HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-271-85 - METRO - PARK AND RIDEMETRO PARK AND
RIDE
PARKING STALLS,
SHELTERS &
TRANSIT INFO SIGNS
13447 INTERURBAN
AVE. SO.
EPIC 271 -85
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
Caaltronal, u t CN ?5--1/12,
EPIC P7J-
FILE /7- v°
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG r PLNG I ✓rP.W. 11 FIRE 1 POLICE n P & R
PROJECT intti 4!) &9d - / U
LOCATION /31/tj7 r, v1a) �.
DATE TRANSMITTED g7 /85r
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE
4.E -0Q1 5----/7-511(0
FILE NO.
REQUESTED BY
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
Q-02 u R. 14?i-Tbr OF Lo—r
FLo>> 2 ce V- 411v\ kTIC re n i T
‘■ N- s 5 sly _ M
DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
h nG 11
CITY OF TUKWILA ' 51 p,{,fin'U�L
Coed/ i✓l D��i -� U
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM.
EPIC 21/15
02 -oq-$5
FILE f S -/7-5
/Y5-12-0-U°
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: (7 BLDG PLNG ( ( P.W. FIRE ( ( POLICE (1 P & R
PROJECT /Taro au/I& - 6,44- seic °
LOCATION 13tiq 7 Tit/lf- trui✓1t.&"
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR
tae
p/2- 0q.cg5 ?,- 17-5 °
FILE NO. 85-/b'az4O
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 14-e2Cj'g5-
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
/ _4/
DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED. BY;
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA 1CD 01 OY 1)5aateYU-G
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG '[D PLNG 0 P.W. I ( FIRE
PROJECT fl AYO P ,M -EPlc
LOCATION 13t/ 7 --50 " -e,ria u'L' Q.L( d �
Y5---11g
EPIC :7/-'3
O Q -09-'5
FILE '85- 17-5"140)
/55--12 Okla
POLICE in P & R
c -oq -C 5 F5--/ 7 -511
FILE NO. 85 -1 ff-Cl
DATE TRANSMITTED 14-2:2-45- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1.1-q'S5--
STAFF COORDINATOR 3ecitii► 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 ��J��I / COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
Jn G / -t"rru
Cc).7c1" a4 u5g ate ,rui
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM •
TO: ( ( BLDG j ( PLNG P.W. FIRE 1 POLICE Q P & R
PROJECT man PaAI-6.461 -eJd-f
LOCATION f 3LJ Li 7 Ti4A-- eV(,(Ae E.I/(i OiX
CN
EPIC //-"?5.-
�Q -oq-s5
FILE 15- I7-5rx.44
-GLUD
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR
og o4 -c15
FILE NO. 85 -J -a'-4°
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY c.4— .2q-85 .
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
Lf 0
U• t
'S
COMMENTS PREPARED.BY - —
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
U fG ,t2U,yu z;
U5ao- ovrrui
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: 0 BLDG j PLNG Q P.W. I ( FIRE [] POLICE r--1 P & R
PROJECT MOM Pa -CACI - IPJ c-e
LOCATION 13 L/ q 7 Toif'- e941AV (f li(J .
DATE TRANSMITTED 41-.22-45-
.N O5 )I
EPIC 27/ '3S
oa-ocl-Es
FILE "5- 17 -»rn40
T S-n - 044a
STAFF COORDINATOR
tae
RESPONSE
p2-Oq -75 ?S 17 -5PIL
FILE NO. 85 =1 F-C41.40
REQUESTED BY 14-7,2q-15---
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
*t*
-VII a/ • • 1:I •
VIEW.
IN THE STATEMENT OF GENERAL PURPOSE PAGE 2 METRO MUST BE COMMENDED FOR ITS
INTEREST IN PEDESTRIAN /VEHICLE SAFETY IT IS UNFORTUNATE THIS INTEREST DOES
NOT EXTEND TO THE SAFETY OF THE PEDESTRIAN -USER AND HIS /HER VEHICLE AGAINST
CRIMINAL ATTACK. I WOULD RE- EMPHASIZE THE CRITICAL NEED FOR ONE POLITICAL
JURISDICTION EXERCISING CONTROL AND AUTHORITY OVER THIS FACILITY.
BASED UPON OBSERVATIONS_ AT THIS LOCATION DURING THE PAST 5 YEARS THE INSTALL-
A
.•
IMPACT UPON USER SAFETY ATTEMPTING TO BOARD THE NORTHBOUND BUSSES LOADING ON
1•
IC
T
1. 1
WILL UTILIZE THE PARK IiD RIDE. MOST PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY IN THE EVENING'
,. 0' SO ,A
A
NIGHT AFTER NIGHT IN ATTEMPTING TO RETURN HOME. HAVING THIS SIGNAL IN PLACE
AND IN OPERATION WHEN THE LOT OPENS WILL HAVE A GREAT BEARING ON THE SUCCESS
OF THE LOT.
1:
1•
14 PUBLIC SERVICES WITH THE TRACK RECORDS OF PARK & RIDE LOTS THROUGHOUT
KING COUNTY AVAILABLE AND THEIR IMPACT UPON LOCAL PUBLIC. SERVICES PARTICULARLY
POLICE...TO SAYYMAYBE "IS LUDICROUS.WHILE THE .POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT
FAR OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS IT IS NOT UNREAL TO ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE
THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THROUGH BETTER CRIME PREVENTATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN.
LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, FENCING AND ENERGETIC PATROL CAN OFFSET MANY MISTAKES
;1
DATE 4/26/85 COMMENTS PREPARED BY PJjl
OF THE PAST.
C.P.S. Form 11
l.1 J i ur , Ukh1Lh - ru%.1.2 V ` r'" FOR TURNOVER TO CITY
. SIGNALIZAT1ON /CHANNEL TION PLANS FOR
PROJECT: METRO PARK & RIDE LO AT
PLAN REVIEW ROUTING FORM
LOCATION:
SR -181 & 52nd Ave. S.
REQUESTED BY:
Phil. Fraser
•
TRANSMITTED ON: TRANSMITTED TO:
4/23/85
t
P.W. Admin
r
P.W. Sewer Dept.
P.W. Street Dept.
P.W. W'ater,.Dept.
,. J P1 anni ng rritoLDINA.,-,c,-- Department
`$ rr Pol i ce' Department •.
LRecreation Dept.
[Other: Don Morrison
PLEASE. RESPOND BY: • RESPONSE RECEIVE
5/1/85
?LEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PLANS AND RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PLAN AND THIS ,
COMMENTS:
• MFTR-O HAS APPI ISJi For THC F0111MLNr, • gA2• raWIITlnnAl IICF
SHORELINE;. FZCP -DOE; MAY 7TH TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
(Larry Ellington - 447 -4844 - _contact person with - Metro).
METRO IS CIRCULATING TO KING COUNTY AND STATE SFPAPATFI Y
* * ** *PLEASE•REVIEW ATTACHED DOCUMENTS * * * **
REVIEW or THIS SITE PLAN REVEALS NO PLANNED .ILLUMIINATION OF THE SIDEWALK AREAS ':ADJACENT
- TO INTERURBAN AVE OR 52nd AVE, NOR DO I SEE ANY IN THE VICINITY' OF THE PASSENGER SHELTERS
ON EITHER SIDE OF INTERURBAN. T AM PARTTCTTTARTV
T E OF INTERURBAN, THE SHELTER /DECK AREA. THIS COULD POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO LATE
NIGHTRIDERS• LEAVING THE BUS AND WAITING TO CROSS
AREA SHOULD BE LOW AND NON- SCREENING.
• Y:
I • I
AS BEST .I CAN READ THE BLUEPRINTS INTERURBAN AT 52nd WILL BE 5 LANES WIDE WITH TWO BUS
PULL OUTS
M.
w•
•
LEFT TURN ONLY AT THIS INTERSECTION. THERE WILL BE TWO THRU LANES ON EACH SIDE OF THIS
LEFT TURN LANE. ALL IN ALL WITH TO O. : :T
itic -ELL .
O. •
4/26/85 pj1.
CITY OF TUKWILA . PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL ,NUMBER
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM Fey corn/71144;5 co 5 ) c„a491 4- 8/4'Je
TO: ❑ BLDG. ❑ PLNG. ❑ P.W. ❑ FIRE [] POLICE ❑ P. & R.
PROJECT fflulio p ,(1.✓ d - e.de,
ADDRESS I3 ?y-7 �f/j�}�,Y(.{,1ikcM} Q. 56...
DATE TRANSMITTED 4-a15-- "a'yj
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY L'l';-Q'$ S
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR 13 �.�(,1� RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
❑ ** *PLEASE SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS***
❑. IN THE STATEMENT OF GENERAL PURPOSE PAGE 2 METRO MUST BE COMMENDED FOR ITS
INTEREST IN PEDESTRIAN /VEHICLE SAFETY, IT IS UNFORTUNATE THIS INTEREST DOES
❑ NOT EXTEND TO THE SAFETY OF THE PEDESTRIAN -USER AND HIS /HER VEHICLE AGAINST
CRIMINAL ATTACK. I WOULD RE- EMPHASIZE THE CRITICAL NEED. FOR ONE POLITICAL
❑ JURISDICTION EXERCISING CONTROL AND AUTHORITY OVER THIS FACILITY.
BASED UPON OBSERVATIONS AT THIS LOCATION DURING THE PAST 5 YEARS THE INSTALL-
❑ ATION OF THE SIGNAL_ LIGHT AT THE 52/56 AVE- & INTERURBAN WILL HAVE A HEAVY
IMPACT UPON USER SAFETY ATTEMPTING TO BOARD THE NORTHBOUND BUSSES LOADING ON
❑ THE EAST SIDE OF INTERURBAN BUT WILL ALSO fl ACT THE NUMBER OF DRIVERS WHO
WILL UTILIZE THE PARK AND RIDE. MOST PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY IN THE EVENING
❑ AFTER A DAYS WORK., DO NOT LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING CAUGHT UP IN A LOS E SITUATION
NIGHT AFTER NIGHT IN ATTEMPTING TO RETURN HOME. HAVING THIS SIGNAL IN PLACE
❑ AND IN OPERATION WHEN THE LOT OPENS WILL HAVE_A GREAT BEARING ON THE SUCCESS
OF THE LOT.
14 PUBLIC SERVICES WITH THE TRACK RECORDS OF PARK & RIDE LOTS THROUGHOUT
❑ KING
POLICE...TO SAY "MAYBE" IS LUDICROUS. WHILE THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT
❑ FAR OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS IT IS NOT UNREAL TO ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE
THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THROUGH BETTER CRIME PREVENTATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN.
❑ LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, FENCING, AND ENERGETIC PATROL CAN OFFSET MANY MISTAKES
OF THE PAST.
• h W
:►11'. Y.1
I
P•
•
❑
❑ 4/26/85
❑
0
❑
❑
0
. D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED ❑
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED ❑
DI LW [:PPR(1UFD rI
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
. 1 1 v I u i\ h .: `%i - r uz. .. . r. Li , r..i - 11
•
PLAN REVIEW ROUTING FORM PROJECT:
I i
T
■
r
� r
LOCATION: I ! i`)S IAN ' I.V r T
1 C-. S ; C. H . I /-
REQUESTED BY: —71111 -F-t?A7,= n.
TRANSMITTED ON:
TRANSMITTED TO:
P.W. �;,J; +�i•n
P.W. Sewer Dept.
P.W. Street Dept.
P.W. 'Water Dept.
P1 anni no •
Fire Department
Police Department -
Recreation Dept.
Other: T x -
PLEASE. RESPOND BY:
RESPONSE RECEIVE[
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PLANS AND RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON THE PLAN AND THIS • 5
COMMENTS: . , 0 .r F s 1T t_
N, .0---FP ( C ;--4 -i t N EL) -7T I i-; ~ \ L--1•-i 6___ 1 e-?-4-71 (r13 ,
S± D TW I Y(. �, . `S. !SUS' -T l 1 ?.N 'MTV V -}mil h-Ni
• S t.- c % -iVt''0 V CI cu _ •r;- i1 t\ ,�
THE MOST CRITICAL ISSUE SURROUNDING THIS ENTIRE PROJECT AS FAR AS PUBLIC SAFETY IS CONCERNED
1•
. THE PRESENT PROJECT BOUNDARIES WOULD PLACE ABOUT
2/3 OF LOT AREA IN KING COUNTY WITH REMA
A \t
IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION FOR DETERMINING REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY. FROM THIS BASE (REPORT
G AREA OF REPORT KEEPING, INVESTIGATION ,ENFORCEMENT,PROSECUTION,
AND ON AND ON BECOMES A LEGAL
CRIMINAL ACT TOOK PLACE IN TUKWILA OR KING COUNTY COULD EASILY BE THE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL
• •
• •
it
W BE CITED..TMC OR KC CODE.. COURT JURISDICTION...TUK MUN CT
OR DISTRICT COURT.ETC. ETC. TRY At
STALL TWO STALLS OVER THE BOUNDRY IN RING COUNTY -AND THEREFORE WE CANNOT ACCEPT HIS /HER
w
'4
.NAME ...WE SHOULD HAVE FUL
O. AS THE TUKWILA PARK. AND. RIDE... IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE
MOST LIKELY BE THE SUBJECT OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AT STAFF AND DRC, I WONT COMMENT FURTHER. -
METRO PARK & RIDE....SITE PLANS ...CONTINUED...PAGE'2
SAFETY OF PERSONS AND VEHICLES IN THE METRO PARK & RIDE LOTS THROUGHOUT KING .
COUNTY IS A MATTER OF MAJOR CONCERN TO BOTH METRO AND THE JURISDICTIONS WHEREIN
THESE FACILITIES ARE LOCATED. CAR THEFTS, CAR PROWLS AND VANDALISM ARE HIGH
FREQUENCY HAPPENINGS: ASSAULTS, RAPES, ROBBERIES AND ATTEMPTS AT SUCH CRIMES
ARE NOT UNKNOWN TO HAPPEN. TO PROVIDE A MORE=SAFTEY CONSCIOUS FACILITY THROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, I WOULD MAKE THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS:
1. ELEMINATE ALL TREES AND SHRUBBERY, HAVING A GROWTH FACTOR OR MORE THAN 24" r ,i,9)/' '
UTILIZATION OF A FACILITY SUCH AS THIS IS PREDICATED UPON THE PUBLICS PERCEPTION
AS TO ITS LEVEL OF SAFETY TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND TO THE VEHICLE. WHILE A
LINE OF DOUGLAS FIRS MAY BE �A PLEASING TO THE EYE THEY FORD THE PERFECT
SCREEN BEHIND WHICH THE TH2L11F OR ASSAULTER MAY OPERATE. AT THE ONSET/THE
SPACING OF SUCH TREES MAY BE SUCH TO PROVIDE SOME VISIBILITY INTO THE PARK-
ING AREA FROM INTERURBAN AS THE TREES GROW AND SPREAD THIS VISIBILITY WILL
BE GREATLY REDUCED. HIGH VISIBILITY, GOOD SIGHT LINES, BETTER THAN ADEQUATE
LIGHTING ALL CONTRIBUTE TO A SAFER ENVIRONMENT AND A HIGHER PERCEPTION OF
SAFETY BY THE USER. FULL VISIBILITY, PARTICULARLY FROM THE INTERURBAN AVE.
SIDE (EASTSIDE) OF THE LOT IS CRITICAL. PASSING POLICE PATROLS, MOTORISTS,
PATRONS TO THE ADJOINING GAS STATION ALL WOULD BE A DETERRENT FACTOR TO
THE WOULD BE OFFENDER. UTILIZATION OF GROUND HUGGING SHRUBBERY ALONG THE
EAST AND SOUTH SIDES, AND THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR PARKING AREAS WOULD
GREATLY ENHANCE THE VISIBILITY, LIGHTING AFFECT OR PROJECTED LUMINAIRES,
BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THE EYE AND YET BE PERCEPTUALLY SECURE.
2. WHILE THE PROJECTED LIGHTING IS FAIRLY WELL BALANCED,THREE ADDITIONAL
UNITS WOULD COMPLETE THE BALANCE AND AVOID PATCHY,GREY AREAS. THE THREE
UNITS SHOULD BE PLACED:a. AT EXTREME NORTHEAST CORNER TO ILLUMINATE NOT
ONLY THAT CORNER OF THE LOT BUT ALSO THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK. B. AT THE POINT
WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE NORTH SIDE TAKES A SOUTHWESTERLY. DIRECTION
TO ILLUMINATE THAT CORNER. C. IF THE PRESENT LANDSCAPING AND SITE PLAN PREVAIL,
A SET OF 4 CLUSTER LIGHTS MOUNTED HIGH ON A POLE CENTRALLY LOCATED WITHIN
THAT WESTERN MOST TRIANGLE PRESENTLY OUTSIDE FINISHED LANDSCAP AREA.
3. THE AREA MENTIONED IN 2C ABOVE, THAT WESTERN MOST TIP THAT WOULD APPEAR
TO NOT BE INCLUDED IN PARKING PLAN BUT IS INCLUDED INTO OVERALL PROJECT
BOUNDRY. THIS AREA HAS THE POTENTIAL OF AFFORDING RAPIST OR OTHER DERANGED
TYPE THE IDEAL LOCATION TO FORCEFUL1'REMOVE A PERSON FROM THE LOT, TAKE THEM
BEHIND THE CONVIENENT SCREEN OF DOUGLAS FIRS PLANTED ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD
AND INTO THIS DARK, UNIMPROVED, NON-ILLUMINATED PLACE. ONE OF THE FIRST
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE TO CLEAR THE ENTIRE SITE AND EN-
CLOSE IT ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES (FROM INTERURBAN AROUND TO 52 AVE S)
METRO PARK & RIDE...SITE PLANS...CONTINUED...PAGE 3
WITH AN 81 CHAIN LINK. ON THE INTERIOR OF THE FENCE PLACE THE PLANNED FOR
DOUGLAS FIRS AND CUPRESSOCYPARIS TREES AS A SIGHT AND SOUND BARRIER TO THE
ADJACENT HOUSING. SPACED AT 50' INTERVALS ALONG THE FORWARD EDGE OF THE TREE
LINE WOULD BE THE PERIMETER LINE OF. LUMINAIRES. THIS ARRANGEMENT COUPLED
WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED LIGHTING AND GROUNDHUGGING LANDSCAPE IN THE INTERIOR
ZONE OF THE LOT WOULD PROJECT A SAFE AND SECURE. ENVIRONMENT, ONE THAT A
COMMUTER OR SHOPPER WOULD NOT HESITATE TO UTILIZE.
4 -25 -85 pet/
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
h no /own
C di'tt c-t 1,15 la at(
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: (—I BLDG PLNG P.W.
PROJECT rn aro PaA,i & -evo -1PJ d-Q
LOCATION 1314 q 7 4- U/t/W.1/U aJM .
11
EPIC 21115
0o2-0q-15
FILE 15- 17-Snt.46'
$5--12 -CU. 0
(FIRE 1 I POLICE n P& R
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR'
Dg-Uq -75- 51,--0-501-44
FILE NO. '5 —1$—CG4
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1.4 -e2q-25
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 'y 2 COMMENTS PREPARED. BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUK•LA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
X5-17 �555.
lfflOWED
1 APR 9 1985
CITY OF TUKWIL4
LANNING DEPT.
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
SECTION 1; GENERAL DATA
TYPE OF APPLICATION: O B s I P O ` - P .f O S U B D I V I S I ON
I) .APPLICANT:
F1CONDITIONAL
USE
SHORELINE
PERMIT
O PRD OPMUD._ BAR
INTERURBAN
QUNUSESS. VARIANCE LJ ZONING LJAMENDMENT
NAME Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle TELEPHONE (2061447-4844
ADDRESS. 821 Second Avenue, MS /63, Seattle, WA. ZIP 98104
2) PROP. OWNER: NAME
Same TELEPHONE (
ADDRESS ZIP
3) PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) South side of Interurban
.Avenue South between I -5 and 52nd Avenue South (13447 Interurban Avenue South).
SECTION 11 :. PROJECT INFORMATION
4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT. YOU. PROPOSE. .
268 stall park -and -ride lot
5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION:
FROM June 'C5 To June '86-
6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED..1N PHASES? OYES ONO IF YES, DESCRIBE: •i BL..J
-. t CT _WILL Re c oo elf j K1,4risr., R flZ o $ F.TS 4 OJt� -T
7). PROJECT.STATIsTIC5:
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET GROSS
3.4
B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL #FLOORS N/A
TOTAL GROSS N/A
FLOOR AREA
C) SITE UTILIZATION:
ZONING DESIGNATION
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA
LANDSCAPE AREA
'PAVING AREA
TOTAL PARKING STALLS.:
- STANDARD SI.ZE.
- COMPACT SIZE
- HANDICAPPED SIZE
TOTAL LOADING SPACES
AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA
AVER. SLOPE OF SITE
4.3 EASEMENTS N/A
1NCLUDES• 0 BASEMENT QMEZZAN1NE
INCLUDES: .O BASEMENT OMEZZANINE
EXISTING "PROPOSED NOTES
C-2-• Same
C- ?_
Sane
16,400 p- 256 ,b (existing hlgs.removeca;
- • . 0 3S,000 p except one '? 1 60S.r'. )
20,000 0 94,000 ,o
50'
230
33
5
•
4% .0.655'6-3%
0`; - 4`.• 0.65%-3% (area to be cevelopeo onJ
8) '15 THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY•$ ENVIRONMENTAL BASE
MAP? DYES NO
SECTION Ili:
APPLICANTS AFFIDAV1T
CITY OF TUWILA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
between I -5 and 52nd Avenue South
•
MEM
APR 9 1985
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
S C H E D U L E
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
on South side of Interurban Avenue South
WITHIN SA N4
(1/4 SEC.) OF SECTION 14 OF TOWNSHIP
23
N., RANGE
4 E W.M., IN TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
2) NAME OF WATER AREA AND /OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED:
Duwamish River
3
5
)
)
CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: Vacant land except for
two vacant structures and a temporarily occupied house..
PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: park- and -ride lot
TOTAL. CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENTS CONTEMPLATED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION:
Construction Costs: On-Side - $607,000
Off e- $133;000
Total Construction Costs: $740,000
6)" CONSTRUCTION DATES (MONTH AND YEAR) FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT 1S REQUESTED: .
BEGIN June '85 COMPLETE June'86
TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL:
DESCRIPTION'OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE:
APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL
HAVE A VIEW OBSTRUCTED BY ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.
CITY OF TU!UILA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
MHO°
APR 9 1985
CITY TUKWItA
PLANNING DEPT.
1) PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: The site is vacant_ except far two commercial buildings
' and a residence which are scheduled for demolition.
2). PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (FROM.LIST IN TMC 18.64.020):
18.64.020 (9) Park- and -Ride lots
3)
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (FOR EXAMPLE, DESCRIBE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
USED, WHOLESALE/RETAIL/WAREHOUSE FUNCTIONS, OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS OR EQUIPMENT OR
OTHER INFORMATION WHICH WILL FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU PROPOSE TO
DEVELOP ON THIS SITE) : A park and ride facility at I -5 and Interurban Ave.
South consisting of approximately 260 automobile parking stallp, landscapin,
passenger shelters, transit information display and signing, irrigation
system, motorcycle and bicycle parking, lighting and telephone booth(s)
on 4.3 acres of land.
DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU. BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR A CONDITIOCIAL_USE PERMIT_._
WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE. FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.64.030 (ATTACH ADDITION-
AL SHEETS LF NECESSARY).
2)
THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS
TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED USE OR 1■ THE DISTRICT
[N WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 1S SITUATED.
RESPONSE: See Attached Sheets
THE PROPOSED USE SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN
THE DISTRICT IT WILL OCCUPY.
RESPONSE • See Attached Sheets
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE COMPATIBLE GENERALLY WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES
IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN.
RESPONSE: See Attached Sheets
4) THE PROPOSED USE SHALL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE POLICY PLAN.
RESPONSE: See Attached Sheets
•
TUKWILA PARK & RIDE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF TUKWILA
11 ,6I0M
APR 9 1985
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
1. The Tukwila Park - and -Ride facility is a public facility
designed to serve Tukwila residents and other commuters.
Metro's facility design includes drainage detention facili-
ties, landscaping, lighting, noise barriers, roadway, and
sidewalk improvements. Metro has also committed to addi-
tional offsite traffic improvements to provide for public
welfare and safety. No significant environmental impacts
are anticipated as a result of the proposal. Traffic and
.noise analysis are included in the environmental checklist
provided.
2. The park- and -ride lot would be located in the "high impact"
shoreline environment which allows all uses permitted by
the underlying zoning district (18.44.150). The underlying
zoning district is C -2. C -2 district uses provide for
diversified commercial /retail activities which serve a
regional clientele.
The Tukwila Park - and -Ride project meets the district
requirements. Metro environmentally assessed the project
site and coordinated an environmental review with the City
of Tukwila and King County. See Final Declaration of Non -
Significance Tukwila Park-and-Ride Lot October 14, 1983.
3. The Tukwila Park and Ride facility would be located on
Interurban Avenue South. Interurban Avenue is the only
continuous north -south surface arterial through the Green
River Valley. Interurban Avenue, Southcenter Boulevard,
I -5, and the I- 405 /Grady Way junction with the West Valley
Road (SR -181), are the important roadway facilities in this
area. These roadways provide "maximum exposure" for the
proposed park- and -ride site. I -5 on and off -ramps
intersect with Interurban Avenue immediately north of the
park- and -ride site. The on and off ramps would carry
nearly 10% less peak -hour volume with the park- and -ride
facility.
Land uses at Interurban Avenue South and I -5 are in transi-
tion to more intensive uses. The site is located just
north and east of a residential neighborhood with a number
of multiple- family units. Adjacent residential housing
would be buffered from the park-and-ride facility by
construction of an acoustical barrier and landscaping.
The parking lot access and internal circulation layout for
the site is designed to minimize on -site conflicts and
1
•
potential hazards between auto and bus traffic and between
pedestrian and vehicular movements. Park - and -ride autos
could enter or leave the site via a driveway onto 52nd
.Avenue located 200 feet southwest of the Interurban inter-
section. A second driveway would be available on
Interurban Avenue just north of the Gull Industries
property. The second driveway would be restricted to a
right turn into the park- and -ride from southbound Interurban
Avenue and a right turn out of the park- and -ride lot onto
southbound Interurban Avenue. Appropriate channelization
improvements and signing would be provided to implement
.these turning movements.
Pedestrian and vehicular conflicts would be minimal. Com-
muters would walk toward Interurban where on- street bus
, stops are provided,.while park- and -ride autos would be
1 routed to and from the entry points along a collector road
at the site's far west boundary. Bus passengers loading or
unloading to and from northbound buses would have to cross
Interurban Avenue using the existing flashing signal
crossing south of 52nd Avenue.
4. Metro reviewed the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan. The proposed project supports the following
plan goal and objectives.
Transportation /Utilities
Goal 2 - Provide for a transportation system which includes
all transportation modes.
Transit - Objective 2
Promote an effective and viable mass transit system which
ties the Tukwila, area to the region.
Policy 2 - Support efforts to increase transit use.
Policy 4 - Promote freeway transit stops in conjunction
with local park -and -ride lots.
5. The project design provides for on -site drainage detention,
acoustical barriers, landscaping, retaining walls, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and a series of off -site improvements
including:
o Widening 52nd Avenue adjacent to the park- and -ride
site to provide two approach lanes and one exit lane
at Interurban Avenue.
o Providing fully- actuated traffic signal is planned for
the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 52 Avenue.
2
The signal is needed to permit safe egress at this
intersection by autos.
o Providing a pedestrian signal and crosswalk for all
four legs of the 52nd Avenue and Interurban Avenue
intersection to safely accommodate pedestrian and
bicycle traffic.
o Converting the existing two -way left -turn lane
(14 feet wide) along Interurban Avenue on both sides
of the 52nd Avenue intersection into left -turn lanes
to accommodate projected turning volumes onto 52nd
Avenue (toward park- and -ride lot) and the new Foster
Bridge.
3
TS /PC2 /4
Plat Map
20
APR 9 1985
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
• Ackir
*METRO
Munici li of Metropolitan ty etropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington, 98104
FINAL .DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE
Action: Construrti_ig and rpPrati ng a Park -and -ride lot
Description of Proposal: Developing a park- and -ride lot at Tukwila,
consisting of 260 -300 automobile parking spaces, landscaping,
'passenger, shelters, driver comfort stations, transit information
display and signing, irrigation system, motorcycle and bicycle
parking, lighting and telephones booth(s) on 4.3 ar.rec of land.
Proponent: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle
Location of Proposal: King County /Tukwila, Washington at the
Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interurban AvP South
and 52nd Ave. South.
Lead Agency: Municipality. of Metropolitan, Seattle
This proposal has been determined to not have a significant
adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required
under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after
review by the lead agency of a completed environmental check-
list and other information on file with the lead agency.
Responsible Official -: Rodney G. Proctor
Position /Title: Manager, Environmental Planning Division
Date: 10/14/83 Signature:
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION
lt,G 1 M
APR 91985
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
jmETRD
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104
September 27, 1983
TO: Whom It May Concern
RE: Proposed Declaration of Non- Significance for
Tukwila Park - and -Ride Lot
Enclosed is a copy of-the Proposed Declaration of Non-Signifi-
cance for the subject project as required by the Washington
State Environmental Policy Act of 1971:(RCW 43.21C).
Comments are invited and will be received until
Written comments should be addressed to:
Mr. Rodney G. Proctor, Manager
Environmental Planning Division
METRO
821 Second Avenue; MS-92
Seattle, WA 98104
If you have any question please call
Additional copies of this document may be obtained by visiting
Metro at the above address or by calling 447 -5863
The comment period for this proposal will expire on October 13, 1983.
Very truly yours,
Rodney . Proctor, Manager
Environmental -- Planning Division
RGP:ela
Enclosure
•
JmETRD
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg. •'821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104
.PROP:OSEDACTML DECLARATION OF
9.CDO` W NNOWNON- SIGNIFICANCE
Action: Constructing and operating a park- and -ride lot.
Description of Proposal: Developing a park- and -ride lot at Tukwila,
consisting of 260 -300 automobile parking spaces, landscaping,
passenger, shelters, driver comfort stations, transit information
.display and signing, irrigation system, motorcycle and bicycle •
parking, lighting and telephones booth(s) on 4.3 acres of land.
Proponent: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle
Location of Proposal: King County/ Tukwila, Washington at the
Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interurban Ave. South
and 52nd Ave. South.
Lead Agency: Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle
This proposal has been determined to (have/not have) a
significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS
( -tea /is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c) . This
decision was made after review by the lead agency of a
completed environmental checklist and other information
on file with the lead agency.
Responsible Official: Rodney G. Proctor
Position /Tit
e:
Date: ?/�7
Manager, Environmental Planning Division
Environmental Planning Division
• • .
rd.
t� ew.w �.�,rol•
i. .M. 0
-f� • (Mtlrrt
attle
`rw po.-•
V•.
I
11
'Renton
W.L..p.L�
TUKWILA'=
= x"
•
!Kent-
• 1 I 2
4
Alypu 1.0 .,,cam;
Mitt.
•
rK
•
u'. ti!
• ISUNC
*Proposed Tukwila
Park and Ride
• Existing Park and Ride
I!.
SYT..e. •
jmETRo
Munkipality of Metropolitan Seattle
T NORTH
Stale: ° 1 3 • Y..
FIGURE 1
Regional location
METRO PARK AND RIDE • TUKWILA
0i
I
Wa
E I
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROPOSED ACTION: Constructing and operating a park- and -ride lot.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent Municipality of Metropolitan, Seattle
•
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 821 Second
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 447 -6619
3. Date Checklist Submitted September 27, 1983
4. Agency Requiring Checklist King County /City of Tukwila
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tukwila Park - and -Ride Lot
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (in-
cluding but not limited to its size, general design
elements, and other factors that will give an .
accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
Metro proposes to design, develop and operate a park- and -ride
lot on 4.3 acres of land in King County /Tukwila, Washington.
It will consist of 260 -300 automobile stalls, landscaping,
lighting, passenger shelters, driver comfort station,
space for motorcycle and bicycle parking, telephone booth(s)
and transit information display and signs.
Attachment #9
Agency Permit
Tukwila o Conditional land use
o Substantial development
o Building
o Drainage /Grading
o Street use
King County
o Substantial development( '
o Building
o Drainage /Grading
o Street use
J v.JLL 1. ---tc • C
State
DOE o Flood Control zone
- €i-s-her±e- s/Garres o—Hydr-atri-ics
WSDOT o Air space lease - use and development in
the I -5 limited access area
Federal
- - -earps of
The project also requires Metro Council and Federal approval
(UMTA /DOT).
1
.1,4)1 ; 10•W 1—
•001 WO 0114
-f) 4.401 L4
•• ✓b7 Hl ••10.0.448 84444
Ol1• 1471 414 ♦1011
—!iT__ 1111171 • 014044
••7401 Y 1T\111 441w11
TJ11
Vint 1V11A
•
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the
proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected
by any environmental impacts, including any other information
needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ-
mental setting of the proposal):
The site is located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of Interurban Avenue South and 52nd Ave. So. in Tukwila_ ThP
majority of the site is in unincorporated King County and abuts
the Tukwila city limits. The Duwamish River is within 150 feet
east of the site. Interurban Avenue is between the river and the
proposed park- and -ride lot along with a ccnviPnr-P ctn -P /gac tation.
The site is occupied by nine residential rental units, one owner -
occupied residential unit and two buSinescPS_ TntPrcta- -S ;s on
the north and a portion of the site would be within the limited
access area. The southern boundAry is 5 ?nr1 Avanna South_
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 1985
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals
Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local --
including rezones):
See attachment
10.. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or
further activity related to or connected with this proposal?
If yes, explain:
Yes. Metro proposes to initially develop about 260 parking
spaces. An additional 40 spaces could be provided in 0.9
acres of land not presently planned for development.
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the
property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain:
See attachment
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed
regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is
expected to be filed at some future date, describe the
nature of such application form:
None
Attachment 11
Design studies have commenced for the joint City of Tukwila /King
County project to construct a new Foster Bridge. The previous
bridge was aligned on 56th Avenue S. approximately 100 feet north
of the 52nd Avenue S. intersection - .and was removed after it
collapsed several years ago. The current proposal aligns the
new bridge to.junction with Interurban Avenue opposite 52nd
Avenue S. The intersection would be signalized, which would
serve bridge traffic, auto traffic to and from the park- and -ride
lot, passenger movement between the northbound bus pullout and
the park- and -ride lot, and nonsite traffic from 52nd Avenue S. :....-
The opening date for the new bridge would be late 1984 or 1985.
The City of Tukwila proposes to improve Interurban Avenue South
from Southcenter Boulevard to Interstate 5. Improvements would
include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit turn-
outs, additional landscaping, pedestrian and traffic signalization..
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe"
answers are required.)
• 1) Earth. Will* the proposal result in:
a)
b)
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering of the
soil?
c) Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d) The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
e) Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site?
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean of
any bay, inlet or lake?
Explanation: .
See Attachment
Yes Maybe No
X
X
2) Air. Will the proposal result in:
a) Air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
b) The creation of objectionable odors?
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or
regionally?
X
•
_X_
X
Explanation: The emission from buses and automobiles will
result in a slight deterioration of air quality' on site.
The project, however. would.imprnvP the rpginn's air
quality overall.
1) Earth a,b, c
The site straddles the change in slope at the foot of a hill.
The highest point of the site isin the southwest corner at about
a 50 -foot elevation. The ground descends toward Interurban Ave.
to about 20 feet, about a 25 percent slope. At the 20 -foot
elevation, the ground flattens and continues across the central
and northeastern site to Interurban Avenue. The topography
remains relatively level across Interurban Avenue to the banks
of the Duwamish River. The level portion of the site is partially
paved or developed, covering portions of'the site.
Some modification to the original topography may have occurred
because it appears the toe of the slope has been excavated,
extending the level portion of the site to the southwest. No
unique geologic formations are evident on any alternative sites.
The site soils are composed of glacial till and recent alluvial
soils which probably underlies the northeastern portion of the
site adjacent to Interurban Avenue. Fill may be present on
portions of the site which has past development.
Glacial till, a dense unsorted silt, sand and gravel mixture,'is
exposed in small, old cuts on the southwest edges of the existing
parking lots. Previous geologic mapping indicates that till
underlies most of the site's southwest portion.
Sandstone is visible in a 20 -foot bluff at the .southern corner
of the Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue South intersection
across the the street from the site. The sandstone is com-
pletely weathered at the surface and can be easily gouged..
Sandstone may also underlie the glacial till. Recessional
outwash is mapped in a narrow northward - trending deposit in
the southwest corner of the site. This deposit generally
consist of well- sorted and with gravel.
The proposed action requires grading and filling to develop
a uniform slope. The majority of the site would be paved.
Erosion is possible during construction but measures will be
used to channel surface water away from slopes. Temporary
fabric would also cover exposed soils on embankments.
A pond would also be constructed to remove sediment before
discharge in to the drainage system.
3) Water. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements, in
either marine or fresh waters?
b) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
c) Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters ?.
Yes Maybe No
X
d) Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body? X
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
X
f) Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters? X
g) Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
h) Deterioration in ground water
quality, either through direct
injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents,
waterborne virus or _bacteria, or
other substances into the ground
water?
i) Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Explanation:
X
X
(
II Environmental Impacts
No. 3 Water b,d,e,f & g
The site is located in the Green River watershed in the range of
river mile 9 to 10. Site runoff would be conveyed to the
Interurban Avenue drainage system and ultimately discharged into
the Green River about river mile 10. (See figure 11.) The
following table displays the increases in runoff rate as a result
of paving the existing permeable surface areas.
Discharge Rates for
Tukwila Park- and -Ride
Design Storm
Drainage Peak Discharge Rates
Condition Area (acres) (cubic feet per second)
5 -year 10 -year 25 -year
Pre - Development 4.27 2.7 3.3 4.2
Post* •Development 4.27 5.7 7.0 9.1
*Post - development discharge rates are without
mitigation.
Water quality could be . affected during construction grading
because site soils would be exposed to potential water erosion.
Without mitigating measures, there may be significant soil loss
and significant soil loss and subsequent increases in suspended
and settled solids in site runoff. Downstream sedimentation and
turbidity may result. The risk of flooding could also increase
if sedimentation clogs storm sewers.
Long -term operation of a park- and -ride lot would result
intensified site use and increased concentrations of various
pollitants in site runoff. An increase in.- .po11tant
concentrations reaching the Green River is anticipated. Adjacent
land uses are producing similar or worse runoff quality.
Significant impacts on groundwater quality is not anticipated.
Runoff detention would be provided in conventional surface
detention facilities. Runoff detention storage capacity for a
10 -year storm would be 4,900 cubic feet. On -site flood storage
would be provided for the 100 -year, 7 day storm or the.equivalent
of 10 inches of rainfall. The detention storage for the above
condition would be accommodated within the parking area. The
100 -year, 7 -day flood storage requirement would be about 155,000
cubic feet. During construction the following measures would be
implemented to reduce impacts on water quality:
o Scheduling construction activities during the summer months
of June through September. Special conditions would be
instituted for work during other months with the appropriate
agencies.
o Usingtemporaryerosioncontrol proceduressuchas strawbales,
fabric and plastic sheeting to cover soil stockpiles.
o Minimizing slopes of earth fill banks.
Revegetating landscaped areas as soon as possible following-
construction.
o Providing erosion control performance criteria in
construction specifications and adequate construction
inspection.
Metro would provide detention facilities to also promote
sedimentation preliminary site schematics indicate about 3600
square feet of developable space for sedimentation facilities.
The amount of surface area provided would remove 40 micron size
particles and larger with .about a 50 percent pollutant removal
efficiency. Additional sedimentation space could be provided
which would reduce the number of, parking stalls. Insoluble
materials such as oil and grease would be additionally mitigated
by. using elbow and tee pipes in storm sewer manholes or
coalescing plate oil /water separators. An artificial wetland
could be created in the buffer strip between parking areas.
Also, detention time could be extended to promote sedimentation.
•" "!. ,t .
0
4
or 1
W
E
Yes Maybe No
4) Flora. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)? X
b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora? X
c) Introduction of new species of flora
into an.,area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species? X
d) Reduction in acreage of..any agri-
cultural crop?
X .
Explanation: The project would removeexisting grass, shrubs
and trees. The proposal would provide landscaping for
aesthetic purposes.
5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna
(birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
c) Introduction of new species of fauna
into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of
fauna?
d) Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Explanation: See Attachment
X
X
II Environmental Impacts
No. 5 Fauna d
The Duwamish -Green River system has a variety of fish using the
river - estuary for breeding, rearing, forage and transport.
Chinook, coho and chum salmon as well as trout and perch use the
Duwamish -Green River system.
Increased turbidity during construction would affect water
quality in less than desirable conditions for migrating salmon.
Construction activities of grading and fill would take place in
the summer to reduce water quality impacts on salmon. (See II 3
water.)
e
TABLE 12
TIMING OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD FRESHWATER LIFE
PHASES IN GREEN- DUWAMISH BASIN ?/
Soecies
Fresh -water
Life Phase
J F M
Month
N
Upstream migration
Summer-
Fall Spawning
chinook Intragravel develop.
Juvenile rearing
Juv. out migration
-
i
•
�-
Upstream migration
Coho Spawning
Intragravel develop.
Juvenile rearing
Juv. out migration
--
I
• •
Upstream migration
Chum Spawning
Intragravel develop.
Juvenile rearing
Juv. out migration
-
!
I
Upstream migration
Summer
steelhead Spawning
-• • Intragravel develop.
Juvenile rearing 1�
Juv. out migration
..
;
Upstream migration
Winter
Spawning
! ;
steelhead
Intragravel develop.
Juvenile rearing 1�
Juv.. out migration
i
!"Normally extends over a two -year period.
? /Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Comprehensive Study of
Water and Related Land Resources. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters.
.Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife, March 1970.
6) Noise. Will the proposal increase
existing noise levels?
Explanation:
SPP Artar-hmPnf-
Yes Maybe No
7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce new light or glare?
X
Explanation: _Th. fari 1 i ty wnn 1 a prnvi r9P lighting_ SpPr_ l
• .. • ..
•
be used
- ..
8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in
the alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
X
Explanation: The site is presently zoned Regional Retail and
Multi- family Residential. The proposed use would change
the site to a public use.
9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a) Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b) Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
Explanation:
X
10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
the risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited' to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
Explanation:
II Environmental Impacts
No 6 Noise
Noise resulting from park- and -ride lot operations would exceed
King County ordinance levels by only 1 dBA and only at receivers
bordering the entrance and exit adjoining 52nd Avenue South. For
receivers abutting this entrance and exit automobile noise could
be mitigated by constructing a barrier along the length of the
driveway on the property line.
According to EPA guidelines, receivers very close to the entrance
off of 52nd Avenue South would experience insignificant
increases, in Leq during morning rush hour due to automobile
traffic on the site. The accumulated noise exposure over 24 -hour.
period (Ldn) would be unaffected for: all receivers. These
receivers presently experience noise levels that exceed the
federal government's recommendation for maximum 24 -hour total'
residential noise levels (Ldn), and that level would not change
due to noise from the park- and -ride lot.
Location
EXISTING AND PREDICTED SOUND LEVELS IN dBA
TUKWILA SITE D
Predicted Levels Criteria
Existing Off On King Federal
Time Level Site Site Total County Consensus
D -1 Commercial Midday 70 70 55 70 60 70
(northeast)
D -2 Residential 7 -8 AM 63 63 58 64 57
(south) Daily 67 61 65
Yes Maybe No
11) Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
X
See number 12 attachment
12) Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Explanation: See Attachment
X
13) Transportation /Circulation.
proposal result in:
a) Generation of additional
movement?
Will the
vehicular
b) Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking?
c) Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d) Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement.-of people
and /or goods?
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f) Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
Explanation:
See Attachment
_X_
II. Environmental Impacts
No. 12 Housing
The proposed park- and -ride lot would remove seven residences
including five single - family units, one duplex and one triplex
displacing about ten persons. Two businesses would also be
removed.
Metro would provide sufficient relocation personnel, experienced
in both residential and business relocations to this project.
These relocation agents will explain and identify all relocation
alternatives to the people being displaced from both residences
and businesses. This will be done under the guidelines as set
forth in Public Law 91 -646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,; as amended, and
the regulations of the Urban Mass Transit Administration as
defined in the circular, UMTA CA4530.1, dated March 21, 1978.
Duties may also include assisting displacees to fill out forms•
required by lending institutions, the Small Business
Administration and others on leasing and purchasing new
premises. Assistance will also be rendered in preparing and
filing claims for reimbursement after relocation has been
completed.
II Environmental Impacts
No. 13 Transportation a,c & d
The operation of a park- and -ride lot would attract about 260
vehicles for all day commuter parking. Commuters would ride the
bus or carpool to complete their respective trips. An estimated
670 auto trips would maximize use of the 260 stall facility.
About 35% of the .total auto movements at the site would occur
during the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. period. About 80% of the peak -hour
trips would exit from the park- and -ride facility while 20% would
enter during the afternoon peak hour.
Park -and -ride lot commuters are either Tukwila residents (coming
down from hill via 52nd and 58th Avenues), other commuters along
Interurban, or rerouted commuters from I -5 and I -405 corridors.
In addition to the auto mode trips, a number of bus trips would
be routed to the park- and -ride facility. Approximately 200 bus. -
trips would service the lot each weekday, with a total of 200
daily and 20 peak -hour bus trips stopping along Interurban
adjacent to the park- and -ride lot. The projected 870 daily auto
and bus trips and 260 p.m. peak -hour trips will •primarily.
distribute along Interurban Avenue with approximately 20% of the -
trips using 52nd Avenue to and from the Tukwila residential hill
area.
Exiting park- and -ride autos and existing 52nd Avenue traffic
stopped at the Interurban intersection could experience very long
delays (LOS E) at times during the afternoon peak -hour. With
completion of the new. Foster Bridge and proposed realignment of
56th Avenue to meet the 52nd Avenue and Interurban Avenue
intersection, traffic from the bridge or the existing driveway
opposite 52nd Avenue would also experience considerable delays
(LOS E) in attempting to cross or turn left onto Interurban
Avenue.
The existing two -way left -turn lane would accommodate "inbound"
left -turn site traffic from Interurban onto 52nd Avenue and left
turns to 56th Avenue. With or without the park- and -ride
facility, Interurban Avenue would handle over 20,000 vehicles per
day (vpd) by 1985 near the site but at tolerable service levels,
because the capacity of the five -lane roadway is approximately
30,000 vpd. I -5 on and off -ramp intersections with Interurban
Avenue immediately north of the site would carry nearly 10% less
peak -hour volume and continue to operate at levels -of- service
(LOS A).
All buses serving the park- and -ride facility would load and
unload commuters at on- street bus zones along special pullout
areas on both sides of Interurban Avenue. Potential conflicts
•
117,6001
Average Weekday
Traffic Volume
Annual Avg. Accidents
(Wtth Injuries)
Traffic Signal
asr!„
ETRD
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle •
"rs
I • 4 OW
FIGURE 19
H ExistiN it)(1
Weekday Daily Volume
P.M. Peek Hour Volume
Note: Includes Buaea
ETRO
Munwspality oi Meirtopolitan Seattle. 1t' No r I.h
Scnie: I" -400
FIGURE 27
'ii!)-
p)s.7, (Liiiv and l'fv1 pcak litifir sitc traffic
dish-11)1111(w
12.0
�10.6J
Volume With Park
and Ride (In 1000'8)
Volume Without Park
and Ride (In 1000'8)
>;;CtTIETRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Srattk ?` North.
Sinitt: 1"-400.
FIGURE 28
Slit' 1) -- 19X wccktl;ly tr ;llfic ;Itul
\vitlr11111 I, ;Irk \ ritic I()t
•
with auto traffic would occur during routine merging along
Interurban at the bus pullout zones. All. park- and -ride autos
would enter. or leave the site via a single driveway onto 52nd
Avenue located 200 feet southwest of the Interurban intersection.
The only hazard generated by this proposed access is-potential
right -angle or rear -end collisons between exiting park- and -ride
autos and existing 52nd and 53rd Avenues vehicles coming down the
hill. During the p.m. peak period, backups from the stop sin at
Interurban could extend as far as the entry driveway and attimes
block both park- and -ride and non -site traffic destined to
Interurban Avenue.
Pedestrian and vehicular conflicts would be minimal since
commuters, would walk toward Interurban where on- street .bus. stops
would be provided, while park- and -ride autos would be routed to
and from the single entry point along a collector road at the far
west boundary of the site. Bus passengers loading or unloading
to and from northbound buses would have to cross Interurban
Avenue by using the existing flashing signal crossing south of
52nd Avenue.
In order to mitigate the off -site impacts of the proposed park -
and -ride, the following street and signal improvements would be
negotiated with the local jurisdiction:
o. Widening of 52nd Avenue adjacent to the park- and -ride site
to provide two approach lanes and one exit lane at Interuban
Avenue. A left /through and a right- turn -onl y.lane would be
included and extend from Interurban Avenue to the park -and-
ride auto driveway. Provide striped island just east of the
entry to delineate the left -turn egress movement from the
park- and -ride lot and the reverse -curve transition from one
to two eastbound lanes.
o A fully- actuated traffic signal is recommended for the
intersection of Interurban Avenue and 52nd and 56th Avenues.
The signal will be . required to permit safe egress at this
intersection by autos. The traffic controller should have
capabilities to accomodate a left -turn pahse for Interurban
Avenue and multiphase capability for 52nd and 56th Avenues.
Signals at this location would substantially reduce the
projected average delay and potential hazard for the site
traffic as well as for the existing 52nd Avenue and future
traffic on the new Foster Bridge. This improvement is part
of the Foster Bridge reconstruction project.
o Provide pedestrian signal and crosswalk for all four legs of
the 52nd Avenue and .Interurban Avenue intersection to
safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
•
o Convert the existing two -way left -turn lane (14 feet wide)
along Interurban - Avenue on both sides of the 52nd /56th
Avenues intersection into left -turn lanes -to accommodate
projected turning volumes onto 52nd Avenue (toward park -and-
ride lot) and the new Foster Bridge.
o Prior to design Metro in conjunction with Tukwila and Ring
County Officials would discuss realignment of 52nd Avenue
with the Foster Bridge improvement.
o Provide curb, gutters and sidewalks along Interurban -and
52nd Avenues adjacent to the park- and -ride lot to separate
pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicular traffic.
o Install "Stop" and "Do not Block Intersection" signs along
the park- and -ride entrance driveway at its intersection with
52nd Avenue in order to discourage blocking 52nd and 53rd
Avenues traffic during peak periods when queues from the
Interurban Avenue intersection may on occasion extend back
to the park- and -ride auto driveway.
A second driveway for the park- and -ride lot is under
considertion. This driveway would be on Interurban Avenue just
north of the Gas n' Go property and would be restricted through
appropriate channelization and signing to a right turn into the
park- and -ride from southbound Interurban Avenue and a right turn
out of the park- and -ride lot to southbound Interurban Avenue.
This access would benefit most p.m. peak -hour destinations, which
are from the park-and-ride lot to southbound Interurban Avenue.
This movement would thus be divided between the 52nd Avenue park-
and-ride driveway and the subject exit. Convenience and travel
time benefits would accrue to those motorist, and the park -and-
ride's circulation would be reduced, although overall level of
service at the 52nd Avenue intersection (under the recommended
signalization) is calculated to remain at a LOS A.
•
14) Public Services. Will the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in the need
for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks and other recreational
facilities?
e) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f) Other governmental services?
Explanation: The site could require additional police patrols.
The site would require maintenance by Metro personnel. (See
utilities for additional service.) The park- and -ride lot
would be availible evenings and weekends for parking by golfers
using the Foster Golf course.
15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b) Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
Explanation:
16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or alterations
to the following utilities?
a.) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Water?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
Explanation:
See Attachment
17) human Health. Will the proposal result
in the creation of any health.hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Explanation:
Yes Maybe No
X
18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Explanation:
X
19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
X
Explanation: The park - and= rideaot could be used on evenings
and weekends by people visiting or using the Foster Golf
course, thus increasing golf course use.
20) Archaeological /Historical. Will the
proposal result in an alteration of a
significant archaeological or historical
site, structure, object or building?
Explanation:
III. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge
the above information is true and complete. It is understood
that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance
that it might issue in reliance upon this .checklist should there
be any misrepresentation or lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:
Date:
0 Or
16. Utilities
The proposal will require electrical power for lighting..water .
for irrigation, sewer facilities for a driver comfort station,
drainage facilities for storm water, and provide telephone booths
and waste receptacles for bus patrons.
� _