Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-SA-11 - SEATTLE CITY LIGHT - TUKWILA PONDTUKWILA POND SEATTLE CITY LIGHT EIS EPIC-SA-1 1 4' MINI -MEMO sew4 Terence R. Monaghan, P.E. Public Works Director • Department of Public Works City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 SUBJECTili! �} j✓t, k_�� DATE 03/7"ef DATE TSTG N E D RETAIN \WHITE COPY FOR OUR FILE. SEND ❑ YELLOW, ❑ PINK COPY TO CUSTOMER. ❑ NO REPLY NECESSARY- ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ TELEPHONE ❑ RETURN ENCLOSED MEMO WITH REPLY 1 2 0 4 JEF : k lrn 7/28/78 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a ) 5 municipal corporation, ) NO. 842 141 7 Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a ) municipal corporation, ) 10 ) 11 Defendant. ) ) TO: THE CITY OF TUKWILA, Defendant; and to LESOURD, PATTEN, 12 FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY, its attorneys: 13 In accordance.. with C.R. 33 of the State of Washington, you 14 will please answer the following interrogatories separately and fully, under oath, within twenty days of the date of service of 15 these interrogatories upon you. These interrogatories are continuing, and you are requested 17 to provide any information that alters or augments the answers 18 now given when you obtain such information. 19 1. Please. state the date of incorporation and corporate 20 ; organizational form of The City of Tukwila. 21 ANSWER: 22 23 24 25 23 27 Ptntf s First Irrterrogs . 28 iPage one DOUGLAS N. JEWETT `.:EA rrLE CITY ATTORNEY 10T1-4 L.0OR SEATTLE .MUNtCI.'.n,L 3LDG. -•t_Arrlc. `HASH, 9:110-1 623-2270 2. For each Tukwila official or employee responsible for the design of Andover Park West, please state his or her: a. name; b. present job title; c. job title at the time the design was done or approved; d. specific responsibility as regards the design or approval; e. present employer if other than The City of Tukwila; f. last —known address if not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: a. The Director of Public Works was Steven M. Hall, P.E. The consulting design engineer was Howard Harstad, P.E. b. Mr. Hall is no longer a city employee. Mr. Harstad is still engaged in private practice. c. See a. 14 15 16 17 18 d Mr. Hall concurred with Mr. detail design and approved. City's behalf. The detail design was done and was approved by him. • Harstad's approval of the the overall design in the under Mr. Harstad's direction, Mr. Hall is presently employed by the City of Milwaukee, Oregon. Mr. Harstad is employed by Harstad Associates, Inc. f. Mr. Hall's last known address: Dept. of Public Works City of Milwaukee Milwaukee, Oregon Mr. Harstad's last known address: 1319 Dexter Ave. No. Seattle, Wa 98109 Pintf's First Tntel rags. DOUGLAS •N. JEWETT SEATTLE' CITY ATTORNEY 1 OTH FLOOPt SEATTLE wur.:rlo.AL i1LO . W A O- 1 2 J 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. For each Tukwila official or employee responsible for the design or approval of the design of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System, please state his or her: a. name; b. present job title; c. job title at the time the design was done or approved; specific responsibility as regards the design or approval; e. present employer if other than The City of Tukwila; last -known address if not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: d. f. It is my understanding The Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed and approved by the Washington State Highway Depart- ment in conjuction with Highway I -405 construction. Plitt' s First Interr_ocjs . Page three DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTCRNEY OTH FLOOR _iEATTLE TIUNIC: %AL vLJG- 'i F.ArrLE.'HA` .. 7:A104 1 2 0 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. If Andover Park West was designed by The City of Tukwila, please state: . a. The name of each official and employee involved in the design; b. each person's responsibility for the design; c. the job title of each person at the time the design was done; d. the present job title of each person listed in sub- paragraph (a); e. the present employer of each person listed in subparagr (a) who is not now employed by The City of Tukwila; f. the last -known address of each person listed in sub- paragraph (a) who is not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: Andover Park West was designed by a private consulting engineering firm. Pl.nLf's First Tnterrogs. 'Page four 0000LAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 101'11 FLUFF SEATTLE MUNICIPAL :Y:EATTLc. NA 5H. ,1a 104 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 5. If the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed by The City of Tukwila, please state: a. the name of each official and employee involved in the design; b. each person's responsibility for the design; the job title of each person listed in subparagraph (a) at the time the design was done; the present job title of each Person listed in sub- paragraph (a); c. d. 17 e. present employer of each person listed in subparagraph (a) who is not now employed by The City of Tukwila; The last -known address of each person listed in sub- paragraph paragraph (a) who is not now employed by The City of Tukwila. 18 f. 20 .ANSWER: 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • . To the best of my knowledge, the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed by the Washington State Highway Department. Pintf'. s First Interrogs . Page five • DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY LOTH FLOG' SEATTLE MUNICIPAL ULOG. • SEATTCa'. WAs-.. Dei O- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. 24 25 26 27 20 6. If the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed by a private engineering, architectural or other professional firm, please state: a. the name of the firm that did the design; b.. - its present address; c. the name of the individual of the firm with whom- Tukwila had primary contract ANSWER: To the . best of my knowledge, the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed by the .Washington State Highway. Department. 7. If Andover Park West was designed by a private engineer- ing, architectural or other professional firm, please state: the name of the firm that did the design; b- its present address; c. the name of the individual at the firm with whom you • had primary contact. • ANSWER: Harstad Associates, Inc. 1319 Dexter Ave. No. Seattle, Washington 98109 i'lntf's First Interrogs. Page six DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE.. CITY ATTORNEY 1 OT.1 FLOO:! .m1lfoC1:'AL F1l.OG. ^:A RLE. MA ;.4. 4.310-f 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8. For each city official, employee or agent involved in 7 securing the easement from City Light for construction of Andover Park West, please state his or her: 9 10 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 29 e 21 22 23 24 25 26 -27 28 a. b. c. d. e. f name job title at the time the eastment was secured; present job title; present employer if not now employed by City Light; responsibility in acquiring the easement; last -known address if not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: Official Frank E. Todd, Mayor - -now a private citizen reported to be self- employed -- signed document in the City's behalf- - Last known address: 14445 - 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, Wa 93168 m 1p oyee Shirlee Kinney, City Clerk- -Last known employer, City of Fife, Washington -- Signed document and filed for recording - -Last known address: City Clerk City of Fife • Fife, Wa. 98424 (2) Steven M. Hall, Director of Public Works - -Last known employer, City of Milwaukee, Oregon -- Requested identifi- .cation legal description of easements required for con- struction of Andover Park West- - Last known address: Department of Public Works City of Milwaukee Milwaukee, Oregon 97202 Agent Howard Harstad, Consulting. Engineer, Harstad Associates 1319 Dexter Ave. No., Seattle, Wa. 98109, prepared legal descriptions of easements. Plntf's First :I :nter.rogs . Page seven DOUGLAS N. JEwErr '. SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 5:1A "41_0G. 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 -ANSWER: 9. Please state the name and address of the general contrac- 10 11 12 13 14 10. Please state the name and address of the general 15 contractor responsible for the construction of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System. Pacific Paving Co. Inc Last known address: 121 South River Street Seattle, Wa. 98108 16 ANSWER: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . To the best of my knowledge, the Washington State Highway Department was the contracting agent for construction of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System. •11. Identify *as specifically as you are able (e.g., by date, month, season, year) the date of every flooding of the City Light. property that you can recall - between 1960 and the completion Andover Park West. 26 27 28 To the best of my knowledge the City of Tukwila does not have or maintain records of floods on private property. Plntf's First 7:nte.rrogs. Page eight DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 1OTN ELCO. SEATTL. MUNICIPAL !LOG... SEATTLE.: WA -4. 3'310.+ 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. For each flooding identified in Interrogatory No. 11, please state: a- the specific cause of the flooding; b. .The period of time that the City Light property was under wiiter; c.. whether the flooding was limited to the City Light property or extended beyond the boundaries of the City Light property; d. the total number of acres flooded in each instance. • ANSWER: . . To the best of my knowledge, the City of Tukwila does not have. or maintain records of .floods on private property. Pintf's First InLerrogs. Page nine DOUGLAS N. JEWETT • SF.ATTT:E CITY A'IT::,,RNEY I 0/"H SEA rrt.E. • , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. From 1960 until the construction of Andover Park West, please state the months or approximate percentage of time each year that the City Light property was dry. ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge the City does not'have or maintain records of when private property is dry. 14. Please describe the drainage of the City Light property prior to construction of Andover Park West. ANSWER: Records indicate that a ditch which ran from the southwest to the northeast in the southeast quadrant of the present City Light property provided a-drainage outfall which apparently ran:through a culvert or pipe buried in what is approximately now Andover Park West. This culvert or pipe then apparently emptied into a continuation of the drainage ditch which also ran southwest to northeast on the property .which is now on the southeast corner of present -day Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. Data or information on .other facilities which provided drainage for the City Light property has not been found or recalled. 15: Please describe the drainage of the City Light property since completion of Andover Park West. ANSWER: A 30" and 42" storm sewer was installed. on the east side of Andover Park West, and 24" and 30" stubs were installed across Andover Park West perpendicular and into the 30 "/42" main storm sewer past the east property line of the City Light property. These spurs are located at approximately the mid- quarter points of the east property line with the most southerly (the 30 ") stub located approximately. where the former drainage ditch met the east property line. It has been reported that both of these spurs were left open to daylight in an excavated depression at the east property line of the City Light parcel to allow for drainage. Pintf' -s First Interrogs' DOUGLAS N.J =WErr SEATTLE CITY AT TOFtNEY !Page ten tOT4FLOOR • SEA r'ClE. WASH.. )it 10.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 • • 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. Please state the date of completion and describe the operation of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System. ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge, this facility was built.by the Washington State Highway Department, and no records are available . in the-City.of Tukwila. • 17. Please state.the number of outlets for storm water in the Gilliam Creek System and the location of each outlet. ANSWER: See #16 P:Lntf's First Iriter..r_ocgs. Page eleven. DOUGLAS N. JEWErr fEATrL.E CITY ArroRrczy TOTH FLC.,0∎4. - -, ,ca rrt.c. Was.. ?9 +on • 2 3 8 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17. 13 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 18. What prevents the water of the river(s) into which the storm sewer water flows from entering the sewer system when the level of the river(s) rises above the level of the sewer outlets? ANSWER: The head of water at the outlet exceeds the head of water at the inlet or a flap gate closes if one has been installed. 19. If there is no mechanism for preventing backflow from the river, where does the backflow discharge? ANSWER: It appears that these general engineering questions are directed at a specific pipe, river, etc. If this is so it is un- clear wbic:h. If it's a general question- -The answer is that if there were backflow i.e. water flowing toward the'inlet it Would flow out the inlet when it reached the inlet's elevation - -or if the outlet were blocked either mechanically or hydraulically, water flowing into the inlet would build up from the outlet until it overflowed at the inlet. 20. If there is a mechanism for •preventing• backflow from •thc- river(s), where does 'storm water in the sewer system discharge when the outlets are closed? P:LnLf's First Interrogs. See #19 LDOUGLAS N. JE WEr'r SEArrL£ CITY ArrOHNEY tUTH FLOOR 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANSWER: 21. Since. its completion, how many times have one or more outlets of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System been closed? ANSWER: To the best of my knowledne, the City of Tukwila has not or does not maintain records on the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System. The City of Tukwila does not maintain this system. 22. For each time an outlet was closed, please state: a. the dates on which it was closed; b. the estimated number of gallons of water - returned -in the system or discharged elsewhere due to the closure. ANSWER: See #21 23. What in your opinion is the fair, market value of the.' City Light property? ANSWER: 24. On.what is your opinion based? If your opinion is based upon an appraisal, please state: the name, business address and occupation of the individual(s) who did the appraisal; b. the employer of the person who did the appraisal or- the name of the individual's company if self -- employed. Plntf_'s First Interrogs. Pacje Thirteen DOUGLAS N. JEWETT • SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLCYOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL L'LDG. SEATTLE. WASH. SR1O4 CSS 19.2 3 5 7 ANSWER: 25. Please state the date(s) of any appraisal(s) referred 9 to in Interrogatory 24. ANSWER: 10 11 12 13 14 15 exhaust its administrative remedies in its August 22, 1978 land- 26. If it is your contention that City Light did not 16 fill permit application, please state the specific administrative 17 remedies that City Light failed to exhaust. 18 ANSWER: 19 20 21 22 23 24 •25 26 27 ; and regulations, . please state the specific 28 not • satisfied. Pintf' s.._F.:irs_t.:Tnterrogs _• 27. If it is your contention that City Light's landfill application did not comply with all applicable. City of Tukwila laws four i` _'e`Z laws and regulations DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATr, NEY i:�:'H Wn.-;H. 7•I 1 G.• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANSWER: 28. If the Tukwila City Council, the Tukwila Planning Commission, or any:other commission,.department or agency of The City of Tukwila made written findings or stated in writing the grounds for its denial of City Light's landfill application, please state the date of the findings or statement, where they were filed,-and where copies of the document(s) can.be secured. If you provide a copy of the document(s) without a motion to produce, 'please attach them to your answer to these Interrogatories ANSWER: 29. If it is your contention that City Light can use the filliam Creek Storm Sewer System to drain its property without P].ntf's First Interrogs. It is my understanding that the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System parallels page fifteen DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY LOTH FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL ULOG. ATT2.E. .`..;■-t: 9Ft t • •• • • • • C5; 1)2 • • 1 3 4 5 6 Highway I -405 and is a 48" pipe which discharges into the Green River to the east. The 3011!42" storm sewer installed as part of the Development of Andover Park West adjacent to the Seattle City Light property was tied into the storm Water system.which existed in Andover. Park West, north of Strander Boulevard and ran north to the Gilliam Creek System. filling it, please describe the method or methods that would permit use of the system. ANSWER: Without the benefit of a detailed analysis fron a hydraulic standpoint, the property could be drained by a combination gravity and pump system. 8 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30. If there were no written findings, please state every reason for Tukwila's denial of City Light's August 22, 1975 landfill permit. ANSWER: 31. Please state the name and job title of each person answering these :i.nterrogatories and the number of the interroga- tories for which each person listed provided answers. ANSWER: Piantif's First : cnterrogs. jPage sixteen T. R. Monaghan,- P. E., Director of... Publ i c Works WUGLA'..; N. JEWETT' SEATTLE CITY ATTOFtNz y 1 OTli FLOOR SEAr LE 7A U NICI PAL 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT City Attorney R CM\ f rtp JAMES E. FEARN, Assistant Attorneys for Plaintiff TATE OF WASHINGTON ss. OUNTY OF K I N G states upon oath: being first duly sworn, That (s)he is of The City of Tukwila and is authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf; that (s)he has read the foregoing Answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories, knows the contents thereof, and believes the same to be true. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 1978. Pint:i-f's First :Cnter_ro .0age.. seventeen Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. DOUGLAS N. JEW F..11* SEATTLE CITY A rro•tN EY I OTTE- Pkia0R -- . .•.- n "TL r. WJ�•:r ::..1L =i• -L" i. SEA rr .. Aa5 - -•- S,a 10.1 2 August 1978 CaTY o T .l K��a� OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Larry Hard LeSourd, Patten; Fleming, Hartong & Emory 3900 Seattle First National Bank Building. Seattle, Washington 98154 Dear Larry: As I'm sure you are aware, Seattle City Light is attempting to sell their pond property in the City of Tukwila on the open market, with the closing date of offers coming sometime in November of this year. I have already had a potential buyer contact me regarding how they can be assured that the City would allow the development they. propose on the property prior to making an offer on the land. My comment to them was I was not sure and that I would contact the City Attorney for advice. My preference is that since the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review and City Council were involved in the decision to deny the City Light fill application originally, I would like to use the same process regarding any future proposed action on the property. The problem is that the ordinance dealing with the State Environmental Policy Act under • which the Planning Commission and City Council were involved originally has now been repealed and replaced by a new ordinance. This new ordinance makes . the decision an administrative procedure. As an example, let's say that five potential buyers of the property come to the City and say;'We want to know if you would approve this development plan if we were to acquire the property'.' They state they would want some insurances that they would get approval on something substantially similar to what they have shown us in order to be sure they can make an economical package out of a development on the property. Based upon the above, I pose the following questions: 1. Who makes the final decision in the City under its present laws regarding whether a development permit should be issued on the • Seattle Light property or not? 2. How can a tenative development proposal be placed before that decision authority prior to actual ownership of the property and prior to knowing whether or not the project will be implemented? 6230 Southcenter Boulevard in Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242 -2177 Mr. Larry Hard Page 2 LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartong « Emory .2 August 1978 3. If some type of tentative decision could be granted, how should that decision be handled to not tie the City down within too narrow per meters? 4. When it comes time for the final building permit application, review, and issuance, who is the final decision authority? (It would be my preference here that the Planning Commission and City, Council sit as the final decision authority on this action.) I feel like the above questions need to be resolved to avoid all confusion in the processing of any actions related to the Seattle Light property. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the clearity of this letter, etc. Sincerely, Kee 1 Stoknes, Dirrector Office of Community Development KSfe cc: Mayor Bauch Fred N. Satterstrom Al Pieper L WASHINGTON //77-1 ORDINANCE NO. —) AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS, ESTABLISHING WHEN THEY ARE RE- QUIRED AND. PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF STATEMENTS DEEMED. INSUFFICIENT. AND REPEALING .ORDINANCE NO. 751. WHEREAS, The Environmental Policy Acts of the United States of America and of the State of Washington require the filing of environmental impact statements in connection with the development of certain properties, NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. The Planning Coordinator shall require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in the case of every proposed action determined by him . to be an action that will significantly affect the quality of the environment. The follow- ing actions require a determination of environmental significance on the basis of an Impact Assessment Summary submitted by the applicant.. When such actions are major and significantly affect the quality of the environment, they require the preparation of an environmental impact statement: (a) actions taken by the City which result-in permits, licenses, leases and other entitlements for use for projects and, activities undertaken by private persons and govexlimental bodies, including shore- line management permits, grading 'permits, building permits, sewer and water permits, conditional use permits, variances, rezones -and plats; (b) actions whi.Ch result in substantial increases in the existing level of air, water or noise pollution in the vicinity of the subject project or activity; '(c) actions which result in the potential_ destruction of natural resources such as lakes,* rivers, streams, floodple:i_ns, marine water, and ocher shorelines; (CO actions L C' 'have Z Substantial . ci v f ' S e effect 0:1 wildlife habitats, r _ s i and ,1 d 1E, unique vegetation; • (e) actions which have a substantial 'effect upon the type of land use, population distribution or con - centration and•public services in. the vicinity of the subject property or activity; (f) actions which directly or indirectly cause the relocation of a sizable number of persons; (g) actions which are materially incompatible• with the City's Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code or result in a substantial change in some part of the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code. (h) actions which cause substantial harm to a public park or other recognized area of public recreation or to an important historical or.cultural resource; (i) actions which present a potential and serious threat to the health or safety of the general. public;. (j) actions which have an important or meaningful • effect, direct �r •indirect, upon a. broad range of aspects of the environment; • (k) actions which are of an industrial. nature as that term is commonly used, including as change in use from a non_- industrial to an industrial use . tiithin an existing structure; (1) actions which will result in .the storage or handling of toxic or flammable materials; (m) actions which may.result in the rezoning of prop- erty from a• residential classification to another classification that could allow uses that •may have significant adverse environmental effects, .including but •not limited to, excavating, filling or grading of .existing soil or removal of exist- ing or natural vegetation. Section 2. In determining whether a- proposed action will significantly affect the quality of the environment, the following considerations should be taken into account, and attention_ to these considerations •must be included in the impact assessment summary: (a) • The overall, cumulative impact of the action proposed and of further actions contemplated; (b) the importance of the action in terms of precedent for action in much larger cases or for other similar actions individually limited but cumu- latively significant; (c) the potential conflicts of the action with recoy7ni tie d national, state,. regional or local plans or .policies; (d) the likelihood, that the environmental impact of the action will be highly Controversial among reasonably. well-informed persons; • (e) the possibility of alternatives to the action_ that Mould have less adverse environmental impact, Section 3. The following p' -ir s are to be covered in the environmental impact statements requ:L ed by this Ordinance: (a) The proposed action: The statement shall contain. a cTescrip tion of the proposed action or actions including, in the case of specific projects, the name of the project and its location, a descrip- tion of the project's physical characteristics, the objectives of the project, the cost and timing of the project, and the primary govern- mental approvals needed to carry out the project. When relevant, maps and other graphic descrip- tions should be provided. (b) Existing conditions: The statement shall contain_ a description of the condiWrs and features of the existing setting for the project. The de- scription shall include the natural and manmade elements of the area, with emphasis on the un . usual aspects of the area.. Legal, policy and institutional. constraints relevant to the project area should be identified. (c) Environmental impact: The statement shall contain an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable bene- ficial and adverse` impacts of the proposed•action on the environment. The analysis should include both. direct and secondary significant consequences on the natural features of the area, on the various life forms, and on the human uses of the area Both quantitative and qualitative information should be included, (d) Any unavoidable adverse •' environrnenta•l effects:. The statement shall include a restatement of any probable adverse environmental effects which can- not be reduced in severity or which can be reduced in severity but not eliminated. Measures which would have aigating influence on the adverse effects of the proposed action should be de- scribed, along with an explanation of the measures' effectiveness and the likelihood of their being implemented. (e) Alternatives to the proposed action: The statement shall include a description of appropriate and rea- sonable•alternatives to the proposed action.. The kinds of alternatives described should includer- where relevant, . (1) alternatives requiring ,actions of a significantly different nature which provide similar benefits with different environmental impacts, and (2) alternatives related to different designs or details of the proposed action, which would present different environmental impacts. (f) Relationship .between local short -teal use of man's •env:l ronrnen.t and the maintenance'.. and enIi nce ?.'-'..ni- of long -term productive ty: The stateent s _z i include a descrji tion of the cumulative and long-term J effect :s of the proposed action which narrow the range_ of future beneficial uses of the '.T ?.vi. 2:OrneIII_ or pose lOn,-t err risks to health or safety_ In this section the economic and technical bens: _ t of t :he proposed action ;:.;; [, dC�i.o,., dl ✓^_ c?5 ess :Ct and i`1 ViiCaga ins t the environmental costs., -3- • Any ii-n-r-versJble and irretri.evable comaitments or resources:. The statement shall i.nc1uae a-- description of the kind and quantity Of resources permanently committed as a result of the proposed (h) (:ommen-ts of public agencies and public studies and reports: The tia1 impact statement shall include copies of the 'comments and views of the • appropriate federal, state and local agencies . which have reviewed the proposed• action with • respect to the environmental impact involved. Where appropriate, the statement shall also • . include a description of the problems and ob- jections raised by private organizations and individuals in the review of the proposed action . or in the review of the impact assessment summary. This section of the statement should include. a description of the public expression and partici- pation in the planning of the proposed action. In either this section or the other relevant sections of the statement, the ,major studies, . • reports and other. documents used in the prepara- tion of the statement should be cited. Section 4.. The:cost of preparation.of any Environmental Impact Statement shall be borne by the applicant and/or'. developer.... Section 5. All Environmental Impact. Statements shall be prepared by a qualified individual, consulting form or laboratory acceptable to the City. Section 6. If .in in the opinion of the City the Environ- mental Impact Statement is found to be insufficient or inaccurate, the applicant and/or developer shall assume the cost of a review by a separate, impartial consulting firm or agency, failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements of this ordinance shall constitute sufficient grounds for withholding all building permits and licenses for the subject property. • • Section 7, If upon review of the environmental impact statement and/or impact assessment summary the City determines that further guarantee of environmental protection and proper development or operation is required the City may require a development, maintenance and operation agreement in the form of restrictive covenants running with the land and/or a performance bond in the arount of 150% of the estimated cost of development. Section_ 2, Any proposd action which is major and significantly affects the quality of the environment and has thf-cefore required the preparation of an environmental impact LS :� statement may ? U be subject to i.:L "C I1 Li f_'C i ii n _c ;rl bvL? Ci » roar-d of Architectural Review. In the event that review by the B.A.F. is determined rmined to be •appropriate, it shall be the duty oI_ the B.A.R. to. protect and preserve the natural beauty and character_ existent in and inherent to the subject property and peripheral properties, in addition to other provisions of this ordinanc :e and applicable federal and state laws. All applications for building permits in connection with a project for which an environmental impact statement has been required may also be required to have plans, site plans, elevations and landscaping plans submitted to the Board of Architectural Review for architectural control review. Upon filing of such application. the Board shall review the proposed action and either give its approval or recommend changes or alterations to the proposal, If .the board gives written approval thereto, a balding permit shall be issued by the appropriate city official•providing all other requirements of the Building Code and ordinances of the 'City have been complied with,• If the Board presents a written report, thereon recommending' changes in the exterior architectural design, landscaping, tree, shrub planting, and /or site improvements which the said applicant refuses to make, comply with or accept after conference, no building permit shall be issued. .However the .applicant. .shall have the right of appeal to the city council and..a hearing shall be held thereon, after which the council may order issuance of a building .permit, it may withhold issuance of same if not satisfied that .the proposed plans are in keeping- with the spirit of good development which will have the minimum, adverse impact upon the quality of the environment. The notice, if any, of the public. hearing on the report of the Board of Architectural Review, and the application for architectural contra: review shall be in the time, form, and manner directed bythe city, council. Section 9 All environmental impact statements required • by this ordinance shall_ be prepared in accordance with the 1• aship q on State Departm nL of Ecology's "Guidelines for 7')lei-n_ is _ icn of the fat : e Policy of 19 71n . _ace. Environmental E ol_ -_ .1 Act o,.. , Section 10. Ordinance:No, 751 is hereby repealed in its entirety. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL And approved by the Mayor at a regular meeting thereof this \!.1-:/ day of February, 1973. Attest: Approved as t� Form: Published: /, Mayor • • F. A. LESOURD WOOLVIN PATTEN DONALD D. FLEMING GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK DWAYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS 0. McLAUGHLIN PETER LESOURD JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE- FIRST'NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Director, Office of Community Development City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 (206) 624 -1040 May 16, 1978 LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS D. WILLIAM TOONE M. COLLEEN WEULE DANIEL D. WOO ROBERT L. PALMER COUNSEL Re: Tukwila Pond Seattle v. Tukwila Dear Kjell: Enclosed is a copy of the complaint filed by the City of Seattle against Tukwila concerning the. Tukwila Pond. I would appreciate it if you would review this document and call me with your comments regarding our answer to the complaint. Very truly yours, LeSOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, RTUNG & E1kORY Lawren E. Hard Enclosure cc: Honorable Edgar D. Bauch RECEIVED O.C.D. CITY OF TUKWILA AMY 1 9 1978 U; • Bv.__7 // .5-C6 f. T:',:;.:. RAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY TEE CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a ) municipal corporation, ) ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) NO. SUMMONS 842111 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, TO: THE CITY OF TUKWILA, Defendant. YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to appear within twenty (20) days after Fervice of this Summons upon you, if served within the State of .Washington., and within sixty (60) days after said service if served without the State of Washington, exclusive of the day of service, and defend the above- entitled action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County aforesaid; and answer the complaint of plaintiff, The City of Seattle, and serve a copy of your answer upon the undersigned attorneys for the plaintiff, The City of Seattle, at their office below- stated; and in case of your failure so to do, judgment will be rendered against you according to the demand of the complaint which will be filed with. the Clerk of said, Court, a copy of which is herewith served on you. Summons DOUGLAS N. JEWETT City Attorney By GORDON F. CRANDALL, Assistant Attorneys for Defendant. Office and Post Office Address: 10th Floor Seattle Municipal Bldg. Seattle, Washington - 98104 Telephone: G25 -241; 1 2 4 6 8 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2d G.EC: r 1 3/7/73 • IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a ) municipal corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) NO. 842141 ) vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES TnE CITY OF TUKWILA, a ) - AND OTHER. RELIEF municipal corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ) COMES NOW Plaintiff, The City of Seattle and alleges as follows• 1.1 That Plaintiff, The City of Seattle, is a first class city and municipal corporation in the State of Washington. 1.2 That Defendant, The City of Tukwila, is a.third class city and municipal corporation in the State of Washington. 2.1 That at all times material hereto, plaintiff has been and is the owner of the following described real property situate in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington: The southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., King County, Washington, EXCEPT, the north 30 feet and the east 30 feet thereof; ALSO, Together with all of the sellers right, title and interest in an easement for ingress and egress over the following described tracts: Beginning at the northwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., and running thence easterly along the northerly line thereof 20 feet; thence southerly parallel to the westerly line of said northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 20 feet; thence westerly parallel to the northerly line of said northwest 1 /4 of the southeast CGi :: i AI1: T FOR I! VERSE CMAGES AL,ir OTHER RELIEF - 1 DOUGLAS N. JEwETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BLOC. SEATTLE. K4S4 98104 62312414 1/4 20 feet to the westerly line of said northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4; thence northerly along said 2 westerly line 20 feet to the point of beginning; ALSO 3 The northerly 16 feet of that portion of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 26, Township 23 4 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying easterly of the Mess Bros. County Road; situate in the County of King, State of Washington. Subject to all easement, restrictions and encumbrances 6 of record. 7 hereinafter called the "City Light Site". 2.2 The City of Seattle is the owner of the seller's 9 interest in a real estate contract in the approximately 7 acre triangular, parcel of land in the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (PARCEL II) That portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said subdivision; thence North 0°26'30" West along the west line of said. subdivision 333.20 feet.. to the true point of beginning; thence South 89 °35'30" East parallel to the south line of said subdivision 9.58 feet to the center line of a drainage ditch; thence along said center line North 48 °03'35" East 97.16 feet; thence North 40 °53'57" East 56.76 feet; thence North 44 °17'54" East 50.24 feet; thence North 14 °51'49" East 50.05 feet; thence North 24 °45'19" East 56.50 feet; thence North 14 °34'46" East 41.43 feet; thence North 35 °00'20" East 58.10 feet; thence North 21 °15.' East 117.50 feet; thence North 33 °10' East 304.50 feet; thence North 38 °00' East 157.50 feet; thence North 19 °30' East 114 feet; thence North 11 °00' West 69.50 feet to the north line of said subdivision; thence North 89 °41'30" West along said north line 573 feet to the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence South 0 °26'30" East along the west line of said subdivision 998.40 feet to the true point of beginning, EXCEPT the north 30 feet and the west 30 feet thereof. Subject to all easements, restrictions and encumbrances of record including but not limited to local improvement district assessments. hereinafter called "Parcel II ". CO`1PLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEL•1NTTION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 2 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTO.NEY 1OTH FLOOR SEA TTLF •'JNICI.AL 13L04 SEATTLE.»ASM 99104 • C55 19.2 1 2.3 The drawing attached hereto bearing the label 2 "Appendix A. Grading Plan: City Light Site" is a reasonably 3 accurate representation of said City Light Site and Parcel II, their locations, existing elevations, contours and the abutting streets. 2.4 Said City Light Site and Parcel II were acquired 6 by The City of Seattle in 1958 for municipal lighting department purposes and have been paid for, maintained and 8 improved at the expense of said municipal lighting utility. 9 When acquired in 1958, said property also included (a) the 10 abutting southerly 30 feet of Strander Boulevard (colored red on Exhibit A), conveyed to the City of Tukwila in 1963 12 pursuant to Seattle Ordinance 92489, and (b) the abutting 13 portions of the street known as Andover Park West extension, 14 colored amber on Exhibit A, duly conveyed to and accepted by the City of Tukwila in 1974 by Quitclaim Deed and Easement 11 15 Agreement recorded under King County Recording Number 17 State law (including without limitation, RCW 35.94.040 and 43.09.210) requires: that said City Light Site not be 19 disposed of for less than its fair market value; that if 20 said site is transferred to or acquired by another public department or entity, it "shall be paid for at its true and 18 2 full value by the [public] department [or entity] • receiving the same," that the proceeds from disposition of said site be credited to Seattle's municipal lighting 24 utility for the use and benefit of said utility and its 25 rate- payers; and that "no [public] department [or entity] . 26 ! . shall benefit in any financial manner whatever by an �7 appropriation or fund made for the support of another." 28 COIIPLAINIT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 3 DOUGLAS N. JEW ETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10744 FLOOR SEATTLE MUy1C1oAL RLOG. SEA:TLF_ %,..498 98104 CSS 19.2 3.1 That by Ordinance 251 of the City of Tukwila, said city adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance. Said ordinance divides the City into use districts and regulates the use of land in accordance with the provisions for each use district. (See Exhibit B.) 3.2 Tukwila's CPR Zone.- Planned Business Center, Regional (Southcenter Shopping Center) and CM Zone - Industrial Park (Andover Industrial Park, the City Light Site and other property) are both entirely within Green River Flood Control Zone No. 2. All. developments (both' private and public) of property and streets within said Tukwila CM and CPR zones require Flood Zone Control Permits from the State Department of Ecology and must comply with the requirements of such. permits, (Washington Administrative Code Chapter 508 -60, RCW Chapter 86.16) including the requirement that finished site grades and the first floor elevations of any structures must be flood - proofed to one foot above the one hundred year flood plain elevation. 3.3 The one hundred year flood plain elevation for the. City Light Site, Parcel II, abutting portions of Andover Park West and the entire CPR and CM zones, except the P -17 drain basin, is 24.6 feet above Mean Sea Level, U.S.G.S. Datum; and buildings and structures in said zones (except in the P -17 drainage basin) must be flood - proofed to elevation 25.6 U.S.G.S. Datum. 3.4 The one hundred year flood plain elevation for the P -17 drainage basin (southerly of the railroad track adjacent to the southern margin of the City Light Site) is 21.0 feet U.S.G.S. Datum; and buildings and structures in said drainage basin must be flood - proofed to elevation 22.0 feet.U.S.G.S. Datum. COIAPLAINT FOR .INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 4 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 1OTH FLOOR SEATTLE MUN,CI ,AAL BLDG. SEATTLE. wASI• 99104 CSS 19.2 1 3.5 The U.S.G.S. Datum elevation for: 2 (a) the center of the intersection of Strander Boulevard 3 and Andover Park West is 25.44 feet; 4 the centerline of the existing Andover Park West roadway surface at the railroad tracks just south of the City Light Site, is 21.89 feet; and (c) the lowest point in the centerline of the Andover Park West roadway surface abutting the City Light Site is 19.30 feet. 6 7 9 3.6 All public and private properties and streets in 10 Tukwila's CM and CPR zones have been landfilled to elevations higher than the low point of Andover Park West adjacent to . (b) 11 12 the City Light Site, and were so filled prior to being put to their present uses, except:. 13 14 (a) the unfilled portions of the City Light Site which now contain a pond and associated wetlands (approximat 3 15 and 10 acres, respectively); (b) the drainage ditch and pond serving the County P- 17 17 pumping station on the Green River levee at 18 Minkler Boulevard; 19 (c) the Van Worden farm abutting the Green River near Baker Boulevard; and (d) portions of Parcel II, which were landfilled to 16 21 22 23 24 25. lower elevations and remain unused. 3.7 Throughout Tukwila's CM and CPR zones, landfill has been and is necessary in order to develop and use the property for the commercial, industrial and other uses contemplated and permitted by such zoning. 26 4.1 Tukwila's 1971.Six year Comprehensive Street Plan 27 contemplated extension, of Andover Park West south of Strander `.3 Boulevard. CO-IPI,AINT FOR INVERSE CO?.DE:1NATION, DAI,LAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 5 DOUGLAS N. JEWFTT SEATTLE CITY A ro aver 1 OTH FLOOD SEATTLE PALvvICIPAL BLDG SEATTLE. WA3y.'431O4 CSS19d 4.2 To induce plaintiff to dedicate the necessary land and to pay assessments for such planned extension of Andover Park West, defendant's officials made various representations 4 to plaintiff with intent that plaintiff and its officials 5 should rely thereon, including the representation by Tukwila Mayor Stan D. Minkler in his letter of December 20, 1968 . to 6 the Mayor of Seattle, upon which plaintiff justifiably 7 relied: 8 "I feel sure that as the road is built, proper 9 culverts will be installed. Andover Park West is not designed to act as a dam to City Light property." to 4.3 To develop Andover Park West, on January•25, 1974 11 Tukwila duly executed and accepted from plaintiff a Quitclaim 12 Deed and Easement Agreement recorded under No. 7402090363 13 for Andover Park West abutting the City Light Site, with the following covenants: "The Grantor [Seattle] . . . retain[s] the right of 15 egress and ingress to the above street area [Andover Park West abutting the City Light Site] at street level 16 across all such utility easement area from the remaining lands of Grantor abutting on each side." [Emphasis added.] 14 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25. 26 ?7 28 "These grants are subject to construction of an improved street and related permanent underground storm sewer and water facilities on the above area by the City of Tukwila. "The grants and conveyances contained herein are subject to the unconditional rezoning by the City of Tukwila of . all the City of Seattle property [shown on Exhibit A hereto] . . . from RA (Residential- Agricultural) to CM (Industrial Park)." 4.4 Prior to acceptance of said deed defendant enacted' (a). Ordinance 776 (June 4, 1973) authorizing and directing construction of a 21 inch storm sewer system in Andover Park West and forming LID 21 to pay for the same; (b) Ordinance 781 (July 2, 1973) authorizing and directing construction of "storm drainage, curbs . COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE Co':r):.i,IATIOid, DAMAGES AND 'OTHER RELIEF - 6 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY OTN FLOOR SEATTLE MUVKIAAL SLOG. SETTLE. 'WAS.r 90104 CSS 19.2 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 L i . street development and surfacing" in Andover Park West and forming LID 22 to pay for the same; (c) Ordinance 788 (July 2, 1973) rezoning the City Light Site and Parcel II from RA (Agricultural) to CM (Industrial Park) subject to the following conditions: "That Seattle City Light dedicate to the City of Tukwila, without cost, necessary street right- of-way as well as adjacent easements for utilities. "That Seattle City Light agree to pay its equitable share of the cost of public improvements . in connection with construction of the street and utilities. "That Seattle City Light enter into a contractual' developer's agreement to'run with the land certifying agreement to these conditions." and (d) Ordinance 835 (January 4, 1974) rezoning the City Light Site and Parcel II CM "as provided in Ordinance 788" and eliminated the conditions in Ordinance 788. 4.5 Thereafter defendant caused Andover Park West, the storm drainage system and other improvements to be constructed on the eastern margin of the City Light Site, levied assessments in excess of $100,000 (by LIDs 21 and 22) against said site for special benefits from such improvements, and accepted payment of'such assessments from plaintiff. 4.6 The deed covenants, agreements, ordinances, assessment and payments thereof for. construction of Andover Park West abutting the City Light Site each contemplated: (a). that storm,. surface and runoff waters on, from and traversing the City Light Site would be drained into such new drainage system in Andover. Park West abutting the site; 28 COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDCMNATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 7 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10714 FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BLDG. SEA TP' E. NA:,M 98104 CSS 19.2 1 2 • 4 6 7 (b) that the City Light Site would be landfilled to elevations higher than the new drainage system in Andover Park West, so that such site would drain by gravity into the new drainage system that such new drainage system in Andover Park west would adequately replace, and substitute for, the culvert, ditches and natural drainage which drained water from the City Light Site prior to such extension of Andover Park West; (d) that the culvert, ditches and natural drainage which drained storm, surface and runoff waters from the City Light Site prior to such extension of Andover Park West would no longer be necessary; (e) that elimination of the City Light Site's drainage outlets by construction of Andover Park West (including any resulting accumulation of water upon said City Light Site) would have no significant consequences; and (f) that such new drainage system would adequately drain the City Light Site. 5.1 In support of its application for and to induce issuance of Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 1685 -2, Tukwila's Public Works Director duly advised the State Department of Ecology's agent by letter of October 2, 1973: ". . . drainage which flows north from the railroad tracks [just south of the City Light Site] to [Strander] Blvd. (Ref: Dwg. 4 of 6, LID #22) is controlled by an outfall tidal gate at the Green River. Under extreme flooding conditions backwater will occur causing minimal overflow in the area of station 44 + 00 [in the Andover Park West extension abutting the City Light Site] which this Department feels is not critical." 5.2 The Department of Ecology Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 1685 -2 issued to and accepted by Tukwila is CO:42L ?,INT FOR INVERSE CONDE_;`;ATION, DAMAGES A'LD OTHER RELIEF - 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • e- 26 27 2E (c) . DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY, ATTORNEY IC?1 F..00R SEATTLE NUM1!UPAL BLDG. SEATTLE. W*54.9.1104 i 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Parcel II, and Tukwila closed and prohibited vehicle travel subject to the following special condition: "NOTE #2: (See King County Hydraulics Division letter, October 5, 1973.) The storm runoff that flows northerly [in the 30" Storm Drain to be constructed by LID 22] from Sta. 44 + 00 [in the Andover Park West extension abutting the City Light Site] along Andover Park West and into a 108 -inch storm culvert along SR 405, will back up during a flood flow in the Green River of 12,000 c.f.s., plus local inflow from the Green River Watershed Project. There is a flapgate at the outfall of this storm drainage system which discharges into the Green River and this will prevent flood water from backing up into this area, but will also restrict storm drainage from this system from entering the Green River. Mr. [Steve] Hall [Tukwila Works Director] stated that he was aware of this storm drainage problem, but believed no gnif cant flooding would result. [Emphasis in the permit]." 5.3 Tukwila's construction of Andover Park West on the eastern margin of the City Light Site blocked and eliminated the ditch, culvert and natural drainage which formerly carried surface and runoff waters from the City Light Site, and artifically caused surface and runoff waters to concentrate, accumulate, flood and form a pond upon said City Light Site. 5.4 In early December, 1975, and again in early December, 1977, the Tukwila drainage system in Andover Park West overflowed and flooded the City Light Site, the street and 19 on Andover Park West abutting the City Light Site until such 20 waters receded from the roadway. 2; 5.5 Tukwila's storm drain system in Andover Park West 22 artificially channels, accumulates, diverts and deposits surface and runoff waters upon the City Light Site whenever 2 3 the flow of the Green River exceeds certain levels (such as 24 12,000 c.f.s.) at the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System 25 outlet or when the flap valve on said outlet closes during periods of rainfall or water runoff (such as in early December, 1 1975, and in early December, 1977). CO`-.PLAINT FOR INVERSE: CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES 1 AND OTHER RELIEF - 9 � ," DOUGLAS SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY IOM FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BLOC SEATTLE. WAS$. 99103 . C••S 1 0 2 2 both the City Light Site and its right of access from Andover. Park West, and is aggravated by Tukwila's obstruction 4 of the culvert, ditches and natural drainage which formerly a • 5 drained it. 6 5.7 Some of the water in the pond on the City Light Site has been found to be unsafe for either human contact or non - contact recreation. 5.8 The storm drain system constructed by Tukwila LID 5.6 The reoccurring flooding described above damages 8 9 10 11 12 shown on Exhibit A hereto approved in 13 State Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 2173 -2. 22 cannot drain, serve and until said site is which will allow water such as the elevations • or benefit the City Light Site unless landfilled.to at least the elevations to drain by gravity in such system -- 14 5.9 Tukwila's construction, drainage system and street 15 grade of Andover Park West abutting the City Light Site each 16 17 •18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i artifically concentrate and accumulate storm, surface and runoff waters onto the City Light Site . and its Andover Park access, and will continue to do so in the future unless and until changes are made. 5.10 Unless and until revisions are made (such as allowing the City Light Site to be landfilled, raising the grade of abutting portions of Andover Park West, and correcting the drainage deficiencies), conditions created and maintained by Tukwila individually and cumulatively constitute: (a) the taking of a flooding, flowage and water storage easement over the City Light Site; (b) a permanent taking and damaging of said site's access rights in abutting portions of Andover Park West; CO?'iPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 10 • DOUGLAS N. JEWETT . SEATTLE CITY ATTO.7.,Er 17TH CLO^R SEATTLE ML .'CIPAL SLOG. `.EATTLE. ri +S•1 99,014 CSS 192 2 5 6 7 8 9 to the present and future needs of the utilities and were further found to have fair market values of $2,215,000 and (c) a permanent damaging of.said City Light Site; and (d) the creation and maintenance of a nuisance upon the City Light Site. each for the use and benefit of Tukwila for flood control, water storage, and drainage and other purposes, without payment of just compensation in violation of the constitution and laws of this State. 6..1 On May 29, 1975 by Seattle Resolution 24915. the City Light Site and Parcel II were each duly declared surplus 10 11 $285,000 in accordance with State law and RCW 35.94.040 and in 12 July, 1975, by Ordinance 104565, their sale by competitive 13 bidding was authorized. Thereupon plaintiff advertised and otherwise gave notice that such properties were for sale 14 and called for sealed bids on August 20, 1975. 15 6.2 On July 21, 1975, defendant's City Council and on 16 July 23, 1975, the Community Affairs Committee of said 17 council, took notice of plaintiff's notice of sale and call 18 for bids, and at the same meetings commenced proceedings to impose a moratorium upon landfill and certain other permits. 20 6.3 On July 27, 1975, defendant caused Substitute 21 Resolution 489 to be published in its official newspaper 22 with a notice that it would be passed August 4, 1975 and on August 4, 1975 said Substitute Resolution 489 was enacted 23 24 of applications for landfill and certain other permits. imposing a moratorium upon defendant's acceptance and processing 25 6.4 At the Wednesday, August 20, 1975 bid opening, 26 plaintiff received only one bid for Parcel II (from M.A. 27 ! Segale, Inc.) and none for the City Light Site. CO::MPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES A: :D OTHER RELIEF - 11 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTO.Z.EY tOTH FLOOR SEATTLE MUN CIPAL SEATTLE. WA 5+4. 9.y?Os CSS 19.2 6.5 Defendant's adoption of Substitute Resolution 489 2 interfered with said bidding and has deprived plaintiff of 3 the use and enjoyment of the City Light Site since the 4 August 20, 1975 bid opening. for permits from the State Department of Ecology and the City of 6.9 On August 22, 1975, plaintiff duly filed applications 6 Tukwila to landfill the City Light Site and Parcel II in 7 accordance with Exhibit A hereto, and paid Tukwila the following fees in connection therewith: 9 City Light Site (Application No. for Tukwila Building Permit) 10 11 12 13 14 15 536.84 16 6.10 Plaintiff's proposals and applications of August 17 22, 1975 to landfill the City Light Site and Parcel II each complied in all respects with Tukwila's zoning regulations 18 for the CM zone, Tukwila's Building Code (Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code) and all other applicable laws and 21 6.11 On September 4, 1975, Tukwila's Planning Director 22 Kjell Stoknes by letter advised plaintiff's Department of 23 Lighting that "a full environmental impact statement should 24 be prepared prior to further action of this permit." 25 6.12 On September 15, 1975, by memo to the Tukwila Building Department, copy to Mario Segale (President of the bidder on Parcel II), defendant's Director of Planning Kjell Permit fee Plan checking fee 852.75 235.55 1,088.30 Parcel II (Tukwila Building Permit No. 873) Grading Permit fee 418.20 Plan checking fee 118.64 19 20 2i 28 Stoknes, stated: COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES 4 AND -' OTIHER P..E,LIEF - 12 • DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE Gin' ATTORNEY 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE MUN!CiPAL SLDG, SEATTLE. WA3•1 Od134 CSS 192 1 2 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 "The Environmental Impact Statement required of the Seattle City Light Fill Application was only to apply to that property west of Andover Park West [the City Light Site]. "As far as the Planning Department is concerned, the only information we would need on the property east of Andover Park West [Parcel II] would be the completion of .the standard Environmental Questionnaire which we.. are requiring everyone to fill out who is applying.for permits through the City [of Tukwila]." 6.13 On November 20,-1975 the. State Department of Ecology duly issued Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 2173 -2 to landfill the City Light Site with the following condition: "A Finished site grade and first floor elevation of any structure must be flood - proofed to at least elevation.• 25.6 feet Mean Sea Level, U.S.G.S. Datum." and on February 4, 1976 duly reissued Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 2192 -2 to landfill Parcel II with the same condition. 6.14 On February 23, 1976, Tukwila issued building permit No. 873 to landfill Parcel II in accordance with 16 plaintiff's August 22, 1975 application. Thereafter, said permit was assigned to M.A. Segale, Inc., the purchaser of 17 Parcel II, who filled said property to its present elevations. 18 7. On May 14, 1976 defendant duly issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which states: "Because a large pond currently occupies approximately 15+ acres of the City Light site, the City of Tukwila feels that this proposal may be environmentally significant and controversial. In view of this, an Environmental 23 Impact Statement pursuant to Chapter 18.98 Tukwila Municipal Code was deemed necessary by the City's 24 responsible official [Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director]." "Approximately 15+ acres of this site is covered 26 with water and is commonly referred to as 19 20 25 1 Pond. This pond was inadvertantly created Vin 1974yy� 27 a during construction of Andover Park West. At that tine, the City Light site was a low, marshy depression COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION , DAMAGES AND OTHHE? RELIEF - 13 • DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CRY ATr04NEY 10114 FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL SLOG. SEATTLE WASI. 9913.& CSS 192 1 with a drainage outlet to the east. Construction of Andover Park West apparently blocked, this drainage and 2 a pond was formed in the low marshy area. 3 "The objective of the fill proposal is to prepare the site for development. However, at this time no development is proposed. City Light believes this 4 action will enhance the marketability of the property. 5 * "The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, and other fill 7 material to a depth of approximately 13 feet." 7.3 FEIS (page 6): 8 "3. Land Use Plans and Zoning Regulations. 9 "According to the existing Tukwila Comprehensive 10 Plan drafted in 1962 by John Graham Company and revised in 1967, the subject site is located in an 11 area designated 'Industrial'. As such, the proposal conforms to planned land use." [Emphasis added.] 12 7.4 FEIS (page 10): 13 ". . [in] July 1973 . . . [the City Light Site]. was rezoned from R -A to its present zoning, C -M (Industrial 14 Park). This zoning classification is an industrial park type zoning which permits uses similar to those 15 0 allowed in the City's M -1 (Light Industry) classification, but maintains greater landscaping, pollution, and site 16 design restrictions. Under the C -M zoning classification, there are no pertinent requirements which regulate the filling 'of land." [Emphasis added.] 17 18 "The soils found on the site have low bearing capacity 19 and are therefore poorly suited for construction foundations. This condition necessitates filling the site with sand and gravel or constructing pile systems 20 prior to development." [Emphasis added.] 21 * * * 22 7.5 FEIS (page 11) : 23 "According to the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), there are approximately 4,090 acres of wetlands in the 24 Green River Watershed (1974 datum) . . . . "Project plans for the SCS Green River watershed 25 Project in 1974 designated approximately 110 acres of wetlands to be saved as a part of the total project. 26 The Tukwila Pond on the proposed fill site was not designated as wetland to be retained in the SCS 2-7 project plans.' [Emphasis added.] 2c CO.IPLAINi T FOR INVERSE CONDE_.NATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 14 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10D4iLOOP SEATTLE MUN!C'PAL BLOC.' SEATTLE. WAS`I. 98104 C5S 19 2 23 24 25 26, 27 2a J 7.6 FEIS (page 12): "Surface Drainage: . In the fall of 1974, construction of Andover Park West by the City of Tukwila blocked drainage from the site. With surface drainage blocked, ponding on the site increased dramatically, eventually creating a. year -round pond." 7.7 FEIS (pages 24 -26): F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL "1. Do Nothing. "This alternative would essentially amount to preserving the site as a completely natural wildlife refuge. Some question exists concerning the long term viability of this site as a wildlife refuge. The pond has . existed for only two years, . . . . ., adoption of this alternative would restrict economic development of the site, at least temporarily. "2. Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation. "This alternative would entail the filling of only part, perhaps the majority of the site and the retention of a part, or all, of the pond. Zoning of the land would remain the same and uses allowed in the C -M zone would be allowed on the site. Property would remain under private ownership, or at the option of the owner, could be offered for sale to another party. "Disadvantages: "This alternative would preclude complete development of the entire site. Also, the maintenance of the pond and possible aeration of the water to prevent oxygen depletion might cause economic and technical problems. Delay Action Until Site Development Proposal. "This alternative would entail delaying fill operations on the site until such time as an actual development plan for the site is proposed. It is assumed under this alternative that the current zoning of the site, C -M, will remain the same and eventual use of the site will be typical of that permitted under the C -M classification. 3. COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE COtIDEMNATIOii, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 15 DOUGLAS N. J _wETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 1OTN FLOOR SEATTLE BLOC. SEATTLE. w •S. 9a 104 C3- t9 2 • 2 3 4 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 27 5 "Disadvantages: "This alternative could cause the eventual site development proposal to be subjected to future, potentially more stringent environmental/ use regulations, making the prospects of selling the land less desirable. * "2. Long -Term Environmental Gains. "The proposed action [landfill] will allow economic development of the site . . . * "6. Benefits of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. . . delay of the proposal would provide the local government [defendant] with time to evaluate the pond's ecological, aesthetic, hydrologic, and recreational importance to the public. Based on this evaluation, the public may desire to acquire the pond for various purposes." .[Emphasis added.] Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. "The presence of the pond on the City Light site has an inhibiting effect on the marketabilit of the land. With recent public concern and legislation regarding the natural environment, . the pond represents an obstacle around which . the developer must maneuver in order to. implement development plans." 8.1 On May 27, 1976 Tukwila's Planning Director (Kjell "7. Stoknes) submitted a Report to the Tukwila Board of Architectura Review recommending that plaintiff's application for a permit to landfill the 39 acre City Light Site be granted subject to certain conditions, including the following: "1 No fill shall be allowed in the [approximately 15 acre] area of the pond or its associated wetlands [10 additional acres] . . . ." 8.2 On July 22, 1976, defendant's Planning Commission, and on September 21, 1976 defendant's City Council, denied plaintiff's application for a permit to landfill the City COi1PL11IITT FOR INVERSE 1 CO NDEr•1NATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 16 10TM FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BLOC SEATTLE, WJ _i4. w IO6 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY CS> 1 rr.2 1 Light Site. Neither the commission nor the council made or entered any findings and neither stated any grounds, reasons or basis for such denial. 3 8.3 Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative and 4 non-judicial remedies for obtaining a permit from defendant to landfill the City Light Site. 8.4 On September 19, 1977 Tuiwila adopted a new 7 Comprehensive Land Use Plan designating the pond on the City 8 Light Site as an area having "Special Development Considerations 9 and Ordinance 1035 which requires a waiver and approval from 10 the Tukwila City Council for any new proposal for landfill 11 thereon prior to Tukwila's processing of any new application 12 for a permit to landfill or build upon the so designated 13 1 4. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,Y1 portions of the City Light Site. 8.5 But for the existence of the pond on the City Light Site: 8.5.1 Tukwila's New Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted Sepetember 19, 1977 would not have designated said site as an area of constraint having "special development considerations" and proposals for landfilling said site would not require Tukwila Ordinance 1035 City Council waiver and approval. 8.5.2 Tukwila would have processed and granted. plaintiff's August 22, 1975 application for a permit to landfill the City Light site within a reasonable time -- in the same manner and at least as promptly as plaintiff's application to landfill Parcel II was processed and granted; 8.5.3 Tukwila's officials would not have required CO PLAINT FOR INVERSE CO: DEiINATIoN, DAMAGES AND OTHER R:LIEF - 17 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEA ALE CITY ATTORNEY I OTM FLOOR 'SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BLDG. • SEA1Tt.r WASH. 93104 • CSS t9.Z 5 b 7 created by defendant Tukwila in breach of said defendant's 8 express and implied duties to plaintiff (a) in the agreements or prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for Plaintiff's proposal .to landfill the City :Light Site; 8.5.4 The Tukwila Planning Commission and City Council would not have denied plaintiff's application to landfill the City Light Site; 8.6 The pond on the City Light Site was artificially 9 and assessments for the construction and improvement of 10 Andover Park West, (b) in the agreement for the rezoning of 11 said City Light Site for commercial uses, (c) in the conveyance 12 and agreement for the use and development of the land upon which Andover Park West is situated; (d) to not destroy or 13 diminish the drainage of said property, (e) to not artificially collect channel, deposit or store surface or runoff waters 15 16 plaintiff of use and uiet enjoyment q j yment of the City Light Site, upon said property, (f) to not interfere with or deprive 17 and (g) to pay just compensation prior to taking or damaging 18 property. 19 9.1 Plaintiff has been wrongfully damaged and deprived 20 of the use and enjoyment of the City Light Site by Tukwila's actions and omissions with respect to the City Light Site, including without limitation: 9.1.1 Construction and maintenance of Andover Park West, its grade, elevations and drainage system in a manner that 24 25 (a) obstructs and blocks the City Light Site's 23 prior drainage; (b) causes said site to be flooded .__L ---------- and 1 COMPL?1INT FOR INVERSE CO :DEMNATIO N, DAMGES AND OTHER R= :LIEF - 18 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT • SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE MU,N C.?AL BLDG. SEATft.E.: -A31 ?9 !Js GSS 19 2 • (c) creates and maintains a pond on said site. 9.1.2 Publication on July 27, 1975 and at other times, adoption on August 4, 1975, and application of Substitute Resolution 489 imposing a moratorium on landfill permits; 9.1.3 Requiring an environmental impact statement for plaintiff's proposal and application to landfill the City Light Site (though none was required for permits to landfill other similarly situated property such as Parcel II); 9.1.4 Denial of plaintiff's application for a permit to landfill the City Light Site; 9.1.5 Recommendations and reports by Tukwila's Director of Planning recommending denial of landfill permits for 15 acre pond and 10 acre associated wetlands portions of the 39 acre City Light Site until specific development plans are received by Tukwila; 9.1.6 The provisions in Tukwila Ordinance 1035 and the 1977 new Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan which (a) designate the pond and associated wetlands portions of the subject City Light Site as having "special development considerations" "where urban development must respond sensi- tively to certain environmental factors," and (b)• impose special restrictions and requirements . for Tukwila City Council Waiver and Approval .on any development in such pond and associated wetland area. COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 19 DOUGLAS N. JEWBTY SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10114 Ft.C. S ATTLE Mun,C,°AI 6LOG. SEATTLE. N4S M. 981 34 CSS 1 1 2 1 2, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2: 2,3 9.1.7 Interpretation and application of laws, ordinances and other authority and powers in a manner calculated to prevent, hinder, and delay lawful development and improvement of the City Light Site for the uses for which it is zoned; 9.1.8 Discriminatory and unequal interpretation and application of laws, ordinances, authority and powers to prevent, hinder and delay development, improvement and use of the City Light Site in accordance with its commercial zoning. 9.2 Defendant's actions alleged in paragraph 9.1: (a) breach defendant's express and implied contractual and legal duties to plaintiff, (including breach of defendant's obligation to not hinder plaintiff's exercise of plaintiff's rights); (1) in the . agreements and assessments for improvement of Andover Park West; (2) in the agreement to rezone the City Light Site for commercial uses; (3) in the Quitclaim Deed and Easement Agreement which conveyed the Andover Park West right of way to Tukwila; (4) at law not to destroy or diminish said property's drainage; (5) at law not to artificially collect, channel, deposit or store water upon plaintiff's property; (b) wrongfully deprive plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of the City Light Site; (c) take a water storage easement, development and COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE 1 CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 20 DOUGLAS N. JFAAETT SEATTLE CITY ATTOR..IY IJT4 F,004 SEATTLE MV`..C:PAL ALDG. SE AT1_2. A ASM D9104 CS•i 14.2 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 other rights from plaintiff's property without payment of just compensation as required by the constitution and laws of this state; (d) abuse defendant's governmental and proprietary powers; (e) deprive plaintiff of equal protection of the law; and (f) deprive plaintiff of due process of law. 9.2 By reason of Tukwila's prior conduct, including without limitation its agreements with plaintiff, its acceptance of the deed and agreement for Andover Park West, its acceptance of plaintiff's payment of assessments on the City Light Site for benefits to result thereto from Andover Park West, the agreement to rezone the City Light Site for the commercial uses permitted on contiguous properties, and . its grants of other permits to landfill and develop other properties in Tukwila's CPR and CM zones such. as Parcel II, defendant Tukwila is estopped from denying . plaintiff permits to landfill and develop the City Light Site in accordance with that site's present CM zoning. 9.3 Plaintiff has been deprived to the use and enjoyment of the City Light Site by Tukwila's wrongful acts and omissions since August 20, 1975, the date of the bid opening. 9.4 In July, 1975, prior to the July 21, 1975 meeting of the Tukwila City Council, the July 27, 1975 publication of notice that Substitute Resolution 489 would be adopted, and other actions and abuses of authority by Tukwila and its officials restraining use and development of the City Light 26 Site said site's fair market value was $2,215,000 and its 27 9 use and enjoyment was worth not less -than $607 per• day (at 28 CO::PLAINT FOR INVERSE DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTp7Ner DE , IAGE S ,oTMPLoca L 1.: OTHER T LIEF - 21 SEATTLE. MIINr i AL BLDG SEATTLE. WA_il. 93104 CSS t92 1 2 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 •24 26 27 28 the rate of return reasonably expected and paid to investors of 10% per annum upon the value of the land). WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays 1. That the court determine that the acts and omissions of defendant constitute a constructive taking of the City Light Site by defendant, and that the court submit to a jury.the question of the amount of damages to which.plaintiff is entitled for the constructive taking of its property and property rights, including damages for the loss of the use of said property from August 20, 1975 to the date of the jury award, all of which is estimated to be in the amount of $3,500,000. 2. That in addition, the court enter such additional orders as may be necessary to make. plaintiff whole, including, but not limited to: (a) an order directing Tukwila to grant plaintiff's application to landfill the City Light Site; (b) an order directing Tukwila to cease and desist in its actions delaying, hindering or inter- fering with the development of the City Light Site for uses permitted by its present Cm zoning; (c) an order declaring null and void such actions of the City of Tukwila which operate to-prevent plaintiff from filling its property for deve- lopment for CM uses, including but not limited to ,Tukwila Substitute Resolution No. 489 (moratorium on permits) and that part of COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION., DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF - 22 • DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL MLOO- SEATTLE. MASH. 3B 104 CSS I9.2 2 4 5 7 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 Tukwila Ordinance 1035 designating the City Light Site as having "special deve- lopment considerations." 3. That the court award to plaintiff its reasonable attorney fees and witness fees and costs as provided in RCW Ch. 8.25; and 4. That the court grant such other and further relief as is just and equitable. COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION, DAMAGES. AND OTHER RELIEF - 23 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT City Attorney By 21,ad,biee GORDON F.- CRANDALL Assistant Attorney for The'City.of Seattle DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY IOTM FLGOR • SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BLDG . SEATTLE.WASM. 98104 CSS 19.2 -rci+ tt\V it1TC.RICPTCOi OtRH (3 UY (1W)1.1.1 z. • I; r • !: I - , • stt. • t • 71... I .4, " • kt, 5 1' ••• :•;.••• * • s.• ,ssft / • r •• 1 z•y,E ,p;-• 1 •••■14 • /LW I MAY 1 CITY OF TUKWILA ZONiNG LEOESO R.A RE SIOEYTIAL-AGgittlUZRAL R-11.2 1 FAMILY RESIDE:9a R-1.6.6 1 FAMILY RTSIOEXE. • R-112.0 1 FAMILY RTSIDESCE • R-2.3.1 2 FAMILY RESIOEsCE R 3 3 FAMILY RESIDE si,'S • R-3.64 3414 TAWITRISIOESCE • R4 LOW An:TIME:YES L'AR • !AULT. RESIDISCP 106110149. • PF PtaLIC FACILIIY C1 KICH3ORSOOD RE rut C2 LOCAL RETAIL CPR . Ptpi5 BUS. CL'! !R RECO,* CM ousratik PEIN LIGHT INCUSTAT • • 11-2 NE,11Y PIOUSTIT 5.■ 7.41 ECI=VH:=CiatPAIN • ; • / ' EXHIBIT "B" •,;• •—• • ■ F. A. LESOURD WOOLVIN PATTEN DONALD D. FLEMING GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK DWAYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS O. McLAUGHLIN PETER LESOURD JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE Tutctitla-114,241 EIS f k LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Director, OCD City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 624 -1040 March 26, 1979 Re: Interrogatories in Seattle v. Tukwila Dear Kjell: LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS D. WILLIAM TOONE M. COLLEEN WEULE DANIEL D. WOO CARL J. CARLSON ROBERT L. PALMER COUNSEL Attached are the City of Seattle's interrogatories to us in connection with the lawsuit involving the Tukwila Pond. Terry Monaghan has answered most of them, but certain of them were left blank for other people to review. We have prepared answers for all of these except for Nos. 28 and 30, for which your input is necessary. Please examine these two interrogatories, and, on a separate sheet of paper, •prepare the response to them which you feel we should give City Light. I•f you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, LeSOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY Carl J. Carlson CJC:rlm enc. c1 QOF DK O MAR 2 8 1919 JEF:klm 7/28/78 1 2 3 J 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ( 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a ) municipal corporation, ) NO. 842 141 Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) PLAINTIFF`S FIRST INTERROGATORIES THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a ) municipal corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ) TO: THE CITY OF TUKWILA, Defendant; and to LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY, its attorneys: In accordance with C.R. 33 of the State of Washington, you will please answer the following interrogatories separately and fully, under oath, within twenty days of the date of service of these interrogatories upon you. These interrogatories are continuing, and you are requested to provide any information that alters or augments the answers now given when you obtain such information. 1. Please. state the date of incorporation and corporate organizational form of The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: s Plntf's First Interrogs. Page one DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY I OTH rlOOR SEATTLE MUNIE!P.*L 7L.UG. FIE AT Lz. 'r ASS.•)910.1 5'5-2270 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. For each Tukwila official or employee responsible for the design of Andover Park West, please state his or her: a. name; b. present job title; c. job title at the time the design was done or approved; d. specific responsibility as regards the design or approval; e. present employer if other than The City of Tukwila; f. last -known address if not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: a. The Director of Public Works was Steven M. Hall, P.E.. The consulting design engineer was Howard Harstad, P.E. b. Mr. Hall is no longer a city employee. Mr. Harstad is still engaged in private practice. c. See a. d. Mr. Hall concurred with Mr. Harstad's approval of the detail design and approved the overall design in the City's behalf. The detail design was done under Mr. Harstad's direction, and was approved by him. e. Mr. Hall is presently employed by the City of Milwaukee, Oregon. Mr. Harstad is employed by Harstad Associates, Inc. f. Mr. Hall's last known address: Dept. of Public Works City of Milwaukee Milwaukee, Oregon Mr. Harstad's last known address: 1319 Dexter Ave. No. Seattle, Wa 98109 Plntf's First Interrogs. age two DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 1011-1 FLOOR F. ATM E .UN:Ct AL i)LOG. J.a 10.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11' 12 13 3. For each Tukwila official or employee responsible for 14 15 16 17 18 •19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 the design or approval of the design of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System, please state his or her: a. name; b. present job title; c. job title at the time the design was done or approved; d. specific responsibility as regards the design or approval; e. present employer if other than The City of Tukwila; f. last -known address if not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: It is my understanding The Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed and.approved by the Washington State Highway Depart- ment in conjuction with Highway I -405 construction. 28 Plnt's First Interrogs. Page three DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTC� V EY I OTH FLOOR SEAT-7...E t•u- :C:aa:. +EAr;L_. •NA ?". ..-1104 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. If Andover Park West was designed by The City of Tukwila, please state: a. The name of each official and employee involved in the design; b. each person's responsibility for the design; c. the job title of each person at the time the design was done; d. the present job title of each person listed in sub- paragraph (a) ; e. the present employer of each person listed in subparagr (a) who is not now employed by The City of Tukwila; f. the last -known address of each person listed in sub- paragraph (a) who is not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: Andover Park West was designed by a private consulting engineering firm. Plntf's First Interrogs. Page four DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 1OTH FLOCF SEATTLE I.UNiCPAL DLOG. _a T'_�.'.'Aj -. id IO4 10 5. If the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed by 11 The City of Tukwila, please state: 12 I a. the name of each official and employee involved in the design; 13 b. each person's responsibility for the design; 14 c. the ob title of each j person listed in subparagraph (a) at the time the design was done; 15 d. the present job title of each person listed in sub- 16 paragraph (a); 17 e. present employer of each person listed in subparagraph (a) who is not now employed by The City of Tukwila; 18 f. The last -known address of each person listed in sub - paragraph (a) who is not now employed by The City of 19 i Tukwila. 20 j ANSWER: 21 To the best of my knowledge, the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer 22 System was designed by the Washington State Highway Department. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plntf's First Interrogs. Page five DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE MUNICIPAL BLDG. SEATTLE WAG.. 34 1;1: 1 2 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ing, architectural or other professional firm, please state: 23 i the name of the firm that did the design; 24 b. its present address; 6. If the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed by private engineering, architectural or other professional firm, please state: a. the name of the firm that did the design; b. its present address; c. the name of the individual of the firm with whom Tukwila had primary contract ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge, the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System was designed by the Washington State Highway Department. 7. If Andover Park West was designed by a private engineer- 25 26 27 28 c. the name of the individual at the firm with whom you had primary contact. • ANSWER: Harstad Associates, Inc. 1319 Dexter Ave. No. Seattle, Washington 98109 ;Flntf's First Interrogs. ace six DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLOOR ■11N'CI?AL yLO . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. For each city official, employee or agent involved in securing the easement from City Light for construction of Andover Park West, please state his or her: a. name b. job title at the time the eastment was secured; c. present job title; d. present employer if not now employed by City Light; e. responsibility in acquiring the easement; f. last —known address if not now employed by The City of Tukwila. ANSWER: Official Frank E. Todd, Mayor- -now a private citizen reported to be self - employed -- signed document in the City's behalf- - Last known address: 14445 - 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, Wa 98168 mDlovee Shirlee Kinney, City Clerk- -Last known employer, City of Fife, Washington -- Signed document and filed for recording - -Last known address: City Clerk City of Fife Fife, Wa. 98424 (2) Steven M. Hall, Director of Public Works - -Last known employer, City of Milwaukee, Oregon -- Requested identifi- cation legal description of easements required for con- struction of Andover Park West- - Last known address: Department of Public Works City of Milwaukee Milwaukee, Oregon 97202 Agent Howard Harstad, Consulting. Engineer, Harstad Associates 1319 Dexter Ave. No. , Seattle, Wa. 98109, prepared legal descriptions of easements. Plntf's First Interrogs. DOUGLAS N. JEWETT 'Page seven SEATTLE CRY ATTORNEY _. ._. _._..10TH FLOOR...- 1777 7 MUN c . �E ATT Lam. 'M�Sw, 3.1'01 .. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9. Please state the name and address of the general contrac- tor responsible for the construction of Andover Park West. ANSWER: Pacific Paving Co. Inc. Last known address: 121 South River Street Seattle, Wa. 98108 13 14 10. Please state the name and address of the general 15 contractor responsible for the construction of the Gilliam Creek 16 Storm Sewer System. 17 18 19 20 ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge, the Washington State Highway Department was the contracting agent for construction of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System. 21 1 11. Identify 'as specifically as you are able (e.g., by date, 22 month, season, year) the date of every flooding of the City 23 Light property that you can recall between 1960 and the completion 24 of Andover Park West. 25 26 27 28 To the best of my knowledge the City of Tukwila does not have or maintain records of floods on private property. Plntf's First Interrogs. 1Page eight DOUGLAS N. JEWETT • SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLCO. SEATTLZ MUNICIPAL BLDG.. SEA TrLE. w• g.+. 34 'OA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. For each flooding identified in Interrogatory No. 11, please state: a.. the specific cause of the flooding; b. The period of time that the City Light property was under water;. c. whether the flooding was limited to the City Light property or extended beyond the boundaries of the City Light property; d. the total number of acres flooded in each instance. ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge, the City of Tukwila does not have or maintain records of .floods on private property. Plntf's First.Interrogs. Page nine DOUGLAS N. JEWETT FEATrLE CITY ATTORNEY 1 OTH FLOOR SEATTLE •,a UN.C. 'A_ HLGC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. From 1960 until the construction of Andover Park West, please state the months or approximate percentage of time each year that the City Light property was dry. ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge the City does not have or maintain records of when private property is dry. 14. Please describe the drainage of the City Light property prior to construction of Andover Park West. ANSWER: Records indicate that a ditch which ran from the southwest to the northeast in the southeast quadrant of the present City Light property provided a'.drainage outfall which apparently ran:through a culvert or pipe buried in what is approximately now Andover Park West. This culvert or pipe then apparently emptied into a continuation of the drainage ditch which also ran southwest to northeast on the property which is now on the southeast corner of present -day Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. Data or information on .other facilities which provided drainage for the City Light property has not been found or recalled. 15. Please describe the drainage of the City Light property since completion of Andover Park West. ANSWER: A 30" and 42" storm sewer was installed on the east side of Andover Park West, and 24" and 30" stubs were installed across Andover Park West perpendicular and into the 30 "/42" main storm sewer past the east property line of the City Light property. These spurs are located at approximately the mid- quarter points of the east property line with the most southerly (the 30 ") stub located approximately where the former drainage ditch met the east property line. It has been reported that both of these spurs were left open to daylight in an excavated depression at the east property line of the City Light parcel to allow for drainage. Plntf's First Interrogs. ,Page ten DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTOWYEY OTH SEATTLE MU,. u.. SEA TTLE.'nAS.", ).4 104 2 J 4 5 6 7. 8 9 16. Please state the date of completion and describe the 10 operation of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System. 11 ANSWER: 12 To the best of my knowledge, this facility was built by the Washington State Highway Department, and no records are available • 13 I in the City.of Tukwila. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 17. Please state the number of outlets for storm water in the Gilliam Creek System and the location of each outlet. ANSWER: See #16 28 Plntf's First Interrogs. 1Page eleven DOUGLAS N. JEWETT .S,EAT'LE CITY ATTORNEY 10T1-4 FLOOR ..rATT•_° AL 7L.•:.. S". .y.fl.% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 18. What prevents the water of the river(s) into which the storm sewer water flows from entering the sewer system when the level of the river(s) rises above the level of the sewer outlets? ANSWER: The head of water at the outlet exceeds the head of water at the inlet or a flap gate closes if one has been installed. 19. If there is no mechanism for preventing backflow from the river, where does the backflow discharge? ANSWER: It appears that these general engineering questions are directed at a specific pipe, river, etc. If this is so it is un- clear which. If it's a general question - -The answer is that if there were backflow i.e. water flowing toward the inlet it would flow out the inlet when it reached the inlet's elevation - -or if the outlet were blocked either mechanically or hydraulically, water flowing into the inlet would build up from the outlet until it overflowed at the inlet. 20. If there is a mechanism for preventing backflow from th river(s), where does storm water in the sewer system discharge when the outlets are closed? Plntf's First Interrogs. a e.. twelve - See #19 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY O?:I FLOO >?A ? -- -, .. N' ✓. _ T1A. 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANSWER: 21. Since its completion, how many times have one or more outlets of the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System been closed? ANSWER: To the best of my knowledge, the City of Tukwila has not or does not maintain records on the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System. The City of Tukwila does not maintain this system. 22. For each time an outlet was closed, please state: a. the dates on which it was closed; b. the estimated number of gallons of water r- e-turned in the system or discharged elsewhere due to the closure. ANSWER: See #21 23. What in your opinion is the fair market value of the City Light property? ANSWER: 24. On what is your opinion based? If your opinion is based upon an appraisal, please state: a. the name, business address and occupation of the individual(s) who did the appraisal; b. the employer of the person who did the appraisal or the name of the individual's company if self- employed. Plntf's First Interrogs. Page Thirteen DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY I OTH FLOOR SEATTLE MU':■CoRAL SEATTLE. WASH.!.EnO4 CSS 19.2 1 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ANSWER: 25. Please state the date (s) of any appraisal (s) referred to in Interrogatory 24. ANSWER: 26. If it is your contention that City Light did not 15 exhaust its administrative remedies in its August 22, 1978 land - 16 fill permit application, please state the specific administrative 17 remedies that City Light failed to exhaust. ANSWER: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27. If it is your contention that City Light's landfill application did not comply with all applicable City of Tukwila laws and regulations, please state the specific laws and regulations not satisfied. Plntf_' s. _First,_Interrogs__.. DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE CITY ATTOPNEY >ra rr�a. w•. tir• •.) .4 IG• 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 Commission, or any other commission, department or agency of The 14 (City of Tukwila made written findings or stated in writing the 15 .grounds for its denial of City Light's landfill application, ANSWER: 28. If the Tukwila City Council, the Tukwila Planning 16 please state the date of the findings or statement, where they were filed, and where copies of the document(s) can be secured. If you will provide a copy of the document(s) without a motion to produce, please attach them to your answer to these Interrogatorie ANSWER: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26" 27 28 29. If it is your contention that City Light can use the illiam Creek Storm Sewer System to drain its property without pintf's First Interrogs. It is my understanding that the Gilliam Creek Storm Sewer System parallels ,Page fifteen DOUGLAS N. JEwETT SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY 10TH FLOOR SEATTLE MLNiC:PAL &LDG. SFA -TTLE. WAS., 901.04-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 1�1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 -`tu. al,u 13 a 'tu pipe wll 1 Ll l U I JLIIQ I ICJ 111 LU (Alt Ur W II River to the east. The 30742" storm sewer installed as part of the Development of Andover Park blest adjacent to the Seattle City Light property was tied into the storm water system which existed in Andover Park West, north of Strander Boulevard and ran north to the Gilliam Creek System. filling it, please describe the method or methods that would permit use of the system. ANSWER: Without the benefit of a detailed analysis from a hydraulic standpoint, the property could be drained by a combination gravity and pump system. 30. If there were no written findings, please state every reason for Tukwila's denial of City Light's August 22, 1975 landfill permit. ANSWER: 31. Please state the name and job title of each person answering these interrogatories and the number of the interroga- tories for which each person listed provided answers. ANSWER: iPlantif's First Interrogs. :Page Page si:'aeen T. R. Monaghan, P'. E., Director of... : ?ubl i c Warks'. DOUGLAS N. JEWETT SEATTLE Ern A TTCRN EY 1OT)y FLC.OR SE AT.'L:E MUNiCi,AL F'LDG. :. . SEATTLE. wA�.r. '. 111 1 3 J 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 DOUGLAS N. JEWETT City Attorney By JAMES E. FEARN, Assistant Attorneys for Plaintiff TATE OF WASHINGTON ss. OUNTY OF K I N G states upon oath: being first duly sworn, That (s)he is 18 of The City of Tukwila and is authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf; that (s)he has read the foregoing Answers ,to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories, knows the contents thereof, 19 and believes the same to be true. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 1978. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. 28 lPlntif's First Interrogs. Page seventeen DOUGLAS N. J f =-Tr SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY SF '1_F.F. SEA TT...I:. :� y1 ?•t 25 May 197E CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: Larr and FROM: ed N. Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor . SUBJECT: S morons 842141 - City of Seattle v. City of Tukwila c,tt,til L151-1- sizlc, Kjell requested that I review this summons and complaint for inverse.condem- nation-and forward my comments to you. My comments are attached herewith.' Please forgive my feeble attempts at interpreting law. I have referenced a. .couple of cases which I think are applicable as far as SEP/1 is concerned, but SEPI may or may not be the critical factor in this case. Basically, as I see it, City Light argues that if the City of Tukwila had not created the pond, there would have been n� need for an EIS and hence no denial of their landfill permit. This is presumptuous, at best. As I indi- cate in my comments, there is evidence that this area was a seasonal pond which harbored significant populations of waterfowl long before Andover Park West was built. Their site is 40+ acres in size and contemplated develop- ment is commercial /industrial — reason enough to suggest the possibility of an EIS. If you have any questions or comments or desire further information and :research, please don't hesitate to call. FNS /ch cc: 0CD Dir Mayor 6230 Southcenter Boulevard n Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242 -2177 NOT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW CITY LIGHT COMPLAINT FOR Ii•;VERSE CONDEMNATION Line 1 15 - 16 Tukwila is not 3rd class City 6 20 - 21 "Unconditional rezoning by the City of Tukwila, in my opinion, means 7 3-15 that there were no conditions or stipulations attached to the ordinance rezoning City Light property to C -M. It does not mean, in my opinion, that City Light is exempted from any other codes, ordinances, regula- tions, or city policies which would normally apply to development of land, like SEPA, for instance. More than once.1 have heard City Light attorneys assert that this "unconditional rezoning" amounts to handcuf- fina the City of Tukwila from mitigating or denyinc proposed actions as a result of SEPA implementation. 7. 12 January 4, 1974 should be January 7, 1974. 9 10-14 It would seem from this information that there was no ponding of water on City Light property prior to the construction of-Andover Park West, although they . do not specifically state such. It should be pointed out here that ponding of water was an annual affair on the City Light site, namely in the winter. It is curious to note that Seattle did not men- tion who they bought the major part of their land from — i.e., the Green Head Gun Club, who hunted ducks each year on this site. (Did you ever hunt ducks on dry land, Larry ?) There are also old- timers in the community who can testify that there has been annual ponding . on this site long before Andover Park West was constructed. 9 15-20 Seattle blames the City of Tukwila here for the flooding of their property in 1975 and again in 1977, claiming that the Tukwila drainage system overflowed onto the City Light site. Who's responsibility is the water in the drainage system? The situation is described in lines 21 -27. 11 15 -24 Seattle states quite clearly here that the City of Tukwila passed Resolu- tion #489 specifically to stop Seattle from filling their land after taking "notice of plaintiff's notice of sale and call for bids." This just isn't true. Resolution #489 was directed primarily at rezones, not landfills, although the latter required a waiver if proposed in an envirocimeritaily sensitive area. Resolution #489, in effect, merely required City Council approval of land use actions which would commit subsequent city policy in the development of a new comprehensive plan. The appearance of both these agenda items together was coincidental. Resolution #489 was the initial step in a comprehensive planning process, declaring the existing plan to no longer reflect current thinking or community values on land use and environmental issues and stating the need for a revision. Resolution #489 was followed by #500 (adopting a planning area), #504 (adopting general land use goals), and finally the adoption of the five plan elements and land use maps. p. Line • 11 15-24 Seattle also calls Resolution #489 a "moratorium." Moratorium suggests (Cont) or implies an authorized stop to issuance of permits. An examination of Planning Division files reveals that over the period of August 1975 - September 1977 when #489 was in effect, most of the waiver requests were approved: Waiver Request Number Applied For (;ranted Denied Rezone 12 9 3 Grading, Fill 4 4 0 16 13 3 The above record seems to suggest that the City required waivers'as a matter of procedure, not as a method of stopping certain development. The small number of denials might suggest that the City exercised dis- cretion in any refusal to issue permits. It should be noted here that as soon as #489 was adopted by the Council, we experienced a race of diligents." We had more applications during the period of adoption and the effective day of the resolution (30 days later) than at any other time. City Light was one of these applicants. Resolution #489 never applied to their request. 13 25-27 If we had to do this EIS over again, I would certainly remove all 14 1- 7 references to "man -made pond" or "blocking of drainage by Andover Park West." These words were used in the document which City Light forwarded to us to convert into an EIS. (They did an environmental assessment; we refined it into an EIS.) I must admit, however, that the adequacy and accuracy of the EIS are responsibilities of the Responsible Official, according to SEPA., 14 9-16 Whether or not a proposed action conforms to local zoning and comprehen- sive plans has nothing to do with its environmental significance, SEE, Norway Hill Preservation & Protection :'1ss'n v. King County Council, 87 Wn. 2d 267, 552 P. 2d 674 (1976). An action requires an EIS if its scale, intensity, change in existing use, and potential environmental impacts are significant, SEE, Norway Hills again. Therefore, if an action requires an EIS, it is incijnbant upon the Responsible Official to condition such development to mitigate significant adverse impacts, SEE, Polygon Corporation v. The City of Seattle. 16 10 --13 This portion of a statement would seem to suggest that the City might deny the application for landfill in order to buy the site for public purposes. Seattle failed to mention that the preceding sentence read: "Private developments could use the pond as an open space and recreational focus for its employees and /or clientele, or for retention. of storm water runoff." 16 25-27 I don't know whether this has any bearing on the case, but during the City Light hearing by the Planning Commission, there was a motion to adopt the staff report. City Light objected to a half - fill, half- preservation action and.rec!uested either an approval or disapproval. This request was made by Roy Murray, Property Manager for City Light. -2- p Line 16 25-27 The Commission en withdrew their motion and rrlle and passed a motion (Cont) to deny the permit. 17 1- 3 I don't know this for a fact. I Would like to discuss this with you. 17 13- 27 This, in a nutshell, is the whole case. Seattle claims that if it were 18 1- 5 not for the pond, no EIS would have been required and a landfill permit would have been issued willy - nilly. I disagree. There was evidence which pointed to the fact that the City Light site was a wet, marshy area which provided significant waterfowl habitat during the fall and winter months. The scale of proposed development and its intensity certainly would have been formidable, and the site was and is still 40+ acres. There exists sufficient evidence that an EIS would have been required regardless of the "Tian -made pond." Consequently, the landfill permit might still have been conditioned or denied. The land in parcel II (where an EIS was not required) consisted of only 7 acres, and it is questionable whether there was any wildlife. or waterfowl habitat on this piece at all — since it was bounded on two sides by major arterial streets and along the entire back side by rail- road tracks, and existed in a denuded state. 20 5 - 9 Seattle states here that they have commercial zoning. In fact, they have industrial zoning. It is the Comprehensive Plan which designates them Commercial. I notice that nowhere in their complaint do they complain about this fact. Co-Iry ®f T ..a KM/ILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16 August 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred N. Satterstrom FROM:' Kjell Stoknes F3y SUBJECT: Processing of Preliminary Applications for the Seattle City Light Pond Fred, in any meetings you have with potential buyers of the Seattle City Light Pond who want preliminary indications whether the City will approve their developments or not, let's pursue them in the following manner: 1. Inform them that prior to any approvals on the site, for any type of development activity, that they will first need a waiver from ordinance 1035. Potential buyers of the site who are interested in bidding un the property may make application for preliminary waiver to ordinance 1035. Please check with Larry Hard regarding any clearances that we need from Seattle City Light, if any, prior to accepting any applications and work'that into our procedure. 2. The applicant must submit submittals to the Planning Division consistent with ordinance 1053. It does not appear that SEPA is triggered at this point. 3. The preliminary waiver application is brought before the City Council for their review and action. Approval by the City Council would indicate that a final waiver application would be approved. if drawn consistent with the approval in the preliminary waiver application. 4. No time table is set on waiver applications. It is my interpreation. that a. waiver is valid as long as ordinances 1035 and 1053 are in effect. At such time as these ordinance are appealed and replaced by the new zoning ordinance, any waivers outstandi►.g would automatically . become void. KS /ch cc: Al Pieper 6230 Southcenter Boulevard o Tukwila, Washington 98188 m (206) 292 -2177 INTRODUCTION A. ACTION SPONSOR The City of Seattle, Department of Lighting, has applied to the City of Tukwila for a fill permit which would allow the utility to fill approximately 40 acres of land lying immediately south of the Southcenter Shopping Center at the south- west corner of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. This fill permit has been applied for in compliance with requirements of Chapter 70, Uniform Building Code, 1973 edition. B. LEAD AGENCY Because a large pond currently occupies approximately 15+ acres of the City Light site, the City of Tukwila feels that this proposal may be environmentally significant and controversial. In view of this, an Environmental Impact State- ment pursuant to Chapter-18.98 Tukwila Municipal Code was deemed necessary by the City's responsible official.. The lead agency for this action is the City of Tukwila: Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director (Responsible Official) Contact Person: Fred N. Satterstrom, Associate Planner Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 (206) 242 -2177 C. PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFT EIS Robert W. Reineke - Sylvia A. Ludwig Charles J. Shank Leonard Steiner Steve Hall Dick Williams Project manager of City Light's Tukwila Pond Fill Environmental Assessment.. - Waterfowl information. - Biological information. - Seattle Audubpn Society, wetlands information. - City of Tukwila, Public Works Director, drainage information. - City of Tukwila, Engineer, hydrologic information. D. OTHER LICENSES /PERMITS REQUIRED Before the site can be filled, a Flood Zone Permit from the State of Washington, Department of Ecology is required. This permit was issued to City Light in Jan- uary 1976 (Permit No. 1- 2173 -2). i. E. LOCATION OF EIS BACKGROUND DATA Much of the background information to this final EIS can be found in three documents: "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Trillium — A Business and Commercial Complex ", 1973; "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area ", 1975; and "Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Green River Watershed Projects ", U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1974. All of these documents can be obtained or reviewed at the office of the Tukwila Planning Department, 6230 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98067. F. COST TO PUBLIC OF FINAL EIS $1.25 G. DATE OF ISSUE OF FINAL EIS May 14, 1976 H. COMMENT DEADLINE ON DRAFT EIS The comment deadline for the Draft EIS was April 23, 1976. ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION i. A. Action Sponsor i. B. Lead Agency i. C. Principal Contributors to Draft EIS i. D. Other Licenses /Permits Required i. E. Location of EIS Background Data ii. F. Cost to Public of Draft EIS G. Date of Issue of Draft EIS ii. H. Comment Deadline ii. DISTRI BUTION LIST 1 SUMMARY 4 A. The Proposal 4 B. Direct and Indirect Impacts 4 C. Alternatives 5 D. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May be Mitigated 5 E. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 5 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 6 B. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 10 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL 18 D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED E. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS 24, F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 24, G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRON- MENT AND.MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 25 H. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 26 • • DISTRIBUTION LIST DISTRICT ENGINEER, SEATTLE DISTRICT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1519 Alaskan Way South Seattle, Washington 98134 MAX FULNER U.S. Soil Conservation Service 35 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 GALEN S. BRIDGE, STATE CONSERVATIONIST U.S. Department of Agriculture 360 U.S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Legislative Building Olympia, Washington 98504 DENNIS LUNDBLAD, HEAD ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 R. WALTER WILLIAMS, FISHERIES BIOLOGIST Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 EUGENE S. DZIEDZIC, ASSISTANT CHIEF Environmental Management Division Department of Game 600 North Capital Way Olympia, Washington 98504 BRUCE DAVIDSON, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Department of Highways Highway Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 BILL BOXTER, ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR Department of Natural Resources Public Lands Building Olympia, Washington .98504 LOIS E:. DUFRESNE;,.COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION Office of Community Development Olympia, Washington 98504 • • DAVID W. HEISER,.CHIEF Environmental Coordination Parks and Recreation Commission P.O. Box 1128 Olympia, Washington 98504 EDWARD B. SAND, DIRECTOR, LAND USE MANAGEMENT DIVISION King County Department of Community and Environmental Development W217 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR Kent Planning Agency P.O. Box 310, City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 GORDON ERICKSEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 CHARLES ANDERSON 20230 Orillia Road Kent, Washington 98031 LEONARD STEINER, AUDUBON SOCIETY Joshua Green Building Seattle, Washington 98104 JAMES PEARSON, SENIOR AIR POLLUTION ENGINEER Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 West Harrison Seattle, Washington 98119 SYLVIA A. LUDWIG 4232 South 173rd Street Seattle, Washington 98188 CHARLES J. SHANK, BIOLOGIST Route 8, Box 8616 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 TOM WIMMER, MEMBER City of Seattle EIS Review Committee 7756 Seward Park Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98118 ERIC PRYNE, NEWS EDITOR Renton Record - Chronicle P.O. Box 1076 Renton, Washington 98055 STEVE GREEN, CITY EDITOR Seattle Post - Intelligencer 6th and Wall Street Seattle, Washington 98121 2 • • STEVE RAYMOND, ASSISTANT CITY EDITOR Seattle Times P.O. Box 70 Seattle, Washington 98111 PAT EMERSON, Chairperson City of Seattle EIS Review Committee Department of Community Development 306 Cherry Street Seattle, Washington 98104 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Associated Students of the University of Washington Memorial Union Building Seattle, Washington 98195 G. E. WANNAMAKER, P.E. Division of Hydraulics 900 King County Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 3 SUMMARY A. THE PROPOSAL This final'Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for Seattle City Light's application for a permit to fill and grade approximately 40 acres of its property lying just south of Southcenter Shopping Center at the inter- section of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. City Light's permit application has been applied for pursuant to requirements of UBC, Chapter 70. Approximately 15+ acres of this site is covered with water and is commonly referred to as the Tukwila Pond. This pond was inadvertantly created in 1974 during construction of Andover Park West. At that time, the City Light site was a low, marshy depression with a drainage outlet to the east. Construction of Andover Park West apparently blocked this drainage and a pond was formed in the low marshy area. The objective of the fill proposal is to prepare the site for development. However, at this time no development is proposed. City Light believes this action will enhance the marketability of the property. B. DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 1. Impacts to Physical Environment. The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, and other fill material to a depth of approximately 13 feet. Topography will change noticeably from a low depression to a slight gra- dient towards the southeast. Filling and grading the site will substan- tially increase surface runoff from the site. All existing vegetation which exists on the property will be displaced and all habitat suitable for sustaining bird, animal, or fish life will be eliminated. Noise and air pollution will increase minimally as a result of the proposed fill. As a result of the development of the site (or the proposal's indirect impacts), the quality of runoff water will diminish, noise quality will be reduced and air quality will decrease. In addition, future development of the site will eliminate any chance of re- establishing wildlife habitat on the site. 2 Impacts to Human Environment. Direct impacts to the human environment as a result of this action will be a decline in the human recreational use of the property. No impacts are anticipated either to the population or housing supply of the City as a result of the proposed action. A considerable amount of truck traffic will be generated by the proposal. The proposal will also require the pumping of over 1,000,000+ cubic feet of water into the City's storm drain system. In addition, the proposal will eliminate the aesthetic appeal of the pond environment. 4 • 1 As a result of the development of the site (or the proposal's indirect impacts), employment opportunities would generate an insignificant population increase and a negligible increase in demand for housing in the Tukwila area. Also, demands on such public services as roads, police and fire protection, water, storm and sanitary sewer service, and recreational services would be made. C. ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives to the proposal are considered in the final Environmental Impact Statement. The first alternative is the "Do Nothing" alternative which essentially amounts to preserving the site in a natural condition. This alternative would preserve a portion of waterfowl habitat in the Green River Valley, but would result in the loss of the original price plus any potential profit gained by sale of the property. The second alternative is a "Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation" alternative which entails filling only a part of the site while retaining part or all of the pond. This alternative would help to retain the pond's runoff retention function as well as wildlife habitat while allowing economic use of a majority of the site. Nevertheless, cost factors of not utilizing a large portion of the site, in addition to maintenance problems associated with the pond, pose economic constraints to the applicant. The third alternative to the proposal is the delay of action until a specific site development plan is submitted. This alternative assumes eventual . develop- ment similar in nature to that which typifies development in the existing C -M zone district. Under this alternative, wetland habitat would be retained temporarily, at least, and future development options would be left open. This alternative may also lend sufficient time for an analysis of the ecologic, hydrologic, and recreational importance of the pond. D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED Erosion and increased surface runoff can be partially mitigated by replanting the site following the fill operations. Revegetation might also help to restore a small portion of the site's value as wildlife habitat. To minimize particu- lates in the air, the applicant is required by PSAPCA to spray water over the site during fill and grading operations. E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impact of this proposal is the loss of wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. This same loss of wetlands for wildlife constitutes a loss of open space amenity for man. 5 • A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 1. The Proposal. Seattle City Light has requested from the City of Tukwila the administra- tive approval and issuance of a grading and fill permit for approximately 40 acres of land owned by the utility. The name of this action is called the Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal. Covering approximately 15+ acres of this site is a body of water commonly known as the Tukwila Pond. Appendix A shows the proposed grading plan for the Seattle City Light site. The proposed fill site is located in the lower Green River Valley near the geographical center of the City of Tukwila, approximately one -half mile southeast of the intersection of I -5 and I -405, as shown in Figure 1. The property is bounded on the east by Andover Park West and on the north by Strander Boulevard. Southcenter Shopping Center lies directly across Strander Boulevard, adjacent to the site. Pictures of the site and pond are shown in Figure 2,and Figure 3. The site is nearly square in shape and consists of 40.7 acres. An "L" shaped portion of the site perimeter has already been filled and a large pond occupies its center. The filled area consists of approximately sixteen (16) acres while the pond is 15+ acres and its associated wet- lands approximately 10 acres. 2. Major Aspects of the Proposal. City Light proposes to drain the pond, fill the site, and grade the land according to submitted plans. Drainage of the pond will be accomplished by pumping the water into the City's storm drain system during periods of low surface runoff. Following the draining of the pond, all perishable materials will be removed and approximately 418,500 cubic yards of fill will be dumped on the site. Fill material will be compacted to 90% of maximum density and then graded to conform to grading plans. 3. Land Use Plans and Zoning Regulations. According to the existing Tukwila Comprehensive Plan drafted in 1962 by John Graham Company and revised in 1967, the subject site is located in an area designated "Industrial ". As such, the proposal conforms to planned land use. The existing comprehensive plan consists primarily of a land use map and, therefore, no adopted policies apply to the proposal. Presently the City of Tukwila is undertaking a revision of its comprehensive plan. General goals for the City were adopted in November, 1975 by the City Council through Resolution #504. These goals seek a balance between economy and environment and emphasize the importance of natural amenities. Although the Plan goals have been formally adopted by the City Council, the five ele- ments of the Plan (Natural Environment, Open Space, Residence, Commerce/ Industry, and Transportation /Utilities) have not. Objectives and policies within the preliminary Natural Environment and Open Space elements directly address ponds and marshes as natural and visual amenities, and encourage their retention. However, these policies do not apply to the proposed action since they have not been officially adopted. 6 Figure 1. VICINITY MAP: TUKWILA POND. FILL. PROPOSAL SOUTH - CENTER TUKWILA P1AMMp6 DEPAYTIEIT 1975 U'U M VV O P = &REIRCIO • The proposed fill site was originally zoned R -A (Agricultural) in December 1957 by Ordinance #251, one month after the property had been annexed to the City of Tukwila by Ordinance #247. At that time, the site was not owned by Seattle City Light. One year later in 1958, the City of Seattle purchased the property as a potential substation site. Zoning remained the same on the property until July 1973 when it was rezoned from R -A to its present zoning, C -M (Industrial Park). This zoning classification is an industrial park type zoning which permits uses similar to those allowed in the City's M -1 (Light Indus- try) classification, but maintains greater landscaping, pollution, and site design restrictions. Under the C -M zoning classification, there are no pertinent requirements which regulate the filling of land. B. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth. Geology: The primary geologic feature of the site is the deep, water - deposited sediment, or alluvium, beneath it. This alluvium consists primarily of silts and clays and covers most of the valley floor to depths exceeding 100 feet. Soils: Test hole data for the project site was obtained by City Light on June 30, 1958 (SEE Appendix B). The logs generally indicate that from the surface to 3.0 feet down loam and loam -peat soils are predominant. From 3.0 feet to about 8.0 feet in depth various clays are found. These clays are blue, gray, yellow and brown and are progressively wetter with depth. At 8.0 feet to 10.0 feet, clay -sand and sand are found. The soils found on the site have low bearing capacity and are therefore poorly suited for construction foundations. This condition necessitates filling the site with sand and gravel or constructing pile systems ptior to development. Topography: The site lies in a broad, very flat alluvial floodplain formed over thousands of years by deposition of sediments during flooding of the Green River. The subject site itself contains a natural depression about five (5) feet deep with a minimum elevation of twelve (12) feet above mean sea level. Partial filling of the "L" shaped portion has increased the depth of the depression to approximately twelve (12) feet and increased the site's maximum elevation to approximately twenty -four (24) feet above mean sea level. Additional fill of about one (1) foot occurred on a small portion of the site during construction of Andover Park West. 10 2. Air. Air Quality: Air quality in the vicinity of the subject site is marginal with respect to existing standards of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). White concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrocarbons appear well within ambient air quality standards, concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates often exceed these standards. According to PSAPCA, concentrations of suspended particulates are currently increas- ing in the Tukwila area and particle. fallout is also considered high. Air quality conditions reach their lowest levels during June, July, August and September, when precipitation and winds are lightest. The Seattle, Renton and Auburn industrial areas, Southcenter Shopping Center, and Interstate Highways 5 and 405 are the primary sources of air contaminants near the site. Climate: The subject site is influenced by a west coast marine type climate. Mari- time air sweeping in from the Pacific Ocean makes the summers warm and the winters cool, and drops 35-40 inches of rainfall on the Tukwila area each year, most of it during the winter months November - March, (SEE, Table 1 for monthly temperatures, precipitation, and winds near the proposal site). 3. Water. According to the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), there are approximately 4,090 acres of wetlandsl in the Green River Watershed (1974 datum). Of these, Type I wetlands (seasonally flooded basins and flats) are the most numerous, amounting to 2,339 acres. Typical Type I wetlands are poorly drained valley farmfields which stand in water during winter months. The scarcest type of wetlands inventoried in the watershed are Type IV wetlands (inland deep fresh marshes). By definition, the Tukwila Pond on the pro- posed fill site is a Type IV wetland, being covered with water year -round and maintaining a water depth of 6 inches to 3 feet or more during the growing season. Project plans for the SCS Green River watershed Project in 1974 designated approximately 110 acres of wetlands to be saved as a part of the total pro- ject. The Tukwila Pond on the proposed fill site was not designated as a wetland to be retained in the SCS project plans. 1 In 1974, the Soil Conservation Service inventoried Green River Watershed wetlands according to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular #39. The circular defines the types of wetlands as follows: Type I - Seasonally flooded basins or flats; Type II - Inland fresh meadows; Type III - Inland shallow fresh marshes; Type IV - Inland deep fresh marshes; and Type VII - wooded swamps. 11 TABLE 1 MONTHLY NORMALS OF TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION AND WIND AT SEATTLE - TACOMA AIRPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1930 - 1960 Wind Month Temp. ( °F.) Precip. (in.) Wind (MPH) Direction January 38.3 5.73 10.8 SSW February 40.8 4.24 10.9 SW March 43.8 3.79 11.4 SSW April 49.2 2.40 11.0 SW May 55.5 1.73 10.2 SW June 59.8 1.58 9.9 SW July 64.9 0.81 9.3 SW August 64.1 .0.95 8.9 SW September 59.9 2.05 9.1 N October 52.4 4.02 9.8 S November 43.9 5.35 10.2 S December 40.8 6.29. 10.8 SSW TOTAL OR AVERAGE 51.1 (Av) 38.94 (Tot) 10.2 (Av) SSW (Av) Source: "Local Climatological Data ", Sea -Tac Airport Weather Station. Surface Drainage: Natural drainage from the site has always been very poor due to the flat terrain and relatively impervious soils. The lowlying area of the site - i.e., that area now occupied by the pond - used to be very marshy and set fora long period each year. At that time, surface runoff drained eastward from the site through a ditch, onto the adjoining property, and ultimately into the Green River. In the fall of 1974, construction of Andover Park West by the City of Tukwila blocked drainage from the site. With surface drainage blocked, ponding on the site increased dramatically, eventually creating a year -round pond. Presently most water leaves the site through evaporation and plant transpira- tion, although a small amount probably infiltrates into the groundwater supply. A portion of the undeveloped land adjoining the site to the west probably drains onto the subject site, although this has not been definitely deter- mined. Runoff from the Bon Marche warehouse, Strander Boulevard and And- over Park West flows into storm drains and does not affect the subject site. Subsurface Drainage: The soils found on the site are nearly the surface, and ground water movement the terrain. Because of these factors and probably always has been extremely Water Quality: impermeable, the water table is near is very slow due to the flatness of subsurface drainage from the site is slow. Water quality within the pond has not been determined by direct means. However, it is expected that the quality is relatively high because of the following reasons. The pond receives no runoff from paved surfaces. The only potential source of pollutants and nutrients are rain, bare soil, fall- out from suspended particles, the vegetation around and in the pond and the wildlife currently frequenting the area. Based on studies performed in the Seattle area, particle fallout into the pond should be insufficient to sig- nificantly affect water quality. Rainfall in this area contains minimal pollutants, little erodable soil exists on the site, and the pond is too young to be detrimentally affected by nutrient contributions from the plants and animals associated with it. Considering these factors, the pond's current quality is expected to be comparable to that classified as excellent in the State of Washington Water Quality Standards. 4. Flora. Both native and introduced plant species are found on the subject site. All species are tolerant of wet floodplain conditions. Some small third or fourth - growth trees exist on the site, primarily along the pond's edge. These species include Douglas fir, madrona, black cottonwood, willow, and red alder. In the wider expanses of open land on the site grow an abundant diversity of shrubs and grass species. An inventory of these species can be found in Appendix C. None of the plants seen on the City Light property are considered rare or endangered. 5. Fauna. Historically, the subject site has supported great numbers of ducks and other waterfowl. According to one resident, the Greenhead Gun Club — which owned the site until City Light bought it in 1958 — hunted this area for ducks for many years.- 1 Telephone interview with Mr. Charles Anderson, 4 May 1976. 13 • TABLE 2 • WATERFOWL AND SONGBIRDS CURRENTLY USING SITE Name of Bird First Date Seen Estimated Total Number Song Sparrow 5/31/75 10 - 15 Goldfinches and mates 15 - 25 American Coots, mates and young 50 - 75 Shovelers and mates 25 - 35 Lesser Scaups and mates 7 - 12 Ruddy Ducks and mates 15 - 20 Cinnamon Teals and mates 2 - 6 Killdeers 7 - 12 Red - Winged Blackbirds 4 Tree Swallows 5 - 10 Barn Swallows 5 - 10 Cliff Swallows 6 Mallards, mates and young 20 - 35 Robins 6/29/75 2 Starlings 1 Yellowthroat Warbler 3 Purple Finches and mates 10 - 15 California Quail 7/ 4/75 5 - 7 Spotted Sandpiper 4 - 8 Western Sandpiper 3 - 7 Lesser Yellowlegs 7/12/75 3 - 5 Pier - Billed Grebes 3 Nashville Warbler 2 Rough- Winged Swallows 5 - 8 Sanderlings 5 - 10 Long - Billed Dowitcher 7/19/75 5 - 10 Green Heron 8/ 8/75 1 California Gulls 3 Common Crow 10/ 4/75 7 - 10 Cassin's Finches 10 - 15 Green - Winged Teal and mates 5 - 10 Canvasbacks and mates 10 - 15 Solitary Sandpiper 8 - 10 Short - Billed Dowitcher 8 - 10 Red - Tailed Hawk 1 Ring- Necked Ducks and mates 10/27/75 20 - 25 Buffleheads and mates 35 40 Pintails and mates 11/ 1/75 50 - 75 American Widgeons and mates 75 - 100 Gadwalls and mates 35 - 50 Horned Grebe 2 Ring- Necked Pheasants and mates 10 - 12 Red - Shafted Flicker 1 Common Snipe 11/29/75 2 European Widgeon 12/21/75 3 males plus mates Sparrow Hawk Franklin Gull Common Goldeneye 3 females Western Meadowlark 3/ 6/76 1 Loggerhead Shrike 4/22/76 Savannah Sparrow 4/22/76 Source: Sylvia Ludwig *Species of Migratory waterfowl are underlined. 14 • • The pond currently supports a variety of birds as well as a few mammals and reptiles. Table 2 lists all waterfowl and songbirds seen on the site by one observer since May, 1975. Rabbit, skunk, muskrat and possibly raccoon are expected to live on the site. In addition to the animals themselves, several nesting sights have been seen, including one muskrat nest. No live fish have been seen in the pond to date; although the pond is almost certainly capable of supporting aquatic life. Grebes have been noted apparently fishing, and one fish was found on the shore. Fish which might be living in the pond include the Threespine Stickle- back, Prickly Sculpin, Longnose and Speckled Dace and other small freshwater fish. Other aquatic animals, such as snails, may also currently exist in the pond. No bird or mammal specie observed on the City Light property is con- sidered rare or endangered. 6. Noise. The average ambient noise level on the City Light site due to truckless traffic is probably 60- 65 dBA. (This is extrapolated from a noise sur- vey completed in 1973 for Trillium on the adjacent property to the west.) This value seems to be consistent when compared with the City of Tukwila noise ordinance (TMC 18.32.030) and proposed 1973 King County noise ordi- nance, Sections 703 and 704. However, truck traffic on abutting roads intermittently boosts the noise level approximately 15 dBA higher than the ambient level. 7. Light and Glare. N/A 8. Land Use. Prior to its purchase in 1958 by City Light, the subject site was grazed . by dairy cattle from mid -May to mid - October and used for duck hunting by the Green Head Gun Club during the fall and winter. Since City Light purchased the property, it has experienced substantially no human use, serving only as open space and wildlife habitat. Commercial and light industrial uses surround the proposal site. To the north of the site across Strander Boulevard lies the Southcenter Regional Shopping Center, to the east lies Andover Industrial Park and to the southwest the Bon Marche Distribution Center abuts the property. Directly south of the subject site lies a large, vacant tract of land owned by Upland Industries.and zoned for industrial and commercial use. 9. Natural Resources. N/A 15 • • HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population. Current population within the City of Tukwila is 3,370. This figure contrasts with an average of 50,000 - 60,000 persons who migrate to the City each day during business hours to either work or shop. As far as the proposed fill site is concerned, no persons either presently live or work on the property. 2. Housing. According to the 1970 Census of Housing, there were 1,669 housing units within the City of Tukwila in 1970. Of these, 607 or about one -third of the total housing units were single - family units. On the other hand, about two- thirds or 1,000+ units were multiple - family dwelling units. There are no housing units located on the proposed fill site. 3. Transportation /Circulation. Interstate 5 and 405, Southcenter, and nearby industrial facilities comprise the major sources of automobile and truck traffic near the site. A traffic study done for a 1973 TOPICS program showed that traffic on Strander Boulevard averaged about 16,000 vehicles per day with peaks of around 1,600 vehicles per hour near noon and 6 P.M. To the west of the site on Southcenter Parkway, average 1973 daily traffic was 17,400 vehicles, with hourly peaks of 1,640 vehicles. Andover Park. West had not been built as of 1973 when the TOPICS study was completed, but recent counts on this road are.considerably less than those for Strander Boulevard or Southcenter Parkway. A sidewalk along Andover Park West abuts the fill site's eastern boundary. A BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad spur line track is located along the northern boundary of the land parcel immediately south of the pro- posed fill site. This spur track serves the Bon Marche Distribution Center. Approximately four road miles to the west of the site is located the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. Much of the freight carried by planes landing here is brought to or shipped from the Tukwila in- dustrial area. 16 • • 4. Public Services. Public services are provided to the subject site by the City of Tukwila. A recently built, well - equipped fire station, operated and staffed by the City, is located within one -half (Z) mile of the site. Police pro- tection is provided by the City of Tukwila and service levels are bene- ficial. Park and recreation services are provided by the City. The City Light property is located just inside the Renton School Dis- trict. The borderline between South Central and Renton School Districts is Strander Boulevard; north of strander is the South Central District, south of Strander is the Renton District. 5., Energy. N/A 6. Utilities. Water and storm and sanitary sewer services are provided by the City of Tukwila. All of these utilities either border or are within close reach of the proposed fill site. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone and Puget Power run underground telephone and electrical power lines along both the property's western and eastern boundaries. 7. Human Health. N/A 8. Aesthetics. The "naturalness" of the pond environment contrasts markedly with the surrounding urban environment of Southcenter and Andover Industrial Park. The Tukwila Pond represents one of the last remaining natural and viable wetlands within the City. Presently, the kind of environment found on the City Light site is a rare one in the Green River valley and will cer- tainly become rarer in the future. 9. Recreation. Although the subject site is not "open to the public ", the site is occa- sionally used for recreational purposes by the public. No studies have been done to determine the extent or the type of recreational use the site gets from the public, but it is expected that most use is of the sight- seeing type, primarily bird - watching. Other use may be picture - taking and passive contemplation. 10. Archeological /Historical. N/A 17 • • C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: Direct Impact - an impact resulting directly from draining, filling, or grading the site. Indirect impact - an impact resulting from typical development of the site under current C -M (industrial park) zoning after its sale by City Light. Cumulative Impact an impact resulting from expected development of undeveloped lands in the Lower Green River Valley under current zoning. 1. Environmental Impact on the Natural Systems. Earth: Direct Impacts: The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, or other fill material approximately thirteen (13) feet deep. Topography of the presently unfilled area will change to a very slight gradient towards the southeast with elevations from twenty -four (24) feet to twenty (20) feet above mean sea level. This slope should be insufficient to cause significant erosion. Indirect Impacts: Future development of the site may also insignifi- cantly alter its topography and geology. Cumulative Impacts: Given the composition and depth of the alluvial sediments in the valley, substantial subsidence of all large develop- ments on the floodplain is definitely possible. The cumulative effect this might have on the area's topography and geology cannot presently be assessed. Air: Direct Impacts: The proposed action should result in minimal direct impacts to the area's air quality. These insignificant impacts will be in the form of temporary increases in vehicle emissions and dust on and near the site. The magnitude of the temporary impacts will depend upon the wind and precipitation occurring during the work, but it is expected to be insignificant. Indirect Impacts: Future development of the site will cause temporary impacts similar in nature to those of filling and grading. The magni- tude and duration of these impacts cannot be estimated at this time. Long term impacts due to development of the site will probably involve increases in vehicle emissions in the area. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts should be analogous to those discussed under hydrology and water quality, again depending upon continuing development of the lower Green River.Valley. These impacts may be mitigated to a currently unknown degree by future improvement in air quality control regulations and technology. 18 Water: Direct Impacts: As a first step, filling and grading the site will entail draining the pond's 1,000,000+ cubic feet of water into the municipal storm sewer system. This water will drain north into the Gilliam Creek storm system and enter the Green River through a flood- gate approximately 3/4 mile northeast of the site. This same drainage pattern will be maintained after the site is filled. Runoff from the site will contribute approximately forty (40) acre -feet of water per year to the Green River, the exact amount depending upon weather conditions and fill surface characteristics. This increase in runoff is by itself insignificant and volume flowed into the river from the by Andover Park West. Depending upon and infiltration to ground water will a substantial portion of this site before drainage was blocked fill characteristics, evaporation both decrease. The quality of surface runoff leaving the site should approximate that of the runoff which drained from the site prior to blockage. The only change expected is a slightly higher concentration of suspended solids. Indirect Impacts: Future development occurring after the property is filled and sold can further impact site hydrology and water quality in the following ways: Building construction and paving will cause a further increase in surface runoff as well as an increase in evapora- tion. Infiltration to ground water will be drastically reduced or eliminated, depending upon the extent of ..paving. Development can either raise or lower nearby ground water levels, again depending upon the exact nature of the construction. Runoff quality will deteriorate somewhat depending upon how the facil- ities are used. Based on uses permitted for industrial park zoning and on surface runoff quality data for Seattle, a very small incremental impact on the Green River due to water from this site is expected. The relative hydrologic and water quality impact from development of the site should also be small in comparison to that of nearby developments. Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative effect of continued filling and floodplain development will necessitate additional flood control. The SCS has planned and designed such a project for the Green River Valley, and portions of the system have already been built within Tukwila (e.g., P -17 pump station). Presently, the remainder of the proposed valley drainage project awaits funding and environmental review. Flora: Direct Impacts: All vegetation which exists on the site will be either buried or removed during fill operations. Fauna: Direct Impacts: Draining the pond and filling and grading the site eliminate all or nearly all habitat suitable for sustaining animal life on the site. The major impact will be on migratory water fowl, shore birds, song birds, and birds of prey which currently frequent the site. Consultation with an Audubon representative1 and an independent biologist2 revealed the following information. When the site is filled, birds now using the site will be forced to move elsewhere. The large lakes in the region such as Lake Washington, Lake Sammam- ish, and Green Lake provide some resting places for birds but very little feed. The primary reason for the traditional use of the Green River Valley by large numbers of birds is the abundant feed provided by farm land and marsh. Therefore few, if any, displaced birds would take up residence at the large lakes. Other habitat areas in the Valley include the marsh south and east of Longacres racetrack, the wetland pasture north of the Boeing plant, the pond at the farm just east of Southcenter, and the farmlands and ponds just south and west of the Boeing plant. Some additional farms and small marshes on the west side of the valley in Kent and Auburn also provide feeding and resting area for large numbers of waterfowl. It is expected that.most birds, especially the non - migratory species, forced off the City Light site will relocate in these nearby areas. It is not certain, however, but it is possible that some of these birds may leave the Tukwila area and not return. Other impacts to the site's ecologic system include removal of all vegetation and destruction of suitable habitat for small reptiles and mammals currently using the site. These animals provide feed for birds of prey currently using the site and will face the same reloca- tion problems as the resident birds, although compounded by their lack of mobility. Any fish now living in the pond will probably be destroyed during draining operations. This is not considered a significant loss since plentiful fish habitat exists elsewhere in the region. Indirect Impacts: Future industrial park development on the site will permanently and generally eliminate any chance of re- establishing wild- life habitat there. 1 Leonard Steiner, Seattle Audubon Society, Conservation Chairman. 2 Charles Shank, Biologist. 20 Cumulative. Impacts: If valley wetlands and farms continue to be converted to urban use, much of the remaining waterfowl habitat in the lower valley will be destroyed. The cumulative impact of this habitat destruction on the 20,000 to 30,000 waterfowl currently using the area will be substantial. These wetlands are already overcrowded, and where these birds will go is uncertain. To date, no baseline studies exist on the wildlife impact of devel- opment in the valley in terms of depleted bird populations. There- fore, an estimate as to the exact nature and severity of future cumulative impacts can not be made. However, this region will certainly suffer a loss of wildlife, and migratory waterfowl popu- lations as a whole may be reduced as well. In addition, changes in the lower valley drainage system proposed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), if implemented, will probably lower the water table and reduce existing wetland areas regardless of further development. Reduced wetland areas will mean further elimina- tion of wildlife habitat. Noise: Noise impacts of filling and grading will be completely analogous to those discussed under atmospheric effects. Much of the impact will be temporary; and long term and cumulative impacts may be mitigated by improvements in noise control. Light and Glare: N/A Land Use: Direct Impacts: After grading is completed, human use of the site should be minimal until City Light sells the property and development begins. Indirect Impacts: When the site is developed, use will change to some type of commercial /industrial use. Employment opportunities will be created which will expand the area's economy. Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative changes in human use resulting from this continued development will be nearly total transition from agricul- tural /open space uses to commercial /industrial uses within the lower valley. This transition began in the late 1950's and has progressed steadily ever since. Natural Resources: Direct Impacts: To fill the City Light site will require the excavation of approximately 418,500 cubic yards of fill material. It is expected that this fill material will be obtained from existing sand and gravel pits in the Auburn, Kent, or Renton areas; there are no gravel pits pre- sently in operation within the City of Tukwila. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site will require varying amounts of construction materials and, hence, make certain demands on natural resources. 21 Cumulative Impacts: Total development of the Green River valley will require vast amounts of fill material. The excavation of this material will cause major alterations to topographical conditions in some local- ities. This alteration and interference could have adverse effects upon residential neighborhoods located in proximity to these operations. 2. Environmental Impact on Human Systems. Population: Direct Impacts: No population increase or decrease is anticipated as a result of the City Light fill proposal. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site would stimulate employment but the in- migration of employees to the City of Tukwila would be in- significant. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of the valley will eventually lead to a saturation population of Tukwila, estimated to be approxi- mately 7,000 to 8,000 persons. Housing: Direct Impacts: No direct impacts on the housing supply are expected as a result of this proposal. Indirect Impacts: Employment opportunities generated by eventual development of the site could create a demand for housing in the Tukwila area. It is impossible to estimate this demand at this time. Cumulative Impacts: Eventual development of all commercial and indus- trial lands in the valley is expected to lead also to a saturation pop- ulation of.about 7,000 - 8,000 persons in the City of Tukwila. To house the additional population, approximately 1,650 new housing units will be required. Transportation /Circulation: Direct Impacts: Fill operations will generate a certain amount of truck traffic to and from the site. In order to dump 418,500 cubic yards of fill material, approximately 30 - 35,000 truck trips will be required, depending upon the type of trucks used in the operation. This fill operation could take up to 210 days to complete with about 160 trucks dumping loads each day. Impacts from truck activities will be an increase in ambient noise levels, some dust, possible traffic con estion during peak hours, and potential failure of roadway surface near the site. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site will generate future vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and from the site. It is difficult to estimate the volume of this traffic since traffic - generation is so closely related to the type of land use and land use is an unknown factor at this time. Cumulative Impacts: Continued development of the valley will likely cause high traffic volumes on all roads with congestion occurring at certain intersections. 22 Public Services /Utilities: Direct Impacts: Draining the pond will require the pumping of approximately 1,089,000 cubic feet of water into the municipal storm drain system. If this operation is done during periods of low runoff, the impact on the drainage system is expected to be insignificant. Demands on other public services during the fill operation are expected to be negligible also. Indirect Impacts: Development of the proposed fill site will require all available public services: Police, fire, water, storm and sanitary sewer, and recreational service. It is expected that the public service demands of development can be met by existing systems. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of all valley lands will require the construction of additional utility lines and, in some cases, the construction of new systems. Also, total development would create heavy demands on police and fire protection services. Aesthetics: Direct Impacts: The proposal will transform a pond environment into a level development site. Natural elements, like vegetation, surface water, and wildlife (primarily waterfowl) will be displaced and Nature's contrast to the human environment will be removed. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site is expected to be of the same order as found elsewhere in the C -M zone. Exterior building design in the C -M zone is subject to review by the Tukwila Planning Commission, hence, some guarantee of architectural (man -made) aesthe- tics exists. Landscaping as required per the zoning ordinance will ensure a small degree of natural elements on the site. Cumulative Impacts: Development of all valley lands will eliminate many of the open space and visual amenities afforded by the natural environment. These amenities will be replaced by man -made environ- ments. Recreation: Direct Impacts: Filling of the Tukwila Pond will eliminate most recre- ational activity on the site. Observation of wildlife and waterfowl will be eliminated altogether, and it is expected that the reduction in amenities will draw fewer people to the site for the purpose of "just looking ". Indirect Impacts: If the eventual development of the site is typical of other development in the C -M zone, there will be no provision for recreation on the site. Cumulative Impacts: Development of valley lands will severely diminish open space and recreational opportunities afforded by non -urban uses. • D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED The applicant could reduce erosion and surface runoff by replanting the site after grading it. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) regulations require actions such as spraying water over the site during grading operations to minimize dust. Revegetation of the site could possibly restore a portion of the site's value as wildlife habitat, though this value would be nil for waterfowl. Since the proposal is to fill the entire site, little if anything can be done to mitigate the adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife associated with the elimination of a pond environment. E. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS All vegetation will be eliminated from the site, at least temporarily. Wild- life habitat on the site will be eliminated, significantly reducing the capa- bility of the immediate vicinity to support wildlife. Wildlife currently using the site will be forced to relocate in already overcrowded feeding sites in the immediate vicinity or will leave the area entirely. Recreational use of this site for wildlife observation and picture- taking will be eliminated. F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 1. Do Nothing. This alternative would essentially amount to preserving the site as a completely natural wildlife refuge. Some question exists concerning the long term viability of this site as a wildlife refuge. The pond has existed for only two years, and it is already productive enough to sup- port an abundance of waterfowl. If productivity continues to increase, the pond could advance to a state which will only support a few species. This may or may not occur, depending upon several factors. Advantages: This alternative would preserve a portion of a habitat which is rapidly disappearing from the Green River Valley. Ponds of this type are no longer common in the Puget Sound region and their elimination poses a definite threat to birds passing through the Pacific Migratory Fowl Flyway. Disadvantages: Potential disadvantages involve the site's unknown long term viability as a preserve,. plus the possibility that elimination of other suitable habitat in the area-would render this site virtually useless regardless of its viability. Finally, adoption of this alternative would restrict economic development of the site, at least temporarily. 24. • 2. Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation. This alternative would entail the filling of only part, perhaps the majority of the site and the retention of a part, or all, of the pond. Zoning of the land would remain the same and uses allowed in the C -M zone would be allowed on the site. Property would remain under private ownership, or at the option of the owner, could be offered for sale to another party. Advantages: This alternative would help to retain a part of the pond's function as wildlife habitat and visual open space. The pond could function also as an open space focus for employees or clientele of uses which would even- tually locate on the site and /or serve as a water detention facility for storm water runoff. Disadvantages: This alternative would preclude complete development of the entire site. Also, the maintenance of the pond and possible aeration of the water to prevent oxygen depletion might cause economic and technical problems. 3. Delay Action Until Site Development Proposal. This alternative would entail delaying fill operations on the site until such time as an actual development plan for the site is proposed. It is assumed under this alternative that the current zoning of the site, C -M, will remain the same and eventual use of the site will be typical of that permitted under the C -M classification. Advantages: This alternative would temporarily retain suitable wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds while keeping future development options open. This alternative may also lend sufficient time for private organizations and local, state, or federal agencies to evaluate the ecologic, recreational, and hydrologic importance of the pond. Disadvantages: This alternative could cause the eventual site development proposal to be subjected to future, potentially more stringent environmental /land use regulations, making the prospects of selling the land less desirable. G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 1. Short -Term Environmental Gains. No short -term environmental gains are expected to result from draining and filling the property. 25 2. Long -Term Environmental Gains. The proposed action will allow economic development of the site which will, in turn, provide employment opportunities and associated economic growth. The very long term gains from this development are unknown. 3. Short -Term Environmental Losses. The action will destroy a wildlife habitat and result in increased surface runoff of decreased quality. Ground water recharge will be reduced and noise levels and air pollutant concentrations will temp- orarily increase. 4. Long -Term Environmental Losses. Development resulting from the proposed action will cause permanent loss of forty (40) acres of open space and locally uncommon wildlife habitat with its associated aesthetic amenities. It will permanently increase surface runoff and this runoff may contain significant pollutant concen- trations. It may eliminate ground water recharge on the site entirely. It will probably result in a permanent increase in traffic volumes and ambient noise levels near the site. 5. Trade -Offs Between Gains and Losses. The long term gain to the human environment resulting from this action is significant. The short and longterm losses to the natural and human environment are also significant. The trade -offs involved concern those between economic and environmental considerations. 6. Benefits of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. Delay of implementation of the proposal maximizes the development as well as the preservation options on the site. Private developments could use the pond as an open space and recreational focus for its employees and /or clientele, or for retention of storm water runoff. In addition, delay of the proposal would provide the local government with time to evaluate the pond's ecological, aesthetic, hydrologic, and recreational importance to the public. Based on this evaluation, the public may desire to acquire the pond for various purposes. 7 Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. The presence of the pond on the City Light site has an inhibiting effect on the marketability of the land. With recent public concern and legis- lation regarding the natural environment, the pond represents an obstacle around which the developer must maneuver in order to implement devel- opment plans. H. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The result of the proposed action will be the preclusion of optional future land uses and the loss of water marsh and open space resources. Once the property is filled and graded,:the land will be irretrievably committed to commercial or industrial development. 26. 0 7 dD dD dD N D) D) IMMO RiNRARNIRRARR/.,m^.,+i, v,",— .. _ moNCUIS, aBeErriNt eN5P4rarirncrs> tire, , O1a�NHGD ncationosnanaarytur. :-,rn I;:,16.- -. " F:aD4i?' H .. INl9mao o Dnerirmr ClnnanDRefropiar = o�" d aa4D aB4a D� E,i,oiad ._: .... } G■G�� Q°si� °ar` ioan its ; rY ■eaaancti ij ,1C ZOOM _�_ �A■maaaap0r3L5 •�l.nn ... i .. siirunormiacm:1-ibtiooutiFi; ,E: It- , reeDDaacaacomooc�L.Jti paa0000acncc —aaa�. �' a ■• -um 4a4anaaaaca g. E4. ' e'6� 'aac rLfl3i&1 FI5c FIE, 26.5 EEV 23 'r1 G7if., 57RAMDER BLVD. E1*-. 0&V_ LS EXISTING E 2y MO ATION 22.0 PROPOSED GRA011JG CONTOURS EXISTING DITCH ti3 TMPORI INTERCEPTOR 011 (3 uxCd\110MS) .I i N GRAD ING: I AN OC 2 L s�o ai -rne�n 41161/10..".... � faa aaaao • ��aOncaitif fferE ae' Et) 'S.r i hl 110 s v / j-ELEV 20 EPST PIT ELEV w. rtr ;: INZNI 1:7 DI 12112M • *I•a .i +.t. .4.4_ AYr Banco. -a -o I 1 -� ;n_ mmeD�a. �� aa. ti MIN PM samoctro t-i xi 13 TO \ SEORTtE L gmlpl�im+QaACy��p• {IMMO LiL11i 1.119 �aa t ODUUU� *Da4Qa via PROPERTY LINE strander G: &B.:CLAY O 4.0 S.0 9, W.T. GRAY CLAY 9.5 GRAY CLAY & PEAT SANDY 1.5 LOAM -CLAY 'f, CLAY 'HEAVY & sr I CKY) 4.0 0.0 SANDY BLUE CLAY G• &B SAND SANDY M Let W z J 350' "3 SO' 289.30' O 1.5 6,0 10,5 LOAM GRAY CLAY TRACE OF BLUE CLAY PEAT TYPE LOAM 0 2.0 3.5 10.0 2.0 W T DRAINAGE DITC - c�, 0 LOAM- PEAT 5 -CLAY 3,5 GRAY CLAY &G. CLAY - PEAT 7.5 BLUE CLAP 9.5 & PEAT GRAY CLAY W.T. 5 LAY-LOAM 5 7 GRAY CLAY BLUE CLAY 10.0 PEAT LOAM GRAY CLAY GRAY'CLAY (GUMBO) W.T, LOAM ,CLAY & PEAT GRAY CLAY LOAM , Y, &G. CLAY iW Y, CLAY 1 (PEAT) Y,& B. C LAYY j� B. CLAY & PEAT Rc, J' 2,o ILOAM_CLAY, 4 !GRAN CLAY G OIBLUE CLAY w7 , IG•5'CLAY -SANDI _ 0 ,• W �r ;/ h 0 V4' / .2P T 4_P 0 B Cv L 0 OAM_._,_5 LOAM -CLAY OAM 5 SANDY LOAM / IDAMP GRAY o / CLAY 0 CG 4.(1) BLUE CLAY /G 9 5 WET SAND :opal 51) GRAY CLAY & SAND BLUE CLAY- 13 WET SAND PROPERTY LINE IT "Y.,- L "1GH'f CENTER OF -9, BARBED WIRE PENCE SEC:26 0 C t:T. IdH7/ 100` X_" 1'647389.98 0'8 Y2 1 68 297.57 3,0 3,5 4.0 10.0 PEAT-CLAY LOAM LOAM; CLAY CLAY W.T. SILT • SAND \j O SANDY LOAM 0.5 4.0 5.0 Y. DRY HARD CLAY BIWET CLAY SILT CLAY 4.5 9.0 6,5 9.5 10.0 B,WETCLAY SANDY HARD LOAM SILT CLAY SAND SILT 0' 1.5 2.5 4.5 LOAM CLAY DAMP SANDT LOAM WET DARK SAND CLAY ABBREVIATIONS B = BLUE G = GRAY = YELLOW W.T = WATER TABLE BI = BP,OWN 9.WET CLA5 APPENDIX C. VEGETATION INVENTORIED (OR EXPECTED) ON POND FILL SITE COMMON NAME GENUS Black cottonwood *Populus Willow *Salix Red alder Alnus Douglas Fir Pseduotsuga Pacific madrone Arbutus Scotch broom Cytisus Common vetch Vicia Wild sweet pea Lathyrus Stinking mayweed Anthemis Red clover Trifolium Least hop clover Trifolium White clover Trifolium Wild lettuce Lactuca Sow thistle Sonchus Canada thistle Cirsium Common thistle Cirsium Smooth hawksbeard *Crepis Hairy cat's ear Hypochaeris Common tansy Tanacetum Canada goldenrod Solidago Pearly everlasting Anaphalis Ribwort Plantago Fireweed Epilobium Cattail *Typha Water plantian *Alisma Rush *Juncus Sedge *Carex Yellow weed *Parentucellia Horsetail. Equisetum Grass *Phalaris Paper Birch *Betula SPECIES trichocarpa sp. rubra menziesii menziesii scoparius sativa sp. cotula pratense dubium pratense sp. sp. arvense vulgare capillaris radicata vulgare canadensis margaritacea lanceolata augustifolium latifolia plantago- aquatica sp. sp. viscosa telmateia sp. papyrifera * Species indicating standing water at some time during a year. Source: "Trillium EIS ", and Carl Stixrood, landscape consultant. FIt,E ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: • TUKWILA POND FILL PROPOSAL • i Your 1 OO Seattle \ City Light JANUARY 1976 • • • Your Seattle City Light Gordon Vickery, Superintendent January 29, 1976 Mr. Kjell Stoknes City of Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Stoknes: • Attached is the Environmental Assessment of City Light's proposal to obtain a permit to fill the Tukwila Pond. We trust this assessment will meet your needs and serve as background for any additional work you deem necessary to fulfill State Environmental Policy Act requirements. Si /- e 1 GO'1ON VICKERY Superintendent RR:ct Attachment • • • • City of Seattle— Department of Lighting, City Light Building, 1015 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 447 -3000 • • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • • •. • — • • TUKWILA POND FILL PROPOSAL ' CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING 1015 3rd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 • January 1976 • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY 1 THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 Type of Action 1 Location and General Features of Subject Site . . 1 Location 1 General Features . . • ... . . . . . . . • • 1 Development Resulting from Proposed Action . . 1 Basis for the Proposed Action 5 Proposed Method of Financing 5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND PAST PLANNING DECISIONS• . . 5 General Area 5 Site Specific 6 Land Use 7 Flood Control 7 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAWS, POLICIES AND PLANS . . 7 City of Tukwila 7 Applicable Permits 7 Zoning 8 Other Laws 8 City Policies and Plans 8 Other Laws, Policies and Plans 8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 9 ACTIONS REMAINING FOR IMPLEMENTATION 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 Natural Conditions 9 • • • • • • Page Topography and Geomorphology 9 Geology 10 Soils 10 Hydrologic Conditions 10 Surface Drainage 10 Subsurface Drainage 11 Water Quality 11 Ecologic System 12 Plants 12 Animals 12 Atmospheric Conditions 15 Air Quality 15 Sources of Air Contaminants 15 Climate 15 Noise 15 Human Use, Development and Values 17 General Development 17 Traffic 17 Human Values 18 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 18 Definition of Terms 18 Changes in Natural Characteristics 18 Topography and Geology 18 Direct Impacts 18 Indirect Impacts 19 Cumulative Impacts 19 • • • • • • • Page Hydrology and Water Quality 19 Direct Impacts 19 Indirect Impacts 20 Cumulative Impacts 20 Ecologic Systems 20 Direct Impacts 20 Indirect Impacts 22 Cumulative Impacts 22 Atmospheric Effects 23 Direct Impacts 23 Indirect Impacts 23 Cumulative Impacts 23 Noise Levels 24 Changes in Human Use 24 Land Use Patterns 24 Direct Impacts 24 Indirect Impacts 24 Cumulative Impacts 24 Traffic 24 Direct Impacts 24 Indirect Impacts 24 Cumulative Impacts 24 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts 25 Topography and Geology 25 Hydrology and Water Quality 25 • • • • .- • • • Page Ecologic Systems 25 Atmospheric Effects 25 Noise Levels 25 Human Use 25 Possible Mitigating Actions 26 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 26 Do Nothing 26 Development of the Site as a Park /Wildlife Refuge 28 Delaying Action for Further Study 29 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF SITE 29 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 31 APPENDIX I: Preliminary Fill Plan 33 APPENDIX II: Soil Test Data for the Site 34 • LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Pa e • 1. Map of General Vicinity 2 2. Aerial Photograph of Site in 1975 3 3. Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity in 1972 . • • 4 • • • • • • Table No. LIST OF TABLES Page • • • • • • SUMMARY The City of Seattle, Department of Lighting, has applied to the City of Tukwila for a permit which would allow the utility to fill approximately 40 acres of its property lying within Tukwila's city limits. The City of Tukwila feels that this proposal may be environmentally significant and controversial because a large pond currently occupies most of the property. Therefore, before issuing the permit, Tukwila requested City Light to prepare an Environmental Assessment of the proposed action. The pond is man -made and was accidentally created two years ago during road construction adjacent to the property by the City of Tukwila. This pond and the surrounding vegetation now support a variety of birds including many species of migratory waterfowl. The major impact of filling the site would be dispersal of this wildlife land elimination of uses requiring natural open space. These impacts are perhaps significant, but must be considered along with several other factors in order to properly evaluate them. The pond is man -made and only two years old. The long term viability of the pond as wildlife habitat is unknown and cannot be assessed at this time. The pond lies in the center of a rapidly industrializing area which is expected to continue developing. Final evaluation of the proposed action's environmental significance must, within the value system of the decision makers, be based on careful and rational consideration of all factors presented in this assessment. -i- • • • • THE PROPOSED ACTION Type of Action The City of Tukwila will take administrative actions to permit the City of Seattle, Department of Lighting, to drain, fill and grade a piece of property within Tukwila's city limits for future sale. Location and General Features of Subject Site Location The site City Light proposes to fill lies in the lower Green River Valley near the geographical center of the City of Tukwila, approximately one -half mile southeast of the intersection of 1 -5 and I -405, as shown in Figure 1. The property is bounded on the east by Andover Park West and on the north by Strander Boulevard. Southcenter Shopping Center lies directly across Strander Boulevard, adjacent to the site. The site is in the Green River flood plain and the river itself passes approximately one- fourth mile east of the property. General Features The site (shown in Figure 2) is nearly square in shape and consists of 40.7 acres (16.5 Hectare), which is about the size of eighty (80) football fields. An "L" shaped portion of the site perimeter has already been filled and a large man -made pond occupies its center. The filled area consists of approximately sixteen (16) acres and the pond covers twenty -five (25) acres. The pond is currently about ten (10) feet deep and contains approximately 1,089,000 cubic feet of water. Figure 3 shows the site in 1972, before the current pond was formed. Development Resulting from Proposed Action City Light proposes to construct drainage structures, drain, fill and • -1- • • • • • • • • SERTV1/4..q. -f0 TACOMA FIGURE 1 GENERAL VICINITY OF SITE FIGURE 2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE LOOKING NORTH (OCTOBER 1975) FIGURE 3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING GENERAL VICINITY OF SITE (DECEMBER 1972) Subject site outlined in red • grade the site according to the fill plan shown in Appendix I. After com- pleting these operations, City Light proposes to sell the property. • Once the property is sold, the buyer will likely develop it in accordance with the property'^ zoning, and the site is currently zoned for industrial • parks. For specific information about development allowed under the zoning, see the Industrial Park Classification of the City of Tukwila Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.32. • • Basis for the Proposed Action City Light originally planned to construct a power substation on the site. That plan was abandoned due to changes in load growth predictions. The property is now:-surplus and City Light proposes to sell the site and use the money for other programs. • Proposed Method of Financing If the proposed action is approved City Light will finance all draining, filling and grading operations and the City of Tukwila will finance those '•'"� administrative procedures necessary to process the permit application. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND PAST PLANNING DECISIONS • General Area Agriculture, in the form of dairy and truck farming, dominated the lower Green River Valley until the 1960's when industrialization of the area began • in earnest. At this time seven primary factors combined to stimulate rapid industrial development: ® location of Interstate 5 and 405 on the valley wall o initiation of plans to provide sewer and water service to portions of the area. (1,2) • -5- • • • construction of Howard Hanson Dam upstream to minimize flood hazards in the valley • completion of a comprehensive plan by the City of Tukwila emphasizing industrial and commercial growth • natural attraction of the broad, flat flood plan to developers O agricultural users selling their land due to re- evaluation and taxation of the land at its "highest and best use." Within the context of this rapid industrialization, Tukwila's assessed value has increased from $1.9 million in 1961 to $89.6 in 1972 and is cur- rently estimated at $120 million. The City's low population density has remained relatively stable, however, ranging from two to five persons per acre, with 2,350 acres of incorporated area. No significant change is predicted in this density through 1990. In contrast, total employment in the City reached 10,000 in 1975. Current zoning also reflects the trend toward industrialization. Seventy -two percent of the incorporated area of Tukwila is zoned for either commercial or industrial development. These reports will be referred t� often in the remainder of this assess- ment as the Trillium E.I.S. and the Tukwila Data Inventory. • Site Specific Chain of land title. City Light purchased the site in 1958 in two parcels. One parcel was -6- Applicable permits City Light must obtain a fill permit from the City before proceeding with • • • • the proposed action. City Light has applied for this permit and its issuance is pending satisfaction of environmental requirements. Tukwila's shoreline management program does not apply in this case and no other potentially applicable City permit exists. Zoning The proposed action complies with all pertinent requirements listed under the Industrial Park classification of the City of Tukwila Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.32. Other laws No other laws of the City of Tukwila applying to the proposed action have been identified to date. City policies and plans The proposal is commensurate with Tukwila's current comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1962. The proposal potentially conflicts with proposed environmental policies encouraging retention of wetlands for wildlife habitat and storm runoff detention. These policies are included in the City's new Comprehensive Plan which is currently in draft form. Since this plan is not yet official it may not apply to the fill proposal. We mention it here primarily to indicate the current thinking of the Tukwila Planning Commission. Other Laws, Policies. and Plans The subject site lies within the Green River Flood Control Zone District; • and, therefore, City Light must acquire a Flood Zone Permit from the State Department of Ecology prior to filling. DOE has issued this permit and City Light has not acted on it at this time (Permit No. 1- 2173 -2). • The U.S. Soil Conservation Service published a wetlands retention map of -8- • • • the Green River Valley in 1973, recommending potential sites for retention of wetland habitat totaling 110 acres. The subject site was not recommended by SCS as part of the wetland retention area. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There has been no formal public participation relating to the fill proposal at this time; although a few private citizens have expressed concern. Formal public participation will occur as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement review process, if the City of Tukwila determines that such a statement is necessary. ACTIONS REMAINING FOR IMPLEMENTATION Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act and issuance of the fill permit are the remaining actions which must take place before the pro- posal can be implemented. EXISTING CONDITIONS Natural Conditions Topography and Geomorphology The site lies in a broad, very flat alluvial flood plain formed over thousands of years by deposition of sediments during flooding of the Green River. The subject site itself contains a natural depression about five (5) feet deep with a minimum elevation of twelve (12) feet above mean sea level. Partial filling of the site has increased the depth of the depression to approximately twelve (12) feet and increased the site's maximum elevation to approximately twenty -four (24) feet above mean sea level. Additional fill of about one (1) foot occurred on a small portion of the site during con- struction of Andover Park West. • • • • Geology The primary geologic feature of the site is the deep water deposited sediment, or alluvium, beneath it. This alluvium consists primarily of silts and clays and covers most of the valley floor to depths exceeding 100 feet. Soils Test hole data for the project site was obtained by City Light on June 30, 1958. Appendix II shows soil log locations and soil types. The logs generally indicate that from the surface to 3.0 feet down loam and loam -peat soils are predominant. From 3.0 feet to about 8.0 feet in depth various clays are found. These clays are blue, gray, yellow and brown and are progressively wetter with depth. At 8.0 feet to 10.0 feet, clay -sand and sand are found. The soils found on the site have low weight, bearing capacity and are therefore poorly .suited for construction foundations. This condition neces- sitates filling the site with sand and gravel or constructing deep pile systems prior to development. For more information concerning the geologic aspects of the site area, see the Tukwila Data Inventory. Hydrologic Conditions • Surface drainage: Natural drainage from the site is very poor due to the flat terrain and relatively impervious soils. Most water leaves the site through evaporation and plant transpiration, although a small amount probably • infiltrates into the ground water supply. A portion of the undevdloped land adjoining the site to the west probably • drains onto the subject site, although this has not been definitely determined. • Runoff from the Bon Marche warehouse, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West, -10- • • • • • flows into storm drains and does not affect the subject site. Prior to 1972, surface runoff drained from the site into a culvert on the east side of the property which emptied into a ditch on the adjoining property and ultimately into the Green River. In 1972, during construction of Andover Park West by the City of Tukwila, the culvert was crushed eliminating surface drainage from the site. City Light investigators believe the culvert was crushed when the sanitary sewer line was laid down the center of the roadbed. With surface drainage blocked, ponding on the site increased dramatically, eventually creating a small lake. The last time the site was nearly dry was during July, 1974. Subsurface Drainage The soils found on the site are nearly impermeable, the water table is near the surface (see Appendix II) and ground water movement is very slow due to the flatness of the. terrain. Because of these factors subsurface drainage from the site is and has probably always been extremely slow. No evidence exists indicating that surrounding development has contributed to the pond by raising the water table. Water Quality We have not determined the water quality within the pond by direct means. • However, we expect the quality to be relatively high at this time for the following reasons. The pond receives no runoff from paved surfaces. The only potential source of pollutants and nutrients are rain, bare soil, fallout from • suspended particles, the vegetation around and in the pond and the wildlife currently frequenting the area. Based on studies performed in the Seattle area, • particle fallout into the pond should be insufficient to significantly affect water quality. Rainfall in this area contains minimal pollutants, little • • erodable soil exists on the site and the pond is too young to be detrimentally affected by nutrient contributions from the plants and animals associated with • it. Considering these factors, we expect the pond's current quality to be comparable to that classified as excellent in the State of Washington Water Quality Standards. Ecologic System Plants: We have not inventoried vegetation on the subject site. The EIS • completed for the proposed Trillium development adjacent to the west boundary of the City Light property noted the following vegetation on the City Light site: • "To the east of the site is another open field covered with introduced weeds, a small stand of alder and willow and a large dried -up freshwater marsh filled with cattails." • • The marsh mentioned in preceding quote is the area now occupied by the pond. During a brief inspection of the site, we also identified several clumps of Evergreen Blackberry bushes, a small Madrona tree and several small Firs. We expect many of the plants growing on the Trillium site grow also on the City Light property and the plant inventory compiled for the Trillium EIS is included as Table 1. None of the plants seen on either the City Light property or the Trillium property is considered rare or endangered. Animals: The pond currently supports a variety of birds as well as a few • mammals and reptiles. Table 2 lists all wildlife seen on the site by one observer since May, 1975. In addition to the animals themselves, several nesting sights have been seen, including one muskrat nest. The list includes • no rare or endanered s.ecies althou_h the Eur-o.ean Widgeon is erha s uncommon. -12- • • • • • • • • • COMMON NAME Scotch broom Common vetch Wild sweet pea White sweet clover Stinking mayweed Red clover Least hop clover White clover Wild lettuce Sow thistle Pineapple weed Canada thistle Common thistle Smooth hawksbeard Hairy cat's ear Common tansy Canada goldenrod Pearly everlasting Ribwort Nippleseed Fireweed Sourdock Spotted ladysthumb Creeping buttercup Black cottonwood Willow Red alder Himalayan blackberry Field horsetail Horsetail Cattail Water plantain. Rush Sedge Yellow weed Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass Grass TABLE 1. VEGETATION INVENTORIED FOR TRILLIUM EIS GENUS *Cytisus *Vicia *Lathyrus *Melilotus *Anthemis *Trifolium *Trifolium *Trifolium Lactuca *Sonchus Matricaria *Cirsium *Cirsium 1I *Crepis *Hypochaeris *Tanacetum Solidago Anaphalis * Plantago Plantego Epilobium *Rumex Polygonum *Ranunculus #Populus #Salix Alnus *Rubus Equisetum Equisetum #Typha #Alisma #Juncus #Carex 1 /Parentucellia Festuca Poa Agrostis Phleum Lolium #Phalaris * Introduced weed # Species indicating standing water at some time during a year Table 6. Floral assemblage of project area in July, 1973. -13- SPECIES scoparius sativa Sp.... alba cotula pratense dubium pratense sp. sp. matricarioides arvense vulgare capillaris radicata vulgare canadensis margaritacea lanceolata major augustifolium crispus persicaria repens trichocarpa sp. rubra procerus arvense telmateia latifolia plantago - aquatica sp. sp. viscosa sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. • Name of Bird TABLE 2. WILDLIFE CURRENTLY USING SITE First Date Seen Estimated Total Number Song Sparrow 5/31/75 10 - 15 Goldfinches and mates 15 - 25 American Coots, mates and young 50 - 75 Short - Billed Dowitcher 8 - 10 Red - Tailed Hawk 1 Ring- Necked Ducks and mates 10/27/75 20 - 25 Buffleheads and mates 35 - 40 Pintails and mates 11/1/75 50 - 75 American Widgeons and mates 75 -100 • Gadwalls and mates 35 - 50 Horned Grebe 2 Ring- Necked Pheasants and mates 10 - 12 Red - Shafted Flicker 1 Common Snipe 11/29/75 2 European Widgeon 12/21/75 -3 males plus mates • Sparrow Hawk Franklin Gull Common Goldeneye 3 females WILDLIFE Muskrats Garter snakes * Species of migratory waterfowl are underlined. • Frogs Cottontail Rabbits -14- • No live fish have been seen in the pond to date; although the pond is almost certainly capable of supporting aquatic life. Grebes have been noted • apparently fishing, and one fish was found on the shore. Fish which might be living in the pond include the Threespine Stickleback, Prickly Sculpin, Longnose and Speckled Dace and other small freshwater fish. Other aquatic animals, such • as snails, may also currently exist in the pond. Atmospheric Conditions Air quality in the vicinity of the subject site is marginal with respect • to existing standards of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). While concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and hydrocarbons appear well • within ambient air quality standards, concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates often exceed these standards. According to PSAPCA concentrations of suspended particulates are currently increasing in the Tukwila • area and particle fallout is also considered high. Air quality conditions reach their lowest levels during June, July, August and September, when precipitation and winds are lightest. • • • • • Sources of Air Contaminants: The Seattle, Renton and Auburn industrial area, Southcenter Shopping Center, and Interstate Highways 5 and 405 are the primary sources of air contaminants near the site. For more detailed information on the air quality in the Tukwila area, see the Trillium EIS and the Tukwila Data Inventory. Climate: Normal temperature, precipitation, and wind values are shown in Table 3. For more detailed climatic information, see the—Trillium EIS. Noise Results of a noise survey conducted for the Trillium EIS indicate that -15- TABLE 3. MONTHLY NORMALS OF TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION AND WIND AT SEATTLE - TACOMA AIRPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1930 - 1960 • Wind Month Temp. ( °F.) Precip. (in ) Wind (MPH) Direction • January 38.3 5.73 10.8 SSW February 40.8 4.24 10.9 SW March 43.8 3.79 11.4 SSW • April 49.2 2.40 11.0 SW May 55.5 1.73 10.2 SW June 59.8 1.58 9.9 SW • July 64.9 0.81 9.3 SW August 64.1 0.95 8.9 SW September 59.9 2.05 9.1 N • October 52.4 4.02 9.8 S November 43.9 5.35 10.2 S December 40.8 6.29 10.8 SSW • TOTAL OR AVERAGE • • • 51.1 (Av) 38.94 (Tot) -16- 10.2 (Av) SSW (Av) • ambient noise levels near the west boundary of the subject site are within existing and proposed standards. Maximum noise levels sampled several hundred • feet from the City Light site did violate standards. However, because South - center Parkway which borders the west side of the Trillium site is generally more heavily traveled than Andover Park West which borders the subject site, • we expect maximum and ambient noise levels on the subject site to be lower than those measured in the Trillium survey. For more details on the subject, including a discussion of proposed noise standards, see the Trillium EIS. • Human Use, Development and Values General Development • Existing development in the vicinity of the site was discussed previously under Historical Background; very detailed discussions of current development • • • • • • can be found in the Trillium EIS and the Tukwila Data, Inventory. Future development on the adjacent Trillium site will consist of a multi- story commercial and business complex including: office space, commercial retail space for banks, brokerage firms, etc.;'a 300 room hotel, and a multi -level retail and entertainment concourse containing theaters, an Ice Capades Skating Chalet, restaurants, specialty shops, a recreation facility containing handball/ racquet ball courts, exercise rooms, and sauna /jaccuzi facilities. Currently, a few individuals conduct bird watching on the subject site itself. Evidence of hunting, in the form of shotgun shells, has also been found. These are the only known present human uses of the property. Traffic The two interstate highways, Southcenter and the nearby industrial facilities comprise the major sources of automobile and truck traffic near the site. Of these, the most significant is Southcenter because of its proximity to the site -17- • and its high traffic volumes. A survey taken for the Trillium EIS showed that traffic on Strander Blvd. averaged 6,780 vehicles per day with peaks • of approximately 500 vehicles per hour near noon and 6:00 P.M. For more information regarding traffic near the site see the Trillium EIS. • • • • • Human Values -- Values in Tukwila are in a state of flux. The draft of the city's new comprehensive plan strives for a balance between economy and environment and emphasizes the importance of natural amenities. The comprehensive plan currently in effect was completed in 1960 and, at that time, economic develop- ment was strongly emphasized over environmental concerns. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Definition of Terms For the purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply: Direct impact - an impact resulting directly from draining, filling or grading the site. Indirect impact - an impact resulting from development of the site under current Industrial Park zoning after its sale by City Light. Cumulative impact - an impact resulting from expected development of all undeveloped land in the Lower Green River Valley under current zoning. Changes in Natural Characteristics Topography and Geology Direct impacts: The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, or other fill material approximately thirteen (13) feet deep. Topography of the presently unfilled area will • -18- • • • • • change to a very slight gradient towards the southeast with elevations from twenty -four (24) feet to twenty (20) feet above mean sea level. This slope should be insufficient to cause significant erosion. Indirect impacts: Future development of the site may also alter its topography and geology. We cannot say what these alterations would be, although we doubt they would be significant. Cumulative impacts: Given the composition and depth of the alluvial sediments in the valley, substantial subsistence of all large developments on the flood plain is definitely possible. The cumulative effect this might: have on the area's topography and geology cannot presently be assessed. Hydrology and Water Quality Direct impacts: Filling and grading the site will substantially increase surface runoff from the property. This runoff will drain into catch basins to be constructed on the east boundary of the site. It will then flow through an existing storm sewer to drain into the Green River north of the site. This increased runoff will contribute approximately forty* (40) acre -foot of water per year to the Green River, the exact amount depending upon weather conditions and fill surface characteristics. This increase in runoff is by itself insig- nificant and a substantial portion of this volume flowed into the river from the site before the culvert was crushed. Again, depending upon fill charac- teristics, evaporation and infiltration to ground water will both decrease. The quality of surface runoff leaving the site should approximate that of the runoff which flowed through the recently destroyed culvert. The only change expected is a slightly higher concentration of suspended solids * An acre -foot of water is one acre covered by water one -foot deep. -19- • depending upon the nature of the fill surface. Runoff from the site should not detectably alter water quality in the lower Green River, although it will Contribute more potential pollutants to the river than it has in the past. Indirect impacts: Future development occurring after the property is • filled and sold can further impact site hydrology and water quality in the following ways: Building construction and paving will cause a further increase in surface runoff as well as an increase in evaporation. Infiltration to ground water will be drastically reduced or eliminated, depending upon the extent of paving. Development can either raise or lower nearby ground water levels, again depending upon the exact nature of the construction. • Runoff quality will deteriorate somewhat depending upon how the facilities are used. Based on uses permitted for industrial park zoning and on surface runoff quality data for Seattle, (5), we expect a very small incremental impact • on the Green River due to water from this site. The relative hydrologic and water quality impact from development of this site should also be small in comparison to that of nearby developments such as Southcenter. • • • Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts associated with filling the site are difficult to estimate and depend heavily upon the future land use of the surrounding area. If all property in the Tukwila area not currently committed to open space is developed, the cumulative impact on the area's hydrology and water quality may be significantly detrimental. We expect development in the area to continue at approximately its present rate; and, assuming eventual complete development, we doubt the positive effects of not filling the subject site would be measurable in the terms of hydrology and water quality. Ecologic Systems Direct impacts: Draining the pond and filling and grading the site will -20- • eliminate all or nearly all habitat suitable for sustaining animal life on the site. The major impact will be on migratory water fowl, shore birds, • song birds, and birds of prey which currently frequent the site. • • • • • Consultation with an Audubon representative and independent biologist revealed the following information. When the site is filled, birds now using the site will be forced to move elsewhere. The large lakes in the region such as Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and'Green Lake provide some resting places for birds but very little feed. The primary reason for the traditional use of the Green River Valley by large numbers of birds is the abundant feed provided by farm land and marsh. Therefore few, if any, displaced birds would take up residence at the large lakes. Other habitat areas in the Valley "include the marsh south and east of Longacres racetrack, the wetland pasture north of the Boeing plant, the pond at the farm just east of Southcenter, and the farmlands and ponds just south and west of the Boeing plant. Some addi- tional farms and small marshes on the west side of the valley in Kent and Auburn also provide feeding and resting areas for large numbers of waterfowl." (3) Most of the farms in the area are now for sale and we expect them to be developed for industrial uses. "The remaining marsh areas are all slated for industrial development, except for the marsh south and east of Longacres, which has for the time being not been rezoned to industrial, but could be at any time. This marsh is primarily a bird -of -prey wintering area; but is used year round by a large variety of birds including nesting Cinnamon Teals, Blue Herons, Shrikes and many songbirds." (3) We expect most birds, especially the non - migratory species, forced off • the site will relocate in these nearby areas. We cannot be sure of this however; and we recognize the possiblity that some of these birds may leave • -21- • the Tukwila area and not return. • Other impacts to the site's ecologic system include removal of all vegeta- Lion and destruction of suitable habitat for small reptiles and mammals currently using the site. These animals provide feed for birds of prey currently using • the site and will face the same relocation problems as the resident birds, although compounded by their lack of mobility. Any fish now living in the pond will probably be destroyed during draining operations. We do not consider this • loss significant since plentiful fish habitat exists elsewhere in the region. • Indirect impacts: Future industrial park development on the site will permanently eliminate any chance of re- establishing wildlife habitat there. It will also decrease the attractiveness of the general area to wildlife by a small increment by virtue of its very existence and its various byproducts. • Cumulative impacts: If the wetlands and farms develop as expected, all remaining waterfowl habitat in the lower valley may be destroyed. Much of it will certainly be destroyed. We expect the cumulative impact of this habitat • destruction on the 20,000* to 30,000* waterfowl currently using the area will be substantial. These wetlands are already overcrowded, and we don't know where else the birds can go. • • No baseline studies exist on the wildlife impact of development in the valley to date in terms of depleted bird populations; therefore, we cannot estimate the exact nature and severity of future cumulative impacts. However, this region will certainly suffer a loss of wildlife and migratory waterfowl populations. as a whole may be reduced as well. • In addition, changes in the lower valley drainage system proposed by * estimated by the Seattle Audubon Society • -22- • S.C.S., if adopted, will probably lower the water table and reduce existing wetland areas regardless of further development. This proposal may also reduce the water level in the pond if the pond is not filled. Assuming the valley continues developing at or near its current rate, • we cannot guarantee that leaving the pond habitat in tact will have a significant positive impact on the area's wildlife populations. In addition, we must emphasize that the proposed action, by itself, will not lead to the • cumulative impacts described above; and that any subsequent development on • • the subject site must also comply with the State Environmental Policy Act. Atmospheric Effects Direct impacts: The proposed action should result in minimal direct impacts to the area's air quality. These impacts will be in the form of temporary increases in vehicle emissions and dust of and near the site. The magnitude of the temporary impacts will depend upon the wind and precipi- tation occurring during the work, but we expect it to be insignificant. • Indirect impacts: Future development of the site will cause temporary impacts similar in nature to those of filling and grading. The magnitude and duration of these impacts cannot be estimated at this time. Long term impacts • due to development of the site will probably involve increases in vehicle emissions in the area and their significance cannot be assessed at this time. • • Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts should be analogous to those discussed under hydrology and water quality, again depending upon continuing development of the lower Green River Valley. These impacts may be mitigated to a currently unknown degree by future improvement in air quality control regulations and technology. • -23 -. Noise Levels Noise impacts of filling and grading will be completely analogous to • those discussed under atmospheric effects. Much of the impact will be temporary; and long term and cumulative impacts may be mitigated by improve- ments in noise control. • Changes in Human Use Land Use Patterns Direct impacts: After grading is completed, human use of the site should • be minimal until City Light sells the property and development begins. Indirect impacts: When the site is developed, use will change from current • bird watching by a few individuals to some type of commercial /industrial use by many persons. Employment opportunities will be created which we expect will have positive impacts on the area's economy. • Cumulative, impacts: The cumulative changes in human use resulting from this continued development will be nearly total transition from agricultural/ • open space uses to commercial /industrial uses within the lower valley. This transition began in the late 1950's and has progressed steadily ever since. • Traffic Direct impacts: Filling and grading the site will not directly impact traffic. • Indirect impacts: Traffic in the immediate vicinity of the site will increase when the property is developed. The significance of the increase will depend upon the nature of this development, but is unlikely to be signi- ficant. • Cumulative impacts: Traffic increases caused by development of this site -24- • along with Trillium and other development in the area may significantly compound current traffic flow problems. However, without proper precautions, • this will likely occur even if the subject site is left as is. • • • • • Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This section addresses only those impacts which we consider unavoidable, adverse and enrionmentally significant. All impacts mentioned in this section are discussed in more detail under Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action. Topography and Geology The depression currently occupied by the pond will be filled with sand, gravel or other fill material. Hydrology and Water Quality Not applicable. Ecologic Systems All vegetation will be removed from the site, at least temporarily. Wildlife habitat on the site'will be eliminated, significantly reducing the capability of the immediate vicinity to support wildlife. Wildlife currently using the site will be forced to relocate in already overcrowded feeding sites in the immediate vicinity or will leave the area entirely. Atmospheric Effects Not applicable. Noise Levels Not applicable. • Human Use Uses of this site dependent on natural open space will be permanently eliminated. • -25- • • • Whether or not impacts to an environment recently created by man are appropriate for identification and evaluation in a document which, by law, is intended to address significant impacts to the natural environment, raises philosophical questions, City Light cannot answer. For example, two years after creating a municipal park, would draining a man -made lily pond (or adding such a pond) constitute a significant environmental impact to the area's natural environment? • In the case under discussion, City Light notes that the pond on its property was created inadvertently by man only two years ago. Nevertheless, we have attempted to assess the impacts involved as if the pond were natural • and had existed for many years. • • • • • Possible Mitigating Actions City Light could reduce erosion and surface runoff by replanting the site after grading it. PSAPCA regulations require actions such as spraying water over the site during grading operations to minimize dust. City Light can do little to mitigate the other impacts discussed, except execute the proposed action as carefully and efficiently as possible. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Do Nothing This alternative would essentially amount to preserving the site as a completely natural wildlife refuge. Some question exists concerning the long term viability of this site as a wildlife refuge. The pond has existed for only two years, and it is already productive enough to support an abun- dance-of waterfowl. If productivity continues to increase, the pond could advance to a state which will only support a few species. This may or may not occur, depending upon several factors. For instance, we know the bog -26- • now inundated by the pond was a historical stopping place for waterfowl. This may mean the pond's productivity is not increasing as fast as it appears, • because the site was relatively productive to begin with. Also, most ducks currently using the pond are "dippers" which feed largely on algae. Enough of these ducks would keep a highly productive pond in a stable state. Other • questions involve potential problems arising from increased development and human activity adjacent to the site. The various pollutants associated with this activity, such as noise, dust, and vehicle emissions may eventually keep wildlife from using the site. Information adequate to answer these questions does not currently exist. • Advantages This alternative would preserve a portion of a habitat which is rapidly disappearing from the Green River Valley. Ponds of this type are no longer common in the Puget Sound region and their elimination poses a definite threat to migratory birds passing through the area. • Disadvantages The major disadvantage of this alternative is its dollar cost. Potential disadvantages involve the site's unknown long term viability as a preserve, plus the possibility that elimination of other suitable habitat in the area would render this site virtually useless regardless of its viability. In other words, we could find ourselves with a perfectly wonderful waterfowl • sanctuary and no waterfowl in the area to use it. If this occurred, of course, the site could still be developed for other uses. Finally, adoption of this alternative would greatly restrict economic • development of the site at least temporarily. -27- • Development of the Site as a Park /Wildlife Refuge Although not a feasible alternative for this applicant, a second alter- native to filling the site for industrial park development is to develop it into a combination park and wildlife refuge. This alternative is a flexible one which would include areas of public access to water and open space as • well as areas restricted for wildlife habitat. We believe a development of this type would require the following changes: 64 probable additional filling in park areas to prevent boggy conditions • • • • o a change in present zoning © planting of grass, shrubs and trees in park areas O planting of conifers around perimeters of site as buffer from surrounding development and traffic ® possible aeration of pond to prevent eventual oxygen depletion and possibly a' controlled outlet • possible acquisition of parking space or construction of a pedestrian bridge over Strander Blvd. connecting the park to Southcenter's parking lot O possible installation of sanitary . facilities and drinking fountains O periodic maintenance of park areas. • Purchasing this property for park development at a price providing equity for City Light would still be very expensive. Portions of the necessary pur- chase funds might be donated by persons and groups standing to benefit from a • natural park on this site and might include private citizens, conservation organizations, local merchants such as those at Southcenter, civic groups and nearby developers such as thos associated with Trillium ('see page 17) and • Andover Industrial Park. Whether or not this alternative is worth its high cost would depend upon the values of the people of Tukwila and its surrounding areas. • -28- After purchase of the property, necessary development could take place on a priority basis as funds became available and much of this work could be done by volunteers. Advantages A combination park and wildlife refuge would preserve forty (40) acres • of natural and semi - natural public open space in a predominantly developed. area. It would preserve suitable wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds in a traditional feeding ground which is rapidly disappearing. It may provide a boost to surrounding economic enterprises by increasing public interest in the area. site's viability as a wildlife refuge. This alternative would also prevent economic development of the site at least temporarily. • • • • • Delaying Action for Further Study A third alternative would delay all action on the site until all alternative actions can be better evaluated. Further study would probably involve finding answers to questions raised in alternatives one and two and in other sections of this assessment.. Further study may also expose additional questions, concerns and alternatives. Adopting this alternative would cost City Light considerable money, time and effort. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF SITE. Short Term Environmental Gains We expect no short -term environmental gains to result from draining and filling the property. -29- • Long Term Environmental Gains The proposed action will allow economic development of the site which • will, in turn, provide employment opportunities and associated economic benefits. The very long term gains from this development are unknown. . Short Term Environmental Losses The action will destroy a wildlife habitat and result in increased surface runoff of decreased quality. Groundwater recharge will be reduced and noise levels and air pollutant concentrations will temporarily increase. Long Term Environmental Losses Development resulting from the proposed action will cause permanent loss of forty (40) acres of open space and locally uncommon wildlife habitat with its associated aesthetic amenities. It will permanently increase surface runoff and this runoff may contain significant pollutant concentrations. It may eliminate ground water recharge on the site entirely. It will probably result in a permanent increase in traffic volumes and ambient noise levels near the site. • Trade -Offs Between Gains and Losses The long term gain to the human environment resulting from this action • is significant. The short and long term losses to the natural and human environment are also significant and outnumber the gains. The trade -offs involved concern those between economic and environmental' considerations. • Which will be sacrificed for the other will depend upon the values of those persons who are allowed to participate in the decision. • • -30-- • IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The major resources involved here are the water marsh and open space on the site, that is, the land itself. Once the property is filled and graded, the land will very likely be irretrievably committed to commercial/ industrial development. • • • • • - 31- • REFERENCES 1. City of Tukwila Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Development of the Trillium, a Business and Commercial Complex -- 1973. • 2. Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area Natural Environment, Land Use, Housing and Population -- 1975. 3. Letter from Leonard Steiner, Conservation Chairman, Seattle Audubon Society. 4. Phone Conversation with Charles J. Shank, Biologist. • 5. Environmental Management for the Metropolitan Area Part II, Urban Drainage. • Appendix C. Storm Water Monitoring Program. Metro, Seattle, Washington • • • • • -32- • • • • • • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Successful execution of any project requires the efforts and cooperation of many people. Project management thanks the following groups and persons for their contributions . to this Environmental Assessment: City Light employees: Abbie Birmingham Dorothy Butcher Jack Crider Gary Farr Pete Henault Truman Jordan John Kauffman Roy Murray Cheryl Tenney The Seattle Audubon Society City of Tukwila Planning Department Sylvia A. Ludwig Charles J. Shank Assorted ducks at the Tukwila Pond Robert W. Reineke Project Manager Appendix • Appendix 2 • • • • • 1 • PROPERTY: LINE ' Osi !LOA** W.T • • L •D PEAT- SAND 8 CLAY 0.0 TRACE 7197 5 RAY CLAY SAND? ,REFERENCE DRAWING D _Z0005SITE FILL PLAN i50' 1 C89.30' 1 W 2 I,: �,I I TE_T'HOLES ARE SHOWN THUS'. TS °a HOLES.`NER£ "_BORED TUNE:30�.�. "58. OQ iiP -e, � Rh;H AS c DITCH?' O L DAM •. PLAY I.SI"CLA` '. 15.T 3,5 GRAY CLAY 17 A G. CLAY .. - 7.51' PEAT'. IBLUE CLAY 9.5I8 P_AT 1GPAY CLAY :2-'L'AY W,,T I .20LOAM•CLA� AE CLAY O,GRAY CLAY LVS CLAY, 6,3 BLUF CLAY I W,T IO.SI CLAY'•SANDt .3 _Z 1 � ABBREVIATIONS, B n BLUE G = GRAY Y - YELLOW:: ) WT.- WATER TABLE.. BI - BROWN _ LOA 11 L.0A11-CLA .�` • - �49 y IG °T. EA EMEnT TOUTY L1GHT) • CEflT BARBE W1RE, PEtlCE ER OF 1 �LSAMDY DA / 1�L \. D'B� D.SI Y L I. i• "eloEwT CIT,Y•'�=_1 697.389 B FOAM -cLAr .�•..- rDRY 5.01 '( c' • '1 G8 Es7' S7• 3.0� - : ••� nARD CLAY SANCY SILT 10,01- - -� aol '�reTCLAY . ( 10 0 SILTi SAND 6.5 SILT CCAY { . _ F PRATCLA`C 10-01BriETCL'.AYi., • SANDY MAR LOAM' W.T es• 4 LOAM '2.5 CLAY • CAMP ' 4,7 5ANDYLDAMI WP7 0900 1 7.5 SAND CLAY7' 10.5 B•WET CLA TUKWILA SUBSTATION TEST HOLE DATA, LOCr -.T1 1.)N PI_ 3. SE.0 Ii3NS ENDORSEMENTS cv, 4C5 3 -:0.59 G.1 D__ ADZ 259 =so SECRETARY .Ti +• [MIT BOOR; 37CJ. •B :( :' P.32_ 36 D 20000 ' EN T: FILL Your Seattle City Light �. ;.'Y197 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TUKWILA POND FILL PROPOSAL CITY OF SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTING 1015 3rd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 January 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY i THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 Type of Action 1 Location and General Features of Subject Site . . 1 Location 1 General Features 1 Development Resulting from Proposed Action . 1 Basis for the Proposed Action 5 Proposed Method of Financing HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND PAST PLANNING DECISIONS. . General Area Site Specific Land Use Flood Control RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAWS, POLICIES AND PLANS . • • City of Tukwila. Applicable. Permits Zoning Other Laws City Policies and Plans Other Laws, Policies and Plans PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIONS REMAINING FOR IMPLEMENTATION EXISTING CONDITIONS Natural Conditions 5 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 Topography and Geomorphology Geology Soils Hydrologic Conditions Surface Drainage Subsurface Drainage Page 9 10 10 10 10 11 Water Quality 11 12 Plants 12 Animals 12 Atmospheric Conditions 15 Air Quality 15 Sources of Air Contaminants 15 Climate 15 Noise 15 Human Use, Development and Values 17 General Development 17 Traffic 17 Human Values 18 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 18 Definition of Terms 18 Changes in Natural Characteristics • • • • • • 18 Topography and Geology 18 Direct Impacts 18 Indirect Impacts 19 Cumulative Impacts 19 Ecologic System Hydrology and Water Quality Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Cumulative Impacts Ecologic Systems Direct Impacts .. • • • Indirect Impacts Cumulative Impacts Atmospheric Effects . . . . OOOOOO • Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Cumulative Impacts Noise Levels Changes in Human Use Land Use Patterns Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Cumulative Impacts Traffic Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts Cumulative Impacts Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts Topography. and Geology Hydrology and Water Quality Page 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 Ecologic Systems Page 25 Atmospheric Effects 25 Noise Levels 25 25 26 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 26 Do Nothing 26 Development of the Site as a Park /Wildlife Refuge 28 Delaying Action for Further Study 29 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF SITE 29 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 31 APPENDIX I: Preliminary Fill Plan 33 APPENDIX II: Soil Test Data for the Site 34 Human Use Possible Mitigating Actions Figure No. LIST OF FIGURES 1. • Map of General Vicinity . . ... • ... 2. Aerial Photograph of Site in 1975 3. Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity, in 1972 • • Page 3 Table No- LIST OF TABLES VEGETATION INVENTORIED FOR TRILLIUM EIS 2. WILDLIFE CURRENTLY USING SITE 3,. MONTHLY NORMALS OF TEMPERATURE, ,PRECIPITATION AND WIND AT SEATTLE - TACOMA AIRPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1930 - 1960 . . Page 13 14 16 SUMMARY The City of Seattle, Department of Lighting, has applied to the City of Tukwila for a permit which would allow the utility to fill approximately 40 acres of its property lying within Tukwila's city limits. The City of. Tukwila feels that this proposal may be environmentally significant and controversial because a large pond currently occupies most of the property. Therefore, before issuing the permit, Tukwila requested City Light to prepare an Environmental Assessment of the proposed action. ��(.� ("PI � O. w6 8e° CThe -pond is man-made 'and was accidentally createco years ago during ,road construction adjacent to the property by the City of Tukwila. This pond and the surrounding vegetation now support a variety of birds including many species of migratory waterfowl. The major impact of filling the site would be dispersal of this wildlife and elimination of uses requiring natural open space. These impacts are perhaps significant, but must be considered along with several other factors' in order to properly evaluate them. The pond is man -made and only two years old. The long term viability of the pond as wildlife habitat is unknown and cannot be assessed at this time. The pond lies in the center of a rapidly industrializing area which is expected to continue developing. Final evaluation of the proposed action's environmental significance must, within the value system of the decision makers, be based on careful and rational consideration of all factors presented in this assessment. Type of Action The City of Tukwil of Seattle, Department of property within Tukwila's THE PROPOSED ACTION g S e t'C a e administrative actions to permit the City Lighting, to drain, fill and grade a piece of city limits for future sale. • Location and General Features of Subject Site Location The site City Light proposes to fill lies in the lower Green River Valley near the geographical center of the City of Tukwila, approximately one -half mile southeast of the intersection of I -5 and I -405, as shown in Figure 1. The property is bounded on the east by Andover Park West and on the north by Strander Boulevard. Southcenter Shopping Center lies directly across Strander Boulevard, adjacent to the site. The site is in the Green River flood plain and the river itself passes approximately one- fourth mile east of the property. General Features The site (shown in Figure 2) is nearly square in shape and consists of 40.7 acres (16.5 Hectare), which is about the size of eighty (80) football fields. An "L" shaped portion of the site perimeter has already been filled and a large man -made pond occupies its center. The filled area consists of approximately sixteen (16) acres and the pond covers twenty -five (25) acres. The pond is currently about ten (10) feet deep and contains approximately 1,089,000 cubic feet of water. Figure 3 shows the site in 1972, before the current pond was formed. Development Resulting from Proposed Action, City Light proposes to construct drainage structures, drain, fill and -1- TO AnCINUITY MAP 70 TACOMA FIGURE 1 GENERAL VICINITY OF SITE 0 1717.C.n. .MV7:.1.7v#11"."..!T"" S1'10% . 11 . '... (1 ,i ...",e. • ••,.:"1". • s • F.:: vt/, 2 l■ t '‘. lg. - :114. ' • • .4."'":"..-' ..- ,, • III.., .,-...% y., A..ti--- - I • .. . :,,,,......., t.5••,..4,14 , 1. • - .., •:......, • ..:. • • - - f ;';‘-'' ' '‘......■...,. A4.44.1%, i 4 .*.._. 4 kirr 4 g 3 SI,...".ft. ..•‘,... ..., ...:.°L ..4...,.,-.-., ....,,,,,,,:ter-•-,-;•:,,e,1:44”- -:•rr r :; :?:„...'-%1 .‘,......,.. ,:...I7t.t... • br "...".2sr..",,—; '' " ' --k‘.".;,:,: • , ---,-.7.-.- • 1.,, 'Y4' , ....4:- , ... .,',." : -. ' .. "' " • " ",-,`". .........-a --:t7t 4.:'-'''' 4.7' i .,•■ li: ...' .st. -1. •,‘ . -,- • ..'.. .:.:11 : l' ' i I:1 '.*: i .." :.:77 :: • • ...• .,:,.., .... ...f........, -.......L°/. `.'..r.:::....°40.......'' • ..-f;',.;'!...': ...:1-/ ..H:....,s,...........:,....y.:.:4'..; .,,,r....e.-......f.N.A.--,.."...: . r:..;mt ..r.,,,,,_...,„,,,,..1,,,it,..,.....1..................",__,.... A 4. .. •..ltifj,Irr.;,..", 1 i3/ )... ' : ...,...' ''''',::*„.....1.,P.z,‘',1,1.-;2 ..•' ' I - • SW;i16 14,442•.i:i);):4 Ili, _ • - it, ;. • .1•1i..t4''.'"` " • t"'V‘ • 'A," • • -se . , 1.,,:---.'cn - A.- • 3., b N''''''''''":70V •0-7, 4'*--... .. . ; i i 43 • tii,'•:/lr•''.;r: ! •1.3 s 1: Pi .; 4., °& • ?:i " - I g - i‘r. ...':,, lei, 's • ' ■ r• - --,- 3 .-'1"..: • 1 ', • ie" ""'•:': Pr,104it'44,-fr•..1. k,"xr,...r.r,"•-•,,,f, . 1•V' .' * ''' '3!33/S f,3,,,r7.4. 14 I-jLJ ■17:n 4 ` t' " 1'6: • 1144H 17e1 <77.:111 57415, ‘.."& • 17 • 14. P ° • • 0.tri':-..N.,;.`t,,t-T1 . .. .. . : , • . . . -., .... ;',..-.•,,:-.• •• • -• --F. ••• "; ` • 3. • . . 3 -.- . • *....}A ..,....„4"...- • .. ‘.."...0 - .., , . • ‘IA'71r-M71.1;‘::::, ''. ! ,".""" , ., ' - . .. ..• , •)',1,•' '. ,' ,'S'. -• „ ..-fi . ,-,.:::,,. .' . • . . , 1.!.:- ..." . . 1 . ...1 . .,, .. • .0i It 4,7*. .r.,.: : ..-, • • ri',7,- .' • "" , .•.,. ' '.../..;..' •!" , 7, .:-- , ,'. . . • : o • P. • • s • , • • ;,),....i. :. •,,,i,„_-. 4.,---.:,:-;,‘ f ,,,:t.,•,./.7;„*..4irrz...r!y,,i .i...:X..:..i.,:,... ..4.i,•?: Li • .>. -, :./. 'f '",-:7 , 1 ' • .. "": • ''•'-:::. P,, , , . .,. 1 .C.t .11 . ; , .. : 7:18`H7i, ...*1; t.i• ir.: ...:4:r..,.. ?.17.. ' t ..."'' ' 4;:,i7;7H. . . ' . / ' .: 1 2 . . . ;'-' ' ; ::1- • s' ' ., ,:i...k.'l ;AZ' '•i i ,•-..et.,;,,c't;,,* • ' " ••+,N''. • • • 1••••••0 '1;1' •N. • `*•• . .• .• • • , • ; 4 d cr „4 1 JA- ' • N-7 ;•• • VitliL"TIrt". . :AV „ Wts" • . 3.•.• • -ft • . ;1.7.2 , • -I. 1 11 ;7 . �t 'TA, FIGURE 3 PA 74 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING GENERAL VICINITY OF SITE tt.-6.V• "*.; (DECEMBER 1972) Subject site outlined in red „ • .,'.."73't7.7":7", "7""ZrZ.7:•‘.triiit: 2.- • ':.;:!1• :1! , "...t•i• • ••• • ',tr.., • .90W*. 7,3Likp N., Afp.A , "-- - ' , es•-• • grade the site according to the fill plan shown in Appendix I. After com- pleting these operations,•City Light proposes to sell the property. Once the property is sold, the buyer will likely develop it in accordance with the property'F zoning, and the site is currently zoned for industrial parks. For specific information about development allowed under the zoning, see the Industrial Park Classification of the City of Tukwila Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.32. Basis for the Proposed Action City Light originally planned to construct a power substation on the site. That plan was abandoned due to changes in load growth predictions. The property is now.. surplus and City Light proposes to sell the site and use the money for other programs. Proposed Method of Financing If the proposed action is approved City Light will finance all draining, NOT NcCEsspcZ%L Co et filling and grading operations and the City ot Tukwila will finance those administrative procedures necessary to process the permit application. . HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND PAST PLANNING DECISIONS -7-General Area Agriculture, in the form of dairy and truck farming, dominated the lower Green River Valley until the 1960's when industrialization of the area began in earnest. At this time seven primary factors combined to stimulate rapid industrial development: ° location of Interstate 5 and 405 on the valley wall ° initiation of plans to provide sewer and water service to portions of the area. (1,2) • construction ofiioward Hanson Dam upstream to lltmize flood hazards in the valley • completion of a comprehensive plan by the City of Tukwila emphasizing industrial and commercial growth • natural attraction of the broad, flat flood plan to developers O agricultural users selling their land due to re- evaluation and taxation of the land at its "highest and best use." Within the context of this rapid industrialization, Tukwila's assessed value has increased from $1.9 million in 1961 to $89.6 in 1972 and is cur- rently estimated at $120 million. The City's low population density has remained relatively stable, however, ranging from two to five persons per acre, with 2,350 acres of incorporated area'. No significant change is predicted in this density through 1990. . In contrast, total employment in the City reached 10,000 in 1975. Current zoning also reflects the trend toward industrialization. Seventy -two percent of the incorporated area of Tukwila is zoned for either commercial or industrial development. For more information on this subject, see the following documents: 1. City of Tukwila, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Development of the Trillium, A Business and Commercial Complex, 1973. . Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area Natural Environment, Land Use, Housing and Population, 1975. These reports will be referred to often in the remainder of this assess- ment as the Trillium E.I.S. and the Tukwila Data Inventory. Site Specific • Chain of land title. City Light_purchased the site in 1958 in two parcels. One parcel was -6-- . purchased from Herman and Ruth Shoenbachler and the other from the liquidating -trustees.of the Green Head Gun Club. Land Use Previous to its purchase by City Light, the site was grazed by dairy cattle from mid May to mid October and used for duck hunting by the Gun Club during the fall and winter. Since City Light purchased the property, it has experienced substantially no human use, serving only as open space and wild- life habitat. The property was zoned public facilities from approximately 1960 to 1973, • when it was rezoned to Industrial Park. All property directly adjacent to the site is either zoned for commercial /industrial use or already developed for commercial /industrial purposes. Flood Control o�C The site functions as flood control in a small way in that it- does - retard, esurface runoff. However, the area contributing runoff to the site is relatively small and the overall flood control effect of the property is minimal at this time. The importance of the property's flood control function may increase if drainage alterations proposed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service are approved. The net result of these alterations would be a substantial increase in runoff rates and volumes into the Green River and all areas detaining runoff would become increasingly valuable. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAWS, POLICIES AND PLANS City of Tukwila . Applicable permits City Light must obtain a fill permit from the City before proceeding with -7- • the proposed action. City Light has applied for this permit and its issuance is pending satisfaction of environmental requirements. Tukwila's shoreline management program does not apply in this case and no other potentially applicable City permit exists. Zoning The proposed action complies with all pertinent requirements listed under the Industrial Park classification of the City of Tukwila Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.32. Other laws No other laws of the City of Tukwila applying to the proposed action have been identified to date. City policies and plans The proposal is commensurate with Tukwila's current comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1962. The proposal potentially conflicts with proposed environmental policies encouraging retention of wetlands for wildlife habitat and storm runoff detention. These policies are included in the City's new Comprehensive Plan which is currently in draft form. Since this plan is not yet official it may not apply to the fill proposal. We mention it here primarily to indicate the current thinking of the Tukwila Planning Commission. Other Laws, Policies. and Plans The subject site lies within the Green River Flood Control Zone District; and, therefore, City Light must acquire a Flood Zone Permit from the State Department of Ecology prior to filling. DOE has issued this permit and City Light has not acted on it at this time (Permit No. 1- 2173 -2). The U.S. Soil Conservation Service published a wetlands retention map of -8- the Green River Valley 1973, recommending potential motes for retention' of wetland habitat totaling 110 acres. The subject site was not recommended by SCS as part of the wetland retention area. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There has been no formal public participation relating to the fill proposal at this time; although a few private citizens have expressed - concern. Formal public participation will occur as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement review process, if the City of Tukwila determines that such a statement is necessary. ACTIONS REMAINING FOR IMPLEMENTATION Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act and issuance of the fill permit are the remaining actions which must take place before the pro- posal can be implemented. EXISTING CONDITIONS Natural Conditions Topography and Geomorphology The site lies in a broad, very flat alluvial flood plain formed over thousands of years by deposition of sediments during flooding of the Green. River. The subject site itself contains a natural depression about five (5) feet deep with a minimum elevation of twelve (12) feet above mean sea level. Partial filling of the site has increased the depth of the depression to approximately-twelve (12) feet and increased the site's maximum elevation to approximately twenty -four (24) feet above mean sea level. Additional fill of about one (1) foot occurred on a small portion of the site during con- struction of Andover Park West. -9- .— �......, • Geology The primary geologic feature of the site is the deep water deposited sediment, or alluvium, beneath it. This alluvium consists primarily of silts and clays and covers most of the valley floor to depths exceeding 100 feet. Soils Test hole data for the project site was obtained by City Light on June 30, 1958. Appendix II shows soil log locations and soil types. The logs generally indicate that from the surface to 3.0 feet down loam and loam -peat soils are predominant. From 3.0 feet to about 8.0 feet in depth various clays are found. These clays are blue, gray, yellow and brown and are progressively wetter with depth. At 8.0 feet to 10.0 feet, clay -sand and sand are found. The soils found on the site have low weight, bearing capacity and are therefore poorly .suited for construction foundations. This condition neces- sitates filling the site with sand and gravel or constructing deep pile systems prior to development. .._,.For. more information concerning geologic aspects of the P the site area, see"theTukwila Data Inventory. Hydrologic Conditions Surface drainage: Natural drainage from the site is very poor due to the flat terrain and relatively impervious soils. Most water leaves the site through evaporation and plant transpiration, although a small amount probably infiltrates into the ground water supply. -A portion of the undeveloped land adjoining the site to the west probably drains onto the subject site, although this has not been definitely determined. Runoff from the Bon Marche warehouse, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West, -10 •, • flows into storm drains and does not affect the subject site. (IC° Prior to 1972, surface runoff drained from the site into a c vert on the east side of the property which emptied into a ditch on the adjoining property and ultimately into the Green River. Jr' 1972, during cInstruction of Andover Park West by the City of Tukwila, the culvert was crushed eliminating surface Pa Y , � r drainage from the site. City Light investigators believe the culvert was . crushed- when-the sanitary sewer line was laid down the center of the roadbed. O With surface drainage blocked, ponding on the site increased dramatically, eventually creating a small lake. The last time the site was nearly dry was Q CiL during July, 1974. -2 Subsurface Drainage (4 t The soils found on the site are nearly impermeable, the water -table is near the surface (see Appendix II) and ground water movement is very slow due to the flatness of the terrain. Because of these factors subsurface Z r drainage from the site is and has probably always been extremely slow. No (3 Cg ;...-evidence exists indicating that surrounding development has contributed to 4° the pond by raising the water table. Q. V". Water Quality V 4 We have not determined the water quality within the pond by direct m However, we expect the quality to be relatively high at this time for the following reasons. The pond receives no runoff from paved surfaces. The only nts are rain bare soil, fallout from 12 2 potential source of pollutants and nutrients , suspended particles, the vegetation around and in the pond and the wildlife currently frequenting the area. Based on studies performed in the Seattle area, particle fallout into the pond should be insufficient to significantly affect water quality. Rainfall in this area contains minimal pollutants, little • -erodable soil exists on the site and the pond is too young to be detrimentally affected by nutrient contributions from the plants and animals associated with it. Considering these factors, we expect the pond's current quality to be comparable to that classified as excellent in the State of Washington Water Quality Standards. Ecologic System Plants: We have not inventoried vegetation on the subject site. The EIS completed for the proposed Trillium development adjacent to the west boundary of the City Light property noted the following vegetation on the City Light 'site: "To the east of the site is another open field covered with introduced weeds, a small stand of alder and willow and a large dried -up freshwater marsh filled with cattails." The marsh mentioned in preceding quote is the area now occupied by the pond. During a brief inspection of the site, we also identified several clumps of Evergreen Blackberry bushes, a small Madrona tree and several small Firs. • We expect many of the plants groiaing on the Trillium site grow also on the City Light property and the plant inventory compiled for the Trillium EIS is ncluded as Table 1. None of the plants seen on either the City Light property or the Trillium property is considered rare or endangered. Animals: The pond currently supports a variety of birds as well as a few mammals and reptiles. Table 2 lists all wildlife seen on the site by one observer since May, 1975. In addition to the animals themselves, several nesting sights have been seen, including one muskrat nest. The list includes no rare or endangered species, although the European Widgeon is perhaps uncommon. -12- cOMMON NAME e,Aotch broom ,Cvyaon vetch lid sweet pea elite sweet clover Stinking mayweed ud clover Least hop clover :'rate clover vi.1d lettuce sow thistle iineapple weed Canada thistle Ca=non thistle Smooth hawksbeard miry cat's ear. Canon tansy Canada goldenrod ?early everlasting tibwort 5ippleseed Fireweed Sourdock Spotted ladysthumb Creeping buttercup -Black cottonwood s il.l.ow ed: alder Firm ayan blackberry Field horsetail Eorsetail . Cattail Water plantain Push • Sedge. Tellow weed Crass Crass Crass Crass Crass Crass * Introduced weed d Species indicating TABLE 1. VEGETATION INVENTORIED FOR TRILLIUM EIS GENUS *Cytisus *Vicia *Lathyrus *Me11lotus *Anthemis *Trifolium *Trifolium *Trifolium Lactuca *Sonchus Matricaria *Cirsium *Cirsium # # *Crepis *Hypochaeris *Tanacetum Solidago Anaphalis *Plantago Plantego Epilobium *Rumex Polygonum *Ranunculus #Populus IISa1ix ,. Alnus *Rubus Equisetum Equisetum # #Typha hAlisma 4 /Juncus hlCarex ,'EParentucellia Festuca Poa Agrostis Phleum Lolium 4 /Phalaris standing water at some time during a year Table 6. Floral assemblage of project area in July, 1973. SPECIES scoparius sativa sp.. alba cotula pratense dubium pratense sp. sp. matricarioides arvense vulgare capillaris radicata vulgare canadensis margaritacea . lanceolata major augustifolium crispus persicaria repens trichocarpa sp. rubra procerus arvense telmateia latifolia plantago- aquatica sp. sp. viscosa sp. .sp.. sp. sp. sp. sp. Name of Bird TABLE 2. WILDLIFE CURRENTLY USING SITE First Date Seen . Estimated Total Number Song Sparrow 5/31/75 10 - 15. Goldfinches and mates 15 - 25 American Coots, mates and young 50 - 75 Shovelers and mates 25 - 35 Lesser Scaups and mates 7 - 12 Ruddy Ducks and mates 15 - 20 Cinnamon Teals and mates 2 - 6 Killdeers 7 - 12 Red- Winged Blackbirds 4 Tree Swallows 5 - 10 Barn Swallows 5 -.10 Cliff Swallows 6 Mallards, mates and young 20 - 35 Robins 6/29/75 2 _.Starlings 1 Yellowthroat Warbler 3 Purple Finches and mates 10 = 15 California Quail 7/4/75 5 - 7 Spotted Sandpiper 4 - 8 Western Sandpiper 3 - 7 Lesser Yellowlegs 7/12/75 3 - 5 Pier - Billed Grebes 3 Nashville Warbler 2 Rough- Winged Swallows 5 - 8 '.Sanderlings 5 - 10 Long- Billed Dowitcher 7/19/75 5 - 10 Green Heron 8/8/75 1 alifornia Gulls 3 Common Crow 10/4/75 7 - 10 Cassin's Finches 10 - 15 Green- Winged Teal and mates 5 - 10 Canvasbacks and mates 10 - .15 Solitary Sandpiper - 8 - 10 Short- Billed Dowitcher 8 - 10 Red - Tailed. Hawk 1 Ring- Necked Ducks and mates 10/27/75 20 - 25 Buffleheads and mates 35 - 40 Pintails and mates 11/1/75 50 - 75 American Widgeons and mates 75 -100 Gadwalls and mates 35 - 50 Horned Grebe 2 -Ring- Necked Pheasants and mates 10 - 12 Red- Shafted Flicker 1 Common Snipe- 11/29/75 2 European Widgeon 12/21/75 3 males plus mates Sparrow Hawk Franklin Gull Common Goldeneye 3 females WILDLIFE Muskrats Garter snakes .* Species of migratory waterfowl are underlined. Frogs Cottontail Rabbits -14- • • No live fish have been seen in the pond to date; although the pond is /Almost certainly capable of supporting aquatic life. Grebes have been noted ¢pparently fishing, and one fish was found on the shore. Fish which might be living in the pond include the Threespine Stickleback, Prickly Sculpin, Longnose 4 d Speckled, Dace and other small freshwater fish. Other aquatic animals, such AS snails, may also currently exist in the pond. Atmospheric Conditions Air quality in the vicinity of the subject site is marginal with respect co existing standards of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). While concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and hydrocarbons appear well within ambient air quality standards, concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates often exceed these standards. According to PSAPCA concentrations of suspended particulates are currently increasing in the Tukwila 4:ca and particle fallout is also considered high. Air quality conditions reach their lowest levels during June, July, August and September, when precipitation and winds are lightest. Sources of Air Contaminants: The Seattle, Renton and Auburn industrial area, Southcenter Shopping Center, and Interstate Highways 5 and 405 are the primary sources of air contaminants near the site. For more detailed information on the air quality in the Tukwila area, see the Trillium EIS and the Tukwila Data Inventory. Climate: Normal temperature, precipitation, and wind values are shown in `fable 3. For more detailed climatic information, see the—Trillium EIS. Noise Results of a noise survey conducted for the Trillium EIS indicate that -15- • TABLE 3. MONTHLY NORMALS OF TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION AND WIND AT SEATTLE - TACOMA AIRPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1930 - 1960 Wind tooth Temp. ( °F.) Precip. (in:) Wind (MPH) Direction January 38.3 5.73 10.8 SSW February 40.8 4.24 10.9 SW !(.arch 43.8 3.79 ' 11.4 SSW April May June July August September October November 49.2 2.40 11.0 SW 55.5 1.73 10.2 SW 59.8 1.58 9.9 SW 64.9 0.81 9.3 SW 64.1 0.95 8.9 SW 59.9 2.05 9.1 N 52.4 4.02 9.8 S 43.9 5.35 10.2 S December 40.8 6.29 10.8 SSW TOTAL OR AVERAGE 51.1 (Av) 38.94 (Tot) 10.2 (Av) SSW (Av) • • ambient noise levels near the west boundary of the subject site are within existing and proposed standards. Maximum noise levels sampled several hundred feet from the City Light site did violate standards. However, because South- center Parkway which borders the west side of the Trillium site is generally more heavily traveled than Andover Park West which borders the subject site, we expect maximum and ambient noise levels on the subject site to be lower than those measured in the Trillium survey. For more details on the subject, including a discussion of proposed noise standards, see the Trillium EIS. Human Use, Development and Values General Development Existing development in the vicinity of the site was discussed previously under Historical Background; very detailed discussions of current development can be found in the Trillium EIS and the Tukwila Data. Inventory. 146v igar Future development on the adjacent Trillium site 742E•k consist'of a multi- story commercial and business complex including: office space, commercial retail space for banks, brokerage firms, etc.; a 300 room hotel, and a multi - level retail and entertainment concourse containing theaters, an Ice Capades Skating Chalet, restaurants, specialty shops, a recreation facility containing handball/ racquet ball courts, exercise rooms, and sauna /jaccuzi facilities. Currently, a few individuals conduct bird watching on the subject site itself. Evidence of hunting, in the form of shotgun shells, has also been found. These are the only known present human uses of the property. Traffic The two interstate highways, Southcenter and the nearby industrial facilities comprise the major sources of automobile and truck traffic near the site.' Of these, -the most significant is Southcenter because of its proximity to the site -17- • • and its high traffic volumes. A survey taken for the Trillium EIS showed that traffic on Strander Blvd. averaged 6,780 vehicles per day with peaks of approximately 500 vehicles per hour near noon and 6:00 P.M. For more information regarding traffic near the site see the Trillium EIS. Human Values Values in Tukwila are in a state of flux. The draft of the city's new comprehensive plan strives for a balance between economy and environment and emphasizes the importance of natural amenities. The comprehensive plan currently in effect was completed in 1960 and, at that time, economic develop- ment was strongly emphasized over environmental concerns. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Definition of Terms For the purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply: Direct impact - an impact resulting directly from draining, filling or grading the site. Indirect impact - an impact resulting from development of the site under current Industrial Park zoning after its sale by City Light. Cumulative impact - an impact resulting from expected development of all undeveloped land in the Lower Green River Valley under current zoning. Changes in Natural Characteristics Topography and Geology Direct impacts: The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, or other fill material approximately thirteen (13) feet deep. Topography of the presently unfilled area will -18- • • change to a very. slight gradient towards the southeast with elevations from twenty -four (24) feet to twenty (20) feet above mean sea level. This slope should be insufficient to cause significant erosion. Indirect impacts: Future development of the site may also alter its topography and geology. We cannot say what these alterations would be, although we doubt they would be significant. Cumulative impacts: Given the composition and depth of the alluvial sediments in the valley, substantial subsistence of all large developments on the flood plain is definitely possible. The cumulative effect this might . have on the area's topography and geology cannot presently be assessed. Hydrology and Water Quality Direct impacts: Filling and grading the site will substantially increase surface runoff from the property. This runoff will drain into catch basins to be constructed on the east boundary of the site. .It will then flow through an existing storm sewer to drain into the Green River north of the site. This -.;'increased runoff will contribute approximately forty* (40) acre -foot of water per year to the Green River, the exact amount depending upon weather conditions and fill surface characteristics. This increase in runoff is by itself insig- nificant and a substantial portion of this volume flowed into the river from the site before the culvert was crushed. Again, depending upon fill charac- teristics, evaporation and infiltration to ground water will both decrease. Etse.0 o N F t LL o PJky Nor a e■%ProirA Th ruality of surface runoff leaving- the site- Aould approximate that tfr friftle (�l Zt) OK ,of._the runoff which flowed through the recently destroyed culvert. The only change expected is a slightly higher concentration of suspended solids * An acre -foot of water is one acre covered by water one -foot deep. -19- depending upon the nature of the fill surface. Runoff from the site should not detestably alter water quality in the lower Green River, although it will contribute more potential pollutants to the river than it has in the past. Indirect impacts: Future development occurring after the property is filled and sold can further impact site hydrology and water quality in the following ways: Building construction and paving will cause a further increase in surface runoff as well as an increase in evaporation. Infiltration to ground water will be drastically reduced or eliminated, depending upon the extent of paving. Development can either raise or lower nearby ground water levels, again depending upon the exact nature of the construction. Runoff quality will deteriorate somewhat depending upon how the facilities are used. Based on uses permitted for industrial park zoning and on surface runoff quality data for Seattle, (5),. we expect a very small incremental impact on the Green River due to water from this site. The relative hydrologic and water quality impact from development of this site should also be small in comparison to that of nearby developments such as Southcenter. Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts associated with filling the site are difficult to estimate and depend heavily upon the future land use of the surrounding area. If all property in the Tukwila area not currently committed to open space is developed, the cumulative impact on the area's hydrology and water quality may be significantly detrimental. We expect development in the area to continue at approximately its present rate; and, assuming eventual complete development, we doubt the positive effects of not filling the subject site would be measurable in the terms of hydrology and water quality. Ecologic Systems Direct impacts: Draining the pond and filling and grading the site will • • eliminate all or nearly all habitat suitable for sustaining animal life on the site. The major impact will be on migratory water fowl, shore birds, song birds, and birds of prey which currently frequent the site. Consultation with an Audubon representative and independent biologist revealed the following information. When the site is filled, birds now using the site will be forced to move elsewhere. The large lakes in the region such as Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, and'Green Lake provide some resting places for birds but very little feed. The primary reason for the traditional use of the Green River Valley by large numbers of birds is the abundant feed provided by farm land and marsh. Therefore few, if any, displaced birds would take up residence at the large lakes. Other habitat areas in the Valley. "include the marsh south and east of Longacres racetrack, the wetland pasture north of the Boeing plant, the pond at the farm just east of Southcenter, and the farmlands and ponds just south and, west of the Boeing plant. Some addi- tional farms and small marshes on the west side of the valley in Kent and Auburn also provide feeding and resting areas for large numbers of waterfowl." (3) Most of the farms in the area are now for sale and we expect them to be developed for industrial uses. "The remaining marsh areas are all slated for industrial development, except for the marsh south and east of Longacres, uhich has for the time being not been rezoned to industrial, but could be at any time. This marsh is primarily a bird -of -prey wintering area; but is used year round by a large variety of birds including nesting Cinnamon Teals, Blue Herons, Shrikes and many songbirds." (3) We expect most birds, especially the non - migratory species, forced off the site will relocate in these nearby areas. We cannot be sure of this however; and we recognize the possiblity that some of these birds may leave -21- { • the Tukwila area and not return. Other impacts to the site's ecologic system include removal of all vegeta- tion and destruction of suitable habitat for small reptiles and mammals currently using the site. These animals provide feed for birds of prey currently . using the site and will face the same relocation problems as the resident birds, although compounded by their lack of mobility. Any fish now living in the pond will probably be destroyed during draining operations. We do not consider this loss significant since plentiful fish habitat exists elsewhere in the region. Indirect impacts: Future industrial park development on the site will permanently eliminate any chance of re- establishing wildlife habitat there. It will also decrease the attractiveness of the general area to wildlife by a small increment by virtue of its very existence and its various byproducts. Cumulative impacts: If the wetlands and farms develop as expected, all remaining waterfowl habitat in the lower valley may be destroyed. Much of it will certainly be destroyed. We expect the cumulative impact of this habitat destruction on the 20,000* to 30,000* waterfowl currently using the area will be substantial. These wetlands are already overcrowded, and we don't know where else the,birds can go. No baseline studies exist on the wildlife impact of development in the valley to date in terms of depleted bird populations; therefore, we cannot estimate the exact nature and severity of future cumulative impacts. However, this region will certainly suffer a loss of wildlife and migratory waterfowl populations. as a whole may be reduced as well. In addition, changes in the lower valley drainage system proposed by * estimated by the Seattle Audubon Society -22- .' • S.C.S., if adopted, will probably lower the water table and reduce existing wetland areas regardless of further development. This proposal may also reduce the water level in the pond if the pond is not filled. Assuming the valley continues developing at or near its current rate, we cannot guarantee that leaving the pond habitat in tact will have a significant positive impact on the area's wildlife populations. In addition, we must emphasize that the proposed action, by itself, will not lead to the cumulative impacts described above; and that any subsequent.development on the subject site must also comply with the State Environmental.Policy Act. Atmospheric Effects Direct impacts: The proposed action should result in minimal direct impacts to the area's air quality. These impacts will be in the form of temporary increases in vehicle emissions and dust of and near the site. The magnitude of the temporary impacts will depend upon the wind and precipi- tation occurring during the work, but we expect it to be insignificant. Indirect impacts:. Future development of the site will cause temporary impacts similar in nature to those of filling and grading. The magnitude and duration of these impacts cannot be estimated at this time. Long term impacts due to development of the site will probably involve increases in vehicle emissions in the area and their significance cannot be assessed at this time. Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts should be analogous to those discussed under hydrology and water quality, again depending upon continuing development of the lower Green River Valley. These impacts may be mitigated to a currently unknown degree by future improvement in air quality control regulations and technology. -23 -. Noise Levels Noise impacts of filling and grading will be completely analogous to those discussed under atmospheric effects. Much of the impact will be temporary; and long -term -and cumulative impacts may be mitigated by improve • • ments in noise- control.-Jaw Changes in Human Use Land Use Patterns Direct impacts: After grading is completed, human use of the site should be minimal until City Light sells the property and development begins. FLL OIV L- L Indirect impacts: When the site is developed, use will change from current bird watching by a few individuals to some type of commercial /industrial use by many persons. Employment opportunities will be created which we expect will have positive impacts on the area's economy. Cumulative impacts: The cumulative changes in human use resulting from this continued development will be nearly total transition from agricultural / open space uses to commercial /industrial uses within the lower valley. This transition began in the late 1950's and has progressed steadily ever since. Traffic Direct impacts: Filling and grading the site will not directly impact traffic. Indirect impacts: Traffic in the immediate vicinity of the site will increase when the property is developed. The significance of the increase will depend upon the nature of this development, .but =is unlikely to be signi- ficant, D$S1146REE Cumulative impacts: Traffic increases caused by development of this site -24- t4100(60a- NIUMAJEF Pis along with-Tril1TUm and other development in the area may significantly compound current traffic flow problems. However, without proper precautions, this will likely occur even if the subject site is left as is. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts This section addresses only those impacts which we consider unavoidable, adverse and enrionmentally significant.. All impacts mentioned in this section are discussed in more detail under Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action. Topography and Geology The depression currently occupied by the pond will be filled with sand, gravel or other fill material. Hydrology and Water Quality Not applicable. Ecologic Systems All'vegetation will be removed from the site, at least temporarily. Wildlife habitat on the site will be eliminated, significantly reducing the 'capability of the immediate vicinity to support wildlife. Wildlife currently using the site will be forced to relocate in already overcrowded feeding sites in the immediate vicinity or will leave the area entirely. Atmospheric Effects Not applicable. Noise Levels Not applicable. Human Use Uses of this site dependent on natural open space will be permanently eliminated. -25- • • Whether or not impacts to an environment recently created by man are appropriate for identification and evaluation in a document which, by law, is intended to address significant impacts to the natural environment, raises philosophical questions, City Light cannot answer. For example, two years after creating a municipal park, would draining a man -made lily pond (or adding such a pond) constitute a significant environmental impact to the area's natural environment? f ecase under discussion, City Light notes that the pond on its property was created inadvertently by man only two years ago. Nevertheless, we have attempted to assess the impacts involved as if the pond were na al d had existed for many years. Possible Mitigating Actions City Light could reduce erosion and surface runoff by replanting the site after grading it. PSAPCA regulations require actions such as spraying water over the site during grading operations to minimize dust. City Light can do little to mitigate the other impacts discussed, except execute the proposed action as carefully and efficiently as possible. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Do Nothing This alternative would essentially amount to preserving the site as a completely natural wildlife refuge. Some question exists concerning the long term viability of this site as a wildlife refuge. The pond has existed for only two years, and it is already productive enough to support an abun- dance of waterfowl. If productivity continues to increase, the pond could advance to a state which will only support a few species. This may or may not occur, depending upon several factors. For instance, we know the bog now inundated by the pond was a historical stopping place for waterfowl. This may mean the pond's productivity is not increasing as fast as it appears, because the site was relatively productive to begin with. Also, most ducks currently using the pond are "dippers" which feed largely on algae. Enough of these ducks would keep a highly productive pond in a stable state. Other questions involve potential problems arising from increased development and human activity adjacent to the site. The various pollutants associated with dust, and vehicle emissions may eventually keep 'this activity, such as noise, wildlife from using the site. does not currently exist. Information adequate to answer these questions Advanta es This alternative would preserve a portion of a habitat which is rapidly disappearing from the Green River Valley. Ponds of this type are no longer common in the Puget Sound region and their elimination poses a definite threat to migratory birds passing through the area. Disadvantages The major disadvantage of this alternative is its dollar cost. Potential disadvantages involve the site's unknown long term viability as a preserve, plus the possibility that elimination of other suitable habitat in the area would render this site virtually useless regardless of its viability. In other words, we could find ourselves with a perfectly wonderful waterfowl sanctuary and no waterfowl in the area to use it. If this occurred, of course, the site could still be developed for other uses. Finally, adoption of this alternative would greatly restrict economic development of the site at least temporarily. Develo ment of the Site as a Park /Wildlife Refuge Although not a feasible alternative for this applicant, a second alter- native to filling the site for industrial park development is to develop it into a combination park and wildlife refuge. This alternative is a flexible one which would include areas of public access to water and open space as well as areas restricted for wildlife habitat. We believe a development of this type would require the following changes: • • O probable additional filling in park areas to prevent boggy conditions ® a change in present zoning O planting of grass, shrubs and trees in park areas © planting of conifers around perimeters of site as buffer from surrounding development and traffic possible aeration of pond to prevent eventual oxygen depletion and possibly a controlled outlet • possible acquisition of parking space or construction of a pedestrian bridge over Strander Blvd. connecting the park to Southcenter's parking lot o possible installation of sanitary facilities and drinking fountains O periodic maintenance of park areas. Purchasing this property for park development at a price providing equity for City Light would still be very expensive. Portions of the necessary pur- chase funds might be donated by persons and groups standing to benefit from a natural park on this site and might include private citizens, conservation organizations, local merchants such as those at Southcenter, civic groups and nearby developers such as thos associated with Trillium (see page 17) and Andover Industrial Park. Whether or not this alternative is worth its high ,cost would depend upon the values of the people of Tukwila and its surrounding areas. -28- 4110 After purchase of the property, necessary development could take place on a priority basis as funds became available and much of this work could be done by volunteers. Adva� tages A combination park and wildlife refuge would preserve forty (40) acres of natural and semi - natural public open space in a predominantly developed It would preserve suitable wetland habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds in a traditional feeding ground which is rapidly disappearing. It may provide a boost to surrounding economic enterprises by increasing public interest in the area. Disadvantages The purchase price of this property would be very high for this type of development. Additional nearby development might substantially reduce the site's viability as a wildlife refuge. This alternative would also prevent economic development of the site at least temporarily. Delaying Action for Further Study A third alternative would delay all action on the site until all alternative actions can be better evaluated. Further study would probably involve finding answers to questions raised in alternatives one and two and in other sections of this assessment. Further study may also expose additional questions, concerns and alternatives. Adopting this alternative would cost City Light considerable money, time and effort. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT TERM ENVIROtiMENTAL USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF SITE. Short Term Environmental Gains We expect no short -term environmental gains to result from draining and filling the property. -29- Term Environmental Gains The proposed action will allow economic development of the site which ,-ill, in turn, provide employment opportunities and associated economic wnefits. The very long term gains from this development are unknown. Short Term Environmental Losses The action will destroy a wildlife habitat and result in increased surface runoff of decreased quality. Groundwater recharge will be reduced and noise levels and air pollutant concentrations will temporarily increase. Lon Term Environmental Losses Development resulting from the proposed action will cause permanent loss of forty (40) acres of open space and locally uncommon wildlife habitat with its associated aesthetic amenities. It will permanently increase surface runoff arid this runoff may contain significant pollutant concentrations. It may eliminate ground water recharge on the site entirely. It will probably result in a permanent increase in traffic volumes and ambient noise levels near.: the site. Trade -Offs Between Gains and Losses The long term gain to the human environment resulting from this action is significant. The short and long term losses to the natural and human environment are also significant and outnumber the gains. The trade -offs involved concern those between economic and environmental' considerations. Which will be sacrificed for the other will depend upon the values of those persons who are allowed to participate in the decision. -30- SEATTLE CITY LIGHT TUKWILA POND FILL PROPOSAL Tod °-BALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MARCH 1976 INTRODUCTION A. ACTION SPONSOR The City of Seattle, Department of Lighting, has applied to the City of Tukwila for a fill permit which would allow the utility to fill approximately 40 acres of land lying immediately south of the Southcenter Shopping Center at the south- west corner of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. This fill permit has been applied for in compliance with requirements of Chapter 70, Uniform Building Code, 1973 edition. B. LEAD AGENCY Because a large pond currently occupies approximately 15+ acres of the City Light site, the City of Tukwila feels that this proposal may be environmentally significant and controversial. In view of this, an Environmental Impact State- ment pursuant to Chapter 18.98 Tukwila Municipal Code was deemed necessary by the City's responsible official. The lead agency for this action is the City of Tukwila: Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director (Responsible Official) Contact Person: Fred N. Satterstrom, Associate Planner Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 (206) 242 -2177 C. PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFT EIS Robert W. Reineke - Project manager of City Light's Tukwila Pond Fill Environmental Assessment. Sylvia A. Ludwig - Waterfowl information. Charles J. Shank Biological information. Leonard Steiner - Seattle Audubon Society, wetlands information. Steve Hall Dick Williams - City of Tukwila, Public Works Director, drainage information. - City of Tukwila, Engineer, hydrologic information. D. OTHER LICENSES /PERMITS REQUIRED Before the site can be filled, a Flood Zone Permit from the State of Washington, Department of Ecology is required. This permit was issued to City Light in Jan- uary 1976 (Permit No. 1- 2173 -2). E. LOCATION OF EIS BACKGROUND DATA Much of the background information to this draft EIS can be found in two documents: "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Trillium — A Business and Commercial Complex ", 1973; and "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area ", 1975. Both of these documents can be obtained or reviewed at the office of the Tukwila Planning. Department, 6230 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washing- ton 98067. F. COST TO PUBLIC OF DRAFT EIS $1.25 G. DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS March 19, 1976. H. COMMENT DEADLINE ON DRAFT EIS In order for comments to the draft EIS to be incorporated into the final EIS, they must be received by April 23, 1976. ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION i. A. Action Sponsor i. B. Lead Agency i. C. Principal Contributors to Draft EIS i. D. Other Licenses /Permits Required i. E. Location of EIS Background Data ii. F. Cost to Public of Draft EIS G. Date of Issue of Draft EIS H. Comment Deadline ii. DISTRIBUTION LIST 1 SUMMARY 4 A. The Proposal 4 B. Direct and Indirect Impacts 4 C. Alternatives 5 D. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May be Mitigated 5 E. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 5 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION . EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL 17 D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED 23 E. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS 23 F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 23 G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRON- MENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 24 H. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 25 DISTRIBUTION LIST DISTRICT ENGINEER, SEATTLE DISTRICT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1519 Alaskan Way South Seattle, Washington 98134 WALTER JASCERS Environmental Impact Statement Office Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 MAX FULNER U.S. Soil Conservation Service 35 South Grady Way Renton, Washington. 98055 R. VERNON DIVERS, SUPERVISOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT U.S. Department of Agriculture 406 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 JOHN HARTER, SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR Department of Commerce and Economic Development 101 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 DENNIS LUNDBLAD, HEAD ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504 GIL HOLLAND, FISHERIES RESEARCH COORDINATOR Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 EUGENE S. DZIEDZIC, ASSISTANT CHIEF Environmental Management Division Department of Game 600 North Capital Way Olympia, Washington 98504 BRUCE DAVIDSON, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER Department of Highways Highway Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 BILL BOXTER, ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR Department of Natural Resources Public Lands Building Olympia, Washington 98504 EMIL JENSEN, CHIEF Office of Environmental Programs Department of Social and Health Services P.O. Box 1788 Olympia, Washington 98504 WILLIAM A. BUSH, CHIEF RESEARCH t PLANNING Parks and Recreation Commission P.O. Box 1128 Olympia, Washington 98504 GERALD D. PROBST, PLANNER, LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE Planning and Community Affairs Agency Insurance Building Olympia, Washington 98504 EDWARD B. SAND, DIRECTOR, LAND USE MANAGEMENT DIVISION King County Department of Community and Environmental Development W217 King County Courthouse . Seattle, Washington 98104 BRIAN BEAM, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION. Puget Sound Governmental Conference Grand Central on the Park Building Seattle, Washington 98104 JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR Kent Planning Agency P.O. Box 310, City Hall Kent, Washington 98031 GORDON ERICKSEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 GEORGE SCHULER, PLANNING DIRECTOR Auburn Planning Department City Hall Auburn, Washington 98002 SIERRA CLUB 45342 University Way N.E. Seattle, Washington 98105 LEONARD STEINER, AUDUBON SOCIETY Joshua Green Building Seattle, Washington 98104 JOHN J. FOTHERINGHAM, SUPERINTENDENT South Central School District #406 4640 South 144th Street Seattle, Washington 98168 GARY F. KOHLWES, SUPERINTENDENT Renton School District #403 435 Main Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 GARY MORITZ, COMMERCIAL SALESMAN Puget Sound Power and Light Co. P.O. Box 329 Renton, Washington 98055 ROBERT S. HINTZ, DIRECTOR Office of Environmental Management Department of Community Development 400 Seattle Municipal Building Seattle, Washington 98104 JAMES PEARSON, SENIOR AIR POLLUTION ENGINEER Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 West Harrison Seattle, Washington 98119 CHARLES BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Tukwila Industrial Council P.O. Box 88556 Tukwila, Washington 98188 DWAYNE NIKULLA, GREEN FOR TOMORROW 17229 - 34th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98188 SYLVIA A. LUDWIG 4232 South 173rd Street Seattle, Washington 98188 CHARLES J. SHANK, BIOLOGIST Route 8, Box 8616 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 TOM WIMMER, MEMBER City of Seattle EIS Review Committee 7756 Seward. Park Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98118 ERIC PRYNE, NEWS EDITOR Renton Record - Chronicle P.O. Box 1076 Renton, Washington 98055 STEVE GREEN, CITY EDITOR Seattle Post - Intelligencer 6th and Wall Street Seattle, Washington 98121 STEVE RAYMOND, ASSISTANT CITY EDITOR Seattle Times P.O. Box 70 Seattle, Washington 98111 PAT EMERSON, Chairperson City of Seattle EIS Review Committee Department of Community Development 306 Cherry Street Seattle, Washington 98104 SUMMARY A. THE PROPOSAL This draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for Seattle City Light's application for a permit to fill and grade approximately 40 acres of its property lying just south of Southcenter Shopping Center at the inter- section of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. City Light's permit application has been applied for pursuant to requirements of UBC, Chapter 70. Approximately 15+ acres of this site is covered with water and is commonly referred to as the Tukwila Pond. This pond was inadvertantly created in 1974 during construction of Andover Park West. At that time, the City Light site was a.low, marshy depression with a drainage outlet to the east. Construction of Andover Park West apparently blocked this drainage and a pond was formed in the low marshy area. The objective of the fill proposal is to prepare the site for development. However, at this time no development is proposed. City Light believes this action will enhance the marketability of the property. . DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 1. Impacts to Physical Environment. The proposed action will eliminate the man -made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, and other fill material to a depth of approximately 13 feet. Topography will change noticeably from a low depression to a slight gra- dient towards the southeast. Filling and grading the site will substan- tially increase surface runoff from the site. All existing vegetation which exists on the property will be displaced and all habitat suitable for sustaining bird, animal, or fish life will be eliminated. Noise and air pollution will increase minimally as a result of the proposed fill. As a result of the development of the site (or the proposal's indirect impacts), the quality of runoff water will diminish, noise quality will be reduced and air quality will decrease. In addition, future development of the site will eliminate any chance of re- establishing wildlife habitat on the site. 2. Impacts to Human Environment. Direct impacts to the human environment as a result of this action will be a decline in the human recreational use of the property. No impacts are anticipated either to the population or housing supply of the City as a result of the proposed action. A considerable amount of truck traffic will be generated by the proposal. The proposal will also require the pumping of over 1,000,000+ cubic feet of water into the City's storm drain system. In addition, the proposal will eliminate the aesthetic appeal of the pond environment. 4 As a result of the development of the site (or the proposal's indirect impacts), employment opportunities would generate an insignificant population increase and a negligible increase in demand for housing in the Tukwila area. Also, demands on such public services as roads, police and fire protection, water, storm and sanitary sewer service, and recreational services would be made. C. ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives to the proposal are considered in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The first alternative is the "Do Nothing" alternative which essentially amounts to preserving the site in a natural condition. This alternative would preserve a portion of waterfowl habitat in the Green River Valley, but would result in the loss of the original price plus any potential profit gained by sale of the property. The second alternative is a "Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation" alternative which entails filling only a part of the site while retaining part or all of the pond. This alternative would help to retain the pond's runoff retention function as well as wildlife habitat while allowing economic use of a majority of the site. Nevertheless, cost factors of not utilizing a large portion of - the site, in addition to maintenance problems associated with the pond, pose economic constraints to the applicant. The third alternative to the proposal is the delay of action until a specific site development plan is submitted. This alternative assumes eventual develop- ment similar in nature to that which typifies development in the existing C -M zone district. Under this alternative, wetland habitat would be retained temporarily, at least, and future development options would be left open. This alternative may also lend sufficient time for an analysis of the ecologic, hydrologic, and recreational importance of the pond. D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED Erosion and increased surface runoff can be partially mitigated by replanting the site following the fill operations. Revegetation might also help to restore a small portion of the site's value as wildlife habitat. To minimize particu- lates in the air, the applicant is required by PSAPCA to spray water over the site during fill and grading operations. E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impact of this proposal is the loss of wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. This same loss of wetlands for wildlife constitutes a loss of open space amenity for man. 5 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 1. The Proposal. Seattle City Light has requested from the City of Tukwila the administra- tive approval and issuance of a grading and fill permit for approximately 40 acres of land owned by the utility. The name of this action is called the Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal. Covering approximately 15+ acres of this site is a body of water commonly known as the Tukwila Pond. Appendix A shows the proposed grading plan for the Seattle City Light site. The proposed fill site is located in the lower Green River Valley near the geographical center of the City of Tukwila, approximately one -half mile southeast of the intersection of I -5 and I -405, as shown in Figure 1. The property is bounded on the east by Andover Park West and on the north by Strander Boulevard. Southcenter Shopping Center lies directly across Strander Boulevard, adjacent to the site. Pictures of the site and pond are shown in Figure 2. and Figure 3. The sit nearly square'in=shapeE and consists of 40.7 acres. An "L" shap d portion of the site perimeter has already been filled and a large pond occupies its center. The filled area consists of approximately sixteen (16) acres while the pond is 15+ acres and its associated wet- lands approximately 10 acres. 2. Major Aspects of the Proposal. City Light proposes to drain the pond, fill the site, and grade the land according to submitted plans. Draina.u`�"of the pond will be.aecompli hed by pumping the water into the CitT'-s storm drain system during periods of low surface runoff. Following the draining of the pond, all perishable materials will be removed and approximately 418,500 cubic yards of fill will be dumped on the site. Fill material will be compacted to 90% of maximum density and then graded to conform to grading plans. 3. Land Use Plans and Zoning Regulations. According to the existing Tukwila Comprehensive Plan drafted in 1962 by John Graham Company and revised in 1967, the subject site is located in an area designated "Industrial ". As such, the proposal conforms to planned land use. The existing comprehensive plan consists primarily of ? a land use map and, therefore, no adopted policies apply to the proposal. , Presently the City of Tukwila is undertaking a revision of its comprehensive plan. General goals for the City were adopted in November, 1975 by the City Council through Resolution #504. These goals seek a balance between economy and environment and emphasize the importance of natural amenities. Although the Plan goals have been formally adopted by the City Council, the five ele- ments of the Plan (Natural Environment, Open Space, Residence, Commerce/ Industry, and Transportation /Utilities) have not. Objectives and policies within the preliminary Natural Environment and Open Space elements directly address ponds and marshes as natural and visual amenities, and encourage their retention. However, these policies do not apply to the proposed action since they have not been officially adopted. 6 To Burien ?MGMOU PLQ I ue Q CEQ L J� ) ) ` L 5cr•� TUKWILA PLANNING DIPAIMIENT 1975 cn w b 0. cd •,4 w 0 a) •,1 cd • rl a) Q Pond and fill site; looking southeast from McMicken Heights. 7 V Figure 3. Photos of Tukwila Pond Fill Site Pond and vegetation with mallards overhead; looking north toward Nordstrom's at Southcenter. rx....r�r� - ?'►...rye ' p ...t •f �:T-- rC?iW.�.''" j - ,r.r�'.akq.YY -<:. • a. s e�-r + � - i ��. • Pond and vegetation; looking west with Bon Marche warehouse at left. r. The proposed fill site was originally zoned R -A (Agricultural) in December 1957 by Ordinance #251, one month after the property had been annexed to the City of Tukwila by Ordinance #247. At that time, the site was not owned by Seattle City Light. One year later in 1958, the City of Seattle purchased the property as a potential substation site. Zoning remained the same on the property until July 1973 when it was rezoned_from.R -A to its present zoning., C -M (Industrial Park). Thi zoning classification is. ial pran industrark typeon ng-wh .eh permits uses similar to those allowedin -the City's M -1 (Light Indus- try) classification, but maintains greater landscaping, pollution, and site design restrictions. Under the C -M zoning classification, e asr� no pertinent requirements regulate the filling of land. B. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth. Geology: The primary geologic feature of the site is the deep, water - deposited sediment, or alluvium, beneath it. This alluvium consists primarily of silts and clays and covers most of the valley floor to depths exceeding 100 feet. Soils: Test hole data for the project site was obtained by City Light on June 30, 1958 (SEE Appendix B). The logs generally indicate that from the surface to 3.0 feet down loam and loam -peat soils are predominant. From 3.0 feet to about 8.0 feet in depth various clays are found. These clays are blue, gray, yellow and brown and are progressively wetter with depth. At 8.0 feet to 10.0 feet, clay -sand and sand are found. The soils found on the site have low bearing capacity and are therefore poorly suited for construction foundations. This condition necessitates filling the site with sand and gravel or constructing pile systems prior to development. Topography: The site lies in a broad, very flat alluvial floodplain formed over thousands of years by deposition of sediments during flooding of the Green River. The subject site itself contains a natural depression about five (5) feet deep with a minimum elevation of twelve (12) feet above mean sea level. Partial filling of the "L" shaped portion has increased the depth of the depression,to approximately twelve (12) feet and increased the site's maximum elevation to approximately twenty -four (24) feet above mean sea level. Additional fill of about one (1) foot occurred on a small portion of the site during construction of Andover Park West. 10 2. Air. Air Quality: Air quality in the vicinity of the subject site is marginal with respect to existing standards of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). While concentrations of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrocarbons appear well within ambient air quality standards, concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates often exceed these standards. According to PSAPCA, concentrations of suspended particulates are currently increas- ing in the Tukwila area and particle fallout is also considered high. Air quality conditions reach their lowest levels during June, July, August and September, when precipitation and winds are lightest. The Seattle, Renton and Auburn industrial areas, Southcenter Shopping Center, and Interstate Highways 5 and 405 are the primary sources of air contaminants near the site. Climate: The subject site is influenced by a west coast marine type climate. Mari- time air sweeping in from the Pacific Ocean makes the summers warm and the winters cool, and drops 35 - 40 inches of rainfall on the Tukwila area each year, most of it during the winter months November - March, (SEE, Table 1 for monthly temperatures, precipitation, and winds near the proposal site). 3. Water. Surface Drainage: Natural drainage from the site has always been very poor due to the flat terrain and relatively impervious soils. The lowlying area of the site — i.e., that area now occupied by the pond — used to be very marshy and wet for a long period each year. At that time, surface runoff drained eastward from the site through a ditch, onto the adjoining property, and ultimately into the Green River. In the fall of 1974, construction of Andover Park West by. the City of Tukwila blocked drainage from the site. With surface drainage blocked, ponding on the site increased dramatically, eventually creating a year -round pond. Presently, most water leaves the site through evaporation and plant tran- spiration, although a small amount probably infiltrates into the groundwater supply. A portion of the undeveloped land adjoining the site to the west probably drains onto the subject site, although this has not been definitely deter- mined. Runoff from the Bon Marche warehouse, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West flows into storm drains and does not affect the subject site. Subsurface Drainage: The soils . found on the site are nearly impermeable, the water table is near the surface, and ground water movement is very slow due to the flat- ness of the terrain. Because of these factors subsurface drainage from the site is and probably always has been extremely slow. 11 TABLE 1 '4MONTHLY NORMALS OF TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION AND WIND AT SEATTLE - TACOMA AIRPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1930 - 1960 Wind Month Temp. ( °F.) Precip. (in.) Wind (MPH) Direction January 38.3 5.73. 10.8 SSW February 40.8 4.24 -10.9 SW March 43.8 ' 3.79 11.4 SSW April 49.2 2.40 11.0 SW May 55.5 1.73 10.2 SW June 59.8 1.58 9.9 SW July 64.9 0.81 9.3 SW August 64.1 0.95 8.9 SW September 59.9 2.05 9.1 N October 52.4 4.02 9.8 S November 43.9 5.35 10.2 S December 40.8 6.29 10.8 SSW TOTAL OR AVERAGE 51.1 (Av) 38.94 (Tot) 10.2 (Av) SSW (Av) Source:. "Local Climatological Data ", Sea -Tac Airport Weather Station. Water Quality: Water quality within the pond has not been determined by direct means. However, it is expected that the quality is relatively high because of the following reasons. The pond receives no runoff from paved surfaces. The only potential source of pollutants and nutrients are rain, bare soil, fall- out from suspended particles, the vegetation around and in the pond and the wildlife currently frequenting the area. Based on studies performed in the Seattle area, particle fallout into the pond should be insufficient to sig- nificantly affect water quality. Rainfall in this area contains minimal pollutants, little erodable soil exists on the site, and the pond is too young to be detrimentally affected by nutrient contributions from the plants and animals associated with it. Considering these factors, the pond's current quality is expected to be comparable to that classified as' excellent in the State of Washington Water Quality, Standards. 12 4. Flora. Both native and introduced plant species are found on the subject site. All species are tolerant of wet floodplain conditions. Some small third or fourth - growth trees exist on the site, primarily along the pond's edge. These species include Douglas fir, madrona, black cottonwood, willow, and red alder. In the wider expanses of open land on the site grow an abundant diversity of shrubs and grass species. An inventory of these species can be found in Appendix C. None of the plants seen on the City Light property are considered rare or endangered. 5. Fauna. The pond currently supports a variety of birds as well as a few mammals and reptiles. Table 2 lists all waterfowl and songbirds seen on the site by one observer since May, 1975. Rabbit, skunk, muskrat and possibly rac- coon are expected to live on the site. In addition to the animals them- selves, several nesting sights have been seen, including one muskrat nest. No live fish have been seen in the pond to date; although the pond is al- most certainly capable of supporting aquatic life. Grebes have been noted apparently fishing, and one fish was found on the shore. Fish which might be living in the pond include the Threespine Stickleback, Prickly Sculpin, Longnose and Speckled Dace and other small freshwater fish. Other aquatic animals, such as snails, may also currently exist in the pond. No bird or mammal specie observed on the City Light property is considered rare or endangered. 6. Noise. The average ambient noise level on the City Light site due to truckless traffic is probably 60 - 65 dBA. (This is extrapolated from a noise survey completed in 1973 for Trillium on the adjacent property to the west.) This value seems to be consistent when compared with the City of Tukwila noise ordinance,(TMC 18.32.030) and proposed 1973 King County noise ordinance, Sections 703 and 704. However, truck traffic on abutting roads intermit- tently boosts the noise level approximately 15 dBA higher than the ambient level. 7. Light and Glare. N/A 8. Land Use. Prior to its purchase in 1958 by City Light, the subject site was grazed by dairy cattle from mid -May to mid - October and used for duck hunting by the Green Head Gun Club during the fall and winter. - Since City Light purchased the property, it has experienced substantially no human use, serving only as open space and wildlife habitat. 13 TABLE 2 WATERFOWL AND SONGBIRDS CURRENTLY USING SITE Name of Bird First Date Seen Estimated Total Number Western Meadowlark 3/ 6/76 1 Song Sparrow 5/31/75 10 - 15 Goldfinches and mates 15 25 American Coots, mates and young 50 - 75 Shovelers and mates 25 - 35 Lesser Scaups and mates 7 - 12 Ruddy Ducks and mates 15 - 20 Cinnamon Teals and mates 2 - 6 Killdeers 7 - 12 Red - Winged Blackbirds 4 Tree Swallows 5 10 Barn Swallows 5 - 10 Cliff Swallows 6 Mallards, mates and young 20 - 35 Robins 6/29/75 2 Starlings 1 Yellowthroat Warbler 3 Purple Finches and mates 10 - 15 California Quail 7/ 4/75 5 - 7 Spotted Sandpiper 4 = 8 Western Sandpiper 3 - 7 Lesser Yellowlegs 7/12/75 3 - 5 Pier- Billed Grebes 3 Nashville Warbler. 2 Rough- Winged Swallows 5 - 8 Sanderlings - 5 - 10 Long- Billed Dowitcher 7/19/75 5 - 10 Green Heron 8/ 8/75 1 California Gulls 3 Common Crow 10/ 4/75 7 - 10 Cassin's Finches 10 - 15 Green - Winged Teal and mates 5 - 10 Canvasbacks and mates 10 15 Solitary Sandpiper 8 - 10 Short - Billed Dowitcher 8 - 10 Red - Tailed Hawk 1 Ring- Necked Ducks and mates 10/27/75 20 - 25 Buffleheads and mates 35 - 40 Pintails and mates 11/ 1/75 50 - 75 American Widgeons and mates 75 - 100 Gadwalls and mates 35 - 50. Horned Grebe 2 Ring- Necked Pheasants and mates. 10 - 12 Red - Shafted Flicker 1 Common Snipe 11/29/75 2 European Widgeon 12/21/75 3 males plus mates Sparrow Hawk Franklin Gull Common Goldeneye 3 females Source: Sylvia Ludwig *Species of migratory waterfowl are underlined. 14 Commercial and light industrial uses surround the proposal site. To the north of the site across Strander Boulevard lies the Southcenter Regional Shopping Center, to the east lies Andover Industrial Park and to the south- west the Bon Marche Distribution Center abuts the property. Directly south of the subject site lies a large, vacant tract of land owned by Upland Industries. 9. Natural Resources. N/A HUMAN ENVIRONMENT. 1. Population. Current population within the City of Tukwila is 3370. This figure con- trasts with an average of 50,000 - .60,000 persons who migrate to the City each day during business hours to either work or shop. As far as the proposed fill site is concerned, no persons either presently live or work on the property. 2. Housing. According to the 1970 Census of Housing, there were 1,669 housing units within the City of Tukwila in 1970. Of these, 607 or about one -third of the total housing units were single - family units. On the other hand, about two - thirds or 1000+ units were multiple - family dwelling units. There are no housing units located on the proposed fill site. 3. Transportation /Circulation. Interstate 5 and 405, Southcenter, and nearby industrial facilities com- prise the major sources of automobile and truck traffic near the site. A traffic .study done for a 1973 TOPICS program showed that traffic on Strander Boulevard averaged about 16,000 vehicles per day with peaks of around 1600 vehicles per hour near noon and 6 P.M. To the west of the site on Southcenter Parkway, average 1973 daily traffic was 17,400 vehicles, with hourly peaks of 1640 vehicles. Andover Park West had not been built as of 1973 when the TOPICS study was completed, but recent counts on this road are considerably less than those for Strander Boule- vard or Southcenter Parkway. A sidewalk along Andover Park West abuts the fill site's eastern boundary. A Burlington Northern Railroad spur line track is located along the northern boundary of the land parcel immediately south of the proposed fill site. This spur track serves the Bon Marche Distribution Center. Approximately four road miles to the west of the site is located the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. Much of the freight carried by planes landing here is brought to or shipped from the Tukwila industrial area. 15 4. Public Services. Public services are 'provided to the subject site by the City of Tukwila. A recently built, well - equipped fire station, operated and staffed by the City, is located within one -half (2) mile of the site. Police protection is provided by the City of Tukwila and service levels are beneficial. Park and recreation services are provided by the City. The City Light property is located just inside the Renton School District. The borderline between South Central and Renton School Districts is Strander Boulevard; north of Strander is the South Central District, south of Strander is the Renton District. 5. Energy. N/A 6. Utilities. Water and storm and sanitary sewer services are provided by the City of Tukwila. All of these utilities either border or are within close reach of the proposed fill site. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone and Puget Power run underground telephone and electrical power lines along both the property's western and eastern boundaries. 7. Human. Health. N/A 8. Aesthetics. The "naturalness" of the pond environment contrasts markedly with the surrounding urban environment of Southcenter and Andover Industrial Park. 9. Recreation. Although the subject site is not "open to the public ", the site is occa- sionally used for recreational purposes by the public. No studies have been done to determine the extent or the type of recreational use the site gets from the public, but it is expected that most use is of the sight - seeing type, primarily bird - watching. Other use may be picture- taking and passive contemplation. 10. Archeological /Historical. N/A 16 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: Direct Impact - an impact resulting directly from draining, filling, or grading the site. Indirect Impact - an impact resulting from typical development of the site under current C -M (industrial park) zoning after its sale by City Light. Cumulative Impact - an impact resulting from expected development of all undeveloped land in the Lower Green River Valley under current zoning. 1. Environmental Impact on the Natural Systems. Earth: Direct Impacts: The proposed action will eliminate the man - made pond and replace it with sand, gravel, or other fill material approximately .thirteen (13) feet deep. Topography of the, presently unfilled area will change to a very slight gradient towards the southeast with elevations from twenty -four (24) feet to twenty (20) feet above mean sea level. This slope should be insufficient to cause significant erosion. Indirect Impacts: Future development of the site may also insignifi- cantly alter its topography and geology. Cumulative Impacts: Given the composition and depth of the alluvial sediments in the valley, substantial subsidence of all large develop- ments on the floodplain is definitely possible. The cumulative effect this might have on the area's topography and geology cannot presently be assessed. Air: Direct Impacts: The proposed action should result in minimal direct impacts to the area's air quality. These insignificant impacts will be in the form of temporary increases in vehicle emissions and dust on and near the site. The magnitude of the temporary impacts will depend upon the wind and precipitation occurring during the work, but it is expected to be insignificant. Indirect Impacts: Future development of the site will cause temporary impacts similar in nature to those of filling and grading. The magni- tude and duration of these impacts cannot be estimated at this time. Long term impacts due to development of-the site will probably involve increases in vehicle emissions in the area. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts should be analogous to those discussed under hydrology and water quality, again depending upon continuing development of the lower Green River Valley. These impacts may be mitigated to a currently unknown degree by future improvement in air quality control regulations and technology. 17 Water: Direct Impacts: Filling and grading the site will entail draining the pond as a first step. This will directly add over 1,000,000 cubic feet of water into the existing municipal storm drain system. Runoff from the pond will eventually find its way into the Green River north of the pond site. Runoff from the site will contribute approximately forty (40) acre -feet of water per year to the Green River, the exact amount depending upon weather conditions and fill surface characteristics. This increase in runoff is by itself insignificant and a substantial portion of this volume flowed into the river from the site before drainage was blocked by Andover Park West. Depending upon fill characteristics, evaporation and infiltration to ground water will both decrease. The quality of surface runoff leaving the site should approximate that of the runoff which drained from the site prior to blockage. The only change expected is a slightly higher concentration of suspended solids. Indirect Impacts: Future development occurring after the property is filled and sold can further impact site hydrology and water quality in the following ways: Building construction and paving will cause a further increase in surface runoff as well as an increase in evapora- tion. Infiltration to ground water will be drastically reduced or eliminated,- depending upon the extent of paving. Development can either raise or lower nearby ground water levels, again depending upon the exact nature of the construction. Runoff quality will deteriorate somewhat depending upon how the facil- ities are used. Based on uses permitted for industrial park zoning and on surface runoff quality data for Seattle, a very small incremental impact on the Green River due to water from this site is expected. The relative hydrologic and water quality impact from development of the site should also be small in comparison to that of nearby developments. Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts associated with filling the site are difficult to estimate and depend heavily upon the future land use of the surrounding area. If all property in the Tukwila area not currently committed to open space is developed, the cumulative impact on the area's hydrology and water quality may be significantly detrimental. Develop- ment in the area is expected to continue at approximately its present rate; and, assuming eventual complete development, it is doubtful whether the positive effects of not filling the subject site would be measurable in terms of hydrology and water quality. Flora: Direct Impacts: All vegetation which exists on the site will be either buried or removed during fill operations. Fauna: Direct Impacts: Draining the pond and filling and grading the site eliminate all or nearly all habitat suitable for sustaining animal life on the site. The major impact will be on migratory water fowl, shore birds, song birds, and birds of prey which currently frequent the site. Consultation with an Audubon representative1 and an independent biologist2 revealed the following information. When the site is filled, birds now using the site will be forced to move elsewhere. The large lakes in the region such as Lake Washington, Lake Sammam- ish, and Green Lake provide some resting places for birds but very little feed. The primary reason for the traditional use of the Green River Valley by large numbers of birds is the abundant feed provided by farm land and marsh. Therefore few, if any, displaced birds would take up residence at the large lakes. Other habitat areas in the Valley include the marsh south and east of Longacres racetrack, the wetland pasture north of the Boeing plant, the pond at the farm just east of Southcenter, and the farmlands and ponds just south and west of the Boeing plant. Some additional farms and small marshes on the west side of the valley in Kent and Auburn also provide feeding and resting area for large numbers of waterfowl. It is expected that most birds, especially the non - migratory species, forced off the City Light site will relocate in these nearby areas. It is not certain, however, but it is possible that some of these birds •may leave the Tukwila area and not return. Other impacts to the site's ecologic system include removal of all vegetation and destruction of suitable habitat for small reptiles and mammals currently using the site. These animals provide feed for birds of prey currently using the site and will face the same reloca- tion problems as the resident birds, although compounded by their lack of mobility. Any fish now living in the pond will probably be destroyed during draining operations. This is not considered a significant loss since plentiful fish habitat exists elsewhere in the region. Indirect Impacts: Future industrial park development on the site will permanently eliminate any chance of re- establishing wildlife habitat there. It will also decrease the attractiveness of the general area to wildlife by a small increment by virtue of its existence and its various byproducts. 1 Leonard Steiner, Seattle Audubon Society, Conservation Chairman. 2 Charles Shank, Biologist. Cumulative Impacts: If the wetlands and farms develop as expected, all remaining waterfowl habitat in the lower valley may be destroyed. Much of it will certainly be destroyed. The cumulative impact of this habitat destruction on the 20,000 to 30,000 waterfowl currently using the area will be substantial. These wetlands are already overcrowded, and where these birds will go is uncertain. To date, no baseline studies exist on the wildlife impact of development in the valley in terms of depleted bird populations. Therefore, an esti- mate as to the exact nature and severity of future cumulative impacts can- not be made. However, this region will certainly suffer a loss of wild- life, and migratory waterfowl populations as a whole may be reduced as well. In addition, changes in the lower valley drainage system proposed by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), if implemented, will probably lower the water table and reduce existing wetland areas regardless of further development.. This proposal may also reduce the water level in the pond if the pond is not filled. Noise: Noise impacts of filling and grading will be completely analogous to those discussed under atmospheric effects. Much of the impact will be temporary; and long term and cumulative impacts may mitigated by improvements in noise control. Light and Glare: N/A Land Use: Direct Impacts: After grading is completed, human use of the site should be minimal until City Light sells the property and development begins. Indirect Impacts: When the site is developed, use will change to some type of commercial /industrial use. •Employment opportunities will be created which will expand the area's economy. Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative changes in human use resulting from this continued development will be nearly total transition from agricul- tural /open space uses to commercial /industrial uses within the lower valley. This transition began in the late 1950's and has progressed steadily ever since. Natural Resources: Direct Impacts: To fill the City Light site will require the excavation of approximately 418,500 cubic yards of fill material. It is expected that this fill material will be obtained from existing sand and gravel pits in the vicinity. None of these operating gravel pits are located within the City of Tukwila. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site will require varying amounts of construction materials and, hence, make certain demands on natural resources. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of the Green River valley will require vast amounts of fill material which will cause major altera- tions to topographical conditions in some localities. Also, this development will require vast amounts of construction materials nec- essary to construct commercial and industrial structures. 2. Environmental Impact on Human Systems. Population: Direct Impacts: No population increase or decrease is anticipated as a result of the City Light fill proposal. Indirect Impacts: ,Development of the site would stimulate employment but the in- migration of employees to the City of Tukwila would be insignificant. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of the valley will eventually lead to a saturation population of Tukwila, estimated to be approxi- mately 7000 to 8000 persons. Housing:. Direct Impacts: No direct impacts on the housing supply are expected as a result of this proposal. Indirect Impacts: Employment opportunities generated by eventual development of the site could create a demand for housing in the, Tukwila area. It is impossible to estimate this demand at this time. Cumulative Impacts: Eventual development of all commercial and indus- trial lands in the valley is expected to lead also to a saturation pop- ulation of about 7,000 -8,000 persons in the City of Tukwila. To house the additional population, approximately 1650 new housing units will be required. Transportation /Circulation: Direct Impacts: Fill operations will generate a certain amount of truck traffic to and from the site. In order to dump 418,500 cubic yards of fill material, approximately 30- 35,000 truck trips will be required, depending upon the type of trucks used in the operation. This fill operation could take up to 210 days to complete with about 160 trucks dumping loads each day. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site will generate future vehicular and pedestrian traffic to'and from the site. It is difficult to estimate the volume of this traffic since traffic - generation is so closely related to the type of land use and land use is an unknown factor at this time. Cumulative Impacts: Continued development of the valley will likely cause high traffic volumes on all roads with congestion occurring at certain intersections. Public Services /Utilities: Direct Impacts: Draining the pond will require the pumping of approximately 1,089,000 cubic feet of water into the municipal storm drain system. If this operation is done during periods of low runoff, the impact on the drainage system is expected to be • insignificant. Demands on other public services during the fill operation are expected to be negligible also. Indirect Impacts: Development of the proposed fill site will require all available public services: Police, fire, water, storm and sanitary sewer,,and recreational service. It is expected that the public service demands of development can be met by existing systems. Cumulative Impacts: Total development of all valley lands will require the construction of additional utility lines and, in some cases, the construction of new systems. Also, total development would create heavy demands on police and fire protection services. Aesthetics: Direct Impacts: The proposal will transform a pond environment into a level development site. Natural elements, like vegetation, surface water, and wildlife, (primarily waterfowl) will be displaced and Nature's contrast to the human environment will be removed. Indirect Impacts: Development of the site is expected to be of the same order as found elsewhere in the C -M zone. Exterior building design in the C -M zone is subject to review by the Tukwila Planning Commission, hence, some guarantee of architectural (man -made) aesthe- tics exists. Landscaping as required per the zoning ordinance will ensure a small degree of natural elements on the site. Cumulative Impacts: Development of all valley lands will eliminate many of the open space and visual amenities afforded by the natural environment. These amenities will be replaced by man -made. environ- ments. Recreation: Direct Impacts: Filling of the Tukwila Pond will eliminate most recre- ational activity on the site. .Observation of wildlife and waterfowl will be eliminated altogether, and it is expected that the reduction in amenities will draw fewer people to the site for the purpose of ".just looking ". Indirect Impacts: If the eventual development of the site is typical of other development in the C -M zone, there will be no provision for recreation on the site. Cumulative Impacts: Development of valley lands will severely diminish open space and recreational opportunities afforded by non -urban uses.. D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH MAY BE MITIGATED The applicant could reduce erosion and surface runoff by replanting the site after grading it. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) regulations require actions such as spraying water over the site during grading operations to minimize dust. Revegetation of the site could possibly restore a portion of the site's value as wildlife habitat, though this value would be nil for waterfowl. Since the proposal is to fill the entire site, little if anything can be done to mitigate the adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife associated with the elimination of a pond environment. E. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS All vegetation will be eliminated from the site, at least temporarily. Wild- life habitat on the site will be eliminated, significantly reducing the capa- bility of the immediate vicinity to support wildlife. Wildlife currently using the site will be forced to relocate in already overcrowded feeding sites in the immediate vicinity or will leave the area entirely. Recreational use of this site for wildlife observation and picture- taking will be eliminated. . ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 1. Do Nothing. This alternative would essentially amount to preserving the site as a completely natural wildlife refuge. Some question exists concerning the long term viability of this site as a wildlife refuge. The pond has existed for only two years, and it is already productive enough to sup- port an abundance of waterfowl. If productivity continues to increase, the pond could advance to a state which will only support a few species. This may or may not occur, depending upon several factors. Advantages: This alternative would preserve a portion of a habitat which is rapidly disappearing from the Green River Valley. Ponds of this type are no longer common in the Puget Sound region and their elimination poses a definite threat to birds passing through the Pacific Migratory. Fowl Flyway. Disadvantages: Potential disadvantages involve the site's unknown long term viability as a preserve,. plus the possibility that elimination of other suitable habitat in the area would render this site virtually useless regardless of its viability. Finally, adoption of this alternative would restrict economic development. of the site, at least temporarily. 23 2. Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation. This, alternative would entail the filling of only part, perhaps the majority of the site and the retention of a part, or all, of the pond. Zoning of the land would remain the same and uses allowed in the C -M zone would be allowed on the site. Property would remain under private ownership, or at the option of the owner, could be offered for sale to another party. Advantages.: This alternative would help to retain a part of the pond's function as wildlife habitat and visual open space. The pond could function also as an open space focus for employees or clientele of uses which would even- tually locate on the site and /or serve as a water detention facility for storm water runoff. Disadvantages: This alternative would preclude complete development of the entire site.. Also, the maintenance of the pond and possible aeration of the water to prevent oxygen depletion might cause economic and technical problems. 3. Delay Action Until Site Development Proposal. This alternative would entail delaying fill operations on the site until such time as an actual development plan for the site is proposed. It'is assumed under this alternative that the current zoning of the site, C -M, will remain the same and eventual use of the site will be typical of that permitted under the C -M classification. Advantages: This alternative would temporarily retain suitable wetland habitat for . migratory waterfowl and other birds while keeping future development options open. This alternative may also lend sufficient time for private organizations and local, state, or federal agencies to evaluate the ecologic, recreational, and hydrologic importance of the pond. Disadvantages: This alternative could cause the eventual site development proposal to be subjected to future, potentially more stringent environmental /land use regulations, making the prospects of selling the land less desirable. G. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 1. Short -Term Environmental Gains. . No short -term environmental gains are expected to result from draining and filling the property. 24 2. Long -Term Environmental Gains. The proposed action will allow economic development of the site which will, in turn, provide employment opportunities and associated economic growth.. The very long term gains from this development are unknown. 3. Short -Term Environmental Losses. The action will destroy a wildlife habitat and result in increased surface runoff of decreased quality. Ground water recharge will be reduced and noise levels and air pollutant concentrations will temp- orarily increase. 4. Long -Term Environmental Losses. Development resulting from the proposed action will cause permanent loss of forty (40) acres of open space and locally uncommon wildlife habitat with its associated aesthetic amenities. It will permanently increase surface runoff and this runoff may contain significant pollutant concen- trations. It may eliminate ground water recharge on the site entirely. It will probably result in a permanent increase in traffic volumes and ambient noise levels near the site. 5. Trade -Offs Between Gains and Losses. The long term gain to the human environment resulting from this action is significant. The short and long term losses to the natural and human environment are also significant. The trade -offs involved concern those between economic and environmental considerations. 6. Benefits of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. Delay of implementation of the proposal maximizes the development as well as the preservation options on the site. Private developments could use the pond as an open space and recreational focus for its employees and /or, clientele, or for retention of storm water runoff. In addition, delay of the proposal would provide the local government with time to evaluate the pond's ecological, aesthetic, hydrologic, and recreational importance to the public. Based on this evaluation, the public may desire to acquire the pond for various purposes. 7. Disadvantages of Delaying Implementation of the Proposal. The presence of the pond on the City Light site has an inhibiting effect on the marketability of the land. With recent public concern and legis- lation regarding the natural environment, the pond represents an obstacle around which the developer must maneuver in order to implement devel- opment plans. H. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The result of the proposed action will be the preclusion of optional future land uses and the loss of water marsh and open space resources. Once the property is filled and graded, the land will be irretrievably committed to commercial or industrial development. 25 5tRANDER BLVD. 9£V 25 ELEV 26.5 EXISTING E RTION 22.0 PROPOSED GRPDNJG COtJSOURS EXISTING DITCH EST PIT ELEV 19.5 ,Lo TO \ 5EN RE EAST PIT ELEV IR.5 �EIEV 20 O 0 > Q al 2 eta n . 2 .ELEV 23 0 1TPCOµA IC PIITYi +!1 ELEV L3 GRADING - I PLAN PROPERTY LINE strandsr 1:0 3:O 5:5 LOAM G. &B. CLAY GRAY SAND W.T. QRAY SAND IARD PACK) G.411. SAND LOA1(1 W.T. O PEAT -i SAND & C, AY TRACg PEAT blvd LOAM -CLAY GRAY CLAY & PEAT GRAY CLAY SANDY SANDY Y. CLAY HEAVY & STICKY) BLVE CLAY 950' 350' _ 350' LOAM 1. 5 6,0 GRAY CLAY . W.T. 10.5 TRACE OF BLUE CLAY PEAT TYPE LOAM C, f CLAY •L0A M 0 GRAY CLAY 10.0 BLUE CLAY 0 0 LOAM -CLAyi GRAY CLAY BLUE CLAY w,T. 10.5 CLAY -SAND LOAM- PEAT 1.5 -CLAY W.T. GRAY CLAY Y & G. CLAY - PEAT BLUE CLAY & PEAT GRAY CLAY •oj 2, . 2 Q. J 0 LOAMY. &G. CLAY W,T, 1.0- . CLAY 4 5 (PEAT) CO Y.& B. CLAY B• CLAY 95 & PEAT No 1.0 ).0 5.0 10.0 ABBREVIATIONS a =aLVE G = GRAY Y = YELLOW w,-r. = WATER. TABLE 51 = BROWN LOAM LOAM -CLAY GRAY CLAY & SAND BLUE CLAY- WET SAND LOAM 1.5 SANDY LOAM DAMP GRAY CLAY 4.o BLUE CLAY' 9.5 WET SAND ILI • tY 1:9GHT K 0 O SANDY HARD LOAM 4.5 W.T. SILT CLAY SAND SILT 4 CENTER OP 5EC. 26 Y t I (o8 297.57 W.T. SILT • SAND PEAT-CLAY 0.5 4.0 5;0 6.5 10.0 Y. DRY HARD CLAY BiWET CLAY SILT CLAY B.WETLLAY 9.0 9.5 .0' 105 LOAM 2.5 CLAY DAMP 4.5 SANDY LOAM WET DARK 1.5. SAND CLAY L0.5 B.WET CLAY MARK a APPENDIX C. VEGETATION INVENTORIED (OR EXPECTED) ON POND FILL SITE COMMON NAME GENUS Black cottonwood *Populus Willow *Salix Red alder Alnus Douglas Fir Pseduotsuga Pacific madrone Arbutus Scotch broom Cytisus Common vetch Vicia Wild sweet pea Lathyrus Stinking mayweed Anthemis Red clover Trifolium Least hop clover Trifolium White clover Trifolium Wild lettuce Lactuca' Sow thistle Sonchus .. Canada thistle Cirsium Common thistle Cirsium Smooth hawksbeard *Crepis Hairy cat's ear Hypochaeris Common tansy Tanacetum Canada goldenrod Solidago Pearly everlasting Anaphalis Ribwort Plantago Fireweed Epilobium Cattail *Typha Water plantian *Alisma Rush *Juncus Sedge *Carex Yellow weed *Parentucellia Horesetail Equisetum Grass *Phalaris. SPECIES trichocarpa sp. rubra menziesii menziesii scoparius sativa sp. cotula pratense dubium pratense sp. sp. 'arvense vulgare capillaris radicata vulgare canadensis margaritacea lanceolata augustifolium latifolia, plantago- aquatica sp. sp. viscosa telmateia sp. * Species indicating standing water at some time during a year. Source: "Trillium EIS ", and Carl Stixrood, landscape consultant. &rie -,/' o'er / �� de. des / g--/,/ a 7/' / f S Qt. p Lk-14- ,1 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor. CITY OF TUKWIL©A 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON 98067 DATE: March 31, 1978 TO: Mayor Buach. FROM: Ron Swanson, Finance Director SUBJECT: City Light Pond Attached you will find a list of the City Light Pond area LID assessments paid to date. Let me know if you should require additional information. CC: Kjel1 Stoknes, Director of OCD CITY LIGHT POND LID Assessments Paid 3/31/78 City of Seattle (lots 5 & 64) LID ASSESSMENT DATE. AMOUNT NUMBER NUMBER' PAID PAID 2 14 2 13A 3 24 3 25 5 380 6 4 6 6 9 2 11 11 11 13 21 5 21 6 22 4 22 : 7 11/3/62 $ 508.73 12/16/69 578.41 11/30/63 1,690.98 11/30/63 1,455.63 11/25/64 9,501.30 10/14/64 23,743.68 10/14/64 8,310.73 3/24/65 4,181.81 3/31/67 30,248.88 3/31/67 11,652.28 6/23/75 2,461.89 6/23/75 7,365.07 2/3/76 57,651.73 2/3/76 73,342.03 S .232,693.15 Note: Not shown above are unpaid LID 27 preliminary assessments . amounting. to $.16,017.00 . May 15, 1978 CITY of TUKW L OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ms. Janet Richards 1033 Kirkland N.E. #1 Renton, Wa 9$055 Dear Ms. Richards: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 11 May 197$ regarding the Seattle City Light Pond. Please be advised that we have placed your letter in our environ- mental file (EPIC-SA-11) on the pond. This makes your letter part of the .public record on this matter. Since the City of Tukwila is presently in litigation on the City Light Pond, I am not free to speak on this subject. If you would like to examine the record on this matter, please drop by the Planning Divison during normal office hours. Thank you for your letter. Res p tfully: FNS :ga cc: File ItallgVAA. atterstrom, Associate Planner 6230 Southcenter Aoulevard w Tukwila, Washington 98188 m (206) 242 -2177 PARKS & RECREATION CITY Of T U KW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 November.1977 Ms. Sylvia Ludwig 1720 S.E. Main #8 Portland, Oregon 97214 Dear Sylvia: Thank you for sending us copies of your wildlife observations at the Tukwila Pond. I am glad to see that your interest in the pond has not waned, and I am impressed at the amount of time and energy you have invested observing and recording the bird life found there. At this time there is a rumor floating around the City that Don Koll & Co. is interested in purchasing and developing the pond site. No permits have been applied for yet, so this rumor has not materialized. We will keep the materials you have sent us in the Seattle City Light EIS file so that they will not get separated from the issue. We will also keep you informed on development proposals for the site if and when permits are applied for. Si y, red N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch 6220 Sout)icanter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 93183 is (206) 242 -2177 • 1720 S.E. Main #8 Portland, OR 97214 November 3, 1977 Mr. Fred Satterstrom City of Tukwila Planning Department Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: I am enclosing copies of all of my observations of the Tukwila Pond as well as a letter to the Washington State Game Department telling them of the value of this area for wildlife. I wish Tukwila to have copies of the wildlife information so it can be used as they consider the future of the Pond. The Pond is one of, if not the last places in the Green River Valley that can still show this abundance of wild- life that our area has been known for in the past. This area adds to the beauty of Tukwila and I believe the Council is concerned with preserving such areas. Please keep me informed as to any decisions made regarding the pond. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Sylvia A. Ludwig _ «gi 2 /j5' /27,116 24 d- n22a i AfZdGPeC3on _- _ — . _ - - n;;X7e1/.1d . /dG�lr,'CC� � ? %C,1Cf�ep' o(,/cc[1',:7 f %< e ?&V4 d- IA- aY. /CCr eCiLd caCl�o o.fira ;�C o2S'' .% Ana . 3 / /CIyLCGC1L�2�. _ 14 ir92L•�!J'l'yI��A /..97.5 ) 2 • — -' •��!�`�ca -Z<!� : c. • �- -7. d- it ■ - _ ,e c.. 2I /7, / yL n7s 30 ,'444%2/42 ,c G�itG�C6 i d ,A4flor , , ;1! / -2 tl ...a,;14 7 �L[.��C� d .�rrt•t -- pvr - aG.-, .Z2 ? �rv�cti � ter 71 /c o /4//��G 7eiQ_44 It /(1,2e,./3 — - d eit/e- <`t 4J , Q- _ i 4"- - - //%% _._7,7 / - /77 `_._� -- - r�mfLlG�_..rJ� /DO` _ u _ar c - - -- 5. / err • PL il..'4 _< r a y _ __,., _ . _ -.. - : ^ `//,•, L a,.,./17 '`"h, //7 --` :LCQ,o}c_ (iSPT) - e-24 , -7_ . -- - • -= `,i`� IC -J3- 'lied . _... ' free '/ ' �•' �__ - tire -t� 1 d 'l !t �. - -, �tLU . /P76' • ; ` , " t ' 4 it _?C .5:357 2 A' /77 - z �'re Z2C- .lSCsc C� • _ _ i-._=-2.-_,."__. eer.- >r -2->19: �1' 1 /2 2-U r - ��2^L_._����a..�r���.' ... .S -7. �-s /,_L %ice - j__), � ter` Z� � __ ._.... _ . .. _ / �. ....7-Z---: __ /0 __45:- c i__ _ /',avzP/' -1- s� C`ce�° -� _ _ . _ -7 6_ .;; ;-. • Ll °CCIt[�� w /yj ✓'cam .. - 1- �% t,• �ry4 / /�'<tLG'�,y'�sr4'- .�. :�!.,�,5� , • • �ll 'L' �iJ� // }! et' '91 Wit¢?//`--• _mod -�`_? / L/2 /97Tr- /LCl-c•Ci-Lc/ dL a-c —A4 %��za2c�Q�r 44.?.; �J�rr2 31� yam' r �i�2p- �.zize2�c,�t� / 9 -7 2�:� :''LAC <��. F��CLCAE°�Ji d Jr.IL.• oC,�' J� ti. ✓C< l.:' f e.e 22 (7 e « 2 -�.a� / 7 7-/z' - ���- ye /,��. - 1 l!. /2_r_ -/ ' - n _11 ,�� .3'? /p/_ ._ /i,Q fefC:: � a- ,-�117Z,-, n1. am/! Q��_ Ctn�C tGc/J _ ,J . ,,may _ �-‘147` e n f 1'creF�'�clli �z _� 2 -- jL4_rc -� (Th -Rl s/A ill • - t /l t a° ' 2 4 d / �2/± G tr' L{�t�cltY> / .' CC -2i>-, �lCu. cv l r ?/. Q e LIyLL' 4. � r cDCG._.� - >cGiL ��c�..- CVIG�•J y /7X7 ae/ J�« . eVelt- 42CrwLi 3; l Be V /97/. edi.21 . ea.,„ 13 :-,,, —1z� <. -, / A.,-._ // 2iy <e? ' ( J ∎/1 7-1./ rLl/ ,-, vi ii J %1- -7 -/• `, .. ivCYys7� ai'j .77,/ • � CJ fir Z- z`�ir%4� �y- - 7>,;3'r/1 • v • /'./ , / '/ /�7 r, / ✓ J7:7 7 "7-7 h • �?CL /92, • /777.„,Z6--7-z/ • • L7- ,;d /9;_ /9,�� jo-vf c.7 3 )777 ''- z7- 2. c (1,he j o i nq�..'L'�/lZ G/Gt°t c> • /7 7 % SIC/ - J10.42.7` ' `i' sc-,° z:41/ it1-7 :1> • `');)Q. f /.nom •y'F C Gc'�� . ,�� £ X7 Z e d _ca,,y / . 1 � (,1:;16 4e. �.. 2. L / L& Reef die' -r.��v (feet 1d- 22::f')2«., � A7_ Ao 09, QQ�n��t /�'yz ,1.-e (e i-e) r� ; ?.1,977•ec.a- t� ��; . iq7 7 _ 1, -e e,„ -/977 71,7e C¢ICJ (1-2P -e-e} i11 34; /777 ll, - ;jell 2/ -/ e-- Ze / /7 I ! / _ t2!tf • £ -n I'll ml' e 2.114-e Zee 1¢ , %.'t .. /«ltt-- &c...ea i - Y'l1C -C�,J 44- 4.vz -1- I • 1P-te):Zs-ti _ _ • _ 2 • 47/- j • i _ • _ 2 ?/_2•_. 74.1 5 Z3-7 -a! _ _ 517 7 €27 )/-0Z3:17 - - - - - - 1 Pr / A�� \ Ell \\. \ `. A. . -,, k. /, - -- - - 1720 S.E. Main #8 Portland, OR 972.14 November 3, 1977 Mr. Don Johnson Regional Environmentalist Wash. State Dept. of Game 509 Fairview Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98109 Dear Mr. Johnson: Enclosed are my two years of observations on the Tukwila Pond. The first listing is what birds I hsve identified at the pond and the date first sighted. The second is a chart of what months of the year I observed different water fowl. The ]a.st listing is my daily log; what wild- life was sighted and how many. I believe my estimates over 100 are low: it is difficult to count birds. I have been fighting to have this pond preserved as a wildlife habitat. As you will note in the Sunday, July 25, 1976 Record - Chronicle, front page and page 2, I attended and gave wildlife information at the hearings on the pond regarding the fill. As I stated at that time, some of the birds sighted are uncommon, if not rare, in this area: Green Heron, Cinnamon Teal, Blue - Winged Teal, Green Heron, Franklin Gull, and.. the European Widgeon; these being seen only when there is a great number of American Widgeons. I have seen five European Widgeons there at one time. The Water Pipit and Ring - Necked Duck have limited habitat and use the pond. The Canvasback, which I saw several times, has a poor national population. This pond is one of the few places left in the Green River Valley left undisturbed. In the Washington Environmental Atlas, this area is part of the Pacific Flyway and listed as Z 131: Important Aquatic Habitat. These two factors combine to make the Valley very important for wildlife. Many of the areas have not been protected as with Burlington Northern fill- ing the Renton marsh where I have sighted Green Heron, Great Blue Heron, Cinnamon Teal, Blue - Winged Teal and an American Bittern. This area is presently being filled. As are the areas around the Tukwila Pond. The property east of the Fond was filled in .May of 1976. Just a few weeks before that, I had sighted 14 Cinnamon Teal on that property and believe they were nesting at the time of the fill. The property to the south was filled this year. There was a shallow pond area there where one could see Green- Winged Teal, American Widgeons, Killdeer and early this year, Canadian Geese. Mr. Don Johnson November 3, 1977., Page Two The birds used to use all of this area and are now restricted to the r.,ond alone. There are 60 different species that come to that pond, many of them nesting there. The greatest number of these are waterfowl but there are also hawks, herons, gulls, grebes, quail, pheasant, warblers, finches, sparrows, swallows, and sandpipers. Several of these birds are indeed unusual, such as: Franklin Gulf; according to books not seen in the Western States; and a yellow - Shafted Flicker which is only seen in the Eastern United States, and the,Loggerhead Shrike which is uncommon. The birdlife is not the only wildlife living in this area I have sighted mice, snakes, frogs, ' muskrats ,and a. fish. This area is so rich in wildlife it would a loss to everyone if the pond were filled or to change the lot in any way such as grading the surrounding grassland where the waterfowl feed and small birds nest. If the trees are taken away, the bird's protection is lost and this area is used by the hawks and heron to perch. All of the area is interlocked creating this environment. Mr. Johnson, I hope the Game Department will take my records into account, realize the potential of this area for wildlife habitat and strive to have it protected :Ind perhaps find some way of having it legally preserved:: as a wildlife area. Sincerely, Sylvia. A. Ludwig---- cc: Fred Satterstrom, City of Tukwila. Janet Richards 1033 Kirkland N.E. #1 Renton, Wa. 98055 271 -2066 May 11, 1978 Dear Sirs, Recently, I and other people I know have become very concerned that the Seattle City Light Pond will be developed for commercial use since it was just put up for sale. We realize that it's location makes it a very valuable investment. What you may not be aware of is the type of habitat it is and the kinds of creatures that call it their horse. More than thirty varieties of birds have been seen there. They include the American Kestrel, Red- tailed and Marsh Hawks, Ruddy Ducks, Canvasback Ducks, Shoveller, Mallard, Gadwall, Lesser and Greater Scaup, Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, Ring -neck Ducks, Barn Swallows, Tree Swallows, Violet-green Swallows, Rough - winged Swallows, Cliff Swallows, California Quails, Canada Geese, American Coot, Common Snipe, Rock Dove, Greater Yellowlegs, Savannah Sparrow, Kildeer, Red - winged Blackbird, American Robin, American Goldfinch, and more. I know these names may not mean much to you. But the fact is that when their habitat is destroyed, most of them will not be able to move to a new habitat easily. They will face new predators and lack experience to cope in a new place if they can find one, unless plans are made to protect the area or build them a new habitat. Most of them will die. If the entire Kent Valley is turned into a trade center with no greenbelts large enough to support these species, there is a strong possibility that some of them in the future will face the danger of extinction. I'm writing to you with little hope. What I do hope for is a chance that part of this area could be saved so that the creatures who for so long have filled important niches in their community will not be totally driven out. You may wihh to throw this letter away. I'm hoping you will proceed with more knowledge and consideration when the time comes for signing permits and deeds in turning the area over to developers. I would really appreciate hearing foam you. You are invited to call me or you could cone to a meeting of the Rainier Audubon Society on May 15th at 7:30pm. in the Auburn Public Library conference room. There you might learn how people can blend with nature instead of trying to adapt it to themselves, and still be successful in their business ventures. Please don't feel I'm picking on you. But at present, sale of the pond for commercial purposes could endanger the the creatures that live there. Please think about it. Thank you for reading this. Sincerely, Janet Richards 363 1;o:ser A pia w11 q8562,_ idderk_illitt4) mie eat: • - — rbrmik) 741/491/4- Ali 623 d „CAA S'Apd Catik,lk ea Li* &Meek .14 .12a 1 cm* ei/reilasz.- ehseL1,0_____ 425 Athlafik aa ewh; a.4 wedata, dri a, 0 0.C.D. CITY OF TUKWILA Sal16) Sajly .1(; JUL 21 1978 • APPENDIX D. COMMENTS RECEIVED REQUIRING NO RESPONSE May 3, 1976 Fred N. Satterstrom Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: Thank you for sending us tile D`raftEn'vi`ronmenta1— Impact Statement for the Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal. The potential adverse impact of the fill appears to have been ade- quately covered, but no specific development proposal has been de- scribed. To make the EIS an effective tool for decision - making, it would be helpful to give some indication of what the future actions will involve. If no information is now available, perhaps the fill should be delayed until a more complete proposal can be presented. Seattle City Light indicates that approval of the fill "will enhance the marketability of the property ", but is it possible that the pond itself could prove to be an economic asset? We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. If we can be of further service, please contact the Environmental Review Section at 753 -6891. Si cerely yours, Cw ROSEMARY WALROD Environmental Review Section RW:cls ECEiVE II MAY 6 1976 art OF iUKWI1A Daniel J. Evans, Governor John A. Biggs, Director Olympia, Washington 98504 Telephone (206) 753 -2800 State of Washington Department of t- ecology • • DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Planning Director City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA. 98067 Dear Mr. Stoknes: Game Commission Claude Bekins, Seattle, Chairman Glenn Galbraith, Wellpinit Frank L. Cassidy, Jr, Vancouver Arthur S. Coffin, Yakima Elizabeth W. Mcadowcroft, Tacoma Archie U. Mills, Wenatchee Director / Ralph W. Larson Assistant Directors / Jack S. Wayland John Douglas April 23, 1976 Your draft environmental impact statement -- Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal - -was reviewed by our staff as requested. Comments follow. Your draft sets forth the major impact of the proposal in plain language- - elimination of the pond and any benefits it provides to the public (ecologic, hydrologic, recreational, etc.). You also presented information on the impli- cations of this loss from an environmental standpoint. We feel these factors make a strong case for adoption of Alternative Three. that is, delaying fill operations pending receipt of an actual development plan. This alternative approaches the objectives of the project proponent, while avoiding premature loss or degradation of the pond resource. Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your draft. We hope our comments will be helpful. ESD:jt cc: Chitwood Agencies Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF E ear57bieie eC Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief Environmental Management Division jiltrAIVER 41 APR '/ 1976 :lit CITY OF WKWIIr: CITY OF IllEntr Mr. Kjell Stokner Planning Director, City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 April 23, 1976 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal Dear Mr. Stokner: The City of Kent Planning Department has reviewed the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement and it is our feeling that the Statement adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed project. Given the importance of wetlands to all the Valley jurisdictions for storm water retention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic purposes, we urge that Tukwila do all within its power to prevent destruction of this wet- land. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. /cg ery truly y ames P. Harris Planning Director P.O. BOX 310 / 220 SO. 4th AVE. / KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 / TELEPHONE (206) 872 -3300 WAS7-I1-NGTON STATE • HIGHWAY COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Highway Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 753 -6005 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Planning Director City of Tukwila 14475 59th Avenue So. Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Stoknes: April 21, 1976 Daniel J. Evans-Governor �gg t ,~fir W. A. Bulley - Director ECEIVE APR 2 3 1976 CITY OF TUKWI A City of Tukwila Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal Seattle City Light Draft Environmental Statement As requested by your letter of March 26, we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the above referenced project. Due to the nature of the proposal, however, we have not been able to adequately assess the impact of the proposed action on our facilities. The direct impact of the proposal, though short term, would be the hauling of the fill material to the site. Since the source and haul routes are unknown, this impact cannot be properly evaluated. Unre- stricted hauling could result in additional congestion to the traffic flow during hours of peak traffic. Indirect impacts, resulting from the development of the site could have the most significant effect on our facilities. They would be long term and result from the traffic generated by future development. As noted in the statement, the type of land use for this site is an "unknown factor" thereby precluding any estimate of increased traffic. For planning purposes, the Department of Highways relies, in part, on the knowledge of future land use and the increased traffic which may result. If the existing land use is to be substantially changed, the Department would support the alternative of delaying the proposed action of this site until a specific site development plan is proposed. This would enable us to more specifically evaluate the probable impacts upon our facilities which would be associated with this project. Baker Ferguson, Chairman Walla Walla A. H. Parker Howard Sorensen Virginia K. Gunby Julia Butler Hansen Harold L. Boulac Bremerton Ellensburg Seattle Cathlamet' Secretary Mr. Kjell Stoknes -2- April 21, 1976 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any questions relative to this comment may be addressed to me. My address is Highway Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504; phone 753 -3811. Sincerely, H. R. GOFF Assistant Director for Planning, Research and State Aid 44 By: R. B. D VIDSON Environmental Planner HRG:eh RBD /PEN cc: W. C. Bogart SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. P. 0. Box 9863 Seattle, 98109 (206) 344 -7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island, Dial 344 -7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 (206) 383 -5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 506 Medical - Dental Bldg. Everett, 98201 (206) 259 -0288 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344 -7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 April 8, 1976 Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom, Associate Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 Planner Subject: Seattle City Light - Pond Fill Draft E.I.S. Dear Mr. Satterstrom: IAPR o 9 1976 CO pia The provision of a permit to Seattle City Light to fill a 40 acre tract of land south of Southcenter will have no direct long term air quality effect in itself. The subsequent use of the tract would be reviewed under our stationary or indirect source permit programs if any significant air pollutant generating sources are proposed. The short term effects involved in hauling and filling the site must be minimized through use of dust control measures such as spreading and compaction at the dump site and wetting of the haul roads. JRP:mh Very truly yours, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer Bv.L% es R. Pearson enior Air Pollution Engineer BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN: Everett Foster, Alternate for Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; Robert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large; Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; John D. Spellman, King County Executive; VICE CHAIRMAN: N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish County; Gordon N. Johnston, Mayor Tacoma; Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County; Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer. DANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR March 23, 1976 STATE OF WASHINGTON Office of the Governor OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 206/753.9200 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Planning Director Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Stoknes: RICHARD W. HEMSTAD DIRECTOR File No. 1300 This letter will acknowledge receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill proposal. If you have not received a response from this office by the end of the review period, you can assume that we have no comments on this proposed project. Sincerely, 644-, Lois E. Dufresne A -95 /EIS Coordination Section Community Planning Division LED:1 mo Oat Um 341333ff GOVERNOR DANIEL J. EVANS COMMISSIONERS: JEFF D. DOMASKIN THOMAS C. GARRETT KAY GREEN BEN HAYES RALPH E. MACKEY EUSTACE VYNNE WILFRED R. WOODS DIRECTOR: CHARLES H. ODEGAARD WASHINGTON STATE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER PHONE 753 -5755 P. O. BOX 1128 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 March 30, 1976 Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom, Associate Planner Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: IN REPLY REFER TO: 35- 2650 -1820 Dr. EIS - Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal (E -542) The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the above -noted document and does not wish to make any comment. However, your distribution list indicates Mr. William A. Bush as the contact person. The proper person is David W. Heiser, Chief, Environmental Coordination, P.O. Box 1128, Olympia, Washington 98504. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. David W. Heiser, Chief Environmental Coordination \ \, Ar hnjM. Skol ni k State Conservator sg 3 • APPENDIX E. COMMENTS RECEIVED REQUIRING A RESPONSE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF RESPONDANTS TO DRAFT EIS: TUKWILA POND FILL PROPOSAL LI W ,m RECOMMENDATIO City of Kent City of Seattle EIR Co- mmittee ASUW S. A. Ludwig King County Dept. of Hydraulics Washington State Game Depart- ment Charles J. Shank Washington St. Dept. of Highways Department of Ecology Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Soil Conser- vation Service State Dept. of Fisheries NON- ENUMERATED REC0 1ENDATION . Recommended City of Tuk- wila do "all within its power to prevent destruction of this wetland." Recom- mend compro- mise to save pond. Recom- mend no devel- opment at all. Recom- mend setting pond a- side as wild - life pre- serve. ALTERNATIVE #1 DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE #2 PART FILL /PART POND PRESERVA- TION • Altern. #2 would be in keeping with K/C Com p Plan for water Detention. _ ALTERNATIVE #3 DELAY ACTION Recom. #3 This altern. addresses proposals, objectives F. avoids pre - mature loss of pond re- source. Recom. #3 as only "rational altern." since Tuk- wila is revising its Comp. Plan. Direct Rec- onmendation if existing land use is to be sub- stantially changed in future. Perhaps fill should be de- layed until... proposal can be presented. • . APPROVAL OR IMPLIED CON- SENT No long term ad- verse air quality effects. No recom. but wants City to retain part of wetland as per agreement. No recom. Mitigate possible adverse impacts. • Your City, Seattle Environmental Impact Review Committee Pat Emerson, chairperson Jan Arntz Pete Henault Robert F. Hintz Larry Jones Leah Patton Edwin Whiting Ann Widditsch Tom Wimmer Frank Dee, Research Aide • SCE II APR 2 119 CITY OF TUKWILA April 23, 1976 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Planni r Director City of Tukwila 14475 59 th Ave. South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Sub jest Draft Environmental Impact Statement Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal, Tukwila, Washington. Dear Mr. Stoknes: The members of the Environmental Impact Review Committee, appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above named project. One of the roles of the committee is the review of documents prepared by city departments for quality control and compliance with the procedural requirements of 8eattle's, standard operating procedure, No. 100.-004. In this situation, however the members are unsure of their role in the review process, because the document has been prepared by an agency outside the city. You must then realize that our reoommendations are only guides with.~. out authority. We find that the draft E.I.S. is a good descriptive dooument of the proposed action. However the impact on Seattle City Light could be better evaluated if information auoh as the following was furnished. a . The original cost of the land. b •• Present assessed value. o .. Cost to fill and grade. d Value if filled. e .- What loss would there be to the Seattle City Light, if the fill permit was denied? The draft E.I.S. should alao include information and an explan.. ation of the policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, pertaining contd. The Arctic Bldg. 306 Cherry Street Seattle, Washington 98104 583 -4474 • Your City, Seattle Environmental Impact Review Committee Pat Emerson, chairperson Jan Arntz Pete Henault Robert F. Hintz Larry Jones Leah Patton Edwin Whiting Ann Widditsch Tom Wimmer Frank Dee, Research Aide — 2 Mr. K j ell Stoknea Planning Director April 23, 1976 1p4 to natural areas. Additional information is also needed on the rela... tionship of this pond fill to the proposed projeot by the Soil Conservation Service, whioh will eliminate most of the natural ponds in the Green River Valley. The committee felt disouesions between the responsible offioiale of Seattle City Light and the City of Tukwila regarding possible areas of compromise to save this pond, would be beneficial to all oonoerned and that this step should be taken as soon as possible. When we look at the examples of what has happened in other shopping centers in King County, due to the laok of imagination in providing some natural environmental amenities to enhanoe their development. We are heartened, that here in South Center, in a heavily used industrial and oommeroial oomplex there is still the opportunity to provide, Tukwila citizens, South Center patrons, and employees the potential for a magnifioant small man formed natural wildlife area for them to enjoy. It is the oommittees opinion that this IR. an amenity that is well worth saving. AO time passes, this forsight will prove to be a precious asset to the City of Tukwila. oo/ Mr. Peter Henault Seattle City Light uly Thos. "O. Wimmer Acting Chairman The Arctic Bldg. 306 Cherry Street Seattle, Washington 98104 583 -4474 • ESPDNSE TO P ; "';.' E TS TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO CITY OF SEATTLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW COMMITTEE: 1. Your comments on the draft EIS are appreciated. 2. We specifically avoided an economic assessment of the action by excluding information regarding cost of land, value of land, cost to fill and grade, and so on. Instead, effort was concentrated on the impacts to natural and human systems. 3. The draft EIS does include a reference to as yet unadopted Com- prehensive Plan policies which address natural areas, (SEE, page 6). It is mentioned that these policies encourage the retention of ponds and marshes because of their natural and visual attributes. 4. Your point concerning a tie -in between the proposed pond fill and. the proposed SCS - valley drainage project is well taken. A short discussion of this relationship has been added to the "Cumulative .Impacts" section under the,, Environmental Impacts on the• Natural Systems: Water, (SEE, p. 19). ASSOCIATED A 1 STUDI�:NTSao • `IVERSITY 1W'ASHINGTON '''f'''-'''' _ fia {..: - `l, MEMORIAL UNION BUILDING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 Environmental Affairs Commission Impact Statement .RevieW Committee April 23, 1976 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, .WA '980.67 Dear Sir/Ms: The following are our comments and questions concerning the. Seattle. City Light Tukwila Pond Fill pxopoc l as presented in the draft environmental, i'sn act. statement of March 1976, Initially, .we were favorably in-pressed with your attempt to clearly and .con- cisely organize . the information in this draft EIS The tbree4level,ed disti cussion of . anticipated impacts was of special interest., .. Upon . a . more inten- sive analysis of the proposal., . however, . large scale substitutions, : of "agi e, i generalties.. and. disclaimers-for scientific evidence and fact,' left us dis- heartened, . . For example, when exact .scientific facts and .fugures are givenr they usually are without substantiation or reference to.source` The'Source(sl. of opinions, or statements not easily documtented:,byexperimental data have also'been overlookecd 1 Our . specific con erns are; A. Description of the Action 3% ' Land Use plans. and Zoning : Regulations: (in reference to p, 6, Description of the'Actiontt Seca 3)_ Tt is unclear what., the area classification,. ,Sec„ entails with regard to specific. policies. If specific policies do not exist, on what is the conformance of this proposal 'based? Also, since the City of Tukwila is presently revising their c iprehensive plan, why:hasn "t the likely future zoning, of the area in question, been more fully discussed? When is-the City Council expected' to decide on the adoption of the five elements of the plan? It seems that a time frame reference is needed to determine the importance of the revised comprehensive plan? "These goals seek a balance between'econamy and environment and emphasize the i:portance of natural amenities. . . . -Objectives' and policies within the -2- preliminary Natural Environment and Ooen Soace elements directly address Ponds and marshes as natural and visual amenities, and encourage their retention. However these policies do not apply to the proposed action since they have not been officially adopted." It appears from this statement that City Light is attempting to accelerate action on the proposed site, thereby bypassing any policies implemented by the City Council in the upcoming months. This and City Light's inability to plan for the eventual-use of this area weaken the effectiveness of this draft EIS and the proposal itself. B. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 3. Water. How much erosion will there be? 5. Fauna. How was it determined that no live fish have been seen in the pond? Certainly. all signs indicate the existence of fish in the Pond. Therefore, why weren't any sampling studies done to determine the quantity and variety of aquatic life? It should be noted that no bird or mammal as listed in the draft EISNis con- sidered rare or endangered as.specified'in'the'Endandered Species ACS of'1973, and related amendments. Sane species contained. in Table 2 are considered rare to the area (e.g., Green Herons) and though they are increasing. in range and number, the populations are not stable and maybe affected by destruction of habitat. At this point it should be noted that since the pond is only two years old, the fauna are still in'the early stages of developing a stable eeo- system. Many fluctuations should be expected at this time.with the stronger species taking eventual dominance over the area. In terms of viability of the pond, this is a critical period. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population. The figures on migratory human population are interesting, but here, as in the entire report, there is no documentation to support the data. On what are these figures based? 2. Housing. In the discussion of Tukwila housing conditions, no mention is made of the quality of existing housing. In considering the projected needs for new housing, some knowledge of the quality (specifically,- the need for restoration and rehabilitation) of local housing is necessary. Why isn't this addressed in the report? 4. Public Services. No references have been made to the level of park and recreation services. How many people does the local park and recreation ser- vice have facilities for? What is the projected need given the projected rate of increase for the City of Tukwila? Will there be adequate services to meet this increasing demand? In addition, no citations are given as to wham deter- mined that police and fire protection were adequate? 7. Human Health. What effects, if any, does the pond and the surrounding green belt have on the health of locals (positive and adverse effects)? For example, is the pond disease - ridden? 8. Aesthetics. More important that the contrast of the pond area to its immediate neighbors, haw does the "naturalness" contrast with the valley as a whole (i.e., how many wildlife sanctuaries are left)? Also, do other areas of comparable aesthetic beauty lie within a fairly close distance? 9. Recreation. Why haven't any studies been done to determine the current recreational uses of the site? C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL 1. Environmental Impact on the Natural Systems. Water: What impact will "over 1,000,000 cubic feet of water into the existing municipal storm drain system" have on the storm drain system? How was the forty acre feet of water per year runoff figure reached? Using the figures provided on pages 6 and 12, we obtain a figure closer to 100 acre feet of water per year runoff. Will this still be "by itself insignificant "? It is nor clear in what manner the water will "find its way" into the Green River. With vegetation destroyed, erosion.wili occur and with it, an increased Concen- tration of suspended solids. What kinds of suspended solids. will be in the sur- face runoff ?. How will they affect-the Green River's fish and plant life? Judging from surrounding industrial development, City Light should-: attempt to assess long term impacts of Earth, Air, Transportation /Circulation rather than state it cannot presently be assessed: Fauna: This section is inadequate because an inventory of surrounding habitable areas with corresponding populations is not included. This information is needed to assess the impacts. Migratory species, non - migratory species, and birds of prey should have been dealt with separately because they entail different problems. "It is expected that most birds...will relocate in these nearby areas." Later, is is stated these "wetlands are already overcrowded." The niches in this ecolo- gical system are full and the surrounding land will not be able to support addi- tional numbers. It is too simplistic to state that the "small reptiles and mammals face the same relocation problems as the resident birds," With the disappearance of the small reptiles and mammals, the decline of birds of prey will also be seen. Because birds of prey are at the top of the food chain, they are highly susceptible to alterations of the eco-system. Under direct impacts no mention is made of the impacts on migratory species. This area is part of the Pacific Flyway and the effects of the proposed action may be far - reaching. Does an estimate of the exact nature and severity of future cumulative impacts depend entirely on baseline studies? It is our opinion that this argument is not valid. 2. Environmental Impact on Human Systems. Population: Cumulative impacts --what will the relation of the saturation population of 7000 -8000 persons mean for the itanigration population figures? Why have the sections on Energy and Human Health been deleted in this portion of the report? At least in terms of indirect and /or cumulative impacts, it is forseeable that development of the site would affect these areas and possibly create great demands in these are. Housing: How was the figure of 1650 new housing units will be required arrived at? Would it be possible to rehabilitate the old housing rather than building new units? Public Services /Utilities: Whose opinion is it that "public service demands of development can be met by existing systems "? However in the next paragraph the authors admit that the cumulative effects of the action will place heavy demands on utility lines and public services. Are these demands being planned for by the corporations (including city organizations)? General Note: Why is it "impossible" or "difficult" to estimate the impacts in some areas (i.e., housing, transportation) while in'other areas (Land Use, Recreation, Population, Aesthetics, Public Services) the type of development is well enough known to allow. for "insignificant" impacts to be forecast? F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL. The major shortcomings of this section is the lack of consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative aspects of any non- develorrnent proposal. As mandated by the SEPA guidelines, "The analysis of alternatives should be sufficiently detailed to permit a comparative evaluation of each alternative and the proposal...." (WIC 197- 10- 440.12d). Obviously, this has not been adhered to. 1. Do Nothing. On what basisi.is the statement made that the pond could advance to a state which will only support a few species? The pond still is young and fluctuations in the number of species occur. Perhaps this pond was studied during a downward cycle. To justify not implementing the Do Nothing proposal on these grounds is irresponsible. How great are the "potential disadvantages" due to the sites unknown long term viability as a. preserve and the possibility of surrounding development - rendering the site useless? It is our opinion that the potential disadvantages due to these reasons are very slight. 3. "Delay, Action Until Site Development Proposal Regarding this alternative, the draft states that, "It is assumed under this alternative that the current zoning of the site, C-M, will remain the same" and yet listed as disadvantage is the possibility that the proposal will be "subjected to future, potentially more stringent environmental /land use, regulations," perhaps altering the current zoning. Why is there an obvious discrepency between these two statements? In addition, shouldn't it be the community responsibility to decide future land use regulations and therefore the desirability of more stringent regulations? In conclusion, it seers evident that the most viable alternative offered is the "Delay Action" proposal, This not only would facilitate better approximation of the perceived indirect and direct impacts, but would also allow time for the community to finalize its revision of the Comprehensive Plan. To this point, the importance of citizen involvement in any action or rezone cannot be over- stressed. Furthermore, it is our opinion that any comprehensive analysis of the sig- nificant issues surrounding the proposed use of the Tukwila Pond will ultimately allow but one course of action. Because of the adverse effects of development coupled with the potential benefits of the retention of natural areas, this would mandate no development. Respectfully submitted, Impact Statement Review Committee Environmental Affairs Committee Please direct further questions or comments to Maura O'Neill, Jerry Balthn, Bruce Folsom, or Leigh Francis. 543 -8634 I4socIA'I'EID ■.$1111_1110ENTS UNIVERSITY OFWASIIINGTON MEMORIAL UNION BUILDING, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 This analysis has been prepared by the Environmental Affairs Commission, an official agency of the Associated Students of the University of Washington. As such it represents the official opinion of the ASUW. I have read the enclosed material and ondorse its statements: o inions and comments. • • RESPD SE TO C ME TS TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO ASUW ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION: 1. Your comments and questions on the draft EIS are appreciated.. 2. As stated in the text, the subject- site is located in an area designated "industrial" on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Again, as stated, there are no policies in our present Plan which are relevant to the City Light proposal. 3. Future zoning will be discussed following the adoption of the new Comprehensive. Policy Plan, optimistically predicted to. occur.around August of this year. • 4. Because of time, budget,. and other constraints, sampling studies to determine the-quantity and variety of aquatic life were not done. Aquatic life was not believed to be a significant factor in the environmental impact of this project_. Much of the background data regarding land use', hydrology, air quality, and housing which is requested in your letter, can be obtained' from the document "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area". 6. Your comments on "Aesthetics" were good ones, and we have expanded our text to incorporate some of your concerns. 7. If pumped and drained properly during periods of low runoff, the draining of 1,000,000 cubic feet of water into the existing municipal storm drain system will have little, if any, impact. 8. Based on your suggestion, a .paragraph-.has been added to describe how the pond water will "find its way into the Green River ",. 9. Suspended solids in the runoff will be chiefly composed of sediments and particle fallout from the air; their impact on fish and plant life will be negligible. 10. Cumulative impacts are those which result from the future devel- opment of all Green River Valley lands zoned for urban develop- ment. The future impacts from this development may be predicta- ble from baseline studies; they may not. It is merely a simplis- tic method from which to reach some conclusion about future impacts. Response to ASUW Environmental Affairs Commission Page 2 11. A non - development proposal was not offered as an alternative because it was not a "reasonable alternative action which could feasibly attain the objective of the proposal" (WAC 197 -10 -440 (12) a.) — i.e., to prepare the site for development. 12. It is not assumed under Alternative 3 that the zoning classifi- cation of the property will change but that development standards or restrictions within that zone may be more restrictive in the future. Ultimately, these are decisions of the local government. ', UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201 Fred N. Satterstrom Associate Planner Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: April 9, 1976 �(CEIVE II APR 151976 CITY OF iINQNri/► The draft environmental impact statement for your proposed landfill operation at Tukwila Pond has been reviewed by our specialists. Our comments are limited to concerns with the project as it relates to our proposed West Side Green River Watershed Project. Item A(2) and (3), page 6 - The Soil Conservation Service recommended to the local sponsors of the Green River Watershed Projects that a minimum of 2 percent of all intensively developed land be designated and industry- managed to produce wildlife habitat for species best suited to site, conditions, and location for the remainder of our project as a prerequisite for a construction permit. It was further recommended that all temporarily unused land be dedicated to wildlife habitat best suited to the site, condition, and location until such time as full development was to be initiated. The City of Tukwila agreed to these provisions to help mitigate the effects of industrialization on wildlife populations and aesthetic values. Item C (water), page 18 - This section could more adequately address routing of the flow of storm runoff waters after landfill is completed. We suggest you contact Mr. Bill Cokeley, SCS project engineer at Renton, who could be of assistance in determining possible impact on the function or design of our proposed P -17 project in that area. Sincerely, Galen S. Bridge State Conservationist 0 E SE TO CaL( ; ;;,BENTS TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE: 1. Your comments on the draft EIS are appreciated. 2. The City of Tukwila is aware of its 1974 agreement with the Soil Conservation Service per the ..Green River Watershed Pro- ject, and the environmental provisions of that agreement. Since the signing of this agreement, the proposed pond fill project represents the first development site where viable wildlife habitat has been in existence at the time of the development proposal. 3. The section concerning impacts to water systems (e.i. water) has been expanded to more adequately address routing of sur- face runoff following the filling of the site. Runoff from the City Light site will not impact the proposed P-17 project. DANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • PHONE 753 -6600 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 April 15, 1976 Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Stoknes: ApkGEIVE in APR 1976 CITY OF TUKWILA Draft E.I.S., Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal Tukwila, Washington WRIA -09 DONALD W. MOOS DIRECTOR As requested, we have completed a review of the above referenced EIS and have the following comments: The major concern of the Department of Fisheries involves potential de- gradation of the Green River water quality by toxicants and petroleum residues that will be carried from this site by the increased storm drainage and surface runoff when this approximately 40 acres is filled and leveled. The loss of the present 15 acre Tukwila pond, which is a natural collection basin for surface flows and ground waters will create drainage problems that must be mitigated. The city's storm drainage system will undoubtedly handle much of the extra sur- face water, however, we would encourage construction of retention ponds and plantings of trees and vegetation to reduce this impact. It is noted on Page 4, B. 2. Impacts to Human Environment that this pro- posal will also require the pumping of over 1,000,000 + - cubic feet of pond water into the City's storm drain system. This water will enter the Green and Duwamish Rivers. On Page 12, Water Quality, it states that the water quality within the pond has not been determined by direct means. It is likely that this water quality is excellent as predicted, however, as a safe guard we would re- commend that this fact be verified by simple determinations before any waters are released into the river. This is particularly true where the decayed mate- rials and bottom mud will be stirred up during the pumping operation, which could contain oxygen levels below those required to sustain fish life. Thank you for the opportunity to review your impact statement. We hope our comments will be given consideration in preparation of your final statement. nlm cc: Lundblad - Ecology Sincerely, R. Walter Williams, Biologist fisheries Natural Production • EB ®9 `SSE TO CDM F\ ' E TS TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES: 1. Thank you for your review of and comments on the draft EIS. 2. We will take your recommendations concerning retention ponds and landscaping into consideration. At the present time, re- tention ponds are not required by ordinance while landscaping . in the CM zone is required. 3. All precautions will be taken by the City's Public Works Department to insure that the pumping of pond water into the Green River does not adversely affect water quality or fish life.. Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98067 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: King County • of Washington John D. Spellman, County Executive Department of Public Works Jean L. DeSpain, Director 900 King County Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 April 20, 1976 Re: Draft EIS Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal We have completed our review of the subject EIS in coordination with the King County Division of Building and Land Development and offer the following comments for your consideration :. 1. As was mentioned in the EIS, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in conjunction with the Valley cities and King County are developing the required functional plans to implement a flood prevention and watershed protection project in the lower Valley. Mitigating measures re- quired by the SCS include local sponsor acquisition of a minimum of 110 acres of wetlands to be preserved for wildlife habitat. Recent reviews of wetland designations made by the SCS in 1974 have concluded that the status of those wetland areas has changed substantially by landfill and develop- ment actions on or adjacent to the wetland sites. It has also been recognized that Type I and Type III wet- lands possess the greatest value for wetland wildlife in the Valley, with a disproportionate amount of winter- ing waterfowl use occurring on Type I wetlands. The SCS policy has prioritized Type I wetlands accord- ingly and has encouraged local sponsors to consider acquisition of those areas as most desirable. In that the Tukwila pond appears to qualify as a Type I wetland, strong consideration should be given to pre- serving part or all of the pond in the final disposition of development actions on the subject property. Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom April 20, 1976 Page Two (2) (Note: Water levels in the pond are not expected to be appreciably impacted by the drainage project since surface runoff from the site is drained to the north and east through enclosed drainage pipe which is not related to P -17 facilities.) 2. Page 20 of the draft EIS addresses impacts associated with the volume of fill required to make the site 100 percent developable. Sand and gravel are the most important mineral resources in King County, and are becoming increasingly scarce commodities. Some addition- al information would be helpful in assessing the cumula- tive impact of the landfill operations with particular regard to: a) Proposed borrow site locations since none are available for use inside the city limits. b) Expected impacts of gravel extraction operations on neighborhoods surrounding proposed sites. c) Expected impacts of truck traffic along proposed haul routes from the borrow site to the develop- ment site. 3. There is a conflict in the total amount of water to be pumped from the site (re: page 18 and 22 of statement). 4. If the property were located within the jurisdiction of King County, the proposal would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policies concerning Wetlands (Ordinance No. 1838) and Wildlife Habitats (Ordinance No. 1840). 5. Alternative No. 2 on page 5 would be in keeping with King County's Comprehensive Plan for providing water retention facilities for the Industrial Park as well as creating a visual amenity for the commercial development surrounding the property. As you may be aware, King County Division of Hydraulics is initiating a work effort to coordinate the SCS project with ongoing programs of the other local sponsors. Part of this program contemplates the development of wetland priorities, acquisition timetables and finan- cing strategies. A field office has been established at the SCS office in Renton to coordinate the program. We would appreciate being appraised of the City's actions regarding this proposal and Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom April 20, 1976 Page Three , (3) other developments that interface with the SCS project. Thank you for the opportunity to review the statement. Should you have questions on any of our comments, please feel free to contact Mr. David Clark at 226 -8330. Sincerely, 44 G. E. WANNAMAKER, P.E. Assistant Division Engineer Division of Hydraulics GEW : DC: lmw cc: Edward B. Sand, Manager Building and Land Development Division • 1 RESER NSE TO CO E TS TU,IKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO KING COUNTY DIVISION OF HYDRAULICS: 1. Your comments and suggestions on the draft EIS are appreciated. 2. Point #2: On the basis of your suggestion, a short section on the direct and cumulative impacts of gravel extraction has been added to the discussion of Natural Resources in Chapter C. 1. • April 21, 1976 Dear Mr. Stoknes: illIECE1111E IIIII APR 2 E 1976 CITY OF TUICWIU► The comments I have about the report center on a few items. They can be summarized as follows: 1. Very little documentation exists about the specific physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the 40 acre site. 2. Some aspects of the report are unintentionally misleading, i.e. the list of principal contributors suggests more extensive research on the area than has actually occu red. 3. There is little on the historical use of the site by wildlife and how much environment like it, specifically, is left in the Green River Valley. 4. Suggests a roll over attitude to historical industrialization of the area which may fly in the fete of Tukwila's future desires as evidenced b.: the city': revision of their comprehensive plen. The City of Tukwila's responsible attitude towards management of all aspects of its community growth is timely. It is ironic that communities in the Eastern seaboard which experienced rapid, unchecked industrialization, are now encouraged by the National Wildlife Federation to create ponds er.d refuges for migratory waterfowl. Also, the marketability of the site has only been related to its past zoning of C -M; why is the site not valuable es the beginning of a city park and recreational area`s The delayed action sppears to to the problem, since no sale the city of Tukwila is in the hensive plan. Comments on the report by page numbers: Page 5: Row does it follow from the Do- Nothing alternative that the original price plus potential. profit would be lost': What market exists for the property now and as it would be transformed=' What maintenance problems associated with the pond pose economic contreints in the Part Fill /Part Preserve alternative, specifically? The third proposal .suggests that insufficient time was available for a. proper environmental analysis of the site to occur. Page 6: Whet time constraints are imposed on the proposal by the City of Tukwila's comprehensive plan revision and adoption of the five elements? How would adoption of these elements affect the present zoning of the property? be the only rational alternative of the property is imminent, as process of revising its corapre- • • Page 13: Lo any amphibians exist at the site? Whet kind of reptitles live there? Page 15: Has the Port of Seattle requested more area in the Tukwila area for freight exchange for Sea -Tac? Page 19: How much habitat, specifically, is availalbe for resting areas for migratory waterfowl? How fast is it diminishing? What, specifically are the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the environment, and how, specifically, will they be impacted by the proposed action? T he impact statement, unfortunately, suggests biases of pro -con, good -bad, and so on; it should be a strictly objective evaluation of proposed action. Page 20: The inevitability of commercial - industrial development of the area is not necessary so, and shouldn't be expressed so. Page 21: *Employment opportunities from eventual development" smack- of carrot before nose persuasion; what has this to do with environmental impact statement? Page 25: The existence of the pond may be only two years, but you should include the possibility thousands years that water- fowl may have used the area as a resting area, to show its true value. It would seem that elimination of other suitable habitat would make the pond more useful .rether than less. Page 25: There are no "trade offs" between economy and environment, they inextricably bound together, the question is whether. Seattle City Light will make more profit by development or by leaving it alone. 1 agree that the delayed action proposal is the best alternative to future action. Sincerely, 1IcL�L .s'� "ed% Charles J. Shank • • RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO CHARLES J. SHANK: 1. Your review of the draft EIS is appreciated. 2. Answers to Comments by Page Number: Page 5: The original purchase price was considerably less than the present asking price. Any difference between orig- inal price and actual future sale would constitute a "potential profit" since the property has been tax - exempt since its purchase in 1958. Maintenance problems associ- ated with the Part Fill /Part Preservation alternative might include aeration and flushing of pond water. Page 6: No time constraints have been imposed on the proposal as a result of the revision of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. It is indeterminable at this point to predict what effect the new Plan may have on zoning of the property. Page 13: No amphibians have been observed by our information sources. It is expected that garter snakes and lizards may exist on the site. Page 15: We do not know. Page 19: According to the Soil Conservation Service, there were 4,090 acres of wetlands in the Green River Watershed in 1974. In general, these wetlands are located on the floodplain and include 2,339 acres of Type I wetlands, 1,124 of Type II, 227 of Type III, 6 of Type IV, and 394 of Type VII. At that time, the City Light site was classified Type III, "Inland shallow fresh marshes ". This information has been added to the discussion of Water under Section B. 3. Page 20: I believe you are referring to the "Cumulative Impacts" section here. It is not the intention in this section to forecast an inevitable and complete development to commercial /industrial uses but merely to extrapolate potential, cumulative impacts based upon similar actions throughout the Green River Valley. • • Response to Charles J. Shank Page 2 Page 21: Future employment opportunities are discussed here to evaluate their effect on the area's housing supply. Both of these factors are considered impacts to the human environment. Page 25: A statement concerning the historical use of the site by waterfowl has been added to the text (SEE, page 13). 4232 S. 173rd Street Seattle, WA 98188 April 22, 1976 Mr. Kjell Stoknes City of Tukwila Planning Department Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Stoknes: • RKEIVE APR 22 1976 11/ The following are my comments after reading the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal. There is no development proposed thus the real impact of filling the pond and developing the site for industrialization cannot be assessed fully. A more in -depth study should be made of the wildlife, plants, trees, and the habitat needed to support the wildlife now in the pond and where the wildlife would relocate. The list of plant life was incomplete. Clover, Dandlions, Teasle, Pondweed, Paper Birch, and Pussy Willow were left out, just to name a few. On the list of fauna I submitted, someone marked several of the birds as migratory. There was no source listed. Of those marked migratory in the statement, the following are year -round residents according to Birds of America by Robbins, Bruun, Zim and Singer, and my observations: American Coot, Mallards, Pied - Billed Grebe, Shovelers, Ruddy Ducks, and the Green - Winged Teal. Also, two new species have been sighted: Loggerhead Shrike and Savannah Sparrow. In the DESCRIPTION OF ACTION #2 Major Aspects of the Proposal, it is stated that City light proposes to drain the pond during the low surface run -off season and that "Following the draining of the pond, all perishable material will be removed.... Any fish in the pond will have already have perished. How does City Light propose to save the nests of muskrats and birds after draining the water and killing their food supply of pondweed and fish? According to the Washington Environmental Atlas by the Army Corp of Engineers, a large part of the Pacific Flyway is between the Cascade Mountains and Puget Sound. There are very few areas that protect wildlife in this region. Also, according to the above mentioned Atlas, Tukwila is listed as Z 131: Important Aquatic Habitats, because of the Green River which your impact statement suggests probably supplied the fish in the Tukwila Pond. Wildlife in the Green River Valley has been diminishing. A statement taken from the Atlas regarding the Green River says: "a few adult bald eagles winder on the shores and sandbars of the river, and people traveling on the river or by Mr. Kjell Stoknes April 22, 1976 Page Two road beside the river by chance to observe these birds in the wild." It is no longer possible to observe bald eagles on the river because of lack of habitat. It is a fact that the Green River Valley area is being rapidly industrialized and the areas that accommodate wildlife are quickly being destroyed. There are no established places in the Valley for wildlife preservation. Tukwila has two places that can sustain wildlife in any number. One is the Tukwila Pond, the other is shown on the enclosed map circles in black. This area north of 196th will sustain surface feeding ducks but lacks the depth that grebes and heron need for fishing. It also lacks the trees and rushes used for nesting material and perching. There are few other places in the Valley that will sustain such numbers of wildlife and there is no guarantee that these other places will not be filled. Your statement has listed three alternatives to filling this area; 1. Do Nothing, Do nothing until when? You say this will preserve the pond and yet you added a disadvantage that this will stop economic development temporarily. Does this mean you are preserving it to be filled at a later date? If the land is to be preserved then it must be established as a preserve to avoid any question in the future as to the use of the land. 2. Part Fill /Part Pond Presevation This alternative is listed as having the advantage of using part of the land for an economic use and yet preserving part of the pond for wildlife. A pond supporting wildlife cannot be preserved by filling it - -even only a partial fill. What would keep the fill from sliding deeper into the pond? Any filling and building will displace wildlife. Dust, noise, traffic, and covering land would render most of the pond unsuitable for use at least during the filling and building. To build or fill on the L- shaped land would take away the marsh area, grassland and trees. These are important to the pondlife for feeding and nesting. A partial fill, as noted in the statement, would most likely preclude complete development of the site. Few companies would feel like preserving wildlife when they want to expand their company. 3. Delay Action Until Site Development Proposal It is inconceivable to agree to letting land be altered without knowing the intended purpose. Delaying would give time for the needed studies to be done. If Tukwila has no idea as to what the land use will be, it is blindness for them to agree to its development. One alternative not named was a wildlife preserve. Why was this not suggested? Your statement mentioned how nice it would be but it was not mentioned that the land simply be set aside for a preserve. I know that property costs but is it so much that we cannot preserve at least 40 acres out of the whole Valley for a preserve? • Mr. Kjell Stoknes April 22, 1976 Page Three Tukwila has much industrialization taking place now and it should consider if it wants its whole area covered with it. This would be a step in restraining Tukwila from becoming one large industrial park. Thank you for your time. I hope to hear from you in the future as to Your decision. Sincerely, Sylvia A. Ludwig RANGE 4 EAST RANGE 5 EAST CITY OF TUKWILA ZONING • R A R \ 17.2 R19.6 . • R.1.12.0 R;1 114 RMH PF C.1 C.2 CPR CM M.1 M2 LEGEND RESIDENTIAL • AGRICULTURAL 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE 3 or4 FAMILY RESIDENCE LOW APARTMENTS MULT. RESIDENCE HIGH DENS. PUBLIC FACILITY NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL LOCAL RETAIL PLAN'D BUS. CHTER REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARR LICHT INDUSTRY HEAVY INDUSTRY 11110IST 1E MIE[Von■M, 500 MOO BOO 2000 300052. R-I-Z2 TUNW/LA CITY LIMITS I TY. F:TU WILA PLANNING DE ARTM NT MAY 1975TUKWILA WASHINGTONIEVISIONSITU 1 1 RESP® SE Tt• C ® ENT'S. TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT. RESPONSE TO SYLVIA A. LUDWIG: 1. Your review of the draft EIS is appreciated. 2. The lists of plant life and fauna -have been expanded to include, the species you have indicated. 3. City Light. has not proposed to save the nests of muskrats or birds after draining the pond. 4. Do- Nothing Alternative: The Do- Nothing Alternative tries to assess the advantages and disadvantages of doing nothing to the site for an unstated period of time. Because this alternative is the prerogative of the owner, development of the site may or may not be proposed at some future point in time. Part Fill /Part Pond Preservation Alternative: Certain precautions in site development and design could be taken to avoid, or at least mitigate, the problems you cite here.. • 6. The wildlife preserve alternative was not mentioned as an alterna- tive because it did not represent a "reasonable alternative action which could feasibly attain the objective of the proposal." The objective of the proposal (page 4) was to prepare the site for development;: the Wildlife Preserve alternative would not have achieved this. 7. You might note also that on your attached map, the Tukwila Pond is located south of Strander Boulevard not north as the map indicates. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR • CITY OF SEATTLE WES UHLMAN MAYOR April 22, 1976 •t(,t sfahi Mr. Kjell Stoknes Planning Director City of Tukwila 14475 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Attention: Mr. Fred Satterstrom Associate Planner Gentlemen: I appreciate the opportunity you have given to the City of Seattle to extend comments onthe Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal. The Department of Community Development has the general respon- sibility for coordinating such comment activities for the City of Seattle. I am enclosing for you a copy of the response developed by the Department. I hope this will be useful to you in drafting the final environ- mental impact statement and in developing future planning for the project. Sincerely yours, WN!s l7hlm�an Mayor WU:sws Enclosure E MAY 131976 COY OF TUKWIIA Your Seattle Community Development Memorandum April 23, 1976 To: From: Subject: Mayor Uh Paul ell, Director gECEIVE MAY 13 1976 CITY OF TUKWILA Draft E vironmental Impact Statement for Seattle City Light Tukwila Pond Fill Proposal The Department of Community Development has coordinated a review by City agencies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning City Light's request for a fill permit for its property in Tukwila. We find that this is a clear, concise and well written document. It presents a comprehensive assessment of the direct, indirect and cumulative environ- mental impacts of the proposal along with informative descriptions of the proposal itself and conditions existing in the vicinity. It should be noted that this draft EIS satisfactorily addresses all sections required by the new State Environmental Policy Act guidelines in just under thirty pages. We have only a few substantive comments to make: 1. The draft EIS does not mention that due to recent flooding in the area there is substantially more water on the site now than there was when the fill permit application was filed. 2. Although the increase in surface runoff from the site after filling and grading will be substantial compared to existing conditions, City Light does not believe that the increase is significant, especially relative to the volume of surface water flowing from surrounding developments such as Andover Industrial Park and South - center. 3. Although the draft EIS identifies other wildlife habitat areas in the valley, it does not mention that many of these areas are likely to undergo commercial or industrial development in the future. Factors such as increasing property values and taxes, flood protection, and the close proximity of major transportation routes are exerting strong development pressures. Considering the added influence of the sub- stantial development that has taken place to date, we can only expect this trend to continue. 4. It is possible that water quality in the pond will deteriorate from its present level because of the pond's high biologic productivity Mayor Wes Uhlman April 23, 1976 Page Two • • and because the pond has no outlet below the elevation of the Andover Park storm drain. Should this happen, the aesthetic value of the pond and its value as a wildlife habitat would be significantly reduced. With our resources and information, we cannot determine the probability that deterioration will take place. 5. The beneficial aspects of the proposal do not receive sufficient emphasis in the draft EIS. There would be a specific public benefit to the cus- tomers of Seattle City Light if the property in question could be sold for commercial or industrial development at its current fair market value, approximately $2.25 million, or at the higher value which would accrue were the site filled and graded. 6. To an extent, the tenor of the draft EIS leads to the impression that the conditions which would be disrupted by the proposed action are natural conditions. City Light wishes to re- emphasize as a part of this response letter that the pond which would be destroyed is man made and only two years old and that the wildlife habitat which is associated with the pond, although natural in character, is not natural in origin. PESS:swo E E T C w' ENTS TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO SEATTLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: At the time this letter was received on 13 May 1976,' the final EIS was going to press and as a result we were unable to respond to it. > z W RECOMMENDATION City of Kent City of Seattle EIR Co- mmittee ASUW • S. A. Ludwig King County Dept. of Hydraulics Washington State Game Depart- ment Charles J. Shank Washington St. Dept. of Highways Department of Ecology Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Soil Conser- vation Service State Dept. of Fisheries NON- ENUMERATED - RECO':'1ENDATION Recommended City of Tuk- wila do all within its power to prevent destruction of this wetland." Recom- mend compro- mise to save pond. Recom- mend no devel- opment at all. Recom- mend setting pond a- side as wild- life pre- serve. . ALTERNATIVE 41 DO NOTHING • ALTERNATIVE 42 O4D PRESERVA- IIPIPART FILL /PART TION Altern. 112 would be in keeping with K/C Comp. Plan for water retention: . ALTERNATIVE 43 DELAY ACTION • Recom. 43 This altern. addresses proposals, objectives & avoids pre- mature loss of pond re- source. Recom. 93 as only "rational altern." since Tuk- wila is revising its Comp, Plan. Direct Rec- ommendation if existing land use is to be sub- stantially changed in future. Perhaps fill should be de- layed until... proposal can be presented. , APPROVAL OR IMPLIED CON- SENT I. • No long term ad- verse air quality effects. No recom. but wants City to retain part of wetland as per agreement. No recom. Mitigate possible adverse impacts. ednesday, April 19, 1978 VoI. - :LVUI No. 62•'> • r. The Tukwila pond offers the com= -Bo DOUG GESON a, *r: , pang a natural setting similar to that "ms A controvers.aI pond in Andover .'• of Weyerhaueser headquarters in f , -• - Federal Way, Bauch said. ,: 7 Industrial fyar back in the news? wit .tl a -'arnc ncement: by Seattle::;:'- The land also:" :accessible 'to _ Seattle:.',-;., transportation:, .facilities City Lig'nt.: that °mt is beginning active. i;arnpaigt' to sell it climates in the state, be added :• ? . an and is part of one of thebest business the pond by allowing development of the nearby property, attorneys also maintain. , . Andover Park West acts as a darn, keeping surface water runoff on the City Light. property, .the attorneys say City Light is'asking :$3.5 million in "damages because; it says, it has lost the use of the property since August,;;] 1975 when - the :pond began to form Gary Farr-, property manager for Bauch said he is particularly. eager ;y %City Light;, said. the utility asking a to see the land sold because it would' nianum bid•a{ S2.7 million for the;,; offer.:a-solution between a•. two -y_ear acre t 3.nct and .24-acres of land - battle between Tukwila and Seattle surrat ing;it_•. Farr. said City Light . =: The pond was formed by drainage. has Pad r•the ppIa•ad for sale for some ' from surronding construction Since e pond land could `be the' ,site: Qeirg, Co. headquarters.,, time,` biat is now beguining an advert; then it ' has become the ;home for Using jand promotion campaign be - •.; numerous forms of wildlife., _ '_,'. cause'tthe demand is there." :Tukwila,•.in a recently. -adopted :` '. "We .:}tave had two feelers from' •: land -use plan, requires that a waiver firms i,ibo feel the site has potential- *r'be_•obtained from theCity -Council_ for retail, hotel,- warehouse and of - '= before construction can begin on the" fice/buiIding use,'•'Farr said "So, we . 'site.'The:city claims the pond consti are iaunctiing a 120 -day advertising. tutes "special development consid- ;'�cacpaiga in the hopes we will re- erations:"...,_ :.• .r::, r, - ,.: e,a .,.umber of bids;" City Light wants to fill•.the pond :.It Turwtla Mayor. Edgar+Bauch said ,;. twice tried to obtain a landfill permit he tsants ;,to help out City Light in its s.: from Tukwila and was turned down effort's •to cell the land. He sent _a both°times. :,:,,letter to T A Wilson; chairman of the; ' As a. result the City nt Seattle filed pa board ' for: Boeing last week, urging=, a , $3 5 i million :�= lawsuit;. in .March ' tthe company .to :consider ',the site as against,Tukwila t' the home of its ,planned new,corpo- 6Y: ;Seattle :claims state law requires rate headquarters r` : City ,Light to obtain thelfair.market. Boeing is ]considering .building; : value when it sells theland: That isn't ' ::headquarters.: near .Sga -Tac Airport, -7 'possible ;because of the pond, Seattle -abut has -rr ninto.difiiculty in obtain; attorneys. say. ,, ,. w „ ; •ine the necessary Hermits from fault, Partial clearing today,•but some showers still predicted. Chance of measurable. rain is . 60 percent through today: Highs should be in the lower :60s and lows in the 40s. Maz Min. S p.m.1:ec: Apr 11 _x=62 . 55: :.'39 .03 ,a .59 :: `36:; .' 56 .00. - Apr.13„ -58:;;39 53 09 53: °39 ., 49 12 61i' :43•-49 .12 Apr.16; 51:_`38 49 : ' ; Rainfall in :April_ =2:39 : ": Seattle filesi.s. against Tukwiia' over duck. pond by SALLY TEMPLE • THE LAND, including a second southTimes bureau parcel adjacent to the pond and marsh, was valued at $2,5 million . TUKWILA — The City of •in 1975, according to the suit. Seattle is suing TukWila over a There. was only one • bid on the duck pond. • drier parcel, the suit states, and . In filing the suit Friday in King no response to .a bid. call on the County Superior Court, the state's pond and marsh. If the pond is largest city asked $3.5 million in filled, it would become marketa damages and accused Tukwila's ble for industrial use, the suit 1 city Council of • "discriminatory contends. and unequal interpretation of or- Tukwila inadvertently *created dinances in a two - year -old dispute the pond in 1974 when Andover . over the Seattle -owned pond in Park West was built to serve the Andover Industrial Park. burgeoning industrial ,park. Drain- In addition to damages, the suit age, ditches and culverts that once. asks that••Tukwila remove .a lien carried runoff from the area were on filling the pond, Imposed two blocked,. eventually causing a years ago by this city: in response:. year= 'round pond on the once -mar- to ' environmentalists asking for shy land. preservation of the pond and sur- Runoff of floodwaters from the rounding wetlands. • Green River nearby has also ac- The suit also asks that Andover cumulated in the area,, in Decem- Park West, a street wrunningg.,.north y ber off 1975 and 1977; flooding An- and south through- the °industrial- - °..dbver Park West both winters and - park and along the Seattle -owned causing the street to be closed off. . land, be regraded and raised to eliminate "reoccurring" •flooding THE SUIT charges Tukwila that has closed the street twice. with maintaining "the nuisance" It created in building Andover Park SEATTLE CITY Light, which. West- and in not compensating • owns the Tukwila property, asked Seattle for the damages:.. in 1975 for permits to fill the Seattle also charges that its pro- . 15 -acre pond and 10 acres of sur posals and applications. to fill the rounding marshland. The pond, pond and marsh .complied:. In ' all . across Strander Boulevard from respects with Tukwila law ; at the the Southcenter 'shopping com -. time of application .arid :there• was Alex, has been known variously as no reason to deny the request. "City . Light Pond;" "Tukwila . The Tukwila Council- not only. Pond" and "Lake Tukwila." imposed the moratorium " in-A915 Seattle. asked permission to fill on permits to fill the land, but the the pond when ' efforts to sell the group backed Up its conservation - ,unimproved land in 1975 were un- 1st, stand last fall when, it passed• a successful. The Tukwila City new land-Use plan requirin Coun Council denied the permit. dl approval for any new landfill "The . city just didn't want to proposal. That document .desig -, wipe out a nesting area and let the nates City Light Pond: as "an area land lie fallow while they (Seattle) of constraint :.. having special tried to sell it," .Iohn McFarland, •development considerations.'' administrative assistant to Tuk- The suit asks that the cour•re wila Mayor Edgar D. Bauch, said move the designation, charging yesterday. that if the pond had not existed "This is the last vestige of what • Tukwila would have processed the the valley used to be." ` permits promptly. ontrary to the High line Communities Plan, a land- optad by the County Council last December. Unless decides to amend that plan, the report says, the be denied. ne ron to has lived in Pa- 3, and Pommert dis- interpretation of the " "" • ' ' -; • ' against the mayor Jim Whittaker nrce ha bridt: , tUkWiILI FCIO.ILIUSI 1Z. lab!. • •A final environmental-impact statement on the Boeing proj- ect was issued earlier this month. Copies may be obtained from the Planning Division, Room W-217, King County „Courthouse, fo „ $.5 apiece. rhittk er In fi ci ht to sa ; 7 • "- - • 4., ", 4 • ••,,t 3 • : - , 0 rnits lie did approve -' n; - ', ' " ".t444.6w,".,:;1- ::' ,-",c' . • - - -'-"t-•,-- k , , 5.580 to a carpenter-- ; , by ER , IC PRYNE`,: .=45.cm. .t.^1,4x ' - '—x-,;,-- -,.: .., ...: .,.,,,, ,,,i, , , community 'down' here, a place where people . „ ....,..."1,-.00-.„,,,,-4.:-, -1, :..„-; ,..,.-- - ::, -e.,•!:"; -1,.":";... „,„, .,,,,,, ,-,.;,....,,,..f.4z.„,.. .. , k,.....,,,,•:,1% i-get away from all the industry'," and get back to without the approval .."1-- southTimes bureau , -•••,• . ,,,,,,, :„,, -• . ,..- -- - '4:,,,,,-,,,•:, ,- • fficials. But, he saic1,4.,=:k", -. 7 ,,,,,,ft—,,,,- ,.., ,-, , --..= .: '' ..---. ...., 5,- :'.-' ..--;;,;..;,:',, :something nature/. •.: : . : - was out of town, the :.,;.„,,.._ - -,.TLIKWII.A--=-",cirie of :Northwest's best....ri::„„...,.,"Ies more valuable the Way it is ' " ' : :"),,:::"•,:'; .,:,,l‘ been Led to believe ...known .outdoorsmen has e m the battle to ,, - : ,, "- :-,- ,..:.;-- . ; .-: . • rilisted • ' Lid on a certain date :::4'.-,:•;1,s-aw- „.. "Lake Tukwila.” - , -, -, .,„. , .-.:-,-„,..., .e:,. -,., .:i.:14f..7t ,T,0 ' ,,,WHITTAKER SAID he doesn't know how much amity of seven chil-n•'-' `:7Jun -• Whittaker ,„ the American to 'scale-. -z.,„:.:". influence he has ar'8eattle.City*Hall, but . he does ' „ ---..„---.." -,....• .....,4..,. Mount Everest; Said yesterday the 15-acre duck : „..-".1 have contacts there and N:vill discuss the value of -' , : said , ne - contacted ,v;:-. - --:- -- . - • " "'-'s Pond, jiist *south 'of •Southcenter is an "oasis" that ... :,',..the pond with rnemberS of the City Council ';'-'-'-- .1,7 ' should be Preserved '-:-- not filled and developed.- - ;.-'-:::-"t',:'- '-'-'' However Gordon Crandall-, a Seattle assiStant• . o he had the two '::--T Seattle City Light 'Officials in the State Game De- , 'riot' Court, Seattle asks $3.5 million in damagesn: and later compen- - "..•.-partment have said it is among the most important '.":" approval of the fill permit and changes in Takwila'sn with glass to repair !::::'-'-.. stopping points: in SoutlfKing County for migrating ' comprehensive land-use ,plan,' which now indicates ,- ms a glass-supply; aintains the charge illot is truen., tiority vote is need- ne Erickson's fate. pressed confidence the voters will see 1r way. n4EtterfOWI. "7` -- -the City Light. property be given "special-; "••• ;•-•;','-'`As more and more of the:Green River Valley 1: development considerations'-',2 _ • getiOovered over with asphalt and blacktop, there In a related development, the. Game Depart- ' are fewer and fewer places for the ducks to go," ,:ment's Johnson last week repeated his concern for Don -Johnson, • a Game Department regional, envi-: :" the pond, but said he doubts the state has the mon.' ronmentalist, remarked last summer., ay to buy the property. . "The pond is so close, ieslike a potential Green ``It's probably too expensive for us," he said t' '..7Lake of the South End."' , "but it should be kept in its native state as much as :,-•;;-:4 Whittaker agrees "It's a nice habitat," he said.. „"; possible. It's going to go unless there s -protecT: could be a wonderful addition to the business tion." .1: ; " • .