposed development. Both consultants, as summarized in their materials in the application, have concluded that, with the development as proposed including improvements on Strander and Andover Park West and provided construction is limited to the north 12 acres of the property, the project will have no significant impact on the quality of the environment. In particular, Mr. Van Wormer has concluded that because of the intense commercial nature of the adjacent uses, construction of additional retail and office space on Lot 1 of the proposed short plat will have no significant increase in impact on the pond, either during construction or in the long -term. Entranco Engineers has similarly concluded that, with the proposed widening and signal improvements on Strander, the increased traffic generated by the proposed development can be adequately handled without decreasing the existing levels of service on Strander. In fact, the level of service may improve as a result of the proposed mitigation. As was the case in Richland Homeowners Association, the proposed development will create no significant impacts to the quality of the environment beyond those already created by existing - uses and, therefore, an EIS is not necessary. Councilman Edgar D.. Bauch -5- May 1, .1985 2. Careful .Review of All Evidence Presented in the Application and At the Hearing On Appeal Supports the Conclusion That a Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance Should Be Issued. In reviewing the responsible official's Declaration of Significance on this project, City Council should properly consider all evidence presented in the application and during the hearing on appeal. In this case, that evidence clearly supports the conclusion that a mitigated Declaration of. Nonsignificance should be issued. The expert testimony presented in the application and during the hearing support a conclusion that the short plat and proposed development on Lot 1 will not have any significant unmitigable environmental impacts. Only conclusory statements of impacts not specif- ically attributable to the development of Lot 1 have been presented to the contrary. The possible future of significant environmental impacts when Lot 2 is developed can only be adequately addressed at a future date, and the applicant agrees to complete an EIS and PMUD process at that time. Some types of land use decisions may only be overturned if that decision is found to be arbitrary and capricious or totally willful and unreasoning. Clearly that is a difficult standard to meet to overturn a decision. However, Washington courts are clear that review of a threshold determination is a lesser standard of review where the reviewing body may properly overturn the declaration of significance if, after reviewing all of the evidence, the reviewing body determines that a mistake was made in the earlier decision. E.g., Norway Hill v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267 (1976). In this case, the evidence presented indicates clearly that a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance is the proper decision. In part, the responsible official's decision on the declaration of significance was based on uncertainty involving Resolution 736 and its application to the site. Staff and the applicant have agreed that the EIS and PMUD process commenced prior to approval of future development on Lot 2 is the best approach to identifying specific impact and pond -size issues at that time. It is the applicant's feeling, supported by the expert testimony, that issues regarding the pond can and should properly be addressed during future environmental review and a PMUD process on the southern portion of the site. The applicant fully agrees to comply with those processes in the future to address the pond. At this time those issues cannot properly be addressed since proposed development on Lot 2 cannot be described and evaluated. Councilman Edgar D. Bauch -6- May 1, 1985 The City Council is faced with a decision of whether the short plat and proposed mitigation adequately addresses environmental issues as they can be identified at this time. WAC 197 -11 -660 provides some guidance for imposing mitigation on a project. That section requires that proposed mitigation should be only that which is reasonable, necessary and reasonably attributable to an identified adverse impact of the proposal. A project cannot, under SEPA, be conditioned on impacts not created by the proposed development. The evidence presented demonstrates that the proposed mitigation adequately addresses those impacts attributable to the proposal. 3. Requiring An EIS to Review the Impacts From Unknown Development on Lot 2 is Discouraged By SEPA and Its Accompanying Regulations. By requiring an EIS on the entire site at a time when no development is being proposed for that portion of the site containing the pond where environmental impacts may be an issue is not in harmony with specific provisions of SEPA and its accompanying regulations which discuss this issue. In particular, WAC 197- 11- 330(2)(b) states that, if environmental analysis is shown to be more appropriate later, this can be decided at the threshold determination level and an impact statement deferred until that later date. WAC 197 -11 -055 states that an EIS should be completed only "as long as proposed future activities are specific enough to allow some evaluation of their probable environ- mental impacts." In this case, no development is envisioned for the southern portion of the property at this time. As mentioned above, a biological expert has determined that construction on the northern 12 acres of the property will have no impact on the existing pond site. Evaluating the impacts of a hypothetical development on the southern portion of the property at a time when no development is envisioned would defeat the purpose of SEPA for evaluating impacts in relation to the particulars of a project. An EIS can properly be prepared in the future when specific development is proposed for the southern part of the property. At that time, all issues can be addressed and the pond environment adequately protected as determined by that EIS. At this time, impacts on the pond or proposed future development on the southern portion of the property could only be guessed at and would not assist the decision makers in an intelligent decision regarding future development on the site. Preparation of an EIS at this time would provide no concrete Councilman Edgar D. Bauch -7- May 1, 1985 specific information to assist future decision making and, therefore, should be deferred until such time as specific development is proposed for Lot 2. Conditions imposed on the short plat decision requiring an EIS prior to any development on Lot 2 and requiring that Lot 2 development go through the PMUD review process as suggested by staff adequately addresses the City's concerns regarding possible environmental impacts of proposed development on Lot 2. These conditions are sufficient mitigation measures to justify a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance at this time for the short plat decision and development of Lot 1. The applicant urges the City Council to issue a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance conditioned upon the material as proposed in the application and the applicant's supplemental letter of April 22, 1985. This will allow the project to proceed to the short plat review process. At such time as additional phases of development are identified for Lot 2, the applicant will return to the City to commence EIS and PMUD processing. We appreciate your attention to these matters. JPD:bkm cc: Doris E. Phelps Lionel C. Bohrer Joe H. Duffie Mabel J. Harris Wendy A. Morgan Charles E. Simpson Brad Collins Michael J. Hess Scott Shanks Bruce Smith Edward M. Schaffnit- Very truly Jay P./Derr i .� rs,' MOS NVlLA 0 • City of Tukwila OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2001 6th Ave., Suite 2300 Seattle, Wa. 98121 M E M O R A N D U M TO: -Mayor Van Dusen & Members of the City Council FROM: James E. Haney/Office of the City Attorney RE: Tukwila Pond Property SEPA Appeal DATE: May 1, 1985 On the agenda for your next Council meeting is an appeal by the proponents of a short plat on the Tukwila pond property from a declaration of environmental significance issued by the City's Responsible Official. This appeal comes before the Council under the provisions of Section 25 of Ordinance No. 1331 of the City. A copy of that section, together with a copy of Section 11 of Ordinance No. 1344 which amended it, is attached to this memorandum. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with some additional guidance as to the procedures to be followed. Section 25(4) of Ordinance No. 1331 provides that "all relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal and the decision shall be made de novo." In the context of the pond property appeal, which brings into issue only the declaration of significance, this section means that the Council should hear all evidence relevant to whether or not a declaration of significance or non - significance should be issued with respect to the project and should make its decision based upon the evidence it hears at the appeal hearing, rather than evidence or representations made by any party prior to the hearing. Section 25(4) does provide, in accordance with the Department of Ecology's regulations, that the City Council should give the decision by the City's Responsible Official "substantial weight." This means that the City Council should pay particular attention to the decision issuedby the City's Responsible Official. It does not mean, however, that the Responsible Official's decision cannot be overturned. If the Council finds, on the basis of the evidence produced at the hearing, that the Responsible Official's declaration of significance is in error, the Council may reverse or modify that decision. Section 25(5) of Ordinance No. 1331 provides that testimony taken at the hearing should be under oath, that a taped record should be maintained, and that the City Council, after hearing all of the evidence, should enter findings and conclusions in Mayor Van Dusen & Members of the City Council Re: Tukwila Pond Property SEPA Appeal May 1, 1985 Page 2 support of its decision. While the ordinance does not specifi- cally state that these findings must be in writing, courts have universally interpreted ordinances and statutes which require city councils to sit as a hearings board on quasi - judicial matters-such as appeals from SEPA, rezones and the like, to require that findings and conclusions be in writing. Oral findings can be made at the conclusion of the hearing and the proper procedure would then be to direct staff to prepare written findings and conclusions which comply with the Council's oral decision to be brought back to the Council at a subsequent meeting. With respect to the general procedure that should be followed in the hearing, my suggestion would be that the hearing be declared formally opened prior to hearing any testimony from staff or any other source and that immmediately upon the hearing being declared open, all those who wish to testify, including staff, be sworn. I will be happy to administer the oath should Council desire me to do so. Once the hearing is opened, my suggestion would be staff be accorded the opportunity to proceed first with the City's responsible official and any other witnesses the Responsible Official wishes to have testify being given an opportunity to summarize the reasons behind the declaration of significance. The staff report, the environmental checklist, and any other written documents utilized by the staff in making the declaration of significance should be entered as exhibits during this presentation and numbered and clearly noted in the record. Once the staff has finished its presentation, the appellants should be given their chance to proceed. Testimony should be limited to the issue of whether or not the declaration of significance is proper as applied to the project. Once the appellants' witnesses have finished testifying, any other interested person should be allowed to make a presentation. Rebuttal time should then be granted to the staff or the appellant as the case may be. Once all testimony is taken, the City Council may then close the hearing on the appeal and proceed to consider its findings and conclusions. The Council has the option of affirming the decision of the Responsible Official, of reversing it and ordering a declaration of non - significance, or modifying the decision in some way, such as working out the terms of a mitigated declaration of non - significance with the applicant. • Mayor Van Dusen & Members of the City Council Re: Tukwila Pond Property SEPA Appeal May 1, 1985 Page 3 I hope that this memo and these suggested procedures will prove of use to you in conducting the appeal hearing. I stress that the suggested procedures portion of this memo is just that, suggested procedures, and that the Council may conduct the hearing -in any manner which is fair and reasonable. I will, of course, be present at the hearing should the Council desire to direct any questions to me regarding procedure. JEH /clh • S1.04.280 -- 21.04.300 .21.04280 Appeals:- (a) Any interested person may appeal a threshold determination, adequacy of a final EIS and the conditions or denials of a requested action made by a nonelected city official pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. No other SEPA appeal shall be allowed. (b) All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days of the date of the decision appealed from. (c) On receipt of a timely written notice of appccl, the city clerk shall advice the city council of the pendency } e z3 -g the— (d). All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing:of the appeal and the decision shall be made de novo. .The procedural determination by the city's responsible official • 'shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (e) For any appeal under this section, the city shall provide for a record that shall consist of the following: (1) Findings and conclusions;. (2) Testimony under oath; and (3) A taped or written transcript. (f) (Ord. 1331 §25, 1984). 21.04.290 Notice -- Statute of limitations. (a) The city shall give official notice whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial appeal. (b) The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action. The form of the notice of action shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197 -11 -990. (Ord. 1331 §26, 1984). 21.04.300. Environmentally sensitive areas. (a) The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map- Ordiance No. 1246 designates the location of environmentally sensitive areas within the city as special development consideration areas and is adopted by reference. In addition to those areas iden- tified-in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter . environmentally sensitive areas shall also include major wooded areas. For each environmentally sensitive area, the exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for that area are: WAC 197- 11- 800(1),(2)(a) through (h), (3), (5) , (6) (a) , (14) (c) , (24) (a) through (g) , and (25) (d) , (f) , (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. (.b) The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no different- ly than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not 320 -47 (Tukwila 2/85) Ordinance No. 1344, adopted March 18, 1985. Section 11. • Appeals; Section 25(3) and (6) of Ordinance No. 1331 of the City of Tukwila is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. On receipt of 'a timely written notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall advise the City Council of the pendency of. the appeal and request that a date for considering the appeal be established. The Council shall expeditiously process the appeal and in any event shall render a decision within 60 calendar days of the date appeal is filed. 6. The City may require the appellant to bear the expense for a written transcript. Section 12. Notice /Statute of Limitations. Section 26(2) of Ordinance No. 1331 of the City of Tukwila is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. The City, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action. a. The form of the notice of action shall be substantially in the form provided in WAC 197- 11 -990. b. The notice of action shall be published by the City Clerk, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080. Section 13. Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Section 30(1) of .Ordinance No. 1331 of the City of Tukwila is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map - Ordinance No. 1246 as now exists or is hereinafter amended designates the location of environmentally sensitive areas within the City as special development consideration areas and is adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this ordinance environmentally sensitive areas shall also include major wooded areas. For each environmentally sensitive area, the exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for that area are: WAC 197 -11- 800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6)(a), (14)(c), (24)(a) through (g), and (25)(d),(f),(h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the City. • MLA City of Tukwila Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1908 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department DATE: April 30, 1985 s u UJE cT:Appeal of Responsible Official's Determination of Significance for the Springridge Development Company Short Subdivision Impacts (EPIC 263 =85) On Feb. 21,1985, the applicant applied for a short plat of the Tukwila Pond property and submitted an environmental checklist with supplemental information and request for early notice. Following review of the checklist and information by staff, the Responsible Official gave early notice on March 12,1198.5 that an environmental impact statement likely would be required (early notice). Pursuant to a meeting with the proponent sixty days was given to provide additional environmental information. The attached letter of April 22, 1985, was submitted. As a result the Responsible Official issued a Determination of Significance (attached) on April 24, 1985. This was appealed to the City Council that same day in the attached letter. We have also reviewed a letter (attached) from Allied Stores' attorney commenting on the proposal. Appeals from the Responsible Official's determination are prescribed in the attached Section 25, Ordinance 1331 (SEPA environmental ordinance). These documents are being forwarded to you at this early date since a public hearing is scheduled for May 6, 1985, before the City Council. The City Council hearing on this appeal is a quasi- judicial proceeding, the procedures of which will be separately outlined for you by the City Attorney. Another item which will be forwarded to you later this week is a memorandum from the Responsible Official outlining the rationale for the Determination of Significance. • • ORDINANCE N0. 1331: APPEALS FROM THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL'S THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS The City's environmental ordinance (Ordinance No. 1331) prescribes the following appeal process: Section 25. Appeals: 1. Any interested person may appeal a threshold determination, adequacy of a final EIS and the conditions or denilas of a requested action made by a non - elected City official pursuant to the procedures set forth in theis Section. No other SEPA appeal shall be allowed. 2. All appeals filed pursuant to this Section must be filed in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision appealed from. 3. On receipt of a timely written notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall advise the City Council of the pendency of the appeal and request that a date for consider- ing the appeal be established. 4. All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal and the decision shall be made de novo. The procedural determination by the City's responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. 5. For any appeal under this Section, the City shall provide for a record that shall consist of the following: a. Findings and conclusions; b. Testimony under oath; and c. A taped or written transcript. 6. The City may require the applicant to bear the expense for a written transcript. CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public Hearing on the 6th day of May , 1985 , at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: Appeal of the Responsible Official's determination that the proposed development and short plat application 85 -05 -SS require issuance of an environmental impact statement (Determination of Significance - EPIC-229-84). 24, -gs Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on same. CITY OF TUKWILA Maxine Anderson City Clerk Published: Record - Chronicle, April 26, 1985 — WAC 197 -11 -970 1 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR, COMMENTS ON,SCOPE OF EIS Description of Proposal short subdivision and development of 170,850 square feet of office and retail space on a 40.7 acre parcel which includes a 15 -20:acre pond. Proponent Spring. R:dgeJ )Investments'. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any southwest corner of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 26 -8-85 EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion• in the EIS: Earth lcde, Air lac, Water 3a(1- 6)c(1 -2)d, Plants 4abd, Animals 5acd, Environmental Health 7a(1- 2)b(2 -3) Land and Shoreline Use 8aefhl, Aesthetics 10bc, Recreation 12abc, Transportation 14adfg, Public Services 151b, Utilities 16ab Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, pro- bable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The methe_d and deadline for giving us your comments is: Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date April 24, 1985 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. • CDk ■ INC. • �IbGc \ RCIAL I ATES 4230 198th STREET LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 April 24, 1985 Rick Beeler Associate Planner 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 PROJECT: SPRINGRIDGE SHORT PLAN SUBJECT: APPEAL OF D.S. Dear Rick: 771 -2300 The property owner, Bruce Smith and developer, First Western Properties are hereby requesting an appeal of the Declaration of Significance issued to the referenced project on april 24, 1985. We request this appeal as allowed under State Environmental Policy (RCW 43.21C.075). It is our understanding that the appeal will be heard on May 6, 1985 before the Tukwila City Council, and that the responsible official will file formal notice as required. Please call me at (206) 771 -2300 if you have any questions. Si cer-ly, Sco t S anks COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. SS /jd cc: Mike Hess, First Western Development Bruce Smith, Springridge Property Owner Jay Durr, Buck and Gordon E-X(4I$ vs- 10 MIME APR 30 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT, Brad Collins City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 INDEPEP 'NT ECOLOGICAL SERVICES 1514 Muirhead Olympia, WA 98502 Ph: 943 -0127 April 24, 1985 Impacts to Tukwila Pond from proposed development along Strander Blvd. Under the present proposal the development will be 25 feet from the top of the Tukwila Pond bank on the north and will not extend along the east or west sides of the pond. Most of the buildings are two story and set back from the pond and the road paralleling the north bank of the pond. Use of the pond is by mallard, pintail, teal, shoveler, and canvasback. Blue Heron have been seen on the site but they are not common. All of the waterfowl will continue to fly in and out of the pond and loaf and feed on the pond. As long as the pond remains as large as it is and the vegetative buffer remains in tact the use by waterfowl should not be affected. Birds commonly fly over buildings to rest in ponds and meadows between heavily industrialized areas. Plantings between the proposed road and the pond edge can increase the cover and improve some small bird habitats. :Pheasant are known to nest along the north bank under the - lackberry cover. An additional buffer and the reduction in ossible predation and /or disturbance from domestic animals ould improve their chances for successful brood rearing. Since most of the small bird activity is concentrated on the bout — and east sides loss of this area will have limited impacts . F?`k ,,,Pap ors that now use the trees for perch sites may be `°`displaced. Their major purpose for using the trees is to hunt ill area thatFwill be developed. Impacts to.. Pukwsla_.Pond �r.e mostly secondary. They are • CDP. INC. ?CIAL SV OGC IATES • 4230 198th STREET LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 771 -2300 April 22, 1985 Rick Beeler Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 PROJECT: TUKWILA POND SITE. YOUR FILE NO. EPIC263 -B5 SUBJECT: SHORT PLAT APPLICATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Dear Rick: Pursuant to your March 12, 1985 letter, we are responding with the additional information you have requested. As there are currently no plans to develop Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, at this time it is difficult to respond to issues and questions involving this lot. The landowner, Bruce Smith and developer, First Western Development have agreed to the following conditions of approval if it will lead to the issuance of a mitigated determination of non - significance. Prior to approval of any development on Lot 2, an enviromental impact statement shall be prepared addressing issues outlined by the City of Tukwila's responsible official. 2. Development of Lot 2 will follow the P.M.U.D. [Planned -Mixed Use Development] Guidelines established in Section 18.48 of the City of Tukwila Zoning Code. 3. Prior to City appoval of occupancy for development on Lot 1, the developer shall submit a 51% petition signed by the benefiting parties for the formation of a local improvemet district for 168th Street from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway along the south property line of Lot 2. Rick Beeler, City of "wile April 22, 1985 Page Two Should these conditions be acceptable, many of the questions in your March 12, 1985 letter will be addressed through the E.I.S. and P.M.U.D. process. The questions and answers specific to the development proposal on Lot 1 are as follows: Q. How significant are the traffic impacts upon adjacent streets and the immediate area? This should include the cumulative impacts from the theoretical development of Lot 2, and the southeasterly corner parcel. Analysis should also occur for implementation of the City's transportation improvement plan relative to South 168th Street and 58th Avenue South. A. Impacts of the development proposed on Lot 1 are addressed in the Traffic and Transportation Section of the Short Plat Application. Levels of service are summarized on page 27 of this section. Impact analysis was prepared assuming 168th Street would not be developed immediately. The only intersection with a drop in LOS from C/D to E was at Strander and Southcenter Parkway. At the Andover Park West intersection LOS are improved one letter during peak hours due to the mitigation measures already offered, i.e. signalizing the existing east entry to Southcenter Mall and the proposed development and widening Strander and Andover Park West. Presumably. with the development of 168th Street, the Southcenter Parkway and Strander intersection peak hour LOS should improve. Cumulative impacts from theoretical development of Lot 2, cannot be answered at this time with any accuracy. The EIS to be prepared for development on Lot 2 will address traffic impacts for a specific development. The inclusion of 168th Street as a mitigating measure for the proposed development addresses the issue of the current transportation improvement plan (TIP). The T.I.P. identifies 58th Avenue as being a link between Strander and the new 168th Street. Its purpose was to break up the super block and create better local circulation. The proposal on Lot 1, illustrates a connection to future development on Lot 2. Due to the current high traffic volumes and the proposed volumes from future development on Lot 2, the 58th Street link may not be in the city's best interest. Though some link joining development on both parcels may be desirable, the proposed development on Lot 1, allows for this by providing the opportunity for 58th Street to join 168th. Rick Beeler, City of.wila April 22, 1985 Page Three The traffic study issue is addressed on Page 30 of the Transportation Study in the Short Plat Application. Since the accident rate corresponds with the LOS, and since we are presuming that the LOS will either remain the same or improve with the construction of 168th, the concerns should be addressed. Q. What is the theoretical Development that could be located on the remainder of the property as well as on Lot 1? How will access occur to the development of Lots 1 and 2, and what provisions will /can be made to reserve the pond's natural environment? A. The development potential for Lot 1 has been defined in this proposal. Access between Lots 1 and 2 has been illustrated on the site development plan. The pond's edges including all natural vegetation is not being disturbed with the development proposed on Lot 1. The issue of the pond, as a natural environment or the pond as an amenity with passive recreational uses will be addressed in the environmental analysis proposed on Lot 2. Q. What impacts will the landfill activity on Lot 1 and the potential activity on the property have on adjacent property and the pond? To what extent will landfilling protect and stabilize the pond? How and how much imported fill material will be deposited? A. The landfill proposed for Lot 1, will not include filling any of the existing pond. Existing vegetation along the north boundary will be undisturbed. the geotechnical portion of the short plat application identifies that the overall site filling may cause the pond bottom to settle slightly due to placement of fill. This would be minor, on the order of a few inches along the north edge of the pond. A landfill on Lot 1 would have no real effect on protecting or stablizing the pond. The quantity of fill for Lot 1 has been identified on the expanded S.E.P.A checklist. Approximately 175,000 cubic yards will be imported and placed on Lot Rick Beeler, City of T wila April 22, 1985 Page :Four. Q. • What provisions will the immediate and future probable development make to enhance and preserve the natural amenity of the pond for active and or view enjoyment? Will pedestrian access and connection to public sidewalks occur? What are the implications, alternatives of the 58th Avenue South alignment on the proposed site plan. A. The issue of the pond as a natural environment or as an amenity will be analyzed in the environmental analysis on Lot 2. The proposed development on Lot 1 will not promote any active or passive use of the pond. The 58th Street alignment issue as discussed in an earlier answer. Q. Wildlife habitat exists on the property. How will this be preserved and impacted by the proposed and future development of the property? Can the habitat be preserved and function as such over the long range? To what extent is eutrophication a problem and what are its extend implications? A. The impact of future development on the pond will be addressed in an environmental analysis to be prepared prior to development of Lot 2. The biological impact report prepared as part of the short plat application indicates that impacts to the existing wildlife will be minimal. Q. What will be the impact on air quality? When were measurements taken in or near this area? A. The major project related air quality impact for this proposal is expected to be air pollutants from transportation sources. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency [PSACA] was contacted. This area is not classified as a non - attainment area which means that no known levels of air pollutants exceed federal standards. Monitoring for Sot and suspended particulants was performed by P.S.A.C.A. from August 1971 through April 1982. The State Department of Ecology has jurisdiction over carbon manoxide levels. They were not contracted with regards to this project. Rick Beier, City of Tisila April 22, 1985 Page Fri.ve • Q. What is the relationship of the proposal and future potential development of the property to the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Code, and Parks and Open Space Plan? A. The proposal for development on Lot 1, conforms to the current Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Code. Lot 1 is currently not designated for parks or open space. Issues regarding land use, including parks and open space, will be addressed in the environmental analysis prepared for development on Lot 2. End of Questions. We feel that with the inclusion of the additional mitigating measures offered, adequate protection for environment impacts associated with future development which may occur on Lot 2, is guaranteed the public. The development proposal on Lot 1. continues to have either no environmental impacts, insignificant environmental impacts or mitigated environmental impacts and therefore, a mitigated determination of non - significance is justified. Please call me at [206) 771 -2300 if you have any questions. Si _ rely, Scott Sh -nks COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES. INC. SS /jd cc: Mike Hess, First Western Development Jay Durr, Buck and Gordon Bruce Smith, Springridge Property Owner Seattle 3500 First Interstate Center Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 223-4666 Telecopier (206) 622 -5110 Telex: 29 -2988 GARY D. HUFF Seattle Office IDLER McBROOM & GATE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW • A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION April 15, 1985 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Spring Ridge Short Plat Traffic Impact Study Dear Brad: Bellevue 350 One Bellevue Center, Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone (206) 455 -3551 Telecopier (206) 455-9166 This letter is a follow -up to our recent conversation concerning the status of the Spring Ridge Short Plat applica- tion. You should be aware of the fact that Dick Eichler met recently with the proponents of the above proposal. The proponents were kind enough to provide us with a copy of their traffic analysis. Our review of that study has raised serious questions in our minds concerning the level and extent of analysis included therein. Those concerns are confirmed by our traffic engineers. A copy of the TRANSPO Group analysis is enclosed for your review. As we discussed, the traffic issue is of great concern to all property owners in the Southcenter area. We believe that an impact study should be required to address, in particular, the overall traffic situation and not just at the intersections closest to the Spring Ridge site. That analysis should include the additional trips generated by the proposal and a review of conditions resulting from the conversion to retail space of an additional 120,000 square feet at the Abbot Laboratories and Firestone warehouses. Thank you very much for your consideration. GDH:kjl Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard Eichler OHNE APR 161985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. e?).0(fAC W_LnocLCI -uDi a. JO 1-)S� � ) pmt \c • ' ((CSY SZz16162/ 1M IW) a-DA /1V‘ 55* s4v4 svi vet — fiNS.51 Q g.:D cyni n' 12-1 - \ 1 - �rn SCvgvYl rev Ja. z U v i _s (.6 _ N - "b4)-- c s Ai% ?- _e - ----C_O6 "W_P(s r6s rtittotcbo- , c l Mfl3s cirxa )1 646s p/6 0_1' ID to- oe_os- TIJNL)al - rtth<- re);60 weu.Lwrs yvrt- meiN,- 10(15(Asct PW ria-11 emu_. Mr---11•t,Inw..s srksc� L,L, CAsotS. `13 cAK) 1 /Iit�seo co pC-Ne, ar�ss � potoo Dec 5oPeM�. ovtgt�a'� . �. US - K.J 4 ;kit\ _ M to , „ Its- 1�� � 4a4c--Lee _ Ot° 'Ca -- \WU, T G1Vf - I!J TtN_U2 � ,NFAE1- .V\bllcE- - CAS C�2ms . 'OW Tikt%L_I- -rt?-±ifsl-r , ImeTeW ctemk1f -19 cstr c� kh --►�s���c� . aik) MQC�O tcsr a1L-C Te2P nUNLvS ale ' 2'31•2n I d� ._ impasvelvt..-341sP.Ssr AttAlkSPA-J 2- e(M,U o 4.. C c 'r (OE_ 4e &o SI w1\ mss. 1bFcs iliv\,■cs 6Ag_T sOm) U�T1wtpt rim C�10� FT2CYbr�ek_Ws ju'L1wlc:nON . crD cA sAAA0L.6-1- te _ov tory.. *Elyl, NI, tM oa mss- cOcw c_ IAn�� imPNA3kr-L-1- • • PETER L. BUCK JAY P. DERR* JOEL M. GORDONt AMY L. KOSTERLITZ Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 LAW OFFICES OF BUCK iA GORDON A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902 1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE,. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 382 -9540 April 1, 1985 • ALSO ADMITTED IN ALASKA rALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA Re: First Western Development Short Plat Application Dear Rick: This letter will serve as a request to appear on the April 8, 1985, agenda of the City Council Committee of the Whole. As we discussed over the telephone last week, First Western would like to make a presentation to the City Council to describe the project proposed for the site on Strander and to discuss the interrelationship between Resolution 736, the possibility of a PUD overlay rezone, and conditions that may be imposed on the short plat approval. We feel it is important to discuss these issues now with the City Council to enable the applicant to proceed with the best design for the site. We appreciate the opportunity to be on the agenda to make this presentation and anticipate our presentation taking approxi- mately 30 minutes. We plan to have our consultants who have worked on the project and analyzed its potential impacts available for questions by Council members as needed. If you have any further questions regarding these issues or for some reason there is a problem with April 8, please let us know. We appreciate your attention to this matter. JPD :bkm cc: Mike Hess Scott Shanks Ed Schaffnit Bruce Smith Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Consultants March 26, 1985 Mr. Richard Eichler Allied Stores Northwest P.O. Box 12510 Seattle, WA 98111 SUBJECT: SPRING RIDGE SHORT PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Dear Mr. Eichler: Per your request, we have reviewed the subject study report dated February 14, 1985 prepared by Entranco Engineers, Inc. The project fronts on the south side of Strander Boulevard and the west side of Andover Park West, immediately south of Allied's Southcenter Mall shopping center in Tukwila. According to the traffic analysis, the project will generate about 10,000 new vehicle trips per day to be added to the Southcenter area street system and access routes. In general, we believe the traffic analysis for Spring Ridge is well done for the immediate site vicinity covered by the study effort. Trip generation and distribution estimates appear to be of proper magnitude and proportion for the types of land uses anticipated for the project. The immediate vicinity traffic estimates and street /intersection operations analyses are detailed and thorough. We commend the project applicant's consultant for this analysis effort. We do, however, have two general concerns. First, within the immediate pro- ject vicinity, we do not believe that direct assured mitigation measures are adequate to fully offset the project's added traffic impacts. Secondly, considering the magnitude of project traffic impacts, we do not believe a broad enough traffic impact area was addressed. Mitigating measures appear to be limited to those portions of the Tukwila street improvement plan which immediately abut the project site. These im- provements will result in equal or better traffic operations at the inter- section of Strander /Andover Park West than would be anticipated without the project. Southcenter Mall will achieve improved traffic access operations at its east access drive to /from Strander as a result of a new traffic signal to be installed by the project applicant (presumably). On the other hand, .traffic operations at the Southcenter Mall west access drive to /from Strander will deteriorate substantially as a result of the project traffic increases. This may be an unavoidable adverse impact, since an additional signal may create an uncoordinative signal sequence along Strander Boulevard. There may be some merit, however, in considering signal - ization of the west access drives intersection rather than the east. The intersection of Strander /Southcenter Parkway will deteriorate to generally unacceptable peak hour levels of service as a result of the project. Miti- gation appears to be left to the device of the City for funding and implemen- tation. We do not know whether or not the City has any firm funding source or plan for this intersection. The TRANSPO Group, Inc. • 23 - 148th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington 98007 • (206) 641 -3881 • Mr. Richard Eichler March 26, 1985 Page 2 TR "MANSPO Groip The City of Tukwila "Transportation Improvement Plan" study prepared by Entranco Engineers in 1979 tended to point out an overall access deficiency for the Southcenter area of Tukwila. Intersections along Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila Parkway, and SR 181 (West Valley Road) serving the regional freeway and arterial access systems were identified as either currently, or at least eventually, deficient. The Spring Ridge Short Plat traffic study does not address these broader areawide,points of traffic concern. We recognize that the City of Tukwila is vitally concerned about and monitor- ing the overall access needs of the Southcenter area. In view of this overall concern and awareness, we yield to City staff opinion as to the more compre- hensive adequacy of the Spring Ridge project traffic study. In view of the large proportions of project traffic oriented toward the Southcenter Parkway/ Klickitat /I -5 interchange vicinity, we believe there is a need to further assess project traffic impacts and mitigation needs along Southcenter Parkway north of Strander. We also believe there is a need to focus additional atten- tion on Strander Boulevard east to SR 181. The T -line and S -line bridges and their intersections with Tukwila Parkway should be addressed by the traffic study, and the project impacts on the I- 405 /SR 181 and the I -5 /Klickitat interchange should also be addressed. We do not want to in any way imply that the Spring Ridge project should be responsible for directly mitigating all cumulative traffic growth problems at these more remote off -site locations. On the other hand, we believe the magnitude of traffic associated with the proposed project will further deteri- orate the overall Southcenter area access. We believe the City should be informed of where the project may add significant traffic increases (2 -3 percent or greater); further information should be supplied relative to type, cost, funding and timing of future mitigating measures -, and to what extent the project applicant will share in the responsibility to help assure their implementation. We hope these comments will be considered as constructive. Since Entranco has the advantage of full background with the Tukwila "Transportation Improvement Plan" study, the broader impact area analysis effort should not create a substantial burden of additional work. Any such additional effort, however, should have substantial value to the City's decision makers, and to you and other existing area landowners. Very truly yours, --The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 911.:41: /fib1 ames W. Maclsaac, P.E. rincipal Engineer JWM:ndl EXHISIT scale .5011T14 CENTER SfPPINE; CENTER 28 0 28.0 0% 19.2 16.4 -14.6% ANDER BLj U t,v 13.9 13.9 0% 16.6 14.2 %ir 0 95 E 1 1 1. 0 84 D. i SPRING? RID4E — LOT i (4ifh proposed driveways) 29.8 28.2 - 5.4% LEGEND • Traffic Signal 0' 200' 400' 600' 800' . XX.X XX.X X% 15.4 14.1 8.4% 1 Without S. 168th ST.' With S. 168th ST. ' Percent Change- V/C LOS XX.X X XX.X X Without S. 168th ST. With S. 168th ST.� 1• 16.0 16.0 0% 0 74 C C 1.986 AWDT (000's) and LOS. ' with Spring Ridge N EXN /Q /T a lee doSSII MOSSO oa/s // ■ A / //■ O ^M/Y /■. A /Y /�1/!/s //• WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ASOWWWWWWWWWWWWWO 1 /a/OY / // /YOM/ /// Minkler, Boulevard Design Report Ave. Weekday Traffic, 1984. (in Thousands) ALPHA ENnINEERS INC. ...... ••• ...... ...... • ...... • ...... • .... ..... • . ........ .. • • ........... • ....... • •• •• • .. , . • , • .. .. • ...... . . . . • . .. . . .. . . . . : . . . . .. • ... . . . . . • • 50LI TH CENTER 5190FPIA16 CENTER 13.0 STRANDER BLVD 1 u I T � v p 1-1 p i `1 i l 1I I t. 5PR1NCa RIDGE — 25.0 (``"r proposed drivew f) 23.4 C scale AKER BLVD M, t X12.4 O `♦ a$. /41.8 ST .q LEGEND O• Traffic Signal 12.4 0' 200' 400' 600' 800' A 12.7 N 3 ENTRANCO Engineers 1984 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC N ■ (in Thousands) J � • ' 190S City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor March 12, 1985 Scott Shanks Commercial Design Associates, Inc. 4230 198th.St. S.W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Re:. Tukwila Pond Site - EPIC 263 -85 Dear Scott: This letter is a follow up of our meeting of March 11, 1985, wherin we discussed the City's early notice of the preliminary consideration of a Determination of Significance regarding short plat application 85- 05 -SS. The Responsible Official indicated the issues which cause him to consider requiring an Environmental Impact Statement instead of a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance. You requested allowance to submit additional information on these issues. A.period of 60 days was mutually agreeable for this submission. Various departments have concerns including some relatively minor issues to be addressed. Attached are their comments which may or may not be duplicated herein. The issues we discussed in our meeting for submittal of additional information are: 1. How significant are the traffic impacts upon adjacent streets and the immediate area? This should include the cumulative impacts from theoretical development of Lot 2 and the southeasterly corner parcel. Analysis should also occur for implementation of the City's Transportation Improvement Plan relative to S. 168th St. and 58th Ave. S. The Public Works Department requirements for access on Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West should be addressed relative to curb -cut location and number. Police Department concerns for police service and potential accident frequency should also be included. 2. What-is the theoretical development that could be located on the remainder of the property as well as on Lot 1? How will access occur to the develop- ment of Lots 1 and 2, and what provisions will /can be.made to preserve the pond's natural environment? Scott Shanks March 12, 1985 Page Two 3. What impacts will the landfill activity on Lot 1 and the potential activity on the property have on adjacent property and the pond? To what extent will landfilling protect and stabilize the pond? How and how much imported fill material will be deposited? 4. What provisions will the immediate and future probable development make to enhance and preserve the natural amenity of the pond for active and /or view enjoyment? Will pedestrian access and connection to public sidewalks occur? What are the implications, alternatives, mitigating measures and unavoidable impacts of the 58th Ave. S. alignment on the proposed site plan? 5. Wildlife habitat exists on the property. How will this be preserved and impacted by the proposed and future development of the property? Can the habitat be preserved and function as such over the long range? To what extent is eutrophication a problem and what are its extended implications? What will be the impact on air quality? When were measurements taken in or near this area? If information is available, what are the projected . impacts occuring from the proposal and future development of the remainder of the property? 7. What is the relationship of the proposal and future potential development of the property to the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Code, and Parks and Open Space Plan? Our.understanding is that this information will be submitted within 60 days of the date of this letter. Should this deadline not be met the City will issud a Determination of Significance.. -6. If you have any questions, call me at 433 -1847. Respectful1 L. Rick Beeler Associate Planner LRB:ks cc: Ma.or f1 anni ng Director Larry Martin Ross Earnst • 1410i2:rn i'LL-1 85 -05-SS _ -6siz1-•( OcsncS 11-WEs4ciLD 2E 13I tU.S (Oros( Per...11,11S 1. -nzPrr-Ftc- I'Az � (IOC .1,5t2PrriK.V.s.i._ P5.. A. pectzr=bsss. cF ‘41:4P. 130 pe-Vid=s2rt4K gic14-Yr-Of-v■A■t faz.5b1M- I 6,671m _ cs.st-__Loc..P3noks pstoo k3L)Nkt;€7.. • It•icss. n3 Acr-Lo tzt-_:tuce.. szeNtc.s IWtghc_15._,Sf 1_,C5117_ 2. L-P5130riu-k_11\it-t-• _ ii-oka."-P454(.4-m._ Ackyo PO t-c:3- Two? 5, LM?.. 00 LOT 2. Ps1/430 , Cz3_51--12,0c-1Cti 1NWPas.C/S_013_-4V.QUNDLI.Oct 1921Yet_gnSs c_s • taApstOc...Gmisi cbk.lo P.ss kplu-ast_ pytivet-r( rearzslizuw gEr..FIEN-ncro , 4. Ls:5c- z po-tst-t t /-nrco?.R1-1(1\-t._ 17\LA_ZioNit(a31' _ _ _ - TMAIOCI IzsaATINLE 1-61" gr=1-4\M-10 irtalezz\rwzmrs 13. IMFUck4-10t. FOR 56-Cki 40 1 (,81N i1/4CLESS .tp.shEENAc21r5_.gt TOLD, 7. fiC:A'ELVP5L u)0310 nu-- iC4 1\ttiNt /EA=1:2..ca-s . _ • f. mks° t-N. • 4, \KtuoL_Lee. 4-03 VqSt. rt--SZaNt flLLS'i' se.zrt-NE. _ ?\- AiCklq Al2Pt2SS7. P. How (., G. I tR OLtT ( tic. NC .1, FOLLUTINKYr U C L . 15. rFoIrccilao L"\t .Ls PGN M T . 7, o lc --nEs A • • .sOPFLN/ /rrzS(-)121 w. I 021C -414 �.. LOKPMC S C464FisieCE. Cf. t-) (MFOSQ0 ftz M S p tT )t l Ast_ PQSSt '( plat u.f IC* Asc:LzFr' z. tMQP cc m Nv. -to .ersi P. eve mc vttze 7rnQMP lk)FQ O /niO'*. ■ 3. vs ftW- eS Wu. 17124.NIPE. 1013u C... Mr-A3M -C Mtn Ofil.O ASS . . t -,11- PI- /4164e = .- erL 7 z 4Y/J4_-e_11 -n. - Z, ef./.4`1 , 11' .4 *ALA 1908 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor M EMORANDUM Rick Beeler, Associate Planner Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director March 8, 1985 Comments about proposed Springridge Short Plat Comments, concerns and mitigating measures are listed below by sections from the Environment Checklist. Our department does not recommend the approval of the Short Plat with the buildings as planned on Lot #1 unless the conditions and mitigating measures can be satisfactionally resolved. Section 11. Page 3 Proposed Uses In order to properly understand the total developed use of the land under' question the proposed use of Lot #2 should also be included. The Short Plat impacts a site which is sensitive under SEPA regulations and the city should be informed of future plans. As an example on page 10 the statement is made that surface runoff will be piped to the existing pond. Will this be the case of development on Lot #2? We need to know the cumulative effects of all development impacts on this site and city services. Until this is done the Short Plat should not be approved. Section C. Item 1, Page 10 Water.Runoff The surface water runoff from roofs and parking lots should first go into a settlement pond before it goes into the existing pond. Why isn't the water piped directly into the city's storm drain system? This is the suggested alternative if it meets P.W.'s approval. The runoff may polute the pond if it is not treated before it enters the pond with oils, silts,'salts, etc. Section C. Item 4.D. Page 11 Landscaping The goal to blend the existing wildlife vegitation with native plants is good, however the statement is not clear as to how this will be done. Will pond wetland areas be landscaped on these same areas filled in either Lot #1 or Lot #2 development? I see nothing in Section 4 or 5 abort plant life that will be kept to insure that the existing wildlife can survive. Will it be replaced or entirely removed? Section 10, Page 18 Without knowing what will be developed on Lot #2 it is difficult to totally gauge what the size and location of buildings on Lot #1 will be on'the aesthetics. However, with the proposed buildings the views to the pond will be eliminated from the north and even with landscaping the site will lose its water quality. One possible solution would be to locate the buildings further to the north, open up spaces between the buildings to allow views to the pond, and construct a public • • Rick Beeler, Associate Planner Comments about proposed Springridge Short Plat March 8, 1985 Page 2 pathway adjacent to the pond's wetland area. The path would allow limited access to the pond and help replace the lost views from the north. The path would also serve as a recreation trail that would connect to existing and proposed sidewalks in the area (See section on Recreation below). As the development is now planned nothing is being done to replace lost aesthetically pleasant views to the pond. Some mitigating measures need to be done. Section 11, Item A,B,D, Page 19 Light and Glare Efforts should be made to aim parking and security lighting away from the pond. Lights should be aimed or shielded from casting light into the pond area. Move,the building as far north as possible and parking should be done. Section 12, Items B &C, Page 20 Recreation Existing use of the pond includes; walking jogging,. bird watching, and passive viewing. Because of the size, unique location and existing conditions of the site the developer should take steps to insure the pond's vegitation, wildlife and aeset quality should be maintained. The proposed development of Lot #1 does not meet these needs. It is not known what impact Lot T2 will have (but we need to know). The statement says passive and active recreational areas will be "considerd" with the development of Lot #2.. This comment is insufficient to explain the mitigating measures that will be taken to replace the obvious current recreation uses. Some "trades" will need to be done. As suggested in a previous section a recreational trail should be developed on the north side of the pond connecting the sidewalk on Andover Park West to a location on the very N.W. corner of Lot n1. Buildings should be located as far north as possible to have a less impact on the pond's views, Wildlife and plant life. The suggested trail will have to be carefully planned by experts to insure the least possible impact to the pond but yet minimize developer use of the land and public access to the shoreline. It is recommended professional staff with expertise be involved to develop a mutually beneficial design plan. .EITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN EPIC 6C "W FILE ?)57-03---,5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM . TO; (l BLDG [] PLNG fl P.W. FIRE n POLICE EfIrPR PROJECT ,Q /Ui% lid (//L/e-Wii4.)pilf.6) LOCATION J �,( %i / J �G)'Il�� FILE NO. '5-- DATE TRANSMITTED '�i�g5 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY A%/85- STAFF COORDINATOR 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. ORD OF ADJUSTMENT, DJUS7 ENTGAAND' CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE CARRIED TO THE PLANNING CO I > MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. RESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM COMMENT DATE '3 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM •CN EPIC ,I(J'5'W FILE ?)5'05'k ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; n BLDG CI<LNG n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT 4 /L/(7 d ( /a- Wi`')!eL LOCATION a.% )/ ) 4")1aL FILE NO. .-65-5, 5 DATE TRANSMITTED / 5/.5 - - - RESPONSE REQUESTED BY J/7 /r5- STAFF COORDINATOR Ca 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 3 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ................................... ............................... ................ , c 14.p -We-- !• ' • CN OF :�rl it rl �Ln. LA ` CITY J CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC ,v% '25 FILE 5'0.5-3/1, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM 70; C BLDG El PLNG P.W. I FIRE PROJECT 1.'%/24J?2 dX- (77.1- /e-1, 0/2.4) I %/kLUV LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED. STAFF COORDINATOR POLICE El P & R FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED 3/7 /'rs 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 70 THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD. OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ftz_. ,-/-Ce,-(4 - ? f C . r� /J l/ 4.!/i v r A-tt —k-2 ,v7 LA..4X-1 u/_111`2 i J JOJ _A20_0 J'-L. + - —yr (lam Q / S .2 �-, �%� r� f/� 1 4-7L 1-4' if 61Z +i2 1,6L / tv,4u1.,- S`t a C BC 44, /.n./' - li 2.,7 k t .C.0 .��2zz3 b pv DATE CC, / tirz ,. t,� A-, --ZAAJ7j) Jr:X-4-1-6-1A )• ��. - 97 /7 U • 714) . / A /f �' i l ..l'✓ /LL-gi COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 • .. ............................... ..... • ••• •..•....• • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM i ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORNqL, TO; 0 BLDG PLNG • CN r!")EPIC FILE 95- v5-35' tiu Q P.W. Qj FIRE n POLICE Q P& R . PROJECT �',5_I ' // (4 _ //L E,/ » lid' ) LOCATION -77(7.0/2/11i_) )1%?I DATE TRANSMITTED '1/Pf/fii--- STAFF COORDINATOR • (Y7,_,' FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW ANb 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 Q 4_ /. s) ��. - 1.2-ce SO - 14441r-el' 'o-& 1 he 2 IA. ( fr-e' , .eiti-kS 3/ Vic-- COMMENTS PREPARED BY /'V C.P.S. Form 11 • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM •CN EPIC ;.7((-5(5- FILE TO; n BLDG 1 PLNG n P.W. FIRE © POLICE n P & R PROJECT ! W/Ii?? C (774=t0/24.,)/4,21,00 LOCATION 77(kt,) /2i5) R))/ t FILE NO. 3/7/r5- DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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 vADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT 7B3 NOISE: THE STATEMENT "NO RESIDENTIAL EXISTS WITHIN A ONE MILT! RATITTT$" IS STRETCHING THE MILE MARKER A LITTLE FAR. CONSTRUCTION NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT WILL MOST DEFINITELY IMPACT THOSE HOMES ON THR WF.ST HTTT. RTT]rF LINE AND.ON THE FACING SLOPE OF THE NORTH HILL. THE WORD "GENERALLY" APPEAR- ING ON LINE 4 SHOULD BE DELETED. 11A L LIGHT: IT WOULD APPEAR THE PARKING AREA LIGHTING WILL BE EXTINGUISHED AT THE CLOSE OF THE BUSINESS. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY FOR LATE RETURNING MOTORIST AND AN ENHANCED POLICE PATROL CAPABILITY THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION GIVEN OVERNIGHT SECURITY LIGHTING. FOR ASSISTANCE IN THIS AREA RECOMMEND DEVELOPER CONTACT CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER. 12C RECREATION: A WORTHWHILE ENHANCEMENT SHOULD THIS PROJECT GO FORWARD WOULD bE THE Al)D1TIUN OJ-A PEDESTRIAN WALK ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SHORT PLAT TO A LOCATION WHERE IT WOULD INTERSECT WITH THE EASTERLY ENTRANCE TO THE PROJECT. AT THIS POINT THE WALKJAY SHOULD. TURN NORTHWARD TO THE STRANDER BLVD CURBLINE. THIS WOULD PROVIDE A.PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE PLANNED FAC- ILITIES FROM M. Urr L(. tb AND BUSINESS LOCATED . FU1FTHER SOUTH ALONG ANDOVER WEST;. IT WOULD COMPENSATE FOR SOME OF THE LOSS OF POND VIEWING BY OPENING THIS SECURE WALKWAY FROM THE SOUTH UP TO AND ACROSS STRANDER BLVD AT MID - BLOCK. (THIS ENTRY AND ITS COUNTERPART ACROSS STRANDER ARE 'ru BE SIGNALIZED. 15A PUBLIC SERVICES: THE PROPOSED INCREASE OF 130.850 SO FT OF RF.TATLJRFSTA1JPANT AND 40,000 SQ FT OF OFFICE SPACE WILL GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN CALLS FOR SERVICE INTO THAT AREA OF THE CIB. THESE PROJECTS COUPLED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECTS ON THE INTERURBAN CORRIDOR WILL HAVE A DEFINITE IMPACT ON RESPONSE TIME FOR THE REST OF THE CITY. DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 • • EPIC 263 -85 FILE 85 -05 -88 SPRINGRIDGE 15A CONTINUED...PUBLIC SERVICES RETAIL /RESTAURANT AND OFFICE SPACE BOTH PRESENT INVITING TARGETS TO THE CRIMINAL COMMUNITY. THE DEVELOPER OF THIS BUSINESS SIGHT SHOULD LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE SET BY HIS PEER GROUP IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSIDER THE SECURITY ASPECT FROM THE VERY ONSET. SECURITY DEVICES AND TECHNOLOGY BUILT IN AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE COST ONE- QUARTER OF THE COST FOR THE SAME INSTALLATIONS INTO A FINISHED LOCATION. WITH CRIME BEING IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS OF. THE PUBLIC TODAY, THE OFFERING OF A SECURE WORK ENVIRONMENT IS CONDUCIVE TOWARD HIGHER OCCUPANCY AND REDUCED TENANT TURNOVER. (FACTS ESTABLISHED IN LOCAL RETAIL MARKETS) I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THE BUILDER OR HIS AGENT WORK IN CLOSE HARMONY WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER. GENERAL THE PROJECT PROPOSAL PREDICTS AN INCREASE OF 10,000 NEW VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY INTO ONE OF.THE CITY'S MOST CONGESTED, HIGH ACCIDENT RATED CORRIDORS. FOR THE PROJECT TO REACH ITS FULL POTENTIAL AND STILL ALLOW FOR THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF SAFE, BEARABLE DRIVING SOME VERY IMAGINATIVE AND INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING WILL BE REQUIRED. THE SUMMARY REPORT DISCUSSES THE DOWNGRADING OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AT STRANDER BLVD. AND SOUTHCENTER PKWY.. IT STATES THE PM PEAK TRAFFIC AT THIS LOCATION IS PRESENT BORDERLINE LOS C/D WITHOUT THIS PROJECT, WITH THE PROJECT IT DEGENERATES FURTHER TO LOS E. THE MOST RECENT STUDY DONE BY ALPHA ENGENEERING FOR THE DRAFT DESIGN REPORT...MINKLER BLVD. PLACES THE PRESENT LEVEL OF SERVICE AT THIS LOCATION AT LOS E...WITH THE NEW PROJECT THIS HAS NO WHERE TO GO BUT TO F OR, IF POSSIBLE, WORSE. THE SUMMARY GOES ON TO STATE THAT SERVICE LEVEL D IS BECOMING MORE INCREASINGLY ACCEPTED ON THE HIGH VOLUME ARTERIALS (SUMMARY P. 10). THE QUESTION IN MY MIND...ACCEPTED BY WHOM A. THE MOTORIST WHO MUST DRIVE THIS WAY EVERY DAY...B.THE BUSINESS WHO MUST RELY ON HIS CLIENTELE DRIVING THROUGH THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION TO REACH HIS /HER DOOR...C. THE DEVELOPER WHO WILL BUILD AND LEAVE. SUMMARY FIGURES 9 & 10 DISPLAY AN INCREASE IN THE LOS E LOCATIONS FROM 5 WITHOUT'TRE:PR0IECT AND 13 WITH.FOR THE STRANDER BLVD..SOUTHCENTER PKWY. TO ANDOVER PARK WEST ROADWAY. IT ALSO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES ON THE SOUTHSIDE BY 2. THE PRESENT HIGH ACCIDENT RATE AT THE WESTERN END OF THIS ROADWAY IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT BY ADDING 2 TO THE EASTERN EXTREMITY THE:`.STATISTICS WILL MORE EVENLY BALANCE. * *A SUGGESTION...CLOSE THE WESTERN ENTRANCE /EXIT TO SOUTHCENTER AND ONLY PERMIT THE FACING EASTERN ENTTRANCES TO BOTH SITES. THIS BEING A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION WITH A PEDESTRIAN CONTROLLED LIGHT, ALL USERS OF THE AREA WOULD BE BETTER SERVED. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS RELATIVE THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY ON ANDOVER WEST. THE PROPOSAL STATES SOME OF THE TRAFFIC VISITING THE SIGHT WILL USE THE EASIER AND SAFER EXITS ONTO STRANDER BLVD AND LEFT TURN AT THE INTERSECTION TO PROCEED NORTH ON. ANDOVER WEST. THIS IS AT BEST A GUESSTAMET. MY EXPERIENCE TELLS ME FOR EVERYONE THAT W0ULD GO OUT OF HIS /HER WAY TO THAT EXIT, ONE OR MORE WOULD ATTEMPT THE DIRECT EXIT ONTO ANDOVER WEST AND MAKE THE LEFT TURN INTO WHAT IS NOW THE LEFT TURN LANE FROM ANDOVER TO STRANDER. FROM THERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO MOVE AN ADDITIONAL LANE TO THE RIGHT TO BE IN THE PROPER LANE TO PROCEED DIRECTLY NORTH. I WOULD PREDICT AN INCREASE IN THE ACCIDENT RATE AS VEHICLES THRY THIS RIGHT LANE MOVEMENT OR VIOLATE THE LANE RESTRICTIONS AND CONTINUE STRAIGHT NORTH FROM THE RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE. SUBMITTED 3/7/85 PJL CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM •CN EPIC ;2[C5'd07.- FILE ?15 "05-5, EN \'IRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; 0 BLDG El PLNG j P.W. n FIRE 7 POLICE n P & R PROJECT !d / /7 �7d9 J w'24- LOCATION Tt.k.1 )i 4j T"G 67( FILE NO . ,./- D�5" DATE TRANSMITTED /g RESPONSE REQUESTED BY i% % /rJ� STAFF COORDINATOR (Y)`� i('igt-/ 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 T rnv► 'D 1Sc t{SS t h-\,) Li 1 i?-'a c til(1,Ar l 7 /8S -P41-ov O P ?ut%Clc C3akk.S 'f SrrNm '1 DATE 75/ 7417- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ... .......................... CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM T0; BLDG fl PLNG n P.W. 7 FIRE PROJECT ^,i 4r 7 (//L)J& �/�' o LOCATION /2lJ 4Yi� T.c�uv DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR EPIC x(J5" FILE ?'0.5"-.5/ n POLICE n P & R FILE NO. RESPONSE 'REQUESTED BY 3%/iS e-i/{ -° 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 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN EPIC ,i[r'95.- FILE ?)5'0'S5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; F-1 BLDG 1 PLNG P.W. Q FIRE 0 POLICE Q P & R PROJECT !L',57f/',✓.l1 /d9.6 ( /L41e'- W/2Q) / ) LOCATION 7-74 „0 /'4j) Alj)'!2z!,_ FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY *1-245- TRANSMITTED -3/4>V*5-- STAFF COORDINATOR r5td/ 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 r 3 (30 C/)11L0 DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ,kg-k-a2;idAt2' elerp ti}fiv (pi) ,foli.-- •-e • , 7rUL' t /- (fiLit' /‹.(i - 1-- r.Z./ '11 . , Lk -1. /4. •32 ,tr vi.e 7- t , • ." • • ........ • ............... ........ • TO : F/ FROM: like OF. ICE MEMO CITY OF TU KWI to A2ceLi - DATE: v ar SUBJE CT: %�� /�J�`�9 aticv. Cilwat 2/c2 prn Cep-mv(*Lagao-ethY-L510,4 - 'Awl/ 6,Lic2KiimiLeal oil.ge& oe 6/1g(-"ii.a! g1-10151frn kalud V-o 6 -'4'�o G ,,not 0� `�'n�� °PIA) Olext -v).4 t2AJ-1(2401-. j/t/tO 0-/:94416/ ate/di 062 V,te/ M,ad iaa2ac, Qio :u e Limi la V6-5 - cot 6e.5.. 07)-eJv 5 ` E t e 0b 01/4-57an-L, ..................... ............................... ................................................. ............................... ................................. ............................... ................................................................................................. ............................ .0 -,05 = •� Nb�d 3 LIS •1'02 1'02 FE 9'62 E -62 [' 82 .•61 8 •'61 2 6t 0'61 � � 11111117 1 6I -- — •M•.. M ft' ,ti.0ow 5 • • + � tart l� 3J�L�Z_l._>r EIVAX� Q P 8 l Ndyy- 2 — . —'0'3 — — - 8:9a, c'72 4-=92 ci air AA.. / (2) der 3A 1/''7 3A/0, 3G 1/_,$3D I5 -.j +: A/$ AN.K .is ett4P-ek. i‘ () &vv. tiaa9 7 A w 4).11.-5 Cyr_ cttrk,J.4 A Ake -1•c, s -eat∎ r•-•. ._ ..._ �'P 1 C- - 2-63- g-5- � - 1,05 - S. t6g4„ 1 4- 14,4 e w $ A/% x-20- 2/3 584`` .5)A I".r. ti-,A_ 8 A /E /{{ /l-/P leas -s-kt acs !e r. /c Lecxe :e.. 7'►6-....4100,tI#Db. 1`fA/�� 12 A i. h.at �- lr -�,'1� Qw`,,�i vt.,;2-e- 4 . . 3 - t i 2, * . "-IA-) to: 1;ii, 1413 P•--% tip . . -t—r-t.4..—.)k 61. 6 I • �.a-, .�. -L ettv . ors 4... de's Z i W a . + e . , . 3 a 1- 6, c c- z, d , Pla ±5 6 c. a!+t 7 4 � b a- 31 L a.4.J j Tre,%sfev --6,1;0-, , U-E% 1I+►es !t a, 6 1`x.4 d if-1i Public Self- v; 1SA, b; (rL 5c aL '1--34-4$ AERIAL INDEX FREEWAYS A Interstate 5 B Interstate 405 ( Slate Route 515 I) Valley Freeway 167 RETAIL 1. Suitt hcenter Mall 2. Parkway Plaza 3. Parkway Square 4. Center Place 5. Pavilion OFFICE 6. Parkway Place 7. Parkway,Plaza West 8. Park Fast 9. Riverview Plaza 10. Xerox 11. IBM 12. Scullin:enter Corporate Square HOTELS 13. Doubletree•Inn 14. Doubletree Plaza INDUSTRIAL 15. Andover Industrial Park 16. Soul hcenter Industrial Park 17. Sou hcenter South Industrial Park 18. Sega le Industrial Park 19. Orilla Industrial Park 20. Southcenter Corporate Park 21. Kent Valley Industrial Park OTHER 22. I.ongacres 23. Boeing Aerospace Spring Ridge's 38.9 acres represents the last major parcel of developable land located in the center of the City of Tukwila. The Site is located at the southwest corner of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West, surrounded by retail centers, industrial parks, hotels and restaurants. Within the city zone of CP, the site can be developed as a mixed use project, including retail /commercial, hotel and office building development. The existing pond may be reduced in size and used as a retention pond /amenity contingent upon the development master plan. Across the street to the north of the Site is the Southcenter Mall, a 1.3 million square foot Regional Shopping Center, generating in excess of $230 million in annual gross sales. Due to the central location of Tukwila and the retail support developments, major garden office parks and mid -rise office buildings, representing in excess of 1.5 million square feet, have been developed and absorbed in the immediate area. In addition, approximately 8.9 million square feet of modern, efficient industrial parks have been developed within the city limit by national developers such as Cabot Cabot & Forbes, Trammell Crow, Corporate Properties Investors, and many others. DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS HOTELS /MOTELS LOCA 110N RI.N1.0N 1 (1R14'II.A/ S(71111 )):) :N 11:R SI.A -1 AC AIRI'OR I ARIiA NAME ADDRESS 51$KA R7N KINV ION INN (1111(1 Raini,I Avenue South 0)0 Il1 f.LIRllli h \4V 205 So uulcs 11nulcvaul U(:)1JRIli I Rla: PLAZA 1(511(1 Sn, 1)111 cc Pal kw; y NII. ION HO I11. 176211 )'1 :ilic: l•ighwAy South •(01.11)AY INN 173.111 Pacific Highway South 14YA71 1 011.7. 17(01 Pacific 1.1ighway 5,10111 M AR It 10 r H(1))). 32(11 044,1lh 1711th KLD LION LNN 18740 P:O:i(ic: Highway 04401(4 161NCli AIKI'OR I. INN 111700 Pacific Highway 5,161111 101A1. ROOMS 111111 :111) 20(1 175 255 305 11;2 1{511 145 AVIiRACI: DAILY ROOM RAZE $55 $6 $81 $7). 559 571; $911 509 $ 38 EARCES! MEI:IINC ROOM ( :AI'ACIIY 4011 25(1 350 4511 400 40(1 .160 1.0))) 100 ELLIOTT BAY W. SEATTLE PUGET • SOUND LAKE BELLEVUE WASHINGTON MERCER ISLAND BOEING FIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BURIEN TUKWILA SEA -TAC INTL. AIRPORT • SITE TACOMA RENTON REGIONAL MAP Tukwila, just 15 minutes south of Seattle via Interstate 5, is centrally located between the major Western Washington cities of Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma. Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (Sea -Tac) is 5 minutes from the Site. As the 17th busiest airport in the United States, Sea -Tac has over 600 scheduled flights arriving and departing daily via 26 major carriers, 2 commuters, and several charter air companies. More than $2.2 billion in annual business activity is related to the Sea -Tac International Airport. The City of Tukwila has become .a major hub within the Seattle - Tacoma SMSA. Due to Tukwila's central location within the above mentioned cities, proximity to the International Airport, the ability of a Seattle address and tax benefits (such as no City Business and Occupational Tax), Tukwila has developed and acquired major identity in the Pacific Northwest. Many of the major retailers believe that their retail market in many ways is extended east of the mountains to Spokane; south to Vancouver, Washington (at the Washington /Oregon border); and north to Vancouver, British Columbia. MACAULAY NICOLLS MAITLAND INTERNATIONAL Commercial Real Estate Brokerage Exclusive Sales Agent • Frank J. Agostino (206) 223 -0866 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT TUKWILA POND FILL PROPOSAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MARCH 1976 INTRODUCTION A. ACTION SPONSOR The City of Seattle, Department of Lighting, has applied to the City of Tukwila for a fill permit which would allow the utility to fill approximately 40 acres of land lying immediately south of the Southcenter Shopping Center at the south- west corner of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. This fill permit has been applied for in compliance with requirements of Chapter 70, Uniform Building Code,* 1973 edition. B. LEAD AGENCY Because a large pond currently occupies approximately 15+ acres of the City Light site, the City of Tukwila feels that this proposal may be environmentally significant and controversial. In view of this, an Environmental Impact State- ment pursuant to Chapter 18.98 Tukwila Municipal Code was deemed necessary by the City's responsible official. The lead agency for this action is the City of Tukwila: Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director (Responsible Official) Contact Person: Fred N. Satterstrom, Associate Planner Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 (206) 242 -2177 C. PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFT EIS Robert W. Reineke Sylvia A. Ludwig Charles J. Shank Leonard Steiner Steve Hall Dick Williams - Project manager of City Light's Tukwila Pond Fill Environmental Assessment. - Waterfowl information. - Biological information. - Seattle Audubon Society, wetlands information. - City of Tukwila, Public Works Director, drainage information. - City of Tukwila, Engineer, hydrologic information. D. OTHER LICENSES /PERMITS REQUIRED Before the site can be filled, a Flood Zone Permit from the State of Washington, Department of Ecology is required. This permit was issued to City Light in Jan- uary 1976 (Permit No. 1- 2173 -2). i. E. LOCATION OF EIS BACKGROUND DATA Much of the background information to this draft EIS can be found in two documents: "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Trillium — A Business and Commercial Complex ", 1973; and "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area ", 1975. Both of these documents can be obtained or reviewed at the office of the Tukwila Planning Department, 6230 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washing- ton 98067. F. COST TO PUBLIC OF DRAFT EIS $1.25 G. DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS March 19, 1976. H. COMMENT DEADLINE ON DRAFT EIS In order for comments to the draft EIS to be incorporated into the final EIS, they must be received by April 23, 1976. ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION i. A. Action Sponsor i. B. Lead Agency i. C. Principal Contributors to Draft EIS i. D. Other Licenses /Permits Required i. E. Location of EIS Background Data ii. F. Cost to Public of Draft EIS G. Date of Issue of Draft EIS ii. H. Comment Deadline ii. DISTRIBUTION LIST 1 SUMMARY 4 A. The Proposal 4 B. Direct and Indirect Impacts 4 C. Alternatives 5 D. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May be Mitigated 5 E. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 5 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION B. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 10 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL 17 D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED 23 E. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS 23 F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 23 G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRON- MENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 24 H. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 25 DISTRIBUTION LIST DISTRICT ENGINEER, SEATTLE DISTRICT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1519 Alaskan Way South Seattle, Washington 98134 WALTER JASCERS Environmental Impact Statement Office Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 MAX FULNER U.S. Soil Conservation Service 35 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 R. VERNON DIVERS, SUPERVISOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT U.S. Department of Agriculture 406 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 JOHN HARTER, SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR Department of Commerce and Economic Development 101 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 DENNIS LUNDBLAD, HEAD ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 GIL HOLLAND, FISHERIES RESEARCH COORDINATOR Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 EUGENE S. DZIEDZIC, ASSISTANT CHIEF Environmental Management Division Department of Game 600 North Capital Way Olympia, Washington 98504 BRUCE DAVIDSON, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Department of Highways Highway Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 BILL BOXTER, ,ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR Department of Natural Resources Public Lands Building Olympia, Washington 98504 EMIL JENSEN, CHIEF Office of Environmental Programs Department of Social and Health Services P.O.. Box 1788 Olympia, Washington 98504 WILLIAM A. BUSH, CHIEF RESEARCH & PLANNING Parks and Recreation Commission P.O. Box 1128 Olympia, Washington 98504 GERALD D. PROBST, PLANNER, LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE Planning and Community Affairs Agency Insurance Building Olympia, Washington 98504 EDWARD B. SAND, DIRECTOR, LAND USE MANAGEMENT DIVISION King County Department of Community and Environmental Development W217 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 BRIAN BEAM, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION Puget Sound Governmental Conference Grand Central on the Park Building Seattle, Washington 98104 JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR Kent Planning Agency P.O. Box 310, City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 GORDON ERICKSEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 GEORGE SCHULER, PLANNING DIRECTOR . Auburn Planning Department City Hall Auburn, Washington 98002 SIERRA CLUB 45341 University Way N.E. Seattle, Washington 98105 LEONARD STEINER, AUDUBON SOCIETY Joshua Green Building Seattle, Washington 98104 JOHN J. FOTHERINGHAM, SUPERINTENDENT South Central School District #406 4640 South 144th Street Seattle, Washington 98168 GARY F. KOHLWES, SUPERINTENDENT Renton School District #403 435 Main Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 GARY MORITZ, COMMERCIAL SALESMAN Puget Sound Power and Light Co. P.O. Box 329 Renton, Washington 98055 ROBERT S. HINTZ, DIRECTOR Office of Environmental Management Department of Community Development 400 Seattle Municipal Building Seattle, Washington 98104 JAMES PEARSON, SENIOR AIR POLLUTION ENGINEER Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 West Harrison Seattle, Washington 98119 CHARLES BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Tukwila Industrial Council P.O. Box 88556 Tukwila, Washington 98188 DWAYNE NIKULLA, GREEN FOR TOMORROW 17229 - 34th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98188 SYLVIA A. LUDWIG 4232 South 173rd Street Seattle, Washington 98188 CHARLES J. SHANK, BIOLOGIST Route 8, Box 8616 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 TOM WIMMER, MEMBER City of Seattle EIS Review Committee 7756 Seward Park Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98118 ERIC PRYNE, NEWS EDITOR Renton Record - Chronicle P.O. Box 1076 Renton, Washington 98055 STEVE GREEN, CITY EDITOR Seattle Post - Intelligencer 6th and Wall Street Seattle, Washington 98121 STEVE RAYMOND, ASSISTANT CITY EDITOR Seattle Times P.O. Box 70 Seattle, Washington 98111 PAT EMERSON, Chairperson City of Seattle EIS Review Committee Department of Community Development 306 Cherry Street Seattle, Washington 98104 3 SUMMARY A. THE PROPOSAL This draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for Seattle City Light's application for a permit to fill and grade approximately 40 acres of its property lying just south of Southcenter Shopping Center at the inter- section of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. City Light's permit application has been applied for pursuant to requirements of UBC, Chapter 70. Approximately 15+ acres of this site is covered with water and is commonly referred to as the Tukwila Pond. This pond was inadvertantly created in 1974 during construction of Andover Park West. At that time, the City Light site was a. low, marshy depression with a drainage outlet to the east. Construction of Andover Park West apparently blocked this drainage and a pond was formed in the low marshy area. The objective of the fill proposal is to prepare the site for development. However, at this time no development is proposed. City Light believes this action will enhance the marketability of the property. B. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 1. Impacts to Physical Environment. The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, and other fill material to a depth of approximately 13 feet. Topography will change noticeably from a low depression to a slight gra- dient towards the southeast. Filling and grading the site will substan- tially increase surface runoff from the site. All existing vegetation which exists on the property will be displaced and all habitat suitable for sustaining bird, animal, or fish life will be eliminated. Noise and air pollution will increase minimally as a result of the proposed fill. As a result of the development of the site (or the proposal's indirect impacts), the quality of runoff water will diminish, noise quality will be reduced and air quality will decrease. In addition, future development of the site will eliminate any chance of re- establishing wildlife habitat on the site. 2. Impacts to Human Environment. Direct impacts to the human environment as a result of this action will be a decline in the human recreational use of the property. No impacts are anticipated either to the population or housing supply of the City as a result of the proposed action. A considerable amount of truck traffic will be generated by the proposal. The proposal will also require the pumping of over 1,000,000+ cubic feet of water into the City's storm drain system. In addition, the proposal will eliminate the aesthetic appeal of the pond environment. 4 As a result of the development of the site (or the proposal's indirect impacts), employment opportunities would generate an insignificant population increase and a negligible increase in demand for housing in the Tukwila area. Also, demands on such public services as roads, police and fire protection, water, storm and sanitary sewer service, and recreational services would be made. ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives to the proposal are considered in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The first alternative is the "Do Nothing" alternative which essentially amounts to preserving the site in a natural condition. This alternative would preserve a portion of waterfowl habitat in the Green River Valley, but would result in the loss of the original price plus any potential profit gained by sale of the property. • The second alternative is a "Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation" alternative which entails filling only a part of the site while retaining part or all of the pond. This alternative would help to retain the pond's runoff retention function as well as wildlife habitat while allowing economic use of a majority of the site. Nevertheless, cost factors of not utilizing a large portion of the site, in addition to maintenance problems associated with the pond, pose economic constraints to the applicant. The third alternative to the proposal is the delay of action until a specific site development plan is submitted. This alternative assumes eventual develop- ment similar in nature to that which typifies development in the existing C -M zone district. Under this alternative, wetland habitat would be retained temporarily, at least, and future development options would be left open. This alternative may also lend sufficient time for an analysis of the ecologic, hydrologic, and recreational importance of the pond. D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED Erosion and increased surface runoff can be partially mitigated by replanting the site following the fill operations. Revegetation might also help to restore a small portion of the site's value as wildlife habitat. To minimize particu- lates in the air,'the applicant is required by PSAPCA to spray water over the site during fill and grading operations. E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impact of this proposal is the loss of wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. This same loss of wetlands for wildlife constitutes a loss of open space amenity for man. 5 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 1. The Proposal. Seattle City Light has requested from the City of Tukwila the administra- tive approval and issuance of a grading and fill permit for approximately 40, acres of land owned by the utility. The name of this action is called the Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal. Covering approximately 15+ acres of this site is a body of water commonly known as the Tukwila Pond. Appendix A shows the proposed grading plan for the Seattle City Light site. The proposed fill site is located in the lower Green River Valley near the geographical center of the City of Tukwila, approximately one -half mile southeast of the intersection of I -5 and I -405, as shown in Figure 1. The property is bounded on the east by Andover Park West and on the north by Strander Boulevard. Southcenter Shopping Center lies directly across Strander Boulevard, adjacent to the site. Pictures of the site and pond are shown in Figure 2,and Figure 3. The site is nearly square in shape and consists of 40.7 acres. An "L" shaped portion of the site perimeter has already been filled and a large pond occupies its center. The filled area consists of approximately sixteen (16) acres while the pond is 15+ acres and its associated wet- lands approximately 10 acres. 2. Major Aspects of the Proposal. City Light proposes to drain the pond, fill the site, and grade the land . according to submitted plans. Drainage of the pond will be accomplished by pumping the water into the City's storm drain system during periods of low surface runoff. Following the draining of the pond, all perishable materials will be removed and approximately 418,500 cubic yards of fill will be dumped on the site. Fill material will be compacted to 90% of maximum density and then graded to conform to grading plans. 3. Land Use Plans and Zoning Regulations. According to the existing Tukwila Comprehensive Plan drafted in 1962 by John Graham Company and revised in 1967, the subject site is located in an area designated "Industrial ". As such, the proposal conforms to planned land use. The existing comprehensive plan consists primarily of a land use map and, therefore, no adopted policies apply to the proposal. Presently the City of Tukwila is undertaking a revision of its comprehensive plan. General goals for the City were adopted in November, 1975 by the City Council through Resolution #504. These goals seek a balance between economy and environment and emphasize the importance of natural amenities. Although the Plan goals have been formally adopted by the City Council, the five ele- ments of the Plan (Natural Environment, Open Space, Residence, Commerce/ Industry, and Transportation /Utilities) have not. Objectives and policies within the preliminary Natural Environment and Open Space elements directly address ponds and marshes as natural and visual amenities, and encourage their retention. However, these policies do not apply to the proposed action since they have not been officially adopted. 6 Figure 1. VICINITY MAP: TUKWILA POND. FILL PROPOSAL SOUTH - CENTER' TUKWILA PUNNING DEPARTMENT 1975 Pond and fill site; looking southeast from McMicken Heights. Figure 3. Photos of Tukwila Pond Fill Site Pond and vegetation with mallards overhead; looking north toward Nordstrom's at Southcenter. 9 Pond and vegetation; looking west with Bon Marche warehouse at left. The proposed fill site was originally zoned R -A (Agricultural) in December 1957 by Ordinance #251, one month after the property had been annexed to the City of Tukwila by Ordinance #247. At that time, the site was not owned by Seattle City Light. One year later in 1958, the City of Seattle purchased the property as a potential substation site. Zoning remained the same on the property until July 1973 when it was rezoned from R -A to its present zoning, C -M (Industrial Park). This zoning classification is an industrial park type zoning which permits uses similar to those allowed in the City's M -1 (Light Indus- try) classification, but maintains greater landscaping, pollution, and site design restrictions. Under the C -M zoning classification, there are no pertinent requirements which regulate the filling of land. B. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth. Geology: The primary geologic feature of the site is the deep, water - deposited sediment, or alluvium, beneath it. This alluvium consists primarily of silts and clays and covers most of the valley floor to depths exceeding 100 feet. Soils: Test hole data for the project site was obtained by City Light on June 30, 1958 (SEE Appendix B). The logs generally indicate that from the surface to 3.0 feet down loam and loam -peat soils are predominant. From 3.0 feet to about 8.0 feet in depth various clays are found. These clays are blue, gray, yellow and brown and are progressively wetter with depth. At 8.0 feet to 10.0 feet, clay -sand and sand are found. The soils found on the site have low bearing capacity and are therefore poorly suited for construction foundations. This condition necessitates filling the site with sand and gravel or constructing pile systems prior to development. Topography: The site lies in a broad, very flat alluvial floodplain formed over thousands of years by deposition of sediments during flooding of the Green River. The subject site itself contains a natural depression about five (5) feet deep with a minimum elevation of twelve (12) feet above mean sea level. Partial filling of the "L" shaped portion has increased the depth of the depression to approximately twelve (12) feet and increased the site's maximum elevation to approximately twenty -four (24) feet above mean sea level. Additional fill of about one (1) foot occurred on a small portion of the site during construction of Andover Park West. 10 2. Air. Air Quality: Air quality in the vicinity of the subject site is marginal with respect to existing standards of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). While concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrocarbons appear well within ambient air quality standards, concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates often exceed these standards. According to PSAPCA, concentrations of suspended particulates are currently increas- ing in the Tukwila area and particle fallout is also considered high. Air quality conditions reach their lowest levels during June, July, August and September, when precipitation and winds are lightest. The Seattle, Renton and Auburn industrial areas, Southcenter Shopping Center, and Interstate Highways 5 and 405 are the primary sources of air contaminants near the site. Climate: The subject site is influenced by a west coast marine type climate. Mari- time air sweeping in from the Pacific Ocean makes the summers warm and the winters cool, and drops 35 - 40 inches of rainfall on the Tukwila area each year, most of it during the winter months November - March, (SEE, Table 1 for monthly temperatures, precipitation, and winds near the proposal site). 3. Water. Surface Drainage: Natural drainage from the site has always been very poor due to the flat_ terrain and relatively impervious soils. The lowlying area of the site — i.e., that area now occupied by the pond — used to be very marshy and wet for a long period each year. At that time, surface runoff drained eastward from the site through a ditch, onto the adjoining property, and ultimately into the Green River. In the fall of 1974, construction of Andover Park West by the City of Tukwila blocked drainage from the site. With surface drainage blocked, ponding on the site increased dramatically, eventually . creating a year -round pond. Presently, most water leaves the site through evaporation and plant tran- spiration, although a small amount probably infiltrates into the groundwater supply. A portion of the undeveloped land adjoining the site to the west probably drains onto the subject site., although this has not been definitely deter- mined. Runoff from the Bon Marche warehouse, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West flows into storm drains and does not affect the subject site. Subsurface Drainage: The soils . found on the site are nearly impermeable, the water table is near the surface, and ground water movement is very slow due to the flat- ness of the terrain. Because of these factors subsurface drainage from the site is and probably always has been extremely slow. 11 TABLE 1 MONTHLY NORMALS OF TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION AND WIND AT SEATTLE - TACOMA AIRPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1930 - 1960 Wind Month Temp. ( °F.) Precip. (in.) Wind (MPH) Direction January 38.3 5.73 10.8 SSW February 40.8 4.24 10.9 SW March 43.8 3.79 11.4 SSW April 49.2 2.40 11.0 SW May 55.5 .1.73 10.2 SW June 59.8 1.58 - 9.9 SW July 64.9 0.81 9.3 SW August 64.1 0.95 8.9 SW September 59.9 2.05 9.1 N October 52.4 4.02 9.8 S November 43.9 5.35 10.2 S December 40.8 6.29 10.8 SSW TOTAL OR AVERAGE 51.1 (Av) 38.94 (Tot) 10.2 (Av) SSW (Av) Source: "Local Climatological Data ", Sea -Tac Airport Weather Station.. Water Quality: Water quality within the pond has not been determined by direct means. However, it is expected that the quality is relatively high because of the following reasons. The pond receives no runoff from paved surfaces. The only potential source of pollutants and nutrients are rain, bare soil, fall- out from suspended particles, the vegetation around and in the pond and the wildlife currently frequenting the area. Based on studies performed in the Seattle area, particle fallout into the pond should be insufficient to sig- nificantly affect water quality. Rainfall in this area contains minimal pollutants, little erodable soil exists on the site, and the pond is too young to be detrimentally affected by nutrient contributions from the plants and animals associated with it. Considering these factors, the pond's current quality is expected to be comparable to that classified as excellent in the State of Washington Water Quality Standards. 12 4. Flora. Both native and introduced plant species are found on the subject site. All species are tolerant of wet floodplain conditions. Some small third or fourth - growth trees exist on the site, primarily along the pond's edge. These species include Douglas fir, madrona, black cottonwood, willow, and red alder. In the wider expanses of open land on the site grow an abundant diversity of shrubs and grass species. An inventory of these species can be found in Appendix C. None of the plants seen on the City Light property are considered rare or endangered. 5. Fauna. The pond currently supports a variety of birds as well as a few mammals and reptiles. Table 2 lists all waterfowl and songbirds seen on the site by one observer since May, 1975. Rabbit, skunk, muskrat . and possibly rac- coon are expected to live on the site. In addition to the animals them- selves, several nesting sights have been seen, including one muskrat nest. No live fish have been seen in the pond to date; although the pond is al- most certainly capable of supporting aquatic life. Grebes have been noted apparently fishing, and one fish was found on the shore. Fish which might be living in the pond include the Threespine Stickleback, Prickly Sculpin, Longnose and Speckled Dace and other small freshwater fish. Other aquatic animals, such as snails, may also currently exist in the pond. No bird or mammal specie observed on the City Light property is considered rare or endangered. 6. Noise. The average ambient noise level on the City Light site due to truckless traffic is probably 60 - 65 dBA. (This is extrapolated from a noise survey completed in 1973 for Trillium on the adjacent property to the west:) This value seems to be consistent when compared with the City of Tukwila noise ordinance (TMC 18.32.030) and proposed 1973 King County noise ordinance, Sections 703 and 704. However, truck traffic on abutting roads intermit- tently boosts the noise level approximately 15 dBA higher than the ambient level. 7. Light and Glare. N/A 8. Land Use. Prior to its purchase in 1958 by City Light, the subject site was grazed - by dairy cattle from mid -May to mid - October and used for duck hunting by the Green Head Gun Club during the fall and winter. Since City Light purchased the property, it has experienced substantially no human use, serving only as open space and wildlife habitat. 13 TABLE 2 WATERFOWL AND SONGBIRDS CURRENTLY USING SITE First Date Name of Bird Seen Estimated Total. Number Western Meadowlark .3/ 6/76 1 Song Sparrow 5/31/75 10 - 15 Goldfinches and mates 15 - 25 American Coots, mates and young 50 - 75 Shovelers and mates 25 - 35 Lesser Scaups and mates 7 - 12 Ruddy Ducks and mates 15 - 20 Cinnamon Teals and mates 2 - 6 Killdeers 7 - 12 Red - Winged Blackbirds ' 4 Tree Swallows 5 - 10 Barn Swallows 5 - 10 Cliff Swallows 6 Mallards, mates and young 20 - 35 Robins 6/29/75 2 Starlings 1 Yellowthroat Warbler 3 Purple Finches and mates 10 - 15 California Quail 7/ 4/75 . 5 - 7 Spotted Sandpiper ; 4 - 8 Western Sandpiper .. 3 - 7 Lesser Yellowlegs 7/12/75 . 3 - 5 Pier - Billed Grebes 3 Nashville Warbler 2 Rough- Winged Swallows 5 - 8 Sanderlings 5 - 10 Long - Billed Dowitcher 7/19/75 5 - 10 Green Heron 8/ 8/75 .' ' 1 California Gulls 3 Common Crow 10/ 4/75 7 - 10 Cassin's Finches 1, 10 15 Green - Winged Teal and mates 5 10 Canvasbacks and mates 10 - 15.... Solitary Sandpiper 8 - 10 Short - Billed Dowitcher 8 - 10 Red - Tailed Hawk 1 Ring - Necked Ducks and mates 10/27/75. 20 - 25 Buffleheads and mates 35 - 40 Pintails and mates 11/ 1/75 50 - 75 American Widgeons and mates 75 - 100 Gadwalls and mates 35 - 50 Horned Grebe 2 Ring- Necked Pheasants and mates 10 - 12 Red - Shafted Flicker 1 Common Snipe 11/29/75 2 European Widgeon 12/21/75 3 males plus mates Sparrow Hawk Franklin Gull Common Goldeneye . . 3.females Source: Sylvia Ludwig *Species of migratory waterfowl are underlined. 14 . Commercial and light industrial uses surround the proposal site. To the north of the site across Strander Boulevard lies the Southcenter Regional Shopping Center, to the east lies Andover Industrial Park and to the south- west the Bon Marche Distribution Center abuts the property. Directly south of the subject site lies a large, vacant tract of land owned by Upland Industries. 9. Natural Resources. N/A HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population. Current population within the City of Tukwila is 3370. This figure con- trasts with an average of 50,000 - 60,000 persons who migrate to the City each day during business hours to either work or shop. As far as the proposed fill site is concerned, no persons either presently live. or work on the property. 2. Housing. According to the 1970 Census of Housing, there were 1,669 housing units within the City of Tukwila in 1970. Of these, 607 or about one -third of the total housing units were single - family units. On the other hand, about two-thirds or 1000+ units were multiple - family dwelling units. There are no housing units located on the proposed fill site. 3. Transportation /Circulation. Interstate 5 and 405, Southcenter, and nearby industrial facilities com- prise the major sources of automobile and truck traffic near the site. A traffic study done for a 1973 TOPICS program showed that traffic on Strander Boulevard averaged about 16,000 vehicles per day with peaks of. around 1600 vehicles per hour near noon and 6 P.M. To the west of the site on Southcenter Parkway, average 1973 daily traffic was 17,400 vehicles, with hourly peaks of 1640 vehicles. Andover Park West had not been built as of 1973 when the TOPICS study was completed, but recent counts on this road are considerably less than those for Strander Boule- vard or Southcenter Parkway. A sidewalk along Andover Park West abuts the fill site's eastern boundary. A BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad spur line track is located along the northern boundary of the land parcel immediately south of the proposed fill site. This spur track serves the Bon Marche Distribution Center. Approximately four road miles to the west of the site is located the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. Much of the freight carried by planes landing here is brought to or shipped from the Tukwila industrial area. 15 4. Public Services. Public services are provided to the subject site by the City of Tukwila. A recently built, well - equipped fire station, operated and staffed by the City, is located within one -half (Z) mile of the site. Police protection is provided by the City of Tukwila and service levels are beneficial. Park and recreation services are provided by the City. The City Light property is located just inside the Renton School District. The borderline between South Central and Renton School Districts is. Strander Boulevard; north of Strander is the South Central District, south of Strander is the Renton District. S. Energy. N/A 6. Utilities. Water and storm and sanitary sewer services are provided by the City of Tukwila. All of these utilities either border or are within close reach of the proposed fill site. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone and Puget Power run underground telephone and electrical- power lines along both the property's western and eastern boundaries. 7. Human Health. N/A 8. Aesthetics. The "naturalness" of the pond environment contrasts markedly with the surrounding urban environment of Southcenter and Andover Industrial Park. 9. Recreation. Although the subject site is not "open to the public ", the site is occa- sionally used for recreational purposes by the public. No studies have been done to determine the extent or the type of recreational use the site gets from the public, but it is expected that most use is of the sight- seeing type, primarily bird - watching. Other use may be picture - taking and passive contemplation. 10. Archeological /Historical. N/A 16 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: Direct Impact - an impact resulting directly from draining, filling, or grading the site. Indirect Impact - an impact resulting from typical development of the site under current C -M (industrial park) zoning after its sale by City Light. Cumulative Impact an impact resulting from expected development of all undeveloped land in the Lower Green River Valley under current zoning. 1. Environmental Impact on the Natural Systems. Earth: Direct Impacts: The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, or other fill material approximately thirteen (13) feet deep. Topography of the presently unfilled area will change to a very slight gradient towards the southeast with elevations from twenty -four (24) feet to twenty (20) feet above mean sea level. This slope should be insufficient to cause significant erosion. -. Indirect Impacts: Future development of the site may also insignifi- cantly alter its topography and geology. Cumulative Impacts: Given the composition and depth of the alluvial sediments in the valley, substantial subsidence of all large develop- ments on the floodplain is definitely possible. The cumulative effect this might have on the area's topography and geology cannot presently be assessed. Air: Direct Impacts: The proposed action should result in minimal direct impacts to the area's air quality. These insignificant impacts will be in the form of temporary increases in vehicle emissions and dust on and near the site. The magnitude of the temporary impacts will depend upon the wind and precipitation occurring during the work, but it is expected to be insignificant. Indirect Impacts: Future development of the site will cause temporary impacts similar in nature to those of filling and grading. The magni- tude and duration of these impacts cannot be estimated at this time. Long term impacts due to development of the site will probably involve increases in vehicle emissions in the area. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts should be analogous to those discussed under hydrology and water quality, again depending upon continuing development of the lower Green River, Valley. These impacts may be mitigated to a currently unknown degree by future improvement in air quality control regulations and technology. 17 Water: Direct Impacts: Filling and grading the site will entail draining the pond as a first step. This will directly add over 1,000,000 cubic feet of water into the existing municipal storm drain system.• Runoff from the pond will eventually find its way into the Green River north of the pond site. Runoff from the site will contribute approximately forty (40) acre -feet of water per year to the Green River, the exact amount depending upon weather conditions and fill surface characteristics. This increase in runoff is by itself insignificant and a substantial portion of this volume flowed into the river from the site before drainage was blocked by Andover Park West. Depending upon fill characteristics, evaporation and infiltration to ground water will both decrease. The quality of surface runoff leaving the site should approximate that of the runoff which drained from the site prior to blockage. The only change expected is a slightly higher concentration of suspended solids. Indirect Impacts: Future development occurring after the property is filled and sold can further impact site hydrology and water quality in the following ways: Building construction and paving will cause a further increase in surface runoff as well as an increase in evapora- tion. Infiltration to ground water will be drastically reduced or, eliminated, depending upon the extent of paving. Development can either raise or lower nearby ground water levels, again depending upon the exact nature of the construction. Runoff quality will deteriorate somewhat depending upon how the facil- ities are used. Based on uses permitted for industrial park zoning and on surface runoff quality data for Seattle, a very small incremental impact on the Green River due to water from this site is expected. The relative hydrologic and water quality impact from development of.the site should also be small in comparison to that of nearby developments. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts associated with filling the site are difficult to estimate and depend heavily upon the future land use of the surrounding area. If all property in the Tukwila area not currently committed to open space is developed, the cumulative impact on the area's hydrology and water quality may be significantly. detrimental. Develop- ment in the area is expected to continue at approximately its present rate; and, assuming eventual complete development, it is doubtful whether the positive effects of not filling the subject site would be measurable in terms of hydrology and water quality. Flora: Direct Impacts: All vegetation which exists on the site will be either buried or removed during fill operations. Fauna: Direct Impacts: Draining the pond and filling and grading the site eliminate all or nearly all habitat suitable for sustaining animal life on the site. The major impact will be on migratory water fowl, shore birds, song birds, and birds of prey which currently frequent the site. Consultation with an Audubon representative1 and an independent biologist revealed the following information. When the site is filled, birds now using the site will be forced to move elsewhere. The large lakes in the region such as Lake Washington, Lake Sammam- ish, and Green Lake provide some resting places for birds but very little feed. The primary reason for the traditional use of the Green River Valley by large numbers of birds'is the abundant feed provided by farm land and marsh. Therefore few, if any, displaced birds would take up residence at the large lakes. Other habitat areas in the Valley include the marsh south and east of Longacres racetrack, the wetland pasture north of the Boeing plant, the pond at the farm just east of Southcenter, and the farmlands and ponds just south and west of the Boeing plant. Some additional farms and small marshes on the west side of the valley in Kent and Auburn also provide feeding and resting area for large numbers of waterfowl. It is expected that most birds, especially the non - migratory species, forced off the City Light site will relocate in these nearby areas. It is not certain, however, but it is possible that some of these birds may leave the Tukwila area and not return. Other impacts to the site's ecologic system include removal of all vegetation and destruction of suitable habitat for small reptiles and mammals currently using the site. These animals provide feed for birds of prey currently using the site and will face the same reloca- tion problems as the resident birds, although compounded by their lack of mobility. Any fish now living in the pond will probably be destroyed during draining operations. This is not considered a significant loss since plentiful fish habitat exists elsewhere in the region. Indirect Impacts: Future industrial park development on the site will permanently eliminate any chance of re- establishing wildlife habitat there. It will also decrease the attractiveness of the general area to wildlife by a small increment by virtue of its existence and its various byproducts. 1 Leonard Steiner, Seattle Audubon Society, Conservation Chairman. 2 Charles Shank, Biologist. Cumulative Impacts: If the wetlands and farms develop as expected, all remaining waterfowl habitat in the lower valley may be destroyed. Much of it will certainly be destroyed. The cumulative impact of this habitat destruction on the 20,000 to 30,000 waterfowl currently using the area will be substantial. These wetlands are already overcrowded, and where these birds will go is uncertain. To date, no baseline studies exist on the wildlife impact of development in the valley in terms of depleted bird populations. Therefore, an esti- mate as to the exact nature and severity of future cumulative impacts can- not be made. However, this region will certainly suffer a loss of wild - life, and migratory waterfowl populations as a whole may be reduced as well. In addition, changes in the lower valley drainage system proposed by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), if implemented, will probably lower the water table and reduce existing wetland areas regardless of further development. This proposal may also reduce the water level. in the pond if the pond is not filled. Noise: Noise impacts of filling and grading will be completely analogous to those discussed under atmospheric effects. Much of the impact will be temporary; and long term and cumulative impacts may be mitigated by improvements in noise control. Light and Glare: N/A Land Use: Direct Impacts: After grading is completed, human use of the site should be minimal until City Light sells the property and development begins. Indirect Impacts: When the site is developed,. use will change to some type of commercial /industrial use. Employment opportunities will be created which will expand the area's economy. Cumulative. Impacts: The cumulative changes in human use resulting from this continued development will be nearly total transition from agricul- tural /open space uses to commercial /industrial uses within the lower valley. This transition began in the late 1950's and has progressed steadily ever since. Natural Resources: Direct Impacts: To fill the City Light site will require the excavation of approximately 418,500 cubic yards of fill material. It is expected that this fill material will be obtained from existing sand and gravel pits in the vicinity. None of these operating gravel pits are located within the City of Tukwila. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site will require varying amounts of construction materials and, hence, make certain demands on natural resources. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of the Green River valley will require vast amounts of fill material which will cause major altera- tions to topographical conditions in some localities. Also, this development will require vast amounts of construction materials nec- essary to construct commercial and industrial structures. 2. Environmental Impact on Human Systems. Population: Direct Impacts: No population increase or decrease is anticipated as a result of the City Light fill proposal. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site would stimulate employment but the in- migration of employees to the City of Tukwila would be insignificant. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of the valley will eventually lead to a saturation population of Tukwila, estimated to be approxi- mately 7000 to 8000 persons. Housing: Direct Impacts: No direct impacts on the housing supply are expected as a result of this proposal. Indirect Impacts: Employment opportunities generated by eventual development of the site could create a demand for housing in the Tukwila area. it is impossible to estimate this demand at this time. Cumulative Impacts: Eventual development of all:commercial and indus- trial lands in the valley is expected to lead also to a saturation pop- ulation of about 7,000 - 8,000 persons, in the City of Tukwila. To house the additional population, approximately 1650 new housing units will be required. Transportation /Circulation: Direct Impacts: Fill operations will generate a certain amount of truck traffic to and from the site. In order to dump 418,500 cubic yards of fill material, approximately 30- 35,000 truck trips will . be required, depending upon the type of trucks used in the operation. This fill operation could take up to 210 days to complete with about 160 trucks dumping loads each day. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site will generate future vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and from the site. It'is difficult to estimate the volume of this traffic since traffic - generation is so closely related to the type of land use and land use is an unknown factor at this time. Cumulative Impacts: Continued development of the valley will likely cause high traffic volumes on all roads with congestion occurring at certain intersections. Public Services /Utilities: Direct Impacts: Draining the pond will require the pumping of approximately 1,089,000 cubic feet of water into the municipal storm drain system. If this operation is done during periods of . low runoff, the impact on the drainage system is expected to be insignificant. Demands on other public services during the fill operation are expected to be negligible also. Indirect Impacts: Development of the proposed fill site will require all available public services: Police, fire, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and recreational service. It is expected that the public service demands of development can be met by existing systems. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of all valley lands will require the construction of additional utility lines and, in some cases, the construction of new systems. Also, total development would create heavy demands on police and fire protection services. Aesthetics: Direct Impacts: The proposal will transform a pond environment into a level development site. Natural elements, like vegetation, surface water, and wildlife (primarily waterfowl) will be displaced and Nature's contrast to the human environment will be removed. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site is expected to be of the same order as found elsewhere in the C -M zone. Exterior building design in the C -M zone is subject to review by the Tukwila Planning Commission, hence, some guarantee of architectural (man -made) aesthe- tics exists. Landscaping as required per the zoning ordinance will ensure a small degree of natural elements on the site. ' Cumulative Impacts: Development of all valley lands will eliminate many of the open space and visual amenities afforded by the natural environment. These amenities will be replaced by man -made environ- ments. Recreation: Direct Impacts: Filling of the Tukwila Pond will eliminate most recre- ational activity on the site. Observation of wildlife and waterfowl will be eliminated altogether, and it is expected that the reduction in amenities will draw fewer people to the site for the purpose of "just looking ". Indirect Impacts: If the eventual development of the site is typical of other development in the C -M zone, there will be no provision for recreation on the site. Cumulative Impacts: Development of valley lands will severely diminish open space and recreational opportunities afforded by non -urban uses. D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED The applicant could reduce erosion and surface runoff by replanting the site after grading it. The Puget Sound Air Pollution'Control Agency (PSAPCA) regulations require actions such as spraying water over the site during grading operations to minimize dust. Revegetation of the site could possibly restore a portion of the site's value as wildlife habitat, though this value would be nil for waterfowl. Since the proposal is to fill the entire site, little if anything can be done to mitigate the adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife associated with the elimination of a pond environment. E. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS All vegetation will be eliminated from the site, at least temporarily. Wild- life habitat on the site will be eliminated, significantly reducing the capa- bility of the immediate vicinity to support wildlife. Wildlife currently using the site will be forced to relocate in already overcrowded feeding sites in the immediate vicinity or will leave the area entirely. Recreational use of this site for wildlife observation and picture- taking will be eliminated. F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 1. Do Nothing. This alternative would essentially amount to preserving the site as a completely natural wildlife refuge. Some question exists concerning the long term viability of this site as a wildlife refuge. The pond has existed for only two years, and it is already productive enough to sup- port an abundance of waterfowl. If productivity continues to increase, the pond could advance to a state which will only support a few species. This may or may not occur, depending upon several factors. Advantages: This alternative would preserve a portion of a habitat which is rapidly disappearing from the Green River Valley. Ponds of this type are no longer common in the Puget Sound region and their elimination poses a definite threat to birds passing through the Pacific Migratory Fowl Flyway. Disadvantages: Potential disadvantages involve the site's unknown long term viability as a preserve,. plus the possibility that elimination of other suitable habitat in the area would render this site virtually useless regardless of its viability. Finally, adoption of this alternative would restrict economic development of the site, at least temporarily. 23 2. Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation. This alternative would entail the filling of only part, perhaps the majority of the site and the retention of a part, or all, of the pond. Zoning of the land would remain the same and uses allowed in the C -M zone would be allowed on the site. Property would remain under private ownership, or at the option of the owner, could be offered for sale to another party. Advantages: This alternative would help to retain a part of the pond's function as wildlife habitat and visual open space. The pond could function also as an open space focus for employees or clientele of uses which would even- tually locate on the site and /or serve as a water detention facility for storm water. runoff. Disadvantages: This alternative would preclude complete development of the entire site. Also, the maintenance of the pond and possible aeration of the water to prevent oxygen depletion might cause economic and technical problems. 3. Delay Action Until Site Development Proposal. This alternative would entail delaying fill operations on the site until . such time as an actual development plan for the site is proposed. It is assumed under this alternative that the current zoning of the site, C -M, will remain the same and eventual use of the site will be typical of that permitted under the C -M classification. Advantages -: This alternative would temporarily retain suitable wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds while keeping future development options open. This alternative may also lend. sufficient time for private organizations and local, state, or federal agencies to evaluate the ecologic, recreational, and hydrologic importance of the pond. Disadvantages: This alternative could cause the eventual site development proposal to be subjected to future, potentially more stringent environmental /land use regulations, making the prospects of selling the land less desirable. G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 1. Short -Term Environmental Gains. No short - term environmental gains are expected to result from draining and filling the property. 24 2. Long -Term Environmental Gains. The proposed.action will allow economic development of the site which will, in turn, provide employment opportunities and associated economic growth. The very long term gains from this development are unknown. 3. Short -Term Environmental Losses. The action will destroy a wildlife habitat and result in increased surface runoff of decreased quality. Ground water recharge will be reduced and noise levels and air pollutant concentrations will temp- orarily increase. 4. Long -Term Environmental Losses. Development resulting from the proposed action will cause permanent loss of forty (40) acres of open space and locally uncommon wildlife habitat with its associated aesthetic amenities. It will permanently increase surface runoff and this runoff may contain significant pollutant concen- trations. It may eliminate ground water recharge on the site entirely. It will probably result in a permanent increase in traffic volumes and ambient noise levels near the site. 5. Trade -Offs Between Gains and Losses. The long term gain to the human environment resulting from this action is significant. The short and long term losses to the natural and human environment are also significant. The trade -offs involved concern those between economic and environmental considerations. 6 Benefits of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. Delay of implementation of the proposal maximizes the development as well as the preservation options on the site. Private developments could use the pond as an open space and recreational focus for its employees and /or clientele, or for retention of storm water runoff. In addition, delay of the proposal would provide the local government with time to evaluate the pond's ecological, aesthetic, hydrologic, and recreational importance to the public. Based on this evaluation, the public may desire to acquire the pond for various purposes. 7. Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. The presence of the pond on the City Light site has an inhibiting effect on the marketability of the land. With recent public concern and legis- lation regarding the natural environment, the pond represents an obstacle around which the developer must maneuver in order to implement devel- opment plans. H. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The result of the proposed action will be the preclusion of optional future land uses and the loss of water marsh and open space resources. Once the property is filled and graded, the land will be irretrievably committed to commercial or industrial development. 25 sumonnw asectamdC.'fr. 232U fide�yl:. �a'a3.'&7}a^,�t� s■S■rurrr■■■r1n1tlYe22242BLiS22 ?'2M2da2216 2A0 �r q r II S ■ iY iliirr■r:iiSIIige ari■llrerni nC4T." i ,+ PAZ 4.. : - . _, . _ . _ 5 r21 ;ISS r� - rnofuEUSmuI � sr�F�..s��� r ■1Irrrr■ar�t ngsr :.. ■spppr■■■sc 022222222M222211002 �Aamw2°211002' s"' anageg5.19Mgangarir INSINWIRMEReggilr liki9 Eei66:eri `� r rrrb.Z{�rirri,iS�Yra _ riamsY WOm�o\f�l �i Rs ge-Pallnirli 11 is alkiNteirmi Ili 0/ EIEV tC 5 y3Ui 01 PROPOSED GRPDD.IG CONTOURS TO EAST PIT EIEV 19.5 \LEV to 00 D ro 13 R1 (Ed z N L EIEV 29 GRAD,NG: I PLAN v lia 30 5:5 8.0 G.& B. SAND LOAM .... G. &B. CLAY GRAY SAND W.T. GRAY SAND Q1ARD PACK) PROPERTY LINE W. T, 3.0 LOAM-PEAT 6.0 8.0 9.5 GRAY CLAY GRAY CLAY & PEAT iK3trander. • blvd LOA 1f W.T. 4.0 LOAM -PEAT W.T. PEAT1 SAND & C` AY TRACE PEAT 5.0 GRAY CLAY SANDY Y. CLAY HEAVY & STICKY) BLUE CLAY SANDY W Z J 350' 350' 350' 289.30' 0 1.5 6;0 10.5 CLAY -LOAM GRAY CLAY BLUE CLAY GRAY CLAY TRACE OF BLUE CLAY PEAT TYPE LOAM r 0 2.0 4.0 0 S�CLAY -SAND LOAM -CLAY GRAY CLAY W.T. GRAY CLAY & G. CLAY - PEAT BLUE CLAY & PEAT 2.0 3.5 \, LOAM, CLAY 2O& PEAT 2 5 GRAY CLAY GRAY CLAY 10.0 (GUMBO) 1.0 4.5 6 9,5 oLOAM LOAM -CLAY GRAY CLAY 5.0 & SAND BLUE CLAY- 10.0 WET SAND ABBREVIATIONS B = BLUE G = GRAN = YELLOW W.T.: WATER TABLE BI = BROWN O 0 1. ,4 B. CLAY B. CLAY & PEAT tl SANDY LOAM B LUE'.CLAY W.T. .,.:t, }1k :..• A 3ANDY'SILT. CENTER OF \ BARBED WIREEPENCE y 3 SEC. 26 0 ? LOAM 005 SANDY LOAM X:= 1 `G 47 389.98 0.8 LOAM‘ CLAY , Y. DRY 4.0 HARD CLAY Y t 1 08 2.97.57 3.O 97.57 cLAY 3.5 W T 5.0 BAYET CLAY 44) SILT-SAND 6.5 SILT CLAY 10.0 B.WETTLAY PEAT•CLAY 10.0 LPROPER.+`( INB• ,R CD tit et 9.5 \s 0 LOAM SANDY HARD LOAM 4.5 W.T, 9.0 SILT CLAY 9.5 SAND SILT LOAM SANDY LOAM DAMP GRAY CLAY BLUE CLAY WET SAND 1.5 2,5 CLAY DAMP 4.5 SANDY LOAM WET DARK 1.5 SAND CLAY • • }0.5 APPENDIX C. VEGETATION INVENTORIED (OR EXPECTED) ON POND FILL SITE COMMON NAME GENUS Black cottonwood *Populus Willow *Salix Red alder Alnus Douglas Fir Pseduotsuga Pacific madrone Arbutus Scotch broom Cytisus Common vetch Vicia Wild sweet pea Lathyrus Stinking mayweed Anthemis. Red clover Trifolium. Least hop clover Trifolium White clover Trifolium Wild lettuce Lactuca Sow thistle Sonchus' Canada thistle Cirsium Common thistle Cirsium Smooth hawksbeard *Crepis Hairy cat's ear Hypochaeris Common tansy Tanacefum Canada goldenrod Solidago Pearly everlasting Anaphalis Ribwort • Plantago Fireweed Epilobium Cattail *Typha Water plantian - *Alisma Rush *Juncus Sedge * Carex Yellow weed *Parentucellia Horesetail Equisetum Grass *Phalaris SPECIES trichocarpa sp. rubra menziesii menziesii scoparius sativa sp. cotula pratense dubium pratense sp. sp. 'arvense vulgare capillar.is radicata vulgare canadensis margaritacea lanceolata augustifolium latifolia plantago- aquatica sp. sp. viscosa telmateia sp. * Species indicating standing water at some time during a year. Source: "Trillium EIS ", and Carl Stixrood, landscape consultant.