HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-SA-3 - TRILLIUM COMMERCIAL COMPLEX - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)TRILLIUM
COVIVIERCIAL COMPLEX
EIS
EPIGSA -3
Frank Todd, Mayor
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TU KW! LA, WASHINGTON 98067
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Wilsey & Ham, Inc.
ATTN: Ms. Llewellyn Matthews
15 South Grady Way
Evergreen Building
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Ms. Matthews:
11 January 1974
The Final Environmental Impact Statement filed with this
office regarding the TRILLIUM project has been reviewed.
by the appropriate City officials and this letter shall
constitute formal acceptance of that statement in accord-
ance with the following stipulations.
While the Final Statement includes considerable information
regarding ambient air quality as well as a copy of the
Transportation Control Plan recently promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Tukwila has
no authority to process an application for the Parking
Management permit required by the Transportation Control
Plan. It is suggested that the developer or his designated
representative contact the Region X office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as soon as possible, as
a substantial review time is also required.
One insufficiency of the Final Statement is the omission
of an alternative means of supplying water to the proposed
development in the event the existing system fails. An
alternative for consideration would be the establishment
of a contractual Developer's Agreement with the City to
construct, at the developer's expense, an adequate water
supply line north along Southcenter Parkway connecting
with the Bow Lake supply line'near the Southcenter Theatre.
Other alternatives should be discussed with Mr. Steve Hall,
Director of Public Works.
Ms. Llewellyn Matthews Page 2
The proposed development has been determined to be a major
contributing factor to future increased traffic burdens.
In consideration of this determination, the possible
future need for additional right -of -way and street improve -
ments should be recognized in the early planning stage.
Lastly, and as you are probably already aware, be advised
the C -M zone in which this proposal is to be located
requires review and approval of site and landscape plans
by the City's Board of Architectural Review. To accomplish
this, please submit the required plans to this office to
have the matter placed on their agenda.
Our appreciation is extended for your cooperation and
excellent Impact Statement. Please direct any inquiries .
to this office at 242 -2177.
GC /lt_
• Sincerely,
r?
0 e3/Richard B. Hansen
,'/ Acting Planning Coordinator .
L' r
cc: Mayor Todd
Dir Pub Wks
Pres, City Council
Chmn, Ping Comm
•
Frank Todd, Mayor
CITY or TUKWILA
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Wilsey & Ham, Inc.
ATTN: Ms. Llewellen Mathews
15 South Grady Way
Evergreen Building
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Ms. Mathews:
21 December 1973
This office, on 29 October 1973, disbursed some twenty
copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Trillium to concerned Federal, State and regional agencies.
The forty -five day review period is complete as of this
date and we have received several comments.
Please find enclosed a copy of each comment. None of the
comments appear to be very critical and we assume a final
statement will be forthcoming very soon. Please keep
in mind the recent. Transportation Control Plan promulgated .
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Sincerely,
y
Richard B. Hansen
Acting Planning Coordinator
GC /lt
Encl:
1. Ltr, Dept of Fisheries, dtd 13 Nov 73
2. Ltr, Corps of Engrs, dtd 28 Nov 73
3. Ltr, Dept of Game, dtd 28 Nov 73
4. Ltr, K. C. Dept of Health Dept, dtd 20 Nov 73
5. Ltr, State Pks Comm, dtd 2 Nov 73
6. Ltr, State Hwy Comm, dtd 23 Nov 73
7. Ltr, Fed Hwy Admin, dtd 28 Nov 73
8. Ltr, State Dept of Nat Res, dtd 20 Nov 73.
9. Ltr, P.S.A.P.C.A.,.dtd 17 Dec 73
10.Ltr, U.S. Env Protection Agny, dtd 14 Dec 73
cc: Mayor Todd.
DANIEL J. EVANS
GOVERNOR
ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ® PHONE 753 -6600
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
November 13, 1973
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Boulevard.
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Attention Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
Gentlemen:
THOR C. TOLLEFSON
DIRECTOR
Your fetter of October 29, 1973 requests our review of an Environmental
Impact Statement for a project entitled Trillium, a business and commercial
complex to be located in Tukwila. Following are our comments:
1. On page 16, reference is made to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan,
adopted in 1962, "....which is still somewhat applicable today ".
As pointed out in our reviews of other similar projects recently
proposed for this area, the Environmental Impact Statements have
not,indicated whether the proposed developments follow any up-
dated plan or are consistent with all other plans and policies.
2. One of our major concerns in this project, as in the others, is
the increased quantity of storm water runoff and degradation of
water quality in the Green- Duwamish River. Incidentally, on
page 1 the project site is located as 1/4 mile from the river
and on page 23 as one mile away.
3. The third and fourth sentences on page 39 should read:. "Most of
the chinook runs are produced from fry or fingerlings released
from the Washington State Department of Fisheries' hatchery
located on the Soos Creek tributary. Much natural spawning by
chinook and other species of salmon also occurs."
4. In Table 10, the generic name for dace should be spelled
Rhinichthys and the scientific name for starry flounders should
be listed as Platichthys stellatus. I have pointed out the
latter error in the other statements prepared for the City of _
Tukwila by Wilsey and Ham.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment upon this project.
Sincerely,
Gilbert A. Holland
Fisheries Research Coordinator
cc: D. L. Lundblad - Dept. of Ecology
E. S. Dziedzic - Dept. of Game
Wilsey and Ham, Inc. - Renton ,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1519 ALASKAN WAY SOUTH
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134.
28 NOV 1973
NPSEN -PL -ER
Mr. Delbert F. Moss
Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
14475 -59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98067.
Dear Mr. Moss:
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
the Trillium Business and Commercial Complex proposed for develop-
ment in Tukwila, Washington.
We concur with your statement that "While the net affect of this
particular project is small, it is part of a continuing deleterious
trend in accommodation of increased storm water flows by direct discharge
into the existing natural systems," (page 67, item b - Impact on Hydrology
and Water Quality). In view of this expressed concern, we suggest the
EIS be revised to include the following data:
a. Existing Conditions, Section B.c(2) - Water Quality. Suggest
paragraph 3 indicate summer month water quality analyses were made
and reason month was selected. If month does not reflect period of
maximum stress -on aquatic organisms, suggest that period be sampled and
included in the EIS.
b. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action, Section C.1.c -
Impact on Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology. EIS does not discuss impact
of project on aquatic biology. In view of expressed concern for Green -
Duwamish Waterway, suggest EIS discuss subject in relationship to
affected water quality.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely yours,
A. LEE WAi:ONGT"ON •
ASST. CHIEF, PLANNING BRANCH
Director / Carl N. Crouse
Assistant Directors / Ralph W. Larson
Ronald N. Andrews
Game Commission
Arthur S. Coffin, Yakima, Chairman
James R. Agen, LaConner
Elmer G. Gerken, Quincy
Claude Bekins, Seattle
Glenn Galbraith, Wellpinit
Frank L. Cassidy, Jr., Vancouver
DE PARTMENM OP' GAME
600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504
November 28, 1973
Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
Your draft environmental impact statement for Development of the
Trillium, A Business and Commercial .Complex, City of Tukwila., has been reviewed
by our Seattle region and Olympia staffs; comments follow.
Your description of project location, developmental history and
projected commercial activities constitutes an excellent representation of
Proposed Action.
Your portrayal of Existing Conditions was equally concise and complete
except for a few inadequacies which can be corrected. In reference to Green
River fishery you stated (page 39) "Although some natural spawning occurs in
the river the majority of anadromous fishes are released as fry and fingerlings
from the Washington State Department of Fisheries Hatchery ". The phrase
"some natural spawning" should be :corrected to read 'substantial natural spawning ",
as a very significant natural spawning escapement has been recorded for the
Green River to date.
Your explanation of potential project impact on water quality was
accurate but it did not contain an account of project impact on the Green River
fishery. You have outlined several serious pollution factors, in your discussion
of hydrology and water quality, such as a potential increase in natural runoff
containing hydrocarbons, oils, and particulates to the Green: River and a
possible increase in river temperature. It should be stressed that each of these
impacts will have a concomitant adverse effect on the Green River fishery.
Moreover, the cumulative deleterious effect which this, along with other projects,
will have on the fishery should be emphasized..
In the interest of protecting our valuable steelhead fishery in Green
River (an average of 83,500 summer -run smolts planted 1970 -72; 113,500 winter -run
smolts in 1971; an average of 14,539 steelhead taken in 1970 and 1971), we strongly
urge that the water- quality criteria promulgated by the Department of Ecology
be adhered to. The interrelationships of temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients
and rearing and passage of anadromous fish are far too complex to describe here,
but criteria developed by the Department of Ecology were designed to protect
fishery interests, among others.
Delbert F. Moss
-2- November 28, 1973
We feel you made a conscientious effort to evaluate existing conditions
of the area for wildlife. Tables on vegetation and wildlife area complete and
accurate. However, an unfortunate weakness which will affect decisions'on this
proposal is that this statement was written after the site was covered with
fill. A significant commitment of wildlife habitat and related public benefits
was made at:that time. Therefore, one cannot argue with your statement that
there: will be "... aTeplacement of.one man -made habitat with another ". But,
one can argue that an analysis of the'consequences should have been made before
the natural marsh was changed to a "man- made" fill.
We can not agree with your conclusion (p. 79) that "At.present there
are no known :techniques for retaining wildlife in an intensively developed
area." The vicinity of the.proposal under consideration contains remnant wetlands
that are used.by large numbers of. waterfowl. Also data from your EIS (Table 7,
page 36) shows that wildlife does.occur on the site. even in its present marginal
state. Wildlife can exist, therefore, if habitat is available to it. .
Also your conclusions that, " A portion of a foraging habitat will be
removed from.resident birds as well as migratory birds" and that ": ..existing
birds will probably be displaced to more remote reaches of their habitats ", are
too optomistic. Remaining habitats are at their carrying capacity anethe so
called "displaced" creatures will be lost. We agree that there will be a
"dimuniti.on of habitats. But. to be accurate we must all recognize that a
great deal.of "Dimunition" has and is taking place in the Green River Valley.
When all. this:piecemeal erosion of habitat is added up the impact on.wildlife
has been substantial and .if present activity continues it will border on being
catostrophic.
We recognize that points we made above cannot be.directed entirely
at your proposal or statement,. However,. it seems, that the cumulative, long
range, irretrievable commitment of 'a broad range of natural valuesnust be
recognized. This recognition, we think, should appear not only in individual
impact statements, but also somewhere in the overall planning process for
the future, of Green River Valley.
Thank you for sending us your statement. We sincerely hope our
comments will prove Of value to you.
ESD:jb
cc: Chitwood
Agencies
Sincerely,
THE DEPARTMENT OOFF� GAME
ec
Eugene S. Dziedzi:c, Asst. Chief.
'Environmental Management Division
•
Seattle -King County /DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Public Safety Building Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 583 -2550
LAWRENCE BERGNER, M.D., M.P.H.
Director of Public Health
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98067
November 20, 1973.
Attention: Steve Hall, Acting Planning Coordinator
Gentlemen:
NOV 261973
CDY OF TUKWILA
A.01.thig
Re: Trillium Impact Statement
Members of my staff have reviewed the draft of the environmental impact
statement for the development of "Trillium ", a business and commero.ial
complex, to be located in Tukwila, Washington.
Field investigation revealed that storm and sanitary sewers and an approved
public water supply are available to the site. The summary of proposed
action as listed on page 2 of the statement is to undertake all review
and permit procedures for the construction of a commerical complex.
This office will work with the Tukwila Planning Department to ensure
that food establishment plans, plumbing installations and other related
environmental concerns meet local and state laws.
On the basis of these determinations the department recommends the
necessary permits be granted to allow the proposed const uction.
JBC /et
cc: Carl &gerser
DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS:
NORTH
1600 N. E. 150th
Seattle 98155
363 -4765
Ver
awrence Bergner, M.D.,
Director of Public Health
EAST SOUTHEAST
15607 Northeast Bellevue -
Redmond Road
Bellevue 98008
885 -1278
3001 N. E. 4th St.
Renton 98055
228 -2620
SOUTHWEST
10821 8th Avenue Southwest
Seattle 98146
244 -6400
GOVERNOR
DANIEL J. EVANS
COMMISSIONERS:
JEFF D. DOMASKIN
THOMAS C. GARRETT
MRS. KAY GREEN
RALPH E. MACKEY
JAMES G. McCURDY
JAMES W. WHITTAKER
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
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
November 2, 1973
Attention Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
Gentlemen:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Trillium, A Commercial And Business Complex
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has
reviewed the above -noted draft environmental statement
and does not wish to make any comment at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
£/�
David W. Heiser, Assistant Chief
Research, Planning, and
Acquisition
DWH:1jh
3
WASHINGTON STATE •
HIGHWAY COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Highway Administration Building
Olympia. Washington 96504 (206) 753 -6005
Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
14475 - 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
Daniel J. Evans- Governor
G.H. Andrews - Director
November 23, 1973
Re: Trillium, Business and Commercial
Complex
City of Tukwila
Draft Environmental Statement
Reference is made to your transmittal letter dated October 30,
requesting our review of the Draft Environmental Statement for the
above referenced proposal.
We have completed our review and find the proposal will not be
in conflict with any existing or proposed facilities in thid area.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
GHA:yw
HRG
A. H. Parker Chairman
Bremerton
Harold Walsh
Everett
Sincerely,
G. H. ANDREWS
Director of Highways
By: H. R. GOFF
Assistant Director for
Planning, Research and
State Aid
Baker Ferguson Virginia K. Gunby Howard Sorensen Harold L. Boulac
Walla Walla Seattle Ellensberg secretary
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Room '412 Mohawk Building
222 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
November 28, 1973
Mr. Delbert F. Moss
Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
IN REPLY REFER TO 10 -00.33
Our Washington Division and Regional office staffs have reviewed the
draft environmental statement for Trillium, a business and commercial
complex to be located within the corporate limits of Tukwila.
Our review indicates the draft environmental statement to be adequate
in our areas of concern..
Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposal'.
Very truly yours
M.`ELO.N REEN
Deputy Regional Administrator
STATE OF WASHINGTON ,
De ta'ctmeat a6'
11,arcetai Red-of-aced
COMMISSIONER
BERT COLE
DON LEE FRASER
SUPERVISOR
November 20, 1973
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON
98504
Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
14475 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
My staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the proposed Trillium, a business and commercial complex. We have
no comments to make regarding this project.
Please direct all future statements to Mr. William Baxter, Environ-
mental Forester for the Department of Natural Resources.
We appreciate having an opportunity to review this statement.
BERT L. COLE
Commissioner of Public Lands
BLC:wbs
0200
RIMY MUND
G°OW ° oAMOOa
COrtiTUDIL MV ?
SERVING:
KING COUNTY
410 West Harrison St.
Seattle, 98119
(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
703 Medical - Dental Bldg.
Everett, 98201
(206) 259 -0288
410 West Harrison Street, Seattle, Washington 98119 (206) 344 -7330
December 17, 1973
Mr. Gary Krutchfield,
Planning Technician
Public Works Department
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Subject: The Trillium Commercial and Business Complex
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Krutchfield:
As the local regulatory Agency, we have looked particularly
at. the air pollution control aspects of the proposal and
have consequently limited our comments to air pollution.
Our air quality control jurisdiction in this area is shared
with the State Department of Ecology. With regard to motor
.vehicles, the State has assumed jurisdiction and, currently
with the Environmental Protection Agency, has the authority.
;to limit ,and-control this source of air pollution. . Under.
a parking management plan, application to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X (1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wa
9810.1) is required for any addition of 50 or more parking
spaces.
Alternative transportation,methods are mentioned in the
statement as possible mitigating measures for the expected
increase in auto air pollutant concentrations. Traffic
flow measures are also suggested which would .reduce auto
congestion air pollution effects. These proposals would
be of some value in improving the air quality of the region
with or without the Trillium project.
We are aware that air quality studies will be made in con-
nection with the transportation control strategy so that
this question may best be left until after the results of
these studies are known.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CHAIRMAN: Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County;
Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County;
John D. Spellman, King County Executive;
VICE CHAIRMAN: Robert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish County;
Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; Gordon N. Johnston, Mayor Tacoma; Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large;
Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer.
•
Gary Krutchfield
December 17, 1973
Page 2
Another source of air pollution discussed in the statement,
construction dust, can be controlled by following this Agency's
Guidelines which are enclosed.
It should be noted, particularly on page 40 of the statement,
that this Agency's ambient air quality standards for suspen-
ded particulate are that the concentration, averaged over any
24 -hour period, shall not exceed:
1. 60 ugm /m3 annual geometric mean, or
2. 150 ugm /m3 more than once per year.
In addition, the section allowing 15% of the samples to exceed
standards has been removed from Regulation I.
Very truly yours,
A. R. Dammkoehler
Air Pollution Control Officer
ARD /JKA:km
Enclosure: Guidelines
cc: Mr. John C. Raymond
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Wa 98504
Mr. James L. Agee,
Region X Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 - 6th Avenue
Seattle, Wa 98101
Puget Sounli Air Pollution Con41)ol Agency
Tacoma Branch Office
The Hess Building, Room 213
901 Tacoma Ave. S.
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Telephone (206) 383 -5851
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Plan Review Section
410 W. Harrison
Seattle, Washington 98119
Telephone (206) 344 -7334
Everett Branch Office
703 Medical Dental Building
2730 Colby Avenue
Everett, Washington 98201
Telephone (206) 259-0288
GUIDELINES FOR CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM ROCK PROCESSING
Air pollution from rock processing equipment and adjacent roads must
be controlled so as to meet the requirements of Regulation I, includ-
ing Sections 9.03, 9.04, 9.09, 9.11, 9.12 and 9.15. Pursuant to Sec-
tions 9.12 and 9.15 of Regulation I the Control Officer has established
the following control measures as reasonable requirements and precau-
tions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne:
ROCK PROCESSING - CONTROL MEASURES
1. Hooding of dust emission points on belts, transfer points and
crushers and ducting the collected air to a baghouse or water
scrubber, or
2. Application of a water or chemical mist near emission points,
(a pressure above 90 pounds per square, inch and special noz-
zles may be required.to produce a mist that is both effective
and yet not cause plugging of screens), or
3. A combination of 1 and 2 (as shown in Figure 3), or
4. Other control measures such as enclosure which comply with
Regulation I.
Visible dust emissions from rock processing equipment are usually in-
dicative of improper design or operation.
ROADS, PILES, TRUCK LOADING, AND ROCK DRILLS - CONTROL MEASURES
1. Dust coming from in -plant roads shall be controlled by paving,
or surfacing treatment which will control both air pollution
and mud carry out. A wheel wash system may, be required to
prevent mud carry out under some conditions.
2. Dust coming from fines piles shall be controlled by the use
of a dust suppressant or by providing covering to prevent
exposure to wind.
3. Dust coming from rock drills and truck loading shall be con-
trolled by hooding or application of a mist.
NOTTCE' OF CONSTRUCTTON REQUIRED
An approved Notice of Construction is required prior to the installa-
tion or alteration of rock processing and /or control equipment. The
necessary Notice of Construction forms can be obtained by calling the
Plan Review Section (344- 7334).
5/73
MAINTENANCE AND HOUSEKEEPING
1. The spray system shall be protected fromi.freezing
during cold weather by insulation or a change in
spray feed formulation.
2. Fugitive dust shall be controlled by gold house-
keeping, including, but not limited to, the
following:
a.
Sweeping and flushing of paved roads.
b. Wetting or chemical coating of unpaved low
traffic areas.
c. Chemical coating bf exposed areas to prevent
windblown dust.
CONTROL METHODS
Figure 1 shows the arrangement of atomizing nozzles which
develop a flat mist spray pattern. The nozzles are placed
on each end of a rubber shield to suppress dust emissions from
the bottom of the crusher discharge. Two nozzles which form a
cone shape mist spray are often used on the top of a crusher to
control dust caused by crushing.
Figure 2 illustrates how a flat mist spray can be applied ahead
of a transfer point to eliminate dust. The mist should be
applied to the rock before the dust is airborne.
Figure 3 shows a combination mist and baghouse system for
crushing plants. The baghouse is believed to. be 99% efficient
in reducing the emissions from a rock crusher.
Figure 4 shows a mist system for a rock crusher plant. The use
of a wetting agent reduces the quantity of liquid required for
effective control.
TIO FLAT ATOMIZING-TYPE
SPRAY NOZZLES. ONE EACN
ENO OF RUBBER SNIELD
-3-
•
NAND RUBBER SNIELD
TOO FLAT ATOBIZING-TYPE
SPRAY NOZZLES. ONE EACH
•- • - - -•- ENO OF RUBIEN SNIELD
CONVEYOR BELT
BELT CONVEYOR
ROLLERS
Figure 1. Nozzle arrangement for control of
dust emissions upon discharge of crusher.*
*Air Pollution Engineering Manual. AP40,
f —Mist Nozzle
.1�II
•1111
.1111
BELT CONVEYOR
PP.
VIDE -ANGLE CONE -TYPE
SPRAY NOZZLE
341
Figure 2. Nozzle arrangement for control of dust
emissions from the inlet to the shaker screens.
TRUCK DUMP
AND FEEDER,
•
BAGHOUSE
•
INDICATES
MIST APPLICATION
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
SCREEN
SCREEN
BIN AND TRUCK
LOADING STATION
•S •
STORAGE
PILE
TERTIARY
CRUSHER
TYPICAL COMBINATION MIST & BAGHOUSE SYSTEM FOR CRUSHING PLANTS
Figure 3
TRUCK DUMP
PI (MARY
CRUSHER
SURGE PIL
ROCK CRUSHING PLANT
MIST DUST CONTROL SYSTEM
SECONDARY
.CRUSHER
• "IAll ri
TERTIARY
CRUSHER
INCOMING WATER LINE
1
PROPORTIONER
Figure 4
WETTING AGENT DRUM
\N4 STgTS
2�Ayr
c w rn O O
3cl‘ +lgC PROSE°
•
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
December 14, 1973
REPLY
ATTN OFO:: 10MEI - M/S 325
Mr. Delbert F. Moss.
Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
,14475 59th Avenue South.
Tukwila', Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
Trillium Business Complex, Tukwila, Washington.
The impact of additional vehicle travel on the existing transportation
system and on air quality should be more fully analyzed and any mitigating
measures necessary indicated. We have discussed with the developers of
Trillium and their consultants the general type of air quality impact,
analysis that should be carried .out. Because of the high pollutant
concentrations that may currently existiin the area of the project and
because, of the size of the project, we feel a detailed analysis of the
impact of the project, substantiated by ambient air quality monitoring,
is necessary.
The parking facilities associated with the proposed development will
require a permit from EPA to comply with the transportation control plan:'
for. the State of Washington (38-Federal Register 32668), and to assure
the implementation of national ambient air lity standards. The proposed
development may also be subject to EPA indirect source regulations which
will be promulgated shortly._ Whether the development will be subject to
the regulations depends upon the effective date of the regulations and
upon the date construction of the development is commenced., These
regulations were proposed for the State of Washington on October 30,
1973 (38 Federal Register 29893) . Copies of both the. EPA parking
management regulation and the proposed indirect source regulations for.
the State of Washington are attached.
In addition, the EIS should address the impact, of the proposed
development on all existing public utilities and on the need, for additional
.public services as a result of growth generated by the proposed development.
•
2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
X4A14 e
Hurlon C. Ray
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Management
Attachments
cc: P. Millam
• 107//&--a,L
§ 52.2486 Management of parking Ply.
(a) Definitions:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called
"facili y ") means a lot, garage, - building,
or structure, or combination or por-
. tion thereof, in or on which motor ve
hicles are temporarily parked.
(2) "Vehicle trip" means a single
• movement by a motor vehicle that origi-
nates or terminates at a parking faciii'y.
(3) "Construction" means fabrication.
erection, or installation of a parking fa-
cility, or any conversion of land, build-
ings, or structures, or portions thereof.
for use as a facility'.
(4) "Modification" means any change
to a. parking facility that -increases or
may increase the motor vehicle capac::y
of, or the motor vehicle activity associa-
ted with, such parking facility.
(5) ''Commence" means to underta :e
a continuous program of on -site con-
struction or modification.
(6) "Parking space" means any area
or space below, above, or at ground level.
open or enclosed, on- street or off - street.
that is used for parking one motor ve-
hicle at any time.
(7) "Residential parking facility"
means a parking facility the use of which
is limited exclusively to residents (and
guests) of a residential building or
R 27, 1973
•
32676
ES AND REGULATIONS
group of buildings under common con- ambient air quality standard at any time mitted in the application and with ap-
trol and in which. no commercial park - within 10 . years from the date of plicable rules, regulations, and permit
ing is permitted. application; and • • conditions. -
(8) "Seattle central business district" (3) For facilities to be located within (j) Within 30 days after receipt of an.
means the area enclosed by Yesler Way, the Seattle or Spokane CBD, the con- application, the Administrator or agency
the I -5 freeway, Eighth Avenue, Virginia struction or modification of such facility approved by him shall notify the public.
Street. and the Alaska Way Viaduct. will not cause a violation of paragraphs by prominent advertisement in the Re-
Streets forming boundaries (excluding (k) through (m) of this section. . gion affected, of the receipt of the appli-
the I -5 freeway and the Alaska Way Via- (f)• All applications for approval under cation and the proposed action on it
duct) shall be part of, the central busi- this section shall include the following (whether approval. conditional approval.
ness district (CBD), information: •or denial), and shall invite public •
(9) "Spokane central business dis- (1) Name and address of the comment. • (1) The application, all submitted in- .
Avenue,- means the area enclosed by A Trent applicant. formation, and the terms of the proposed
Aventte; ;4lonroe Street, Third Avenue, (2) Location and description of the " action shall be made available to the
and Division Street. Streets forming parking facility. public in a readily�adee available
place with- e
boundaries shall be part of the central (3) A proposed construction schedule. in the affected air quality region.
business district. (4) The normal hours of operation•of (2) Public comments submitted within
(b) This regulation is applicable in all the facility and the enterprises and • 30 days of the date such information
activities () that it serves. is made available shall be considered
(5) The total motor • construction capacity -in making the final decision . on the
before and after the construction or mod- application"
ification of the facility. appli The Administrator or agency ap-
(g) The Administrator may require an
ap-
application for a facility of between 50 proved by him • shall take final action
and. 249 spaces to include the informa- (approval, conditional approval, or deni-
tion required by subparagraph (h) (1) al) on an application within 30 days after
through (7) of-this section. • close of the public comment period.
(h) All applications under this section (k) In addition to the foregoing re-
for new parking facilities with parking quirements, paragraphs (1) through (o)
capacity for 250 or more vehicles, or for of this section shall be applicable within
any modification which, either individ- the Seattle and Spokane CBD. .
ually or together with other inodifica- (1) There shall be no increase in the
tions since August 15, 1973, will increase number of non - residential parking
.capacity by that amount, shall, in addi- spaces within the Seattle and Spokane
tion to that information required by CBD above the number :present as of
paragraph (f) of this section, include the November 19, 1973. Any parking facility .
following information unless the appli- which provides or would provide.vehicu-
counties included in the Puget Sound
Intrastate AQCR and in the county of
Spokane, in the Eastern Washington-
Northern Idaho Interstate AQCR. •
(c) The requirements of this section
are applicable to the following parking
facilities in the areas specified in para-
graph (b) of this section, the construc-
tion or modification of which is corn
menced after August 15, 1973:
(1) Any new parking facility with
parking capacity for 50 or more motor
vehicles;
-(2) Any parking facility that will be
modified to increase parkin_ g capacity by
50 or more motor vehicles;
(3) Any parking facility constructed
or modified in increments which individ-
ually are not. subject to review under
this section, but which, when all such • cant has•received a waiver from the pro- lar ingress or egress to or from a street
,increments occurring since August 15, visions of this paragraph from the Ad- forming a boundary of a CBD • shall be
1973, are added together, would as a total ministrator or. agency..approved .by. the .. considered ..included within such CBD.
administrator: Any• parking facility beneath a street
subject the facility to review under this
. section; and (1) The number of people using or en-
(4) Any parking facility, regardless of gaging in any enterprises or activities
size, to be located within the Seattle or that the facility will serve on a daily basis
Spokane central business districts. Any and a peak hour basis. (2) A projection of the geographic
parking facility that provides or would areas in the community from which peo-
provide street lar forming ss or egress to or pie and motor vehicles will be drawn to
from a street forming a boundary of a the facility. Such projection shall include
CBD shall be considered included withi o data concerning the availability of mass
•
such CBD. Any parking facility beneath ' transit from such areas.
a street forming a boundary shall be (3) An estimate of the average and
considered included within such CBD. peak hour vehicle trip generation rates,
(d) No person shall commence con- before and after construction or modifi-
struction or modification of any facility cation of the facility.
. subject to this section without first ob- (4) An estimate of the effect of the
taining written approval from the Ad- facility on traffic pattern and flow.
ministrator or an agency designated by (5) An estimate of the effect of the
him; provided, that this paragraph shall facility on total. VMT for the air quality
not apply to any construction or modifi- control region. .
cation for which a general construction (6) An analysis of the effect of the fa- spaces in such CBD, unless and until
contract was finally executed by all ap- cility on site and regional air quality, in- such person or entity has obtained from
, propriate parties on or before August 15, eluding a showing that the facility will the Administrator erS entity
yr asom a -an agency
fr
1973. - be compatible with the applicable imple- approved by the Administrator -a a permit
(e) No approval to construct or modify mentation plan. and that the facility will approved that the Administ, for a permit
a facility. shall be granted unless the not use any national air quality standard stating
enlargement that co st ucch facility will be
applicant shows to the satisfaction of the to be exceeded within 10 years from date in compliance with such facapy (1) of .
Administrator or agency approved by of application: The Administrator may this section.
him that: prescribe a standardized screening tech- (o) By May 31, 1974, each owner or
(1) The design or operation of the nique to be used in analyzing the effect
facility will not cause a violation of the of the facility �n ambient air quality. • operator of any parking facility located
control strategy that is part of the ap- . (7) Additional information, plans, within the Seattle and Spokane CBD
plicable implementation plan, and will specifications, or documents required by shall reserve 10 percent of the parking
be consistent with the plan's VMT the Administrator. spaces in such facility for vehicles
reduction goals: (1) Each application shall be signed by transporting three or more occupants
(2) The emissions resulting from the the owner or operator of the facility, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
design or operatiton of the facility will whose signature shall constitute an m Monday through Friday, oc7:00
not prevent or interfere with the attain- agreement that the facility shall be oiler- p
ment or maintenance of any national ated in accordance with the design sub - ing legal holidays. On or before
• FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 227 — TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1973
forming a boundary shall be considered
to be included within such CBD.
(m) On a semiannual basis, beginning •
February 15, 1974, the City of Seattle
and the City of Spokane shall report to
the Administrator the total number of
nonresidential and the total number of
residential an- street and off-street park-
ing spaces in their respective CED's.
Thereafter, such cities shall report any
reduction in the number of such parking
spaces to the Administrator.
(n) No person or entity, after Novem-
ber 19, 1973, shall commence construc-
tion or modification of any new non -resi-
dential parking facility in the Seattle or
Spokane CBD, nor shall any person or
entity take any action having the effect
of creating new non - residential parking
•
•-
• •
•
March 1, 1974, each such owner or op-
erator shall.submit to the Administrator
a detailed compliance schedule showing
the steps it will take to assure compliance
with this paragraph.
(p) The City of Seattle and the City
of Spokane shall report to the Adminis-
trator on a semiannual basis beginning
August 15, 1974, the average daily oc-
cupancy of the spaces reserved for ve-
hicles transporting three or more occu-
pants.
•
•
•
•
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 38 L Number 208
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• AGENCY
[4t)crR Part 52j
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF
STATE IMPLE-MENIATION PLANS
Review of Indirect Sources
On June 18, 1973 (38 FR. 15834) , the
•Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
amendments to 40 CFR Part •51, Re-
quirements for Preparation, Adoption,
and Submittal of State Implementation
Plans, under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended. Those amendments
were designed primarily to I :,rovide• for
long -term maintenance of the national
ambient air quality standards: Among
other requirements, States were directed
to expand their present procedures for
review of buildings or other .facilities
prior to construction or modiflcat.iou in
order to include consideration of the air
quality impact rot only of pollutants
emitted directly from stationary sources,
but also of l.o)huton arising from mo-
bile source activity associated with such
• buildings or facilities (termed indirect
• sources).
Pursuant to an order of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the.District of Coltunbia
• Circuit: in the case of Natural resources
Defense Council, Inc. et al v. EPA, 475
P. 2d 968 (D.C. Cir. 3973) entered on
January 31, 1973, and modified March 12
and July 27, 1973, States were required
to submit plan recisions to comply with
the new requirements involving indi-
rect source review by August 15, 1973 (38
FR 12920). Thus far, EPA has received
plan revisions from Alabama, Florida,
Puerto Rico, Guam, Maine, New York,
and Oregon; they will be made available
for public comment before EPA acts to
approve or disapprove them. Since EPA
will not tal :e action on these revisions
until the 30 -day public comment.:. period
has expired, and since the Court order
requires the Administrator to approve
or disapprove such plan revisions by
October 15, 1973, the disapproval of all
State implementation plans with respect
to maintenance of the national stand-
ards, as published March 8, 1973 (38 FR
• C270), and amended May 17, 19';3 (38
FR 12920), remains in effect.
The Court further requires the Ad-
ministrator to promulgate regulations by
December 15, 3973, where a State fails
to subruit indirect source review r;aala-
. Lions or the regulations submitted are
unar'l)rol'able. The Adinint trator Is now
)m :)Posi:ng such regulations. Biased on a
preliminary rendie-,c of the plan revisions
submitted to date, the Administrator has.
•
• 29891- •
determined that the regulations submit-
ted by Alabama, Florida, and Guam ap-
pear to satisfy the requirements of 40
C1'R Part 51: Accordingly, the regula-
tions proposed below would not be appll-
. cable to these three States unless further
review should reveal deficiencies in their
submittals. Preliminary indications •are
that a number of other States will be
submitting plans prior. to December 15,
11973, which may, in these cases, elirni-
nate the need to promulgate the regula-
• tions proposed below. Should any State
submit plan revisions for indirect source
review which are approvable after De-
cember 15, 1973, the Administrator will
revoke his promulgation.
The regulations proposed below pro-
vide that the review procedures will be
carried out by State or ..local agencies
designated by the Governor. It is recog-
nized that many States do not yet have
adequate legal authority to approve or
disapprove construction or .modification
of indirect sources. EPA regulations in
40 CF'R 52.02(d), published May 31, 19'12,
(37 FR 10842) provide that any regula-
tory provisions of a State implementa-
tion :Plan approved or promulgated by
EPA are enforceable by EPA and the
:State and by local agencies in accordance
with their assigned responsibilities under
the State plan. Thus, these proposed reg-
ulations would be .enforceable by State
local agehhciesdesignated by. a Governor
to be responsible fair indirect source re-
- viewaSin.ce the decisions which Will have
to he made pursuant to these proposed
regulations are pertinent to local situa-
tions, the Administrator encourages and
strongly supports the. exercise of ibis au-
thority at the State and local level. Where
States are unwilling or unable to iniple=
went these procedures, however, it will
be necessary for EPA to assume the re-
sponsibility. States are particularly in-
vited to indicate, in their comments on
these proposed regulations, whether they
can and will implement these regula-
tions. It should be noted that these pro-
posed regulations do not in any wvay'af-
fect previously approved or promulgated
regulations applicable to review' of sta-
tionary sources. The regulations pro-
posed below specify the use of various
analytical techniques which are consid-
ered reasonable and appropriate for de-
termining . the impact of an indirect
source on air duality. The type of analy-
sis specified varies with types of indirect
sources and-is dependent on the capabili-
ties and limitations of existing analytical
techniques.
• For example, analysis of carbon mon-
oxide emissions, using a diffusion model,
is considered appropriate for analyzing
the air quality impact. of roads, high-
ways, and parking areas. Existing diffu-
sion Modeling techniques do not permit
sucli an analysis of the impact of hydro -•
carbon or nitrogen oxides emissions. The
impact of these laollutants is most ade-
quately evaluated on an area -wide basis,
using the proportional modeling' tech -
nique previously utilized for demonstrat-
ing the adequacy of centre/ strategies.
Thin technique yields meaningful results
PROPOSED RULES
•
primarily''in cases where the additional
emissions re.sult)ng from an indirect,
Source are significant in relation to exist-
ing area -wide omissions. Accordingly,
this technique is considered.most appro-
priate for analyzing the air quality im-
pact of airports, including associated
.commercial and industrial growth, and
major highway 'projects. Depending • on
the existing omissions in the area under
consideratlon and the size of the area,
the proportional model may still yield
inconclusive results and thus may not be
applicable in all si't iathons. As improved
analytical techniques become available,
the types of analyses specified below
should be augmented or replaced by such
techniques. • ..
The regulations proposed below include
'criteria for- .cletcn in.ing- which sources
will be subject to the review procedures.
These criteria are based on the follow -
ing parameters:- For roads and high -
ways, the expected traffic volume; for
airports, the number of aircraft opera-
tions by regularly scheduled air carriers;
and for other indirect sources, the size
of the parking facility or the number of
induced vehicle trips. Although other in-
dicators of induced mobile source activity
could be used, these parameters are con-
sidered to be most directly related to the
air pollution potential of these sources.
The size Of a source which, under the-
proposed . regi lations, would be exempt
from review varies, depending on whether
it is located in an area where there may
be a potential for exceeding a national
arnbient air quality standard within the
next 10 years. The Administrator con-
siders it necessary to devote more at-
tention to such areas by reviewing -
smaller sources than are reviewed in
non - problem: areas. A list of these areas
will be published by the Administrator
.'by June 18. 1974• in accordance with the
Jtme 18, 1973, amendments (38 FR 15334)
to 40 CFR, Part 51. Until this list becomes
available, all Standard Metropolitan Sta-
tistical -Areas Neill, for the purposes of
this regulation, be considered to have a
potential for exceeding the national
standards.
The size of an indirect source subject to
review has been determined in a nation-
wide context and therefore does not nec-
essorily reflect special local conditions
which may cause more comprehensive
review procedures to be desirable. The
Administrator strongly encourages States
to analyze their own local situations con-
cerning the • desirability of reviewing
smaller sources than 'those specified be- .
low.. in this regard, States which have
submitted plans or are in the process of
adopting plans for indirect, source 'review
should not construe the regulations pro-
posed below as bell..• optimalfor all situ-
ations.
• It is particularly important that States
and 'other interested parties recognize
that much more comprehensive require-
ments are necessary in. areas where
transportation control measures will be
needed to meet national arnblent air
quality standards. In such- areas,' pre -
.construction review of even .relatively
small indirect sources clearly is justified.
Toward this end, parking supply man-
agement regulations will to included in
many of the transportation control plans.
To the extent that transportation con-
trol. plans do not include such rc, ula-
bolls, they will be included In final regu-
lations for indirect• source review and
they generally will be more comprehen-
sive than this proposal, in terms of the .
facility. sizes which will he subject to
reviews.
'The preceding factors ind.icate'why an
individual State inlay, find it desirable to
develop regulations which 'differ from
those proposed below, and .why a State
should make every effort to submit its
own indirect: source review regulations
designed to fit into its strategy for long-
-term maintenance of air quality stand-
Ards. States may also wish to broaden
such review to consider other environ-
mental or social considerations.
It is the Administrator's intent to hold
hearings on these proposed reguia.tiens
• in each State where no State hearing has
previously been held on this subject.
These hearings will he held no sooner
than November 29, 1973. The time and
location of such hearings will be an-
nounced in a subsequent 3?r•. fans; REGIS-
TER. .
Interested 'persons may also partici-
pate in this rule making by submitting
written comments in triplicate to the ap-
propriate Regional Administrator. All
comments received by November 29..1973
will be considered. Receipt of comments
Will be acknowledged, hut the 3ieg ional
Ahninistrators will not. provide sub-
' stantiv rczpenses t:o il•e�iiri:i fill) C6n.i-
merits. All comments will be available for
public' inspection . during nolinal bu.si-
llcss hours at each Regional Office and at
the Freedom of Information Center, EPA.
Room' 329, 401 M Street SW., Washing- •
• ton, D.C. 20460.
Following consideration of. public com-
ments, these regulations, with any mod-
ifications which may be appropriate, are
to be promulgated by December 15, 1973,
pursuant to the order of the Court, of
.Appeals. The regulations will be effective •
180 days after promulgation. This defer-
ral of the effective date is considered •
necessary to give State and local agencies
an adequate opportunity to Inane prep- -
arat.ions for iinplementing' the pro'e-
•dures prescribed by these proposed regu-
lations. Since the proposed regulations
are intended primarily to ensure long- .
term maintenance of the national ambi-
ent air quality standards, and since the
Clean Air Act emphasizes that it. is State
and local goi'erninents that have the pri-
mary responsibility for developing and
carrying out implementation pt:uls, lane:
deferral of the effective date is consid -
cred consistent With the purposes of the
Act.
This notice of proposed rule making is
issued under the authority of section
110(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
142 U.S.C. 1857c -5(c) ).
.Dated: October 25, 1973.
RUSSELL E. TiaAm, .
-- Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 30, ivO. 200---- TUh•SDAV, OCTOD1C 30, 1973
It is proposed to amend Part 52 of
Chapter I. Title 40 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations as follows:
In § 52.22, the first paragraph Is des -
ignated as paragraph (a) and paragraph
(U) is added. As amended, § 52.22 reads
as .follows:
{ :2.22 i4rninten.ance of national stand -
ards.
(a) Subsequent to January 31; 1973,
the Administrator reviewed againn. State
implementation plan provisions for in-
suring the maintenance of tho national
standards. The 'review • indicates that
State plans generally do not contain
regulations or procedures which ade-
quately address this problem. Accord-
ingly, all State plans are disapproved
with respect to maintenance bec.ause
such plans lack enforceable • procedures
or regulations for reviewing and pre -
venting construction or modification of
facilities which will result in an increase
of emissions from other sources of pol e
lutants for which there are national
standards. The disapproval applies to
all States listed in Subparts 13 through
DDD of this part. Nothing in this sec-
tion sluall .invalidat.e or otherwise affect
the 'obligations of States, • emission
sources, or other persons with respect: to
•all portions of plans approved or promul-
gated under this part. Pursuant to an
order of .the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit entered.
on January 31, 1973, and modified on
March 12, 1973, State plaits providing
for maintenance of the national stand-
ards must be submitted to -the Admin-
istrator ro later than August 15, )973.
(b) Regulation. for review of new or
modified: indirect sources. (1) All terms
used in this paragraph but not specff3-
cnlly defined below shall have the mean -
ing given them in § 52.01 of this chapter.
(1) The term "indirect source" means
a facility, building, structure, or instal-
lation, or combination thereof, which
causes or may cause mobile source ac-
tivity that results in emissions of a pol-
lutant for which there is a national
standard. Such indirect sources shall in-
clude,
but not. be limited to:
. (a) Highways and roads.
.(b) Parking lots and garages.
(c) Shopping centers.
(d) Recreational centers and amuse -
Spent parks.
(c) Sports stadiums.
(f) Airports. •
(g) Commercial or industrial devel-
'aliments. • •
(11) The term "vehicle trip" means a
single movement by a motor vehicle
which originates or terminates. at an
indirect source.
(iii) The term "Director" means the
director of the State or local agency
designated by the Governor of the State
to carry out_this paragraph.
(iv) The term "associated parking
area" means a parking lot or garage
owned and /or operated in conjunction
with an indirect source.
(v) The terns "aircraft operation"
means an aircraft tai :e -off or lancing.
(vi) The term "modification" means
any physical change to an indirect source
which increases or may increase the
mobile source activity associated with
such indirect source.
(vii) The tern "Standard Metropoli-
tan Statistical Area" means such areas
as designated by the U.S. Bureau of the
Budget in the following publication:
"Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas," issued in 1967, with subsequent
amendments.
(viii) The term "designated arca"
means any area designated pursuant to
§ 51.12(1) of this chapter as having the
potential for exceeding any national
standard within the subsequent 10 year
period.
. (ix) The term "area -wide air quality
analysis" means a n croseele analysis
utilizing • the techniques specified in
§ 51 :14(c) of this chapter.
(x) The term "commenced" means
that an owner or operator has under-
taken a continuous program of construc-
tion or modification or that a binding
general construction contract has beeu
entered into Which obligates one party
to such contract to perform the Physical
Work involved in such program of con=
str•uctfon or modification. -
(2)• The requirements of this para-
graph are made part of Subparts 13
through DDD, except Subparts 13, K, and
AAA, and are applicable to'the following
indirect . sources,- the construction or
modification of which . is commenced
after the cllective .date of this ,Para-
graph: - .
(i) Any indirect source which is lo-
cated in.a designated area and which:
(a) Is a new parking_ lot or F :arage
with a parking capacity of 1,000 cars or
more,' or has a new associated parking
area with a parking capacity of 1,000
cars or more; or •
(b) Is a parking lot or garage being
modified to increase paring capacity by
more than 500 cars, or has an associated
parking area being modified. to increase
parking capacity by more than 500 cars;
or
(c) Induces 1,000 or more vehicle trips
in any one. -hour period or 5,000 or more
vehicle trips in any eight -hour period.
(ii) Any indirect source located out-
side a designated area which:
.(a) Is a new parking lot or garage
with a parking capacity of 2,000 cars or
more, or has a new associated parking
area with a parking capacity of 2,000
cars or more; or
(b) .1s a parking lot or garage being
modified to increase parking capacity by
more than 1,000 cars, or has an associ-
ated parking area being modified to in-
crease parking capacity by more than
1,000 cars;
• (c) Induce: 2,(u0 or more vehicle
trips in any one -hour period or 10,000 or
more vehicle trips in any eight-hour
period. .
(iii) Any road or highway kacated.in.a
.designated area with folloWing antici-
pated average annual daily traffic vole
times within ten ycars..of construction or
modification:
(a) New road or highway: 20,000 or
more vehicles per day.
-(b) Modified road or highway: In-
crease of 10,000 vehicles per day or u:or •
over existing traffic volume on such roar
or highway. •
(iv) Any airport with the following
expected aircraft operations within to
years of construction or modification:
(a) New airports: 50.000 or more or.
erations per. year by regularly schedule
air carriers.
(b) Modified airport: Increase of 50,
000 operations per year by regular)
scheduled air carriers over the existtn r
volume of operations.
(v) Where an indirect source is con-
structed or modified in increments which
individually are no subject; to retee.:
under this paragraph, MI such incre-
ments occurring since the efTective date
of this. regulation shall be added to-
gether for determining the applicabfiits.-
of this paragraph.
• (vi.) Until' the • Administrator disig-
notes, pursuant t0 §51.12(f) of this
chapter, areas which may have the po-
tential for exceeding a national stand -
.rd within the subsequent 10 -year pe-
riod, "Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area" shall be used in place of "desig-
nated area" for the purposes of •fhis
paragraph.
(3) No owner or operator of an indi-
rect source subject- to this paragraph
shall commence construction or modift-
.cation of. such source after the effective
date of this paragraph without first de
tabling approve) from tape Director. Ap-
plication for approval to . cans iract • ^r
modify shall be by means prescribed by
. the Director, and shalll inchrde .bit% no`.•
be ).invited tb the following in.formaticn:
• (1.) For airports, a description of aver -
age and maximum number of aircraft
operations per clay by type of aircraft.
The description shall also include new.
conunercial, industrial, and transporta-
tion-related development expected to
occur within three miles of the air port •
for the 10 -year period folio -Mtn; cea
structfon or 'modification. (ii) For road
and highway's, a description of the aver-
age arid maximum traffic volume for one,
eight and 21 -hour time periods expected
within 10 years of construction or modi-
fication. Such description shall inciuc"
an estimate of vehicle speeds for average
and maximum traffic volume conditions.
(fit) For indirect sources other than
airports. and highways, a description
the location and design of such - source.
including its relation to surrounding
roadways stair) highways and an estimate
of the average and maximum number of
vehicle trip; generated by such indirect
source for one and eight -hour time
periods.. •
(iv) Upon request of the..Director, the
owner or operator shall also provide: .
(a) .Estimates of the effect of the con-
struction or modification of the indirect
source on traffic, patterns and flow in the
vicinity of the source.
• (b) Measured or cstimated air quality
data rat the, site of the indirect source
prior to construction or modification.
&EDCRAL MOISTER, VOL. 30, NO, 208- -- TUESDAY, OCTO8rr. 30, 1973
298 1.) v ' PROPOSED KGttf 5
(c). e n - estimate of air quality after
construction or modification of rho indi-
rect' source.
(d) An estimate of the effect of the
construction or modification of ;the indi-
rect. source on total vehicle miles of
travel (VMT) and additional residential,
'commercial and industrial development
.which may occur PS a result of such con-
struction or modification.
(c) Any additional information, plans,
Specifications, evidence or documenta-
tion that the Director may require.-
' (4) (1) No approval to construct or
modify shall be Granted unless the appli-
cant shows that:
• (a) The indirect source will not cause
a violation of the control strategy which
is part of the applicable plan, and
(b) The indirect source will not pre-
vent or interfere with the attainment
or. maintenance of a national ambient
air quality standard.
.0i) In connection with the determina-
tion required by paragraph (b) (4) (i) of
this section, the showing required -of the
- applicant shall be limited to the impact
on air quality from the indirect source
proposed to be constructed or modified,
and shall reflect consideration of exist -
ing'crnissionsc from other Sources. It :.ball
be the responsibility of the Director to
• determine the impact on air quality of
future growth and development or other
factors affecting emissions and air qual-
ity over which the applicant has no •
control.
. (iii) The Director shall, prior to anal;-
. ing any determination not to approve the.
construction or modification of an indi-
rect source pursuant to paragraph (b)
(4) (1) of this section consider any al-
teration of the proposed construction or
modification which. would pcnnit ap-
proval. The .Director shall condition any
approval on such alteration being incor-
• orated in the construction or modifica-
tion. In choosing among possible alters -
Lions, the Director shall give appropriate
consideration to any expenditures - of
time or money Made by the owner or
operator of the indirect source prior to
the effective date of this paragraph.
(5) For roads and highways subject
to this paragraph, the determination re-
quired under paragraph (b) (4) (ii) of
this section shall he glade as follows:
(1) The impact of a road or highway
on the total VmiT in an appropriate area
selected for an area-wide air quality -
analysis shall he used to determine the
change in emissions for such area. Such
area -wide air quality analysis shall then
be used to determine expected ambient
concentrations of carbon monoxide,
. photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen
• oxides following construction or modifi-
cation.
(ii) Using an appropriate diffusion
model, the air quality impact of carbon
monoxide einissions resulting from the
expected •rriaximurl traffic. volume on. a
'road or highway shall be evaluated at
reasonable receptor or exposure sites in
the vicinity of - such road.
(0) For airports subject to this para-
graph, the determination. required under
pia aph (b) (4) (11) of this section
Shts tie made as follows:
A
(1) All emissions from stationary and
.mobile sources at the airport, along with
emissions from all new commer'c'ial, in-
dustrial, and transportation- related
development expected to occur within
three miles of the airport, shall be added
together in order to determine the ag-
'grega.te impact on air quality.
(ii) An area -wide quality analysis
shall be used to determine the expected
ambient concentrations of carbon
monoxide, photochemical oxidants, and
nitrogen oxides following construction
or modification. •
. (7) For indirect: sources other than
roads and airports, the determination re-
quired under paragraph (b) (4) 01) of
this section shall be made using an
appropriate diffusion model. to evaluate
the intact of em-bon monoxide emis-
sions resulting-from expected nia:;imurn
vehicle trips to or from such source. Such
irinpa.ct shall be evaluated at reasonable
receptor or exposure sites in the vicinity
of such indirect source.. .
(8) Within 30 days after receipt of an
application, the Director will notify the
• public, by prominent advertisement in
the region affected, of the opportnnity
for puhl c comment on the information
submits a by the owner or operator.
(i) Such information, as well as the
Director's.analysis of the effect of the in
direct • source on air quality and the
Director's proposed approval or disap-
proval, shall be available in at least one
lo cation in.the region affected.
(ii) A copy -of the notice required
pursuant-to this subparagraph shall be
sent to the Administrator tlu'ough the
appropriate regional- office; to all other
State and local air pollution control
agencies having j'u'isdie.tion in the region
where the indirect source will be located;
and to any other agency in the region
having responsibility for implementing
the procedures required under this pares.;
graph. •
(iii) Public comments submitted with-
in 30 days of .the date such information
is made available shall be considered by
the Director in malting his final decision
on the application.
(iv) The Director shall take final ac-
tion on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment pe-
riod. The Director shall notify the ap-
plicant in writing of his approval, con-
ditional approval, or denial of the appli-
cation, and .hall set forth his reasons for
conditional approval or denial.
• (9) The Director may impose any rea-
sonable conditions on an approval, In-
chiding conditions requiring the indirect
source owner or operator to conduct am-
bient air quality monitoring in the
vicinity of the site of the source for e
reasonable perice prior to commence
• mcnt of construction or .modification.
and /or for any specified period alter the
source has commenced operation.
()A) Approval to construct or modify
shall not relieve any owner or operator
• of the responsibility to comply with the
. control strategy and all local, State and
Feder.' ilations which are part of the
applicac. plans.
(11) The Governor of the State shall
designate the State or local agency which
will carry out this regulation in each
area of the State within 30 days from
the date of final promulgation. 'rile Gov-
ernor shall notify the Administrator
which agency or agencies be has desig-
nated through the appropriate Regional
Administrator. Where the agency desig-
nated is not an air pollution control
agency, such agency shall consult with
the appropriate State or.local air pollu-
tion control agency prior to snaking any
determination required by paragraph (b)
(4) of this section.
i)'R Doc.73 -23174 Piled 10- 29- 73;8:45 tun)
i•EDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 3S, NO. 208-- TUESDAY, OCTOSER 30, 1973
• •
Frank Todd, Mayor
CITY of TUKWILA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
14 December 1973
MEMORANDUM TO FILE
SUBJECT: Draft E.I.S. - Trillium
Received telephone request from Mr. Keith Anderson,
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, for seven
day extension for comments regarding the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement filed for the project known
as Trillium.
Mr. Anderson assured me that his comments would be
received by this office within the extension period.
The request was granted with the notation that all
comments received by 5 p.m. Friday, 21 December 1973
will be promptly forwarded to Wilsey & Ham, the
responsible consultants.
Gary , rutchfiel
Planning Technician
Frank Todd, Mayor
CITY oF'TUKWILA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
29 October 1973
Gentlemen:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Please find enclosed . herewith a copy of the Environmental
Impact Statement prepared for a project entitled Trillium,
a business and commercial complex to be located within the
corporate limits of Tukwila.
The statement has been reviewed by this office in accordance
with the National and State Environmental Policy Acts as
well as in regard to Federal, State, regional and local
plans and programs.
This office would appreciate any comments regarding this
Statement within forty -five (45) days from date of this
letter. Please relate your comments in writing and direct
them to this office at 6230 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila,
Washington 98067.
GC /lt
Encl: as
Sincerely,
74--
Delbert. F. Moss
Planning Coordinator
•
Frank Todd, Mayor
CITY of TUKWILA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
26 June 1973
Wilsey & Ham, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Michael Brooks
Evergreen Building
15 Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Mr. Brooks:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This correspondence is in reply to our telephone conver-
sation earlier this afternoon regarding an Environmental
Assessment Summary for the proposed Maguire development
to be located immediately south of the Doubletree Inn,
Tukwila.
While Tukwila Ordinance #759, unlike the State Environ-
mental Policy Act, establishes an Environmental Assessment
Summary which may be used at the discretion of the Tukwila
Planning Coordinator, it has normally been employed when
a determination was difficult as to whether or not a
project was a "major" action which may have a "significant
adverse environmental effect ".
As I stated in our earlier conversation, this office has
only received what may. be termed conceptual or preliminary
site plans and from those have determined the proposal
to be of such magnitude as to require a detailed Environ-
mental Impact Statement which must be completed in
accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act
Guidelines. The preparation of an Assessment Summary
would only cause a delay in the procedures of a full
Impact Statement.
Any further information regarding this matter will be
gladly provided upon your request at this office at
242 -2177.
Si rely,
ry
Plan ng Technici
chfield
GC /lt.
WILSEY& HAM, INC.
Earl P. Wilsey (1892 -1957)
15 SOUTH GRADY WAY, EVERGREEN BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 • Telephone (206) 228 -1080 • Cable "WHINT"
January 3, 1973
File No. 3 -2012- 0101 -30
Mr. Richard B. Hansen
Acting Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Hansen:
Enclosed are copies of the reviewing agency comments to The Trillium Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and our responses. The letters from the
EPA Region X, the Washington Department of Fisheries and the Department of
Game required further information which is provided. -The comments from the
other agencies are also well taken and can be incorporated by reference.
Sincerely,
WILSEY & HAM, INC.
A. Llewellyn Matthews
Environmental Resource Planner
ALM /kb
Enclosures
cc: Pat Colee
engineering • planning • surveying • landscape architecture • mapping • systems
Frank Todd, Mayor
CITY or TUKWILA
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON 98067
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Wilsey & Ham, Inc.
ATTN: Ms. Llewellen Mathews
15 South Grady Way
Evergreen Building
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Ms. Mathews:
21 December 1973
This office, on 29 October 1973, disbursed some twenty
copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Trillium to concerned Federal, State and regional agencies.
The forty -five day review period is complete as of this
date and we have received several comments.
Please find enclosed a copy of each comment. None of the.
comments appear to be very critical and we assume a final
statement will be forthcoming very soon. Please keep
in mind the recent Transportation Control Plan promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
GC /lt
Enc l :
1. Ltr,
2. Ltr,
3. Ltr,
4. Ltr,
5. Ltr,
6. Ltr,
7. Ltr,
8. Ltr,
9. Ltr,
10.Ltr,
Richard B. Hansen
Acting Planning Coordinator
Dept of Fisheries, dtd 13 Nov 73
Corps of Engrs, dtd 28 Nov 73
Dept of Game, dtd 28 Nov 73
K. C. Dept of Health Dept, dtd 20 Nov 73
State Pks Comm, dtd 2 Nov 73
State Hwy Comm, dtd 23 Nov 73
Fed Hwy Admin, dtd 28 Nov 73
State Dept of Nat Res, dtd 20 Nov 73
P.S.A.P.C.A., dtd 17 Dec 73
U.S. Env Protection Agny, dtd 14 Dec 73
cc: Mayor Todd
DANIEL J. EVANS
GOVERNOR
ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING o PHONE 753 -6600 THOR C. TOLLEFSON
OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON 98504 DIRECTOR
November 13, 1973
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Attention Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
Gentlemen:
Your letter of October .29, 1973 requests our review of an Environmental
Impact Statement for a project entitled Trillium, a business and commercial
complex to be located in. Tukwila. Following are our comments:
1. On page 16, reference is made to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan,
adopted in 1962, "....which is still somewhat applicable today ".
As pointed out in our reviews of other similar projects recently
proposed for this area, the'Environmental Impact Statements have
not indicated whether the proposed developments follow any up-
dated
plan or are consistent with all other plans and policies.
2. One of our major concerns in this project, as in the others, is
the increased quantity of storm water runoff and degradation of
water quality in the Green - Duwamish River. Incidentally, on
page 1 the project site is located as 1/4 mile from the river
and on page 23 as one mile away.
3. The third and fourth sentences on page 39 should'read: "Most of
the chinook runs are produced from fry or fingerlings released
from the Washington State Department of Fisheries' hatchery .
located on the Soos Creek. tributary. Mud' •natural spawning by
chinook and other species of salmon also occurs." '
4. In Table 10, the generic name for dace should be spelled
Rhinichthys and the scientific name for starry flounders should
be listed as Platichthys stellatus. I have pointed out the
latter error in the other statements prepared for the City of
Tukwila by Wilsey and Ham.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment upon this project.
Sincerely, /
Gilbert A. Holland
Fisheries Research Coordinator
cc: D. L. Lundblad - Dept. of Ecology
E. S. Dziedzic - Dept. of Game
Wilsey and Ham, Inc. - Renton.,
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
1. The proposed development is consistent with both the City Comprehensive
Plan and current Regional Plans.
2. Erratta: The subject site is located 1/2 mile from the Green.River.
3 & 4. These comments are accordingly incorporated.
DEPARTMENT OF i ii ;E ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1519 ALASKAN WAY SOUTH
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134.
28 NOV 1973
NPSEN -PL -ER
Mr. Delbert F. Moss
Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
14475 -59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98067.
Dear Mr. Moss:
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
the Trillium Business and Commercial Complex proposed for develop-
ment in Tukwila, Washington.
We concur with your statement that "While the net affect of this
particular project is small, it is part of a continuing deleterious
trend in accommodation of increased storm water flows by direct discharge
into the existing natural systems," (page 67, item b - Impact on Hydrology
and Water Quality). In view of this expressed concern, we suggest the
EIS be revised to include the following data:
a. Existing Conditions, Section B.c(2) - Water Quality. Suggest
paragraph 3 indicate summer month water quality analyses were made
and reason month was selected. If month does not reflect period of
maximum stress on aquatic organisms, suggest that period be sampled and
included in the EIS.
b. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action, Section C.1.c
Impact on Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology. EIS does not discuss impact
of project on aquatic biology. In view of expressed concern for Green -
Duwamish Waterway, suggest EIS discuss subject in relationship to
affected water quality.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely yours,
6
A. LEE VilAR NGTON
ASS' T . CHIEF, PLANNING B RANCrfi
RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF ARMY
a. The data is a summary of data gathered by W.R.M.S. (Water Resource
Management Study) from mid -July through mid- September. The data was
retrieved from computer data banks in such a manner as to represent a
typical month during the summer. The data thus reflects maximum stress
to aquatic organisms.
b. The Department of Game letter stresses the fact that the water quality
impacts resulting from development adjacent to the river has a concomitant
adverse effect on Green River Fishery..
By way of further note, the water quality problems experienced by the
Green River which were, identified by the E.I.S. are substantiated by
the RIBCO Water Quality Management Study, Summary of Interim Report
(October 1973). As this study indicates the Green River has a problem
of high temperature due to its shallow depth and inadequate shading,
and low dissolved oxygen which is attributable to high temperatures
and to oxygen consumption by bottom organisms (benthos). The Green River
also has high coliform counts. The Duwamish Estuary suffers from phyto -.
plankton blooms, caused in part by nutrients brought in by the Green River,
and from low dissolved oxygen which is consumed by the algae and benthos.
While such effects are serious and'it is the function of the Environmental
Impact Statement process to identify such effects, it is beyond the scope
of the present study to quantifiably analyze the effects to fishery.
Director / Carl N. Crouse
Assistant Directors / Ralph IV. Larson
Ronald N. Andrews
(rake coy. -..
Arthur S. Collin, Yakima, Chairman .
James R. :1,gen, LaConner
Elmer G. Gerken, Quint:).
Claude .Bckins, 'Seattle
Glenn Galbraith; 1l�ellpinit
Frank L. Cassidy, Jr., Vancouver
DM ID I T M 7.17 ®P Al
600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504
November 28, 1973
Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
Your draft environmental impact statement for Development of the
Trillium, A Business and Commercial Complex, City of Tukwila, has been reviewed
by our Seattle region and Olympia staffs; comments follow.
Your description of project location, developmental history and
projected commercial activities constitutes an excellent representation of
Proposed Action.
Your portrayal of Existing Conditions was equally concise and complete
except for a few inadequacies which can be corrected. In reference to Green
River fishery you stated (page 39) "Although some natural spawning occurs in
the river the majority of anadromous fishes are released as fry and fingerlings
from the Washington State Department of Fisheries Hatchery "...The phrase
"some natural spawning" should be corrected to read "substantial natural spawning ",
as a very significant natural spawning escapement has been recorded for the
Green River to date.
Your explanation of potential project impact on water quality was
accurate but it did not contain an account of project impact on the Green River
fishery. You have outlined several serious pollution factors, in your discussion
of hydrology and water quality, such as a potential increase in natural runoff
containing hydrocarbons, oils, and particulates to the Green River and a
possible increase in river temperature. It should be stressed that each of these
impacts will have a concomitant adverse effect on the Green River fishery.
Moreover, the cumulative deleterious effect which this, along with other projects, .
will have on the fishery should be emphasized.
In the interest of protecting our valuable steelhead fishery in Green
River (an average of 83,500 summer -run smolts planted 1970 -72; 113,500 winter -run
smolts in 1971; an average of 14,539 steelhead taken in 1970 and 1971), we strongly
urge that the water- quality criteria promulgated by the Department of Ecology
be adhered to. The interrelationships of temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients
and rearing and passage of anadromous fish are far too complex to describe here,
but criteria developed by the Department of Ecology were designed to protect
fishery interests, among others.
Delbert F. Moss
-2- November 28, 1973
We feel you made a conscientious effort to evaluate existing conditions
of the area for wildlife. Tables on vegetation and wildlife are complete and
accurate. However, an unfortunate weakness which will affect decisions on this
proposal is that this statement was written after the site was covered with
fill. A significant commitment of wildlife habitat and related public benefits
was made at that time. Therefore, one cannot argue with your statement that
there will be .. a replacement of one man -made habitat with another ". But
one can argue that an analysis of the consequences should have been made before
the natural marsh was changed to a "man- made" fill.
We can not agree with your conclusion (p. 79) that "At present there
are no known techniques for retaining wildlife in an intensively developed
area." The vicinity of the proposal under consideration contains remnant wetlands
that are used by large numbers of waterfowl. Also data from your EIS (Table 7,
page 36) shows that wildlife does occur on the site even in its present marginal
state. Wildlife can exist, therefore, if habitat is available to it.
Also your conclusions that, " A portion of a foraging habitat will be
removed from resident birds as well as migratory birds" and that "... existing
birds will probably be displaced to more remote reaches of their habitats ", are
too optomistic. Remaining habitats are at their carrying capacity and the so-
called "displaced" creatures will be lost. We agree that there will be a
"dimunition" of habitats. But to be accurate we must all recognize that a
great deal of " Dimunition" has and is taking place in the Green River Valley.
When all this piecemeal erosion of habitat is added up the impact on wildlife
has been substantial and if present activity continues it will border on being
catostrophic.
We recognize that points we made above cannot be directed entirely
at your proposal or statement. However, it seems that the cumulative, long
range, irretrievable commitment of a broad range of natural values mast be
recognized. This recognition, we think, should appear not only in individual
impact statements, but also somewhere in the overall planning process for
the future of Green River Valley.
Thank you'for sending us your statement. We sincerely hope our
comments will prove of value to you
ESD:jb
cc: Chitwood
Agencies
Sincerely,
THE DEPARTMENT OOF GAME
ec
Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief
'Environmental Management Division
RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME
These comments are well taken and are accordingly incorporated by reference.
In order to clear up a possible misunderstanding in regard to a comment on
Page 2, it should be noted that the subject site was filled many years ago.
and prior to the present developer's formulation of plans. for the site.
Seattle -King County
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Public Safety Building
LAWRENCE BERGNER, M.D., M.P.H.
Director of Public Health
Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 583 -2550
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Attention: Steve Hall, Acting Planning Coordinator
Re: Trillium Impact Statement
November 20, 1973.
CATY OF V U(V`.,,,A
. c.;,1/4
Gentlemen:
Members of my staff have reviewed the draft of the environmental impact
statement for the development of "Trillium ", a business and commercial
complex, to be located in Tukwila, Washington.
Field investigation revealed that storm and sanitary sewers and an approved
public water supply are available to the site. The summary of proposed
action as listed on page 2 of the statement is to undertake all review
and permit procedures for the construction of a commerical complex.
This office will work with the Tukwila Planning Department to ensure
that food establishment plans, plumbing installations and other related
environmental concerns meet local and state laws.
On the basis of these determinations the department recommends the
necessary permits be granted to allow the proposed const uction.
JBC /et
cc: Carl a.gerser
awrence Bergner, M.D., P '.•.
Director of Public 'Health -
DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS:
NORTH B=AST SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST
• ^vyr .J
GOVERNOR
DANIEL .1. EVANS
COMMISSIONERS:
JEFF D. DOMASKIN
THOMAS C. GARRETT
MRS. KAY GREEN
RALPH E. MACKEY
JAMES G. McCURDY
JAMES W. WHITTAKER
WILFRED R. WOODS
• DIRECTOR
CHARLES H. ODEGAARD
•
•
s
//�� ��++. AA�� WASHINGTON
�TSTATE
Rt�� ��.
7.11 ►7- 1TC.?,w�l G.G MECPEATZO COMMISGZO
LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER PHONE 753 -5755
P. O. BOX 1128 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
November 2, 1973
Attention Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
Gentlemen:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Trillium, A Commercial And Business Complex
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has
reviewed the above -noted draft environmental statement
and does not wish to make any comment at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
DWH:1jh
David W. Heiser, Assistant Chief
Research, Planning, and
Acquisition
WASHINGTON. ON. STATE
•
HIGHWAY COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Highway Administration Building
Olympia, Washinacon 98504 (206) 753 -6005
Mr. Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
14475 — 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
Daniel J.. Evans - Gorernr:
GP, Andrews - Direc(r;r
November 23, 1973
Re: Trillium, Business and Commercial
Complex
City of Tukwila
Draft Environmental Statement
Reference is made to your transmittal letter dated October 30,
requesting our review of the Draft Environmental Statement for the
above referenced proposal.
We have completed our review and find the proposal will not be
in conflict with any existing or proposed facilities in this area.
Thank you for the opportunity to revieww this information.
Sincerely,
G. H. ANDREWS
Director of Highways
x"eaeeze-te
By: H. R. GOFF
Assistant Director for
Planning, Research and
State Aid
GHA :yw'
HRG
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Room 412 Mohawk Building
222 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
November 28, 1973
Mr. Delbert F. Moss
Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
IN REPLY REFER TO '10-00.33
Our Washington Division and Regional office staffs have reviewed the
draft environmental statement for Trillium, a business and commercial
complex to be located within the corporate limits of Tukwila.
Our review indicates the draft environmental statement to be adequate .
in our areas of concern. ,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposal.
Very truly yours
Deputy Regional Administrator
HARBOR
AREA
•
k,....))/\•,bir • -]
• .;
-r/
•
V. 'V
STATE OF WASHINGTON-
VeAdtteotege
Redemditeed •
-7-zaer,„eze
COMMISSIONER
BERT COLE
DON LEE FRASER
SUPERVISOR
November 20, 1973
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON
98504
Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
14475 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98067
•Dear Mr. Moss:
My staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental impact Statement for
the proposed Trillium, a business and commercial complex. We have
no comments to make regarding this project.
Please direct all future statements to Mr. William Baxter, Environ-
mental Forester for the Department of Natural Resources.
We appreciate having an opportunity to review this statement.
Since5bly,
/‘
BERT L. COLE
Commissioner of Public Lands
BLC:wbs
0200
4 ru •re>t riarrison Street, Seattle, �`•. .
December 17, 1973 •
Mr. Gary Krutchfield,
Planning Technician
Public Works Department
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
. Tukwila, Washington 98067
Subject: The Trillium Commercial and Business Complex
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Dear Mr. Krutchfield:
As the local regulatory Agency, we. have looked particularly
at the air pollution control aspects. of the. proposal. and
•have consequently limited our comments to air pollution.
Our air quality control jurisdiction in this area is shared
with the State Department of Ecology. With. regard to motor -
vehicles, the State has assumed jurisdiction and, currently
with the Environmental Protection Agency, has the•authority
to limit and control this source of air pollution.. Under
a parking management plan, application to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X (1200 Sixth Avenue,. Seattle, Wa
98101) is required for any addition of 50 or more parking
spaces.
Alternative transportation methods are mentioned in the
SERVING: statement as possible mitigating measures for the expected
K;NG COUNTY increase.in auto air pollutant concentrations.. Traffic'
410 West Harrison St. flow measures are also .suggested which would reduce auto
Seattle, 98119 gg
(206) 344 -7330 congestion air pollution effects. • These proposals would
KITSAP COUNTY be of some value in improving the air quality of the region
Dial Operator for Toll with or without the Trillium project.
Free Number Zenith 8385 •
Bainbridge Island,
Dial 344 -7330 . We are aware that air quality studies will be made in. con-
PIERCE COUNTY
213 Hess Building
Tacoma, 98402
(206) 383 -5851
ENOi-iOMiSH COUNTY •
703 Medical- Dental Bldg.
Everett, 98201
(206) 259-0288
nection with the transportation control strategy so that
this question may best be left until after the results of
these studies are known.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CHAIRMAN: Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County;
Patric+ J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County;,
•• .� 5,•r.. -,an; King County E+ecutivo;
VICE CHAIRMAN: Robert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish County;
Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; Gordon N. Johnston. Mayor Tacoma; Harvey S. Poll. Member at Large:
Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammioehler, Air Pollution Control Officer
Gary Krutchfield
December 17, 1973
Page 2
Another source of air pollution discussed in the statement,
construction dust, can be controlled by following this Agency's
Guidelines which are enclosed.'
It should be noted, particularly on page 40 of the statement,
that this Agency's ambient air quality standards for suspen-
ded particulate are that the concentration, averaged over any
24 -hour period, shall not exceed:
1. 60 ugm /m3 annual geometric mean, or
2. 150 ugm /m3 more than once per year.
In addition, the section allowing 15% of the samples to exceed
standards has been removed from Regulation I.
Very truly yours,
" 7C1)
�
r \�1k
:N
A.R. Dammkoehler
Air Pollution Control Officer
ARD /JKA:km
Enclosure: Guidelines
cc: Mr. John C. Raymond
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Wa 98504
Mr. James L. Agee,
Region X Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 - 6th Avenue
Seattle, Wa 98101
Tacoma Branch Office
The Hess Building, Room 213
901 Tacoma Ave. S.
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Telephone (206) 383 -5851
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Plan Review Section
410 W. Harrison
Seattle, Washington 98119
Telephone (206) 344 -7334
Everett Branch Office
703 Medical Dental Building
2730 Colby Avenue
Everett, Washington 98201
Telephone (206) 259 -0288
GUIDELINES FOR CONTROL OF AIR, POLLUTION FROM ROCK PROCESSING
Air pollution from rock processing equipment and adjacent roads must
be controlled so as to meet the requirements. of Regulation I, includ-
ing Sections 9.03, 9.04, 9.09, 9.11, 9.12 and 9.15. Pursuant to Sec -
tions 9.12 and 9.15 of Regulation I the Control Officer has established
the following control measures as reasonable requirements and precau-
tions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne:
ROCK PROCESSING - CONTROL MEASURES.
1. Hooding of dust emission points on belts, transfer points and
crushers and ducting the collected air to a.baghouse or water
scrubber, or
2. Application of a water or chemical mist near emission points,
(a pressure above 90 pounds per square inch. and. special noz-
zles may be required to produce a mist.that.is both effective
and yet not cause, plugging of screens), or
.3. A combination of 1 and 2 (as shown in Figure 3), or
4.' Other control measures such as enclosure which comply with
Regulation I.
Visible dust emissions from rock processing equipment are usually i
dicative of improper design or operation.
ROADS, PILES, TRUCK LOADING, AND ROCK DRILLS - CONTROL MEASURES
1. Dust coming from in -plant roads shall be controlled by paving,
or surfacing treatment which will control both air pollution
and mud carry out. A wheel wash system may be required to
prevent mud carry out under some conditions.
2. Dust coming from fines piles shall be controlled by the use
of a dust suppressant or by providing covering to prevent
exposure to wind.
3. Dust coming from rock drills and truck loading shall be con -
trolled by hooding or application of a mist.
0TICS OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRED
An approved Notice of Construction is required prior to the installa-
tion or alteration of roc'c processing and /or control. - equipment. The
,ccf7nry Notice of Construction forms can -be obtained by calling the
Section (344- 7334).
-2
MAINTENANCE AND HOUSEKEEPING
1. The spray system shall be protected fromi.freezing.
during cold weather by insulation or a change in
spray feed formulation.
2. Fugitive dust shall be controlled by godd house-
keeping, including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. Sweeping and flushing of paved roads.
b. Wetting or chemical.coating of unpaved low
traffic areas.
c. Chemical coating of exposed areas to prevent
windblown dust.
CONTROL METHODS
Figure 1 shows the arrangement of atomizing nozzles which
develop a flat mist spray pattern. The nozzles are placed
on each end of a rubber shield to suppress dust emissions from
the bottom of the crusher discharge. Two nozzles which form a
cone shape mist spray are often used on the top of a crusher -to .
control dust caused by crushing.
Figure 2 illustrates how a flat mist spray can be applied ahead
of�a transfer point to eliminate dust. The mist should be
applied to the rock before the dust is airborne.
•
Figure 3 shows a combination mist and baghouse system for
crushing plants. The baghouse is believed to be.99% efficient
in reducing the emissions from a rock crusher.
Fi ure 4 shows a mist system for a rock crusher plant. The use
of a wetting agent reduces the quantity of liquid required for
effective control.
-3-
CRUSHER
NARD RUBBER SHIELD
TEO FLAT ATi"lIZINS•TYPE
SP ^AY eJZZUS, DBE EACH
END OF RU »ER SHIELD
TRO FLAT ATOSIZINS•1YPE
SPRAY NOZZLES. CHE EACH
END OF RU.2ER SHIELD
CCSVEYOR FELT
BELT CONVEYOR
ROLLERS
Figure 1. Nozzle arrangement for control of
dust emissions upon discharge of crusher.*
*Air Pollution Engineering Manual..AP4.0, pp. 341
'� -Mist Nozzle
pis
.veil
41111
'11',
o 1 o I
1 ' : ; I BELT CONVEYOR
[IRE -ANGLE CONE -TYPE
SPRAY NOZZLE
Figure 2. Nozzle arrangement for control of dust
omissions from the inlet to the shaker screens.
�.
•
TRUCK DUMP
AND FEEDEV,
tom'
INDICATES
MIST APPLICATION
PRIMARY
CRUSHER SECONDARY
CRUSHER
SCREEN
BIN AND TRUCK
LOADING STATION
TERTIARY
CRUSHER
TYPICAL COMBINATION MIST & BAGHOUSE SYSTEM FOR CRUSHING PLANTS
Figure 3
TRUCK DUMP
ROCK CRUSHING PLANT
MIST DUST CONTROL SYSTEM
Pg. IMARY
CRUSHER
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
SURGE PIL
INCOMING WATER LINE
�+ WETTING AGENT DRUM
PROPORTIONER
Figure 4
ccSO ST,I),
Z') YU
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
g ��:? ' SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
% December 14_ 1973
tilq� PROSE
ATTN OFO 10MEI - M/S 325
Mr. Delbert F. Moss
Planning Coordinator
City of Tukwila
14475 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Dear Mr. Moss:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
Trillium Business Complex, Tukwila, Washington.
The impact of additional vehicle travel on the existing transportation
system and on air quality should be more fully analyzed and any mitigating
measures necessary indicated. We have discussed with the developers of
Trillium and their consultants the general type of air quality impact
analysis that should be carried out. Because of the high pollutant
concentrations that may currently exist in the area of the project and
because of the size of the project, we feel a detailed analysis of the
impact of the project, substantiated by ambient air quality monitoring,
is necessary.
The parking facilities associated with the proposed development will
require a permit from EPA to comply with the transportation control plan
for the State of Washington (38 Federal Register 32668), and to assure
the implementation of national ambient air quality standards. The proposed
development may also be subject to EPA indirect source regulations which
will be promulgated shortly. Whether the development will be subject to
the regulations depends upon the effective date of the regulations and
upon the date construction of the development is commenced. These
regulations were proposed for the State of Washington on October 30,
1973 (38 Federal Register 29893). Copies of both the EPA parking
management regulation and the proposed indirect source regulations for
the State of Washington are attached.
In addition, the EIS should address the impact of the proposed
development on all existing public utilities and on the need for additional
public services as a result of growth generated by the proposed development.
2
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statemen
Sincerely,
Attachments
cc: P. Millam
Hurlon C. Ray
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Management
• rl:l:i o .Ei) aa.11. .
c. 1• t � '1 :, ^.nil (h) a.) WI of tlti;; S Ctit).'t
.•,r (. air (jt;nli y rat::: 1. 'a;1r.
( C. C•;:: : :('.,.. ;t..'t Cr', 1n:; ;tC11ti : :1 or (il. i,i,ij- x) :;,111)(: ta:!::'..> ibli ✓ : \ ") ::
r (1) fart C1 ?)i.'. ..',1S 1rU, ;l st :.t!c'Ih.hi rut([
?!' Of t!? -Z CfjCC. of the
]nplla:' tif•i i'i :i :•; .ii :.aTpc.: ,::1':' r,it!t
.,• ! :n !i1 - .i� •1i, :1:: fri: :T' :?.111 )'.C. �'.. •. •,• ^I't'i;t i, fit_
CCri`: ' a " " •_ .._ O•' ..•(iaaalCf.tlJ❑ GI l :(; C'it. ..
C•'7' f.)` ^) \'CT1i, Of Cli..:t:1i.,, a:..
P.nci r. ;Lit! :)• :l Ic : :( :..!S.i;Ll, (iC' \'!+: :•IC1 ?1 ('':t'�C :( :i!',. ) (.'•::Cli: .;lilt:..
Cr2i1tL..,,.:.. ii_l i; :Cl: ?mot :'i ::1 < :i:':C', :;.;1•:` ?t• tt- :'i':. .11:!:i !Ii .- :j, ::1't,. ..
v,-h4,1, rr :i 'i:•...'.1' fi_, P. 1'wiltt of Sl :t:!) C.):.l^ t :)i;; :a. a ) (i:(Yt'.i `t6 C` :'l; "Li:. the
st tit • 1 ..,, tio• f�1'= , :'I(C if':"' :1r't r'.1 ^'1' ' tii., -
(e) .L': .(i:t i,)nal information, i ten :• (ii) An - :. -':'I 1. :tv r„a lyri ,
2 _ec it cri le1C :C O: (':.. n_i:t,a- 1.11 ^.1l bT -' t_, ::1 1:, C1:t :- :...1..,. i'. : :'. C :•:f) 2Ca!41
t1011 1•'.t.. .L:.,, 1)•!':'_iltC)r may l'C':.lilri:. F'.)it'J:C:)o co::-ii_at'f.i.'Il: of C."+
(-1) (i)• 1,7o tkpproyr.1 to CC':? :.!1•3.'.ct or ino114 : :idc, 1':Ic.;;oclheitli %•: :; JS11:..ilt:;, It:ttl
3 ^.C':iiil• S!1 11 he rri:lht.Cd Unless the 3j)lt•• 1)it.0('.t'il O >:!d C3 foilo; :: ,;; construction
c:t:zit. ,liov:s 15!':t: • or li ?:1C1fiiC (lOt. • .
(() '1.'11,-.: 1:r;i::Cit 50i1CC 1'!11 L ^! : C`, *.e. (7) )Cl 1� C rcCt , o1i. t:3 other hPn
i violation of the cont red „'. atc, ;y .hick roads and a(-,x, t.s, t•' : ?1in_2t'oel rt.
Is part of the i :pplic :.ble pi'_3U, and . quirccl Under 1':]gr:l.ph `(b) ('i) (it) of
(b) The ini :irCct source will not pre- this sect; ^a shall h;, alii :(1.s. using trl
rfcre with the Stt:li111i1C))t apprOprizlio diffusion j'r(!i•1. tf. ev2t.lu:t-;`
or IllnjnIC:7,.,11CC of a !ulti0_111 ambient the ill}12r ct of CZL1•i)C•'.1 li]Clr:c. :•lt7$ crnis-
air (i;.,1.ia)' :•1 ::l:C...rd. Sions 1c.- ..uh23 )io:it C%,ii:.ia:ii :d1 :: :-;.ii lh:;l1
.(ii) In connection with tha c1eterm1na- vehicle trips to or from such Lonrco. Such
Con 1ellu:r(:i: h:• paragr::?ll (b) (4) (1) of ',Impact shall t:; e1-a3 •te.i. _t reasona!,!a
this . ion, the s11ov.in1;: regulred.c'f the rec. -!tor or expo -ure si.tcc3 in the-vicinity
• applicant sha11 be limited t0 the impact, of such indirect. Source.
on air (!UC.)jty fi•i• :n the indirect source: (g) Within 30 di(ys 1!f ter re:eipt of on
proposal to be constructed or modified, rpplicrttion, t)'^ Director will notify the
f_ti(i , 1,•. TCi. t CO 1 t t.on of exist- . public, by pl'OiilCtlt• ftlliCitiS:':11 Ilt in
lag CS:)1Ci_U1:S from outer Source:. it.' :..tall the TC ^,loll affected, of' the o ;)?)irtl:lhity
be tile - e3i-'.)I'i ibillty Of the Director t0 for t.. c ccment• on tae i'ift.•1'nictti0r1
d.:iermii :e t)' impact on air cjtlzlit•;; of .)„, a ,.- , c
$oomitt(:o oy the own 1 O� °pme.. or.
future p•0\',-t'1 and development or other (1) $UCT l(f0_m?.171, ^, v :Cil fS the
fe.etor: c..Necting emissions and stir (1u 1-
Director's analysis cf talc. of C . of the 111
ity n'; CP F')T1Clh the ap;)l.Carlt has no Cliroot • source on air (Ui :iity r:I1Ci the
control.. : Director's prof }3sE.ti ap •ror; al or (i.(S_^.1)-
. (Li) 'ii--: Director Eltall, prior to ma k-
rill;: c'ctcrlltinac.ion rotr to approve Inc • pro:'al, shall be a i ails.blc in at least one • low? ti0111_,.1•1]:1 IC 1011 •i�fCC: d.
const1.-oc.:`Q1 of modification of an mth.- . .
•ret:t :-1.,::r (: pursuant to 1?arageaph (b) (ii) A..c :.iii:' -of the notice re ulrc-I
(4) (1) 0( t•:is seet)(if C(ilsii.er 1ti) \' al- Pursuant-to this sUbpa.ra:,,:"1 :ba.i. he
•111,.n n` t:ln 1-,,,:-.,,-?,:.:?‘) (-o`1Str1tction or sel]t to the I.Cart(11ist•P: iar through the
r0Ca:' ':ti:.11 •:iitcl}_ v.o1ld pSrinit a)- aPi)r0iris L regional. (ilce; 16 all other
.pro: t) he
Director shall condition any Stat•:: and i'?3:t1 air p :l!: ?:Foil control.
approval (:11 r•UCl1 alteration bfli)'1 • torn'- agencies having jurisdiction 1 1 the re- , •Cir.-
the t• i T r.•• where the indirect 5On:rC(: C,•iil be 10- :1.t! -C;
} :.Ora'.t�Yi is -a,' C.01•aStl'UC dCta or r_ OCii,i_.•..-
ti0n,. L' (1. :' sill,; among poSsiUle [A'rc'h.,- 'and t0 any other ;,..7.en. y iii the rei•cion.
t'on'-1, the Director th:,.11 give ap?r01)r 1 rte 112\'1:1~ responsibility for 1. plc! }Mini::
c0•r •idcr t :O'1 t0 any e:-fi)cnditUres of the prOCedure3 require-' under thi.=.. para-
tl-'_e or inc,ncy Iluidc by the o-:;..[ ..r or rCrap11. ,
h• ,' (iii) Public- Comincn s sub_ Sated with-
Cie a< the indirect .o.arC.c pr. :'r to ( ) "'t• .
(11e ('('"ec.1.. :' Gate Of this pnri'.ITph. . hi. 30 days Of.i•ie et.t-n such information
(5) For I.':. (-1Ii and 1?i.;Ihwf :)'s st:bjmt is !made avah^ble Sl}. ^.17 he co 1St .i :red 1;Y
1 11 �• mating final decision
to this i) :(ii''a)i'l, the d.'.'tfriYliartt!GII 1'.'.- the 1JffcL ^ ^(, in 1)'. :.il; t1i5
(Eire: v::. .r.. par: (b) (4) (:i) of on the nil, 1ic-at:iall.
tl :i, :1 ^:h: :ll be Ili..a,,. r.: fill!(,'. :s: (iv) The Diro :'to_ shall tat-; final ;G-
(1) '1'i. _ ^1!'aet of a. 1-0 a:1 or 1]' 1\ =.'0Y lion on •r!n t1 ;die;- :,tf3r1 v :itlin a0 days
on the t`-Y?.: v +'•r.l' in :\t1 r- pprOpli::t: -r1:a r..ftC' the ('10 the public :'CSCi1t•1)^-
;3?h;tf_d. 1Cs' an area..-wide air C :aa)it: liod. The jD :rL -ctor shall notify the np-
.:1)•tt, sh-,Y.1 b: u:;Cti to (1.etermi: the p)iCant 1:1 v :. :t '.11g of hi, 'ipravP1, con.;-
cllsar cc ,ir.. ei :.::icls for such ..eels Such eiti:, )rc•; ra, , ic;:i i of •h ), t-
1rez!-,.l1' • :'t (!11 :311' :..11..1-1Y:=1;; 511::11 1 ^n+1 cation, and shall S• forth his reiteso'.s for
t`; :o detel'Ini :1C c ; ctt'd ra)ti)! :,]t conditional ai:pr07(t) or C--L' i1.
c C•neei. . a. . _ 'Of carbon nion ):ii.20 (9) The Director ISIP. \• ,' 1;iCz•e.. ra \• r(':
l) ::1t;,C1- .,c1 :l o:<i(1';tit`, and lit: `:C1 '.: ?a )i' C one! (DS 0:1 ) pro';. 11:-
OxiG_. IC•1... lt( Cfilt :tdt(tol
or 1`11i,an1• Clti(lil),; & ,,!l :_1!i1 3.,..,,..i.....„-, illcinciii :- t
cation. source ...,', ..C'1' or op :-i C: .O C!;11C•. `Ct f?..
(ii) 11. en ':1 :•0j,,1 ?(c. till •lf,1•' :) . built ::1r ( ;l1 :'1't;' M:' :':it GSin in the
t :- . f t:., ,... •cC
rlcdrl .. ryir c;:lrlltt.; 1 ^1 ^sets pa c:: ;nn viii, :it.j oi: 1_ .i1r c'' tit•: :".,..t for r
3110:10..:. tat, _•l(.:1S ri.:;'., ills ^. fi'0 : :l ilIC . nn v.,01-.;.1).10 port: pr!Cr to coin 1 ?ei1'"•_.
c.`'i- i:...•a •... :: :.,U(t1 troff1- \i3 ,, (!:1, n•. .I1,,r,t of c -: StrU::'.!c -'. t,.. 1 ? :^ 1r' :t :o :1.
roa(i. of 1,'.1..:11','..r''.," S)?,:!i 1 C- ,...'•i •.,'(i I-,1.-. ati:i.or for .. t)' •,11!.A..1.1.1.::•:1 1 ;' -i"i ! -tt'e, 111) ::
ri•_,_ !, 1i:CCi)t.)'• G: ( :. . ..it :., in s ',. 0; t t a
f 11.0: •' ' + :1; f
tilt; `C';.', ;;• C' .., 1'i,.._.• Ofj) i\li;'�;G :2il to C4:.. . ... Or l?](. ,.y
(G) 1':. ... •'rlr . :Il)i` :Ct to (1315 )2. shall not rC1,. iii o :`:..•a or cp r, :to .
i. :)i_ -i, t_:. (1''•'•111''• •ti .. riC1'- );r( <1 iii,. er ('f ti?', )'E :.•I "' :IS ;1i :li'•.r t0 C1 !•'t \'iit!I t!' :C'
. con1 -r*)i stn:1••: : }' T' -!)ti i'.li ii•". :'.:, :i :1t0 encl.
ions \. i1.ilh i i•(• port a Cf
f; )iti1CiCl : :r' 1)ia. LS,
(11) The (,io••••: -I2or of the S tfttc•..,.1111.
thi:.t :arc ii: 1 :' :o: P :21 ` \:lti•'_
carry 0: :t. this r.' `lIi1.i - :`)It
1'r of (1,(' :;i f.i; \':1!)1:11 •o G: "� !ii. :'.:
the (late 0f :`... :•i ' :. it :Tl i :l;• tiJ:1. 'i' „•(i < +'r_
C' : :('C :.:i('1• I2u 2f{ t', i1C.,,..•:t,: +t
O. ^.!:.heft 1:: 11 (: -
12 ^tt.! throu -h i!: , a: !,i,3p 1 i:.te 1;(
i+Ci;:1!rti°'trat2) :•. \`•'11"re the •t•iicy ,i,: ;-
I1at..x1 15 11:-.4 an. air 1i!'•!1t :(10 :1 •
cgt•Ilc ', such, roc :C 6!1':'•1 G? :1= -11ii i...
the :ilprapri' :te -St :hte or, l: _ %1 i :u bail .-
t:0:1,(:C'l1i- (:. °rite:} prior 10 -
d-- t•n_: ?I1inati'• al'C(juirr:(iby i)arr -r .!ill (:t1
(4) of this section.
)oo.73 2317: 1'1 :ed 30-20-7;;;8:45 nrnl
VOL. 3S, NO. ... - :t! %$ AY. OCiC ::11. ;.0, 1973
It Is )!O 1.0 (•) amend. Part 52 c,f
Choptor "I, !o) oi Co;lo of 1"t-....,1•
ero.1 iZoio;o:ro.: follows:
f• 5f..2o t:o.; foot parograplt
1o:tooted porooto,po oo root, porfoo fool
(11) is r..Ooto,.-;.. A n:cooled, t,i 52.22 rtools
Es.S . -
52.22 Yi33:-,t(-ii:o.b,:c of niitie.mol
. (a) Sub000ticut to January 31, 1t173,
Ado-tto:st2lor cr:ain State
1:nplontontotion pion provisions for in-
suring t.li• riviotononoe of tho nationol
stanclards. rel•inv:" indicates that
State pions to-otoroKy do not contant
3-efazIalion3 or procedureo which ode:-
cloately oetri'SS this problcm. P.ccord-
. all State. plans arc disa1)provcc.1
Avith ros000t to ito:htiononoe beccio.so
such plans lack cnioroeante 'proccetares
• or reottlations for reviewh no. olici pre-
vent:rig construction or mo:lification. of
which, 1,:111 result, ilt tfl lucroase
of ernissior,s from other sources of pol-
lutants for the are national
stzndards. The eitsaoproval opplics to
t.11. States listed in Sub;iarts 13 through
DDD• cf. this part. Nothing In tills soo-
t:on sl-ioll.irn'allelato or ot.licrorise, vffect
the "obligations of Stotes, • emission
sourcoo:, or other persons with respoot to
'all portions of plans opprovcei or prontul-
tiate.d under this p..ert. Pursuant to an
order of .tho, U.S. Court of Appeals for
t•lie District of Columbia, Circuit entered
on January 31, 1073, and nrodificel on
1..ii-arel.1 12. 11173, Stote plans providing
-for ruointenance of tho national stand.-
. sorts roost- bo sulmiitted to the Admin-
. Lstrotor no into:- tlion Attg-ust: 15, 30'13.
. (b) .):.ccrolationi for revicil of rieto or
toodified: ir direct source. (1) All ternts
• noed in this pora,;roph but not sproolfl-
co.11y defloorl holow shall have the moan-
lug ivein them in 52.01 of this clito)t-cr.
(1) The. tern 'indirect source" means
2. fac3iy, building, structure, or litstol-.
btion, or conabirratiori thorcof, which
causes oo may rousc inabilei source ac-
tiO,qtY that yu to in etillsslons of a pol-
lutant for which. l'oc.•ra is a l'ott.lonal
, Standard. Suoh izidiree:t sources shill In-
• elude. bot not belirnitod to:
(c) .13=f7.11.woys told roads.
..(b) J'arldno lots ond oorages.
(c) sh000'ing ccnters.
.(d) Po:Lotion:11 conters and. aniuse-
Trion t parlo3.
(c) Sports s'•o.diooss.
(1) Airports. •
(g) Corrinorcial or industrial etc.:vol-
. Cpoicnts.
. • Te. leo:, "s.-ehiclii trip" mcoos
;Anglo froo•cnic.;.:1, r. rotor voitic•Ic.
v..hich co-17.:O.o.o.o.s, or tormtriotes r..t itn
scoiroo.
• (in) loom "Dircotor" moans tho
clircotor C tioO Stole or looal
of the-Slot;
to c000y out. ttos p.irr-oroph.
(iv) teon o.1ci onirlOng
oyes." inenos lot or io.lroo
cooncci coonoo.-.0.. 1i coojuro.tioo.
v.-ith io:Ocet z000ce.
(v) Tiie 01-5-3rf,soolio
• z'r n o'ircroft t1;-off or landing.
• •
f`01'0ED
•
(v1) '1'ho term "loo;l:ficotion" csits
au1" d':onoc to on to,-;Irect. sourco
or. incriou:e the
sow ec octivit.y
tIc)t irolOct.
(vii) 'rho V:rot "Stmidard 7,1"Otropoll-
tan Stotislicol .4.ror.." yr:to-to!: 1.1:01 areas
no (ol by the U.S. )ojrcou of
)314't in the. folio:oho: poillication:
'St ant.lard Metropoliton .F;tattsticaI
.Arcs." Ooreel vcith subsequent
otoonciments.
(yin-) 12 o2. t-erm "cicortatecl aca"
r000.ns poly aroa de..;:o,natod pursuant to
§ 51.12(i) of this chapter os /taxing the
potential for e::cccdiu any roltion-.il
standa-rcl Nvitliin the stil;-,;eouent 10 year
period.
(ix) The torm."area-wide air finality
r.ro"000lz" moan:: a no.loro:ele • ano'osis
IttiliAng -the tociutiouos spriciiiod in
51.14(c) of lids chapter. •
(x) '.['lo terrro "ce»nmenced" moans
that an owner or operator. has 'under-
- token a continuous prooratit of construc-
tion or )e±fiCatft11 or that a' binclinf,r
general construction contract hrs been
entered into NVItch olilioatos one party
to such contract to porf.ornt the phoysic.a.1
Wor N'
k ' 1 i,VV. -r 1 such proo:rain of con-
struction or modification. •
•(2)• requirements of this parr,-
gropli are triad:: part of Sublv.1-ts )3
through DDD, except Sttbports 13, K, end
AAA, ond are applicable; tothc following
indirect sourcea.• the constrticUon . or
ntodificotion of wine?). . L counoonced
aftc.r -the offoctive clate.ef this liara-
traph: •
(i) Aloy indiroct souroo which is lo-
cate.id in a dosignated area snd which:
(a) Is a new parking lot or ioArgoe
with a pexiiing capacity .of. 1,000 cars o:
more, or has a ilew.associatod.
area
with a parking cepocity of 1,000,
oars or )(lore; or •
(b) Is i parking ]o or garage being
modificd to increase parking caliacity by
more thrin 503 cars, or hos Prl sxited
larking area b,aiag to inorcose
Parking oapocit., by more than 500 cars;
or
(c) Induces 1.000 or Inoro vebtc1e trips
in any on-hour porioci or 5,000 or more
Veld el c trips .1i oriy cioht•-hour period.
(ii) Any indireot source leonted out-:
side f'.desionated area Nvliich:
. (a) Ic a new parhing lot or garage
with porkino copaciiy of 2.,e)00 oars or
11:15 parkin
aroa tvith R ealVCit.r. of 2,000
cars or inc.'‘re; or
(b) Is a p: it: lot or being
moditleci inr:o.-ase capocily
tOott LOOG eoro or loo
•
ot-eo aroo loAng roodiflod to in-
cree T capaz.:ity rotwo than
1,000 c•ors.: • .
-(o) 1-tolioo:3 2,C,i0 or oie:::o
trips In ony one-hour period or 1.0,100 or
moro follicle trips in o.tty cioht -hour
•
Any To.:,..r.1 or hijol000..., in a
:loot NVitli :011..;.01-
crtroo-.1 eolly
oroos tio't years 07 consty!yOixt
•••
•
(a) New road or Itif.:11vooy: 20.000 or
inore volitev• oor (Toy. • .
.00 lYioci:ficd road or hiolvooly:
•crenso of 15,0:1!0 pr (lay or -
over c):O-.iii)o, tritfile volume on such rool -
or ltiohway, •
(iv) Any ;;!i.p;qt
e):pL,Cti..11 0701-.1A01V; Within '•
years of constniction or 111:XiiliC.:1;1011: .
(a) IZew airporls: 50.000 oo more or:
eratir.ms por year by rcuularly
air carriers. •
(b) OCodifieci. airport: -Increaso of 50.
000 oporations per year by reo.,_!)::•.ri
schoduleci air earriotss over the exisLitt
rOitira?.01 o;)crat.ion.
(v) NV1-tere en inriiroc.l, source is con-.
strocted or ir.ofi i fled in increments whIci,
• indivicloolly are no subject to reN-:e.•-: •
too-lor this prograpil, st11 such incro-
nient.o occurring isinCe til ; eirective dato
•of this 1-e0ulation shall be. edded to-
gether for deter.mining the .:Ipi)lic..o.t•iiitY
Of .t.his parogra.1.111.
• • (vi) Until the - Aclinintstrator clisig-
nato3, purstotrit- to §.51.12:1) of this
chapter, arees which may have the 1-----1-
tetitial fer -exceoding a national stanri-
ard subequent•10-yenr .
riod, "Strattiard Metropolitan Stottstic::.1
Arca" shall be 'used- in place O.T. "eleoig-..
natod rca" for tho proi.:.o.,-es of -this
paragraph. •
(3) No owner or operator of an
root sonrce subject- to this parago-o.;.:,h
shall cornincrice construction or raot3i1-1"- .
•cotion of such source after the effectfca
dote- of this 1)ara5rapli without Enit &)-
taillIng approval' f rota tic Dircei coo A o
plicatioo fro: al)pOc..vol to . constrtict• or
toodi.fy shall be. by ritoans proseribod 1>y
• the Director, and sh11 iociude but no
• be'iirnited .
(i) Tor.v.irports, a eleserilition of Lvov-
ge and moo:Linton in-amber cf
oporat-tolts per clay by t•ype Of tiirco.,-ft'..
T1,' descript.ion. F13.311 also- include
conuneocial. industrial, and trai)a;.-tr.o:to-
tion-relakcl- expectod to
moue within three io_ilos of the mirror:
for the 10-year 1,oriod followt»g• coo- .
structioo. er n-rocliflootion. (u)
and hiohoor.yS, a elesez-iption of the
toe and rria);i11111112 tr.:111C VOIIIII1V for one.
ciglit :Ind 21-hour Vote po.rioiis c-xpOctoo:
• within )0 years of construct:On or ir.o..1.1-
fication. Such description incloc
an esti:noto of N"cliioir.! spc:ecis for aveo-noo.
an ioxrinni traff,c voloroe COPiii1;0!1,.
(iii) For indirect sourcos other ...hoz,.
airports.and hi..s.lo,voys, a descriotioo
looation and dio.ir.n of such •sotiVC-2.
l0r.:;11Ciirtg its roiatio5 . t- surrouncIO:o
rcouivolys'olo-.1 1:Zol000ys arid .tfl cJoroo:
o,; too over,00. find rooxiroura iooO!-..ter of
voltiolo triYr-; E.r.wric.ed by such iocl!ro-
-source for one. and eigot-hour ,oroo
periods..
• (iv) 1.7oon roc.o.y.st or the.
owncr or opottor- r.1-s' poovie.o: •
(0) - -,f....to.irooto: of the effector co:-.-•
struction or incolificf:tion of tho
ro.oirco on pattortis and or in Cho
li;•111!.t .1' of
Ula •
constric:tion or roo,,i;fricat•ion..
;
•
cieterminiei tloit reauliit lens rulmill-
ted by Al:di:owe l'ioricia, and Guinn
tO t nit!. 1,0
. CFR ;■1: !corm'?, the reeule-
iC1115 propo.ied lielov.• v. ould not be noon-
eitati-'..SunIcisii
reviev‘.• should reven1 deficiencies. in their
stibreiticile. Preliminary indicatione tV
that. a monliiir of other States teiil be
submit; iite Wen:, pei.or to Decerober 15,
;197'3, cihieli may, in thceir..: eaecis, coon-
rate the need to pi•conuliiate the
propased beice.e. Should fin•i stote
sulymit pion evisions for indirect source
review are. apprceable after lie-
cembc:r 15, •1973, the Administrator %vitt
revoke his promulgation.
The ye :t proposed below pro-
Vide that the review procedures will be
carried mit by F.1f.'It-C or .lecal alienzies
designated by the Governor: It is riiceei-
thet many States clo not yet-, have
ruleciitate 1eiI authority to approve or
disapprove construction or modification
of indirect sources. EPA regulations in
40 Clilt 52.02(d). published May 31, 197,
(37 Fit 10342) provide that any regula-
tory provisions of a State. implementa-
tion Plan approved or promulgated by
EPA are enforceable: by EPA and the
State and by local agencies in accordance
with their assigued responsibilities tinder
the State plan. 7 bus. these proposed reg-
ulations would be enforeeable by St.at-e
• local agencies. •ciesignated by a Governor
to be responsible for hid-heel source re-
• view:Since the decisions which Will have
to be made pursuant td these proposed
regulations ere pertinent to local. situ-A-,
. Ulan% the Administrator encourages and
• strongly suoporis the exercise of tins ait1-
thority at the St ate nncl local V'here
States are Unwilling or unable to imple-.
ment these procedures., however, it will
be necessary for EPA to assume the re-
sponsibility. States are particularly in-
. vited inclieate. in their corninepts on
these propo:ied regulations, whether they
• can. and implement. these regula-
• Lions. It slionld be noted that these pro-
po:ied renailotions do not in any way af-
fect previonsiy iipprciveci or promulgated
regulations applieatile to review- of sta-
tionary sources. • The reguiations pro-
Pose1 . helor: sOceific the use of various
analytical t 'inch are consid-
ered reasonable end appropriate for de-
terminine the inn-fact of an indirect
souree. on eir th, typo of nnino_
sis specired veries with types of indireet
sou:sc.:0; and is .cic.pendent on the capabili-
ties and i a1 ions of existing analytizal
technicoies.
• • For examole, analysis of carbon mon-
oxide c'; •••:•: vaing n diffueion model,
cceridecoe for
the air rio.iiity impact. of roods,
-waYs. and :.1.4-Nts. Existing diffu-
sion iTC/iniglIC'S 0.0 not permit
onelysis. of the inipaet of hydro-
carbon co :coiden The;
heipaet. of theco piiitants is most role-
CU:tCy i.e,iiiiated fill an ar.sei..-wide boois,
iog the proeinitonill tcc-h-
p: •.-;. 'y :e1 for er.-r'.11t-
th vv cf control strabieies.
ri•etilts
PROPOSED PULES
• • •
primarily-no eneiis Nellare the adilitional
emissions resulting feoni in nut :reel.
s.ouree ra-e Siencant in relation to es N.-
into orea-veide
this tc•hnieue is conni,iered. most appro-
peictic fiir.aiiiilyeing the air quality nil--
pact of aliiiiprio„
commercial and inclestrial ceovith, and
jor hielnedy -projects. Doliending on
the existing- cmis:dons in the area under
consideration and the size of the at
the propeiivtiens.1 model may still yield
ineonelusive reiallts and thus may not be
applicable in all sitoations. As improved
analytical teclmiques bccorne available,
the types of analyse.s speeified below
should be augmented or replaced by such
techniques.
The regulations proposed below include
criteria for \ehich !:aces
will be. subject to the review procedures.-
These criteria are based on the follow-
ing parameters:• For roads and high-
ways, the expected traffic volume; for
airports, the number of aircraft opera-
tions by regularly scheduled air carriers;
and for other indirect sources, the-size
of the parking facility or t-he number of
.incluced vehicle tripsi, Although other in-
• clica toes of inciececl mobile source activity
conlci be. used, theoe parameters are con-
sidered to be most directly related to the
air pollution potential of these sources.
-The size of a source which, limier' the-
propesed . regulations, watild tie exempt
front review varies, depending on whether
it is Iodated in an area Where there may
be a potential for exceeding a national
ambient air quality standard within the'
next 10 years. The 'Administrator con-
bietOrS it necessary . to devote More at-
tention to such a.reas by reviewhoin
smaller sources than are reviewed in
non-problem' areas. A list of these areas
will. be published by the Administrator
• by June 13, 1974. in accercianee with the
-June 18, 1973, amendments ($3 P13-
to .10 Cl"1 Part 51. Until this list becomes
available, all Standard 'Metropolitan Sta.-.
tistical • Areas v:ill, for the purposes of
this regulat1on, be considered to have a
potential for exceeding the national
standards.
The size of an-indirect source subjeet to
review has been determined in a nation-
wide context and therefore does not, nee-
ecsarily reflect; special lucel conditions
which may cause more comprehensive
review proce.clures tc. bo desirable. The
Administrator stronaly el.:cot:rages States
to analyze their own local situations con-
.
cei•ning the desirability of reviewing
smaller sources than the-e speciiieci be-
In this regard, Siates have
submitted plans or are in the. proeess of
adopt inie Piiins for eotoee 'review
should not construe :illations pro-
posti-ci below as bah.. oPtinial.for all situ-.
ations. • .
• It is partici:lolly important that Stoles
and other intereeted pertics reeoinibie
tiiet inore co:non:to:I:sive require-
ments are Le,: C.'.5;.11-Y in crcas
tieincoortation contre.1 iiviiiceres -.ell! lie
neeilecl to meet 5.t:' emhient air
ntelidar. 1n tircos.
of
cet ,:u C: is
Toward thin end, paring supply
• egiemeUt reaulations tail t included in
many of the traneportation con.tre.,1
the extcni-, that trarinportattcoo con-
trol. plans do riot include reeieloi-
Lions, they will be included in'tilei) teen-
lations for indirect source. review an-•i
they generally will be more conlorchen-
sive than this proposal, in terms o: tile.
sizes v:Iii.ch will he subject to
. •
e pr co:di:lg./actors: indicateiwby
individual State may End it desirable to
develop reel:lot-ions differ nem.
those proposed below, and v:liy .e...
should make every effort to submit, its
own indirect source review- reetdations
designed to fit into its strategy for lone-
•t_cirm maintenrinee of air quality stand.;
ards. Eitates may also wish to broadcn
such review to consider other environ-
mental or social considernitions. -
It is .the Administrator's intent to held
hearings_ on these proposed ref:Illations
in each St-ate where no State hearing has
previously been 11•21d on this subject.-
These hearings will be held no seoner
than November 29, 1973. The time ancii
locatioti . of such hearings nil/ be an-
nounced in ft Subsequent VEDrAit.I. RECIS-
. •
•
Interested 'persons may also part ici
rsa.
pate in this rub e! makine by submitting
written comment:: in trip-livate to the ap-
propriate' Re.gional Administrator. All
-
comments received by'Noveinber 20. 19-i3
will be considered. Receipt of •commenis -
Will be acknow•ledged, but the Regional- . •
Alministratiors will not .provide sub-
..stantivc rcepenses to-. irldiviclual too:,
incints. Al} comments will be available ftir
public inspection • during normal bus:- • '
ness hours at each Regional Office an: l :it
the Freedom of information Center,
• Room- 329,-401 M Street SW., Washing-' •
ton, D.C. 20-1G0,.
Following consideration of public com-
mcnts,
these regulations. %vitli•any
incations which may he approp:•iate, are
to be promulgatc,d by DeceMber 15, )973,
purSuant to the order of tile- coin'', of .
Appeals. The reaatlatio.ns 111 be en:eel:ye.
180 days after promulgation. Thi clefei-- •
i•al of the . effective date is ceinsidea ed
micessary to give State and )oral agenciEs
an ridequftte opportunity to make peep- _
orations for linplementing -the Proee--
.durcs priiScri b rid by these proposed r u -
t ions. Since the proposed regulations
are intended Inlutarily •to ensile(' 'clog_
term maintenance of the national aniiii-
cnt air quolity standards, and since tie:. • .
Clean Air Act emphasizes the it is
and lore- governments that the lir:-
',nary respolmil.:Ility for developing and
eilrrying 0!_lt p!anS,
deferral of the ctiective daie
creel consistent with the purpiscs if tine , •
Act: . • -
This notice of proposed role inc,iiino 13
iFeated under the mithority of seetien
110(c) or_ the: C!'al A(:l as amended. .
U.S.C. I EKc-ii(e) ).
Ootobeei 23, 3973.
ituEelit et000i-e, :it!, un-). \., ocroe i, V::
.` UEsuAV, CC'TCl'tI.J. : :i 30,. 1973.
WAS; iiI C 1'.'N,
3L; C72 Numbor 203 •
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .
AGEUC'f
[ 4o CFR P rt s21 • •
• APPROVAL f•.;\:) PROMULGATION OF
STATE IMPLU.,t:P :'iATION
Review ci Indirect Sources
On June 16, 1973 (33 )7R 15S34), the
it rnilr'.tr•a;or• of the E wiro:tnientl
Frotection .Agency (EPA) promulgated
amendments to 40 CFR Part 51, Ite-
quireinents for Preparation. Adoption,
and Submittal of State Implementation
Plans, under section 110 of the Clean
Mr Act, as amended. Those amendments
were designed primarily to provide for
long -term- nnail:te :t trice of the notional . -
Ernbtent air quality standards. Among -.
other requirements, States were clir eted
to expand their present procedures for
review of buildings or other .facilities
prior to construction or inodilleation in
order to include consideration of the air .
quality impact not only of pollutants
emitted directly front stationary so 1 es,
but also of poliut'.o:i arising front coo- -
bite source activity a..sociatecl with such
buildings or facilities (termed indirect
sources).
Pursuant to an order of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the.District of Columbia
Circuit in the case of Natural 'Resources
Defense Council, Inc. et al v. Ei'A, 475 .
P. 2d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1973) entere. on
January 31, 1973, and modified March 12
and July 27, 19'i3. States \:ore roc aired
to submit plan revisions to corrply with
the new rcC,ti ran nts involving i :i it-
rc: t. source review by August 15, 1973 (30
Flt 12920). 'Thus far. EPA has received
plan recisions from Alabama. Florida,
Puerto Rico, Gl!. rn, Maine, New 'York.
and Or Egon; they will be- made , vo.ii;:L..e
for public cominent before EPA acts to.
'approve or disapprove them. Since i' /.
will not tale action on these •revi:,ianzt.
until the 30 -day pr :5lic c:nlmen'.:. period
has expired, ;,m1 sin. the Court order
requires ti:c: Ati :nitt':t .'-c: to prove
or dis :_p•)rove su•:?: plan revitirr: by
Octobar 15, 19 , tire. disapproval of all
State impiementation plans with rc.sp •et ..
to maintenan ~c of ;rational :,t
IirttS, v.s Published March 8, 15373 Q'S !'• R.
(:•.?j l), a:-d :.ir5'' vied .'ray 17, (28
12,20), r'c;... . : in effect.
The Court. lu: this: reriuires, the Ad-
ninisE.r;ltor to pre,:f tl fate rlgul;:t : `_Zs by
11:...r&Je 15, 19 3, :. here a Sf ax, f :.iLs
Bons: or the r('! :t!l,. :!C'n
1, -.1•;trevable.'sill_ t:c:irii;'li;.t ^:E ,: Is r :wr
l; :r, >,;:"•r such ri.;t'_'1;,tic,Ps. l :i:'.d on n
1.:1-ic -,f of h.? plan revl.--.1 ^J^
•
•
• March 1.-1074, each such owner or op-
erator shall submit to the Administrator
n detailed compliance schedule showing
the steps it will take to assure compliance
Rlth this paragraph. •
(p) The City of Seattle and the City
of Spokane shall report to the Adminis-
trator on a semiannual basis beginning
August 15, 1074, the average daily oc-
cupancy of the spaces reserved for ve-
hicles transporting three or more occu-
pants.
32G7G ' . - RULES AND REGULATIONS •
group of bt:which no commercial park- within 10 pears) from • diet any of plicable rules, application with
rapt
trots permitted. in .vans application: and conditions.
ing is petlnit.tcd.
(3) "Seattle central i)rsircss district" (3) For facilities to be located within (j) Within 30 days after receipt of an
means the area enclosed by Yesler Way, • the Seattle or Spokane CBD. the con - •
I: the Adntil notify or a e icy
the 1-5 freeway, u;lith Avenue. Virginia struction or modification of such facility approved by
Street. and the Alaska Way Viaduct. will not cause a violation of paragraphs by ominent adve riseme t the the Re-
- Strets forming boundaries (excluding • (k) through 1u1) of this section. g low
the I -5 freeway and the Alaska Way Via- (f) All applications for approval under a approval, the proposed actiapproval.
duct) shall be part of the central busi- this section shall include the following (whether denial), • and shall invite publ.
riess district (CBD). information: or na
(9) "Spokane central business dis- (1) Name and address of the (1) The application, all submitted in
trict" means the area enclosed by Trent applicant. formation, and the terms 1 ube ittedind
Avenue; Monroe Street, Third Avenue, • (2) Location and description of the - action shall be made available to the
and Division Street. Streets' forming parking facility. public in a readily accessible place with-
business boundaries shall be part of the central • (3) A proposed construction schedule. in the an a re dir quality region.
business district. (4) The normal hours of operation of (2) ftecte comments submitted within .
(b) This regulation is applicable in all the facility and the enterprises and • 30 days of the date such fitted wit i •
counties included in the Puget Sound activities that it serves. is made available shall be considered
Intrastate AQCR and in the county. of (5) The total motor vehicle capacity in making the final decision on the
Spokane, in the Eastern Washington- before and atter the construction or mod- application:
Northern Idaho Interstate AQCR. . ification of the facility. pll e Administrator or agency ap-
(c) The requirements of this section (g) The Administrator may require an roved The him shall take o final action
ap-
are applicably to the following parkin, application for a facility of between 50 (approval, conditional approval, or deni-
facilities in the areas specified in- para- and. 249 spaces to include the informa- al) on an application within 30 days after
graph (b) of this section, the construc- tion required by subparagraph (h) (1)
tion or modification of which is com through (7) of•this section. • . close of the public comment period. •
menced after August 15,1973: • (h) All applications under this section . (k) In addition to the foregoing re-
(1) Any new parking facility with for new parking facilities with parking quirements, paragraphs (1) through (o)
parking capacity for 50 or more motor capacity n'modification or more
either individ- the Seattle and Spot ane CBD. within
vehicles; the
•(d) Any parking facility ikg c that will be tons since August 15, 1973, willlincrease numberlle of shall non-residential increase
parking
modified more increase parking capacity by
50 or more :rotor vehicles; .capacity by that amount, shall, in adds- spaces within the Seattle and Spokane
(3) Any panting facility constructed • tion to that information required by CBD above the number .present as of
u modified in increments which inunde following include the which provides or would protiide.vehicU- paragraph (f) of this
tally are not subject , review under
this scctio:n, but which, when all such cant alas receivea a waiver from the pro- far ingress or egress to or from a street
increments occurring since August 15, visions of this paragraph from the Ad- forming a boundary of a CBD• shall be
1973, are added together, would as a total rninistrator or. agency. approved .by .the considered . included within such CBD. •
• subject the facility to review under this Administrator: Any parking facility beneath a street
(1) The number of people using or en- forming a boundary shall be considered
section; and parking facility, regardless of gaging in any enterprises or activities to be included within such CBD. • •
(4) Any that the facility will serve on a daily basis (m) On a semiannual basis, beginning • .
• size, to be located within the Seattle or and a peak hour basis. February 15, 1974, the City of Seattle
Spokane central business districts. Any (2) A projection of the geographic and the City of Spokane shall report to
parking facility that provides or would areas in the community from which peo- the Administrator the total number of •
provide vehicular-Ingress or egress to or pre and motor vehicles will be drawn to nonresidential and the total number of
from a street forming a boundary of a the facility. Such projection shall include residential an- street and off-street pal.: -
CBD shall be considered included within data concerning the availability of mass
such CBD. Any parking facility beneath ' transi ing spaces in their respective CLD's. t from such areas. Thereafter, such cities shall report any
a street forming a boundary shall be (3) An estimate of the average and reduction in the number of such parking . •
considered included within such CBD. peak hour vehicle trip generation. rates, spaces • (d) No person shall commence con- before and after construction or modifi -
struction or modification of any facility cation of the facility. •
. subject to this section without first ob- (4) An estimate of the effect of the
taining v: ritten approval from the Ad- facility on traffic pattern and flow.
ministrator or an agency designated by (5) An estimate of the effect of the
him; provided, that this paragraph shall facility on total VMIT for the air quality
not apply to any construction or modifi- control region.
. cation for which a general construction . (g) An analysis of the effect of the fa-
contract was finally executed by all ap- . cility on site and regional air quality, in- such person or entity has obtained from
propriate parties on or before August 15, clucling a showing that the facility will the Administrator for from .an agency
1973. be compatible with the applicable imple approved by the Administrator a permit
(e) No approval to construct or modify • mentation plan, and that the facility will stating that construction, modification.
a facility shall be granted unless the not use any national air quality standard or enlargament of such facility will be
applicant shows to the satisfaction of the to be exceeded within 10 years from date in compliance with paragraph (1) of -
Administrator or. agency approved by of application The Administrator •may this section.
hitri that: prescribe a standardized screening tech- (o) By, May 31, 1974, each owner or .
• ' (1) The design or operation of the nique to be used in analyzing the effect operator of any parking facility located
facility will not cause a violation of the of the facility on ambient air quality. .
control strate,;y that is part of the ap- (7) Additional information, plans, within the Seattle and Spokane CI3D
plicable implementation plan, and will. specifications. or documents required by shall gs reserve 10 percent facility of
for veh clew
be consistent with the plan's VMT the Administrator.
reduction goals: (D Each application shall be signed by transporting three or • more occupants
.(2) The emissions resulting from the • the owner or operator of the facility, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
design or oPeratitoi of the facility will • whose signature shall constitute an m., Monday through Priciay, exclud-
not prevent or interfere with the attain - agreement that the facility shall be of cr- p' legal.. holidays. On or before
• ment or maintenance of any national atcd in accordance with the design sub - ing
• FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 227 — TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1973
to the Administrator.
(n) No person or entity, after Novem-
ber 19, 1973, shall commence construc-
tion or modification of any new non -resi-
dential parking facility rn tha. Seattle or
Spokane CBD, nor shall any person or
entity. take any action having the effect
of creating. new non - residential parking
spaces in such CBD, unless and until
§ 52.2486 Management of parking sup.
ply.
. (a) Definitions:
(1) "Parkin; facility" (also called
• "facili y ") means a lot, garage, .building,
• or structure, or combination • or por-
tion. thereof, in or on which motor ve-
• hicles are temporarily parked.
(2). "Vehicle trip" means a ,
movement by a motor vehicle that or i i-
.nates or terminates at a parking facility.
(3) "Construction" means fabrication. •
' erection, or installation of a parking fa-
cility, or any conversion of land, build -
ings, or structures, or portions thereof.
for use as a facility.
' (4) "Modification" means any charga
• to a. parking facility that .increases cr
• may increase the motor vehicle capac: :y
of, or the motor vehicle activity associa-
ted with, such parking facility. .
• (5) 'Commence" means to undertake
a continuous program of on -site con-
struction, or modification. •
(6) "Parking space" means any are:L
or space below, above, or at ground 1evJ'..
open or enclosed, on- street or off - street.
that is used for parking one motor ve-
hicle at any time.
(7) "Residential parking facili:y"
means a parking facility the use of
is limited exclusively to residents (and
guests) of a residential building or
R 27, 1973
CITY OF TUKWILA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
TRILLIUM
A COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS COMPLEX
TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PURSUANT TO:
WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971
Chapter 43.21C.RCW
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON_
Ordinance No. 759
Date FRANK TODD
Mayor
•
By.
DELBERT F. MOSS
Planning Coordinator
SUMMARY SHEET
Nature of this Report: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Sponsor: City of. Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator
Type of Proposed Action: Administrative decisions by the City of Tukwila
in review of proposals and permit approval, for the construction of. Trillium,
a commercial and business complex, by the Maguire Partnership.
Official *Title of the Proposed Action and Summary of the Proposed Action:
Official Action — Permits to be granted:
Building_ Permit
Sewer and Water Permits
Permits to power, natural gas, and telephone utility
companies for use of City rights-of -way in providing
service .. to the subject area.
b. Other Official Action.- Review:
. Review of the State Department, of Ecology Flood Zone :.
Permits by Public Works Director.
2. Review of the State Department of Ecology Air Quality
Division.
3. Review of plans, site plans, elevations and landscaping
plans by Board of Architectural Review.
4. Review of curb cut locations by Planning Commission.
c. Summary of Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to undertake all review and
permit procedures necessary for the construction of a commercial
complex in Tukwila, Washington.
Summary of Environmental Impacts:
Topographic /Geologic Impact.
The topography of the subject site was previously altered when the
site and the contiguous lands were committed to urban uses. Land -
fill on the subject site was placed in a manner consistent with
good engineering geologic practices.
b. Hydrological Impact
Increased impervious surfaces will increase storm runoff quantities,
contributing only in small part to the overall drainage problems
associated with the Green River System. Runoff from the project
site will contain hydrocarbons, oils and particulates washed from
paved surfaces.
c. Biological Impact
The biological impact of the proposed project, although identifiable,
will be small compared to previously completed projects in the
Valley. A bird foraging habitat will be eliminated; however,
elimination of the habitat can be viewed essentially as a replace-
ment of one man -made habitat with another.
. Air Quality Impact
Concentrations of suspended particulates in the atmosphere can be
expected to temporarily increase during the construction phases.
Increased traffic resulting from the completed project will cause
increases in all vehicular contaminants.
e. Noise Impact
The ambient noise levels of the surrounding commercial community .
will be increased both during the construction phases and when
the proposed complex is fully operational.
Social Impact
The commercial and business development that will result from the
proposed action represents a deviation from present development in
the immediate vicinity in that the proposed project will integrate
a diverse but functionally related group of commercial and business
activities within a single complex. The resulting office building,
hotel, financial center, shopping, recreation and entertainment
complex will be unique to the region and will offer the benefit
of reducing dependence on vehicular transportation necessary to,
participate in the same activities in dispersed locations. Impact
on present traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity, however,
will be significant and will necessitate the upgrading of street .
signalization and possibly channelization.
"The complex will be the most exciting and unique major
development in the Northwest. The close proximity of the
project site to major vehicular systems,. the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, and to a growing commercial,
industrial and retail - center suggests development of a unique
combination of enterprises and functions. The complex will
combine first class office space, commercial /retail space.
for banks, savings and loans, brokerage firms, etc. A first
class hotel of 300 rooms, and a multi - level retail and enter-
tainment concourse. The concourse will contain theaters, an
Ice Capades Skating Chalet, restaurants, specialty shops, a
recreation facility containing handball /racquet ball courts,
exercise rooms, and sauna /jaccuzi facilities.
This mixed use concept will provide an urban vitality to the
entire region that otherwise might not occur, given the present
trend of land use. Furthermore, by combining functions, a
synergistic effect is possible. The interaction of people,
parking systems, landscape, building masses, and other
functions taking place on one relatively small site will create
urban excitment not ordinarily fbund in most cities. Imple-
mentation of the mixed use concept will enable each enterprise
to command a higher economic return in a collective manner
than standing alone.
The planning concept of the developers and the architect was
to develop separate but interdependent functions: connected
and related by a series of landscaped pedestrian plazas and
malls. The specific . site planning objectives were to insure
that each use would function in all aspects (identification,
parking, and servicing), without compromising any other use,
yet in the final result would effectively act as a completely
interrelated unit.
A coordinated palate of materials has been selected for the
entire project. All opaque surfaces (walls, parapets, land -
scape elements) will be of a muted warm tone masonry. All
glazed surfaces will be solar bronze glass with flush
fenestration. All public spaces.(i•nterior and exterior) will
be treated uniformly with respect to landscaping, lighting
and paving, the objective being to create a natural, humanly
scaled expression of the basic project materials. Signing
and advertising will be restricted to only basic major .
functions and will be subdued.
As an indication of the intended construction specifications,
the office structure will be a fire -proof steel structure
with composite beams and an anodized aluminum curtain wall.
Mechanical systems will provide control and temperature
response equal to or better than general northwest standards.
All public spaces will be finished consistent with the overall
project description. Tennant spaces will.. be provided with
ceilings, partitions, electrical, lighting, and surface
finishes, consistent with or better than presently offered
in the Seattle market area. Elevators will be geared with
a maximum interval of 30 seconds with cab finish consistent
with the.overall project criteria, i.e., warm materials,
ample lighting, etc., The Gallery will be of fire - proof .
exterior masonry wall construction, steel.frame roofs, with
air conditioned mall and retail space, entirely sprinklered:"
Figure B gives a general illustration of the overall project design
and Figures C.D, E and :F depict the plans in greater detail.
The phases of the planned development and the available square footage
of the different facilities is listed in Chart 1.
•
- •
FIGURE B
=
B R / A R F W A
4111 71A‘ 'X't 10A
■
NO rel.-
•
n . s...: r� ....tro:t::'h.Sii�:..!Ji�4a���.� �.Y NJ'e!`:;...0(.ti- ...f•.�'#�l
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
&&&&& 11111 t0O•• •.t.A. •
•••OLO J. MO". A.J.A.
Mt
11S 1
No MAW& 01■.J..t. 1.88 .tW.1 Lumeir _/ ONO1 Ot NWT MOM W1 IWO.a CM/OWA A,i_
SWAM W
so. s 4.7 1O79
c. v.& T/ T PA3 Y
L
CCMPLEX SCUTHCENTER
Tyr t. A.'AABMIM OTC.
suu
W _Moo 1M._
FI -GURE C
BURKE SOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
•I ••• 1••
• •e•u•• f•■•• •.t.•.
•I••r••• •.B.•.
w
w.
••••• wear was c.1 — I IN= •• POW wen. w •■•■m t••• w. i ww••
— . N
POCK �i'M��Y
R .E re[.
MAGUIRE COMPLEX SSSQJT- CENTER
fnsn.G.o,+ .
mom. __. doe
SO MI•
FIGURE D
= =
bang
BURKE KOBER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
•
SSSSSS• SO••O •.•.•.
. •IO••••• •.I.•.'
MI
ww•• •••w•IVA. w /MM. O••ew• MIR i MIMS as von men, w 1YQY Or•ar / M.+
u
IL AZA L. EYGL �LhN
o•c•2111 n
•.� • SFDT MTS
T1- IEMAGUI2ECOAP_L -.x .i1'4:__� +•
Tl1KWILA , NOSHING row •
FIGURE E
K'COW t CM r;ON
pOATM .n TN .RdTlas' • •- 00K'^10 N2°•7"Z
OTCL
ATIGG ALA, •nrcwo
BURKE KORER NICOLAIS ARCHULETA
•••• I••1 1•• 1.1••1•• ••.1••
O.•.L.• go... •.1.4.
■IOOL•t• •.l.•. •
VI
O •• mamma 1•• maw* ...or / fl /•C 1T T w 1•1x1.. fl r / w.=
CGG ✓r• r /OWS ANO Cr /ON
O® Or
..n � StDT 1975
Ti-E MAGUIRE COMPLEX O SCUTHCENTER
TUKW141 WASI/IJOTON
. . r••d
M.011.02116. I.•
FIGURE F
CHART
FACILITY AREAS OR CAPACITIES
Development
Phase
Land Use
Area (S.F.)
Gross Net
1. Office Building
22,500 s.f. /floor
x 9 upper floors
88% efficiency 202,500 178,200
Commercial
Bank 6,500
Other Financial 6,400
Lease around Motor 1,606
Core Commercial 112.191
1
11. Other Commercial
Facing Street 2,400
Within Mall 2,100
Within Mall. 8,215
12,715
Retail
Retail Area - 75,000 •
Restaurants (3 @ 5000) 15,000
Theatre - 1100 seats 15,000
Commercial (Health Club) 10,000
Ice Rink 25,000
140 , 000
II1. Other Commercial
Under Hotel 2,100
Hotel - 308 rooms 308 rooms
Coffee Shop 110 seats
Dining Room 150 seats
Cocktail Lounge 125 seats
Specialty Restaurant 180 seats
Ballroom 500 seats
Meeting Rooms (4) 4,000 s.f.
IV. Office Building "A" 200,000
Office
Commercial - ground floor
Retail
Office Building "B" 200,000
Office
Commercial - Ground floor
-10-
185,000
15,000
30,000
185,000
15,000
4. Justification for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with and represents the lawful
implementation of previously determined City of Tukwila policies as
embodied within official plans, ordinances and resolutions.
5. Proposed Method of Financing and Financial Sponsors
The proposed action, as a series of administrative actions, will entail
no expenditure of public funds outside of those normally required to
support city administrative processes for a project of this size. The
commercial and business development of the project site, occurring as .a
consequence of the proposed action, will be financed with private capital.
6. Historical Background and Past Planning Decisions
a. Land Use
The subject area lies within the lower Green River Valley. Farming
began in the Nineteenth Century with dairying as the predominant
land use in the valley. Truck farming was also carried on, but
high water table and poor drainage minimized this use. Agricul-
tural use remained dominant until the 1950's when industrialization
of the valley lands began.
This industrial growth was stimulated by a number of factors, but
one of the most important was the proximity of transportation
systems which have historically been routed through the Green
River Valley. Geography sets severe constraints on the location
of transportation routes in the Puget Sound Region. Seattle
responded to the early predominance of Tacoma as the major rail -.
road terminus on Puget Sound with the building of the Seattle and
Spokane Railroad Line which later became part of the Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad's main line up through the Duwamish,
and the lower Green and Maple Valleys. In the late 1800's and early
1900's other railroads, i.e. the Northern Pacific and Great Northern,
and the Milwaukee and Union Pacific built nearly parallel tracks
through the Green River Valley on routes connecting Tacoma and
Seattle. These railroads were supplemented by a system of highways
constructed in the first quarter of this century.
The move toward industrial development in the valley began when -
planners for the Port of Seattle suggested an ambitious scheme to
turn the Duwamish and Green River Valleys into a large industrial
complex complete with a. shipping canal to service the area. Local
communities countered this proposal by annexing large land areas
and imposing their own industrial zoning on the land.
This zoning in the valley, plus high increases in residential and
commercial development on the adjacent hillsides, and the subsequent
building of the freeway system (again to some extent dictated, by
geographic and topographic features) all contributed to the present
rush of industrial and commercial development that is not expected
to abate for several more years.
b. Flood Control
Prior to 1900, the Green River, with two tributaries, the White and
Black Rivers, flowed northward through, and frequently across, the
valley floor. The Black River was the outlet for Lake Washington,
Lake Sammamish, and the Cedar River basin. In 1906 the White
River changed course during a flood and was thereafter permanently
diverted into the Stuck and Puyallup Rivers. Construction of
the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 resulted in the lowering
of Lake Washington, permitting the Cedar River to be turned north
into the lake and shutting off flow through the Black River.
With flow through the Green River Valley thus drastically .
reduced, use of the valley floor for farming became more feasible.
Farm owners, individually and by districts, constructed low dikes
along the Green River, which, while not effective against major
winter floods, did permit the land to be worked earlier in the
and later in the fall. Drainage District No. 1 serves the
area within which the subject site occurs.
In 1962, Howard A. Hanson Dam was completed about 30 miles up-
river from Auburn. The Eagle Gorge was the best available site
for storage and was utilized to its maximum practicable capacity.
Major floodflows were reduced to the maximum capacity: of the river
channel within its existing dikes, which is less than 12,000 second -
feet at Auburn. By the way of comparison, a natural flow of 24,000
second -feet occurred in. 1933.
-12-
During the 1960's, the Soil Conservation Service, in conjunction
with the Green River Flood Control Zone District (administered by
King County), completed planning for a valley drainage system.
The network of channels, large capacity pumping plants in the
Valley and selected land selected hand treatment measures operate
to preserve favorable hydrologic conditions in the upland. During
storm periods interior valley drainage will be pumped into the Green
River at several locations. The main pumping plant at the mouth
of the Black River, was completed in 1972. In the near future, as
the drainage discharge from this and other pumping plants adds to
the controlled flood release from Hanson Dam, the existing river
channel capacity could be exceeded during extreme flood conditions
and simultaneous- abnormal valley storm runoff. This was recog-
nized in the Soil Conservation Report on the drainage system.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized by Congress to
initiate a flood control study of the Green - Duwamish River in 1960.
In 1966, with the cooperation of King County, the study was revised
to include investigation of the possibility of reducing flows as
controlled by Hanson Dam and increasing channel capacity from
Auburn to the Duwamish turning basin to accommodate increased
flows resulting from the SCS project. Study funding terminated
in. 1968, but resumed in July 1970. The Corps has investigated
alternative flood control measures and integration of ..these with
enhanced opportunity for recreation. Further action awaits a
King County investigation of the potential influence of flood
control implementation upon land use patterns in the valley.
c. History of Commercial and Industrial Development
Historically, the growth 'of the City. of Tukwila has:related
closely to the growth and economic prosperity'of the Seattle .
metropolitan area. At the time of incorporation in 1:908,
Tukwila was a small, thriving trade center astride the main
Seattle - Tacoma. Highway, but construction of alternate routes by
passing Tukwila, the East and West Highways and Route 99, left
this town with a declining.commercial base. The construction of
two interstate freeways converging in Tukwila provided excellent:
accessibility to the. study area
The annexation of a large area of bottom land to the south of the
city dramatically increased the potential for industrial and
commercial development.
During the interval of 1966 through 1968, the Seattle metropoli-
tan area as a whole experienced accelerated economic and population
growth in part due to the Boeing Company's decision to establish
three new centers employing 7,000 to 20,000 persons. Two of these
centers were located in the Green River Valley. This increase in
employment and rising land values created a more accelerated
urban spatial growth pattern in the vicinity of the study area
than might otherwise have occurred had the area not received
this input.
Also during the last six years, construction was completed on the.
Southcenter Shopping Center, and construction was initiated for
Andover Industrial Park.
Thus, within the Green River. Valley, the present pace of urban
expansion is due to: i) a flood control dam on the upper Green River
in 1962, ii) the existence of a freeway and rail corridor, iii)
The Boeing Company aerospace facilities, and iv) the Southcenter
regional shopping center and the contiguous industrial park.
Relationship with Existing Laws, Policies and Plans
a. City Laws
City Ordinances prescribe that the following permits be issued
and the following review procedures be undertaken with regard to
any proposed land. development:
1) Permits
a) Building Permits (ORD. 578, S.1, 1969; ORD 678
(part), 1971).
Sewer and Water Permits (ORD. 264, S.2, 1958;.
ORD. 342, 1961).
Permits to power, natural gas, and telephone utilities
for use of City rights -of -way (ORD. 486, S.3 (A), 1967).
-14
Reviews:.
a) Review of State Department of Ecology Flood Zone Permits
by Public Works Director.
Review of storm drainage system discharge by Public
Works Director.
Review of plans, site plans, elevations, and landscaping
plans by Board of Architectural Review at a public meeting
(ORD. 635, ORD. 251).
Review of curb cut locations by Planning Commission at a
public meeting.
The proposed development meets the requirements of the City
Zoning Ordinance. It is located within CM Zone (Planned
Industrial Zoning District) and all construction is subject
to the controls of that district.
Other Laws
An compliance with R.C.W. 86.16, Flood Control Zones have been
established throughout the state. The proposed site is within
the Green River Flood Control Zone District (Flood Control Zone 11).
All projects within this zone must be issued a flood zone permit
by the State Department of Ecology. The King County. Department
of Public Works, Division of Hydraulics, has traditionally reviewed
applications for flood zone permits in King County on behalf of
the Department of Ecology. Development in this zone, including
the proposed site, is guided by a comprehensive storm drainage plan
for hillsides and valley floors.
Also,the Department of. Ecology (DOE) has passed an amendment to
Chapter 18.24 of the Washington Administrative Code which will
review of complex sources of motor-vehicle related air
contaminants. Complex sources are facilities, buildings, structures
or installations which may result in violations of ambient air
quality standards for contaminants emitted by :motor vehicles.
Under the proposed amendments, .. if the construction or modification
would present a substantial likelihood of motor vehicle related
air quality violations, permission to build would be denied.
_15_.
c. Policies and Plans
The commercial complex that will occur as a result, of the
proposed action Will be consistent with local land use policies
and plans. .
The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan notes that Tukwila is part of the
Seattle Metropolitan area, and its growth is predicated on the
continued growth and prosperity of this larger region. Tukwila
is once again becoming a trading center and is serving a regional
market with the construction of several industrial parks and the
Southcenter Regional Shopping Center.
The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1962 provided.a basic
rationale for development along the Green River which is
still somewhat applicable today. At the time of
adoption, the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan recommended use of the
Green River Valley Flood Plain, including the project site,
for industrial purposes. It was noted that while filling is
usually necessary to develop these sites, large valuable,
flat . industrial sites can be created. As noted previously,
several industrial parks and a regional shopping center have been
built within the last .6 years. Development on two of the largest
remaining sites is scheduled in the near future. .
The development of the project site for commercial . purposes will
also be consistent with current regional plans. The Puget Sound
Governmental Conference (PSGC) has shown that the proposed site
lies on land designated for commercial development on the interim..
Regional Land Use Plan..
8. Public Participation
Incorporated within the administrative procedures which comprise the
proposed action are a number of public hearing requirements.
The proposed action implements adopted City Policies as embodied
primarily in Council Resolutions, the Comprehensive Plan, the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the Municipal
Each of these has been subjected to public review during the
normal course of adoption.
Public participation has been an important part of the decision making
and policy adoption by other agencies having for planning
and implementation of policies influencing development in the Green
River Valley. As an example, the Corps 'of Engineers has conducted a
series of public hearings in conjunction with their investigations of
alternative flood control measures for the Green- Duwamish River described
above. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference, the regional planning
agency, has invited citizen input in the formulation of the Interim
Regional Development Plan.
Actions Remainind for Implementation
The actions remaining for implementation of the proposed development
of commercial and business complex are the administrative reviews
previously described.
B. Existing Conditions
1. Existing Natural Conditions
a. Topography and Geomorphology
The subject site is situated on the western border of a mature
floodplain which expresses itself topographically as a broad
flat - floored valley delimited by Tukwila and Riverton Heights
uplands on the north and west as well as the Renton
Highlands
area on the east. Relief on the floodplain is generally less
than three feet. Regional relief is 400 to 600 feet. The project
area has a mean elevation of approximately 35 feet.
In addition to extensive and ongoing filling for land development,
the valley's natural topography has been altered by construction
of flood control levees. Highway cut and fill, and railroad .
embankments constitute additional alterations.
. Geology
(1) Geologic History
During a portion of pre - glacial time, the Puget Sound lowland
a subsiding basin along a broad coastal plain that extended
eastward and covered part of .the .area . now occupied by the
Cascade Mountains. After a period of marine sediment deposi-
tion the seas retreated and continental rocks were deposited.
Initially volcanic rocks were abundant; however, as volanic
activity subsided, a broad plain similar to modern deltas
developed. Peat, which later became the coal that has been
mined in the lowland, was formed adjacent to rivers on this
plain. After at least two periods of uplift and erosion,
glacial sediments began to be deposited during. the Pleistocene
Age.
At least four great ice sheets advanced over North America
during the Pleistocene Age. The Puget Lobe of these ice
masses advanced to just south of Olympia. During the last
glaciation (Vashon) approximately 3,500 feet of ice covered
-18-
the subject site, and obscured much of the rock record of .
older glacial events.
Glacial erosion deepened pre - existing river valleys and
produced the Lake. Washington and Lake Sammamish basins.
Puget Sound near the subject site was deepened to as much
as 1000 feet below the present sea level. Where the ground
was not markedly excavated by the overriding ice, it was
shaped. Within the Puget Lowland, many of the elongate
hills owe their form to glacial shaping.
As the Vashon ice retreated, ice - marginal rivers flowed into
ice - dammed lakes. The ice continued to retreat, and when the
Strait of Juan de Fuca became ice -free the ocean invaded the
lower Green River Valley. Sediment from the Green and Cedar
Rivers kept filling the valley; however, an arm of the sea
remained until about 5000 years ago.
With the retreat of the last ice sheet the Green River again
flowed northwesterly into Puget Sound. This river developed
a broad floodplain with small tributaries draining upland
areas. Drainage of the ice - sculptured uplands was sluggish
and vegetation thrived as evidenced by peat bogs and the
relatively low relief on the plateaus. The floodplain of the
Green River also developed numerous boggy areas.
(2) Soils
The entire study area was covered to.a depth of approximately
.ten feet several years ago. The fill materials are a fairly
compact mixture of gravel, sand,•silt, and clay... Locally,
less compact wet spots are present where depressions in the
fill have allowed ponding of surface water.
Along the western margin of the study area Rifle Peat andv
Puyallup Silt Loam underlie the fill. The remainder of the
area is underlain by Woodinville silt loam except for an
exposure. of Sultan Silt Loam near the southern boundary
(see Figure G).
-19-
8
Li
17-Te.
.i Pe'
4ran4er 61 vc1
Wocachnv1116, -1- )Darn
/11•••1 ®•■■■.e ®o0•••••• _ air ■■■■■■■■■■.....- .-r One.
SUBJECT SITE SOILS
FIGURE G
-20-
Virgin Rifle Peat soils are water - saturated and support swamp
vegetation. Typically the upper 16 inches consist of dark
reddish -brown woody peat with abundant roots in the upper
few inches. Between 16 and 24 inches the organic matter is
more highly decomposed and ,.colloidal than in the surface.
layer. From 48 to 70 inches the peat is more compact and
consists largely of sedge, reed, and root remains surrounded
by colloidal organic matter. Below 70 inches the soil is
even more highly colloidal. The depth to mineral soil is
highly variable. When drained, Rifle Peat is one of the most
productive soils for leafy vegetables. When drained, peat
areas often settle several feet.
Puyallup Silty Loam soil is . characteristic of low valley
bottom lands, but contains less organic matter than peat
soils. The upper ten inches of this soil is smooth and loamy
with a fairly high content of organic matter.: Below ten
inches there is an abrupt change to light gray-brown colored
inter- stratified sand, silt, and clay, with blue and gray
mottling. Between. 24 inches and 70 inches,1ight bluish -
gray sands mottled by reddish iron stains are common. This
soil has high fertility and is especially suited to growing
leafy vegetables. The sandy portions of the soil profile..
enhance the effectiveness of drainage ditches.
Woodinville Silt Loam is another low bottom soil. It is
frequently flooded and may remain saturated for a large
portion of the year. The upper 12 inches of the soil has
a dull -brown color with finely divided organic matter.com-
prising 25 to 50 percent of the soil. Beneath the surface
layer up to a depth of 24 inches is a laminated light- brownish-
gray silty loam, mottled with iron stains, and containing brown
organic remains. Below 24 inches is -a thick- bedded light
brownish silty clay. Local interstratified peaty layers are
common. It is difficult to drain this soil; however, when
it is drained, it can be as agriculturally productive as the
Puyallup Silt Loam.
Sultan Silt Loam soil occurs in small areas distributed
throughout larger stream valleys. Surface drainage is fair
to good, however, internal drainage may be slow. The surface
ten inches tends to be a grayish or medium brown silt loam.
Between 10 and 24 inches brownish -gray silty clay loam mottled
with iron stains predominates. Below 24 inches the soil is
light brownish gray, laminated silty clay loam mottled with
yellow and rust brown colors. This soil is moderately to
highly productive for grain and vegetable crops.
Even with the low rate of water intake of artificial fill,
the subject area is moderately useful as a groundwater recharge.
area. Good water - bearing strata (aquifers) are present beneath
the site.
c. Hydrologic Conditions
(1) Surface Drainage
During the rainy portion of the year., a number of areas on
the subject site are subject to ponding. Such evanescent
ponds are indicated by cracked and lined surface depressions
as well as plant species which are typical of wet areas.
However, no standing water was observed on or near the subject
site during the period of observation in July 1973.
Drainage of the surface water off of the subject site is
through culverts and drainage ditches to the Green River
in accordance with the Flood Control District and the
Master Plan of the City of Tukwila.
(2) Water Quality
Since the subject site lies within the Green- Duwamish River
watershed, and surface runoff from the site eventually
enters the river system, which flows about one mile to the
east.
The Green-Duwamish River undergoes its most critical bio-
logical, physical and chemical stress in summer months. In
the vicinity of the proposed project, the river's high summer
temperature and low flows result in major physiological
stresses on aquatic organisms.
During a one -month study period in the summer of 1972, water
quality analyses were made at two locations on the Green
River. The first location was at the Kent 212th Street
Bridge, which lies upstream from the project site. The
other location, the Renton Junction Bridge, lies downstream
from the project site. The data obtained provides a basis
for ascertaining what changes occur in this stretch of the
river and also aid in an assessment of the river's capacity
to absorb these as well as future changes.
The stretch of river between the above two sampling locations
is classified as Class A waters by the Washington State
Department of Ecology. Whether or not a water body meets
the classification is dependent on an analysis of individual
parameters. Data for this river stretch and analyses for
individual parameters are included below.
In order to meet Class A water temperature requirements,
temperature values must not exceed 18.3 °C (65 °F). The data
in tables 2 and 3-- variable 1, show a temperature of 15 -20 °C
with a mean value of 17.5 °C at the. Kent station and 17.7 °C
at the Renton station. However, with temperature values
reaching. 20 °C at both stations during the study period, it
may be concluded that the river often exceeds thermal capac-
ity limits as defined by the Department of Ecology. Mean
temperature values are only slightly within the standards.
Average dissolved oxygen values, Tables 2 and 3 -- variable 2,
exceed the Class A water standard value of 8.0 mg /1 (milli-
grams /liter). Since the average value'for.the upstream (Kent)
station (8.5 mg /1) is slightly higher than the downstream
(Renton) value (8.2 mg /1), an average oxygen loss of 0.3 mg /1
occurs as the water passes through this stretch of the river.
Average biological oxygen demand (BOD) values, Tables 2 and 3--
variable 7, of 2.3 mg/1 at Kent and 1.9 mg /1 at Renton, although
within tolerable limits, indicate .a 0.4 mg /1 average loss
occurring between these two stations. Since both the average
dissolved oxygen value and average BOD value at the Renton
station are lower than the Kent station values, this supports
the hypothesis that this stretch of the river may be loaded
slightly beyond its natural BOD tolerance. The drastic BOD
fluctuations occurring in the river suggest that BOD load
discharges into the upstream part of the river are periodic
rather than constant.
Average Kjeldahl (total), nitrite and nitrate nitrogen con-
centrations, Tables 2 and 3-- variables 9, 11, and 12, are
relatively low at both sampling locations. Similarly average
total phosphate, hydrolizable phosphate and orthophosphate.
concentrations (Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5-- variables 13, 14, and
15, are also relatively low. Average chlorophyll A values,
Tables 4 and 5 -- variable 22, are relatively high. While
blue -green nuisance algae (Figures G and H ) do not dominate
algal species populations during summer months, their presence
in substantial numbers is of some concern since they reflect
eutrophic conditions.
An analysis of the above parameters, except temperature,
supports the following conclusions: Most of the . decrease
in average oxygen values between sampling locations (0.3 mg /1)
is due to biological uptake since there is also a net decrease
in average BOD values at the downstream site (0.4 mg /1).
Since a river renews its oxygen content via photosynthesis
in the waters and gaseous diffusion from the . aerial environ-
ment, it appears that the input rate from these two processes
is less than the biological uptake rate in this stretch of
the river. Further, while nitrogen and phosphate concentra-
tions are relatively low, chlorophyll A values are quite high.
This indicates that uptake rates of these inorganic nutrients
must be relatively high otherwise these large chlorophyll A
values could not have been attained. Also the presence of
substantial blue -green algal populations is of concern since
an increase in their populations would impart a "slime"
appearance to the river and, subsequent to their death, would
reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations by increasing BOD loads
and at the same time cause an unpleasant odor to be released
from the river. Thus, it appears that the river is slightly
beyond its natural BOD tolerance and that any increase in
the discharge of inorganic nutrients (nitrogen and /or phos-
phorous) or organic matter into the system from any source
could be detrimental to the viability of the river.
STATION 4 RENTON JUNCTION
Variable Standard
No Variable Number Average Deviation Maximum Minimum Median Range
1. TEMP 30 17.657 1.264 20.000 15.000 17.800 5.000
2 DO 30 8.188 0.339 8.890 7.480 8.210 1.410
3 PH 30 7.385 0.104 7.600 .7.140 7.380 0.460
4 TOT ALK 29 40.369 3.226. 44.200 . 31.200 41.100 13.000
5 BICARB A 29 40.369 3.226 44.200 31.200 41.100 13.000
6 COND. 30 128.667 21.103 175.000 78.000 129.500 97.000.
7 BOD 18 1.922 0.919 4.200 0.410 1.765 3.790 -
N 8 TURBID 30 3.630 , 2.448 14.000 1.300 3.300 12.700
v.
9 KJ NIT 27 0.447 0.374 2.200 0.180 0.350 2.020
10 NHO 30 0.075 0.1.03 0.590 0.020 0.050 0.570
11 NO2 -N 13. 0.016 0.014 0.060 0.010 0.010 0.050
12 NO3 -N 30 0.364 0.094 0:600 0.210 0.380 0.390
13 TOT PO4 13 0.126 0.029 0.190 0.030 0.120 0.110
14 HYD Poo 30 .0.149 0.056 , 0.390 0.090 0.130 0.300
Table
N
STATION 5 KENT.212st BRIDGE
Variable Standard
No Variable ` Number Average Deviation Maximum Minimum Median Range
1 TEMP 30 17.543 1.406 20.000 14.500 17.500 5.500
2 DO 30 8.545 0.510 9.700 7.360 8.555 2.340
3 PH 30 7.380 0.110: 7.600 7.100 7.370 0.500
4 TOT ALK 29 37.228 3.039 41.700 29.100 38..100 12.600
5 BICARB A 29 37.228 3.039 41.700 29.100 38.100 12.600
6 COND 30 110.367 13.512 137.000 78.000 112.500. 69.000
7 BOD 18 2.309 0.957 4.280 0.420 2.245 3.860
8 TURBID 30 3.577 3.442 19.000 0.600 2.400 18.400
9 KJ NIT 27 0.422 0.236 1.370 0.100 0.400 1.270
10 NHO 29 0.081 0.034 0.190. 0.020 0.080 0.170.
11 NO2 -N 13 0.012 0.004 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.010
12 NO3 -N 30 0.316 0.119 0.830 0.140 0.320 0.690
13 TOT PO4 13 0.134 0.036 0.190 0.090 0.120 0.100
14 HYD PO4 30 0.140 0.047 0.230 0.060 0.130 0.170'
TABLE 3
STATION 4 RENTON JUNCTION
Variable Standard
No Variable Number Average Deviation Maximum Minimum Median Range
15 ORTHO P 30 0.110 0.057 0.330 0.060 0.100 0.270
16 COPPER 29 0.020 0.015 0.070 0.010 0.020 0.060
17 LEAD 2 0.100. -0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.000
18 ZINC 29 0.009 0.006 0.031 0.002 0.008 0.029.
,;, 19 MERCURY 2 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000
oo
20 T COLIF. 30 39959.000 69858.125 215000.000 400.000 4125.000 214600.000
21 FECAL CO 29 763.379 2304.716 12000.000 15.000 130.000 11985.000
22 CHLORD A 30 4.300 2.145 9.810 0.910 3.770 8.900
TABLE 4
STATION 5 KENT 212st BRIDGE
Variable Standard
No. Variable Number Average Deviation Maximum Minimum Median Range
15 ORTHO P 29 0.105 0.044 0.240 0.060 0.090 0.1.80
16 COPPER 29 0.028 0.035 0.190 0.010 0.020 0.180
17 LEAD 2 0.100 -0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.000
18 ZINC ' 29 0.010 0.009 0.045 0.001 0.008 0.044
N 19 MERCURY 2 0.200 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000
' 20 T COLIF 28. 39145.105 88073.750 445000.000 250.000 3500.000 444750.000
21. FECAL CO 26 .659.039 1357.757 5500.000 24.000 187.000 5476.000.
22 CHLORO A 30 5.095 3.317 11.900 1.070 3.965 10.830
TABLE 5
0
- , >;
es - .
i. .1
• i.
'
• 1.
- ., :..__ /- ‘ _ - - /- %... : ..r-
w
tr
i 1 . i -.- % .
i
1 r:- : I:;. :::Q:..:::
•
tom'; / _._ :: _.I -_- -1-
_ _ } -.. - -- - -1 - -- r -: -- -
Figure
- _.l- _.__t-.... • -_ t...;- 1_ •3_:-
1
•
t . 1
7/26 7/27 7/28 7/29 7/30 .7/31 8/1 8/2 8/3 '8/4 8/5
8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9
Study Dates - 1972
F IGU;RE H
s•
Renton Juactis..
Algal cell cc•r.ts. ■No
observat` -cr.s: c'.:-= -
8/10/72)
- -0 -- Ce. ^._-_e4
- �-- C=---i' - ----Green •
- 0 -
Plue --_ __..
- d - Pe n-ales
8/10 8/11 8/12 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/19
2120 5-/2_ c;22
• • '
.._ •
- 177-- --- •
•
-4
r4
r4
4-1
4 . 1 -4
• 2
•
.. -
. .
A •
•
1
• -; • ; ; ; • r" : : /.1 • T7 • .r:••••;-1.;•:_:-'7.7..
•
• " I
-7'7-7' • - ;—
' . s /..••• S. :
- • c? • ••
. . .
:1 Figure t Kent 212th St. Bridge System
• • • V--P k • • ; i • .•; .1 . ' • - • •4 •-
. •-•\
Algal Cell Counts. (No obser-
vations: 8/10/73).
Centrales •
Coccold Blue-Green
- 0 - Filamentous Blue-Green t ! 1
- a- Pennales
• i ____ \ ...—;...„
71 I . • i -1--
i ,--
• _ so. , .___-- ,--- i • , -
41,...,... , _ -,./.. -\ .... . - __ i ! t . _,-- fi - . ; 1 . i :_ _74_ .1. - LI —.-1. ....— _. ‘ _ _,.....„74....._ _./...__i . __,___. .. _, _ ___l_t_r___11 ____4.._A,____3_....., „.,
t - 1.....1_ ..1_. _ ...
',
i .
.1 - -"*.. _:, ; .:/. ‘,1 1 7 ' . 1— ! :
_I. ‘‘.. ./. I. .-:_i 1 .. : ii 7. .., 1 _ .7., _ _.
• 1
- - - '77- • . - .,, - - •
7-77-1 .
- - ' % -: ./ \ ; • 1 ' - I . ' • ' - , - 1 , , i ,'.- .
-•
; ':- I .:L: j ._ A i : ! .11-j:I .._.i_.J.....1..:7.__:_. _.___.
.1: . :. I " % I 7H ' L. i --.=:'-j--..-1 j " -
- - -.- - . • - --- -----__-
_ . ...i_.-
_ . • .. ---
. ,
j • • --. t • - • - 'I-, r,1 t; , :,•1 ---,17-2■ 1 --r--4 ...--•-1 .- --- ••• -- • • • -,-7- -.4- - - I -1— _ - -
---7,..
.1-: ;7.... -7-1-'1-- 7.7 7-7'.7. • 7 7-- -_-_"-' -:--'1-7C• 7t-7j- II .. *-1-: 71-7 : • -,- -- . ,-,;••:' .
•
7/26 7/27 7/28 7/29 7/30 7/31 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 8/5
8/6 8/7 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/12 8/13 • 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 8/1; 8/21 8/:2
F I GURE I
Study Dates - 1972
Concentrations of copper and lead, Tables 4 and 5-- variables
16 and 17, do not appear to be at levels which would cause
any major biological impact at the present time. However,
as a result of increased runoff from newly paved vehicular
surfaces in the area and the continued use of leaded gasoline,
lead concentrations could increase to levels which are .sig-
nificant in a biological sense. Zinc and mercury values
(variables 18 and 19) are also quite low.
Total and fecal coliform values, Tables 4 and 5- -variables
21 and 22, do not even meet Class C water requirements. This
poor condition is due, in part, to the influence of livestock
and human activities throughout the Green River watershed.
In 1969, the Washington State Department of Ecology published
an Information Bulletin on Intrastate Waters. The river
stretch discussed in this report met Class A requirements
specified by that bulletin for temperature and pH only.
However, based on 1973 revised water quality standards,
the river stretch no longer meets the Class A water require-
ments for temperature. The Department of Ecology has lowered
its temperature standard while the average temperature of
the river may be increasing.
d. Biological Conditions
(1)
Botany
Today the Green River valley is characterized by scattered
remnants of the large freshwater marshland that once
extended throughout the area. The subject site is a filled
and graded field covered with grasses, clover,' thistle,
yarrow, and a few scattered willow and alder saplings.
Some of the living as well as dead plant species are typical
of wet areas, which indicates that surface water collects on
the subject site earlier in the growing season. Along the
south side of the subject site is a small stand of alder and .
willow in a dry ditch. The ditch contains water during the
-32 -.
wetter portion of the year, but is at present dry. Across the
South Center Parkway bordering the west edge of the site is
a -stand of maturing alder and willow. 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 presence of
alder and willow in patchy distributions along the east,
south and west margins of the project site provides some
cover for bird populations.
In general, however, the vegetation on the proposed project
site is composed largely of introduced Eurasian weeds and
indicates a complete disruption of the original plant com-
munity. No rare or irreplaceable plant species are found
on the project site. See Table 6 for plants found on the
project site..
(2) Zoology
i) Birds
The subject site lies within the Green River watershed,
which is part of the Pacific Migratory Waterfowl Flyway.
The site has an interesting and important relationship
to the previously mentioned cattail marsh areas found
to the east and southeast. When these marsh areas are
wet, they provide a resting place for spring and fall
migrants, esPacially waterfowl. Contiguous meadows
and fields, including the subject site, serve as
foraging areas for migrants as well as winter residents.
The marshlands also provide a breeding habitat for Red-
winged Blackbirds in spring. The surrounding meadows
are rich in insect life necessary for the blackbirds to
feed their young.
The environment of the proposed subject site is also
considered quite good for other foraging seed- eating
and insectivorous bird species. The Savannah Sparrows
COMMON NAME GENUS SPECIES
Scotch broom *Cytisus scoparius,
Common vetch *Vicla sativa
Wild sweet pea *Lathyrus sp.
White sweet clover *Melilotus alba
Stinking mayweed *Anthemis cotula
Red clover *Trifolium pratense
Least hop. clover *Trifolium dubium
White clover *Trifolium. pratense
Wild lettuce Lactuca sp.
Sow thistle *Sonchus sp.
Pineapple weed Matricaria matricarioides
Canada thistle *Cirsium arvense
Common thistle *Cirsium vulgare
Smooth hawksbeard # *Crepis capillaris
Hairy cat's ear *Hypochaeris radicata
Common tansy *Tanacetum vulgare
Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis
Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea
Ribwort * Plantago .. lanceolata
Nippleseed Plantago major
Fireweed Epilobium. angustifolium
Sourdock *Rumex crispus
Spotted ladysthumb Polygonum persicari`a
Creeping buttercup *Ranunculus repens
Black cottonwood #Populus trichocarpa
Willow #Salix sp.
Red alder Alnus rubra.
Himalayan blackberry *Rubus procerus
Field horsetail Equisetum arvense
Horsetail Equisetum telmateia
Cattail #Typha latifolia
Water plantain #Alisma plantago- aquatica
Rush #Juncus sp..
Sedge #Carex sp..
Yellow weed #Parentucellia viscosa
Grass Festuca sp.
Grass Poa sp.
Grass Agrostis sp.
Grass Phleum sp.
Grass Lolium sp.
Grass #Phalaris sp.
*Introduced weed
#Species indicating standing water at some time during a year.
Table 6: Floral assemblage of project area in'July, 1973.
breed in the weed field and the American Goldfinches'.
and Song Sparrows probably breed in various thickets
around the site.
A survey of bird species present on and near the project
site on July 30, 1973, is presented in Table 7. No
uncommon or rare species were. observed. The most
abundant species were Song Sparrows and American Gold-
finches, usually found in thickets, Savannah Sparrows
and Brewer's Blackbirds, usually found in the weed
field and four species of Swallow in the air above the
project site.
In addition to resident bird species, a number of bird
species forage on the site but reside elsewhere.
Based on the work of Dr. R. Taber, College of Forest
Resources, University of Washington and Dr. D. Paulson,
Department of Zoology, University of Washington, it is
possible to project what species of birds might be seen
in a particular .. area based on habitat types available.
A list of common species which might be seen in and around
the project site if an extended survey were conducted, is
presented in Table 8.
ii) Mammals
A survey of mammals in the general vicinity indicates
few exist. Two young eastern cottontail rabbits,
Sylvilagus floridanus, were present on July 30, 1973.
Based on the work of Dr. R. Taber, College of. Forest
Resources, University of Washington and Mr. John Garcia,
College of Forest Resources, University of Washington,
it is possible to project what species of mammals might
be seen in a particular area based on habitat types
available. A list of mammals which might be seen imand
around the project site if an extended survey were con-
ducted is presented in Table 9. .
-35-
COMMON NAME
'GENUS
SPECIES SEASON* . ABUNDANCE*
Mallard, male and
female Anas platyrhynchos R
California Quail,
3-females Lophortyx 'californicus
Ring - necked. Pheasant,, .
l female adult and Phasianus colchicus
8 -10 young.
Herring Gull. Larus argentatus
Band - tailed Pigeons Columba fasciata
Barn Swallows Hirundo rustica
Violet Green Swallows Tachycineta thalassina
Tree Swallows Iridoprocne bicolor.
Rough- winged Swallows Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
Robin . Turdis migratorius
Yellow Warbler, female Dendroica petechia
Yellowthroats Geothlypis trichas
Western Meadowlarks Sturnella neglecta
Brewer's Blackbirds Euphagus cyanocephalus
Brown- headed Cowbird Molothrus ater
American Goldfinch. Spinus tristis
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia
*C = Common R = Resident S = Summer
R
S
R
Table 7: Birds seen on the project site, July_ 30, 1973.
-36-
-C
C
COMMON NAME GENUS SPECIES SEASON' 'ABUNDANCE*
Red- tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis R C
Rough- legged Hawk Buteo lagopus W C
Sparrow Hawk Falco sparverius R C
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S C
Common Snipe Capella .gallirago W, R C
California Gull Larus californicus M C
Ring - billed Gull Larus delawarensis M C
Mew Gull Larus canus W C
Rock Dove (feral) Columba Livia R C
Mourning Dove Zenaidura macroura S
Barn Owl Tyto alba R C
Short -eared Owl Asio flammeus R C
Common Nighthawk Chordelies minor S C
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon fluva
Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Starling 'Sturnus vulgaris
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Red- winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
White- crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
a R. = Resident
S = Summer W = Winter
S
R
S
M = Migrant C = Common
Table 8: Birds which might be seen on the project site.
(Based on the work of Dr. R. Taber, College of
Forest Resources, University of Washington and
Dr. D. Paulson, Department of Zoology, University.
of Washington).
-37-
COMMON NAME GENUS SPECIES .
Vagrant. Shrew Sorex vagrans
Coast Mole Scapanus orarius
Townsend's Mole Scapanus townsendii
Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus
Oregon Vole Microtus aregoni
Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa
Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus
Pacific Jumping Mouse - Zapus trinotatus
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis
Townsend's Vole Microtus townsendii
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Table 9:
Mammals which might be seen on the
project site. (Based on work of
Mr. John Garcia, College of Forest
Resources, University of Washington.)
-38- .
iii) Fish
The subject site lies within the. Green - Duwamish River
watershed. This river supports significant fish runs.
Although some natural spawning occurs in the river, the
majority of the anadromous fishes are released as fry or
fingerlings from the Washington State Department of
Fisheries Hatchery located on the Soos Creek tributary.
Principal fish species known to be present in the river
in the vicinity of the project site are listed in
Table 10.
COMMON NAME
GENUS SPECIES
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha.
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kitsutch
Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Cutthroat trout Salmo clarki
Steelhead trout Salmo gairdneri
Dolly Varden trout Salvelinus malma
Prickly sculpin Cottus asper
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Longnose dace Rhinichtays cataractae
Speckled dace Rhinichtays oculus
Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni
Starry flounder (juveniles) Prosopium stellatus
Table 10: Fish Species of the Green - Duwamish
River in the vicinity of the project
site.
e. Atmospheric Conditions
(1) Existing Air Quality
The following discussion is. based both on air quality
measurements made on site and data obtained from nearby
monitoring stations maintained by the Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Ecology.
Measurements of suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) were performed at the subject site on August 2 and
3, 1973.
Twelve hourly measurements of SO2 were. made. Each con-
centration in Table 11 -A is an average of three readings.
The 24 -hour average for SO2 was .038 ppm. These results
are in general agreement with data obtained by the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA).which are given
in Table 11 -6. SO2 is well within the standard and does not
present any known problems at the present time.
The concentration of suspended particulates was 67.7 micrograms
per cubic meter of air (ugm /m3) as measured at the subject
site.
The ambient air quality standards as adopted by the. Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for suspended particu-
lates are 60 ugm /m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) annual
geometric mean and 160 ugm /m3 24 -hour average never to be
exceeded. For implementation purposes, the standard value
for suspended particulates can be exceeded 15% of the time
in a given month without violating the ambient air quality
standard for the year. Thus the measurement at the site
of 67.7 ugm /m3 probably does not alone constitute a
violation. Elsewhere in the Duwamish, data gathered from
the Department of Ecology monitoring station on Marginal
Way indicates that 23% of the 24 -hour reading for suspended
particulates have exceeded 150.ugm /m3 in the last year.
These high readings . are probably a reflection of the
intensive industrial activities in the lower Duwamish Region.
-40-
Average Concentration
Date Time Parts Per Million (ppm)
8/2/73 11:30 a.m. .040
12:30 p.m .040
1:30 p.m. .035
2:30 p.m. .018
3:30 p.m .027
4:30 p.m. .041
5:30 p.m. .045
7:30 p.m. .026
8:30 p.m. .023
8/3/73
7:15 a.m. .111
8:15 a.m. .037
9:15 a.m. .022
10:15 a.m. .032
11:15 a.m. .037
Table 11 -A: Average atmospheric concentration
of sulfur dioxide.
Sulfur Dioxide July Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar.
(ppm) 1972 1972 1973 1973 1973 Standard Value
Monthly mean .004 :002 • .002 .005 .006 .02 annual mean •
Daily maximum .04 .01 .01 .02 .02 ..1 daily average
Hourly maximum .24 .08 .08 .11. .11 .4 hourly average
TABLE 11 -B:
Sulfur dioxide data obtained by the
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency at Andover Park
Table 12 indicates that suspended_ particulate concentrations
tend to increase from Renton to the Duwamish Industrial Area
of Seattle, so that a value of 67.7 ugm /m3 is probably
typical of the area. The above mentioned table also
indicates that the concentrations of suspended particulates
have increased in the area in the last two and one -half
years. This trend will probably continue to increase in
the future.
Particle fallout (see Table 12) is also high, reflecting
the large amount of particulate matter in the air. This
will mean a soiling problem for any structures, cars,
clothes, etc., in the area.
• The one sulfation rate reading of.0.46 (Table 12) is not
unusual for an urban area. no standards have been set
for this measurement.
1973
Suspended Particulates (4 mo.) 1972
1971-
Standard. Value
(Renton)
Annual average in
ugm /m3 (Duwamish)
53.9
97.6
48.1
89.6
46.9
76.4
60 ug /m3 .
Annual Geometric
Mean.
150 og /m3
24 -Hour Average..
Sulfation Rate (Renton) 2
(milligrams of S03 /100 cm
per day)
.46
No Standard
Particle Fallowt 0
(Renton) gms /m /mo.
5.2
10 Industrial
5 .Residential
and Commercial
TABLE 12: Suspended particulates, sulfation
rate and particle fallout values
-42-
A summary of motor vehicle related air contaminants is
presented in Table 13. Of the summarized pollutants,
carbon monoxide is the most problematical. The air
quality standards for the other pollutants resulting from
motor vehicles (hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants) are
not projected to be exceeded in 1975, the congressional
deadline for meeting the ambient air quality standards.
The number of days the 8 hour carbon monoxide standard
would be exceeded is projected to drop in Seattle from
107 days in 1972 to 38 days by 1975. The maximum 8 -hour
concentration will be between 16 and 17 parts per million
on these days. As per conversations with the Department of
Ecology, air quality conditions related to carbon monoxide
at the subject site are somewhat analogous to downtown Seattle.
Sources of Air Contaminants
The sources of the air contaminants are the Seattle indus-
trial area, the 1 -5 Freeway and the Southcenter shopping
area. Although continuing efforts are under way to reduce
emission from both industrial and automotive sources, the
air quality at the site will probably remain marginal due to
the number of sources in proximity to the site and the
difficulty of enforcing control measures.
-43-
®.
AIR CONTAMINANTS RESULTING I-RUM MUIUK VtiILLt�
AS RECORDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
MONITORING STATION IN THE DUWAMISH
Carbon Monoxide (CO) PPM
Hydrocarbons PPM Oxidant Parts Per Hundred Million •
Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum
1972 June 1 4 .0 2 3 2 1 4 0.
July .1 4 0 2 4 1 2 13 0
Aug. 1 7 0 2 5 1 1 4 0
Sept. 1 8 0 3 6 1 1 5 0
Oct. 3 10 0 3 7 2 1 4 0
Nov. 3 15 0 2 6 1 1 4 0
Dec. 2 23 0 2 6 1 .1 3 0
1973 Jan. 3 21. 0 2. 7 2 1 4 0,
Feb. 3' .. 12 0 2 7 2 .1 _4 0
r
March 2 9 0 2 . 5 2 . 1 3 0
April 2 6 0 2 5 2 0 2 0
May 2 8 0 2 4 2 0. 5 0
June 2 10 0 2 4 1 1 2 0
Ambient air.
quality
Standards
not to be
exceeded
more than
once per
year.
ugm /m3 PPM ugm /m3 PPM ugm /m3 PPM
8 -Hour
Average- 10
1 -Hour
Average 40
35
3 -Hour . . 1 -Hour
Average 160 0.24 Average 160 0.08
Meterology
i) Temperature /Precipitation
Temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation values
for the subject site are given in Table 14. These
values are for Seattle - Tacoma International Airport
and represent averages of all available data.
Table 15 indicates the amount of rain falling in a
given time period for various recurrence intervals.
For instance, on the basis of past records, this area
can expect to receive 3 inches of rainfall in a 24 hour
period once. every 5 years.
Wind
Wind data (Table 16) are for Tukwila. Winds are light
and variable 16.1% of the time in this area. South and
south- southwest are the most frequent wind directions.
-45-
• = •
J F M A M J J A • S 0 N D ANNUAL
Temp.( °F) Ave. '38.3 40.8 43.8 49.2 55.5 59.8 64.9 64.1 59.9 52.4 43.9 40.8 51.1
Precip. (in.) 1 5.73 4.24 3.79 2.4 1.73 1.58 0.81 0.95 2.05 4.02 5.35 6.29 38.94
Precip. Extremes I
Greatest monthly :12.92 9.11 8.40 3.75 4.76 3.90 2.10 2.18. -4.60 8.95 9.69 9.50 55.14
Least monthly 0.86 1.66 0.57 0.33. 0.35 0.13 T 0.17 0.32 1.00 1.11 3.75 23.78
'Greatest Daily . 2.22 .3.4.1 2.19 1.85 1.66. 1.53 0.74 1.36 1.77 2.27 3.41 2..52 3.41
Ave. no.
r of days
a` 1 „ 1 1. 1. 0 0 0 0.. . 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
with precip.
Snowfall 4.3 1.3 .8 T 0 0 0 0 0 T 0.5 0.6 7.5
.01" ' 19 . 15 16 13 11 9 . 5 6 8 14 • 17 19 151
. 1 "
.5"
12 10 10 8 5 4
3 4 8 14 13 93
4 2 1 1 0 0
0
2 4 3 18
Ave. Daily ;765 135. 259 418 531 534 580 ' 475 330 191 104 62.5
Solar Rad-
iation .25 0.2 .75 . .0 75 0.0 . 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.6
(cal /crn2) '
Table 14 : Temperature precipitation and solar radiation values from Sea -Tac Airport.
Duration/
Recurrence.
Interval
2 yr.
5 yr. 10 yr.
25 yr. 50 yr.
• 30 min. .4 .5 .6 .6 .7
1 hour .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
2 hour .7 .8 1.0 1.2 1.5
3 hour .9 1.2 1.5 • 1.7 2.0
6 hour 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.5 2.8
Duration /
Recurrence
Interval
12 hours
24 hours
48 hours
96 hours
2 yr. .5 yr.
2.0
2.5
10 yr. 25 yr.
3.0 3.2
.50 yr.
3.5
2.5
3.o 3.5
4.o 4.2
3.0 4.0 4.5 - 5.0 5.5
4.0
4.5 5.5
6.0 7.0
Table 15: Amounts of rain falling in a
given time period for various
recurrence intervals.
-47-
WNW
0.5
0.6
wsw
1 .6
NNW
9.3
N
9.3
ISTATION LOCRTION-
'INCLUSIVE Of TES -
ITOTHL OBSERVATIONS-
SSW 30.0 SSE
17.5 S 5.7
21.4
HOUR AVERAGE SURFACE WINDS
PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
227 ANDOVER PARK E, TUKWILA
ALL MONTHS 1972
8536
Table 16
1.1- 4.0- 7.0-- 11.0- 17.0- 0V.6
3.9 6.9 10.9 16.9 21.9 . 21.9
KNOTS
6 t 4 $ 4 4
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 62.0 15.0
PERCENT
f. Noise
In the.subject site noise survey, information was gathered from
a variety of different sources. Ambient and background noise
levels on and around the subject site were measured. Traffic
statistics such as volume, speed, percentage of trucks, etc.,
were obtained from a professional engineer. Existing and
proposed noise ordinances affecting the subject site are
included as a frame of reference.
(1) Noise. Survey
On the morning of July 17, 1973, between 10:30 a.m. and
12:00 noon,.a preliminary daytime noise survey (Table 17)
on and around the subject site was carried out.- The
maximum (10% level or L10) noise levels were taken at
pre- selected positions with a General Radio Model 1565 -A
calibrated Sound Level Meter. The locations of the
measurements are indicated in Figure J.
A similar nighttime survey was conducted (Table 17) on the
night, between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., of July 20, 1973.
It is evident from these noise level data that the major
contributor to background or ambient noise environment is
the steady motor - vehicle traffic on Interstate 5. The
noise levels that were recorded on the west and
north sides of the project site were closer to the noise
sources and therefore gave higher decibel (dB) readings.
The maximum noise level readings were recorded when heavily
loaded trucks would pass by along the Southcenter Parkway
Boulevard (35 MPH road) and along the Stander Boulevard
(between the Doubletree Inn and the subject Site). Again, the
shorter the distance between the source-and receiver, higher
were the measured noise level readings. These intermittent
near -field truck noise levels had a tendency to mask the .
far -field steady freeway noise.
-49-
Lora
rt, ..esaala
c's
nder 15Ivd.
0
Figure J
0.e 110)&6 Lode) %lui614 reh et45
MICROPHONE
LOCATION POINTS
MEASURED AMBIENT
NOISE LEVELS
NIGHTTIME
DAYTIME
DBA dBC
dBA dBC
1
64
78
53
64 ,
2
57
72
52
64
3
56
72
53
65
4 �
. 52
68
51
63
5
53
'65
50
61
6
54
67
52
63
7
63
77
54
65
8
62
72
54
64
9 .
57
73
51
62
10
66
78
52
64
MICROPHONE
LOCATION
MEASURED MAXIMUM. NOISE. LEVELS
1
78
98
66
78
2
75
96
65
76
8
79
99
66.
79
NOTE: • The above readings in dBA represent L90 (background) levels
due to normal traffic flow and L10 (maximum) levels due to
truck traffic flow on roads surrounding Maguire Site.
Table 17: Ambient Noise and Maximum
Noise Levels for. the
Maguire Site.
_51_
The average increase in the noise level due to a nearby
passing truck corresponded to 20 dBC and 15 dBA when
compared to the background or ambient level. The maximum
noise level, L10, recorded at a point 10 feet from the
passing truck along the Southcenter Parkway Boulevard was
99 dBC and 79 dBA.
This indicates that the predominant noise Lies in the low -
frequency range, a well known characteristic of the truck
exhaust noise. Because of this fact, the truck noise can
be detected even at great distances from the road.
Because of the random distribution of truck noise sources
in the overall traffic noise environment, it is necessary
to use L10 and L90 levels in the determination of a single -
number rating (e.g. dBA level) for both existing and
predicted property line values.
(2) Existing and /or Proposed Noise Ordinances:
i) City of Tukwila Ordinance 251 (revised by 11635, 1970),
Section 18.32.030, page 2731 Paragraph "C ", which reads,
"No use shall be permitted if it results in industrial
noise above 5 sones as measured at the outer boundary of
this district "(Commerci.al - Manufacturing) for industrial
park purposes.
ii) Proposed King County Noise Ordinance, Section 703 (Stationary
Sound Sources) and Section 704 (Non - Stationary Equipment).
The relevant noise level information is as follows:
"Section 703, Article (3), Commercial or Business Areas:
Period of Use
Maximum allowable sound levels
as measured on the property
the sound source is located
Between the hours of
0700 -2200
Between the hours of
2200 -0700
65 dBA
65 dBA
Section 703, Article (4), Industrial Areas:
Between the hours of
0700 -1800
Between the hours of
1800 -2200
Between the hours of
2200 -2700
70 dBA
70 dBA
70 dBA
Section 704, Articles (a) and (b):
a) No person shall operate any of the following non-stationary
equipment in a manner to produce a noise in excess of the
following limits at a distance of 50 feet from the equip-
ment operation or the property line on which it is
operated, whichever is greater.
b) Types of Equipment
1) Construction and industrial machinery
such as crawlers, tractors, dozers,
rotary drills and augers, loaders,
power shovels, crances, derricks,
graders, off highway trucks, ditchers,
trenchers, compactors, compressors,
pneumatic powered equipment, etc.,
but not including pile drivers.
Noise Limits
90 dBA
3) Portable powered equipment of 20 HP
or less primarily intended for commer-
cial use in varying locations in
support of construction or maintenance
activities; such as chain saws, pave-
ment breakers, log chippers, powered
hand tools, etc.
Noise Limits
88 dBA
Measurement will be taken in both dBA and dBC with the .
allowable limits being 20 dB higher with the dBC
measurement.
. Proposed King County Noise Ordinance, Section 701, "Licensed
Motor Vehicle" - Allowable noise levels:
b) No person shall operate a licensed motor vehicle or
combination of vehicles at any time or under any condition
of grade, load, acceleration or deceleration in such a
manner as to exceed the following noise limit for the
category of - vehicle, as measured at a distance of 50
feet from the center of the lane of travel within the
speed limits specified:
Speed Limit
Type of Vehicles 35 MPH or less
Speed Limit
over 35 MPH
Motor vehicles of
gross weight of 6,000 lbs.
or more.
86 dBA 88 dBA
Motorcycles 82 dBA 85 dBA
All other motor vehicles 76 dBA 82 dBA
-54-
iii) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. Department
of Transportation approved Policy and Procedure Memorandum
(PPM) 90 -2 under the Draft Environmental Statement on Noise
standards and Procedures for Implementing Section 109 (i)
Title 23 U.S.C., effective from July 1, 1972:
Design Noise Level /Land Use Relationships
Land Use Design Noise
Category Level - L10
Description of Land
Use Category
B
E*
70 dBA.
(Exterior)
55 dBA
(Interior)
Residences, motels, hotels,,
public meeting rooms, etc.
Residences, motels, hotels,
public meeting rooms, etc.
*The interior design noise level in category E applies to .
indoor activities for those situations where no exterior
noise sensitive land use or activity is identified.
(Reference 4). -
Note: L10 is the sound level (statistical in nature) that
is exceeded 10 percent of the time for the period under
consideration. This value is an indicator of both the
magnitude and frequency of occurrence of the loudest
(maximum) noise events.
iv) General Services Administration (GSA) specified 'Construction
Noise' Standards, effective from July 1, 1973•
Spec: Equipment to be employed on the development site
shall not produce a noise level exceeding the
following limits in dBA at a distance of 50 feet:
Earthmoving truck
91
Impact Pile Drivers
101
Concrete Mixture
85
Impact Jack Hammers
88
Stationary Compressor
81
Saws
78
-55-
(3) Summary of Existing Noise Levels
The existing average ambient (background or L90) noise level
due to truckless traffic along the west boundary (adjoining
the Southcenter Parkway Boulevard) of the subject site is
63 dBA. This value seems to be consistent when compared .
with the City of Tukwila noise ordinance (5 sones or equiva-
lent 70'dBA) and .those proposed by the King County 65 .dBA).
However, when a standard truck passes by, the maximum noise
level (L10) is approximately 15 dBA higher than the average
ambient level. This 78 or 79 dBA level at the western
boundary of the subject site would then violate the proposed
U.S. Departments. of Transportation (DOT) and Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) exterior noise level criteria
(Max. 70 dBA). However, if the nearest commercial or
office building, hotel, motel, etc., are built several
hundred feet away from the truck noise source and towards
the center of the subject site then there will be approxi-
mately 4 to 5 dBA reduction in noise by every doubling of
the distance away from the source, assuming a free - field
(no obstruction to sound waves) environment.
The predicted noise levels due to the increase in overall
traffic (normal) and increase in the truck traffic is mainly
a function of traffic volume and traffic speed according
to the model described. From the existing traffic count
information (assuming that trucks, comprise lanbf total)
'both on Interstate 5 and along the Southcenter as well.
as Strander Boulevards (adjoining the site), the predicted
10 percentile level (L10) noise levels on the western
edge of the property would be 82 dBA (1 -5) and 86 dBA
(Southcenter Blvd.) respectively. The peak traffic volumes
used in the prediction analysis were.4,000 /hr. on the
Interstate 5 freeway and 600 /hr. on the Southcenter. Boulevard.
However, because of the elevation (approximately 50 ft.)
and tree - covered slopes of the 1 -5 with respect to the subject
site, one can assume a 6 to 8 dBA reduction in the 1-5 generated
-56-
truckless noise (from 82 dBA down to 74/76 dBA), which, in
turn, would make the truck traffic noise (86 dBA) a
predominant noise source along the subject site.
B. Existing Conditions (Cont'd.)
2. Human Use, Development and Values
a. General Development
The following is a summary, performed by the Tukwila City
Planning Department, of generalized human use and development
within the 8 square mile planning area surrounding the subject
area:
Residential (8 square miles surrounding the area)
1) Single Family Dwelling 3,484
(Average Household Size 2,3)
2) Two Family Dwellings 2
3) Three or Four Family Dwellings .. . . . 3
4) Five to Eight Family Dwellings . . . . . . . 0
5) Nine or More Family Dwellings . . . 59
6) Hotels, Motels and Tourist Homes . . 3
7) Mobile Homes 0
Commercial
1) Wholesale and Distributors 34
2) Retail
a. Southcenter 108
1. Shopping Population (daily.) - 28,600
2. Shopping Population (peak) - 92,000
3. 1971 Total Shopping Population - 11,500,000
b. Other than Southcenter 10
Industrial
1) .Mining 2
2) Construction• 2
3) Manufacturing
a. Southcenter 7
b. Other than Southcenter 24
Employment.- Large, Major Sources
1) Southcenter 1,700
peak (3,000 )
2) Andover Industrial Park
a. Distribution Firms 607
b. Manufacturing Firms 275
3) City Administration 106
Recreational
1). Minor Parks (Less than 5 Acres)
a. Picnic Tables
b. 2 Tennis Courts
2) Golf Courses
3) Tukwila Community Club
4) Race Tracks (Longacres)
5 Numerous Fishing Sites Along the River
-58-
1
1
1
Transportation
1) Railroads (BNSF Burlington Northern, Union Pacific,
Milwaukee
a. Passenger
b. Freight
2) Taxi Cab Services
3) 405 and 1 -5 Intersections
a. Cars to Southcenter (daily average) - 13,000
b. Cars to Southcenter (peak daily average) - 40,000
4) Truck Transportation - 2,500 daily
a. Terminals
b. Freeway Accesses.
5) River Transportation
6) Employees (Southcenter) 7,500
7) Cars (Southcenter) - 5,013,600 yearly)
Education
1) Elementary 4
2) Jr. High 1
3) Sr. High 1
Religion
1) Churches 10
Tukwila has grown to become amajor trade center in the last few
years. The City' is unusual in that it has become a major urban
area with a population of only 3,128. Tukwila had a population
density of 2 - 4.99 persons per acre in 1970 and is projected to
have the same density in 1990. This is a relatively low growth
in population compared to other communities in South King County
such as Kent, Renton and Highline. On the other hand, the City's
assessed valuation has increased from $1,872,000 in 1961 to $68,000,000 in
1971 and to $89,641,130. in 1972. By official estimation, the City has
become a "$90 Million Dollar Corporation" and by. 1975 the assessed valuation
will increase to $120,000,000. The largest portion of the City revenue
comes from real and personal property taxes, and general sales and
use taxes, $491,576, and $134,553, respectively in 1973.
-59-
so
O 0 m
D• .°00.0.O O00 °
• 0 0 0 0 O
e e 0•• 0• 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e a. oe°o•••••
�0 0 0 0.
.0
�""y"0„3 0 0 0 0 0
0
• 0 00
rD+^ 0 O0
./t)
Y 0 7 • o O 0 0-t:;0 0 0 0
�✓ "-o O O D O O O O° O O O
m O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t.j-" . 9000 -9O ° O 0 0 0 0 0. 0 ° 0 0 0 0
i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° O O
p0000O°0G °° r. 00000000°0000000°0 O0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0
``{�� C //. ^{ 0 0 00 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 m
1)0‘.9° ° % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'.ia °O °O °O °O °O °O °O ° °�I �f°!a °o O °O °0 0 °0 0 0
°• m
0 0. 0 0 0•
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 ��
0 °0 °00 0 0 006 .
0 °0 °0 °0°0 °0 °0 °0°0 0 °eFFF.;,y; „" "m 0 o 0 0 9moo
0 0000 °0 °0 °0 °0 °0 °O -0 0000 °0 °• 0 °0 °0 °0 °0
.700.0.0.0000000.0.0.000000000.90000.000000000
0 0 °°0 0 0 0 0 °°° °
0 00•00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0O ° 0
0°O °0°• °0 0 °0 0 °0 0°• °0 °0 0 °O °0 °0°O °0 °0 0000
0 000000° °0° ° ° ° ° ° °• ° °°° ° °
00 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 • 0 0O 0 0 ° °0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 °0 °0 °0 °0 °0 °0 °00 °0 °0 °0 °0 °0°0°0 0 °0 • °• ° ° °0 0 °0 00
0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• v
a o• 0 e m o 0 0 o e o e o o e o o<
0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 o0 ° 0 o 0 0
0 0 0° e° o o ° °° o 0 °° o° m o m o °
0.0.0.0..0..0_0_O_0
0 °0000 °0 °0 °0°
0 0 0 0 0 0
■
•
•
- - - •
b. Traffic
The subject site is located to the southwest of the intersection of
Interstate 5 and Interstate 405. Access to the area is provided by
Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. Freeway
on -ramps to 1 -5 and I -405 are in near proximity to the project site.
Vehicle counts at Southcenter range from 27,000. to 45,000 vehicles
per day. Figure L shows existing average daily traffic and peak
hour volumes in the vicinity of the subject site,as derived from
the Washington State Highway Department measurements taken in March
and June of 1973. The percentage of the daily traffic at various
hours of the day (Figure M) are for arrivals only and show a typical
noon time peak and a small midnight peak. The percentage of total
weekly traffic occurring on each day of the week is presented in
Figure N. The traffic volumes experienced on Thursday most correspond
to the average daily volume.
y�5z ]
• 373
LS ZZ
1 1.11s 1
zZl
"!�t'W� iSCFI(K.f6RiTP: Ai+awN.Y�st -�feN1 i'R�M�'� �Al• YW, 4iMs� '::si'".VG`�x74.4,1761..,4.01S!
-�'ca�Wila Parkway
si- raruke 131vd
p�« ..s,�.s�,r.�x:�w:�� ^.�wm.,.�!.w rxrm�ur,. �te• a..: xaca« ��.:a:zr�•��`...;- x��+ss�•vzwcs
x
Off
ram P
19. \ 13 7171
f.glAti Ira- fic- 0°773)
5oarce : - Factoreu 4 om W L rm"'Ali � ;bk. itlgh y NIA
4.
Legend:
`450 aveva e ally i rah #lc,
von mak-
r►'t Peak-
a)
E
0
0
4—
0
as()
6:00 A.M.
Noon
TIME OF DAY
6:00 P.M.
419. tri - rva -ific Charade risli�,
of . Pa1l5 Traffic, vu(us f'tagtr of fire. bay
-64-
Midnight
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
FIGURE N
TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
Percent of Weekly Traffic Versus Day of Week
Sunday 1.04
Monday 0.75
Tuesday 1.14
Wednesday 0.87
Thursday 0.99
Friday 1.06
Saturday. 1.14
fo > •
>, -0 (o fo
>. >. (0 V1 -0 T T)
f0 f0 "0 a) to (0 L.
"0 -a n c L - • 3
C C a) -0 3 .— +-)
7 0 3 0 ..0 L f0
V) E 1- 3 1— Li N
-65-
Average Week Day Volume
Note: Thursday is an
"average" day.
C. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action
A consideration of impacts must address all possible positive and negative
changes in the existing environment that willfo!llow as a conSequence of the
development resulting from the proposed action. Particularly, seemingly
minor impacts which might be cumulative in nature must be assessed at least
briefly. Often it is not the immediately recognizable impacts which can be
anticipated that cause long range problems; rather, it is the small and
seemingly inconsequential impact which surfaces later as a sensitive problem.
Careful analysis of all possible impacts will result in a determination of
those which will cause adverse effects. Such an analysis, in conjunction with
the planning process, can be utilized to identify measures which will mitigate
such adverse effects. Implementation of mitigating measures is limited only
by the physical constraints imposed by the project site and the degree of
flexibility imposed by the program requirements of the development resulting
from the proposed action.
Environmental impact is not limited to changes in the bio- physical environ-
ment but necessarily extends to a wide range of changes in the socio- economic
environment. Such socio - economic impacts take on a great significance since
the development resulting from the proposed action is to occur in an area
already extensively altered from the natural condition and utilized for other
types of human activities.
Furthermore, it is recognized that the various impacts are not severable
from one another and such inter - relatedness is reflected in this discussion.
Quantifiable occurrences within the bio- physical and socio - economic environ-
ments cannot be dealt with as discreet events, but rather must be considered
within the context of the total systems which give rise to such occurrences.
1. Changes in Natural Characteristics
a. Impact on. Topography and Geology
The topography of the subject site was altered when the site, and
the contiguous lands were committed to urban uses. The Green River
Valley had undergone some minor alterations during previous farming
activities, but for the most part, it retained the characteristics
of a mature flood plain until recent urbanization. The Howard
Hanson Dam and the levees on the Green River help prevent flooding
of this area. The subject site is bounded by Southcenter Mall,
Interstate Highway 5, and a warehouse.
The subject site itself has been raised above the original flood
plain of the Green River by landfill. Landfill on the subject
site was placed in compacted layers and left to settle and further
compact the underlying soil over an extended period of time. This
is consistent with good engineering geologic practice.
b. Impact on Hydrology and Water Quality
Covering the subject site with asphalt and buildings will increase
the amount of rainfall that runs off the site. This will prevent
groundwater recharge and will tend to increase the burden on
existing drainage facilities. The most marked impact on water will
be the increased runoff from the paved -over areas of the project.
Paved portions of the site will inhibit groundwater recharge and will
result in a small, but probably measurable drop in the local water
table. While the net affect of this particular project is small,
it is part of a continuing deleterious trend in accommodation of
increased storm water flows by direct discharge into the existing
natural systems.
Runoff from the paved areas will be in greater volumes and at higher
temperatures than natural runoff and will contain hydrocarbons, oils
and particulates. As noted previously, the receiving water body,
the Green- Duwamish River, is already at its thermal capacity, based
on Department of Ecology standards. While the total impact of the
project is small, taken together with other nearby planned projects
or those currently underway which will also discharge into the river,
an even more serious deterioration in water quality is possible.
c. Impact on Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology
As previously mentioned, the proposed site is located in an area of
the Green River Valley which has already experienced major biological
changes. Construction of Andover Industrial Park and Southcenter
Shopping Plaza are just two of the many urban developments which
have completely changed the natural environment formerly found in
the valley. Comparatively speaking, the biological impact of the
proposed project, although identifiable, will be small compared to
previously completed projects in the valley.
Development of the project site as a commercial complex
will eliminate a foraging habitat for the summer seed- eating
birds and insectivorous swallows. Further, some reduction of food
supply for winter residents and migrants will occur. However,
since the project site is at present quite artificial because the
former marshland has already been filled in, elimination of the
above mentioned habitat can be viewed essentially as a replacement
of one man -made habitat with another..
If the proposed project was not undertaken, plant species succession
on the site would be very slow due to poor soil conditions. It would
take many years before one could observe native, non -weedy trees
growing in the area. No seedlings of such trees currently exist on
the site. Further, a reversion to the original marsh community is
impossible since the project site has already been filled and
graded.
d. Impact on Air Quality
Concentration of suspended particulates in the atmosphere can be
expected to temporarily increase during the construction phase
resulting from the proposed action. Increased traffic flow during
and after construction will increase the concentrations of carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen,
lead and bromine aerosols, and other pollutants.
The air quality impact due to increased vehicular traffic will be
noticeable particularly since activities on the proposed project site will
attract large numbers of cars during the same periods of time when
peak hour traffic occurs at Southcenter. The air quality impact
will occur due to both the increased numbers of vehicles and the
traffic patterns of the area.
The most problematical vehicular air contaminant will be carbon
monoxide.
e. Impact on Noise
During the early development period of the subject site, the most
objectionable noise to the existing business community would be
from construction activities. Special acoustical measures should
be utilized on common construction equipment during the preliminary
development at the site to protect nearby business community
from annoying construction- generated noise. There are proposed
construction noise specifications of General Services Administration
and King County, which should be followed closely.
Traffic flow will increase as a result of the commercial and business
activities to be located at the project site. This traffic increase
will have an impact both on the internal environment of the project
as well as on the surrounding commercial enterprises, and such noise
sensitive businesses as the adjacent motor hotel.
The noise impact to the surrounding community which will result from
the subject site upon complete development can be determined from
noise level predictions and existing noise ordinances. The actual
noise level predictions should take into account specific character-
istics of the final development such as roadway characteristics
(configuration, pavement type and grades), traffic characteristics
(volume, speed, percentage of trucks), topography (vegetation,
barriers, height and distance).
The following factors will affect measurable noise levels in a
positive or negative manner:
Distance: -4 to -5 dBA for doubling (distance
between the noise source and receiver)
Traffic Volume: +3 dBA for doubling
Traffic Speed: +9 dBA for doubling (a very important
consideration)
Ground Cover: 0 - to -3 dBA per 100 ft.
Barriers: Typically -5 to -15 dBA, depending on height,
thickness, material characteristics and slope.
-69-
The existing noise levels and predicted levels due to increased
traffic and other commercial activities must be considered by the
designers and architects to meet the 55 dBA interior noise level
criteria as proposed by DOT and HUD. All four edges and boundaries
of the subject site should be lined with trees and shrubs. In
particular, special acoustical barriers and earth berms should be
constructed on the western edge of the property to reduce traffic
generated noise. These precautions will help to protect the
surrounding community from any noise generated within the site as
well.
-70-
2. Changes in Human Use
a. Land Use Patterns
Land use patterns established by the Southcenter Commercial/
Industrial Complex dominate the immediate vicinity of the subject
area. The development that will result from the proposed action
represents a continuation of urban expansion that has occurred
in this area in recent years. In light of the land uses which
have occurred around the site, it can be said that this acreage
is destined to be utilized for a high caliber of urban purposes.
The site has long been dormant as a result of the preclusion of
former farming uses by commercial and industrial expansion.
Previous policy decisions by the Tukwila City. Government initiated
this change of use. These policies assign greater value to indus-
trial expansion than the former agricultural uses and they were
implemented directly by granting C.M. (Industrial Park) zoning
classifications to the area. Indirect policy implementation was
achieved by the higher assessed evaluations on the land which
resulted from these zoning changes, thus making farming less
profitable.
The proposed action will stimulate construction of new industries
and businesses. This will lead to more employment, increased
tax base, and a slight increase in. the City's population. The
existing trend of urban growth in the area, of which the proposed
project is part, is projected to greatly increase the assessed value
of the City of Tukwila in the next few uears. The proposed project
will also entail additional expenses to the City in terms of
administrative and other support services such as police, fire and
first aid protection.
In terms of human use within the completed structure, many needs
will be met that are not currently satisfied. A variety of leisure
time activities will be possible in close proximity to one another.
For example, recreational pursuits will be available to those
brought along on business or shopping trips. Furthermore, pro-
fessional, commercial and recreational activities will be combined
in an integrated manner not previously planned in the region.
Short -term impact on human use will occur during the course of
construction when earth hauling equipment will add to automobile
traffic congestion in the subject area. Ultimate development,
when complete, will increase loading on the traffic circulation
system and other elements of the infrastructure, but this loading
has been anticipated in the planning and design of these facilities
and will be accommodated.
b. Traffic Impact
The overall traffic impact resulting from the project upon
completion of phases 1 through 4 is presented. in Figure 0 which
indicates projections of peak hour traffic and average daily traffic.
(Figure P), based on the parking analysis prepared byROTI and
Associates for the Maguire Partnership and the parking demand that
can be expected to be generated by the various functions within
the complex. Based on a comparison of net leaseable floor space,
traffic generated at the completed complex will be approximately
two- thirds of the traffic volumes experienced at Southcenter;
however, the character of the traffic will be somewhat different.
Traffic on Saturdays and Sundays will be 38° (based on a ratio
of commercial space to total space) of that which will be generated
on a weekday due to decreased activities in the office buildings.
From this data it may tentatively be concluded that Southcenter
Parkway at Strander Boulevard will have manageable traffic
operations. South of Strander, Southcenter Parkway will also
be capable of handling increased flows, because of lack of medial
or marginal friction (i.e., it now has controlled access on both
sides). The greatest impact on traffic resulting from the proposed
project will occur between Klickitat Avenue and Strander Boulevard,
as indicated in Figure 0. Southcenter Parkway north of Klickitat
will experience 663 vehicles northbound in the evenings; and.
Klickitat Avenue will experience 1,293 vehicles in the evenings
westbound. The northbound average daily traffic on Southcenter
Parkway north of Klickitat. Avenue upon completion of Phases 1
through 111 (Construction Phase 1) of the proposed project will
► -405
`JS?Y.WrS:` 'W :21SX. , ■14f.Y{•�}.' N *'1' .•. ,q� . .. HYYn11VJ6'wvC^!' V..:C.%WYt1...
Tht.0 t
a. Park 'iay
L7g6)
I9s4,7
(3S8) Tr.z.sj 6) &Frande.r 151vd
1.:=10)0)
►
X
k
reak Hour I ra f k 4.
u
(5 4 n cva5 e
£1Z
-73-
�.eap2
( -4475) am Peak
c ,r _5] feak.
MJZ:7417T3.4 V■i;:a17177.7.77.i
01,z%)
1-46361,
0e1.0
izsio
63040 •
1'590
(100) -7 005 54-rancle%
105.5 , • .4x.-.A.V.P.t. •
Tukwila Plvel.
"C19- P eZuI d
15 1iu a I-74
- 7I -
`," V.,v141.-411,17,e411,,e0X..V.A.V.W
(OW) 0121". {-br Pbtoes 1-11E
7391 i2-r -Pot- Phioes 1-1Y"
be about 12,365 vehicles per day (v.p.d.). This will rise to
approximately 15,790 vehicles per day on completion of Phase IV.
The location of the traffic congestion, namely at Southcenter
Parkway and Klickitat, will be the same for completion through
Phase III (Construction Phase I) as for completion of the total
development (Construction Phase II). These heavy traffic volumes
going away from the area, in addition to the existing signal system
(if not altered) would serve to make the intersection of Klickitat
and Strander Boulevard incapable of facilitating the resultant
traffic flows. Funds have been budgeted for the implementation of
alternative design proposals by the City of Tukwila and the Washington
State Highway Department. Several possible solutions to remedy the
potential traffic congestion are presented in Section D (6).
The percentage of arrivals by direction is as follows:
from east via Strander (minimal) 5%
from north via Southcenter Parkway 39%
from south via 1 -5 24%
from west via Klickitat 32%
100%
Upon completion of Phases I through IV the total trips to the
complex will be 5.5% of the average daily traffic during the
A.M. peak (1,130 vehicles per hour). Trips from the site during
the P.M. peak will be 7.0% of the average daily traffic (1,430
vehicles per hour). Approximately 12,200 trips per day on com-
pletion of the first construction phase and on completion of the
project 20,400 total trips per day can be expected as shown_ in
the table below.
Typical trip generation factors used for estimating total trips
for the four phases of development are'shown in Table 18.
Lastly, a consideration of traffic impact from the proposed project
may be affected positively by three events. First, a significant .
portion of the project will consist of office functions which will
not share a.coincident peak hour with the shopping center. Second,
the traffic impact would be significantly different should the
normal 8 -hour work day be changed to four l0 -hour days as is now
•
TRIP GENERATION FACTORS
(Per 1,000 Square Feet)
Trips per
Construction Planning Gen. Factor Trips per Planning Phase
Phase Phase Type Area (S.F.) per 1000 S.F. Planning Phase (Rounded Off)
1
2
Office 202,500 20.5 4,151
Comm. 18,900 22.6 427
II Other 12,715 22.6 287
Retail 140,000 22.6 3,164
III Hotel 194,000 21.6 4,190
Sub-Total 12,219 12,200
IV Bldg A 200,000 20.5 4,100
B 200,000 28.5 4,100
TABLE 18
Sub -Total 8,200 8,200
GRAND TOTAL 20,400
being experimentally performed by some departments of the City of
Seattle and others, or should the work week become a four- and -a-
half day week. Third is the positive aspects of the new county-
wide transit system and the doubtless evolvement of innovative
systems such as Dial-a-Bus or Subscription bus.
D. Any Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects.'
The following is a discussion of possible adverse effects resulting from
the aforementioned environmental impacts, and the measures which could
be employed to mitigate such effects.
1. Effects on Geology
The preparation of the subject site for commercial purposes is not
expected to result in any new adverse geological effects. The
impacts due to landfill operations occurred at an earlier phase of
the development of the subject site and lands in the immediate
vicinity.
Some siltation in runoff waters could occur as earth is moved in
the final site preparation; however, this impact is relatively minor
compared to the impact which occurred during the initial placement
of fill.
Post construction floor slab settlements will be prevented in that
the requisite period of . time for surcharging has been completed.
2. Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality
The hydrology of the subject site will be affected in that covering
the subject site with impervious surfaces will reduce the amount of
runoff percolating into the water table.
Drainage of surface water from the site is through culverts and
drainage ditches to the Green River in accordance with the Flood
Control District and the Master Plan of the City of Tukwila. These
plans are designed to accommodate a project such as will result from
the proposed action.
Runoff from the paved surfaces will contain hydrocarbons derived
from motor vehicles, as well as an increased heat burden.
These effects could be investigated by skimmers, or separators, or .
other pollutant control facilities could be designed for the drainage
facilities.
-78-
3. Biological Effects
Development of the subject site will have an unavoidable effect on
bird behavior and feeding patterns. A portion of a foraging habitat .
will be removed for resident birds as well as migratory birds. Since
the project site probably does not represent a complete habitat for
most of the observed birds, the existing birds will probably be
displaced to more remote reaches of their habitats. The net effect
is likely to be a dimunition rather than a complete removal of bird
habitats.
Small animals which exist in the area are not likely to be displaced
to other locations due to the unavailability of suitable alternative
habitats.
At present there are no known techniques for retaining wildlife in an
intensively developed area.
4. Atmospheric Effects
The proposed development will result in unavoidable increases in all
motor vehicle related contaminants. The effect may be particularly
acute during peak hour traffic volumes which may produce stop and go
traffic. Such traffic patterns will produce localized increases in
all vehicular pollutants; however, the increases in carbon monoxide
are most critical.
This effect can be partially mitigated by giving primary consideration
to efficient traffic flow patterns signal optimization or by greater
utilization of mass transit to transport users of the proposed facility.
The effective implementation of mass transit is contingent on major
concentrations of buildings such as will occur with the proposed
project.
5. Noise Effects
The ambient noise levels of the surrounding commercial community will .
be increased both during the construction phases and when the proposed
complex is fully operational. Noise generated on the project site
will also have an impact in terms of the internal environment of
buildings. Measures are available to control noise during construction
phases, and design measures are available which could be undertaken to .
control noise levels of the developed project.
The existing noise levels and predicted levels due to increased
traffic and other commercial activities will be considered by the
designers and architects to meet the 55 dBA interior noise level
criteria as proposed by DOT and HUD.
6. Traffic Effects
The traffic impacts and potential problems of traffic congestion
that could arise from implementation of the proposed project were
fully described in Section B. Several alternate traffic proposals
ranging from intersection modification to large scale traffic re-
'routing in the vicinity are some of the tools available to alleviate
traffic operations problems that might be occasioned by the project.
The completion of the project through both Phase III and Phase IV
(construction sequence 1 and 2) will cause manageable traffic oper-
ations on Southcenter Parkway if mitigating measures are undertaken.
Klickitat Avenue and the northbound off- ramp,,due to severe restraint
capacity, will be congested in the noon and P.M. peak periods, however
recognition of this has been given by the Washington State Highway
Department which is currently reviewing alternate design proposals.
Also, improved traffic signals on Southcenter Parkway and the relocation
of the northbound off -ramp to Klickitat Avenue have been budgeted for
by the City of Tukwila and the State Highway Department.
Also, the alleviation of potential traffic congestion can be partially
accomplished by the improvement of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter
Parkway to accommodate a five lane roadway. On Southcenter Parkway
and on Strander Boulevard the number of lanes within the existing
curb line could be increased. Since heavy truck traffic is not mixed
with normal traffic, smaller lane widths may be tolerated with no
adverse effect to traffic.
Strander Boulevard is 52 feet wide from curb to curb and is presently
stripped for four 13 foot lanes. This boulevard can be painted for
five lanes in an 11- 10-11-10 -10 foot configuration. The middle 11
-80-
foot lane would be a two-way left -turn lane. The westbound approach
width to the suggested signal at Southcenter Parkway would thus be
31 feet. Note that the eastbound curb lane on Strander Boulevard
would be 11 feet wide since this lane may accept dual left -turn
movements.
Likewise, Southcenter Parkway is stripped for four lanes. This
could also be made into five lanes in an 11-10- 12 -10 -10 foot configur-
ation. Naturally, while traffic operations can be facilitated with
the five lane section of dimensions noted, better operations would
result if additional width were made available.
Of the above revisions, the relocation of the northbound off -ramp
from 1 -5 to Klickitat Avenue, as proposed by the Washington State
Highway Department, will establish alternate traffic patterns and
will eliminate one of the existing signals on Southcenter Parkway.
A more effective solution might be the relocation of the 1 -5 off -
ramp to a location coincident with Strander Boulevard, which would
also eliminate one of the three existing signals on Southcenter Parkway
and provide for simpler traffic control. As noted by the Washington
State Highway Department, the relocation of the 1 -5 off -ramp to
Strander may be limited by steep grades and high costs. In either
case, Klickitat Avenue (bridge) will ultimately require widening.
In conclusion, potential traffic congestion will be similar in location
but greater in magnitude for completion of Phases I through III as for
completion of Phase III. Several measures are possible which will
alleviate the potential problems and result in manageable traffic flows.
Currently funds have been budgeted for improvements both by the City
of Tukwila and the Washington State Highway Department.
E. Alternatives
1. Alternative Projects or Programs
A realistic consideration of substantially different alternative actions
or non - actions must be based ultimately upon alternative and use
policies both at a city level and at a regional level. To make such
alternatives viable, means must be found to coordinate priorities
among different governmental jurisdictions. Also, a meaningful
consideration of alternatives must be developed within a framework of
existing socio- economic parameters and predictions of future social
trends.
One such trend affecting a discussion of alternatives is made
apparent by existing land use policies. City of Tukwila land use
policies have favored commercial and industrial uses over other potential
uses. As a result, the rapid urbanization of Tukwila has occurred, and
a trend of economic development has been established. Due to the high
quality of commercial and economic development, remaining open spaces
within the City have been rendered even more valuable for similar
future uses, and thus, the established trend will be perpetuated into
the future. Although regional land use policies as established by the
Puget Sound Governmental Conference do not generally favor development
of river valleys,, the location of the proposed project site is recog-
nized as an exception. The continued commercial use of this area is
recognized as the best and use, due to its relationship to transpor-
tation systems and the longtime commitment of this area as an employment
and shopping center.
Lastly, a consideration of alternatives is limited by prior human
activities on the site. For example, since the highly productive
alluvial soils were covered some time ago by the placement of landfill,
conversion of the project site to agricultural uses is eliminated as
an economically infeasible alternative.
With these factors in mind, several alternative actions are possible
and can be evaluated in terms of their relative costs, accomplishments
and environmental impact:
... No further land development (do- nothing alternative).
... Development of the site for other uses, such an industrial
complex.
-82-
a. Do- nothing Alternative
A "do- nothing" alternative could result in costs to both the private
and public sectors in the form of lost investment and tax revenues
for each, respectively.
The taxes which would continue to be levied on the unusable property
would be burdensome to the owners who would have no means available
to earn a return on the land in order, to offset these taxes. The
resulting tax burden could be partially, but not completely, offset
by the classification of the project site as open space for assess-
ment for tax purposes.
The accomplishments of a "do- nothing" alternative would be the
preservation of the subject site for future alternative uses which
are unascertained at this time. Loss of the subject area as an
available commercial resource could very possibly shift the burden
of demand for this resource to another part of the region not guided
by commitments to commercial development to the extent that Tukwila is.
Other portions of the region may not, at this time, have adequate fac-
ilities, i.e., transportation systems, to support a commercial complex
and may experience such development as a burden. Tukwila, on the
other hand, is located at the nexus of two major freeways.
The environmental impact of a do- nothing alternative would be a
continuation of the existing conditions which arerecognized to have
been altered from their natural state some ago. A bird for-
aging habitat would be retained. Plant progression to another
stage of ecological succession would be relatively slow since the
quality of existing fill for growing vegetation is low compared
to the alluvial soils of the Green River Valley. In addition, all
of the environment impacts associated with the development process
would not occur.
b. Development of the Project Site for Other Uses
1) Industrial
The development of the project site for industrial purposes
similar to those of adjacent areas would have many of the
environmental impacts as would the proposed action. If.
-83-
however the project site were developed as a well maintained
industrial park, there would be less impact in terms of air
contaminants related to motor vehicles. As previously shown,
the development of the project site for a commercial complex .
will attract about two - thirds as many customers as does
Southcenter. The resulting increase in air contaminants
will thus be two - thirds again as much as those presently
generated by motor vehicles. at Southcenter. The probable
net effect will be an increase in air contaminants during
all times when activities occur both at Southcenter and on
the project site.
If the subject site were utilized for industrial purposes,
potential increases in vehicular related air contaminants
could be avoided. Air quality would be affected by trucks
used for distribution purposes and by the number of cars
necessary to transport employees to the site. The air
quality impact associated with the vehicles of approximately
27,000 to 45,000 customers per day (depending on the season)
could be avoided.
It should be noted that while use of the subject site for
industrial purposes would avoid some air quality problems;
the tax revenue to the city would be less than one - fourth as
much with the proposed project. Furthermore, regional land
use needs do not justify further industrial sites. According
to PSGC studies, enough vacant land exists in areas currently
being used for industrial purposes to satisfy the projected
regional needs for most types of industry until the year 2000.
Thus an industrial alternative is not justified at this time.
2. Alternatives Within the Proposed Project
In formulating the proposed project design, various different
internal uses were considered. Many of these internal alternatives
uses were incorporated into the project plans in order to achieve
an integrated unity of diverse functions that will be most compati-
ble with existing land uses and social needs in the vicinity.
Internal alternatives might also consist of plans for a project
of a lesser magnitude, but such a project would not bring such
a high degree of organized urban interest
and economic vitality
to this area. Thus, the proposed project incorporates the most
possible alternative uses in the most viable fashion.
-85-
F. Relationship Between Local Short -Term Environmental Uses and the Maintenance
and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity.
Short -term uses of the subject site constitute the transition time in
which the area will be converted to commercial and business purposes.
The long -term productivity of the involved and non- renewable resources
largely involved the land itself, in that choices of use available in the
future will be limited by the urbanization of the project site. The
proposed development will preclude the land being used for agricultural
purposes, except if market conditions determine that the need for land
for commercial purposes in this area is not critical. This may be the
case farther south in the Green River Valley but is not likely at this
location. Potential long -term or future economic porductivity will
depend largely on the commercial growth trends in the Central Puget
Sound region.
G. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments with the Proposed
Action.
The proposed action will result in the commitment of the subject area to
commercial and industrial land uses, which, in turn, will commit finan-
cial resources, construction materials and labor to achieving such use.
This will, in turn, result in some preclusion of optional future land
uses and loss of the intrinsic resource of fertile soil.