Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-62 - SOUTHCENTER INVESTORS / MORRIS PHIA COMPANY - OFFICE BUILDINGVAN WOERDEN SOUTHCENTER INVESTERS C/O MORRIS PIHA CO EPIGFD -62 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EMEBEESVFINAL DECLARATION OF /NON —S I GN I F I CA dCE Description of proposal Application for ShoreJipe Permit for Office_Building Proponent Location of Proposal Southcenter Investors, c/o Morris Piha Company East of Chreistensen Road and Baker Boulevard Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No EPIC- FD -6A- This proposal has been determined to (hiw 'not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (his 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 Position /Title Date Kjell Stoknes Director, Office of Community Developmen 27 July 1978 COMMENTS: Signature A Reference City of Tukwila Office of Community Development Files numbers: 1. 78 -16 -SS 2. 78- 17 -SMP 00 RECEIPT Received From Address =, a AC AMT. OF ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CASH CHECK BALANCE DUE' 8X909 Ged'fi"" ORDER `r By CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire - to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: SOUTHCENTER INVESTORS, c/o Morris Piha Company 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 612 Hoge Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone Number: 623 -5626 3. Date Checklist Submitted: May 26, 1978 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila Planninq_Department 5. Lame of Proposal, if applicable: Southcenter Investors Property 6. Nature and Brief Description, of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):, See attached text 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): See attached text c . Estimated Gate for ,Com let ion of the Propos l : Mid11979_ 1s R List o'.' ��11 Permits, licenses or Gove��n:,l����: f.; , .•ora .ec;uirec for the Proposal (federal, state an_i local): (it) Rezone, Coi:ditional use, shoreline p r; it, etc. (h) f:irj County Hydraulics Permit (c) i;oilding permit YES X NO YES X i:n YES X iO (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO X (e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO (f) Sign permit YES NO X (g) Mater hook up permit YES X NO (h) Storm water system permit YES X NO (i) Curb cut permit YES NO X (j) Electrical 'permit (State of Washington) YES X NO (k). Plumbing permit (King County) YES X NO (1). Other: 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or father activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Development may occur incrementally, however, ultimate conceptual development is addressed in this checklist. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None I I . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) YES MAYBE. . NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? -(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcover- ing of the soil? X (c) Change in topocjrap'iy or gro.rnd surface relief fea- tur es? X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique ge'olog1C or physical features? X X Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 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 or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: • YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: 3. plater. Will the proposal result in (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in. either marine or fresh waters? X (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood-waters? X (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any :lteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flu;) of ground waters? X (g) Change in the qua!:tity of e :: ',mid waters, eitiler through d"I re. t additions or withdrawals,' or throuq:i interception of an aquife ;• by cuts er e; :cavatioi:s? • (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 waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? . Explanation: 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)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YES MAYBE NO X Explanation: (d) Pasture grass which was raised for grazing purposes is the "agricultural crop ". There is some question as to whether this case fits the definition. 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 wovement of fauna? X (d) Deterioration to existing fi sh or wildlife habitat? X Explanation: X 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise. levels? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: 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: 10. Ri s'•: of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Expla ItiGCS: X X X 11. Population. Explanation: • • Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, .density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES MAYBE NO X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand forr additional housing? Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. (a) (b) Will the proposal result Generation of additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon (d) Alterations or movement existing transportation systems? to present patterns of circulation of people and /or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: 14. Puhlic Services. (a) in: Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) F;iintenance of public facilities, including roads? X X X X X (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: 15. Energy. Will'the proposal result in: (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: YES tiAYBE FIO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? X (b) Communications systems? X (c) Water? X (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X (e) Storm water drainage? X (f) Solid waste and disposal? X Explanation: 17. HHin Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding c.ental health)? Explanation: X • • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his - torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICAflT: YES MAYBE NO X X I, the undersigned, state that to the Lest 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 willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Signature and Title Date I. BACKGROUND 6. The sponsor proposes the 11.08 acre site to be developed for profes- sional office use. The sponsor seeks to short -plat the site into four parcels, and sell the parcels to building developers. Conceptual layouts have been drawn, however, this final design decision would be made by the builder. Compliance with applicable jurisdictional codes would be the responsibility of the builder. The sponsor would improve Christensen Road to comply with city standards. Appropriate storm and sewer lines would be installed with- in the street right -of -way. Additionally, a portion of the site ad- jacent to the Green River would be donated to the city for use as a park. 7. The site is bordered by the Green River on the east and north, Christensen Road on the west, and on the south by a fence which runs east -west between Christensen Road and the Green River beginning at a point approximately 517 feet south of the Christensen Road - Baker Boulevard intersection. Most of the land within the site will be directly impacted by development, exceptions being the dike area along the Green River, and areas of mature stands of trees. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. (b) The site elevation presently undulates, averaging elevation 21. & To ease storm drainage and sanitary sewer design, plus relieve (c) potential flooding, the site will be filled to an elevation between 260 and 280. The Bow Lake pipeline right -of -way will be an exception to this blanket fill. The top of this 60 inch (asbestos cement) pipe is near elevation 17.5 and cannot sup- port the soil surcharge, thus, the effect will be to leave a swale over the pipeline. The sponsor would coordinate with the City of Seattle on landscaping treatment of this swale, so it could act as a buffer /wildlife habitat. The ditch may collect water and then would require storm drainage facilities. (e) There would be a temporary increase in the potential for soil erosion during construction. The erosion potential will be mitigated by proper construction techniques. 2. Air. (a) The major sources of.air pollution at the site is due to auto- motive exhaust emissions. Traffic along the adjacent streets can create levels of carbon monoxide, the primary vehicular pollutant, of up to 3 mg /m3 during peak hour traffic (eight hour standard is 10 mg /m3). The increase in traffic generated by the facility will be less than 5 percent, resulting in an 0.1 mg /m3 increase in air pollution, which is indistinguishable from present levels. Solid waste will be removed by a disposal company, so there will be no incineration. 3. Water. (b) The introduction of impervious surfaces over approximately 50 percent of the site will increase storm water runoff. This runoff will be handled via a sponsor - installed and maintained storm drain system, exiting into the Green River. Storm runoff from the improved Christensen Road will be collected in an existing storm drain and ultimately discharge into the Green River. (d) The development will cause additional storm water to enter the Green River. (e) Storm water discharged into the Green River will pass through catch basins to remove most suspended particles. However, some impurities plus some dissolved oxygen will enter the Green River. 4. Flora. An on -site investigation of vegetative communities and of species present was conducted for preparation of the checklist. The site is primarily abandoned pasture and is presently covered by a wide variety of common grasses, weeds, shrubs and trees. Most of these would be eliminated and replaced with a smaller variety of species (some new to the site) used in landscaping of lawns and gardens. The large cottonwood trees along the north and east border would be preserved. The project site occupies a small isolated piece of abandoned pasture (agricultural crop); and would be converted to other uses. While the site was historically used for agricultural purposes (grazing) it must be recognized that agricultural use is no longer economically feasible on the site. 5. Fauna. On site investigation of the site indicates that it presently sup- ports a wide variety of common small wildlife species such as rabbits, mice, moles, swallows and song birds. Many of these would be eliminated from the site by the proposed development and replaced by birds common in developed areas such as crows, house sparrows and song sparrows. The abandoned barn and pasture habitats would be replaced by build- ings, parking lots and maintained lawns and gardens. Standard design and construction precautions would be necessary to avoid significant impact to the aquatic habitat of the Green River. Although the natural character of the site is an attractive con- trast to the surrounding development, the hahitat and species of the site is common. The site does not offer suitable habitat for any known rare or endangered species. 6. Noise. There will be a slight increase in noise levels resulting from human . activity typical of an office site environment over that of the quiet activities which currently occurs on the site. 7. Light and Glare. Localized low level lighting sources will be introduced to this here- tofore unlit site for safety and security purposes. 8. Land Use The proposal site was used as a feed lot at one time by the previous owner. The feed lot facilities remain, in deteriorated condition, and includes a large barn, sheds, corrals, loading ramps, barbed wire enclosures and assorted debris. The sponsor presently rents these facilities on a monthly basis as warehouse space for a commercial landscape nursery. Additionally, there is a small single- family residence at the north end of the site which the sponsor rents out on a monthly basis. All structures on the site will be removed when approval to proceed with construction is obtained. Site use will change from a low -level commercial agricultural use to the more intense office use. Office use at this site is consistent with both the city zoning and com- prehensive plan. All lands in the site vicinity are also in office use. It is not feasible to continue the current use of this land in the midst of urban development. 9. Natural Resources. (a) Common building materials and energy will be consumed in construc- tion. Long -term operational energy commitments would be relatively insignificant. Consumption amounts would be similar to that re- quired to meet this demand at an alternate site. 13. Transportation /Circulation. (a) The proposal will result in approximately 880 vehicular trips (in plus out) per day based upon 80,000 square feet gross leaseable area, (at ultimate development), according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers guidelines for office buildings. (b) On site parking will be provided to meet demand in accordance with applicable city standards. No off -site parking will be required. 14. Public Services. (a) New buildings will be of long -life, fire resistant construction and will be substantially less of a hazard than the structures presently occupying the site. Development of the site will also . replace much of the existing annual vegetation with perennial types and thus, remove a possible source of nuisance fires. The impact of the project on fire protection services is expected to be slight. • • (b) The increase in numbers of people attracted to the developed site will create a slight increase in demand for police services. However, the types of activities related to the development are not conducive to unlawful acts. The increase in traffic will slightly increase demand upon police traffic control staff. (d) Office occupants may increase usage of the adjacent Bicentennial Park during lunch hours on sunny days. Use is currently below capacity for this park. In addition a new waterfront park area along the north shore will be offered for dedication to the City (e) Buildings, grounds and on -site public utilities will be maintain- ed by the owner. Private utility companies would maintain their respective facilities. Off -site water, storm drainage, and sanitary sewer facilities would be maintained by the City, as would Christensen Road and Baker Boulevard. On -site roads and parking lots would be maintained by the owner. 15. Energy. (b) Construction equipment will consume electricity and fossil fuel in normal amounts. Long -term energy requirements for operation of the development will be insignificant. 16. Utilities. (a) Underground electrical service has been installed within the Christ- ensen Road right -of -way. Power vaults have already been in- stalled at the southwest corner of the Baker Road - Christensen Road intersection. Long range planning by the Puget Power Company has taken into account full development of the site such that power sources and supplies will be adequate for the foreseeable future, according to company spokespersons. Both on and off -site installation and maintenance will be the responsibility of the electrical utility company. The nearest natural gas line to the site terminates at the intersection of Baker Road and Andover East Boulevard, re- quiring approximately 350 linear feet of pipe installation to reach the site. Washington Natural Gas will install and maintain all lines on and off -site at their own expense if natural gas service is required for the development. Spokespersons at the utility indicate sources and supplies are plentiful for the fore- seeable future. (b) Pacific Northwest Bell indicates it has the ability to supply telephone service to the site. (c) The nearest water line to the site exists in the Andover East Parkway right -of -way. Approximately 350 feet of new line would have to be laid in the Baker Road right -of -way to reach the site. It is likely the developer would install both on and off -site water lines under city supervision. Existing watershed resources and distribution systems are adequate for long -term growth in this area. • • (d) An 8 inch sanitary sewer line exists in the Andover Park East right -of -way, approximately 350' west of the site. A sanitary sewer line would have to be installed along Baker Boulevard by the developer to serve this site. If the site is filled to 5' about its present level, a gravity main would suffice.and would be constructed at the developers expense. The sewer line to the northern most lot of the development may require special considerations in order to avoid conflicts with the City of Seattle's 60 inch Bow Lake water pipe. (e) A storm drainage system will be constructed on -site to remove runoff generated by the addition of impervious surfaces. The sponsor- funded storm drainage facilities in the improved Christensen Road would collect the street runoff which in turn would eventually exist into the Green River. Catch basins would remove suspended particles. In accordance with state requirements, flap gates would be installed at the exit point of the on -site system to prevent to prevent fish from enter- ing the system when the river level is high. Although plans are not complete for the site development it is anticipated that average ground elevations in parking lots and site areas will be approximately 262 (MSL). On this basis the area grades would vary between lows at about 25.5 to highs at about 26.5 which indicate that the drainage system will function at full efficienty with river levels up to about elevation 24. The river water level for a 1:100 year flow occurrence in this area is estimated by the Corps of Engineers to be approximately 21.8. The system will function under this occurrence. When the river level rises above elevation 24 the capacity of the system will decrease slowly until, at a river elevation of about 25.5, the drainage system will begin to pond water over on -site catch basins in the low areas. The Corps of Engineers is authorized to discharge up to 12000 cfs from the Howard Hansen Dam, if it is deemed necessary, due to conditions in the dam area. This dam release plus local inflow downstream from the dam is estimated by the Corps of Engineers to result in a maximum water surface elevation at the site of approximately 264. At this point the on -site drainage -system Will not function and low areas of the site will pond water. Building floor grades will be at 280-, safely above max- imum flood levels. (f) Proposed business occupying the development would generate relatively insignificant amounts of solid waste. Southgate Disposal Company, a private company, indicates its present facilities are adequate to handle the slight increase in demand. 18. Aesthetics. The site is an aesthetically pleasing rural scene containing green pastures, weathered farm buildings, and mature trees. However, it is viewed by only the infrequent passers -by on Christensen Road. The tall cottonwood trees can be viewed from further distances and provide vegetative relief to the urban character of the area. Close • • visual survey of the site is difficult as fences, signs, and locked gates discourage the casual observer. Foot travel along the dike adjacent to this site is difficult because of heavy vegetation. The farm buildings and pasture will be removed. In its place, at- tractive office buildings with appropriate landscaping treatment will occur. The mature cottonwood trees along the dike will remain. The trail along the east edge of Christensen Road will be relocated along the top of the dike and will connect the Bicentennial Park with a new river front park site along the north side of the site, thus, permitting more public use of the river than is now possible. 19. Recreation. Presently the site has no recreational value, as signs forbid un- authorized tresspass. Development of the site in the proposed man- ner will enable greater recreational use. The trail along Christensen Road would be moved from its present location and be placed along the top of the dike. The trail passes through Bicentennial Park to the south, then continues in a southerly direction adjacent to the Green River. The site itself will become more open and accessible to public use, together with the site amenities such as the river pro- ximity and mature stands of trees will act to enhance the recreational use of this site. Additionally, the sponsor proposes to donate a portion of land along the northern boundary of the site to be used as a riverfront park. This portion of land contains many of the large cottonwood trees. Design specifics of this park are yet undetermined. 20. Archeological /Historical. The Tukwila Historical Society has determined that the site is of some historical significance, as migrating indians used the site to camp along the Green River. The State Office of Historical Preservation is currently researching their records for significant findings on the site. The State Office of Public Archeology has responded with the attached. letter. While there is a probability of significant remains on the site, they conclude that subsurface disturbance is unlikely consider- ing the depth of fill. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 May 23, 1978 Institute for Environmental Studies Office of Publ,ic.Archaeology 'Engineering Annex FM -12 Mr. Ronald J. Smulski Wilsey and Ham, Inc. 631 Strander Boulevard Seattle, Washington 98188 RE: Preliminary Archaeological Assessment of Tukwila. Development Site. Dear Mr. Smulski: In response to your letter request dated May 12, 1978, I have prepared the following preliminary assessment of the potential for archaeological resources of the Tukwila development site in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24 and the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 25, Township 23N, Range 4E, King County, Washington. What 1 have done is present for you a set of alternative courses of action that might be taken in regard to archaeological resources at the site and noted which alternative is more appropriate in the eyes of this office and the State Historic Preservation Office. It is clear from your vicinity and site maps that the property in question lies on the in -curve of an ox -bow of the Green River. The geological substrata is riverine silts and sands and, I presume, marine sediments. underlying that. Located as it is on an ox-bow, the site covers an area that contains buried channels of the Green River that are progressively older as one moves west from the modern channel. In addition, we know from other sites in the area that, until fairly recently, this area of the Green River floodplain was an estuary with extensive marine resources in the intertidal zone. Although no archaeological sites are known to exist in the Tukwila development site, one site has been reported to have existed nearby in an environmental setting which is identical (see enclosed map). Site 45 -K1 -6 was a shell midden, probably a seasonal shellfish collecting site, located in the in -curve of an ox -bow in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24. It consists of a 60 cm thick layer of shell and artifacts buried three meters below the land surface. Nearby, to the north, were wooden posts which had formed a V- shaped fish trap in the Green River main channel. This site was totally destroyed by re- channelization of the Green River preparatory to 405 construction. r'4 Recycled Paper 'a of Mr. Ronald J. Smulski May 23, 1978 Page Two The probability is great that similar sites exist beneath the surface . at the proposed development site. Shell midden sites are important for several reasons, foremost among them being the significance to Native American history and their potential for providing valuable data on the response of marine invertebrates to environmental changes and to long -term exploitation by humans. If a site or sites similar to 45 -KI -6 exist on the property in question, they are certain to be of significance. Two alternatives present themselves as regards the protection of the archaeological resource potential of the Tukwila development site: (1) In our phone conversation of May 19, you stated that from five to seven feet of fill would be placed on this site. Such a cap would effectively protect any archaeological materials that might exist. If your client chose to excavate beneath, the fill level for sewage, footings, etc., it would be important for an archaeologist to monitor such activities. In this way, we would know if, in fact, any sites did exist in the area and have knowledge of the nature of the resources protected beneath the cap of fill. (2) The development site, an area of what appears to be between seven and ten acres, could be systematically tested for archaeological resources by coring either manually or mechanically. In this way, we would be certain of the presence or absence of archaeological resources on the site. have discussed these alternatives with Ms. Sheila Stump of the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She and I both feel that, while capping the site would protect any sites that may exist, it effectively prohibits the discovery of such sites, thereby limiting our potential know- ledge of Western Washington prehistory. Monitoring of subsurface disturbances would assure whether or not sites existed in the areas directly affected by the disturbances, but provides far less reliable information than would systematic coring. As far as the cost of the two alternatives, if there is subsurface disturbance of the area, alternative 1 would require an undetermined number of man -days, probably from two to six days. A systematic coring operation is likely to require three to four man -days. If you find that either alternative suits your needs, this office can readily supply the necessary services. It has been good working with you on this matter. Dealing with Wilsey and Ham is always a pleasure, as you provide adequate data from which we can make our assessments. If you have any questions about these recommendations, please call me. cc: Ms. Jeanne M. Welch, D-:uty SHPO, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Sin rely, James C. •Chatters Research Associate LEE ALN6iLg MAY 2 4 1973 WILSEY & HAM, INC: July 17, 1978 • • CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Kjell Stoknes From: Carl Stixrood RECEIVED O.C.D. CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 1.7 1978 Subject: Southcenter Investors Short Plat: Proposed dedication of land for Municipal Park Purposes, Feasibility of Trail Connections EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed dedication follows the Green River Shoreline on what is commonly known as the VanWoerden property. Generally, the major portion of the dedication consists of 1.4 acres of low lying land (elevations between 16 and 20 feet) at the north end of the property. A connection to the Bicentennial Park is provided along the property's west edge which will contain 14' of level land suitable for trail purposes at elevations of about 26'. A 30' corridor to Christensen Road is pro- vided to the north, however, steep and rough terrain exists between Christensen Road and the 1.4 acre low lying parcel. A new levee is to be constructed around the perim.ter of the property with a top elevation of 28' and width of 14'. FEASIBILITY OF LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES 1. The proposed dedication along the oestern edge of the property should be adequate for pedestrian and bycycle access provided that the 14' of level area does exist following the filling operations. 2. The 1.4 acres of low lying land will flood annually. This will not be a drawback for recreational use and may nurture the lush tree and grass growth which gives the area its cool shady grove character. 3. The connection between the 1.4 acre parcel and Christensen Road at the northwest corner of the property is the most serious problem with this dedication. While a pathway or stairs could physically be constructed to make this connection, the path width ..v)ould be narrow (perhaps 4 - 6') and yearly maintenance would be required to repair demange caused by 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -2177 annual flood waters. Future plans for development of Christensen Road call for development of a major parking lot just north of this site and therefor this narrow pathway would form the main entrance to the 1.4 acre heart of the park. To reduce this access problem,.I suggest that a public access easement be provided along the top of the new dike beginning at Christensen:Road near the existing house and connecting to the 20' dedicated strip at about elevation 26'along the west edge. King County Hydraulics generally requires that they have access to the top of all dikes for maintenance purposes. It will not deprive the owners of any use of their land to require that the tov'of this dike be jointly used for recreational as well as maintnance access. The public will benefit from lower trail maintenance costs and year round use. (See attached excerpt from plot drawing, section BB.) An alternative to this requirement for public access along the top of . the dike would be to maintain a connection along the existing Christensen Road right of way instead of vacating it. It may be desirable to have a pedestrian and bicycle connection between Bicentennial Park and the proposed cul de sac whet the adjacent prop- erties become fully developed. I suggest a useable la: ..�oubli ac ess corridor be provided here. As the major extension ronllieµ�u estop' access is more desirable because of its continuous contact with the river. 0 If proper access is provided, this dedication will be a great asset to Tukwila's emerging riverfront recreational corridor. PROPOSED' Lima r of / rE /MQRO I'E /EAI TS 5//e Grade 7c lend Fa/ Exi5/ Ground ®3'' 447 A4 i Min. 2% 2 1 New; Ld-vec El. M.0 • SECTION BB TYPICAL (No Scale) • . Area /,bo ve Ordinary High r7iQf vet; Con o rrrm ire g To C/ fy O/' Tu.k wi /a s it DIar, rg 9R) T'rm in n fp ' Q For c/ 7‘y ti Orchr747ry High Wafer kr? ,E /'j 2/421- 7 40' Ri v. r Zones