The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-269-85 - CITY OF TUKWILA - MINKLER BOULEVARD EXTENSIONMINKLER BLVD. EXTENSION ANDOVER PARK WEST TO SOUTHCENTER PKWY EPIC 269 -85 City o Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor • September 2, 1986 Recipients of the Minkler Boulevard Extension Environmental Impact Statement RE: Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Statement. Dear Recipient: This is an addendum to the Minkler Boulevard Extension, Final Environmental Impact Statement issued on August 19, 1986. This addendum is issued pur- suant to the procedures and criteria specified in WAC 197 -11 -625, 600(4)(a) and 706. The contact person for this addendum is Bradley J. Collins, Responsible Official, City of Tukwila, Department of Planning, 6200 Southcenter Boule- vard, Tukwila, WA 98188, phone (206)433 -1849. Transportation The commercial development to the immediate north of Wendy's restaurant (at the western end of the project) is called Center Place. The south access point to Center Place may be affected to the extent that a left turn stor- age lane for the proposed Southcenter /Minkler intersection may extend sufficiently northward to limit the number of cars which may cue up to make left turns in. No other turning movements would be affected. A second access point to Center Place is located approximately 300 feet to the north. Capacity at this entrance would not be affected. However, there may be increased left turn in movements to the extent that such move- ments are pre - empted at the south access by a lack of cuing space. Land Use The affected portion of the J. C. Penney Truck Center has been converted to a car sales operation. No significant change in impacts are forecast. Bradley J. Co ins Responsible Official FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE MINKLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION City of Tukwila Department of Public Works /Planning Department King County, Washington Prepared for the Review and Comments of Citizens, Citizen Groups and Government Agencies in compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Revised Code. of Washington 43.21c and SEPA Rules, Effective April 4, 1984 Chapter 197 -11, Washington Administrative Code and City of Tukwila Ordinance #1331 Date of Issue: August 19, 1986 Cost per Copy: $2.50 Bradley J. Responsible Of • • COVER MEMO The City of Tukwila Public Works is proposing to build an east -west roadway connector approximately midway between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street. The purpose of this three -to -four lane roadway is to alleviate traffic congestion on Strander Boulevard and generally facilitate east -west traffic movement. Four roadway designs have been described in the project DEIS issued on March 24, 1986.' The major environmental issues include disruption of existing commer- cial operations, impact on future development potential, and impact of traffic circulation. These issues have been addressed in the project DEIS issued on March 24, 1986. 1 • • Project Title Proposed Action Project Location Action Sponsor Tentative Implementation Date Lead Agency Contact Person FACT SHEET Minkler Boulevard Extension The proposal is for the establishment of an extension to the existing Minkler Boulevard in a westerly direction between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway, in the Central Business District of the City of Tukwila. A proposed action, three roadway section alignment alternatives, and two intersection alignment options are reviewed. In addition to these action alternatives, a no- action alternative is also reviewed. The proposed Minkler right -of -way is located in the south half of Section 26, T23N, R4E. It is bounded by Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West, and would run along a westerly extension of the existing Minkler alignment. City of Tukwila, Department of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Summer 1987 City of Tukwila Brad Collins, Planning Director Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Responsible Official Brad Collins, Planning Director Licenses and Permits Required Principal'Contributors Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission . Railroad Relocation Washington Department of Transportation . State Electrical Permit Tukwila Department of Public Works . Water Meter Permit . Street Use Permits . Sanitary Side Sewer Permit . Hauling Permit . Sign Permit Tukwila Building Department . Grading Permit Shapiro and Associates, Inc. - DEIS Author 1821 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 624 -9190 Alpha Engineers, Inc. - Design Report 320 Andover Park East, Suite 265 Seattle, WA 98188 (206) 575 -8299 Date of Issue of Draft EIS March 24, 1986 Date of Issue of Final EIS August 19, 1986 Mail Comments to Brad Collins, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Location of DEIS, Minkler Boulevard Design Report, and Background Material City of Tukwila Department of Planning 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Alpha Engineers, Inc. 320 Andover Park East Seattle, WA 98188 (206) 575 -8299 Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1812 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 624 -9190 Cost of Document $2.50 • • MINKLER BOULEVARD FINAL EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Cover Memo Fact Sheet i Table of Contents iii Distribution List for the Final EIS iv I Written Comments and Response to Comments 1 A. Trammel Crow Company 1 B. Trammel Crow Company 8 C. Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese and Jones 10 D. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 13 E. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 16 F. Washington Department of Transportation 18 II Written Comments Not Requiring Response 23 A. Puget Power 24 B. King County Public Works 25 C. Washington Department of Ecology 26 III Figures Figure 1 v Figure 2 20 Figure 3 21 IV Tables Table 1 22 • • DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE FINAL EIS Page 1 of 2 Federal U.S. Department of HUD, Valuation Department U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Administration State Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Transportation, Planning and Research Coordinator Regional Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency King County Public Works Local Government /Public Services City of Renton City of Kent Val -Vue Sewer District Seattle Water District Seattle Water District #125 Seattle Water District #75 Seattle Water District #175 Seattle Water Department City of Tukwila Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen City Council Joe H. Duffie Edgar D. Bauch Mabel J. Harris Wendy Morgan Doris Phelps Charles E. Simpson Marilyn Stoknes Planning Commission Gerald Knudson Randy Coplen Richard Kirsop Dave Larson James McKenna Joseph Orrico Leo Sowinski • • DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE FINAL EIS Page 2 of 2 Tukwila Department of Public Works Tukwila Department of Parks and Recreation Tukwila Department of Planning Tukwila Police Department Tukwila Fire Department Utilities Pacific Northwest Bell Puget Sound Power and Light Washington Natural Gas Group W Cable Television Libraries Tukwila Public Library Renton Public Library, Main Branch Kent Public Library Media Renton Record Chronicle Others Tukwila Chamber of Commerce, Pam Thorsen Union Pacific Corporation Union Pacific Railroad, A.L. Shoener TWC Realty Holding Co., Thomas Herta Upland Drive Business Park J.C. Penney Co., Thomas Rowe Trammell Crow Co., Don Jefferson Don Wickerstrom, Director, Public Works - Kent Dick Houghton, Director, Public Works - Renton South Transfer Station, Debra Lambert Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & Jones, Linda M. Youngs Levitz Furniture Corporation Ted Grice Company The Andover Company, George G. Rockwell -v- 7" Ili MS 1!]•0 rjSr.. '! • RENTON Project Site TUKWU.A • KENT • AUBURN • U / t ///IS s 1 its-} ••::.L a ISO'• ST 60" ST • ,;164'1�5 1 :166" ST1 ST•••;=i ••• •■• S• MINKLER :LVD. ..•• Sr • ' • 1111111 ti �� Trammell Crow Company May 13, 1986 Bradley J. Collins Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 AN.Mill MAY 14 1986 CITY OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. D RE: Draft EIS for Minkler Boulevard Extension Dear Mr. Collins: 5601 Sixth Avenue South P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washington 98108 206/762 -4750 Pursuant to our meeting with you and other city officials, we are writing to set forth our comments on the above - referenced DEIS. I enclose a copy of a letter dated June 28, 1985 submitted by my partner, Richard Romney. Please also refer to a meeting memo dated May 5, 1986, prepared by Vernon Umetsu of your staff, both of which summarize our concerns at this time. Our principal problem at this time is the absence of design detail based upon which we could make an analysis of the impact on our properties of the various proposals. For example, under the city's proposed configuration, a northerly relocation of the rail crossing is required, but the revision is not designed, and we are therefore unable to determine what impact this would have on the parking area serving the Plush Pippin Restaurant. To the extent this proposal would involve a loss of parking, we would be faced with a non - conforming building from a parking code point of view, which could result in a large condemnation claim against the city. In more general terms, we believe that all of the proposed alternatives suffer from detrimental impacts of dealing with preserving existing rail service to Levitz. In our opinion, a realistic cost benefit analysis should be done 2. before proceeding further because we strongly suspect that the best alternative (which you have not proposed) would be to condemn the existing rail service to Levitz. The resulting improvement to the quality of the Minkler project, and the resulting cost - savings to the city, would fully justify a delay while this alternative is fully explored. 3. Trammell Crow Company Bradley J. Collins May 13, 1986 Page two We incorporate by reference our comments at the May 5, 1986 meeting which are summarized in Mr. Umetsu's memorandum. Thank you for considering these views. Sincerely, TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY Joel Benoliel Partner JB:md A.3.1 A.3.2 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEETING MEMO PERSONS PRESENT: Brad Collins Vernon Umetsu piit Ross Earnst John Margeson Sylvia Otani Joel Benoliel LOCATION: Tukwila City Hall on 5/5/86 DATE: May 5, 1986 RE: Trammell Crow Company Comments on Minkler DEIS Information Items Trammell Crow has the following concerns regarding the Minkler DEIS: 1. Regarding the feasibility of relocating the railroad line which lies to the west of Southcenter Parkway. I A.3.3. A.3.4 A. Is it actually feasible to relocate said railroad line given the tight turning radius which may be inherent in the new track alignment and the degree to which the City will have to cut into a steeply sloping hillside, What is the effect of this new railroad alignment upon the parking available in-the -Wendy's parking lot, Will moving the railroad line to the north render useless the small triangular shaped parking area at the property line between the existing railroad line and the Wendy's southern property line. 2. How will moving of the railroad line and road development along that segment just north of Parkway Plaza North affect Plaza opera- tions. A. There is a concern that semi's parking in the proposed parking lane under the proposed alternative may block some future loading doors of adjacent tenant spaces if these -3 -; • .Trammell Crow Meeting • lay 5, 1986 Page 2 A.3.5 A.3.6 A.3.7 A.3.8 A.3.9 3 A.3.10 1 tenant loading doors are spaced at twenty foot intervals and semis are a minimum of forty feet in length. Trammell Crow acknowledges that such conflicts would be very rare. B. Is a ten foot parking lane as shown in the proposed alter- native actually feasible given the existing area between the Penney's and the Parkway Plaza North buildings and given the proposed roadway design for through travel. C. Development of this road and parking lane would preclude the backing up of semis directly onto loading doors. At present there are no operations or facilities which involve backup truck loading operations. D. Garbage dumpsters and collection areas on the north side of the Parkway Plaza building would now be exposed to extensive public viewing and would present an unsightly fascade as the facilities currently exist. Some screening would be desirable. Garbage dumpster collection currently occurs at night but would require head in operations for a dump vehicle approxi- mately 25 feet length. This garbage collection operation would probably block one of the through lanes for a short period of time in the evenings. F. The Red Robin currently uses a space located along the north edge of the proposed Minkler right -of -way as a garbage storage and collection spot. Much of this garbage involves putrefiables and its operation involves employees carrying garbage containers across the proposed Minkler right -of -way to this dump station. It is Tukwila's understanding that this area is owned by Penney's (see no. 3). . It is Trammell Crow's understanding that the Sammamish Land Company owns a thirty foot strip to the north of the Trammell Crow property line but that the Sammamish Land Company has granted this area as a utility and roadway easement to the City. While the City agrees that the Sammamish Land Company had retained a utility and roadway easement over this area which it has since deeded to the City of Tukwila. However, the City's information shows that J.C. Penney's owns this thirty foot strip. 1 4. There is a ten inch cast iron water sprinkler main located approximately 22 feet north of the Parkway Plaza building which is A.3.1 not shown in the DEIS. 5. The property to the west of Southcenter Parkway, currently iden- tified tified as being owned by Jack Benaroya and Company, is now owned by Trammell Crow. -4- • .Trammell Crow Meeting ''May 5, 1986 Page 3 6. There is a problem with storm drainage at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and the proposed Minkler right -of -way. 7. Mr. Umetsu indicated to Mr. Benoliel that he would be given until May 21st to write up his comments and get them in to us on this DEIS. Mr. Benoliel was subsequently contacted on this date (5/5/86) by Mr. Umetsu that state law precludes us from extending the comment period beyond Wednesday, May 14, 1986. • Response to comments in letter A: A.1 Roadway design details have been provided at a sufficient scale for environmental impact analysis in the D.E.I.S., with additional detail available in the Design Report (for) Minkler Boulevard which was referenced in the subject E.I.S. A copy of this design report was given to the Trammell Crow Company at a meeting with Tukwila City staff on May 5, 1986. City has not yet designed the relocated railroad line to the west of Strander Boulevard. However, preliminary analyses have indi- cated that it is possible to redesign the affected parking areas to result in a net loss of six parking spaces on the Grice prop- erty and zero parking spaces on Trammell Crow's Plush Pippin property (identified as Jack Benaroya Co. in the D.E.I.S.). This is shown in Table 13, page 76 of the D.E.I.S. Compensation will be provided to each property owner to the extent that there is a diminishment of value. A.2 Your comment has been noted and considered. At this time, the Public Works Department does not consider the condemnation of Levitz rail service to be a cost effective alternative. No addi- tional work on such an alternative is currently anticipated. A.3 See Items A.3.1 through A.3.12 below. A.3.1 As stated in response A.1, the actual engineering of the new rail- road line to the west of Southcenter Parkway has not yet been done. However, the relocated track has been generally shown in the Design Report (for) Minkler Boulevard (Exhibit 22, page 56) transmitted to the Trammell Crow Company on May 5, 1986. Both the Tukwila Public Works Department and Alpha Engineers, who assisted in roadway design, have concluded that moving the railroad line northward would result in a shallower, not tighter, turning radius; and that the necessary slope cut can be safely done with the emplacement of a retaining wall. Therefore, the relocated rail line is feasible as proposed. Additional detailed engineer- ing will be completed during the final design phase. A.3.2 Table 13 on page 76 of the D.E.I.S. summarizes parking impacts on the Wendy's Restaurant. A.3.3 See Item A.3.2. Shifting the railroad track to the north may take parking from a small triangular parking area directly north of the Plush Pippin Restaurant. However, any parking spaces lost in that area are expected to be replaced in the area formerly occupied by the railroad track which is much closer, and hence more valuable, to the restaurant. A.3.4 Comment acknowledged as a potential impact. A.3.5 A prototypical plan view of the proposed alternative is shown in Figure 2. This figure is included in the Minkler Boulevard design report which was provided to the Trammell Crow Company on May 5, 1986. The plan demonstrates that the proposed 10 -foot parking lane is feasible. -6 -. • • A.3.6 Comment acknowledged. The subject activity, if it were to occur now, would take place on a sixty -foot road and utility easement owned by the City of Tukwila. A.3.7 Comment acknowledged. A.3.8 Comment acknowledged. There are currently two six -yard dumpsters measuring approximately 6 feet long by 5.5 feet wide by 5 feet high. These dumpsters sit directly on the ground in an area calculated to be a portion of the J. C. Penney's property. The Planning Department has contacted Sea -Tac Disposal Company (June 6, 1986) and concluded that the two 6 -yard containers could be replaced by three four -yard containers on wheels. This would allow the wheeling out of dumpsters for pick up without a head -in maneuver. A.3.9 Comment acknowledged._ A.3.10 Comment acknowledged. The City of Tukwila continues to maintain its previous position in the absence of any new substantive data. A.3.11 Comment acknowledged. This information is hereby incorporated into the F.E.I.S. A.3.12 Comment Acknowledged. A.3.13 Comment acknowledged. Both Trammell Crow Company representatives and the Tukwila Public Works Department have agreed that this is an independent issue, separate from the Minkler Boulevard exten- sion. Trammell Crow Company 1. June 28, 1985 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Extension of Minkler Blvd. File Number EPIC - 269 -85 5601 Sixth Avenue South P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washington 98108 206/762 -4750 Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter on behalf of Pacific Northwest Group A, a joint venture, which is successor in interest for the Jack A. Benaroya Company. The extension of Minkler Boulevard will have a significant impact on us and upon the operations of our tenants in the Parkway Plaza Shopping Center. The extension would run along our northern property line. First, we would like to state that we are in favor of the Minkler Boulevard Project. However, all of the existing alternatives are 2. unacceptable to us at this time because none of them include access from Minkler Boulevard to the north side of our building where our tenants need truck access for loading and unloading. There are also indentations into the building where garbage dumpsters are kept which necessitates access for the garbage service. Futhermore, we have 3. employee exists that open to the north, which cannot be closed because they are fire exists. Of the four alternatives, we are most in favor of, 'Alternative Number 4 Three', but we would modify it to read that there would only be a sidewalk on the north side of the road, leaving room for parallel truck staging on the south side of the road adjacent to our buildings. We appreciate your consideration of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Richard L. Romney Partner RLR /bmb ) • • Response to comments in letter B: B.1 Comment acknowledged. The project's significant environmental impacts have been discussed in the D.E.I.S. and in the previous responses to Trammell Crow Company responses in Items A.3.4 through A.3.13. B.2 All proposed alternatives provide a separate parking /delivery lane off of the through lanes in order to serve Parkway Plaza North. Road development along this segment would be within a road and utility easement owned by the City. B.3 Comment acknowledged. Garbage dumpsters are currently four -yard containers on wheels. These dumpsters could continue to be locat- ed where they are and wheeled out for collection by a truck in a proposed parking /access lane. No head -in collection would be required. B.4 Comment acknowledged. Employee entrances and exits will not be required to be closed. B.5 See Item B.2. 1. 2. LAW OFFICES OF DAVIS, WRIGHT, TODD, RIESE & JONES A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 110 110TH AVENUE N.E. SUITE 700 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 451.8686 TELECOPIER: (206) 451.9397 April 28, 1986 Mr. Bradley J. Collins Planning Director Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 4200 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98154 (206) 622 -3150 TELEX: 328919 TELECOPIER: (206) 622 -4322 550 WEST 7TH AVENUE • SUITE 1450 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 276 -4488 TELECOPIER: (907) 279.1761 1752 N STREET N.W. SUITE BOO WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 (202) 822-9775 TELECOPIER: (202) 296-3196 PLEASE REPLY TO BELLEVUE OFFICE 1 APR 29 1985 CITY OF Tus vvj A PLANNING DEPT. Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Minkler Boulevard Extension Dear Mr. Collins: We represent TCW Holding Company of Los Angeles, California whose property will be affected by the extension of Minkler Boulevard. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and wish to make some comments. Throughout the analysis of the various alternatives, the TCW Holding Company property is divided into two parcels, one containing the building and one containing the lot. We wish to advise the City that all of the TCW Holding Company property is held under one deed including the buildings to the north. There has been no subdivision of the property. All of the calculations concerning loss of square footage, loss of parking spaces and loss of development potential are based upon the properties being subdivided. Since such is not the case, these calculations could well be in error. Additionally, on Table 14 an analysis is made on the "Impacts on Development Potential Resulting From Loss of Parking." This analysis does not set forth the basis for determining the maximum size of structures. The analysis does not show whether the loss of development potential is based upon assumptions of the highest and best use of the property, the highest use based upon current zoning, or existing use. Insofar as this analysis is of assistance in determining the -10 -. • • Mr. Bradley J. Collins City of Tukwila April 28, 1986 Page 2 cost of acquisition of land, these assumptions must be clarified. The City of Tukwila will be obligated to pay based upon the highest and best use, not necessarily upon existing use. We recommend that the assumptions be spelled out so that the decision makers can have a realistic basis for evaluating the financial impact of the various alternatives. TCW Holding Company urges the City of Tukwila to select the alternatives which have the least impact on the TCW Holding Company property. TCW has active plans to develop the area currently in a parking lot for a future office building. The taking of 30,000 to 45,000 square feet of land will have a very serious impact upon the development potential of that property. We ask that these comments be incorporated into your Final Environmental Impact Statement. Very truly yours, DAVIS, WRIGHT, TODD, RIESE & JONES Aa Linda M. Y f ngs LMY /kg cc: Mr. Howard M. Milner Mr. Thomas A. Herta Response to comments fletter C: C.1. The City has acknowledged TCW's ownership of its parcel at the northwest corner of the intersection formed by the proposed inter- section of Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park West at various points in the D.E.I.S. and Minkler Design Report. The City hereby reacknowledges that TCW's affected property, commonly referred to as T.L. 75, in the S.E. 1/4 of Sec. 26, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, is one unsubdivided parcel of approximately 17.50 acres. The TCW parcel was artificially segregated in the D.E.I.S. for the purpose of land use analysis, based on the existing land use pat- tern. This segregation does not affect the environmental impact calculations. C.2. Table 14 shows potential impacts on land use for the purpose of environmental impact analysis. It is not meant to be the basis for establishing the value of land. Footnote No. 3 in Table 14 summarizes that the current development potential for the affected area of 118,000 square feet (sf) is based on the 296 existing, at grade parking spaces available to support this square footage of office space at 2.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet as required by the Tukwila Zoning Code. The Planning Department assumed that the number of at grade park- ing spaces would be the limiting factor on how much office space could be developed, based on the observation that nowhere in the CBD, even in high volume retail developments, have developers considered the market strong enough to support structured parking. Thus, development potential decreased with the loss of parking spaces based on the assumption of office /commercial uses which require 2.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. The conclusions of this analysis may change with changes in assumptions. However, the existing conditions seem to best support the analysis and methodology summarized in Table 14. Actual valuation of any prop- erty acquired by purchase or eminent domain will require much more detailed analysis which would be completed as part of the acquisi- tion proceedings. C.3. The City would compensate TCW based upon Washington State Stat- utes, for any required right -of -way as stated in the D.E.I.S. -1 • • 1 ..mETRo Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle,Washington 98104 April 23, 1986 Brad Collins, Planning Director Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minkler Boulevard Extension Dear Mr. Collins: D [APR 251986 CITY OF TUiKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant adverse impacts to its wastewater facilities. Water Quality This DEIS does not address how stormwater from the project site is collected and drained. Since the east end of the boulevard is adjacent to Green River, it is likely that the stormwater from the street will discharge into the Green River or a tributary to it. Metro recommends that the proponents identify and implement ways to prevent significant sediments carried by stormwater from entering any surface water especially during the construction phase. Measures to protect water quality include but are not limited to: o construction timing and staging; o temporary erosion and sedimentation control during construction; o rerouting of stormwater into collection and treatment system; and o methods to prevent oil and grease and other petroleum products from entering the stormwater. Public Transportation The proposal contains a potential for transit service on Minkler Boulevard at some time in the future. -13- 2. (cont) Brad Collins April 23, 1986 Page Two I Accordingly, Metro suggests the proponent consider I transit vehicle pull -outs as a part of the project. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:dww • • Response to comments in letter D: D.1 The proposed action extends eastward only to Andover Parkway West, approximately one -half mile from the Green River over very flat land. No construction drawings or documents have as yet been produced. However, the City generally provides temporary deten- tion /siltation basins with hay and fabric filters to mitigate storm water impacts in situations such as this. The City antici- pates taking these or other such measures as are equivalent and appropriate to good engineering practices in this specific case. Stormwater from the proposed extension will be collected by catch basins located along the edge of the roadway which will channel runoff into the City's stormwater collection system. D.2 Bus pull -outs were considered as part of the proposed roadway design. However, it was determined that it was not possible to meet both the minimum roadway design standard and provide for bus pull -outs as specified in METRO's Transportation Design Guidelines (April 1985). The Public Works Department thus determined that any bus operations which were allowed on that street should not require buses to remerge with through traffic. The advisability of bus operations on this segment should be determined as part of an overall CBD circulations plan. 1. PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY i • • Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter. Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: E 200 West Mercer Street, Room 205, P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 344 -7330 April 25, 1986 Minkler. Boulevard Extension This letter is in response to the draft EIS you circulated covering the proposed Minkler. Boulevard extension. On page 13 and.55, the author states that "City ordinances and regulations would be followed to minimize dust generated by construction." Do these regulations prohibit depositing of dirt or other materials on public roadways, tracking out of mud, and entrainment of dust? These are the measures which should be enforced so as to mitigate the air quality construction impacts of the proposal and thereby comply with PSAPCA Article 9, Regulation I. Thank you for submitting the draft for our comments. Sincerely, By: SERVING: KING COUNTY 200 West Mercer St. P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, 98109 (206) 344 -7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island Residents Dial 344 -7330 PIERCE COUNTY 901 Tacoma Avenue South 213 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 (206) 383 -5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 1-800-552-3565 BOARD OF DIRECTORS sj CHAIRMAN: Doug Sutherland, Mayor Tacoma Bruce Agnew, Councilman Snohomish County Tim Hill, King County Executive Charles Royer, Mayor Seattle Joe Stortini, Pierce County Executive Arthur R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control. Officer s R. Pearson cting Air Pollution Control Officer -16-. MOH APR 28 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. VICE CHAIRMAN: Ray Aardal, Commissioner Kitsap County Gene Lobe, Mayor Bremerton William E. Moore, Mayor Everett Linda Tanz, Member at Large A.R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer • • Response to comments in letter E: E.1 Tukwila's Hauling Permit prohibits the tracking of dirt onto pub- lic roadways and /or require the cleaning of affected City streets. There are no formal requirements to minimize the entrainment of dust. However, dust is not generally a construction impact due to the high moisture content of valley floor soils. Specific dust mitigation measures would be taken as are appropriate to address the complaints, if any, which are received based upon the City's nuisance statutes. -1 giiWashington State Department of Transportation District 1 Office of District Administrator 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 206.764.4141 Duane Berentson, Secretary May 5, 1986 Brad Collins, Planning Director Department of Plannning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 F CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. SR 5 MP 153.00 Vicinity C.S. 1767 MINKLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION TUKWILA DEIS K -609 Dear Mr. Collins: This department has completed it's review of your Draft Environment Impact Statement for the Minkler Boulevard Extension Proposal. WE feel the FEIS needs to assess the impacts of the Minkler Boulevard extension on adjacent intersections such as Southcenter Boulevard and Klickitat Dirve. The analysis should include: (1) A reassignment of existing and projected peak hour traffic volumes, including turning movements. (2) An evaluation of the impacts on level of service and on safety, ' especially at intersections. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions please call Vern Swing (764 -4171) of my staff. VES:kjo Seal of the Great State of Washington -18 Sincerely, D ar.):4 /11/‘.4.^-4L-- DAVID J. MARTIN, P.E. Development Planning Engineer Response to comments in letter F: F.1 An analysis of the intersection formed by the proposed action was analyzed in the Design Report (for) Minkler Boulevard (1984). Based on the criteria in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, a traffic signal is warranted at Minkler's intersection with both Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. The esti- mated traffic flow pattern for each intersection in 1990 is shown in Figures 6 and 7 while the effect of the proposed action on level of service at affected intersections is shown in Table 3. The proposed project is not expected to negatively affect the functioning of the Southcenter Parkway /Klickitat intersection. The proposed Minkler extension is an east -west collector arterial which will only enhance circulation between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street. } I r.: FhGURE • GRAPHIC SUMMARY OF VEHICLE MOVEMENTS Inters•ctlon:Af1D6VC? PA Kk W EST . M iN K LER Bw D. Observer r ST1 MATED City Date Day. Time: AM (PM) l/ 4 6q 214. 15e7 53Z _A_ 777 52 6o6 262 18 • y. 52 286 2q 3 G7 32 .112. 158 68 z • 305 -{ 258 I'I I N t LER BLVD. Street Name Minkler . Boulevard Design Report P.M. Peak 1990 ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. -20- GRAPHIC SUMMARY OF VEHICLE MOVEMENTS L._ intersectionf: Sou thcenter Parkway and Minkler Boulevard E.ST) 111 A T Observer City Time: AM (PM) \ 1, 406 A Date Day 7"4.• 2 22.7 (59 1,747 11 242 K LER RI-VD Street Name Minkler Boulevard Design Report 1 P.M. Peak - 1990 1 ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. -21-, • Intersection Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard Andover Park West and South 180th Street Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard *Unsignalized. TABLE ,L :, VOLUME /CAPACITY (L.O.S.) PM PEAK 1984 1990 1984 With Minkler. With Minkler Existing Boulevard Extension Boulevard Extension .84 (D) 0.75 (C) .89 (D) .76 (C) .61 (A) .71 (B) .91 (E) .91 (E) 1.08 (F) .60 (A) .60 (A) .71 (B) A* .44 (A) .52 (A) The City of Tukwila received comment letters from the King County Depart- ment of Public Works (4/28/86) and State Department of Ecology (4/29/86), both stating that the proposed project or alternatives would not adversely impact any elements of the environment under their jurisdiction. A. letter received from Puget Power (5/22/86) provided additional information and required no response. Oil ET OOMEN May 22, 1986 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: WHIM MAY 23 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA. PLANNING DEPT. We have reviewed the Minkler Boulevard Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement and offer the following comments. Puget Power has an existing easement which covers a portion of the proposed road extension. This is easement AF #7801130816 which was granted on December 29, 1977. We would also like to inform you that underground electrical power lines encased in 40' of 4" steel conduit are located along the east side of Andover Park. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. Very truly yours, BML /bl Barry C bard Associate Environmental Scientist -24 -` DC- 3956.29 . Puget Sound Power & Light Company Puget Power Building Bellevue, Washington 98009 (206) 454 -6363 King County Executive Tim Hill Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director April 28, 1986 Mr. Bradley Collins, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 bUnONIEM MAY 1 1986 CITY OF TV' PLANNING p PT. RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Minkler Boulevard Extension Dear Mr. Collins: This Department has reviewed the above - mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The proposed Minkler Boulevard Extension will be located entirely within the City of Tukwila and will not adversely impact any existing King County maintained roadways. Sincerely, 1 Louis J. Haff, P.E. County Road Engineer LJH:GS:cp -25- Roads and Engineering Division 956 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -7490 ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER Director • • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000 , April 29, 1986 Mr. Brad Collins City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: PliT986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environ- mental impact statement (EIS) for the Minkler Boulevard Extension. From the information supplied in the draft EIS, it appears that no permits /approvals are required from the Department of Ecology for this proposal and, therefore, we have no jurisdiction. If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 459 -6025. BJR: �.r Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section -26- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE MINKLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION City of Tukwila Department of Public Works King County, Washington Prepared for the Review and Comments of Citizens, Citizen Groups and Government Agencies in compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Revised Code of Washington 43.21c and SEPA Rules, Effective April 4, 1984 Chapter 197 -11, Washington Administrative Code and City of Tukwila Ordinance #1331 Date of Issue: March 24, 1986 Date Comments Due: April 29, 1986 Bradley J. sl� ns, Responsible Of icial Project Title Proposed Action Project Location Action Sponsor Tentative Implementation Date Lead Agency Contact Person Responsible Official Licenses and Permits Required FACT SHEET Minkler Boulevard Extension The proposal is for the establishment of an extension to the existing Minkler Boulevard in a westerly direction between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway, in the Central Business District of the City of Tukwila. A proposed action, three roadway section alignment alternatives and two intersection alignment options are reviewed. In addition to these action alternatives, a no action alternative is also reviewed. The proposed Minkler right -of -way is located in the south half of Section 26, T23N, R4E. It is bounded by Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West, and would run along a westerly extension of the existing Minkler alignment. City of Tukwila, Department of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Summer 1986 City of Tukwila Brad Collins, Planning Director Department of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Brad Collins, Planning Director Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission . Railroad Relocation Washington Department of Transportation . State Electrical Permit Tukwila Department of Public Works . Water Meter Permit . Street Use Permits . Sanitary Side Sewer Permit . Hauling Permit . Sign Permit Tukwila Building Department . Grading Permit i Principal Contributors Date of Issue of Draft EIS Date Comments Due Location of Public Meeting Mail Comments to Location of Design Plans and Background Material Cost of Document Shapiro and Associates, Inc. - Author 1821 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 624 -9190 Alpha Engineers, Inc. - Design Report 320 Andover Park East, Suite 265 Seattle, WA 98188 (206) 575 -8299 March 24, 1986 April 29, 1986 City Hall, Council Chambers Brad Collins, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 City of Tukwila Department of Planning 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Alpha Engineers, Inc. 320 Andover Park East Seattle, WA 98188 (206) 575 -8299 Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1812 Smith Tower Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 624 -9190 $10.00 plus sales tax ii MINKLER BOULEVARD DEIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Letter Fact Sheet Recipients of the Draft EIS I. Summary A. Introduction 1. Purpose and Need 2. Site Conditions B. Alternatives 1. All Alternatives 2. Proposed Action 3. Roadway Alignment Alternatives a. Alternative 1 b. Alternative 2 c. Alternative 3 d. No Action Alternative 4. Intersection Options a. Option A b. Option B C. Significant Impacts, Mitigating Measures and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts II. Description of All Alternatives A. Introduction B. All Roadway Alignment Alternatives 1. Proposed Roadway Alignment 2. Proposed Intersection Option 3. Alternative 1 4. Alternative 2 5. Alternative 3 6. No Action Alternative C. Intersection Options 1. Option A 2. Option B Page i vii 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 5 9 9 9 9 10 19 19 22 24 24 31 32 32 32 32 51 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) III. Affected Environment, Significant Impacts and Mitigating Measures A. Natural Environment 1. Air 2. Odor Page 53 53 53 55 B. Built Environment 57 1. Environmental Health a. Noise 2. Land Use 3. Transportation a. Traffic Circulation b. Accident History c. Railroad d. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities e. Other Roadway Projects 57 57 60 79 79 81 81 83 83 IV. References 89 List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Right -of -Way Acquisition, Setback and Lost Parking Spaces for Each Alignment Alternative/ Intersection Option Table 2 Impact Summary of the Minkler Boulevard Extension: Roadway Alignment Alternatives ' Table 3 Roadway Features of Action Alternatives for the Proposed Minkler Boulevard Extension Table 4 Ambient Air Quality Standards Table 5 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Noise Impact Guidelines Table 6 Setback and Landscape Area Requirements for Zoning Districts C -2 and C -M, Tukwila, Washington Table 7 Total Right -of -Way Estimates for All Action Alternatives Table 8 Estimated Right -of -Way Acquisition for the Proposed Alignment Alternative by Intersection Option Table 9 Estimated Right -of -Way Acquisition for the Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 by Intersection Option iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Table 10 Estimated Right -of -Way Acquisition for the Roadway Alignment Alternative 2 by Intersection Option Table 11 Estimated Right -of -Way Acquisition for the Roadway Alignment Alternative 3 by Intersection Option Table 12 Building Setbacks for Each Property for Each Alignment Alternative /Intersection Option Table 13 Parking Spaces Lost as a Result of Minkler Boulevard Being Developed Table 14 Impacts on Development Potential Resulting from Loss of Parking Table 15 Levels of Service Descriptions Table 16 1983 Accident History List of Figures Figure 1 Location /Vicinity Map Figure 2 Proposed Action - Plan Figure 3 Alternative 1 - Plan Figure 4 Alternative 2 - Plan Figure 5 Alternative 3 - Plan Figure 6 Existing Conditions Figure 7 Site Map Figure 8 Proposed Alignment Alternative /Proposed Intersection Option Figure 9 Proposed Alignment Alternative /Intersection Option A Figure 10 Proposed Alignment Alternative /Intersection Option B Figure 11 Alignment Alternative 1 /Proposed Intersection Option Figure 12 Alignment Alternative 1 /Intersection Option A Figure 13 Alignment Alternative 1 /Intersection Option B Figure 14 Alignment Alternative 2 /Proposed Intersection Option Figure 15 Alignment Alternative 2 /Intersection Option A Figure 16 Alignment Alternative 2 /Intersection Option B Figure 17 Alignment Alternative 3 /Proposed Intersection Option Figure 18 Alignment Alternative 3 /Intersection Option A Figure 19 Alignment Alternative 3 /Intersection Option B Figure 20 Zoning Map v Page 70 70 72 76 78 80 82 2 4 6 7 8 20 21 25 27 29 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 62 RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS Federal U.S. Department of HUD, Valuation Department U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Highway Administration State Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Transportation, Planning and Research Coordinator Regional Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency King County Public Works Local Government /Public Services City of Renton City of Kent Val -Vue Sewer District Seattle Water District #125 Seattle Water District #75 Seattle Water District #175 Seattle Water Department City of Tukwila Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen City Council Joe H. Duffie Edgar D. Bauch Mabel J. Harris Wendy Morgan Doris Phelps Charles E. Simpson Marilyn Stolines Planning Commission Gerald Knudson Randy Coplen Richard Kirsop Dave Larson James McKenna Joseph Orrico Leo Sowinski vii Tukwila Department of Public Works Tukwila Department of Parks and Recreation Tukwila. Department of Planning Tukwila Police Department Tukwila Fire Department Utilities Pacific Northwest Bell Puget Sound Power and Light Washington Natural Gas Group W Cable Television Libraries Tukwila Public Library Renton Public Library, Main Branch Kent Public Library Media Renton Record Chronicle Others Tukwila Chamber of Commerce, Terry Anderson Union Pacific Corporation Union Pacific Railroad, A.L. Shoener TWC Realty Holding Co., Thomas Herta Upland Drive Business Park J.C. Penney Co., Thomas Rowe Emerson GM Diesel, Inc. Trammell Crow Co., Don Jefferson Don Wickerstrom, Director, Public Works - Kent Dick Houghton, Director, Public Works - Renton South Transfer Station, Debra Lambert Section I SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Purpose and Need Most of the area bounded by Interstate 5, Interstate 405, the Green River and South 180th Street is made up of commercial and residential developments, many of which are served by warehouses located in the Tukwila CBD. The area bounded by Andover Park West, Strander Boulevard, Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street is often referred to as the "Super Block." At present, there is no east -west cross street connecting Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street, a distance of over one mile. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department is proposing to extend Minkler Boulevard in a westerly direction between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway in order to provide a much needed east -west connection and relieve congestion on both Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street. This link would also provide a direct route to most of the commercial developments along Southcenter Parkway and the general area. The existing circulation problems in the area are caused by intersection deficiencies and the large super blocks which hinder east -west travel. This area is shown in Figure 1. Site Conditions Minkler Boulevard is currently a four -lane, east -west roadway located east of Andover Park West with a T- intersection at Andover Park West. Along the projected new centerline of Minkler Boulevard extension, there are railroad tracks with spur lines for service to various warehouses in the area. These railroad spurs present major constraints to the design of the proposed road. The J.C. Penney Distribution Center on the north side of the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension, and the Parkway Plaza North on the south side also'present major physical constraints. ALTERNATIVES This Environmental Impact Statement describes, analyzes and evaluates the five alternatives for the roadway section; this includes three action alternatives, the preferred action alternative and the no action alternative. In addition, three intersection alignment options are described, one of which is the preferred intersection. There are some similarities common to all four roadway section alternatives which are described under "All Alternatives." The No Action Alternative is treated separately. All Alternatives Due to the proximity of the existing buildings and railroad tracks, there can be no substantial variation in the road alignment alternatives for 1 SNOHOMISH COUNTY — K INGCOUNTV • 1 . '.f.)31C $ DIV> $T ITT> > I 7221.4. . , 1 0 VT> 9 Lir .. / . L AKSTOM ft.! RO e .ty • 'Yf"r' ,,,ND , 3 ,,,, 4 y .33.0 S TUKWILA • KENT z. Cours • AUBURN : SIS;n1 ST .._t 1 •.-L•C•E S H9". 'SONS! S. IS 31 ISNO ST I51S, ST If' (s$ .064 t 1 S 4:41.• f :166'. i68," ; 170. -• •NC • .1 S I;AD ST 1-- s 111$0) tr PROJECT SITE $CCE 100.111.‘• FIGURE 1 LOCATION/VICINITY MAP the project. The proposed Minkler Boulevard extension would have a straight line alignment starting at Southcenter Parkway and proceeding east. Since the alignment would be fixed by existing buildings, 'only the number of lanes, lane width, number and location of sidewalks, and planting strips may be varied between alternatives. The existing Minkler Boulevard east of Andover Park West is built off - center to accommodate the P -17 channel, a drainage ditch, which parallels it on the south. For this reason, the centerline of the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension would be offset south of the existing Minkler Boulevard centerline in the vicinity of the Andover Park West intersection. All the proposed roadway section alternatives on the Minkler Boulevard extension would take sufficient building setback area and landscaping to make some buildings legally non - conforming. No action on the part of property owners is required to establish the legality of this degree of non - conformity. A new signal at the intersection of Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard would be installed. Synchronization of existing signals along Andover Park West would be required to allow smooth traffic flow. Street and pathway lighting would be installed. Landscaping of planting strips within the road right -of -way would occur as the final construction task. The proposed roadway alignment and intersection design option, as well as their alternatives, are discussed below. Proposed Action The proposed roadway alignment is shown in combination with all three intersection options in Figures 8 through 10. Roadway Alignment This roadway alignment provides for a complete standard urban four -lane arterial street section with sidewalks and planting strips on both sides (see Figures 2 -8). This alternative would eliminate any conflict between delivery vehicles serving Parkway Plaza North and the railroad serving the Levitz Furniture Company. The railroad tracks behind Parkway Plaza North would be removed from approximately Southcenter Parkway to 1,200 feet east along the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension. The existing railroad spur serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be extended westward from its present terminus to cross Southcenter Parkway where it meets the existing railroad spur serving the Levitz Furniture Company. The elimination 'dfwrailroad tracks on one side would allow for four standard 12 -foot lanes, a 10 -foot wide loading and unloading bay for the Parkway Plaza North businesses, sidewalks on both sides, and planting strips on both sides except where conflicts occur with the loading bay. Planting would provide optimum and continuous screening, separation, and visual enhancement. Intersection Design (Proposed Option) Under the proposed action, the intersections at the existing Minkler Boulevard and the Minkler Boulevard extension would be realigned slightly 3 ID - amaommmmomn mass a aw ob.:• m. r- ,om� -s~-�- . �.— ._.._.Y...�� \— \:�� \\ \S� \\ \� \ \ \ \\=l \ < ...*∎ • �� W� . s �..•dmm. ra ae . •mow • \ .�.... °� .. ... a�e....a.� =�= mss._— . =s.�. —.��.. ash+ .......... —�\ � \ \ \•. MINKLER BLVD. • -' -=' .4 INKIER � f LEGEND SIDEWALK PAVEMENT DELIVERY AREA MGM PLANTING STRIP FIGURE 2 PROPOSED ACTION -. PLAN and the intersection would not be at exactly right angles. Despite this slight alteration in the angle of the intersection, it would remain within the design criteria for a right angled intersection as per Washington Department of Transportation guidelines. Since the transition between the centerlines of the existing and proposed Minkler Boulevard would be accomplished over a longer distance in this option, it would not be very noticeable to motorists. Roadway Alignment Alternatives Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 This roadway section would include four 12 -foot lanes with two sidewalks and planting strips on both sides (see Figure 3). Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 is shown in combination with all three intersection options in Figures 11 through 13. Under this alternative, the railroad spur along the south side of the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be relocated to the east side of the building. The elimination of railroad tracks would allow for a roadway section that includes four 12 -foot lanes with a sidewalk and planting strip on both sides. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both the railroad and the trucking industry. Roadway traffic and delivery traffic would be separated by a sidewalk and a planting strip. Planting would separate the sidewalk from the delivery and railroad traffic. The planting strips on both sides would allow for optimum screening, separation, and visual enhancement. This alternative would require interior configuration changes as well as some structural changes on the east side of the J.C. Penney Distribution Center building to provide for the railroad access. Relocation of the J.C. Penney railroad spur would result in the presently undeveloped property east of the warehouse not being developed. Roadway Alignment Alternative 2 Under this alternative, railroad spurs serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and the Levitz Furniture Company would not be disturbed. With the available usable space between the tracks, the roadway section would be comprised of four 11 -foot lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planting strip (see Figure 4). A 44 -foot roadway width does not conform to federal bid standards of 48 feet, and would require a design deviation request to the State Aid Division of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Roadway Alignment Alternative 2 is shown in combination with all three intersection options in Figures 14 through 16. Roadway traffic and delivery traffic would be.separ.ated -by a sidewalk and planting strip. Another planting strip would separate the sidewalk from delivery and railroad traffic. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North business would be shared by the railroad and delivery vehicles. This alternative would have a sidewalk on the south side only. A planting strip would be on both sides, except along the J.C. Penney Distribution Center building and railroad tracks on the north side. Roadway Alignment Alternative 3 Under this alternative, the roadway section would consist of three 12 -foot lanes, a sidewalk on both sides, and a planting strip on both sides REMOVE EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS en RELOCATED R.R. SPUR for J.C. PENNEY CO. - - - - . ...... ai - • _.1....,:■.. S:::••:,.... \-*.•■• .., r . • W••■••■ M1111.•■■•,•• .• .1, .• ■■• ..,..,.•■•7•,,,NNW•■•,,,,N,\,,%\•••\■\NSN.,,W.NNWZNS.N.V:•.Z.N.N•••■•11.: \•••;22.1111 • •■%27trd ijig-53 51111116111.11...11.11.111. V-312 4 4 k. I • Y ----------------:'-':::::6,&-1,;--,,,,iii;air;;;E.:Av;;;;;;;;;;;.4.:.•;..:..j.:;;,,.-,:••;;;•;;;•-.ii,;;;:;;iia.-,;=••••:::;.:,-;;;;=Q;;;;;;;:;:::;:,------:-r:•-c-•;1-.4,1,iiedrik• ?t,ti,r-•• • ■01111 1 ma • it .•••".7•••••• 2 „ -•• • • • FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE 1 - PLAN PAVEMENT Zs NI DELIVERY AREA MOM PLANTING STRIP • Com. .9Mq. Com Lulc ro • '►1 tsar ,r..r( t rt - �s . w' �"6 ;p . '�•Zt , • - T.f t`. _ Jl . - r,}• ykR ^rr r,, - - z _ a : _ ., .- ...o- - Y :. Pa, Pa, AILROULD 1 .. � `�� .��wa �� ,� r� rte• ....• I ∎ ■ f■, ........v.•, • MINKLER BLVD. mph cd 111.4111111•1-MILINC-7.4-7111,,,,,411116...--11111141 .11011. • e « LEGEND arsowe SIDEWALK .. PAVEMENT \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` DELIVERY AREA PLANTING STRIP FIGURE 4 ALTERNATIVE 2 - PLAN • fnzr Hfr ail . Co.. LUnl.nr) • pay/Nolo ( a) MINKLER BLVD. .. Tr ,. "p FIGURE b ALTERNATIVE 3 - PLAN LEGEND Irk SIDEWALK •.r: PAVEMENT \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ DELIVERY AREA PLANTING STRIP (see Figure 5). This is the only alternative with a three -lane configuration (i.e., one eastbound lane, one westbound lane, and a dual left turn lane in the middle). Roadway Alignment Alternative 3 is shown in combination with all three intersection options in Figures 17 through 19. Both the railroad spurs would remain at their existing locations. Delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North would be shared with the railroad spur serving the Levitz Furniture Company as in Alternatives 1 and 2. Separation between delivery traffic and street traffic is provided by a sidewalk and planting strip. Planting would separate the sidewalk from delivery and railroad traffic. Planting strips on both sides would allow for continuous screening, separation, and visual enhancement. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative consists of leaving the site unimproved, thereby maintaining the existing situation. No roadway would be built and the site would continue to provide limited local access only. Intersection Design Options The intersection of the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension with the existing T- intersection at Andover Park West is another area where options are being evaluated. Given the alignment of the existing Minkler Boulevard and the alignment necessary for the Minkler Boulevard extension, it would be necessary to realign or introduce a "jog" in the road in order to get the intersection of the two roads to line up at Andover Park West. This jog could occur either east or west of the intersection or could straddle the intersection. In addition, there is a potential for future realignment of the existing Minkler Boulevard southward, which would require putting the P -17 channel, currently an open ditch, into a closed system and paving over it. There are three different options for the Andover Park West /Minkler Boulevard intersection; the Preferred Option has been described along with the preferred action above. Intersection Option A is shown in combination with the four roadway alignments in Figures 9, 12, 15 and 18. Intersection Options A and B are described below. Intersection Option A Under this intersection option, Minkler Boulevard would be realigned to meet Minkler Boulevard Extension. This would be accomplished by putting approximately 200 feet of the P -17 channel into a closed system and placing the road over the present ditch location. The jog in the roadway would be east of Andover Park West. Of the three intersection options, this option would require the least additional right -of -way over and above the existing 60 -foot utility easement. Intersection Option B is shown in combination with the four roadway alignments in Figures 10, 13, 16 and 19. Intersection Option B With this option, the intersection between Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard would remain in its present location. The proposed 9 Minkler Boulevard extension would start from this intersection and would proceed westerly; the jog to meet the new roadway alignment would be located west of Andover Park West. This would involve moving a portion of Minkler Boulevard extension to the north. The Preferred Intersection Option is shown with the four roadway alignments in Figures 8, 11, 14 and 17. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING MEASURES AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Air . Site preparation and construction activities would result in a temporary reduction of the air quality in the immediate vicinity. . There would be no air quality impacts associated with this project, since no new traffic would be generated. All traffic would be a redistribution of existing traffic volumes along Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street. Noise . Short -term noise impacts from the operation of equipment would occur during daytime hours during the six -month construction period. . Long -term increases in noise levels from 8,200 vehicles per day would occur in the immediate vicinity of the new roadway. . Noise levels in the Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street areas would decrease due to reduced congestion on these streets. Land Use . The proposed project would be a compatible use consistent with the Tukwila Zoning Code and would meet all the goals and objectives outlined in the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. . There would be a total of five property acquisitions involved for all the roadway section alternatives, including the Proposed Action. Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 would require the most right -of -way, followed by the Proposed Action. Alternatives 2 and 3 would require approximately the same amount of right -of -way, but less than the Proposed Action (see Table 1). . The Proposed Option for the intersection would take slightly more right -of -way than Option A and less right -of -way than Option B. The acquisition would be at the northwest corner of the Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard intersection. . For all the alternatives, the majority of the existing buildings along the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension would not meet code requirements for building setback and /or landscaping; however, these would become legally non - conforming structures under the City code. 10 . Light and glare impacts for the additional traffic would be minimal since nighttime traffic is not anticipated to be significant. . Planting strips would separate sidewalks from the roadway and /or railroad tracks; this landscaping would allow for optimum visual screening, separation and visual enhancement. . The greatest impacts would occur to the railroad spurs serving the Levitz Furniture Company and the J.C. Penney Distribution Center; relocation of these spurs could cause a potential conflict in the delivery schedule between the two companies. . Loss and /or relocation of parking would occur under all alternatives; however, in each case, sufficient parking space would remain to satisfy zoning code requirements (see Table 1). . If the No Action Alternative were selected, the project would be in conflict with the City of Tukwila Transportation Improvement Program, 1985 -1990, which lists Minkler Boulevard extension as priority #7. . Under the Proposed Action and Roadway Alignment Alternative 1, the railroad track serving J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be relocated; under Roadway Alignment Alternative 1, this would necessitate structural changes to the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and a 50 -foot railroad track area would be required. Under the Proposed Action, J.C. Penney and Levitz Furniture Company would have to share one railroad track, causing potential conflicts in delivery schedules. . Table 1 shows approximate area required from each affected property and building setbacks under all alternatives. Transportation . For all alternatives, the Minkler Boulevard extension would carry 10,000 vehicles per day by 1990. No new traffic would be generated. . For all alternatives, the presence of a sidewalk(s) would improve pedestrian safety. . For the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1 and 2, some parking would be eliminated at the west and east ends of the project from the TCW Holding Company of Los Angeles building, the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and Wendy's Restaurant (see Table 1). . For Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, the delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both railroad and the trucking industry. A driveway access to serve the Jafco Warehouse would be provided. . For all alternatives and the Proposed Action, some parking would be eliminated from the paved area currently providing delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Warehouse. 11 Table 1 SUMMARY OF RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION, SETBACK, LOST PARKING SPACES FOR EACH ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE /INTERSECTION OPTION Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Parking Bldg. Parking Bldg. Parking Bldg. Parking Bldg. Area Spaces Setback Area Spaces Setback Area Spaces Setback Area Spaces Setback Property (sq. ft.) Lost (feet) (sq. ft.) Lost (feet) (sq. ft.) Lost (feet) (sq. ft.) Lost (feet) J.C. Penney Truck Center 27,000 281'2 N/A 25,500 281'2 N/A 21,000 281'2 N/A 20,000 281'2 N/A J.C. Penney Distribution 40,500 none2 18.5 52,500 none2 6.0 37,000 none2 18.5 37,000 none2 18.5 TWC Holding Company Bldg. Proposed Option 20,000 55 35 20,000 55 40 11,000 55 45 16,000 55 47 Option A 22,500 55 22 20,000 55 40 11,000 55 45 16,000 55 47 Option B 20,000 55 35 23,000 55 28 18,000 55 35 18,000 55 36 TCW Holding Company Parking Lot Proposed Option 18,000 16(26) N/A 18,000 16(26)* N/A 14,500 16(26)* N/A 15,000 16(26)* N/A Option A 16,000 16(26) N/A 16,000 16(26) N/A 13,500 16(26) N/A 13,500 16(26) N/A Option B 23,000 34(48) N/A 23,000 34(48) N/A 19,000 34(26) N/A 20,000 34(48) N/A w Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. Proposed Option 5,000 none N/A 5,000 none 75 5,000 none 65 5,000 none 65 Option A 5,650 none N/A 5,650 none 65 5,650 none 65 5,650 none 65 Option B 1,100 none N/A 1,000 none N/A 1,000 none N/A 1,000 none N/A Upland Drive Business 15,000 none 301 9,0001 none 30 9,000. none 30 9,000 none 30. Park Condominiums Trammel Crow Co. 24,000 none 0 9„500 none 19 9,500 none 19 9,500 none 19 (formerly Parkway Plaza North) Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's Restaurant) Jack Benaroya Co. 1,200 6 N/A * * N/A No Impact No Impact Notes: 1The shortened parking stalls can still be used for automobile parking ,The parking currently occurs on the City Utility eastment to the sotuh of the J.C. Penney parcel for the length of ,approximately 700 feet. This informal parking strip would be used as part of the improved roadway. Relocating the current spur track serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center will require the construction of a short spur track in the northwest corner of the Upland Drive Business Park Conodminiums, potentially reducing the developability of *60,000 square feet of the triangle parcel of undeveloped land. (See Figure .) No area is required but, due to railroad relocation, parking lot will need to be redesigned and paved. 16(26)- -First number is net parking spaces lost after redesign; number in parentheses is parking spaces lost. • • - - • - . For all alternatives and the Proposed Action, one new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both these intersections. . Construction impacts would result in some conflicts between the railroad crossing and delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Warehouse. . There would be a very short disruption in service to the Levitz Furniture Company during railroad relocation. • Traffic on Southcenter Parkway would be disrupted due to railroad relocation. . Under the No Action Alternative, existing interior circulation problems would increase due to a:lack of east -west roadways. . Table 1 shows loss of parking spaces due to overall alternatives. MITIGATING MEASURES Air . City ordinances and regulations would be followed to minimize dust generated by construction. Noise . Limit construction to normal working hours and turn off idling equipment. . Use electric rather than diesel or gas - powered machines. . Use mufflers on all internal combustion engine driven equipment. . Use small, portable acoustical screens around particularly noisy equipment. Land Use . The roadway has been designed to minimize the impact on building and landscape setbacks that would be needed to accomplish the project. . In the Proposed Action and Roadway Alignment Alternative 1, the relocation of the railroad has been designed to minimize impacts to existing parking areas and to minimize the need for operational changes that would be made by the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and the Levitz Furniture Company. . The design of the parking bay in the Proposed Action and the delivery vehicle access for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is structured so that it would provide adequate, convenient and safe off - street parking and loading areas. 13 Transportation . Under the proposed action, a written agreement between the J.C. Penney Distribution Center, the Levitz Furniture Company, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the City of Tukwila would be necessary to avoid a delivery schedule conflict. . The six parking spaces lost to Wendy's Restaurant due to the railroad relocation /realignment would be replaced by the City. There is enough room at the end of the parking lot to add these additional parking spaces. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . For the Proposed Action and Roadway Alignment Alternative 1, the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and the Levitz Furniture Company would have to share the use of a single railroad track. . There would be short -term noise impacts due to construction. . There would be an increase in present noise levels to adjacent properties after project completion, due to increases in traffic along this street. . The significant impacts of all project alternatives are summarized in Table 2. 14 Element of the Environment /Activity Table 2 IMPACT SUMMARY OF THE MINKLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION ropose. •c on erna ve Roadway Alignment Alternatives erna ve erna ve AIR QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAND USE . Right -of -Way Acquisition . Relocation of Railroad There would be tempo- rary reductions in air quality due to site preparation and con- struction activities. The redistribution of existing traffic from Strander Blvd. and S. 180th St. would not have an impact. There would be tempo- rary noise impacts from equipment operation during construction. There would be long- term increases in noise levels from 8,200 vehicles per day in the immediate vicinity of the new roadway. Noise levels along Strander Blvd and S. 180th St. would de- crease due to reduced traffic. 3.459 -3.531 acres depending upon inter- section option J.C. Penney spur extend- ed westward and shared with Levitz Furniture Company There would be tempo- rary reductions in air quality due to site preparation and con- struction activities. The redistribution of existing traffic from Strander Blvd. and S. 180th St. would not have an impact. There would be tempo- rary noise impacts from equipment operation during construction. There would be long- term increases in noise levels from 8,200 vehicles per day in the immediate vicinity of the new roadway. Noise levels along Strander Blvd and S. 180th St. would de- crease due to reduced traffic. 3.171 -3.283 acres depending upon inter- section option Relocate J.C. Penney spur to east side of building There would be tempo- rary reductions in air quality due to site preparation and con- struction activities. The redistribution of existing traffic from Strander Blvd. and S. 180th St. would not have an impact. There would be tempo- rary noise impacts from equipment operation during construction. There would be long- term increases in noise levels from 8,200 vehicles per day in the immediate vicinity of the new roadway. Noise levels along Strander Blvd and S. 180th St. would de- crease due to reduced traffic. 2.448 -2.628 acres depending upon inter- section option No relocation There would be tempo- rary reductions in air quality due to site preparation and con- struction activities. The redistribution of existing traffic from Strander Blvd. and S. 180th St. would not have an impact. There would be tempo- rary noise impacts from equipment operation during construction. There would be long- term increases in noise levels from 8,200 vehicles per day in the immediate vicinity of the new roadway. Noise levels along Strander Blvd. and S. 180th St. would de- crease due to reduced traffic. 2.540 -2.628 acres depending upon inter- section option No relocation Element of the Environment /Activity Table 2 (continued) Roadway Alignment Alternatives Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 TRANSPORTATION . Relocation of Railroad . Vehicle Capacity a, . Sidewalks . Parking Elimination Relocation of railroad causing J.C. Penney Co. and Levitz Furni- ture Co. to share a single track. Minkler Blvd. extension would carry 10,000 vehicles per day by 1990. No new traffic would be generated. The presence of a side- walk(s) would improve pedestrian safety. 71 -89 parking spaces would be eliminated from the TCW Holding Co. of LA depending upon inter- section option. 28 park- ing spaces would be eliminated from the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Some parking eliminated from the paved area currently providing delivery access to Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse. Six parking spaces would be eliminated from Wendy's Restau- rant. Relocation of railroad necessitating struc- tural changes to J.C. Penney Distribution Center; 50 -foot wide strip of adjacent property could not be developed. Minkler Blvd. extension would carry 10,000 vehicles per day by 1990. No new traffic would be generated. The presence of a side- walk(s) would improve pedestrian safety. 71 -89 parking spaces would be eliminated from the TCW Holding Co. of LA depending upon inter- section option. 28 park- ing spaces would be eliminated from the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Some parking eliminated from the paved area currently providing delivery access to Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse. Six parking spaces would be eliminated from Wendy's Restau- . rant. No relocation of railroad Minkler Blvd. extension would carry 10,000 vehicles per day by 1990. No new traffic would be generated. The presence of a side- walk(s) would improve pedestrian safety. 71 -89 parking spaces would be eliminated from the TCW Holding Co. of LA depending upon inter- section option. 28 park- ing spaces would be eliminated from the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Some parking eliminated from the paved area currently providing delivery access to Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse. Six parking spaces would be eliminated from Wendy's Restau- rant. No relocation of railroad Minkler Blvd. extension would carry 10,000 vehicles per day by 1990. No new traffic would be generated. The presence of a side- walk(s) would improve pedestrian safety. 71 -89 parking spaces would be eliminated from the TCW Holding Co. of LA depending upon inter- section option. 28 park- ing spaces would be eliminated from the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Some parking eliminated from the paved area currently providing delivery access to Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse. Six parking spaces would be eliminated from Wendy's Restau- rant. ■� ■ v Element of the Environment /Activity Table 2 (continued) Roadway Alignment Alternatives Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 TRANSPORTATION (cont.) . Delivery Access . Intersections . Traffic . Construction Impacts A 10 -foot loading/ unloading bay would be provided for the Parkway Plaza businesses; drive- way access to Jafco ware- house would be maintained. One new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both intersections. Some conflicts between the railroad crossing and delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Warehouse would occur. Traffic on Southcenter Parkway would be dis- rupted due to railroad relocation. There would be a very short disruption in service to the Levitz Furniture Co. during railroad relocation. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both rail- road and trucking. One new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both intersections. Some conflicts between the railroad crossing and delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Warehouse would occur. Traffic on Southcenter Parkway would be dis- rupted due to railroad relocation. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both rail- road and trucking. One new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both intersections. Some conflicts between the railroad crossing and delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Warehouse would occur. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both rail- road and trucking. One new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both intersections. Some conflicts between the railroad crossing and delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Warehouse would occur. Section 0 Description of All Alternatives Section II DESCRIPTION OF ALL ALTERNATIVES Introduction The City of Tukwila Public Works Department is proposing to extend Minkler Boulevard in a westerly direction between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. The vicinity map (Figure 1) shows the proposed extension of Minkler Boulevard in Range 4 East, Township 23 North, in the Tukwila Central Business District (CBD). The roadway is described in detail in the design report prepared by Alpha Engineers, Inc. All engineering drawings and technical data submitted with the design report are retained in the files of the City of Tukwila, Department of Public Works, and are available for review upon request. Most of the area bounded by Interstate 5, Interstate 405, the Green River and South 180th Street is made up of industrial and retail develop- ments (see Figure 1). The area bounded by Andover Park West, Strander Boulevard, Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street is often referred to as the "Super Block." At present, there is no east -west cross street connecting Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street, a distance of over one mile. The proposed Minkler extension would provide a much needed east -west connection to relieve congestion on both Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street. This link would also provide a direct route to most of the commercial develop- ments along Southcenter Parkway and the general area. Traffic increases in the area are a result of new developments and changing land use patterns from low density to high density use. The existing circulation problems in the area are caused by intersection deficiencies and the large super blocks which hinder east -west travel. On June 18, 1984, the Tukwila City Council adopted a six -year Transportation Improvement Program for the years 1985 -1990. This program established a list of priority projects, with Minkler Boulevard identified as number seven. In addition to improving access to commercial developments and relieving congestion on other secondary and collector arterials, the extension of Minkler Boulevard would reduce response time for emergency vehicles seeking access to developments along Southcenter Boulevard. Minkler Boulevard is currently a four -lane, east -west roadway located east of Andover Park West and has a T- intersection with Andover Park West (see Figure 6, Existing Conditions). It is classified as a local access street, according to the Federal Aid classification system. Along the projected new centerline of Minkler Boulevard extension are railroad tracks with spur lines for service to various warehouses in the area (see Figure 7, Site Map). There is a lead track which enters the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension at the east end of the project and continues west. This lead track serves five individual spurs, three of which run to the south, and one that extends west of Southcenter Parkway to serve the Levitz Furniture Company; the last spur runs to the north and crosses the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension to serve the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. These railroad spurs present major constraints to the design of the proposed road. The westerly 700 feet of the project site are presently covered with 19 N O PARKING LOT J RAILROAD TRACKS BLDG. ANDOVER PARK WEST BUILDING PARKING LOT MINKLER BLVD. DITCH DITCH BUILDING FIGURE 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS I./ BLVD._ 1-1..46-7,7f.4*Fzir- • _ . TRAMMEL CROW COMPANY (OLD JACK BENAROYA CO.) (PARKWAY PLAZA NORTH) • I• •• 8,11 • 01 • ••-••■■•• •■• - . .11 ■•■•1i.h • .1. • . , 4tii• . asphalt and are used for parking and delivery access to the Jafco Warehouse, Parkway Plaza North and other commercial developments in the immediate vicinity. There are two buildings at the west end of the project which present major physical constraints: the J.C. Penney Distribution Center on the north side of the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension, and the Parkway Plaza North on the south side. The building -line to building -line measures approximately 90 feet. The objective of the proposed action is to provide an east -west access between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway to reduce local congestion and improve access to commercial developments along Southcenter Parkway. The City of Tukwila Department of Public Works reviewed the Design Report and selected Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative out of the four action alternatives presented for the roadway section. Alternative C of the three intersection alignment options was selected as the preferred intersection option. This Environmental Impact Statement describes, analyzes and evaluates the five alternatives for the roadway section; this includes three action alternatives, the proposed action alternative and the no action alternative. In addition, three intersection options are described, one of which is the preferred intersection. There are some similarities common to all four roadway section alternatives which are described under "All Alternatives." The No Action Alternative is treated separately. All Roadway Alignment Alternatives The most critical area which influences the design alternatives is the corridor space available for Minkler Boulevard between the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and Parkway Plaza North. Access to the abutting properties on both sides from the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension presents no problem due to the excellent horizontal and vertical alignments for all the alternatives. There are no substantial variable alignment alternatives for the project due to the proximity of the existing buildings and railroad tracks. The proposed Minkler Boulevard extension would have a straight line alignment starting at Southcenter Parkway and proceeding east. Since the alignment would be fixed, the only things which could vary would be the number of lanes, lane width, number and location of sidewalks, and planting strips. The existing Minkler Boulevard east of Andover Park West is built off - center to accommodate the P -17 channel, a drainage ditch, which parallels it on the south. For this reason, the centerline of the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension would be offset south of the existing Minkler Boulevard centerline at the Andover Park West intersection. All the proposed roadway alignment alternatives on the Minkler Boulevard extension would result in some buildings having less than the minimum building setback and landscaping required by the City due to their close proximity to the proposed roadway. These buildings would become legally non- conforming structures. 22 Street lighting would be provided along the roadway section. All surface runoff from the roadway would be collected in a closed drainage system with catch basins and separators to remove oil and grease to some degree before discharging the runoff.. Some vegetative filtering may be developed as feasible. Construction activities would be similar for all roadway alternatives and would occur over a six -month period. The phased construction would require clearing and grading, utility and drainage installation, preparation of the roadbed, surfacing, signing and signalization, and landscaping. During the first phase of construction, vegetation would be cleared and large tree roots would be grubbed throughout the roadway's right -of -way. All excavated soil would be stockpiled and used on site for topsoil; additional soil fill from off -site locations may be required. Construction activities would expose bare soil to erosion, thereby requiring the implementation of temporaary control measures. The proper use of construction filter fabric, plastic sheets, and hay on soil stockpiles, graded surfaces and drainageways would reduce the amount of surface erosion. Hay bales placed in trenches and ditches would reduce rates of water runoff and aid in the trapping of displaced soils, thereby preventing sedimentation of local waterways. Preparation of the roadbed for surfacing would include soil compaction and structural fill placement. A roller would be used to compact soil to normal construction standards. Gravel fill would form the roadbed. After preparation of the roadbed, a minimum of three inches of asphalt would be laid to complete the roadway surface. The typical roadway section thickness would be composed of two inches of AC pavement, four inches of asphalt treated base, and four inches of crushed rock base coarse on top of the compacted subgrade. A six -inch thick concrete sidewalk would be provided for pedestrian use. Upon completion, surface runoff would be collected through a series of inlets placed at appropriate locations along the roadway on both sides. These inlets would carry the runoff to the existing drainage system without a stormwater detention system. Detention would not be required since the additional contribution to the total runoff would be negligible and also the general drainage flow would be into an open storage pond approximately 2,000 feet to the east of the project. The final phases of construction would include striping, signing, signalization, lighting, and landscaping. A new signal at the intersection of Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard would be installed. Synchroni- zation of existing signals along Andover Park West would be required to allow smooth traffic flow. Street and pathway lighting would be installed. Landscaping of planting strips would occur as the final construction task. Roadway features for all the action alternatives are shown in Table 3. 23 Table 3 ROADWAY FEATURES OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPOSED MINKLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION Alternatives Roadway Features Right -of -way Acquisition Number of Traffic 4 4 Lanes Proposed Alignment Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 3.428 -3.542 3.171 -3.294 acres acres Width of Lanes 12 feet Sidewalks Both Sides yes Planting Strips Both yes Sides Delivery Access Area no Separated by Sidewalk and Planting Strip Relocation of Railroad yes Total width of Roadway 48 feet Total width of Project 72.5 feet 12 feet yes yes yes, except yes at J.C. Penney yes 2.448 -2.628 2.540 -2.628 acres acres 4 3 11 feet 12 feet no yes (south only) yes 48 feet 85 feet yes yes no 44 feet 72.5 feet no 36 feet 72.5 feet Proposed Roadway Alignment The proposed roadway alignment (shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10) provides fors complete standard urban four -lane arterial .- ,.&.treei,.:S.ecti on with five -foot wide sidewalks and four -foot wide planting strips on both sides. This alternative would eliminate any conflict between delivery vehicles serving Parkway Plaza North and the railroad serving the Levitz Furniture Company. The railroad tracks behind Parkway Plaza north would be removed from approximately Southcenter Parkway to 1,200 feet east along the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension. The existing railroad spur serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be extended westward from its present terminus to cross Southcenter Parkway where it meets the existing railroad spur serving the Levitz Furniture Company. The elimination of railroad tracks on one side would allow for four standard 12 -foot lanes, a 10 -foot wide loading and unloading bay for the Parkway Plaza North businesses, sidewalks on both sides, and planting strips on both sides except where 24 gr r rd/r6 /�i3 (ii /////I4L z7yi /r„ a iyii; �r „pi/0 /a / 04, ; .! ✓h. /yi.G/ .L%/H /0/% ' a//%% 1/2%F.04 Dud %f z/A.assi`.'ir �£ Of” p�/ �// i° �� bra 0400 4(0%./00000.04044040/40000 ,00000400,0000404504% A0'0 ///444#0 2 ri l fi / /O %�i%lu�r r t,,,.. i iyf / %r'7, j %/✓/i/ r/ /4. /mod ,94 //./ i7.71/ Lrtr4 '/ ' / /4Y/N /AMYMf1'N //.tn!- MH::MY /N/ , _ i • nh, JVd 13AOQN !v! k%'H / /a65ii r.ri.i /:ti /6Y/ //4';0:0' /9Y///d.U/ /9YN'iiia ":YrY///70,%//. h/u ////HY //// /// /.0/.�'//%N . /r.%/. O/./ /////i//q//////////7 / / /%GY/.CH' 7/.! • / , / / /./�'/r ;r /N /ui /ii /Y / /µr•. • /i/ oh it /.rwwi /o/e/(/i[rru/uln&n.nAA4/ H///ru/u..//d /u/%N %/H /b /H / //r//u/ 0"74p; nr • r /' rii/ i� r / / /.iwY /H %e /e% • % r»/0400,a//00ii /� ///ui;,/0:00.5r .X0'0 /9�r /a»r4�uri /, • ,•a liz / �.4 N// r% �v// P h,/ M H//, ,, / / /N // / /N4YHHNjjwy / /!M,Y / / /NN • / / /%0'/,ds07//9 r.. ffr / /// / / //// / r ' / /di ' / �0uu /a/ ///�//iiatf,dii / /.� / i / /H/ / / /•fir / yyuu///%/ conflicts occur with the loading bay. Planting would provide optimum and continuous screening, separation, and visual enhancement. Where the J.C. Penney and Parkway Plaza North buildings constrict the right -of -way, only one railroad track would be left when this project is completed. A planting strip would separate the railroad from the pedestrians in this area (see Figure 1). The railroad tracks in this alternative would be shared by J.C. Penney and Levitz Furniture. Extension of the existing railroad spur would add significantly to the cost of the project in that railroad signal relocation would be necessary on Southcenter Parkway as well as additional track relocations. Proposed Intersection Option It will be necessary to provide for the center line offset between that required for the proposed Minkler extension and the existing Minkler Boulevard east of Andover Park West. This offset is incorporated into the three intersection design options shown in combination with the four roadway alignment alternatives in Figures 8, 11, 14, and 17. Under the proposed intersection option, the intersections at the existing Minkler Boulevard and the Minkler Boulevard extension would be realigned slightly and the intersection would not be at exactly right angles. Despite this slight alteration in the angle of the intersection, it would remain within the design criteria for a right angled intersection as per Washington Department of Transportation guidelines. This intersection option would require a minimal amount of work on the east side of Andover Park West in case of a Minkler Boulevard Realignment when the P -17 channel is put in a closed drainage system. This design would not disturb the existing P -17 drainage channel, and would require only minimal changes to the intersection east of Andover Park West. Since the transition between the centerlines of the existing and proposed Minkler Boulevard would be accomplished over a longer distance in this intersection option, motorists are not expected to notice the transition and thus would remain unaffected by it. This option would take slightly more right -of -way than Option A and less right -of -way than Option B at the northwest corner of the Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard Intersection (see discussion of Intersection Options, below). Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 This roadway section (shown in Figures 11, 12, and 13) would include four 12 -foot lanes with two sidewalks and planting strips on both sides. Under this alternative, the railroad spur along the south side of the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be relocated to the east side of the building. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both the railroad and the trucking industry. Roadway traffic and delivery traffic would be separated by a sidewalk and a planting strip. Planting would separate the sidewalk from the delivery and railroad traffic (see Figure 2). The planting strips on both sides would allow for optimum screening, separation, and visual enhancement. This alternative would necessitate a change in the interior configura- tion of the J.C. Penney Distribution Center as well as some structural 31 changes on the east side of the building to provide for the railroad access, thereby making this alternative the most costly of all proposed. Roadway Alignment Alternative 2 This alternative (shown in Figures 14, 15 and 16) provides a four -lane roadway. However, the 44 -foot roadway width: does not conform to Federal Aid standards which require a 48 -foot wide roadway. A design deviation request to the State Aid Division of Washington State Department of Transportation would be required for a 44 -foot roadway width if federal funding is to be used. Under this alternative, railroad spurs serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and the Levitz Furniture Company would not be disturbed. With the available usable space between the tracks, the roadway section would be comprised of four 11 -foot lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planting strip. Roadway traffic and delivery traffic would be separated by a sidewalk and planting strip. Another planting strip would separate the sidewalk from delivery and railroad traffic.: This alternative would have a sidewalk on the south side only. A planting strip would be on both sides except along the J.C. Penney Building and railroad tracks on the north side. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by the railroad and delivery vehicles. Roadway Alignment Alternative 3 Under this alternative (shown in Figures 17, 18 and 19), the roadway section would consist of three 12 -foot lanes, a sidewalk on both sides, and a planting strip on both sides. This is the only alternative with a three -lane configuration (i.e., one eastbound lane, one westbound lane, and a dual left turn lane in the middle). The Minkler Boulevard extension could then be widened at the intersections to four lanes if desirable. Both the railroad spurs would remain at their existing locations. Delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North would be shared with the railroad spur serving the Levitz Furniture Company as in Alternatives 1 and 2. Separation between delivery traffic and street traffic would be provided by a sidewalk and planting strip. Planting would also separate the sidewalk from delivery and railroad traffic. Planting strips on both sides would allow for continuous screening, separation, and visual enhancement. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative consists of leaving the site unimproved, thereby maintaining the existing situation. No roadway would be built and the site would continue to provide limited local access only. Intersection Options The intersection of the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension with the existing T- intersection at Andover Park West is another area where options are being evaluated. Given the alignment of the existing Minkler Boulevard and the alignment necessary for the Minkler Boulevard extension, it would be necessary to realign or introduce a "jog" in the road in order to get the intersection of the two roads to line up at Andover Park West. This jog could occur either east or west of the intersection or could straddle the 32 W,#, 0;;,f7.' //r ////7 .; • ii /i/ /y. -7 • iv%i/.f/ y /.v; /// vi%vm:/ir //.6'. %' /gYiD/iH7/,c: yi / /'//s; 'I ".W4 ?7r7 /4V/ //Hi/ ///irate / r / : /,/ /H. /r •f✓, /i / / // /'iH/ii; //r%/h/ / //// 'H .4////),/•///////.44,//:44447// 4/4/ i'Hi4i /i'lnif i l•.i•i�wi..- <w...w.....' 4/44/4Y4,44444,44,44404.4/..,,,,,... //'i•/ /: ui /// /�o/:.oia /ruGy. "7.VI %///// '. 3z i /ac./ /6, % /i //a /r/a/ /. % // r/yi / /d/ • uZ //jS//77SNW/// /iu7A,, ". /i/, rHfje'/Ui//i,t,N� / /// / NHCV/H / i�//.r /i /•i / /' / /aiiUoiairi /7/ % /•o /i /Y/iiH / / / /f//// /i/// Ali rr/// Op � ;' ' i%!/.fs2,%i6/ i/ i./.`;l /%.air• /ii /r : /s, , N /�i /N ///% NG /NHH / / / / /9h'HHryr / / / / /// / / / / / /H/ %r//A.".# /o4G /M//i% ///h /,H//// 9 iiHH/ / // NN,4 • / /r�/ /, ' • i% 6/ ' /G%Y/YYA //r/740,Abrrrr/,y//ri/ ///////G. 1474, yr i0//✓//' i //,Gf%/9//,U/N/Oh%Nr/aiGi #r.,,/ /r /14 ✓ / % / /ZGiE/14'i!�4hG // /7414%/z7Ha/ . Y/ r 1'6'•''''' • . Yrsr /i4ariu /iirri�/ /✓a'/��N6rib rir//iy�rr�h�c✓ayH ur4/yihmbi // / G!/G/i / iri✓ a / ouFYni/ nxif "G l fl/ '/ '4*,/ Mr ftY /y ' • 4 Kt.elv f Lw, •3 9 1S3M EI i d EOM: O N� ": • r / // ��"% .•% 4 4, �y // miirri rNez4v..0mi/a47,,yd //ti //'r//4 ///%H�//r/9"r//yaxra///x H/yi rH // /H /N0,kW ///HH// K:Y ///,Y/N // /.4 %HHr49% i // i/. U/ r/ r/ a// *rriiH ///h "4it�.r/N'fY�rrNiHHH %rr / ///•Kays /// / /•cU� ////%.u�� iii / /jji _ / /// /�/H.' - - - - - - - - - • • • - - - - - - 4f 1SBM ' N Vd 83AOQNti y/0/4, M • ffi 4 . • $R yi. , >zzk it s titttlitt* A{IiLarr►' / titt •w A ;.0 44>Z% /4 Ni 4,00/409.(41472;%70,/ d24' /// / /} //+ /fir/ /Y��[ ry/ii /iii Nha //r r / , rr ,, 4' NHH /� / H / N/ o! / /jA � y • N / N/H N ,/ /iNiNi YY�i �•Li//.�� / /;0 ... — • — — — — — — — — • — • • — — — — — w CC to 0T- y rr,P. 4.g%;' • /l/7 /" ', • of "" Vs e:.' y/y i� „y / /Nyko9,l/am// ..'. "rN /N /NN' /N •�'�MMH ' /•/ 0 6 cc // >;ii�i �. s r a -w -14; ,.� , / %jai // • 4 /.6y/ai / � u u /,c /iria / %/ .E/p////iV/ /iii//aa/ams n.r.:4.x ' W Z O Z F/�— CC CL w O Z J O Z W CO 2 w Z C'3 Z 4 /G/ / / / /HN/ /%/ 1' H/, W// y�i/ / //.Yv /Ns// / /H / /rH ////%/ O 0 N u w J U C6 • • • • • • Nom' •!0401!: g,,Ze;;iy4 /0;H'... i47 ///i////YL3'/ /id r/' /.. /r/i' / //� //// //.,: /7�y" /.j7H. • 6/• • ' "57/ /iii /;rv:: /Yrr.Yr,.....,:.. • r / r // N /iNru/i N // iii /r // y7/60 y//i' / /vi / sy 4, �a /' / 0.10 / F / /iii:, <s /:ALO.i .✓!/»Y.! /i:.�y . • W• "•ir :z;� r'9/;vi.:/..,. ..•r.;i:: z2::z:r•9va /i" %ir'.za2i via:: YOU / r /rU /// • i.t er ea Vrrida. 1441,4 +w fr /Yn //ii5 // anna♦qq♦ f' t'l iu"%1""' If'1 H. 4 / / //////Hi // r i /H /id/iyH / /H / / ///i//�/ / /.f/ /%/ , r dire g�. /cy r,�Yy ✓ 7427, 4 2..�. - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - u 4.,t r, „,,,,,0604,,,,,,2,17,0,...,•,,, N/% //%// /rte// S%/// / / / / / /,,, „ : :r..k, / / /..” ,,R..0. /" , • rr i/% i /% // // ,,cif /, ... y // / % % //i //, /fir f / % /iii HHrrHi / /4 /N/ yy Lr l�lYoiiHi r.. • glow yff •yj 9 Pi iYtk '/ �* j ! / � r s�. dt • • 65 / /17 7!// ° (4400/.4%/7/4592f7.,,%„ yi // .•Z / /i,•/�YY'Y�'ri /Y/rF /F9) 4446/✓///// .j; i/i. i/40:,: %/ii 7./7..7 /./ /7,•17 ", /r....i. /./%il. %1∎11 yr%rr IiWMYM'NFYNNl4wvf• .W /N /FY/.v Hrr / /rW/•1 /H4..•00AY'N' /N h • /// .f' p9' "i 7./i si:Nr,// /H FIfYi /FNfY44fMKYir t AD a 1'15%//4/..' %!z ;.vz : ... .. iiiis iirvh;•.7•r,••,.. 'i a /� yr r r/ r/ i7. /.c.utirirr,Hi// /7.i / / / /iirnz //// //r /i/iF Fes' _7 r /O/ ///rr/7/ .00/•LF•r;..:40.rrO/ r// / /Y/r//NY /r //r.%/ri 47:(444/4 Z' ...AP. �/��/'� 4444 �/y / , "�'i%/�jar r �r /fry ,,>44" :A/' 7' ,1 ? /41900" 0' r rr r r r ,r iN r/r Nr /vayi/4 44.7./p ///00,44//74',./' 40,40•444,%/4 FF< rvN */*/44,0,4/N//F /r //i/44.444/ rmiir :/ /j F�/� vaulceiyiF ��1 '�l/�,1�� / . r %ri7.i /7.i / /iri /% ret¢, // +�r✓v/ * '/ /Fir / % Ca /.✓.. / / // � /�/.yr..�ry� /r/ // r i7. rN /r ri///i y/// %// 4444 / .y /ar% / /�F��/// /ra i ///7.i// /�r� A'444// 47/4444 intersection. In addition, there is a potential for future realignment of the existing Minkler Boulevard southward. This realignment would be accomplished by putting the P -17 channel, currently an open ditch, into a closed system and paving over it. In light of this possibility, there are three different options for the Andover Park West /Minkler Boulevard intersection to accommodate this potential realignment. The proposed intersection option is described under the proposed action, above. Intersection Options A and B are described below. Intersection Option A Under this intersection option (shown in figures 9, 12, 15 and 18), Minkler Boulevard would be realigned to center the proposed Minkler Boulevard Extension. This would be accomplished by enclosing approximately 200 feet of the P -17 channel. The jog in the roadway would be east of Andover Park West. Of the three intersection options, this option would require the least additional right -of -way over and above the existing 60 -foot utility easement. This option would be most suited for future realignment of existing Minkler Boulevard over the P -17 channel, if and when it would be decided to put the P -17 channel into a closed drainage system. There would be at least two disadvantages with this option: approxi- mately 200 feet of the P -17 channel would require a closed drainage system with large diameter pipes, and there would be a considerable expense for realigning the existing street. Intersection Option B With this option (shown in Figures 10, 13, 16 and 19), the existing T- intersection of Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard would remain as is. The proposed Minkler Boulevard alignment would start from this intersection and would proceed westerly with a short tangent followed by a reverse curve to meet the new roadway alignment. This would involve moving a portion of Minkler Boulevard extension to the north of the proposed action in order to center on the existing Minkler Boulevard. This option would not require any work to be performed on the existing intersection except where the new approach would be connected on its west leg. In the future, if and when it would be decided to put the P -17 channel in a closed drainage system and realign Minkler Boulevard from Andover Park to a pond, the intersection would have to be realigned requiring some construction on its west side. Although this option would not require any work east of the inter- section, it would require a maximum right -of -way acquisition at the northwest corner of the junction between Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard in the vicinity of the TCW Property parking area. 51 Section 111 Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigating Measures Section III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, MITIGATING MEASURES NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AIR Affected Environment The Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) has formulated standards according to the 1970 Clean Air Act amendments designed to protect public health (primary standards) and public welfare (secondary standards) (see Table 4). Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) has been delegated the authority to oversee the attainment of standards in the Puget Sound region. The primary air quality concerns in the Puget Sound region are carbon monoxide and suspended particulates (PSAPCA, 1984 Air Quality Data Summary). There is no single monitoring station in very close proximity to the site. However, there are three stations that monitor suspended particulates in the vicinity of the site, located at Renton (200 South 2nd Street), Duwamish Valley (12026 42nd Avenue South), and Kent (22916 86th Avenue South). Total suspended particulates (TSP) is a general term for particles composed of dust, soot, organic matter, and compounds containing sulfur, nitrogen and metals. Particulates are released from auto and truck traffic, and from other sources. The highest concentrations of particulates are generally found in the more heavily industrialized areas. In a conversation with PSAPCA (Stephen Fry, Technical Services, September 1985), it was learned that the site is within attainment for suspended particulates whicpi range from 40 -50 ug /m ; this is well pelow the primary standard of 75 ug /m and the secondary standard of 60 ug /m . Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas formed as a by- product of incomplete combustion. The most important source of this pollutant is the automobile. Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, essential to the production of photochemical oxidants, are other types of air pollutants which may result from industrial sources and motor vehicles. The nearest monitoring station within the vicinity of Tukwila is located in the Rainier Valley Area at 2809 26th Avenue South. Carbon monoxide levels have been very low and have not exceeded standards since 1981. However, since carbon monoxide is a very localized pollutant, one would need to adjust the level to account for the population and traffic flows found in and around the site in order for the Rainier monitoring station data to be comparable to the Tukwila area (Patricia Thede, September 1985, DOE, Department of Hazardous Substances and Air Programs). There is currently no problem with carbon monoxide or suspended particulates in the area. Most of King County is a non - attainment area with respect to ozone (i.e., does not meet standards). In summary, there are no warnings of harmful air pollution in the area and one can conclude that the air quality is good. 53 Table 4 - AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS • POLLUTANT NATIONAL PRIMARY SECONDARY WASHINGTON STATE TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES Annual Geometric Mean 24 -Hour Average 75 ug /m3 260 ug /m3 a 60 ug /m3 150 ug /m3 60 ug /m3 150 ug /m3 SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) Annual Average 24 -Hour Average 3 -Hour Average 1 -Hour Average 80 ug /m3(0.03 ppm) 365 ug /m3(0.14 ppm) 1300 ug /m3(0.50 ppm) 0.02 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.40 ppmb CARBON MONOXIDE 8 -Hour Average 1 -Hour Average 10 mg /m3(9 ppm) 40 mg /m3(35 ppm) 10 mg /m3(9 ppm) 40 mg /m3(35 ppm) 9 ppm 35 ppm -^ y OZONE 1 -Hour Averagec 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) Annual Average 100 ug /m3(0.05 ppm) 100 ug /m3(0.05 ppm) 0.05'ppm LEAD Quarterly Average 1.5 ug /m3 'NOTES: (1) ppm = parts per million (2) mg /m3 = milligrams per cubic meter (3) ug /m3 = micrograms per cubic meter (4) Annual standards never to be exceeded, short -term standards not to be ex- ceeded more than once per year unless noted. a - This is not a standard, rather it is to be used as a guide in assessing whether im- plementation plans will achieve the 24 -hour standard. b - 0.25 ppm not to be exceeded more than two times in any 7 consecutive days. c - Not to be exceeded on more than 1.0 days per calendar year as determined under the conditions indicated in Chapter 173 -475 WAC. 54 Significant Impacts All Alternatives Site preparation and construction activities would result in a temporary reduction of air quality in the immediate vicinity. This temporary deterioration in air quality would be due to emissions of particulates, primarily dust, and vehicular emissions from heavy construction equipment. This temporary air quality deterioration would . occur during the six -month construction phase of development. There are no data from monitoring sites for nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, or photochemical oxidants in the vicinity of the proposed project. The levels of these generated by the proposed development are likely to be slight. Long -term impacts on air quality would result from emissions from motor vehicles associated with the development. However, all traffic using the Minkler Boulevard extension would be a redistribution of existing traffic currently using Strander Boulevard to the north and South 180th Street to the south. New traffic is not anticipated; hence, air quality impacts over the long term should not vary from the existing conditions described for the area. Mitigating Measures All Alternatives City ordinances and regulations would be followed to minimize dust generated by construction. As older vehicles are replaced with newer vehicles with emission control features, the amount of pollutants associated with automobiles will be reduced to some extent. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts All Alternatives None are anticipated. ODOR Affected Environment There is no significant source of odors in the site vicinity. Significant Impacts All Alternatives During construction, odors associated with construction activities and operation of equipment and street paving will be present. No long -term impacts are anticipated. 55 Mitigating Measures All Alternatives None are proposed. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts All Alternatives None are anticipated. 56 BUILT ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Explanation of Noise and Criteria Noise is a physical phenomenon created primarily from mechanical vibration. Human response to noise is determined by.the source, the frequencies and the loudness. Noise is measured in decibels (dBA) on a logarithmic scale designed to approximate human response. Each increase of 10 dBA in the noise level is subjectively judged as an approximate doubling of loudness. Noise levels usually represent a statistical "average" over a specified period of time. The standard descriptor is designated by "L" and represents the noise levels exceeded a specified percentage of time. The descriptor used in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines is the Ldn, which is the 24 -hour average sound level with a 10 dBA weighting for night sound levels. EPA guidelines to evaluate Ldn noise impacts are shown in Table 5. Noise Level Ldn less than 55 dBA Ldn 55 -65 dBA Ldn 65 -70 dBA Table 5 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NOISE IMPACT GUIDELINES Noise Impact Levels are generally acceptable; no noise impact is generally associated with these levels. Adverse noise impacts exist; lowest noise level possible should be strived for. Significant adverse noise impacts exist; allowable only in unusual cases where lower levels are clearly demonstrated not to be possible. Ldn greater than Levels have unacceptable public health 70 dBA and welfare impacts. Impacts and noise increases over present ambient levels are classified as follows: 0 -5 dBA 5 -10 dBA >10 dBA slight impact significant impact very serious impact The EPA guidelines also specify the information needed to evaluate noise impacts and some abatement measures that can be used if abatement is required. 57 The Washington State Department of Ecology (WAC 173- 60)and King County have formulated noise regulations. They have classified areas or zones based on land use and established maximum permissible noise levels. How- ever, these regulations exempt noise generated by motor vehicles; therefore, they are not applicable to this project. The Department of Ecology controls noise from motor vehicles under a different regulation (173 -62). The motor vehicle noise performance standards are summarized (in part) as follows and relate specifically to individual vehicles: Motor vehicles > 10,000 lbs GVW Motorcycles All other motor vehicles 86 dBA 80 dBA 76 dBA Noise levels are measured 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel. The noise standards shown above are the maximum allowable levels for vehicles traveling under 35 mph. For vehicles traveling over 35 mph, the noise levels are 4 dBA higher. Affected Environment The proposed roadway is located in a light industrial, commercial and industrial park area with several noise - producing activities. Noticeable noise sources are heavy trucks and rail traffic serving Parkway Plaza North, J.C. Penney Distribution Center, Levitz Furniture Company, Union Pacific Land Resources, and other businesses. Noise for vehicular traffic also occurs on both Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. Although no measurements were taken, noise levels should be typical of those expected for this type of land use and proximity to roads. Significant Impacts All Alternatives There are two important types of noise impacts that are associated with the development of the proposed roadway: short -term noise from construction activities, and long -term noise from traffic on the completed roadway. Short -term noise impacts would occur with the operation of equipment during the six -month construction period of the project. Noise levels could vary from 70 to 95 dBA in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Some higher peaks could occur if impact equipment, such as jackhammers, is used. Construction noise would be confined to daytime hours and would cease when the project is completed. A traffic increase is caused by new developments and changing land use patterns. The proposed Minkler Boulevard extension would not result in new developments. A new roadway would relieve congestion on Strander Boulevard to the north and South 180th Street to the south without increasing the volume of traffic to the industrial area. Noise levels produced from the existing traffic would be redistributed. Long -term increases in noise levels from approximately 8,200 vehicles per day would occur in the immediate vicinity of the new roadway. 58 Noise impacts are dependent upon the existing uses and zoning on the receiving property. Because of the current light industrial uses and zoning in the area, it is unlikely that the noise created by traffic along Minkler Boulevard would cause a significant impact to the adjacent industries and commercial businesses. Traffic noise levels in the overall "Central Business District" could be slightly reduced due to the reduced congestion and shorter, less circuitous routes in the Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street block. However, it is assumed noise levels in the Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street areas would decrease due to less congestion on these streets and shorter traveling routes. Mitigating Measures All Alternatives The following measures could be considered for mitigating potential construction noise impacts: . Limit construction to normal working hours. . Use electric rather than diesel or gas - powered machines where possible. . Place small, portable acoustical screens around particularly noisy equipment. . If pneumataic tools are used, use those prefitted by the manufacturer with mufflers, or add mufflers equal to those manufactured by Hushpower or Nicholson. . Use mufflers on all internal combustion engine driven equipment. . Turn off idling equipment. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts All Alternatives Construction activities would result in short -term impacts from equipment operation over a six -month period. There would be an increase in present noise levels to adjacent properties after project completion due to increases in traffic along this street. 59 LAND USE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The City of Tukwila is located around the interchange of two major freeways, I -5 and I -405. There is substantial land use variation within the City; however, commercial, retail, wholesale and light industrial activities are concentrated in the area west of I -5 and south of I -405. The project site is located in the middle of the "Super Block" (north boundary is Strander Boulevard, east boundary is Andover Park West, south boundary is South 180th Street, and west boundary is Southcenter Parkway [see Figure 5]). This "Super Block" is located south of the Southcenter Shopping Mall, a regional shopping center that serves the south Seattle area and surround- ing towns and communities. The "Super Block" is emerging as an area of regional drawing power, providing larger appliances, primarily furniture, on a retail basis. The westerly portion of the Minkler Boulevard extension corridor is paved and currently is used to access wholesale and retail businesses located south of the site. The remainder of the site contains railroad tracks and spurs on land that is sparsely vegetated with some grasses and a few small trees. There are no other improvements on the site. A lead track enters the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension at the west end of the project and continues east; it serves five individual spurs, three of which run to the south. One spur serves the Levitz Furniture Company located southwest of the site on the west side of Southcenter Parkway; the other spur runs to the north and crosses the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension to serve the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Levitz uses the railroad approximately three to four times per week, and J.C. Penney has used it approximately once a month for the last year. Individual property owners pay for maintenance of these spur tracks. The extension corridor land is owned by different property owners who have improvements on some of the adjacent properties. The City of Tukwila has a 30 -foot wide utility and storm drainage easement along a portion of where the Minkler Boulevard extension is proposed to be located. There is also a Union Pacific Railroad easement of varying width in the area of the Minkler Boulevard extension. The railroad easement width is 31.05 feet from Southcenter Parkway through Parkway Plaza North and 36.05 feet through the rest of the properties to Andover Park West. (These easements are shown in Figure 32 of the Design- Report.) Adjacent land uses, shown in Figure 7, include retail, wholesale distribution, and commercial uses located between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. On the north side of the site, from west to east, are a J.C. Penney Truck Center and Distribution Center, vacant land owned by the J.C. Penney Company, and an office complex and parking lot owned by the T.C.W. Holding Company of Los Angeles. On the south side of the site, going from west to east, are the Parkway Plaza North, owned by Trammel Crow Co., a small triangular vacant lot adjoining the Upland Drive Business Park Condominiums, and another vacant lot owned by Union Pacific Land Resources which is adjacent to their office - business park on the corner of Andover Park West and the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension. 60 Plans and Policies Tukwila Zoning Code Zoning The "Super Block" is zoned C -M, Industrial Park and C -2, Regional Retail (see Figure 20, Zoning Map). The C -2 zoning designation provides for areas of diversified commercial /retail activities which serve a broad regional clientele. C -2 district uses are generally larger in scale than neighborhood retail (C -1) uses and attract traffic from abroad area. Permitted uses are varied and include convenience retail uses and general commercial uses, including but not limited to, auto repair shops, restaurants, hotels, furniture sales, job printing, commercial laundries, liquor stores, theaters, convention facilities, a planned shopping center, bus stations, business /commercial schools and wholesale /retail sales offices. Existing uses are compatible with existing zoning. The C -M zoning designation, Industrial Park, provides for "light industrial uses which are non - nuisance activities in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare and odor" (Section 18.38.010,. Tukwila Zoning Code). Strict setback and landscaping requirements are maintained to ensure an industrial park -like nature for the C -M district. Principally, permitted uses include those permitted in the C -2 district as well as businesses which manufacture or process a wide variety of foods, pharma- ceuticals, and electronic or precision instruments; package or process previously prepared metals and materials, including clothing, furniture, plastics, etc.; warehouse storage and wholesale distribution facilities; body or engine repair shops; commercial, professional and business offices and services; railroad tracks and spurs; commercial and public recreational facilities; and other compatible uses of a light industrial nature. Exist- ing uses at or adjacent to the project site are compatible with existing zoning. Setbacks Setback policy is outlined in Chapter 18.50.050 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure adequate light, air and open space quality for the general health, safety and welfare of the public. The setbacks of the underlying zone district apply except that the planning commission may adjust the requirements where it deems necessary to ensure adequate light and air for uses on the subject property, as well as adjacent properties. Setbacks for zoning districts C -2 and C -M are shown in Table 6. 61 v -I ; I ,gin n • ROHM Pa 1 !11 • • R- I- 120 ;iR-1 -ROi .'�. • LEGEND i r..;., II 1> ACRIcLLTLRAL I , a-t • -, J -1 R -1 -200 I. .. L.] SNGIE FMLY REECE. \TAY E! , q DR•F120 1 t R-1 -B8 J S14 E FA \1U GLsice .: - 1 R4'98 • .C2', i I ! SIN:LE FAI.lY RERDEN7IL v ' �R I T2 - -�� -__:• SINGLE FM .Y t SOE'�TY � R2 1 TWO woo' RESCENT::.. - _ n . r WI3 FE AIL 71. R1A+L` RESC NTWL j I I--I 44 n- I I LOW APARTAENTS 1 r ' . r., II •+1©` w.n _,•a • e h4-1 h4-1 I , M4 C-2 M-I c -P C-M � �• Tom_\ jI' I C -M MINKLER BOULEVARD MIN-1 MLLTDLE RESuNCE HIGH DENSITY P-O P70FESSIO,AL AND J:. 1 I NEIC+9ORIti'rN RETAL I C-2 REGIONAL PETAL C -P 0.AN ED Bb•ESS CENTER C-M INDUSTRIAL Wit 14-1 LIGHT POISTRI M -2 If N1' ND-STAY C-P M-1 �. C -M t Mi FIGURE 20 ZONING - DESIGNATIONS 62 Table 6 SETBACK AND LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING DISTRICTS C -2 AND C -M, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Zoning District Front Yard Setback C -2 20 feet Requirements C -M 50 feet Required Land- C -2 scaping Areas 10 feet Side Yard 10 feet 5 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 5 feet 5 feet none C -M 15 feet 5 feet none Landscaping Landscape requirements are outlined in Chapter 18.52 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum require- ments for landscaping to promote safety, to provide screening between incompatible land uses, and to mitigate adverse effects of development on the environment. Required landscape areas applicable to this project site are shown in Table 6. General landscape and screening requirements outlined in 18.52.040 indicate that landscaping shall not obstruct views from or into the driveway, sidewalk or street. Utility easements and other similar areas between property lines and curbing are to be landscaped and /or treated with dust and erosion control planting or surfacing, including evergreens, groundcover, shrubs, trees or sod, or a combination thereof. Off- Street Parking and Loading Off- street parking and loading regulations are provided for in Chapter 18.56 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for adequate, convenient, and safe off - street parking and loading areas. Off- street parking and loading spaces are provided as an accessory use in all zones. Existing parking spaces in any off - street parking area already established or in use may not be reduced below the limits required. General requirements include limitations on location, minimum parking area dimen- sions, slope, driveways and maneuverability, sur- -fie - materials, lighting, curb -cuts and obstructions. The required number of parking spaces and parking area dimensions are provided for in Section 18.56.050. Loading space requirements are provided for in Chapter 18.56.060. Off- street space for standing, loading and unloading services is to be provided so as not to obstruct freedom of traffic movement on streets or alleys. For all office, commercial, and industrial land uses, each loading space is to consist of at least a 10 -foot by 30 -foot loading space with a 14 -foot height clearance for small trucks or 12 feet by 65 feet loading space with 14 -foot height clearance for large trucks. The number of spaces required is based on the gross floor area of a building. Requirements may 63 be modified by the Planning Commission upon appeal and after.a hearing, if the Commission finds that such reduction would not result in injury to property, or obstruction of fire lanes or traffic. Variances Chapter 18.72 of the Tukwila Zoning Cbde provides for variances from the provisions of the zoning code. These may be authorized upon appeal in specific cases where it would not be contrary to the public interest or wherein literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. An important criterion for granting a variance permit includes special cir- cumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privi- leges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which it is located. Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, City of Tukwila The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan lists "element goals" for long -range planning. Under the Transportation /Utilities element the following goals are included: providing an adequate transportation system capable of moving people and goods in a manner consistent with compatible land use patterns, and assurance of public service levels consistent with the needs and desires of the community. The basic concepts that are emphasized in the Transportation /Utilities element are: a systems approach to transportation and utilities; consis- tency with planned land use; and planning and foresight in the construction and maintenance of. facilities. Specific transportation objectives that are applicable to the proposed project include providing for user safety while allowing efficient movement of traffic; this objective supports a broad approach to roadway improvements that consider the circulation impact on planned land use patterns. Specific transportation policies that apply to the proposed project include: . minimizing conflict between moving traffic and parked vehicles; ensuring that road design either eliminates parked vehicles from the roadway section or assures that such vehicles would not interfere with the flow of traffic. . discouraging the maneuvering of automobiles or trucks on public rights -of -way. . dedicating adequate and acceptable rights -of -way at the time of land subdivision. ▪ encouraging effective construction techniques and good design principles. . discouraging single- purpose road construction and improvement pro- jects, preferring coordination with other street improvements such as sidewalks, underground utilities and landscaping. 64 . classifying roadways according to the adjacent land use and service area of the roadway. Railway policy indicates that railroad lines and spurs should be functionally related to the areas through which they pass and should promote desired development patterns. Another policy is to encourage use and operation of localized rail lines to coincide with periods of low traffic flow thereby restricting rail traffic during peak hours. Finally, rail lines are to be located in corridors to reduce the number of grade crossings and to reduce access to and usability problems of the land located adjacent to and between such lines. The Circulation Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that Minkler Boulevard extension is classified as a collector arterial; these provide for movement within smaller areas such as neighborhoods and may be bounded by higher class arterials such as Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street which are classified secondary arterials. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map indicates the "Super Block' is designated commercial and light industrial use. The Tukwila Zoning Code appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with respect to all items relevant to the proposed project. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Several impacts resulting from the proposed project would be common to all the action alternatives and options. These are described below. Where impacts are specific to a particular alternative and /or option, they are described under the heading for that particular alternative or option. Project Compatability All Alternatives The proposed Minkler Boulevard extension would be a compatible use consistent with current zoning of the site and consistent with the adjacent commercial and light industrial (C -2 and C -M) land uses as outlined in the Tukwila Zoning Code. Project design for all alternatives would be compat- ible with the off - street parking and loading requirements of the Tukwila Zoning Code. The project would also be consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan in that it would meet all the goals and objectives outlined in the Transportation /Utilities element including railway policy. The project would be consistent with the Circulation Plan Map in that the Minkler Boulevard extension would serve as a collector arterial.. Right -of -Way (ROW) The City of Tukwila does not presently own any right -of -way specifi- cally designated for road construction purposes in the Minkler Boulevard extension corridor. The City does have a 30 -foot wide utility and storm drainage easement along a portion of where the Minkler Boulevard extension is proposed to be located. Within the 30 -foot utility and storm drainage easement, there is also a Union Pacific Railroad easement, which is 36.05 65 feet. (All of these existing easements are shown in Figure 32 of the Design Report.) Table 7 provides right -of -way estimates for all the alternatives. Proposed Roadway Alignment The proposed alternative calls for a four -lane roadway with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and a planting strip on both sides. The total right -of- way width required for the roadway varies along the length of the project and is shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10. Table 8 shows the required right -of -way to be taken from each property for the proposed roadway alignments along with the three intrsection options. The proposed roadway alignment alterntive with Option B intersection would require the largest ROW acquisition. With respect to intersection options, it would make no difference to the ROW acquisition for each of the following properties: J.C. Penney Truck Center, J.C. Penney Distribution Center, Upland Drive Business Park, Parkway Plaza North, and Ted Grice Co. With respect to the intersection opitons, there would be different amounts of ROW acquisition for the following properties: T.C.W. Holding Co. building, T.C.W. Holding Co. parking lot, and Union Pacific Land Resources. However, for the Union Pacific Land Resources Co., the ROW acquisition would be the same for the proposed option across all roadway alignment alterna- tives. This would also be true for Options A and B. For the J.C. Penney Truck Center, the preferred alternative would require the most ROW acquisition. This would also be the case for the Upland Drive Business Park, Parkway Plaza North, and the Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's Restaurant). Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 This roadway section would include four 12 -foot lanes with two sidewalks and plant strips on both sides. The total ROW width required for the roadway varies along the length of the project and is shown in Figures 11, 12, and 13. Table 9 shows the required ROW to be taken from each property for the roadway alignment Alternative 1 along with the three intersection options. The proposed roadway alignment alterntive with Option B intersection would require the largest ROW acquisition. With respect to intersection options, it would make no difference to the ROW acquisition for each of the following properties: J.C. Penney Truck Center, J.C. Penney Distribution Center, Upland Drive Business Park, Parkway Plaza North, and the Ted Grice Co. With respect to the intersection opitons, there would be different amounts of ROW acquisition for the following properties: T.C.W. Holding Co. building, T.C.W. Holding Co. parking lot, and Union Pacific Land Resources. For the J.C. Penney Distribution Center, the roadway alignment alternative would require the most ROW acquisition. Roadway Alignment Alternative 2 This roadway section provides for four 11 -foot lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk on the south side only, and planting strip. A second planting strip would separate the sidewalk from delivery and railroad traffic. The total ROW width required for the roadway varies along the length of the 66 Table 7 TOTAL RIGHT -OF -WAY ESTIMATES FOR ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES * Alternative Proposed Action Area (in square feet) Area (in acres) 150,700 3.459 Proposed Roadway Alignment Alternative 151,850 3.486 and Intersection Option A Proposed Roadway Alignment Alternative and Intersection Option B 153,800 3.485 Roadway Alignment Alternative 1/ 139,500 Proposed Intersection Option Roadway Alignment Alternative 1/ 138,150 Intersection Option A Roadway Alignment Alternative 1/ 143,000 Intersection Option B Roadway Alignment Alternative 2/ 107,000 Proposed Intersection Option Roadway Alignment Alternative 2/ 106,650 Intersection Option A Roadway Alignment Alternative 2/ 114,500 Intersection Option B Roadway Alignment Alternative 3/ 111,500 Proposed Intersection Option Roadway Alignment Alternative 3/ 110,650 Intersection Option A Roadway Alignment Alternative 3/ 114,500 Intersection Option B 3.202 3.171 3.055 2.456 2.448 2.628* 2.559 2.540 2.628* *These estimates are different from (i.e., lower than) those to be found in the Design Report. The reason for the difference is that these estimates do not include the slope easement. Source: Alpha Engineers and Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 67 Table 8 ESTIMATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION FOR THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE BY INTERSECTION OPTION Proposed Property Owner Intersection Option Option A Option B J.C. Penney Truck Center 27,000 27,000 27,000 J.C. Penney Distribution 40,500 40,500 40,500 Center TCW Holding Company Building 20,000 22,500 22,000 TCW Holding Company Parking Lot 18,000 16,000 23,000 Union Pacific Land Resources 5,000 5,650 1,100 Upland Drive Business Park 15,000 15,000 15,000 Trammel Crow Company 24,000 24,000 24,000 (Parkway Plaza North) Ted Grice Co. ( Wendy's.) 1,200 1,200 1,200 Jack Benaroya Co. * * * TOTAL ROW ACQUISITION (in acres) 3.459 3.486 3.485 Table 9 ESTIMATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION FOR ROADWAY ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 BY INTERSECTION OPTION Proposed Property Owner Intersection Option Option A Option B J.C. Penney Truck Center 25,000 25,000 25,000 J.C. Penney Distribution 52,500 52,500 52,500 Center TCW Holding Company Building 20,000 20,000 22,500 TCW Holding Company Parking Lot 18,000 16,000 23,000 Union Pacific Land Resources 5,000 5,650 1,100 Upland Drive Business Park 9,000 9,000 9,000 Trammel Crow Company 9,500 9,500 (Parkway Plaza North) Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's) N/A N/A N/A Jack Benaroya Co. N/A N/A N/A TOTAL ROW ACQUISITION (in acres) 3.202 3.171 3.055 *No area required, but due to railroad relocation, parking lot will need to be redesigned and paved. Source: Alpha Engineers and Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 68 project and is shown in Figures 14, 15, and 16. Table 10 shows the required ROW to be taken from each property for the roadway alignment Alternative 2 along with the three intersection options. The proposed roadway alignment alterntive with the proposed inter- section option would require, the largest ROW acquisition. With respect to intersection options, it would make no difference to the _ROW acquisition for each of the following properties: J.C. Penney Truck Center, J.C. Penney Distribution Center, Upland Drive Business Park, Parkway Plaza North, and Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's Restaurant). With respect to the intersection opitons, there would be different amounts of ROW acquisition for the following properties: T.C.W. Holding Co. building, T.C.W. Holding Co. parking lot, and Union Pacific Land Resources. Roadway Alignment Alternative 3 This roadway section provides for three 12 -foot lanes (one eastbound lane, one westbound lane, and a dual left turn lane in the middle), a sidewalk on both sides, and a planting strip on both sides. The total ROW width required for the roadway varies along the length of the project and is shown in Figures 17, 18, and 19. Table 11 shows the required ROW to be taken from each property for the roadway alignment Alternative 1 along with the three intersection options. The proposed roadway alignment alterntive with Option B intersection would require the largest ROW acquisition. With respect to intersection options, it would make no difference to the ROW acquisition for each of the following properties: J.C. Penney Truck Center, J.C. Penney Distribution Center, Upland Drive Business Park, Parkway Plaza North, and Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's Restaurant). With respect to the intersection opitons, there would be different amounts of ROW acquisition for the following properties: T.C.W. Holding Co. building, T.C.W. Holding Co. parking lot, and Union Pacific Land Resources. Condemnation Process For all alternatives, the following procedures would be used by the City of Tukwila to acquire the necessary ROW. Federal funds are not anticipated from this project, however, should such funding be used, then the procedures of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Right -of -Way Acquisition Act, RCW 8.26, would be followed. The City of Tukwila has adopted RCW 8.26 procedures to acquire ROW for projects involving federal funding. These procedures require that an appraisal of the property be -made and that the appraisal follows a proper methodology. The City has to make a bona fide offer to pay the fair market value (appraised value) for the property prior to bringing any condemnation action. The following is a description of the general procedure for condemna- tion used by the City of Tukwila for projects not involving federal funds. The City Council passes an ordinance authorizing the condemnation action to get the necessary ROW, i.e., the property necessary to construct the improvements. The ordinance states what the improvement would be and how it would be funded. The City attorney then files a petition in the Superior Court in which the property is located, in this case King County, and asks the court to set compensation. At the same time, a hearing date before the 69 Table 10 ESTIMATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION FOR ROADWAY ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 BY INTERSECTION OPTION Proposed Property Owner Intersection Option Option A Option B J.C. Penney Truck Center 21,000 21,000 21,000 J.C. Penney Distribution 37,000 37,000 37,000 Center TCW Holding Company Building 11,000 11,000 18,000 TCW Holding Company Parking Lot 14,500 13,500 19,000 Union Pacific Land Resources 5,000 5,650 1,000 Upland Drive Business Park 9,000 9,000 9,000 Trammel Crow Company 9,500 9,500 9,500 (Parkway Plaza North) Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's) Jack Benaroya Co. TOTAL ROW ACQUISITION (in acres) 2.456 2.448 2.628 Table 11 ESTIMATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION FOR ROADWAY ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE 3 BY INTERSECTION OPTION Proposed Property Owner Intersection Option Option A Option B J.C. Penney Truck Center 20,000 20,000 20,000 J.C. Penney Distribution 37,000 37,000 37,000 Center TCW Holding Company Building 16,000 16,000 18,000 TCW Holding Company Parking Lot 15,000 13,500 20,000 Union Pacific Land Resources 5,000 5,650 1,000 Upland Drive Business Park 9,000 9,000 9,000 Trammel Crow Company 9,500 9,500 9,500 (Parkway Plaza North) Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's) N/A N/A N/A Jack Benaroya Co. N/A N/A N/A TOTAL ROW ACQUISITION (in acres) 2.559 2.540 2.628 No area required, but due to railroad relocation, parking lot will need to be redesigned and paved. Source: Alpha Engineers and Shapiro and Associates, Inc 70 Court is set to determine whether the City is authorized to condemn the ROW. Ten days notice of the hearing is sent to each property owner who is served a petition. At the hearing, the court determines through testimony whether the property would be necessary for the proposed improvements and whether the City has the right to condemn it. A trial date is then set to determine the amount to be paid to each property owner. In King County, it can take three to six months to schedule this trial; however, cities can get priority over all cases except criminal cases. Therefore, the timeframe could be reduced. The property owners are entitled to a trial before a jury unless it is agreed by the property owners to hold it before a judge. The City can obtain immediate use of the property prior to the jury trial. Possession can be within 15 days after the initial hearing and construction may begin immediately upon possession. If the owner does not give the property to the City within 15 days, then the owner forfeits the right to have his attorney's fees paid by the City. Prior to actual possession, the City must pay into the Court the fair market value of the propery based upon the City's appraisal. These funds may then be drawn out by each respective property owner. Before the jury trial, the City can make a "30 -day offer" to the property owner. This represents the City's best offer. At the jury trial, the jury decides the amount of compensation; if this is more than ten percent greater than the "30 -day offer," then the property owner is also awarded attorney's fees (assuming this has not been waived previously). The jury may look at the site even if construction has already started. If a partial acquisition occurs, which would be the case for each alternative and option in the proposed project, the determination of compensation could involve any of several methods. The fair market value of the entire parcel will be determined. Then the fair market value of the part of the parcel which would be left after the acquisition will be determined. This second value is then subtracted from the first to obtain the value of the taking. Several methods may be used to determine the fair market value, not all of which include establishing a value per square foot. For example, if the taking comes out of a parking lot or cuts off access to a property, then severance damages are awarded to the property owner since the damage to the entire parcel is greater than the actual loss per square foot. Market value may be determined by looking at comparable real estate sales, looking at loss of profit potential, and if loss of an improvement would occur as a result of the taking, looking at the replacement cost to build that improvement on another site. Building and Landscaping Setbacks and Variance - All Alternatives The building setback for each building under each roadway alignment/ intersection option are shown in Table 12. These setbacks were discussed by the engineers with the City's Planning Department. In several instances, 71 the existing structures would become inconsistent with the setback requirements of the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance. In all these cases, the property develoments would be treated as legally non - conforming structures; however, any new development on these properties would be required to conform to all the development requirements as specified in the Zoning Code. The level of consistency with the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance would vary for each alternative and in some instances for each intersection option. The different building setbacks are shown in Table 12. Table 12 BUILDING SETBACKS FOR EACH PROPERTY FOR EACH ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE /INTERSECTION OPTION Buidling Setback (in feet) Property Proposed Alt. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 J.C. Penney Truck Center N/A N/A N/A N/A J.C. Penney Dist. Center 18.5 6 18.5 18.5 T.C.W. Holding Co., Bldg. Proposed Intersection 35 40 45 47 Option A 35 40 45 47 Option B 22 28 35 36 Union Pacific Land Res. Proposed Intersection N/A 75 65 65 Option A N/A 65 65 65 Option B N/A N/A N/A N/A Upland Business Park 30 30 30 30 Parkway Plaza North 0 19 19 19 Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's) N/A N/A N/A N/A Landscaping All Alternatives; The - landscaping for the Minkler Boulevard extension would serve multiple functions. These include: . providing a visual screening or distraction from monotonous or unpleasant views; i.e., long, blank building facades and loading docks; . physically separating pedestrians from vehicular and railroad. traffic. Where layout and space would not allow separation from both, planting would separate pedestrians from the railroad. 72 Criteria for design include: . compatibility with surroundings, both man -made and natural; and . suitability to existing and proposed environmental conditions. The landscape design concept which is consistent with the landscape requirements stated in the Tukwila Zoning Code proposes a row of columnar deciduous trees under - planted with low shrubs within a minimum width planting strip 3.5 feet wide on both sides of the roadway. Where the roadway section is too narrow for plantings on both sides, that side with greater anticipated pedestrian activity would determine the location of the planting strip. The planting strips would separate sidewalks from the roadway and /or railroad tracks. The sidewalk could meander to either side of and /or in- between planting strips as space would allow to optimize the pedestrian's safety and aesthe- tic experience. Specific plant material that is capable of withstanding urban conditions, pollution, sand /gravel soils, seasonally high water table and periodic drought have been recommended. These would require little maintenance. Selection of one columnar tree species and a maximum of three shrub species from those suitable is recommended. The planting specifica- tions would best occur during final design with knowledge of soils, water table fluctuations, utilities, maintenance responsibilities, and public sentiment. Light and glare impacts for the additional traffic would be minimal since nighttime traffic is not anticipated to be significant. In addition, few of the existing buildings have windows directly facing the proposed roadway extension. Proposed Action. Planting strips would occur on both sides of the proposed roadway, adjacent to the sidewalk, except where conflicts occur with the loading bays where there would be no planting strip (see Figure 1). A planting strip would separate the railroad from the pedestrians in the area where the J.C. Penney and Parkway Plaza North buildings constrict the right -of -way. Roadway Alignment Alternative 1. Planting strips would occur on both sides of the proposed roadway adjacent to the sidewalk, except where conflict occurs with the delivery area /railroad track. Here roadway traffic and delivery traffic would be separated by a sidwalk and planting strip as shown in Figure 2. Roadway Alignment Alternative 2. Planting strips would occur on both sides of the roadway. On the north side, the planting strip would be adjacent to the alignment and would run the length of the roadway, except along the J.C. Penney building and railroad tracks where it would be absent. A planting strip would occur all along the south side. In the area adjacent to the Parkway Plaza North building, the planting strip would separate the roadway from the delivery /railroad area as shown in Figure 3. Roadway Alignment Alternative 3. Planting strips would occur on both sides of the alignment, and on the north side would be continuous from 73 Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West. On the south side, a planting strip would separate the roadway traffic from the delivery /railroad traffic as in Alternative 2 (see Figure 4). Relocation of the Railroad The railroad spurs serving the Levitz Furniture Company and the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be the ones which would be most affected by the proposed project. The representatives of Levitz, J.C. Penney, and the Union Pacific Railroad were contacted to discuss the project and to solicit their input. Levitz uses the railroad approximately three to four times per week, and J.C. Penney has used it approximately once a month for the last year. Although both businesses rely on truck deliveries for most of their supplies, they consider the railroad to be an important part of their business operation. Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the railroad tracks behind Parkway Plaza North would be relocated along the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension from approximately Southcenter Parkway to 1,200 feet east. The existing railroad spur serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be extended westward from its present terminus to cross Southcenter Parkway where it would meet the existing railroad spur serving the Levitz Furniture Company. This railroad relocation /realignment would pass through the southeast corner of the property owned by the Ted Grice Company of Portland. At present, Wendy's Restaurant operates on the property. Railroad realignment would eliminate six parking spaces. These could be replaced with six new parking spaces at the end of the parking lot. The railroad tracks would be shared by J.C. Penney and Levitz. This could cause a potential conflict in the delivery schedule between the two companies. A written agreement between the two parties and the Union Pacific Railroad would be necessary to avoid a delivery scheduling conflict. Extension of the existing railroad spur would add significantly to the cost of the project since a railroad signal relocation would be necessary on Southcenter Parkway as well as additional track relocation. The Parkway Plaza North parking lot south of Wendy's Restaurant would have to be redesigned and paved due to the railroad relocation /realignment. Any parking spaces lost due to the railroad realignment would be compensated by the removal of existing tracks. As a result of the railroad extension along the J.C. Penney spur to Southcenter Parkway, 28 parking spaces would be lost at the truck center west of the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. The shortened parking stalls could still be used for automobile parking. The remaining spaces would still be more than adequate per the zoning code requirements. Informal parking currently occurs on the city utility easement to the south of the J.C. Penney parcel for the length of approximately 700 feet. This informal parking strip would be used as part of the improved roadway. 74 Relocating the current spur track serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would require the construction of a short spur track in the northwest corner of the Upland Drive Business Park Condominiums, potentially reducing the developability of 60,000 square feet of the triangular parcel of undeveloped land. Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 Under this alternative, the railroad spur along the south side of the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be relocated to the east side of the building. This alternative would require a change in the interior configur- ation of the J.C. Penney building as well as some structural changes on the east side of the building to provide for the railroad access. Relocation of the J.C. Penney railroad spur would add a complicating factor to developing the presently vacant property east of the warehouse but would increase its overall accessibility. The relocation of the railroad tracks in both the Proposed Action and Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 would be consistent with the objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, City of Tukwila. In addition, relocation of the spurs remains a consistent use within the C -M Zoning District. Roadway Alignment Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 would not disturb the present location of the railroad spurs serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and the Levitz Furniture Company. Loss /Relocation of Parking All Alternatives The utility easement between Parkway Plaza North and the J.C. Penney Distribution Center is paved for delivery vehicles serving Parkway Plaza north and the Jafco Company. Some of the area business owners and their employees park their cars on the J.C. Penney side of this paved area even though the area is not designated for parking. After construction of the Minkler Boulevard extension, these people could use the parking areas associated with their respective employment sites. Parking would also be eliminated in front of the building owned by the T.C.W. Holding Company of Los Angeles. It appears as though this property is developed as three individual units. The building located at the southwest corner of the parcel has 34,198 square feet and is used as an office building. The T.C.W. Holding Company is planning to build a highrise building at the northwest corner of Andover Park West and the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension. The loss in parking spaces for each property under each roadway alignment alternative is shown in Table 13. This loss for each property would reamin the same no matter which roadway alternative /intersection optioin would be selected. Only three properties would be affected. A 75 Table 13 PARKING SPACES LOST AS A RESULT OF MINKLER BOULEVARD EXTENSION BEING DEVELOPED Property J.C. Penney Truck Center J.C. Penney Dist. Center T.C.W. Holding Co., Bldg. Proposed Intersection Option A Option B T.C.W. Holding Co., Lot+ Propose Intersection Option A Option B Union Pacific Land Res. Proposed Intersection Option A Option B Upland Business Park Trammel Crow Co. (Parkway Plaza North) Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's) Jack Benaroya Co. Notes: Proposed Alt. 28 *( * *) none* 55 55 55 16(26) 16(26) 34(48) none none none none none 6 * ** Alt. 1 28 none* 55 55 55 16(26) 16(26) 34(48) none none none none none Alt. 2 28 none* 55 55 55 16(26) 16(26) 34(26) none none none none none no impact Alt. 3 28 none* 55 55 55 16(26) 16(26) 34(26) none none none none none no impact * The shortened parking stalls can still be used for automobile parking. ** Informal parking currently occurs on the City Utility easement to the south of the J.C. Penney parcel for a length of approximately 700 feet. This informal parking strip would be used as part of the improved roadway. No area is required but, due to the railroad relocation, the parking lot will need to be redesigned and paved. + Where numbers appear [16(26)], the first number refers to net parking spaces lost after redesign of the parking lot. Number in parentheses refers to the number of parking spaces lost. *** 76 reduction in the number of parking spaces would impact the ultimate development potential of each property affected. Table 14 indicates that loss in development potential based on existing uses of each property. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative, which consists of leaving the site unim- proved, would maintain the existing situation with further deteriorating levels of service as the araea develops. The site would continue to provide limited access from Southcenter Parkway to the Parkway Plaza North, Jafco and other businesses located south of the site. The railroad tracks would continue to serve one business each and there would be no need for coordinating delivery schedules. Parking in the area would continue unchanged. (See Transportation section for details.) Selection of the No Action Alternative would be in conflict with the Transportation Improvement Program 1985 -1990 which lists projects in order of priority; Minkler Boulevard extension is listed #7. MITIGATING MEASURES All Alternatives The roadway has been designed to minimize the impact on building and landscaping setbacks. In the Proposed Action and Roadway Alignment Alternative 1, the relocation of the railroad has been designed to minimize impacts to existing parking areas and to minimize the need for operational changes that would be made by the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and the Levitz Furniture Company. The design of the parking bay in the Proposed Action and the delivery vehicle access for alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is structured so that it would provide adequate, convenient and safe off - street parking and loading areas. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS For the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and Levitz Furniture Company would have to share the use of a single railroad track. It would be necessary to have an agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad to establish a mutually satisfactory schedule. 77 V CO Table 14 IMPACTS ON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL RESULTING FROM LOSS OF PARKING J.C. Penney Truck Center TCW Holding Company Building and Parking Lot Parking Lot (Proposed Action + Option A) (Option B) Ted Grice Co. (Wendy's) Size of exsiting structures 25,000 sfl 34,198 sf2 2,125 sf4 Number of current spaces 60 296 57 Current development 60,000 sf 118,000 sf 28,500 sf potential Net loss of parking spaces 28 715 895 6 Number of spaces after 32 225 207 51 Minkler extension built Developmnt potential after 32,000 sf 90,000 sf 82,800 sf 25,500 sf Minkler extension built Net loss of development 28,000 sf 28,000 sf 35,200 sf 3,000 sf potential Notes: 20ne parking space per 1,000 square feet of buillding 32.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building Refers to maximum size of structures that could be developed on the site given the current number of parking paces and existing use 5One parking space per 50 square feet of building 6Represents net loss of parking spaces after lot is redesigned 145 spaces on building site, 151 spaces in parking lot Source: Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1986. TRANSPORTATION AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Traffic Circulation The proposed project is located in the Central Business District (CBD) of the City of Tukwila. The major roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project are: Southcenter Parkway, Andover Park West, Strander Boulevard, South 180th Street, and Andover Park East. According to the Federal Aid Classification System, Andover Park East, Southcenter Parkway, and South 180th Street are classified as secondary arterials. Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard are classified as collector arterials. Currently, there is no east -west street connecting Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway between Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street, frequently referred to as the "Super Block ", a distance of over one mile. Internal circulation in the CBD area is hampered by the general lack of east -west arterial connections. Physical barriers such as Interstate -5 with steep grades, Interstate -405, and the Green River, pose additional major constraints for local travel and access to and from the CBD and regional arterial routes. The existing 24 -hour traffic volume on Southcenter Parkway is 27,000 average weekday traffic (AWDT) between the railroad tracks (proposed Minkler Boulevard) and Strander Boulevard. Strander Boulevard has 16,000 AWDT, South 180th Street has 18,000 AWDT, and Andover Park West 11,000 AWDT. Heavy congestion occurs in the vicinity of the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension. The following roadway segments are at or near capacity, resulting in lower levels of service (LOS) (for LOS descriptions, see Table 15). Segment LOS 180th Street E (from Andover Park East to West Valley Highway) Southcenter Parkway D (just south of Strander Boulevard) Southcenter Parkway E (just north of Strander Boulevard) West Valley Highway D (in the vicinity of 405 interchange) There are a few intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project which are moderately congested during noon and evening rush hour periods. These intersections are: 1. 180th Street and West Valley Highway 2. Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway 3. Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West 79 Table 15 LEVELS OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS LOS Volume to Capacity A Less than or equal to 0.6 B Greater than 0.6, less than or equal to 0.7 C Greater than 0.7, less than or equal to 0.8 D Greater than 0.8, less than or equal to 0.9 E Greater than 0.9, less than or equal to 1.0 F Greataer than 1.0 Description Free Traffic flow with low volumes and high speeds. Speeds controlled by driver desires, speed limits, and roadway physical conditions. Average intersection delay is typically 16 seconds or less per vehicle. Stable traffic flow, with operating speeds beginning to be restricted by traffic condi- tions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speed. Average intersection delay is typically 16.1 to 22.0 seconds per vehicle. Stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by higher volumes. Average intersection delay is typically 22.1 to 28.0 seconds per vehicle. Approaches unstable flow with tolerable operating speeds maintained, but consider- ably affected by changes in operating conditions. Average intersection delay is typically 28.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. Unstable flow with low speed and momentary stoppages for long periods is possible. Average intersection delay is greater than 40.0 seconds per vehicle. Forced flow with low speed. Stop and go with stoppages for long periods is possible. Average intersection delay is greater than 40.0 seconds per vehicle. Source: Highway Research Board, "Highway Capacity Manual," 1965. Transportation Research Board "Circular 212," January 1980, Table 7 on page 12. 80 A comparison of the traffic volumes at two of the major intersections in the Tukwila Central Business District (CBD) area between March 1979 and September 1984 indicates an average annual traffic growth factor of 3 %. The projected traffic growth in the Tukwila area, based on the population /employment forecasts by Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) is estimated at 37% from 1984 to the year 2000. This translates into an annual traffic growth factor of approximately 2 %. Since travel in the CBD includes a lot of internal trips, a 3% rate of traffic growth rate has been used to determine projected traffic volumes for this project. Circulation in and around the proposed project site is limited to delivery vehicles serving the Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Company. In addition, some of the business owners and their employees park their cars on the paved area (approximately 750 feet) even though it is not designated for parking. Fire trucks responding to emergency calls on Southcenter Parkway have to use either Strander Boulevard or South 180th Street due to the lack of a connector street between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. Accident History Table 16 shows the accident record for 1983 for the "Super Block" bounded by South 180th Street on the south, Strander Boulevard on the north, Southcenter Parkway on the east, and Andover Park West on the west. A total of 74 reported accidents occurred at these locations in the one year period. Railroad Most of the commercial and industrial developments in the vicinity of the project are served by warehouses located in the Tukwila CBD. These warehouses and other industrial developments rely on the railroad and trucks for their supplies. Since the area was mainly developed as .a commercial and industrial district, a network of railroad tracks was built to serve the area. Railroad spur tracks cross almost all the streets in the Tukwila CBD. These spur tracks are generally and used infrequently by trains traveling at low speed. There was only one recorded car /train accident in the project area in 1983. There are a few railroad signals where the railroad track crosses busy roadways, but generally pavement markings and signage appear to be sufficient to maintain an adequate level of safety. There is a lead track which enters the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension at the east end of the project and continues west. This lead track serves five individual spurs. Of the five spurs, three run to the south, another extends westward to serve the Levitz Furniture Company, and the last spur runs to the north and crosses the proposed Minkler Boulevard to serve the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. The railroad spurs serving the Levitz Furniture Company and the J.C. Penney Distribution Center are the ones which would be affected the most by the proposed project. The representatives of Levitz, J.C. Penney, and the Union Pacific Railroad were contacted to discuss the project and to solicit their input. Levitz uses the railroad approximately three to four times per week, and J.C. Penney has used it approximately once a month for the last 81 Location Table 16 1983 ACCIDENT HISTORY Property Damage Only Injury Fatality Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West Andover Park West between Minkler Boulevard and South 180th Street Andover Park West between Minkler Boulevard and South 180th Street Andover Park West and South 180th Street 4 1 0 2 1 5 1 5 3 year. Although both businesses rely on truck deliveries for most of their supplies, they consider the railroad to be an important part of their business operation. Individual property owners pay for maintaining these spur tracks which were built by the Union Pacific Railroad. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Most of the study area lacks sidewalks and bikeways and there is little or no continuity where they are provided. The absence of sidewalks, coupled with widely spaced traffic signals, is inconvenient and causes safety problems for pedestrians. The lack of walking facilities also discourages people from using public transportation. In addition, the lack of sidewalks discourages noon -time walking trips to nearby restaurants and shops by persons employed in the area; such trips require the use of vehicles and add to the heavy noon -time traffic congestion. Other Roadway Projects Numerous roadway projects are listed in the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for the commercial and industrial district of the City of Tukwila. Those projects which could have a direct effect on the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension are described below. South 168th Street. This roadway would provide a link between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway and would be located midway between Strander Boulevard and the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension. The roadway section has not yet been designed, but may be a four -lane street. Minkler Boulevard. This roadway would connect Minkler Boulevard from its eastern terminus to the West Valley Highway (SR -181). This roadway segment would include a five -lane bridge crossing over the Green River and would complete the link between Southcenter Parkway and the West Valley Highway. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Proposed Action The railroad track behind Parkway Plaza north would be removed from approximately Southcenter Parkway to 1,200 feet east along the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension. The existing railroad spur serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be extended westward from its present terminus to cross Southcenter Parkway where it meets the existing railroad spur serving the Levitz Furniture Company. The existing railroad signal at Southcenter Parkway would be relocated. With the elimination of the railroad track from the north of Parkway Plaza North and its relocation to the opposite side of the proposed roadway, the railroad spur serving the J.C. Penney Distribution Center would become a lead track. This could cause a potential conflict in the delivery schedule between the J.C. Penney Distribution Center and the Levitz Furniture Company. 83 The proposed roadway would carry 10,000 vehicles per day in the year 1990. However, there would be no new traffic generated by the project, but traffic would be redistributed to this new roadway link from the existing street network. One new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both these intersections. The project would include sidewalks on both sides which would improve the pedestrian safety. A 10- foot -wide loading and unloading bay would be provided for the Parkway Plaza North businesses and the driveway access to the Jafco Warehouse would be maintained. The proposed action would eliminate some parking at the west and east end of the project from the T.C.W. Holding Company of Los Angeles building and J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Parking on the paved area provided for delivery vehicle access to Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Warehouse would be eliminated, thereby eliminating a current source of parking space. The railroad relocation /realignment would eliminate six parking spaces at Wendy's Restaurant on the west side of Southcenter Parkway. The Jack Benaroya Company parking lot south of Wendy's Restaurant would be redesigned due to the railroad relocation /realignment. The truck center west of the J.C. Distribution Center has 60 parking spaces. The building has approximately 25,000 square feet of area. The parking requirement for this kind of building use is 1.0 parking space per 1,000 square feet of building area. Therefore, the parking required for this building according to the zoning code is 25 spaces. As a result of the railroad extension along the J.C. Penney spur to Southcenter Parkway, 28 parking spaces would be lost. The 32 remaining spaces would still be more than adequate per the zoning code requirements. The truck driveway south of the building would have to be realigned to the north accordingly. The railroad spur serving the Levitz Furniture Company west of Southcenter Parkway passes through the Jack Benaroya Company property. With the railroad relocation /realignment along the J.C. Penney Distribution Center, it would pass through the southeast corner of the property owned by the Ted Grice Company of Portland. At present, Wendy's Restaurant operates on the property. Railroad relocation /realignment would eliminate six parking spaces. Presently, they have the exact number of parking spaces rquired for this kind of building use. (See Table 13 in the Land Use section for actual number of .parking spaces lost.) The railroad spur serving J.C. Penney would cross the proposed roadway. The railroad spur would also be in the immediate vicinity of the inter- sections of the proposed roadway with Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. Roadway Alignment Alternative 1 Under this alternative, the railroad spur along the south side of the. J.C. Penney Distribution Center would be relocated to the east side of the building, thereby requiring a change in the interior configuration for the J.C. Penney Distribution Center, as well as some structural changes on the east side of the building to provide for the railroad accces. Relocation of 84 the J.C. Penney railroad spur would require a strip of approximately 50 feet wide of the presently undeveloped property east of the warehouse. This roadway connection would carry 10,000 vehicles per day in the year 1990. There would be no new traffic generated by the project; traffic would be redistributed to this new roadway link from the existing street network. One new intersection would be established and one existing intesection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both these intersections. The railroad spur serving J.C. Penney would cross the proposed roadway. A railroad spur would also be located in the immediate vicinity of the intersections of the proposed roadway with Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. The project would include sidewalks on both sides for pedestrian use. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both railroad and the trucking facilities. A driveway access to serve Jafco Warehouse would be provided. This alternative would eliminate some parking at the west and east end of the project from the building owned by the T.C.W. Holding Company of Los Angeles and the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Parking on the paved area provided for delivery vehicle access to Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse would also be eliminated. (See Table 13 in the Land Use section for actual numbers of parking spaces lost.) Alternative 2 This roadway connection would carry 10,000 vehicles per day in the year 1990. There would be no new traffic generated by the project; traffic would be redistributed to this new roadway link from the existing street network. One new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both of these intersections. The railroad spur serving J.C. Penney would cross the proposed roadway. A railroad spur would also be located in the immediate vicinity of the intersections of the proposed roadway with Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. This alternative would include sidewalks only on the south side for pedestrian use. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both railroad and the trucking industry. A driveway access to serve Jafco Warehouse would be provided. This alternative would eliminate some parking spaces at the west and east end of the project from the T.C.W. Holding Company of Los Angeles building and the J.C. Penney Distribution Center. Parking on the paved area provided for delivery vehicle access to Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse would also be eliminated. (See Table 13 in the Land Use section for actual numbers of parking spaces lost.) 85 Alternative 3 This is the only alternative with a three -lane configuration, i.e., one eastbound lane, one westbound lane, and a dual left -turn lane in the middle. The Minkler Boulevard extension could then be widened at the intersections to four lanes, if desirable. This roadway connection would carry 10,000 vehicles per day in the year 1990. There would be no new traffic generated by the project, but traffic would be redistributed to this new roadway link from the existing street network. One new intersection would be established and one existing intersection would be improved. A traffic signal would be required at both these intersections. The railroad spur serving J.C. Penney would cross the proposed roadway. A railroad spur would also be located in the immediate vicinity of the intersections of the proposed roadway with Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway. The project would include sidewalks on both sides for pedestrian use. Delivery access for the Parkway Plaza North businesses would be shared by both railroad and the trucking industries. A driveway access to serve Jafco Warehouse would be provided. This alternative would require minor redesign of the parking areas of the T.C.W. Holding Company of Los Angeles building and J.C. Penney Distribution Center at the west and east ends of the project. Parking on the paved area provided for delivery vehicle access to Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse would also be eliminated. (See Table 13 in the Land Use section for actual numbers of parking spaces lost.) Construction Impacts Construction of this project would require approximately six months. No detour would be required because of the new road construction. There would be some conflict with the railroad crossing and delivery access to the Parkway Plaza North and Jafco Warehouse during construction. There would be disruption in service to the Levitz Furniture Company for a very short time during railroad relocation. Traffic on Southcenter Parkway would be disrupted due to railroad relocation. No Action Alternative Under this alternative, Minkler Boulevard extension between Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway would not be constructed. Traffic volume would keep on increasing due to the new developments and changing land use patterns from low density to high density. The existing interior circula- tion problems in the area due to the lack of east -west roadways would increase. 86 MITIGATING MEASURES Parking Impacts - All Alternatives The utility easement between Parkway Plaza North and the J.C. Penney Distribution Center is paved for delivery vehicles serving Parkway Plaza north and the Jafco Company. Some of the area business owners and their employees park their cars on the J.C. Penney side of this paved area even though the area is not designated for parking. After construction of the Minkler Boulevard extension, these people could use the parking area in front of their businesses or the parking area set aside for businesses on the east side of the buildings. The other area where parking would be eliminated is the front of the building owned by the T.C.W. Holding Company of Los Angeles. It appears as though this property is developed as three individual units. The building located at the southwest corner of the parcel is the one that would be most affected by the Minkler Boulevard extension. It has an area of 34,198 - square -foot and is used as an office building. The parking requirement for this kind of use is 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building for a total of 86 spaces. At present, the building has 145 parking spaces. Fifty -five spaces would be lost as a result of the Minkler Boulevard extension project. The 90 spaces remaining after the Minkler Boulevard extension would be constructed would still be adequate per zoning code requirements and permit the addition of approximately 1,600 square feet of building space without developing additional parking facilities. The parking lot at the northwest corner of Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard would be redesigned with some spaces for compact cars to obtain the maximum number of parking spaces. Approximately 16 -34 parking spaces, depending on which intersection was chosen, would be lost and T.C.W. would be compensated for that. The T.C.W. Holding Company is planning to build a highrise building at the northwest corner of Andover Park West and the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension (site of the parking lot discussed above). Proposed Action The City of Tukwila will compensate for the loss of land area and parking according to the procedures set forth in the Condemnation Process described in the Land Use section. The Jack Benaroya Company parking lot south of Wendy's Restaurant would have to be redesigned and paved due to the railroad relocation /realignment. Any parking spaces lost due to the new railroad realignment would be more than adequately compensated for by the use of the area made available by the removal of the existing tracks. Under the proposed action, a written agreement between J.C. Penney Distribution Center, the Levitz Furniture Company, and the Union Pacific Railroad would be necessary to avoid a delivery schedule conflict. 87 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Under all the alternatives, there would be some loss of parking spaces to adjacent properties. These losses are specified in Table 13. 88 Section IV References Section IV REFERENCES Alpha Engineers, Inc. January 1985. Design Report of Minkler Boulevard: Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway. City of Tukwila, Washington. Baetz, Hal. September 1985. Personal Communication. Attorney, T.C.W. Realty Company, Seattle, Washington. Christiansen, Paul. September 1985. Personal Communication. Operations Manager, Levitz Furniture Co., Tukwila, Washington. City of Tukwila. April 1982. The Tukwila Zoning Code. Tukwila, Washington. City of Tukwila. September 1977. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Tukwila, Washington. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 550/9 -77 -356, Washington, D.C. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. A Manual for the Review of Highway Noise Impact, 55/9 -77 -356, Washington, D.C. Herta, Thomas. September 1985. T.C.W. Realty Holding Company, Vice President, Portfolio Manager, Los Angeles, California. Jefferson, Don. September 1985. Personal Communication. Trammell Crow Company, Project Manager, Seattle, Washington. Overstreet, Max. September 1985. Personal Communication. J.C. Penney, Operations Manager, Tukwila, Washington. Rowe, Thomas. September 1985. Personal Communication. J.C. Penney Company, Buena Park, California. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1982. Procedures for Abatement of Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Highway Aid Program Manual Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3, Washington, D.C. Wall, Richard. September 1985. Personal Communication. Union Pacific Railroad, Seattle, Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. July 1985. Washington State Air Monitoring Data for 1984. Air Programs Division. Washington Deparatment of Ecology. 1975. Motor Vehicle Noise Performance Standards (WAC 173 -62), Olympia, Washington. Youngs, Linda. September 1985. Personal Communication. Attorney, T.C.W. Realty Company, Seattle, Washington. 89 mE-ro Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle,Washington 98104 July ]2, ]985 Brad Collins, Director Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Determination of Significance EPIC - 269 -85 Extension of Minkler Boulevard Dear Mr. Collins: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and does not anticipate any significant adverse impacts to water quality, waste- water treatment or public transit facilities, at this time. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the draft EIS when it becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:pbw KEITH T. BORMAN General Solicitor (503) 249-2505 JOHN F. WEISSER Assistant General Solicitor (503) 249-2507 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY LAW DEPARTMENT 1515 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, Oregon 97201 -5465 (503) 249 -2660 UNION PACIFIC July 2, 1985 File: 349 -1 -2.291 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 EPIC- - 269 -85 Proposed Extension of Minkler Boulevard Dear Mr. Collins: JEFF S. ASAY General Attorney (503) 249-2315 ROY P. FARWELL General Attorney (503) 249 -2661 CAROLYN L. LARSON General Attorney (503) 249-2317 BARRY L. GROCE Assistant General Attorney (503) 249 -2382 MEM D JUL -.] 51985 CITY OF TUKW LA PLANNING DEPT. Your notice dated June 13, 1985 invited comments on the scope of the EIS for the Minkler Boulevard project. Union Pacific Railroad Company requests that you take the following railroad relocation and rail service issues into consideration when analyzing the environmental impact of the various street extension alternatives. Alternative 1 involves relocating J. C. Penney Company's spur from the south side to the east side of its building. Union Pacific estimates track relocation costs would be in the neighborhood of $100,000. This does not include the cost of acquiring right of way for the realigned spur. In addition, the Alternative 1 rail relocation work would result in a less useful spur for Penney's. Because of restrictions on the degree of curvature of railroad tracks, the relocated spur would not parallel Penney's building until it was approximately 55 feet from the northeast corner of the warehouse. This would reduce Penney's current car spotting capacity of eight cars to space for one car. I am enclosing a map which shows the Alternative 1 spur track realignment in green. Alternative 4 involves removing the Levitz lead track north of Parkway Plaza North, extending the Mr. Brad Coll July 2, 1985 Page 2 • Penney's spur to connect with the Levitz track, and serving Penney's and Levitz off the same track. We estimate the cost of removing existing trackage, extending the Penney's spur across Southcenter Parkway, and relocating the flashing light signals at the Southcenter Parkway to be approximately $300,000. This cost does not include relocating utilities along the realigned right of way. Nor does it include the cost of acquiring additional land. Implementation of Alternative 4 would have a negative impact on rail service to both Penney's and Levitz. Serving two shippers off the same track is inconvenient and causes delays. If cars are spotted at Penney's building when a shipment to Levitz arrives, the railroad must pull out the Penney's cars, set them out in a vacant siding, shove in the Levitz cars and then retrieve and replace the Penney's cars. This increases switching time and switching costs and could easily disrupt Penney's unloading schedule. If Penney's were in the process of unloading a car when a shipment to Levitz arrived, the railroad would need to have the Penney's car re- braced, or wait until the Penney's car were fully unloaded, before it could pull that car out of the track and shove in the Levitz car. Thus, shipments to Levitz would be delayed whenever Penney's was in the process of unloading a car. Because sharing the use of a single spur track would work to the detriment of the railroad, Penney's and Levitz, it is unlikely they will voluntarily agree to such an arrangement. Due to the negative impact Alternatives 1 and 4 would have on rail service, Union Pacific recommends that the City choose between Alternatives 2 and 3 for extending Minkler Boulevard and that it not implement Alternative 1 or 4. CLL4 /25 /bw Attach. Very truly yours, 164A4Jf—\ Carolyr/L. Larson Trammell Crow Company June 28, 1985 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Extension of Minkler Blvd. File Number EPIC - 269 -85 Dear Sirs: 1 {E ni 1'1 ® JUL 2 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 5601 Sixth Avenue South P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washington 98108 206/762 -4750 I am writing this letter on behalf of Pacific Northwest Group A, a joint venture, which is successor in interest for the Jack A. Benaroya Company. The extension of Minkler Boulevard will have a significant impact on us and upon the operations of our tenants in the Parkway Plaza Shopping Center. The extension would run along our northern property line. First, we would like to state that we are in favor of the Minkler Boulevard Project. However, all of the existing alternatives are unacceptable to us at this time because none of them include access from Minkler Boulevard to the north side of our building where our tenants need truck access for loading and unloading. There are also indentations into the building where garbage dumpsters are kept which necessitates access for the garbage service. Futhermore, we have employee exits that open to the north, which cannot be closed because they are fir exits. Of the four alternatives, we are most in favor of, 'Alternative Number Three', but we would modify it to read that there would only be a sidewalk on the north side of the road, leaving room for parallel truck staging on the south side of the road adjacent-to our buildings. We appreciate your consideration of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Richard L. Romney Partner RLR /bmb 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 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: June 27, 1985 lEMPI AIN 2 8 1885 CITY Or .TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. SR5 MP 154.13 Minkler Boulevard Extension Determination of Non - Significance City File EPIC - 269 -85 This Department has reviewed the subject document and finds that it will not have any significant adverse impacts on existing or planned Washington State Department of Transportation facilities. Therefore, we do not have any comments to submit at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. PRL /hI Sincerely, "Veaar P't'' R. F. JOHNSON, P.E. District Design Engineer 'n'AC a7 -11 -970 • DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS Description of Proposal Extension of Minkler Boulevard westbound from Andover Park -West to across Southcenter Parkway & modification of railway service to properties along the route and Southcenter Parkway. Proponent City of Tukwila' . Location of.- Proposal, including street address, if any Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway and properties on west side of Southcenter Parkway Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 269F=78S- 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: Plants 4d; Land and shoreline use 8a,c,e,f,l; transportation 14a,c,d,e,f,g; pedestrian saf( interface railways with traffic and pedestrians; access and right -of -way; nonconforming ui •ing se •ac s an an soaping; par ing impac ; proper y va ues impac ; rai way re ocat. 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 An writing and received.on or before July 4, 1985 Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date June 13, 1985 Signature r 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 Chronical, June 16, 1985 A.F F I Becky L. Kent VIT OF DISTRI•TION hereby declare that: [l Notice of Public Hearing ET Notice of Public Meeting 1 1 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit I I Declaration of Significance and Scoping Notice. was mailed to each of the following addresses on See attached list. Name of Project Minkler Blvd. Extension File Number EPIC - 269 -85 June 1$ , 1985. Signature Union Pacific Corp. Tax Office P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, Co. 80020 Union Pacific Railroad Mr. A.L. Shoener, General Mgr. 1515 Bldg S.W. 5th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 TWC-Realty Holding Co. of.LA 400 S. Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Upland Drive Business Park 8815 38th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 J.C. Penny Co. Regional Tax Office #4015 Buena Park, CA 90624 Emerson GM Diesel, Inc. 6851 E. Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98108 Don Jefferson, Proj. Mgr. Trammell Crow Company. P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washington 98108 James Klasell WSDOT 6431 Corson Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 • Jim Williams SRC Director PSCOG 216 1st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Don Wickstrom, Director City of Kent Public Works P.O. Box 310 Kent, WA 98031i Mr. Dick Houghton, Director Renton Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dick Sandaas METRO 821 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Terry Anderson Chamber of Commerce 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Debra Lambert South Transfer Station 419 Occidental South Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Donald Labelle, Director King County Public Works 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 917 Seattle, WA 98104 U.S. Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management Regional Office East 4217 Main Street Spokane, WA 99202 U.S. Dept. of HUD Valuation Department 1321 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Mabel Harris, Chairwoman Transportation Committee Tukwila City Council Bud Bohrer Transportation Committee Tukwila City Council .Wendy Morgan Transportation Committee Tukwila City Council Mr. Jerry Schutz Planning & Research Coord. WSDOT 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 .........1 Pacific Corp. Tax Office P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, Co. 80020 Union Pacific Railroad Mr. A.L. Shoener, General Mgr. 1515 Bldg S. W. 5th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 TWC Realty Holding Co. of LA 400 S. Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Upland Drive Business Park 6815 38th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98115 3.1:L.... Penny Co. .nal Tax Office '4015 Buena Park, CA. 90624 Emerson GM Diesel, Inc. 6851 E. Marginal Way South `s Seattle, WA 98108 • • Don Jefferson, Proj. Mgr. % Trammel) Crow Company P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washington 98108 James Klasell WSDOT 6431 Corson Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 • Jim Williams SRC, Director 2 ru l st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Don Wi ckstrom, Director City of Kent Public Works P.O. Box 310 • Mr. Dick Houghton, Director Renton Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dick Sandaas METRO 821 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Terry Anderson Chamber of .Commerce 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 Debra Lambert South Transfer Station 419 Occidental South Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Donald Labelle, Director King County Public Works 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 917 Seattle, WA 98104 U.S. Dept. of Interior Bureau of Land Management Regional Office East 4217 Main Street Spokane, WA 99202 U.S. Dept. of HUD Valuation Department 1321 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Mabel Harris, Chairwoman Transportation Committee Tukwila City Council Bud Bohrer Transportation Committee Tukwila City Council .Wendy Morgan Transportation Committee Tukwila City Council, I-,1.. 1 �1--�r Mr. Jerry Schutz Planning & Research Coord. WSDOT 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 ‘Ar CITY OF TUKWILA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION ^jl.) 1-- Epic--0..6,9- BJ 17M L•Qll.) {2-Y FILE I'VE k "1-42- $LN ED w E": , 1985 (P.VK6axs Nezas 13z tscoK1) , BASED UPON THE COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY.DLU TV :NTS, THE SUBMITTED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST,-> CHECKL1ST,-iatie ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Is 5021E3.55 °'`'�D I 1le. Fi.<- sozesi, fl>rgZILukpowl bT M-E c* sW.4.1Awl PugzA Ai-(7 S.(_. P€ 'J s Ly � THE �T PROBABLY WILL �•.'� �'= I • A SIG'iFICANT� ADVERSE. ..:- t,:; " - . .l 4/1/#4 �J // JIM/Ws , h S /54- (5'1 Gv m /'� i� f.4F) -C,irl (141 1/ CN fl T t CI ri hK - v . v . 1 —Ilr I'1 It1t • I I V 1 1 - .1 1l a.I •.. V 41.) -ITEM MOST RECENT PLAN AS nTTTT.TNRTI RY THE EU(;TNFFRS LTnTTT.TI PT ACE PEDESTRIANS_ TN A MnST VTUNF.RATiT,R POSTTTON_ _ _RU FRRS BETWEEN THE RAIT. TRAFFTC AND Z iSTREET TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS MOST USUALLY OCCUR AT.INTERSECTION. THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD BROADEN THE VULNERABLE AREA FROM ITS PRESENT STATUS...LOCAL VEHICLES AND E/W PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC TO THAT OF A FULL INTERSECTION WITH ITS ATTENDANT INCREASE IN E /W-VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. SIGNALIZATION OF THE INTERSECTION AND REDUCED ACCESS TO THE VEHICLES AND BUSINESSES PRESENTLY USING THIS CORRIDOR ARE SOME ALTERNATIVES. 5/6/85 pip PRE PARED B Y C.. 'ye,PsQ �S �l-T DATE: S � —�S �. III... ..r. f f 2 cErA Z? d`t 'CITY OF TUKWILA .. • CN THRESHOLD DETERMINATION- 1 3 EPIC'.& j 5 FILE kit 1 "1"eQ. 4RL Ft2eS�YZ NAkM 7, 118 5 LP.V.Pstes (e XQ'QDS Cluts -K. n€C.IS(aN' ' BASED UPON THE COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY—Dr"..QA_RTMTS, THE SUBMITTED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, 003 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is s-c .o g o.cgsswery 143.0 st e-el PLIfIzal -L L 12L- 2Ft Apeps pnavAifyy pug- 2.<:‘ 10.?A T.L, pC3UV 3 • AMP AMPPAVS B Li THE tittzlttT PROBABLY WILL /WILL NOT 1:AVE A' SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE,- tt r t a V' 'ow ilk— S F ?'sCc4E . ITEM I have discussed this matter with Pat Lowrey and the consultant and Pat, after our review, considers that there are no significant impacts and has no objections to this planning report. DATE: SQL -as PREPARED BY '2jc.4 { 'e trezot S rntrtt,- .- ,rtrr. DATE: j %�51/ �f1€p�c4 6�E� L - Ti-tt I..t►1P_ TS— - w -t -�-. L- N ° . 1st -3( Ftc- rvt.?0 - -- AiOV 8W I 1CTRAT- t c i s - co►n t>1 a .-to - - sikIV Z . _ ._ t N- k (Ay :tit i�'`?�. 1?-i� I� s i Dawn1.1(. e tkiL 0 11S - W\01 o\3 1h- `1 _ S 110 \i,,1\,IAL ..-- X011%1. 1a -�z- -lvw ity -‘L -m.s-m ? ADD 'E�"�► =c.�s 1Z 1 4 r-oN Sl ta-N PSI C 'I C J 0 �B vT�4 _ ) t G� _s o kI c x.1T1∎ ? ltil. lC vPA, .� �? V t s Gtr- f-mUUS s(N( -Z - --t \ raVE 1 •-?moo- m-J =11 tic gat ( )-NJ« -L\ \O „ - t\ Vv-4 W 1Z(1ffik SW-a% ---Cft PLt1N S "s(01WLS41 C) 30-x- _- - S c _?sc c _S U c MSS ? C.s (PISS c5W\14 LoND 1NWfC�N�� s� f l� cam- - S < s‘01:24 'M\\NAL 1, -- 2 Pi■.) Off -1/ LL`TO -V' \ \ '1S QzD 4- 11)&1411--(,c (aYvo.Tn I-t- s ft, I PS/ 1.4) Ise— s f }CtS • f . Y� 1, CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM • TO: F- BLDG PLNG P.W. FIRE I I POLICE [� P & R PROJECT -117//1,�(2 Gi. 2c5i t J LOCATION `172/4&14/,' , T-a' / DATE TRANSMITTED • 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. 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. • CN ?5 -caq EPIC 009-15- FILE FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED • ITEM COMMENT DATE j COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: BLDG PLNG �i1// P.W. PROJECT `i72'2 4wdl £Kt&10,/6?t) • CN EPIC FILE FIRE r-i POLICE P &R LOCATION '172/44.2't) / FILE N0. DATE TRANSMITTED 4-/-9-35- STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Qjp 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 /!.5 COMMENTS PREPARED BY. C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: n BLDG PLNG P.W. • PROJECT `init 26U) 6144 E ` -5,40. ox..) FIRE CN EPIC FILE u5 a y o(p9- '5 POLICE P & R LOCATION `-in/th:1,!/1J DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR' FILE N0. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Q 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 7' DATE 4 .1/5--- esc COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM • TO: BLDG ( PLNG P.W. 1 /1 FIRE PROJECT -,621W .6/.2 6144 Ec.teA aaan..) LOCATION `i?"2/4 /k21,I/ DATE TRANSMITTED /1-19-5 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Q CN ?5-Gaq EPIC 06945" FILE. POLICE P & R FILE NO. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT 1 1-10 e.sEG -i0N_C ecsu tE ()PenCl" c9-w nit r ) ow St&iOvt..0 DATE c ct v� l 3)elt,-K1 p C Rte) i 6 Yh 4-re • S `dekx.1..1:6 usex) ©9v T-6-rS ?(Po CT. T$/ s w ► LL `,R.eue r J r . tk.lO H Cz. OSS 1 S hn. ► i• !4 I'Z 'TO Tti-E lz_Ps,7- cs r r evssv.irr , ) LLS,OF CO. COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 } CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: • CN EPIC FILE 0609-F5- BLDG ri PLNG P.W. 1 1 FIRE f I POLICE PROJECT iff/i1,012{ ewe/. &4 J'a) J P &R LOCATION L/7'ZJ4kU1,1./ 4g."f fi4d . DATE TRANSMITTED 4/-9- 35- STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C% 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 702_422-x4e4,-(,4 DATE 50/r--6-. COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • • CN 5 - -01114 EPIC 06°9'S5- FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: BLDG PLNG P.W. [ FARE POLICE PROJECT `1fnithifi0 43Gt'd. OK. .e140. /a1J P & R LOCATION `1'Y2//vjaMi FILE NO. . DATE TRANSMITTED 'y 9 -YS STAFF COORDINATOR' RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Q 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 PLEASE SECURE A COPY OF THE COMMENTS TO THE ENGINEERING DEPT. ON THE ORIGINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY'. 15 THE EXTENSION OF INKLER BL DATE '6 ro► •a A• BY PROVIDING AN ALTERNATE ROUTE FOR EAST /WEST TRAFFIC AND PROVIDING SOME RELIEF TO STRANDER BLVD. AND SOUTH 180 STREET. BY BREAKING UP THE SUPERBLOCK - SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY..STRANDER BLVD. TO S. 180 ST IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE FOR A REDUCED RLSrO1;SE TIME FOR I'D MI LES- a ftP- O'NDING FROM THE EAST OR WEST. S I ONCE AGAIN MUST DRAW THE PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS ATTENTION TO THE UTILIZATION OF PEDESTRIANS AS BUFFERS BETWEEN THE VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND THE RAIL TRAFFIC. PLACING A_SIX (4) FDOT VIDE SID.EWALiK ON TILE SOUTH SIDE -OF ARTERIAL WOULD PLACE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON A VERY NARROW SAFETY ISLAND BETWEEN MOVING TRAINS AND HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC. AS ALTERNATES I WOULD PROPOSE: A. NO PEDESTRTAN TRAFFTC ON THTS ARTFRTAT. B. PLACEMENT OF SIDEWALK ON NORTHSIDE OF ARTERIAL PROVIDING A COMFORTABLE DISTANCE BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND TRAIN TRAFFIC. C. BUILDING A CANTILEVERED WALKWAY ABOVE THE NORTHBOUND LANE WHICH WOULD INVOTVE AN EIGHT OR TEN FOOT ROADWAY FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE TRAFFIC. THIS SKYWAY COULD HAVE ENTRANCE /EXIT AT EVERY INTERSECTION AND WOULD PROVIDE A SAFE PATHWAY FROM CHRISTIANSEN TR „TO SOUTHCENTER PLAZA. 4/10/85 p l,,ENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN ?5-0q6/ EPIC 00915- FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUT G FORM • TO: (1 BLDG PLNG P.W. ( ('FIRE El POLICE 1 P & R 1 PROJECT 18.4,140- U) egvei. g eAaiak) LOCATION `'1'I'7/4A,Imi el,ppj . FILE N0. DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Q 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 SHOULb BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ipplAir • ''' 01.1‘11.111FL . _..ftwor_-.' --, ../ .../...4:664(..-..4.4gt i // r /, / / .111..g...-.- `1.i �`_ ! �i 4 �1- -- raw DATE 6/77 /Ti "7 COMMENTS PREPARED C.P.S. Form 11. \ti1A,G 297-11-960 Environmental checklist ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist. FILMENg APR 91985 CITY OF TUKWitA PLANNING DEPT. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant advcrsc impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from thc proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: • This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen- . cffccis'. The agency to which you su mit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in- formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant advcrsc impact Use of checklist Tor r onproject proposals: • Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered 'does not apply.' IN AD- D1T1ON, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). ` . • For nonprojcct actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project,' 'applicant,' and 'property or site' should be-read as 'proposal,' 'proposer,' and 'affecte.d geographic area,' respectively. A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Mi nkl er Ave. Extension 2. Name of applicant: Cit of Tkwia 3. Address and phone number o City of Tukwila 6200 Southccenter Blvd. 4. Date checklist 'pre' are : November 11, 199,84 5. Agency r equcstIng checklist: f applicant and contact person: Mr. Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer (2b6) 433 -1856 cxfi• rvt .wIL& 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Final.design.is scheduled for 1985 with possible construction 1986. i. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. • • One travel lane and sidewalk will be added in the future. . • / S. List any environmental inforn-ati this proposal. Nene • ou know about that has been prcparcd; or will be prcparcd, directly related to 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. No • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. There are no federal or state permits required. • 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe ce,rtzin aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. -5c4-1-ice, rca`u fires a C•,p �f �!e scl-� Tf - • • 06.7.e t ■•ccs qnq at1e•1¢i -Ives of your proposca 4,4 s -)td he -h•e Son,.+••rizerj GscJ G , Construction of 3 lane urban arterial street with curb, gutter and sidewalk on • Southside of roadway only. Roadway section also includes lepdscaping on both sides. This arterial link will improve the internal traffic circulation in the City of. Tukwila CBD. . • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and rzngc, if known. If a proposal would•occur over 2 range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should subrnit any plans required by thc agency, you are not re;uired to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Extension of existing Minkler Boulevard between Andover Park West and.Southcenter Parkway in the City of Tukwila CBD. tics '-Lt Fro p cSQ i Poiic•i• RQK ""tio as No 1 i Lei go, etr..q d-e-5 I j-k cci e.e/ oh *w. I- C.1+,/ s (s44,pr el. N4'. L L 4 1(%f S Lilr 1 t TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENV]RONMENT.AL ELEMENTS 1. Earth • z. General description of thc site (circle one other • - rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Two (2) EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO HI: COMPLITL:I) HY APPLICANT. c. What general types of soils are found un thc site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,. muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify thcm and note any prime farmland. Gravelly, silty, sand - no farmland d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, . describe. No c. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro- posed. Indicate suurcc of fill. No fill is required f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing. construction, or use ". If so, generally describe. No • g. About what percent of thc site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? . Approximately 40% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to•the earth, if any: None • 3. Air a. Whitt types of emissions 10 the air would result from the proposal (i.c.. dust. automobile, • odors. industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any. generally describe and give approximate quantities -if known. See Attached b. Are there any off site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so. generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts 10 air. if any: Does not apply 3 EVAl.11AT1()N FOR AGENCY UNE t)NI.Y TO HI COM►'I.ITI:r) RY APPLICANT 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in thc immediate vicinity of thc site (including wear •round and scasiinal'streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type :nnl.provide n;nns. If :ipprorriafe. slate what stream or river it flows into. None 2) will the project require :iny work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 fact) the described waters? 1f ycs, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate thc arca of the site that would be affected. in- dicate the source of fill material. Does not apply t) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Givc general de- scription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Does not apply. .) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year flood plain? 1f so, note location on the Nile plan. ' No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Does not apply b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Givc general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe 'waste. material That will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources.' if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial, containing the following chenaiells ; .agricultural; ete.).. Describe the general si/.e of the system. the number of such system:, the number ur houses to be served (if applicable). or the number of animals or. humans the systcm(s) arc expected to serve. None 4 EVALUATION FOR A(;I:NCY l)SI: ()N1. \' TO Illi l'(ImI'I.F:TIa) Hl' AI'I'I.I('ANT c. Water Runoff (including storm water): I) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities. if known). Where will this.watcr flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Surface' runoff from the roadway will be collected by inlets and discharged into the existing collection system. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. • No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water .impacts. if any: None 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree:'alder, maple, aspen, other — poplar /cottonwood. _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass _ pasture crop or grain wcl soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily. cclgrass, milfoil, other _ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Primarily grasses broom and some alder /poplar seedlings will be removed. Ornamental plantings of .shade trees evergreen shrubs and lawn at the east and we enas will be removed and /or relocated.- c. List threatened or endangers species nown to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Plantingstrips on both sides o` the proposed road will be landscaped with site - suitable deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs. . 5. Animals . 2. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ..Robins,. sp.arrow.s, .et.c.. mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:. None fish: bass, salmon. trout. herring. shellfish, other: None ened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known 5 IiVAI.11AT1ON 1.1)K AGENCY USE ONLY '1'11 III: 1'111,11'1 11.11) IIY A19•1 I('AN•I• c. Is the site part of a migration routs? If so, explain. I VAt.(PATIt)N 1(1u AGENCY IL.F. ()NIX No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of cncrgy (electric, natural gas. oil, wood stove, solar) will bc used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will bc used for heating. manu- facturing, CIC. Electric power will be used for street lighting: b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so. generally describe. No- e. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 7. Environmental Health a. me there any environmental health hazards. including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. During construction there is a chance of accidental spillage of gasoline, oil, asphalt or other similar substances. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. • None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards. if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the arca which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment. operation. other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on p short —term or a long —term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. • See attached explanation. 5 To RE CUMNLETEr BY APPLICANT i) Proposed measure_s to rcducc or control noise impacts, if any: None S. Land and Shoreline 1 tsc a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Sanitary sewer and storm water easement; access to commercial properties for delivery of goods and services; light industrial and commercial businesses b. Has the site been used or agriculture'! If so, describe. No c.. Describe any structures on the site. None J. Will.any structures be demolished? If so, what? None c. What is the current 7.oning classification of the site'? Light industrial and commercial. f. What is the currcnt comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light industrial. g. If applicable, what is the currcnt shoreline, master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site bcen classified as an 'environmentally sensitive' arch? If so. specify. No 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project's Does not apply. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or rcducc displacement impacts. if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected hind uscs and plans. if any: See attached explanation. • EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1 a T(1 fIi ('t)%1YI.I:TIii) IIY APPLICANT 9. llousing e. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any'? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low— income housing. Does 'not apply.. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low— income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to rcducc or control housing impacts,. if any: Does notiapply. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structurc(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? . Does not apply. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? • Does not apply: c. Proposed measures to rcducc or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Does not apply. 1.1. Light and Clare a. What typc of light or glare will the proposal product? Whut time of day would it mainly occur? The installation of luminaires for street lighting will produce more light at night. b. Could Tight or glare. from the finished project be a safety ha7ard,or interfere with views? No c. \k'hal existing tiff .silt sources of light or glare may affcci your .proposal? None d.• Proposed mcasurc.s to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None I2. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Christensen green bilt trial is approximately 2,000 feet east of the project. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No AGENCY IIXI t1N11' TO RF. ('()MI'I.1:11:I) 111' APPLICANT c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Ilisloric and Cultural Preservation a. Arc there uny places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state. or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures lo reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Andover Park West on the east and Southcenter Parkway on the west. b. Is site currently served by public transit'? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop'? Yes, Andover park West and Southcenter Parkway. have transit routes with transit stops near Minkler Blvd. .c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? See attached sheet. d. Will the proposal require any new reads or streets. or improvements to existing reads or streets. not including driveways? If so. generally describe (indicate whether public or private).. The project will create a new intersection with Southcenter Parkway and the existing intersection of Andover Park West and Minkler Blvd. will be modified. Both these intersections will be signalized. Approximately 300-400 .feet of existing Minkler Blvd and, Andover Park blest will be : pd ti cd c. Will the project use (or occur in tt)c utilttLui te- `,decry Q.) %=.11e,, • sail, or air transporta- tion? If so. generally describe. ' No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project'? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached sheet. 9 I :VAI.LIATION )rI)It A(:nNI•1' 1151: I)N1.1' TO HE ('O11PI.F?rD KY APPLICANT EVALUATION Fl)K AGENCY USE ONLY g. Proposed mccuru to rcducc or control transportation impacts. if any: This new link arterial will provide a much needed east -west connection to relieve congestion on Strander Blvd. and S. 180th St. and will help internal traffic circulation, 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in ;1.6 increased nccd for public services (for example: fire pro - tecliun, police protection. health care. schools. other)? If so. generally describe. Does not apply. b. Propuscd n - tsurc. to reduce or control direct impacts on public servicL, if any. The proposed roadway link will reduce the fire department 'response time sienificantly to some developments along South- center Boulevard. • 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: icc, elcphonc, anitary sewer septic system, other. natural gas, water, refuse scrv- b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. A 12 inch di arneter City of Tukwila water main with fire hydrants is proposed from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West. C. SI(:NATIME The above answers are true and complete 14) the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that • the lead agency is rev: tem tl is decision. Signature: -5 Dale Submitted: 37J Z�a� 10 i v ✓. VV YLL'1LLI I rr r L11.f11{1 • E. Supplemental Sheet for all Project and Ron Project Proposals The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for s proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- maiton provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive informaiton, studies, etc. • 1. What. are the objectivets) of the proposal? To provide a much needed east -west connection to relieve congestion on Strander Boulevard and S. 180th St. The new link will also help internal traffic circulation in the CBD. Responce time for fire emergencies to some developments along Southcenter Parkway will be signiTicantiy reduced. 2. chat are the alternative means of accomplishing these 'objectives? Reduction in the usaoe of automobiles with the help of other means of transportation, including mass transit, car pools, bike ways etc. Another alternative is to widen all the streets in the vicinity of the project. Construct a new connection linking Andover Park West with Southcenter Parkway. 3: .Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course bf action:' To reduce ' congestion and a better internal traffic circulation a eood street system is reouired. The superblock as defined bv.Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard, Andover Park West and S. 180th St. is too lono without an east -west connection, Minkler Boulevard extension is the best location because it aooroximately cuts the superblock in half and does. not reeuire any building demolition. CVdRUdi.1011 Tor Agency Use Only Explanation 2 (a): During construction, dust and other emissions from construction equipment may . cause temporary deterioration of the air quality. Approximately 8,200 cars are estimated to use this facility when constructed. There will be no new traffic generated by the project. Traffic using Minkler Boulevard will relieve congestion on Strander Boulevard and S. 180th St. minimizing automobile idling and thus improving air quality in the City of Tukwila CBD. Explanation 7b (2): During construction, noise levels will be higher than normal construction equipment usage. Construction noise will be limited.to daylight hours. This.new.roadway link will be used by approximately 8,200 vehicles per day.• Since the project itself does not generate any new traffic, all the traffic on the new roadway will be attracted from the nearby congested Strander Boulevard and S. 180th Street. Although the noise in the immediate vicinity of new roadway will increase, it will reduce the noise .levels overall in the CBD area because of less congestion and shorter less - circuitous routes. Explanation 8 (1): According to the Comprehensive Land_ Use Plan of the City of Tukwila, the area on both sides of the proposed Minkler Boulevard is zoned for light industry except.'for Parkway Plaza North which is zoned for commercial. development. The building setbacks will change as a result of the proposed Minkler Boulevard construction. The following building setbacks shown in the following table will be re- quired as a result of the proposed Minkler Boulevard project. These set- backs were discussed with the City of Tukwila's Planning Department. Setback Required Property (Property Line to Building Line) J. C. Penney Company Existing Building Undeveloped Property TCW Holding Company of LA Jack Benaroya Company Upland Drive Business Park Existing Buildings Undeveloped Property Union Pacific Railroad Existing Building Undeveloped Property 25 feet 50 feet 25 feet 10 feet 50 .feet or Prevailing Pattern 50 feet 25 feet 50 feet or Prevailing Pattern Some existing buildings along the proposed Minkler Boulevard extension will require variance to the setback requirement because of the proposed road- way. These are the J. C. Penney Distribution Center and the Upland Drive Business Park. Explanation 14 (c): The utility easement between Parkway Pi.aza_North and the J. C. Penney Distribution Center is paved for delivery vehicles serving Parkway Plaza North and the Jafco Company. Some. of the area business owners and their. employees park their cars on the J. C. Penney side of this paved area even though the area is not designated for parking. After construction of the Minkler Boulevard extension, these people can utilize the parking area in front of their businesses or in the parking area set aside for businesses on the east side of the buildings. The other area where parking will be eliminated is at the building owned by. TCW Holding Company of Los Angeles. It appears as though this property developed as three individual units. The building most effected by the ' Minkler Boulevard extension has a 34,198 square foot area and is used as an off ice building. The parking requirements for this kind of usage is 2.5 . parking spaces per, 1,000 square foot of building. The total parking re- quirement of the building'is then 86. At present, the building has 145 parking spaces. 50 spaces will be lost as a result of the Minkler Boule- vard proposal. The 95 spaces remaining after Minkler Boulevard is con- struction will still be adequate. The parking lot at the northwest corner of Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard will have to. be redesigned with some compact stalls to accommo- date the maximum number of stalls but sill approximately ten (10) parking spaces will be lost. 4 • • The Truck Center east of the J. C. Penney Distribution Center has 28 truck parking spaces which will have to be moved north by approximately 30 feet. This move will eliminate some car parking and truck parking spaces next to the Truck Center building. These lost parking spaces can be provided within the adjacent property if needed. The truck:driveway will then be adjusted to the north accordingly. Explanation 14 (f): The project itself will not generate any new traffic. When completed it will attract some traffic from the existing congested Strander Boulevard and S. 180th Street. It is estimated that approximately 8,200 vehicles will use this new roadway link. The peek.volume would occur between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. April 8, 1985 7:00 P.M. CALL TO. ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE SPECIAL PRESENTATION PUBLIC MEETINGS Minkler Blvd. Project TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL • C�MMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEET • 'MINUTES 5/7L. City Hall Council Chambers Council President Bauch called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order and led the auience and the City Council n the Pledge of Allegiance. L. C. (BUD) BOHRER, DORIS E. PHELPS, JOE H. DUFFS,' EDGAR D. BAUCH (COUNCIL PRESIDENT). CHARLES E. SIMPSON MAYOR GARY L. VAN DUSEN, PAXTNE ANDERSCN (CITY CLERK), BRAD COLLINS (PLANNING DIRECTOR), HUBERT CRAWLEY (FIRE CHIEF), ROSS EARNST (CITY ENGINEER), PHIL FRASER.(SEN:IOR ENGINEER), JIM HANEY (CITY ATTORNEY), LUCY.LAUTERBACH (LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR), DON MORRISON (CITY ADMINISTRATOR), BYRON SNEVA (PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR). Linda Smith, Corps of Engineers, presented slides on the feasibility study to add additional storage to the Howard Hanson Dam. -COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRIS AND MORGAN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 7:04 P.M. Ms. Smith answered questions that were asked by the Council Members on the preliminary construction costs and capabilities. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ITEM 6 OF THE AGENDA (PUBLIC MEETINGS) BE CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED. Al Grieve, Alpha Engineers, reported on the design. for the Minkler Boulevard Project, using maps and drawings. He stated there are four alternatives: 1) Four 12' lanes with curbs, gutters, sidewalks and landscaping on both sides. Disadvantages: railroad would have to be relocated and Penney's Warehouse would have to be redone. 2) Four 11' lanes, no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or landscaping. Right -of -way would be less. No railroad relocation. Cost $1.4 million. Disadvantages: substandard roads. 3) Three through lanes with curbs, gutters, sidewalks both sides. No railroad relocation, planting strip both sides. Cost $1.4 million. 4) This is recommended alternativ It accomplishes all of the goals for the project. Standard street, four 12' lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping both sides. Disadvantages: railroad would have to be relocated, shared access to railroad, more expensive, but increased benefits. Requires maximum code variances. Mr. Grieve explained the schedule, stating after alternative is chosen they will proceed with rights -of -way plans.' Council President Bauch declared Public Meeting open at 8:00 P.M. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, stated the letter he received from J. C. Penney Company dated April 2, 1985 sets forth their review of alternatives. Alternative 1 would necessitate relaying interior of the facility to accommodate relocated railroad service. •It would eliminate approximately 20' of parking area on west side of building. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not impact the operation of their facility and would require only approximately 10' of existing parking area. Alternative 4 would impact their operation as they would be sharing the railroad tracks with Levitz Furniture. It would require approximately 20' of the parking area. They favor Alternatives 2 or 3 as they do not impact the existing operation and require least amount of parking area and have the lowest total cost. They stated'they are in favor of this much needed roadway project. Bob Fehnel, representing the Benaroya Company, said they are concerned about the roadway and number of lanes. They support extension of Minkler Boulevard, stating it is hard to visualize a four -lane street. He stated they support Alternative 3. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMI• OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES, April 8, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC MEETINGS - Contd. Minkler Blvd. Proj. Tom Curda, representing Southcenter Corporation, said they are - contd. in favor of the Minkler Boulevard Project. There being no further comments from the audience, Council Presiden Bauch declared the Public Meeting closed at 8:05 p.m. South 188th Connector Council President Bauch opened the Public Meeting on the South ,I4 Project. 188th Connector Project at 8:06 p.m. Terry Gibson, Centrac, consultant on project, gave a report on the next design phase. He stated the advantages of the South 188th Connector would be improved freeway access of the CID (commercial/ industrial district), remove congestion, provide alternate east -west route. The cost would be $4.5 to $5.5 million. Dave Schneider, 4604 South 176th, presented copy of letter -from McMicken Heights Neighbors dated March 23, 1985 to Randy Revelle, County Executive, stating they are opposed to any plans to make South. 176th Street into a four -lane highway from Military Road to Highway 99. They stated they are in support of.a new two -lane street with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. There is a grade school on South 176th with about 50 children walking to and from school daily. He stated neighborhood is zoned for single - family having within one mile main north - south and east -west freeways, highways and roadways; the taxpayers should not put money into a four -lane highway that is not needed or wanted. Finley Young, representing Ray Flink, one of the property owners at corner of 180th, stated his client had opportunity to review the draft report and noted there are three goals: 1) Improve access to business district; 2) deal with congestion in area; 3) improve the cross-Valley traffic. Alternatives D and E would probably improve the congestion at choke points but there is an overall congestion problem and D and E would aggravate that overall problem by bringing more traffic onto existing arterials and encourage cross - valley traffic to mingle with shoppers in Southcenter area. As I -405 gets worse the pressure on roads around Southcenter will increase. Ride-sharing should be encouraged but pressure could be alleviated by taking pressure further to south and let Kent handle the problem with a 200th Street connector. Putting A and B ahead would create more southern arterials and avoid a duplication of effort. The study is not farsighted. Terry Anderson, Chamber of Commerce, read a letter dated April 8, 1985 addressed to the City. The letter stated in part that the Chamber's Board of Directorsstrongly oppose the location of any South.188th /I -5 Connector that would connect . at the South 180th /SW 43rd corridor. The area of South 180th is presently heavily congested and in need of.improvements. to accommodate current• levels of local and cross - valley traffic. To feed more traffic into this area would add to an existing problem. It is felt that any connector at South 180th would have the effect of dividing the Tukwila commercial /industrial district. This could actually have a negative effect on the ability to access the southern -most portion of the CID if a major cross - valley route were to be made of South 180th. Councilman Bohrer asked for elaboration on the statement that a South 180th Connector would have effect of dividing the Tukwila CID. Ms. Anderson said the Chamber feels that the 180th is dissecting the middle of Tukwila. Studies show this area is going to grow and it will go south, it is not going very far north. It will be cutting the CID in half with a main access road across the valley.