Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-SA-4 - MCCAN DEVELOPMENT - SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARKSOUTHCENTER SOUTH EPIC -SA -4 MEMORANDUM 11 Y of T {3 K \9f O L;. O'FICE of COMMLINIT Y DEVELOPMENT 18 May 1977 TO: Mayor Bauch FROM: SUBJECT: Boa d of Architectural Review (BAR) Requirement - Legal Basis for. You recently requested the legal basis for the Board of Architectural Review. It is as follows: 1. 18.98.080 and Ordinance 759, now repealed and replaced by Chapter 21.04 of the TMC and Ordinance No. 986. There no longer exists a BAR in the envir- onmental procedures ordinance, however, the impetus to require it may still be required by the responsible official via TMC 21.04.130 and 140. 2. The BAR is also required in TMC. 18.32.040 in.all C -M zone district. Although it refers to the Commission and Council sitting jointly, through confused wording in the section we have interpreted that it is the Commission sitt ing' r alone with the Council available on appeals.-- There are three properties in the City that the BAR review apply to outside of the C -M zone district. These are: 1. Segale Property: - Required by the responsible official per TMC 18.98.080 (now repealed) when an environmental impact statement was required on a Shoreline Permit. Although the TMC Section was repealed, TMC 21.04.130 and 140 still leave the option for this type of a requirement. I prefer to leave it a require- ment for the .following reasons: a. The land is zoned M-2 with no setback or landscaping requirements. b. Upon approaching the "Planning Commission with the BAR requirement, they requested it stay as it is until a new zoning ordinance is adopted giving more requirements on it to aid staff in implementation. c. The Council appears to be headed for a single "Industrial Park" designation for all industrial land in the City. . 2. McCann Property ( Southcenter South): Same comments apply as to Segale above. (Letter Attached) • 3. Area 3 on attached map (Levitz and Benaroya land west of Southcenter Parkway): The BAR was required by the City Council per Ordinance 567, Section 1 (e), attached. . Memorandum Page 2 18 May 1977 Mayor Bauch Mr. McCann has requested that the BAR requirement be removed if he files restrictive covenents on the land. I reviewed this request and by phone denied it for the following reasons: 1. It was required by Steve Hall, the acting responsible official in 1973. In my mind no changes have been made in our zoning ordinance on M -2 lands since. 2. The City would not be in a position to enforce 'private restrictive covenents' if they were not complied with 3. The Planning Commission has requested the BAR remain until a new zoning ordinance is adopted. 4. The Council appears to be headed toward an Industrial Park designation for all industrial lands in the Comprehensive Plan. This implies to me that, for quality control, the BAR is still needed. This gives more than you requested in your note to me,. however, I think it is needed to explain the full picture. If you want to discuss this further please let me know. KS /cw cc: Fred Satterstrom Attachments PLANNING PARKS d P.ECREAT ION HUI LING MEMORANDUM CITY ®f TUKW LA OFFICE or COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 26 April 1977 TO: Kjel oknes FROM: Frei M :' tterstrom SUBJECT: B R equi rement: Southcenter South While the Board of Architectural Review function of the Planning Commission sometimes (perhaps oftentimes) seems to create a lot of hassles, I think the benefits which accrue from it outweigh the hassles caused by it. I sympathize with the developers who claim the BAR requirement causes unneces- sary delays. I can also agree that on occasion the BAR merely rubberstamps a project and does not necessarily make any significant revisions to the project. However, as is most frequently the case, the BAR serves a useful function by requiring meaningful and warranted revisions. Over the past two years, I have watched the BAR do the following: 1. In the absence of Public Works standards, the-BAR has exercised sound judgment in the relocation or exclusion of . curb cuts on site plans. 2. The BAR has helped to ensure adequate off- street parking and truck maneuvering space. 3. The BAR has helped to achieve better design and architectural treatment of buildings coming under their perview. 4. The BAR has demanded a high quality of landscaping, something which staff basically has little power over. Because of the above, I believe the benefits to the public welfare outweigh the possible construction delays to the private developer. If stricter and more specific landscaping, curb cut, and truck maneuvering requirements were adopted, however, then the BAR function could be dropped. We should remember this at such time as we begin to overhaul the zoning ordinance. As fa'r as Southcenter South is concerned, Bruce McCann proposes that instead of the BAR, he himself would review any proposed project in his own development (by virtue of his membership on the A.C.C., which he sets up in the "covenants "). While the covenants have some - merit, they are amendable and can even be totally dropped, I assume, by vote of the A.C.C. Furthermore, because the A.C.C. would be exercising control over potential clients, I would also assume that they would be more lenient in their application of the covenants; more prone to "variances so to speak. Memorandum Page 2 Kjell Stoknes 26 April 1977 Dropping BAR review from the Southcenter South project will undoubtedly spur a "parade of horribles ". In other words, if BAR review was dropped from McCann's property, Segale would want it dropped from his. It probably wouldn't be long until everyone with CM zoning wanted BAR review dismissed. Again, I think the best way for us to handle the elimination of BAR review is to create specific requirements and integrate them into the City's ordinances where they are enforceable and unequivacal. Nevertheless, in the absence of such requirements at the present time, BAR review should not be dropped for Southcenter South or any other development. FS /cw cone-a-v 1411-4 nii,e-14+4 McCANN DEVELOPMENT CORP. REC VED 8013 PERIMETER ROAD SOUTH - BOEING FIELD Public Works Dept. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98108 City of Tukwila April 19, 1977 Mr. Steve Hall Director of Public Works City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Steve: 762-8124 41,1,14/ AREA CODE 206 APR f'819n We have been told that the City requires Architectural Review for projects in Southcenter:South Industrial Park prior to issuing a building permit. The 'City's position apparently is founded on a letter addressed to McCann Development Corp..dated November 29, 1973, authored by yourself, a copy of which is attached. Paragraph'2.on page 2 of said letter has been referred to as support for the City's position. I have consulted the Tukwila Municipal Code, Chapter 18.98'.080, referred to in the aforementioned letter and I find reference to the requirement for Architectural Review if a project requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement. As you know, our industrial park has passed all environmental require- ments and we have all of our permits and no separate environment im- pact statement is required. In. addition, we will file the attached Protective Covenants today•or tomorrow. Therefore, I see no reason for us to submit plans for Architectural Review prior to issuance of a building permit. I. would appreciate it if you would take this matter up with Kjell Stoknes in order to eliminate this requirement. BEM /mm Enclosure Sincerely yours, Bruce E. McCann President. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT— BUILDING CONSTRUCTION • Frank Todd Mayor CITY Y DF TU C:W`WO L A 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH . TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 29 November 1973 McCann Development Corporation 8013 Perimeter Road South Seattle, Washington 98108 Gentlemen: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Final Environmental Impact Statement filed with this office has been reviewed by the appropriate City officials and this letter shall constitute formal acceptance of that statement in accordance with the following stipulations. That section of the Statement dealing with the projected - effects on ambient air quality is insufficient. However the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Region X) had recently promulgated .a Transportation Control Plan which must be adhered to by any project within the State. Within that Plan, a Parking Maiagement'section requires a permit be obtained from EPA for any project which will provide for more than fifty (50) vehicles. We anticipate that compliance with this permit procedure will also satisfy the concern of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency.. Water quality and related concerns such as runoff and dis- charge is of major significance and several - questions were not sufficiently answered within the Statement. The Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, expressed great concern regarding the construction and operation of the proposed retention pond and it's impact on water quality including runoff and discharge. The Department of Game also desired information as to how you will accomplish pollution abatement treatment of the pumped runoff. It assumed by this office that the desired information is necessary to project the effect on water - quality as well as that of aquatic life in the Green River. While this - portion of the overall project is of major concern to the respective agencies, the overall project does not necessarily have to be postponed until these questions have been answered. As you already know, the construction of the retention pond will require a Shoreline Management Permit in and of itself and separate from the permit recently „cCana UevelTme.iic Cozi,o: u.:.�o.. applied for the area of the overall project which lies within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. At the time of application for a Shoreline Permit for the retention pond, these questions should be answered in a sufficiently informative Impact Assessment Summary which would be attached to the permit application. The Game Department also stongly urged that all reasonable measures be taken during the planning and construction stages to • preserve those areas of natural vegetation referred to ' within the Alternatives section of the Statement: We reiterate that concern. Architectural review of all proposed structures within the overall project has been determined to be appropriate due to the close proximity of the project to the Green River and the lack of private restrictive covenants running with the land. This process is authorized, and procedures are outlined, within Chapter 18.98.080 of the Tukwila MunicipA Code. This office must, in all conscientiousness, once again state our concern for - public access to the Green River. The river is a natural resource and should be accessible to the public for their utilization of the recreational opportunities inherent in the very existence of the river. In conjunction, an adequate aesthetic quality should be preserved along the river, which does not detract from it's natural beauty and usefulness. Those conditions regarding ambient air quality, the retention pond, it's related concerns, and architectural review must be adhered to throughout implementation of the proposed development. The Final Statement, together with the discussions contained herein, shall become a supplement to any permit applications regarding any part of the overall development (with the exception of the retention_pond) and shall be used as an informational source in the decision - making process by. the City as well as other applicable agencies. Sincerely, GC /lt cc: Mayor Todd Dir Pub Wks Bldg Off PSAPCA Corps of Engrs Dept of Game 11 0 Steven M. Hall Acting Planning Director • 18.9V140--18.98.080 or the other relevant sections of the statement, the major studies, reports and other documents used in the preparation of the statement should be cited. (Ord. 759 §3, 1973). 18.98.040 Pre•aration- -Cost borne b a••licant. The cost o preparation of any environmenta impact statement shall be borne by the applicant and /or developer. (Ord.'759 S4, 1973). 18.98.050 Preparation - -By whom. All environmental im- pact statements shall be prepared by a qualified individual, consulting form or laboratory acceptable to the city. (Ord. 759 §5, 1973). t. 18.98.060 Inaccurate statements- -Cost of review. If in the opinion of the city the environmental impact statement is found to be insufficient or inaccurate, the applicant and /or developer . shall assume the cost of a review by a separate, • impartial consulting firm or agency, failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements of this chapter shall constitute sufficient grounds for withholding all building permits and li censes for the subject property. (Or-d. 759 §6, 1973). 1.8.98.070 Guarantee of environmental protection -- Covenants or bond. If upon review of the environmental impact statement and /or impact assessment summary the'city determines that fur- ther guarantee of environmental protection and proper develop - ment or.operation is required the city may require a develop- ment, maintenance and operation agreement in the form of res- trictive covenants running with the land and /or a performance bond in the amount of one hundred fifty percent of the estimated :cost of development. (Ord. 759 §7; 1973). 114› .'18.98.080 Architectural review. (a) Any proposed action which is major and significantly affects the quality of the . environment and has therefore required the preparation of an environmental impact statement may also be subject to architec- tural review by the city's board of architectural review. In the event that review by the board of architectural review is determined to be appropriate, it shall be the duty of the board of architectural review to protect and preserve the natural beauty and character existent in and .inherent .to the subject property and peripheral properties, in addition to other provisions of this chapter and applicable federal and state laws. (b) All applications for building permits in connection with a project for which an environmental impact statement has been required, may also be required to have plans, site plans, elevations and landscaping plans submitted to the board of architectural review for architectural control review. Upon filing of such application the board shall review the proposed action and either give its approval or recommend changes or 320 -4 (Tukwila 6/15/73) • 18.98.090 alterations to the proposal. (c) If the board gives written approval thereto, a building permit shall be issued by the appropriate city official providing all other requirements of the building code and ordinances of the city have been complied with. (d) If the board presents a written report, thereon recommending changes in the exterior architectural design, landscaping, tree, shrub planting, and /or site improvements which the applicant refuses to make, comply with or accept after conference, no building permit shall be issued. How- ever the applicant shall have the right of . appeal to the city council and a hearing shall be held thereon, after which the council may order issuance of a building permit, or it may, withhold issuance of same if not satisfied that the proposed plans are in keeping with the spirit of .good development whit will have the minimum adverse impact upon the quality of the environment. The notice, if any, of the public hearing on the report of the board of architectural review, and the ap- plication for architectural control review shall be in the time, form, and manner directed by the city council. (Ord. 759 S8, 1973). 18.98.090 Preparation -- Standards. All environmental pact statements required by this chapter shall be•preparedi- accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology's "Guidelines for Implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971." (Ord. 759 §9, 1973). 1 Frank Todd; Mayor CITY ®r TU ILA 6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 December 1974 Mr. David Beller Preston,.Thorgrimson, Ellis, Holman & Fletcher 2000 I.B.M..Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Dear Mr. Beller: With reference to the two notices of action which you forwarded to me for publication regarding the Southcenter South Industrial Park; after reviewing them in light of the contents of our file on this project,'I will not authorize. publication. I believe that I have adequately advised your client that with regard to the. State Environmental Policy Act,_RCW 43.21C, the City of Tukwila has taken all proper and legal steps necessary as SEPA relates to this specific project. The publication of the documents which were forwarded to me will serve no further purpose. Sincerely, Gary Kucinski Planning Director GK /sl cc: Mayor Todd RICHARD THORGRIMSON JAMES R. ELLIS DONALD L. HOLMAN BETTY B. FLETCHER JOHN A. GOSE GORDON G. CONGER GERALD GRINSTEIN FORREST W. WALLS CHARLES E. PEERY LARRY M. CARTER MICHAEL B. CRUTCHER C. KENT CARLSON EMANUEL L. ROUVELAS WASHINGTON D. C. BAR ONLY • • LAW OFFICES OF PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELLIS, HOLMAN & FLETCHER 2000 I. B. M. BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 AREA CODE 206 623 -7580 WASHINGTON D.C. OFFICE SUITE 202 1776 F STREET WASHINGTON D. C. 20006 AREA CODE 202 331 -1005 December 5, 1974 Mr. Gary Kucinski Planning Department City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98067 Dear Mr. Kucinski: COUNSEL FRANK M. PRESTON EDWARD STARIN ROBERT L. GUNTER JACKIE L.ASHURST JOEL R. STARIN MALCOLM S. HARRIS JONATHAN BLANK DAVID L. BELLER J. MARK MARSHALL ALAN L. WICKS H. BLAIR BERNSON RONALD E. COX GEORGE A. FINKLE ROBERT H. THOMSON WASHINGTON D. C. BAR ONLY Enclosed are two notices of action to be published in accordance with RCW 43.21C.080 which I am forwarding pursuant to our phone conversation today. If you have any questions about this matter, please call George Finkle in our office. Sincerely yours, PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELLIS, HOLMAN & FLETCHER By: DLB : fmb Enclosures: z/U1,2„ David L. Belier • • NOTICE OF ACTION FOR PUBLICATION IN "WHITE CENTER NEWS" NOTICE OF ACTION BY CITY OF TUKWILA. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, notice if hereby given that: The City of Tukwila Planning Department did on November 29, 1973, take action which may or may not be held or deemed to be "a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment." Any action to set aside, enjoin, review, or otherwise challenge such action on the grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) shall be commenced within 60 days or be barred. The action taken by the City of Tukwila and the Tukwila Planning Department, notice of which is hereby given, was as follows: (1) Approval of construction and operation of the Southcenter South Industrial Park and the formal acceptance of the environmental impact statement covering such development. (2) Southcenter South Industrial Park. (3) Said action pertained to property commonly known as: Southcenter South Industrial Park, a portion of Henry Adams' land claim number 43, sections 35 and 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, lying west of the West Valley Highway and south and east of the Green River, recorded in Volume 97 of Plats, pages 22 through 25, records of King County, Washington. (4) Pertinent documents may be examined during regular business hours at the office of City of Tukwila Planning Department located at 14475 - 59th Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington 98067. CITY OF TUKWILA Filed by (Title) • • NOTICE OF ACTION FOR PUBLICATION IN "WHITE CENTER NEWS" NOTICE OF ACTION BY CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW, notice is also hereby given that: The City of Tukwila Building Department did on November 19, 1974, take action which may or may not be held or deemed to be "a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environ- ment." Any action to set aside, enjoin, review, or otherwise challenge such action on the grounds . of noncompliance with the pro- visions of Chapter 43.21C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) shall be commenced within 60 days or be barred. The action taken by Tukwila Building Department, notice of which is hereby given, was as follows: (1) Issued Building Permit No. 581 for Building #255. (2) Southcenter South Industrial Park. (3) Said action pertained to property commonly known as: Southcenter South Industrial Park, a portion of Henry Adams' land claim number 43, sections 35 and,36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East,, W.M., City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, lying west of the West Valley Highway and south and east of the Green River, more fully described as: Lot 16 and the south 248.25 feet of the east 310.00 feet of Lot 15 as shown on the Plat of Southcenter South Industrial Park, according to the plats thereof, recorded in Volume 97 of Plats, pages 22 through 25, records of King County, Washington, EXCEPT the east 30.00 feet thereof; the north line of said Lot 16 being the south line of the south 248.25 feet of the east 310.00 feet of said Lot 15 and EXCEPT the 2OiL owing in said Lot 16: Beginning on a point on the south line of said Lot 16, N 78 °36'10" W, 80.00 feet from the SE corner of said Lot 16, said point lying on a 50.00 foot radius curve having a radial bearing of N 11 °23'50" E; thence northeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 90° 00'00 ", an arc distance. of 78.54 feet to a point lying 30 feet westerly of the east line of said Lot 16; thence S 11923'50" W, 50.00 feet; thence N 78 °36'10" W, 50.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning and EXCEPT the following in said Lot 15: Beginning on the north line of the above described property N 78 °36'10" W, 50.00 feet from the northeast corner thereof, said point being on a 50.00 foot radius curve having a radial bearing of N 11 °23'50" W; thence southeasterly along a curve through a central, angle of 90 °00'00 ", an arc distance of 78.54 feet; thence N 11 °23'50" E, 50.00 feet; thence N 78 °36'10" W, 50.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. (4) Pertinent documents may be examined during regular business hours at the office of the City of Tukwila Building Department located at 14475 - 59th Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington 98067. CITY OF TUKWILA Filed by (2) (Title) Perkins;, ;,:Co.t e, Stone, O t son . & Williams, 1900 Washington Building,.:':: Seattle; WA: 98101 ATTENTiON,Mr.. Burr Anderson' SUBJECT: `? TUKW I to SHORELINES: , HANAGD'IENT - PERM I T773 -08 • Gent1emeni•: With regards to the:above'referenced permit, the Northwest Regional Office :of the'Department of.Ecology,is concerned about any project which may impact the water quality of :either iyTH Creek or the Duwamish River. Conditions in both watercourses are Ccritical•during certain times of the year with regards . to both the statutory Water Quality Standards (WAG 173 -201) and the related effects upon the salmonid; fishery resource. • The project proposed under .the permit may affect water quality both during. and after tho construction phase.- Reasonable and.practical control must be maintained to prevent siltation of receiving waters from areas stripped off: vegetation during construction. (Enclosed is a copy of our general guide - {ines,` "Water Quality:Considerations Relating to Construction Activity' %) Past histories of commerci.al'and industrial areas indicate a significant . potential:extstsence for:spills of petroleum products and undesirable materials to the storm drainage- systems. .Due to these potential problems, a request has been made to the Olympia office to condition Tukwila Permit 4-'73 -08 with the following: orm wat .. ector s tem*.sha1.E- ast- ..d -t-se a ' peek; 2. • Adequate siltation controls shall.be implemented and maintained during the construction phases of the project;' • `JAN.2819 :7 (�F_Tl! ILD+'_ Latter.toaPer Ili, 201e, 'Stone;:. 1 inuary 29;``1974 Page Two °. °An.`access1ble location, such has a� pond or; `low velocity-.ditch;gibe Instal 1edlbgtween�th to rim 'are1nage collector.. system and the' discharge ': poinfj1-o er so as - el a:' tocatIon :,for col lectlon in.:the event of . a contaminant-.spill to the _.storm drains. If you. have Wavy :quest( on's concern i ng th I s. matter; p I ease: ca I I th i s of f at your, convttn Ience.- 01.• � ., e. er� 1 ,. f, ^��:J i' �ti1 Sincere! H. WI LL 1 APOEIURWELL �istrict.Engineer Env ironmental;QuaIity HWb :mk Enclosure cc: Bob .,len e afiot ch it `cam 1'qe o ite -Eo Yvti ;IA C,reeK ;So titer- t.%, e. a -ex 1 'I 11 � ertK 3�oc� 15 prom tuk-e . tern c-4•71 atti- ►3t tail .a L' 5 QQ_.A w7 :,N Ct �'� ;T..[4E�: ©�/ty'E1P�5►' 4.4 •':&Sy,,:::; i r ; T o '.:R,[y A.t- 4t p5 -P-.:`t -t-1S, •; :ALL, , . :: , r>• 4 t' S a %x = ;p,:t7. is ; y l�.hE�:: _ W .t.�' Li• t� .o rc-,. K7.t$ F• :t :t E. _ A J w:�M:.. E4-7r."4.'0.-14:1:74.1.T.:,.., r C -1717. O.F :- Vic. :u i/ t�:}7 PR102 TU.CONSTEuCTION TU6 DESIGF OF TNG ,S T02NWATER, RETENTION 2 NO JU ALL :$6 AP.PROVED. B`(: . .. CITY .-bE'. Tuecu% I LA ... C eta 2PS" U.F. .:E.N'4:0- 1T61L4 - ;. ._ DEPT. OF 6C0Lc C.Y DEPT. oF- FrSti:.frtEs DE DT. C.F 4 a;M E JALTC EN ATM STO2N WAT GL• D1s POSAL TO P- 5.CAHAL. .•. U40E2 -STUDY !f - TItJ3: 'A.R 4w'l N ci " DOC u M ENS D: T-Hr.:z.O W NEE.4...I F1 T6NT:I ON' .• LaS':.: " ..SO: RIPER: aAH K • LA'ND9CAF114C1-;- pUBLIC ACC ass .SO..'SU.G_'C�SZEELy -.' fCIV.EIL 9UO 2ELItrt6S�. .liN O..: Toes- ._w A.S:6 E • D.1SP05 :A:1::..:. ALL_y0 �.a:fPCGO:M.P.G194YD - _ •:- ]N.:;pGCP.2�l.NG:C'::- Sw'f..IS tI " :540R:C� AtLKiNC.:FOE' L12Y5,- . :K/1XN.AC"..GM.GN t4it.T'- TO•.CA.2tr : ..::,:- E.'" .. Crry OF T.:a r..scf.1:L4r :i:32EC: 114.197.3.. ..::- __ =LN.D UST2t4 L:.: PAIL K_:.B.y: , F.t Ft. L.L'AN'E..:laN! . .'!. E. sT R;I &N .: a;ccass; 'BRUCE ...'E:.:14 ° C A N N. , SO..U.THC.ENt'E R S1.O 5.-THT EX. H•- ,I- B :I'T 'C: 710: `SHOR ELIN..E: MANAGEMENT: PERM I T', :73.-08 _14d1.47..4 'rank Todd, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA. 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 January 4, 1974 Mr. William H. Mahan, President Puget Sound Governmental Conference Grand Central on the Park Building 1st and South Main Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Mahan: I have recently been informed that the Environmental Policy Advisory Committee, at a meeting held on December 28th, 1973, voted to recommend that the Puget Sound Governmental Conference request the City of Tukwila to give further consideration to certain suggested "Secondary Impacts" of the Southcenter South Development Project before issuing any permits for construction of project improvements. Such action would necessarily involve reconsideration of the Environmental Impact Statement and preliminary plat previously approved and accepted by the City. Because of this, the City feels that you should have in rnind certain events which preceded such approval and acceptance. On September 20th, 1973, a draft Environmental Impact Statement was submitted to the City and immediately thereafter copies of the same were distributed to cognizant agencies, including the Puget Sound Governmental Conference and its Environmental Policy Committee for such comments as they deemed appropriate. Thereafter comments were received by the City from the applicable agencies including the. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington State Parks & Recreation Administration, and the Washington State Game Department. These comments were considered and incorporated in the revision of the draft statement in order to establish a final Environmental Impact Statement for consideration by the City of Tukwila. No comments were received from either the Puget Sound Govern- mental Conference or its Environmental Policy Advisory Committee. January 4, 1940- Mr. Mahan - Page 2 On November 29, 1973, the revised Environmental Impact Statement was accepted by the City and on the same date the preliminary plat of the development was approved by the... ., Tukwila Planning Commission. Thereafter on December 20th, the preliminary plat was approved by the Tukwila City Council which you will note was some 90 days following submission of the draft Environmental Impact Statement to cognizant agencies for their comments. In view of the ,foregoing chronological statement of events, it appears to the -City. that reconsideration of the matters involved, such , as -:called for by the recommended action by the Environmental, Protection Advisory Committee, is both inappropriate and precluded by action taken by the applica- ble Governmental Agencies described above. In view of this the City feels that you should be informed of its position and further-- of. i ts-• i ntenti on to issue, upon proper -:.applica- tion, - building and , utility permits-necessary for the. -. contemplated development of the Southcenter South Project. We would also like- to advise you, to' extent you are not already aware, that no Federal -0Funding,is involved in the proposed development of this project. We understand that the Conference is scheduled to consider the recommendations of its Advisory Committee on January. 10th, 1974. In view: of this the City wishes you to have the foregoing information and statement of the Citys position avail-able-to you in advance of any such considera- tion. Should you desire any further information concerning the above matter, we would of course, be pleased to provide you with, same. Very truly yours-, CITY OF TU:KWI.LA. nk Todd Mayor. FET /dc cc: The Honorable Gordon N. Johnston, Chairman Environmental Policy Advisory Committee Frank Todd, Mayor C TY of T s KW! LA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 29 November 1973 McCann Development Corporation 8013 Perimeter Road South Seattle, Washington 98108 Gentlemen: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Final Environmental Impact Statement filed with this office has been reviewed by the appropriate City officials and this letter shall constitute formal acceptance of that statement in accordance with the following stipulations. That section of the Statement dealing with the projected effects on ambient air quality is insufficient. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Region X) had recently promulgated .a Transportation Control Plan which must be adhered to by any project within the State. Within that Plan, a Parking Management section requires a permit be obtained from EPA for any project which will provide for more than fifty (50) vehicles. We anticipate that compliance with this permit procedure will also satisfy the concern of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Water quality and related concerns such as runoff and dis- charge is of major significance and several questions were not sufficiently answered within the Statement. The Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, expressed great concern regarding the construction and operation of the proposed retention pond and it's impact on water quality including runoff and discharge. The Department of Game also desired information as to how you will accomplish pollution abatement treatment of the pumped runoff. It is assumed by this office that the desired information is necessary to project the effect on water quality as well as that of aquatic life in the Green River. While this portion of the overall project is of major concern to the respective agencies, the overall project does not necessarily have to be postponed until these questions have been answered. As you already know, the construction of the retention pond will require a Shoreline Management Permit in and of itself and separate from the permit recently. Lc:Cana Deveioinuei►c Coo: 4.w.. • applied for the area of the overall project which lies within the jurisdiction•of the Shoreline Management Act. At the time of application for a Shoreline Permit for the retention pond, these questions should be answered in a sufficiently informative Impact Assessment. Summary which would be attached to the permit application. The Game Department also stongly urged that all reasonable measures be taken during the planning and construction stages to preserve those areas of natural vegetation referred to within the Alternatives section of the Statement. We reiterate that concern. Architectural review of all proposed structures within the overall project has been determined to be appropriate due to the close proximity of' the project to the Green River and the lack of private restrictive covenants running with the land. This process is authorized, and procedures are outlined, within Chapter 18.98.080 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. This office must, in all conscientiousness, once again state our concern for public access to the Green River. The river is a natural resource and should be accessible to the public for their utilization of the recreational opportunities inherent in the very existence of the river. In conjunction, an adequate aesthetic quality should be preserved along the river, which does not detract from it's natural beauty and usefulness. Those conditions regarding ambient air quality, the retention pond, it's related concerns, and architectural review must be adhered to throughout implementation of the proposed development. The Final Statement, together with the discussions contained herein, shall become a .supplement to any permit applications regarding any part of the overall development (with the exception of the retention pond) and shall be used as an informational source in the decision - making process by. the City as well as other applicable agencies. GC /lt cc: Mayor Todd Dir Pub Wks Bldg Off PSAPCA Corps of Engrs Dept of Game Steven M. Hall Acting Planning Director Frank Todd, Mayor CITY or TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 19 November 1973 Department of the Army Seattle District,. Corps of Engineers ATTN: Mr. R. P. Sillevold Chief, Planning Branch 1519 Alaskan Way South Seattle, Washington 98134 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Sillevold: Please find enclosed one copy of the comments prepared as the Final Statement for the proposed Southcenter South project to be located in Tukwila. Please review that portion of the enclosed prepared in response to your comments regarding the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement and return any further comment prior to 29. November 1973. GC /, It_ -Enc'1 as Sinpgrely, rutchf iel, Plar}°iiing Tech cia cc: Mayor Todd Mr. Harold.Blean, McCann Const. Co. Frank Todd, Mayor CITY of TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 19 November 1973 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration ATTN: Mr. Hugh B. Henry, Director Office of Environment and Design Room 412, Mohawk Building 222 S.W. Morrison Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Dear Mr. Henry: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please find enclosed one copy of the comments prepared as the Final Statement for the proposed Southcenter South project to be located in Tukwila. Please review that portion of the enclosed prepared in response to your comments regarding the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement and return any further comment prior to 29 November 1973. Sincerely, 7 ary C'iutchfie P1n ing Tech an GC /lt Encl: as cc: Mayor Todd Mr. Harold Blean, McCann Cons • Co. • • McCANN DEVELOPMENT CORP. 8013 PERIMETER ROAD SOUTH - BOEING FIELD SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98108 November 16, 1973 City of Tukwila Planning Department 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Attention: Acting Planning Director - Steven Hall Gentlemen: ROCKWELL 2 -8124 AREA CODE 206 Enclosed are 6 copies of our Environmental Impact Statements for Southcenter South Industrial Park. In accordance with your letter of November 5 we have added to our Draft Statement discussion on'those specific matters which the various governmental agencies have requested further comments. To our knowledge, this statement now satisfies all requirements for a complete final statement in accordance with state Environmental Policy Act. Your prompt approval of this statement is requested so that we may proceed with the follow -on steps in developing this property. To review briefly the delay which has been occasioned by this Environ- mental Impact Statement, we first submitted for Shoreline Management Act approval the development of Southcenter South on July 30. This application was stopped from further consideration by your letter of September 17. We also had scheduled on September 27 a public hearing with the Planning Commission in regard to the approval of our plat for this 85 acres development. This also was aborted as a result of your September letter. Unless we are able to obtain approval of our plat at the November 29 public hearing of the Planning Commission this project will be even further set back and substantial financial loss will be sustained. The several months of unexpected delay has materially affected our development and it is our sincere hope that there are no further road blocks to obtaining those approvals and permits of the City of Tukwila that will enable us to begin construction at the earliest possible moment. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. HPB /jf Sincerely, ::old. P. Blean Director of Engineering /Design REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING CONSTRUCTION • • Frank Todd, Mayor CITY or TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 12 November 1973 McCann Development Corporation ATTN: Mr. Harold Blean 8013 Perimeter Road South Seattle, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Blean: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please find enclosed a copy of the comment letter from the State Department of Game in reference to your Draft Environmental Impact Statement for South - center South. Please include it's comments in formulating the Final Statement. A copy has been forwarded to Wilsey & Ham, Inc. per your telephone request. Sincerely, ary /Cititchf ie Planning Tech GC /lt Encl: Ltr, Dept of Game, dtd 7 Nov..73 cc: Wilsey & Ham, Inc. Frank Todd, Mayor CITY of TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 5 November 1973. McCann Development Corporation ATTN: Mr. Harold Blean 8013 Perimeter Road South Seattle, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Blean: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southcenter South Industrial Park has been circulated to the applicable agencies and the bulk of their comments have been received. Copies of those comments are enclosed for your perusal and guidance in revising the Draft Statement to establish a Final Statement. Attention should be focused on those comments suggesting additional discussion of specific matters. The inclusion of those discussions should be adequate to satisfy the respective agency's concern and thus satisfy the require- ment for a complete Final Statement in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any questions or desire any assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 242 -2177. Sincerely, Gear CrUtchf ie P1 ning Techn Encl: 1. Ltr, Corps of Engrs, dtd 30 Oct 73 2. Ltr, Dept of Fisheries, dtd 26 Oct 73 3. Ltr, PSAPCA, dtd 29 Oct 73 4. Ltr, Fed Hwy Admin, dtd 25 Oct 73 5. Ltr, Dept of Soc & Health Svcs, dtd 31 Oct 73 6. Ltr, EPA, dtd 23 Oct 73 7. Ltr, Pks & Rec Comm, dtd 1 Oct .73 cc: Mayor. Todd • Frank Todd, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 25 September 1973 Gentlemen: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Please find enclosed herewith a copy•of the Environ- mental Impact Statement prepared for the development of the Southcenter South Industrial Park to be located in the City 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 thirty (30) days from date of this letter. Please relate your comments in writing and direct them to this office at 6320 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98067. Sincerely, Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator GC /lt Encl: as • McCANN DEVELOPMENT CORP. 8013 PERIMETER ROAD SOUTH - BOEING FIELD SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98108 ROCKWELL 2-8124 AREA CODE 206 September 20, 19.73 City of Tukwila Planning Department 14475 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Re: Southcenter South Industrial Park Gentlemen: Enclosed are 25 copies of our "Draft Environmental Impact Statement" for the development of the Southcenter South Industrial Park. Wilsey & Ham have prepared this assessment for your use in developing a final Environmental Impact Statement after the various public bodies have had an opportunity to review this draft. All progress toward the platting of this property has been halted until this statement can be completed. Your letter of September 17 pointed to the State Supreme Court decision that dictated this delay. Any efforts of the Planning Staff to keep this review moving will be appreciated. Please call if we can help in any way. Sincerely yours, Harold P. Blean Director - Engineering /Design HPB /bk Enclosure REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT— BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE COVENANTS SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE. PRESENTS: • That CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS,�-a Massachusetts-Business. Trust' (hereinafter sometimes referred -to as "Developer ") as-the . owner and developer of the property known-as SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, which property is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, has hereby adopted a development. plan of the real prop- erty described on Exhibit A which real property shall be known and referred to collectively herein as SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, situate in the City of Tukwila, King County, State of • Washington; and the undersigned.does hereby establish the mutual protective covenants-hereinafter 'set forth, subject to which all tracts, parcels, lots,. lands and" areas _ in - SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall beheld, sold, purchased or used by Devel- oper, its successors or assigns, which mutual- protective cove- nants are for the benefit of the real property contained in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK and of all persons who may become the owners of any right, title or interest therein. These mutual protective covenants shall attach to and shall pass with the real property contained in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK and each and every part and parcel thereof and shall be binding upon the owner of all or any portion of such real estate or any right, title or interest therein and the heirs, assigns, suc- cessors, devisees and administrators of any-such owner (the ; owners of all or any portion of 'the real estate in•SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL:PARK =or any.right, title or interest therein and the heirs, assigns, successors; devisees and administrators of such owners are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner" or "Owners "). "3 -24 -77 I. USE RESTRICTIONS All of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK is for industrial, commercial and warehousing purposes; provided, however, the Owners shall use such real estate only for such purposes and under such conditions and restrictions as are hereinafter set forth. No real estate in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall be used and no building, structure or other improvement thereon shall be used for any use other than such uses as are presently permitted and expressly listed as numbers (1) , (3) , (5) , (6), - (9 °):. through (11) , (13) , (15) , (18) through (24), ,(26) through (2,81;: (29) except for "cement products, including cement and tinde,: blocks," (30) through (34), - (36) - through (43)° and (45) through ;`- (48) under. City. of Tukwila` Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance`, Section 18.40.010; provided; however, the Owners shall _use such real estate only for such purposes and under such.conditions as are set forth in these covenants and; 'provided,. further, however, notwithstanding the foregoing, no such real estate or building,. structure or other improvement shall be used at any time for the manufacture, storage, distribution or `sale of any products or items which shall unreasonably increase the fire hazard of other property in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK or for any purpose or use in violation of the-laws of the United States, the State of Washington or the City of Tukwila or in violation of any of the covenants contained herein. II. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE (Referred =to as "the A.C.C. ") (A) (i) The A.C.C. shall initially be composed of the fol- lowing three (3) members: (1) Bruce E. McCann; (2) Charles 0. Baker; and (3) Randall A. Hack. In the event of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of the foregoing designated • members of the A.C.C., Developer shall appoint a-successor or successors by instrument in•writing filed with the KingCounty Department of Records and Elections -of the State of Washington. (ii) At such time as fifty percent (50 %) of the total square feet of property in'.SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK -has been sold by Developer, Developer shall appoint two additional members to the A.C.C. and the A.C,C: shall from,. that", time. forward be composed of five (5) members. Subject to the provisions. of..... Section II(A) (iii) below, in" -the' event of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of the five (5) members of the A.C.C., -2- 3 -24 -77 • • Developer shall appoint a successor or successors by instrument in writing filed with the King County Department of Records and Elections of the State of Washington. (iii) At such time as seventy percent (70 %) of the total square feet of property in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK has been sold by Developer, the A.C.C. shall continue to be composed of five (5) members, but in the event of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of such members a successor or successors shall be selected as follows. One of such members shall always be Developer or its appointee. In the event of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of the other four (4) members of the A.C.C., the remaining members of the A.C.C. are authorized by simple majority vote to appoint a successor by instrument in writing filed with the King County Department of Records and Elections of the State of Washington; provided, however, in the event a majority of the members of the A.C.C. are unable to agree upon a successor within thirty (30) days of the death or refusal or incapacity to act of any of such members Developer shall appoint such successor; provided further, however, in the event that there are less than three (3) members remaining on the A.C.C. at any time under the provisions of this Section II (A)(iii), Developer shall appoint a temporary member or members to the A.C.C. to make up a total membership of three (3) so that regular members may be appointed by simple majority vote to fill vacancies. Such temporary member or members shall act only to appoint regu- lar members to the A.C.C. and shall serve only until such number of regular members is appointed so that a total of three (3) regular members of the A.C.C. exists who are duly qualified to serve as regular members, at which time the tenure of the ap- pointed members shall end. The three (3) regular members there- after shall then proceed to fill all remaining vacancies by simple majority vote pursuant to the procedures established above. All such regular members appointed to the five (5) member A.C.C. shall be appointed from among the Owners, if practical. (B) All applications to the A.C.C. for any approval pursuant to these covenants shall be in writing, shall be served upon the A.C.C. at the office of the Chairman of the A.C.C. and shall be supplemented by such supporting data as the A.C.C. shall request. The Chairman of the' A.C.C. shall, immediately upon receipt of applications for approval, cause written notice thereof to be provided each member of the A.C.C., which notice shall set forth the time and place at which such application and any action thereon shall be considered or taken by the A.C.C. For the purpose of these covenants, applications for approval shall be deemed to include all matters submitted by Owners or any other person or entity for the consideration, approval or other action of the A.C.C. pursuant to the provisions of these covenants. -3- 3 -24 -77 • • A majority of the members of the A.C.C. shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any A.C.C. meeting but, if less than a majority is present at a meeting, a majority of the members of the A.C.C. present may adjourn the meeting from time to time . without any requirement of further notice to any person or entity. The act of a majority of the members of the A.C.C. present at a meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the A.C.C. Unless otherwise expressly required herein, no approval by the A.C.C. of any action of the Owners affecting SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK is required; provided, however, if any Owner so chooses, such Owner may submit any such contemplated action affecting.SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK to the A.C.C. for its consideration, approval or such other action.as the A.C.C., in its -sole discretion, may. deem appropriate..-..,If the - A.C.C.'s approval-is. expressly required -in these. covenants, shall -be in .writing. In the event the A:C.C.•fails , to .approve.or disapprove-any .application for such approval,.whether : or not such application 'is-required under these,.covenants;:within thirty (30) days after such,.application has been. :submitted "to it, approval- will not be required, and the related covenant or covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with; provided, however, the A.C.C. may extend such thirty (30) day period by written notice to the Owner or Owners submitting such application prior to the expiration of such thirty (30) day- period; provided further, however, no more.than one such thirty (30) day extension may be made by the.A.C.C. without. the prior written consent of the Owner or Owners submitting such application. (C) The A.C.C: and the members thereof shall not'be liable in damages to the Owners or any other person or entity submitting an application for approval by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence or nonfeasance of itself, its agents or employees, arising out of or in connection with. the approval or disapproval of, or failure to approve, any such application and anyone so submitting an application to the A.C.C. for approval, by-the submitting of such application, and the Owners by acquiring any right, title -or interest in all or any portion of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK agree that they will not bring any action or suit to recover for any.such:damages against the A.C.C.'or any member thereof. ._ (D) The A.C.C. shall have the authority from time to time to contract for such professional services as maybe necessary to carry out its functions, including but not limited to authority from time to time to enter into an agreement with an architect- or firm of architects for the purpose of providing supporting -4- 3 -24 -77 • • services to the A.C.C. Said services may include, without limi- tation, the receipt of applications, preparation and transmittal of notices of A.C.C. meetings and the preparation of recommenda- tions for A.C.C. action upon applications. The A.C.C. shall also have the authority to establish and charge any Owner or Owners submitting an application for approval to the A.C.C. reasonable fees for the submission of any such application, the amount thereof to be used exclusively for the payment of the supportive services and any reasonable cost or expense relating to the processing of such application. (E) The A.C.C. shall have the power to and may, after receipt of an application for approval thereof from an Owner or Owners, impose reasonable requirements in addition to the require- ments of these covenants; provided, however, any such reasonable requirements shall. be consistent with'the intent and purpose of these, covenants. The A.C.C. :shall'also have. the power : to -and may authorize variances-'from the-provisions or requirements of these covenants after receipt of " "an application therefor'from an Owner' or.Owners.if the literal interpretation and .strict application of • the provisions or requirements of these covenants would cause . undue and unnecessary hardship. (P) The A.C.0 may enact bylaws it considers appropriate and helpful to the administration of its responsibilities, includ- ing, without limitation, the expenditure of any funds received by • the A.C.C. Said bylaws shall be subordinate to 'and consistent with the intent and purpose: of - these covenants'. • (G) _Members of the A.C.C. shall not be entitled to any com- pensation for services performed pursuant to these covenants. GENERAL PROVISIONS All buildings,' structures or other improvements in SOUTH - CENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall meet the standards provided in these covenants. The written approval of the A.C.C. shall be obtained prior to the construction or structural alteration of any such building, structure or other improvement. Two copies of an . application for approval of any such proposed construction or structural alteration shall be submitted to the A.C.C. together with such other documents, including without limitation the plans and specifications thereof, as may be appropriate or requested by the A.C.C. (A). Setback. All setbacks shall :.be measured from the lot - boundary lines to the wall lines of buildings exclusive of archi- tectural features. Minimum setbacks shall be 30 feet on front -5- 3 -24 -77 • • yards and 15 feet on side and rear yards. The portion or por- tions of all lots facing a public street or highway shall be considered "front" yards. In no case will the wall line of a building of "unlimited size," as defined by the Uniform Building Code, be permitted within 30 feet of its lot boundary lines. The minimum setback to the wall lines of buildings along the Green River shall be 50 feet from the property line (mean high -water mark) in accordance with the Shoreline Management Master program of the City of Tukwila, provided, that the minimum setback from the south boundary line of- SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall be 30 feet except for the lot located in the southeast corner of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. (B) Easements and Reservations. Developer hereby reserves, together with the right to convey the same, and all tracts, parcels, lots, land_ -and areas- in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK are. conveyed'subject to:. 1)Ha,10 -foot utility easement over, under and across frontage streets;-2) 10- foot_rail ease -.. ments on each side...of,the centerline .of the lead tracks; 3) in - addition to the foregoing 10. -foot rail, easements, 13- foot.ease -. ments over, under and across each side of the:lead tracks begin ning 10 feet from the 'centerline of such lead tracks for util- ities and spur tracks; 4) utility easements over, under and across a right -of -way 5 feet in width on each side of the common boundary of any two lots except that there shall be no such 5- foot utility easements with respect to sideyard boundaries formed by lead track easements; 5) a 30 -foot easement commencing at the mean high -water mark of the Green River for maintenance and public access. The.Owners shall, at such times and from time to time, when so requested by Developer or the A.C.C., execute and record such further instruments as are necessary or appropriate in Developer's or the A.C.C.'s judgment to reflect the existence of the foregoing:easements. (C) Parking.,- No parking of any vehicles, whether. by em -- ployee, customer: or, other person or entity, is permitted outside of the boundaries of any lot in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK nor on public or r- private streets therein. It is the responsi- bility of each of. the Owners to provide such minimum onsite parking facilities as are required by the City of Tukwila or- dinances. Any such onsite parking facilities or any onsite truck maneuvering areas. shall be paved with asphalt -or concrete. (D) Utilities.,; All utility service lines, whether part of the primary service Connections or secondary services to .the buildings or other.. facilities, shall be entirely underground. (E) Entrance and Exit,to Streets. Driveways which are used for automobiles only shall be no wider than 24 feet. Driveways -6- 3 -24 -77 • which are used for truck shall be a maximum of 40 feet in width. No driveway will be permitted closer than 50 feet to the other front lot line on a corner lot. (F) Landscaping. The front yards of all lots shall be landscaped from the edge of the street and highway curbs to a minimum of 4 feet inside the lot line (exceptat driveways). Each lot shall be landscaped except for buildings and similar structures, walks, paved parking areas, driveways and storage areas. All of such lots shall, as a minimum requirement, be covered with ground -cover seeding, lawn, bark, river rock or plantings, such as trees and shrubs, which will prevent wind or water erosion of earth and weed growth. Maintenance and upkeep of designated common areas and street boulevard landscaping will be accomplished under the supervision of the A.C.C. as follows. The A.C.C. will contract for such work by accepting, in its reasonable judgment, the lowest responsible bid therefor. The costs and expenses of such work shall be charged and prorated to the Owners upon the basis of the square footage of land in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK as the same relates to the square footage of any such land owned by each of the Owners. ' (G) Signs. No freestanding roof signs shall be permitted in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK and all other freestanding signs shall be of a low silhouette type. No sign shall exceed the height of the wall of the building upon which such sign is placed. No sign shall have more than two surfaces used for the display of advertising or to identify the owner or occupant of the property or for any other display and no surface of any such sign shall exceed 150 square feet. Except for traffic regulation and direction signs, all signs in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall relate to a use of the property upon which such sign is located. Plans and specifications for the design, construc- tion, installation, alteration, illumination and erection of all signs including, without =limitation, traffic regulation and direction signs, must first be submitted to and have the written approval of the A.C.C. (H) Construction. Any buildings erected in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall conform in all respects to the Build- ing Code and Fire Zone restrictions officially adopted for the City of Tukwila by the Council thereof. In addition thereto, all buildings shall conform to the further requirement that the exterior walls must be of architectural concrete (painted, colored, exposed aggregate' or textured surface), architectural concrete masonry units (standard cement block not acceptable), -7- 3 -24 -77 ■ architectural window wall units, brick or equivalent quality finish materials. In no event will wood siding (except for design emphasis), plywood or plain or corrugated sheet metal or other materials of similar appearance be permitted. (I) Maintenance of Property. Owners shall maintain their properties and any and all improvements thereto in a manner that will not depreciate the value of other properties in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. Exposed, painted surfaces of buildings, structures or other improvements or signs will be kept in good condition, and landscaping will be kept watered, weeded and free of dead material. Yard lights will be kept properly lamped. Parking areas and landscaping shall be kept free of trash or waste. The A.C.C. or Developer, upon approval of the A.C.C., may, after written notice to such of the Owners as are delinquent in this respect, perform any work necessary to bring the property into conformance with the provisions of this paragraph III(I) and charge such delinquent Owner with the cost and expense thereof. (J) Storage. All plans and specifications for the use of any portion of any lot or other area of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUS- TRIAL PARK as a storage yard must first be submitted to and have the written approval .of the A.C.C. No storage yard shall be . permitted within 30 feet of a public or private street or high- way. The A.C.C. may impose reasonable requirements relating to any such storage yard, such as, sufficient landscape screening for the full height and length of anticipated storage so that no •portion of any, such anticipated storage or storage yard may be seen from a public or private street. (K) Refuse Containers. No dumpster, compactor or other refuse container in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK shall be located .outside -of any building in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK unless plans and specifications showing the location thereof have first been submitted to and have received the prior written approval of the A.C.C.: The A.C.C. may impose reasonable require- ments relating to the location and landscape screening of any such dumpster, compactor or other refuse container. IV. SUBDIVISION/ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES The subdivision of any portion of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL_ PARK shall satisfy all terms and conditions of ,these covenants. If, after the expiration of one year from the closing of any sale or other conveyance of a portion of SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, the purchaser thereof shall not have in good'faith domL menced the construction of an- acceptable building thereon, the seller or other person _or entity making such conveyance may, at -8- 3 -24 -77 its option, rescind such sale or conveyance, refund all or such portion of the purchase price as has been paid, if any, without interest, and enter into possession thereof. The A.C.C. may, from time to time as it deems necessary, charge each of the Owners an amount or amounts sufficient to pay administrative costs and such other costs and expenses as are reasonably incurred by the A.C.C. in connection with or as a result of its responsibilities under these covenants; provided, however, the A.C.C. shall not incur any costs or expenses not otherwise expressly authorized herein without first submitting to each of the Owners a proposed operating budget or other item- ization of such proposed costs and expenses and receiving the approval thereof by Owners of a majority of the square footage of land in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK. Such charges shall be prorated upon the basis of the square footage of land in SOUTH - CENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK as the same relates to the square footage of any such land owned by each of the Owners. Such charges shall be promptly paid by the Owners upon receipt of notification thereof. The A.C.C. shall receive such funds at the office of the Chairman of the A.C.C. and shall establish proper procedures for accepting and disbursing all sums received from this source . or any other source. V. ENFORCEMENT AND.TERMINATION OF-COVENANTS The covenants contained'- her-ein -may be- enforced by appro- priate legal:action- by • any Owner -or Owners;:Developer or the A.C.C. Any.such Owner or Owners, Developer or the A.C.C. shall, if determined to be the prevailing party therein, be entitled to all costs and expenses incurred with respect to such action, including, without limitation,. reasonable attorneys' fees related thereto, in addition to such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Each covenant contained herein shall terminate and be of-no further effect on March 31, 2057; provided, however, that at any time the A.C.C. or Owners of seventy percent (70%) of the square footage of land in SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL-PARK may alter, . amend or extend these covenants. Any such alteration., amendment or extension shall be effective at such time as a written declara- tion, signed and acknowledged by the A.C.C. or by such Owners, is recorded in the Department of Records and Elections of King County, Washington. Invalidation of any of the foregoing protective covenants shall not affect the validity of any other of such covenants, but the same shall remain in full force and effect. -9- 3 -24 -77 1 EXECUTED this 5C day of i-U.^t , 1977. . 'Secretary CORPORATE PROPERTI INVESTORS, a Ma sachusetts B siness Trust Hans C. Mautner Its PRESIDENT STATE OF f JdUJ L ti( ) 1u! o' ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of j1Lz . C.Q- before me personally appeared . 4 t C _ rnQ,t-,, iu aftel , to me known to be the _'h�uclr. and Q :,v {,„;t¢e_ of Corporate Property Investors, a Massachusetts business trust, executed the within and foregoing Protective Covenants, South - center South Industrial Park, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free . and voluntary act and deed of said Massachusetts Business Trust, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instru- ment. , 1977, '1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. V / ,I.(:�.0O3 -QQoy(,,ul.. . I cs_ Notary Publican and for the State of INSE.t,; 4,2 , residing at 07ijt!) E. 'fL .t.1 Yll{1CO VICTORIA-REGINA E. RtCE UU Notary Public, State of New York No. 31.4523186 Qualified in New York County„ Commission Expires March 30, 19 / 7307030718 EXHIBIT .A That portion of the Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43 in Sections 35 and 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. situated in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, described as follows Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 35; thence N 11 °23'54" E along the centerline of Secondary State Highway No. 2 M a distance. of 1115.77 feet; thence N 88 °49'06" W a distance of 30.48 feet to the west margin of said S.S.H. No. 2 M and the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing N 88° 49'06 ".W along the north property line of that certain tract of land described under. King County Auditors File No. 2462007': a distance of 1864.41 feet more or: less to the top of the right bank of the Green' River; thence along. said top of the right: bank'° of the:. Green..- River the following . courses and dis tances: N 47 °12' E a distance of.17 feet; N44 °10' E a distance of 100 feet; N 32 °00'. E a- distance.of 98 feet; N 24 °15' E a.distance:: of 99 feet; N 20 °22' E. a distance of 103 feet; N 18 °02' E a distance. of- 98 feet; N. 14 °18' E .a distance �f 100 feet; N 20 - 04' E a distance of 100:feet ;- -N 33 °29' E a distance-of 99 feet. N 43 °04' E a distance of.99.feet; N 44 °55' E a distance.of °100 - feet; W43°17' E - a . distance: of 102. 'feet; . N 34 °.05' E. a distance. N 26°27' distance f 9 8 feet; N 2 0° 7 f d of 99 feet; N 2� 27 E a c� . � �...:.:�, N �.. �6 E a is- . tance of. 100 feet; N - 15 ° 42' E a distance of 99 feet; N 11 °12' E a distance of 100 feet; • N 09 °15' E_a distance of 97 feet; N 10°51' E a distance of .102 feet N 09°54'E a distance of . 100 feet; N-12°04' E_a distance of 99 feet; 'N 12 °01' E a dis tance of 99.feet;'N 09 °50' E.a.distance of 10.0 feet; N 08 °45' E a distance of 98 feet; _ N 06 °07' E a distance of 101 feet; N 03 °26'.E a distance'of 98 feet; N O1 °17' E a distance of 99 feet; N 04 °49' E a distance of 101.feet; N 33 °41' E a distance :. of 41 feet; N 16°40'. E' a distance of 59 feet; N 26°18' E a distance of: 99.feet;'N 46 °06' E a distance of 103 feet; N 63° 00' E a distance..of 100 feet; N.82 °28' E a distance of 99 feet;' S 75 °45' E a distance of 100 feet;'S 56 °11'.E a distance of 99 feet; S 44 °26' East a distance of 100 feet; S 37°39'E .a dis- tance of 100 feet;.S 36 °39' E a distance of 99 feet; S 36 °08' E a distance of 100 feet; S 35 °35' E a distance of 99 feet; S 29 °38' E a distance of 99 feet; S 25 °20' E a distance of 100 feet; S 23 °04' E a distance of 99 feet; S 24 °51' E a distance of 100 feet; ,S 44 °29' E a distance of 101 feet; S.59°43' E a distance of 98 feet; S 72 °17' E a distance of 101 feet; S 82° 08' E a distance of 100 feet; N 78 °54' E a distance of 99 feet; N 68 °34' E a distance of 99 feet; N 73 °09'40" E a distance of .97.47 feet more or less to the west margin of said S.S.H. No. 2 M; thence leaving .said top of the right bank of the Green River. along said West margin on a curve to the right, the center of which bears N 47 °33'16" W having a radius of 543.14 feet, an arc distance of 87.08 feet, through a central angle of 09 °11'10 "; thence S 51 °37'54 ". W.along said west margin a distance of 131.40 feet; thence • along a curve to-the left, on said west margin, having :a radius of 603.14 feet, an arc distance of 423.53 feet through a. central angle of 40 °14'00 "; thence S 11 °23'54" W along 'said . west margin a distance of. 1445.53 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Subject to the following:. 1. EASEMENT, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Grantee: Purpose: Area Affected: Dated Recorded: Auditor's. No. State of Washington Slopes, Drainage and Utility; The: Easterly 10 feet September 23, 1968 - 6409826 _2. Easement'. created by::ihstrument: recorded under Auditor's File :5222050, to, construct,': reconstruct;. maintain and repair a -bank protection and /or flood:: control: works. Easement' created. bye :.instrument: recorded under Auditor's .File No. 5596236, :to construct:, reconstruct,.maintain..' and repair .a bank.pr.otection and /or other flood works.: 4. Easement and .terms.and.conditions thereof conveyed to. the State of. Washington for'. highway purposes recorded._ June 1.4, : 1973 under Recording No. ..730614- O560.. 0 glyg. fZ. • r • • A LL_Cy::::P 14 1.1 14 CE.HTE.K SOUTIA 1N-0 USTRIAL P4. .14e, CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for CITY OF TUKWILA ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR SOUTH CENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pursuant to: WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971 Chapter 43.21C. R.C.W. CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Ordinance No. 759 Date • PREPARED BY Wilsey & Ham SUMMARY SHEET Nature of this report: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Sponsor: City of Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Delbert F. Moss - Planning Coordinator Type of Proposed Action: Administrative decisions by the City of Tukwila in review of proposals and blanket permit approval for the development of Southcenter South Industrial Park by Bruce E. McCann. Official Title of Proposed Action and Summary of the Proposed Action: a. Official Action - Permits to be granted: 1) Shoreline Substantial Management Permits 2) Grading Permit 3) Building Permits 4) Sewer and Water Permits 5) Permits to power, natural gas, and telephone companies for use of city rights-of -way in providing service to the site. 6) Rail service within the site, including street crossings. b. Other Official Action - Review: 1) Review of State Department of Ecology Flood Zone Permits by Public Works Director 2) Review of storm drainage system discharge by Public Works Director 3) Review of preliminary and final plat plans 4) Review of plans, site plans, elevations, and related work by the City of Tukwila 5) Review of curb cut locations by Planning Commission c. Summary of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to undertake all official action necessary to allow for the construction of the Southcenter South Industrial Park. Summary of Environmental Impacts: 1) Topographic /geologic impact - site preparation will alter the existing topographical variation created by the original Green River meander pattern, and redistribute and, in some places, cover the existing alluvial soils. 2) Surface Drainage Impact - Increased impervious surfaces will result in increased runoff coefficients, contributing only in small part to the overall drainage and water quality problems associated with the Green River. Runoff from the project site will carry a burden of silt during the construction phase. Upon completion of the development on the project site, runoff will be affected by hydrocarbons, oils, particulates and heat from paved surfaces. 3) Biological Impact - Development of the project site will necessi- tate the removal of vegetation that has re- established since the project site was last used for farming purposes. Removal of vegetation will significantly reduce wildlife habitats of the site. 4) Atmospheric Impact - The concentration of suspended particles can be expected to temporarily increase during the construction phase. Increased traffic flow will increase the concentrations of all common air pollutants. 5) Noise Impacts - Noise levels will be affected both by the construction phase and by operations on the fully developed project site. 6) Social Impact - The commercial and industrial development that will result from the proposed action represents a continuation of existing trend of urbanization within the corporate limits of the City of Tukwila. The proposed uses of the project site under the M -2 zoning classification (heavy industrial) represents a partial departure from the type of industrial development that has occurred to date in Tukwila under C -M zoning classification (industrial park). CITY OF TUKWILA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR SOUTH CENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON PURSUANT TO: WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971 CHAPTER 43.21 c. R.C.W. CITY OF TUKWILA, ORDINANCE NO. 759 A. THE PROPOSED ACTION 1 Type of Action The City of Tukwila will undertake administrative actions and approval procedures to permit the construction and operation of a proposed industrial development to be known as South Center South Industrial Park. All review and permit procedures are prescribed by Tukwila City Ordinances and have been codified within the Tukwila Municipal Code. 2. Location and General Features of the Project Site (Refer to Location Map, Figure 1) The development resulting from the proposed action will occur on a project site which lies immediately north of the south corporate limits of Tukwila. It is bounded on the north and west by the Green River, and is bounded to the east by West Valley Highway. South 180th Street intersects West Valley Highway across the river and to the north of the project site. 3 Development Resulting From the Proposed Action The proposed action will result in the development of an 84.75 acre project site for industrial purposes. The developers are providing a site suitable to the needs of future tenants by undertaking the following activities. The existing river levee will be improved at the southwest end and the northeast end of the project site. The levee must be brought up to two feet above the highest potential flood water. 5. &Au. Ind. park ST. Cs r tuu%Io.Gi}y limi 4 1 r- 5ou}h ctr. Ind. park • • • • • • • • i The project site will be cut and filled. The existing organic surface material will be removed and cuts of 2 - 3 feet will be made in higher elevations. This material will be used to fill lower elevations to a depth of 2 - 3 feet. The import of large amounts of fill material is not anticipated. The project site will be graded to an approximate average elevation of 22.0 feet, which is the approximate elevation for future streets in the area. Railroad track elevation will be at 23.0 feet where it enters the site. The proposed storm drainage system is planned to conform to proposed drainage improvements included within the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Westside Green River Project and an application will be made for eventual connection to the P -5 channel when it is constructed as a part of the SCS Project. In the interim, storm drainage water from the project site will be collected in a landscaped retention pond at the southwest end of the project site. From the retention pond water will either drain by gravity through a flap gate during low river flow or will be pumped into the river from the pond during high river flow. The developers of the project site have negotiated with the Union Pacific and the Milwaukee Railroads to provide lead track rail service to those who will purchase land and develop industrial facilities within the proposed project. The BNSF Burlington Northern will also provide service through a switching agreement. The lead tracks will enter the project site from the southeast corner. One track will swing north through the middle of the site and the other track will skirt the planted area surrounding the retention pond and will swing north along the river levee. The entry to the project site will be provided by an attractive land- scaped boulevard at right angles to West Valley Road (S.R. 181). The internal road layout will consist of a loop and a,cul -de -sac. An access road will be provided to the proposed park area along the river bank on the north side of the project site. The internal road system in conjunction with the lead tracks is designed to provide rail service to the back side of all lots within the project site and road service to the front. Lot sizes will be determined by the needs of future industrial clients. Buildings within the project site will be constructed according to the needs of the anticipated bulk users. Landscaped features will include the main entry, the park area at the north end of the project site and the plantings adjacent to the retention pond. 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. 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. The industrial 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. Agricultural 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 where transpor- tation routes can be built 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 t Spokane Railroad Line which later became part of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & 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 Wash- ington, 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. Construc- tion 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 spring 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 site was the best available 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, less than 12,000 second -feet at Auburn. By the way of comparison, a natural flow of 24,000 second - feet occurred in 1933. 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 comprised of land treatment measures selected to preserve favorable hydrologic conditions on the uplands, and a network of channels and large capacity pumping plants in the valley. 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 with 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 The City of Tukwila stands at the intersection of the two valley systems described in the previous section, which form natural transportation routes. At the time of incorporation in 1908, 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 has dramatically increased the commercial and industrial development of Tukwila. Also, a large area of bottom land to the south was annexed and brought into the town and is the only large flat area adjacent to the above mentioned freeway intersection suitable for commercial and industrial devel- opment. 7. 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) Shoreline Substantial Development (W.A.C. 173 -16) Permit. b) Grading Permit (ORD 563; Municipal Code, Chapter 11.24). c) Building Permits (ORD 578, S.1, 1969; ORD 678 (part), 1971). d) Sewer and Water Permits (ORD 264, S.2, 1958; ORD 342, 1961). e) Permits to power, natural gas, and telephone utilities for use of City rights -of -way (ORD 486, S.3 (A), 1967). 2) Reviews: a) Review of State Department of Ecology Flood Zone Permits by Public Works Director. b) Review of storm drainage system discharge by Public Works Director. c) Review of preliminary and final plat plans. d) Review of plans, site plans, elevations and related work by the City of Tukwila. e) Review of curb cut locations by Planning Commission at a public meeting. South Center South Industrial Park, the development resulting from the proposed action, meets the requirements of the city zoning ordinances. It will be located on land that has been zoned for the M -2 classification (heavy industrial), and all future building is subject to the controls of that zoning classification. b. Other Laws At the State level (R.C.W. 86.16), flood control zones have been established throughout the State. One such zone governs the Green River flood plain, and development 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. Department of Ecology policy for development within the flood control zone, which is not guided by a Comprehensive Drainage Plan, is to require all buildings to be protected from the 50 year flood. Flood height at the project site varies from 29.0 (feet above mean sea level) downstream, to 30.5 at the upstream property line. Also, the Department of Ecology (DOE) has proposed an amendment to Chapter 18.24 of the Washington Administrative Code which will require 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. c. Policies and Plans The industrial development 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 South Center regional shopping center. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1962, provides a basic rationale for development along the Green River. At the time of adoption, the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan recommended use of the Green River Valley Flood Plain (which includes the project site for South Center South), for industrial purposes. It was noted that while filling is usually necessary to develop these sites, large valuable, flat industrial sites can be created. It was estimated that the Andover area would be developed in the early 1970's and that industrial development in other areas would follow. Tukwila land use policies are also guided by the City Master Program for River Development under the Shoreline Management Act. Consequently, the City is designing a series of open green spaces and mini -parks along the Green River. Development of the project site as an industrial area is partially inconsistent with current regional plans. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) has confirmed that part of the project site lies within the area proposed for agricultural use by the Conference's Interim Regional Development Plan (IRDP) adopted in 1971. In general, PSGC Conference Policies do not favor continual development of river valley bottom lands because of the highly productive nature of:the soils. Also, the PSGC industrial land use requirements projections do not justify the continual development of the Green River Valley. According to the results of this study, 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. 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 Code. Each of these has been subjected to public review during the normal course of adoption. Since the proposed development is adjacent to the Green River, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must be obtained. The application for the Shoreline Permit must be preceded by a public hearing. Formulation of the City Master Program for Shorelines has included active public participation as specified by the State Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Public participation has been an important part of the decision making and policy adoption by other agencies having jursidiction for planning and implementation of policies influencing development in the Green River Valley. As an example, the Corps of Engineers had 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. 9 Actions Remaining for Implementation The actions remaining for implementation of the proposed development of South Center South Industrial Park are the administrative reviews previously described. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Existing Natural Conditions a. Topography and Geomorphology The proposed project site lies wholly within the mature flood plain of the lower Green River. This broad alluviated valley is the result of thousands of years of flooding and sediment deposition by both the Green River and the White River. Steep valley walls border the valley to the east and the west, delimiting the natural floodway. Man has altered the natural flood plain condition of the valley in several ways; first by altering the course of two major rivers, the White and Black; then by building low dikes and drainage ditches to promote farming. These actions were followed by the control of river flows by building higher levees and the construction of Howard Hanson Dam 30 miles east of Auburn. Ultimately, by filling much of the valley floor for industrial and other urban land uses, much of the natural flood plain has all but disappeared. Relief on the flood plain within the project site approximates ten to fifteen feet. The existing ground surface slopes somewhat uniformly from the levee which encloses the project area on the west and north to the eastern side and southeastern corner of the site. Elevations of the top of the levee range from 32.5 to 31.0 feet (above mean sea level) while the existing low points within closed depressions found throughout the site vary between 18.5 and 19.0 feet. b. Geology 1) Geologic History The Puget Sound region was covered at least four times in the Pleistocene Epoch by great ice sheets which ultimately reached all the way to Olympia, covering all of the Puget Lowland and the San Juan Islands and lying high against the flanks of the Olympics and the Cascades. The final glacial advance, the Vashon glacier, occurred between 20,000 and 12,000 years ago. At that time ice was at least 3000 feet thick over the proposed project area. The effects of glaciation on the Puget Sound lowland have been so great that a pre- glacial reconstruction of the topography is quite difficult. The silt, sand, and gravel sediments exposed in the valley walls along the lower Green River were transported from the Cascades by meltwater streams and reworked by the glaciers as the ice advanced and retreated during the last and next to last glaciations. Until 1906, when its entire flow was diverted southward into the Puyallup River during a flood, the White River was the predominant source of the sediments which were deposited as a large alluvial fan in the Green River Valley, covering the older deposits and filling the valley to nearly its present level. As the profile of the valley stabilized and the White River began to meander back and forth across the valley floor, normal flood plain deposits were laid down as a thin but persistent blanket. Mudflow deposits and the underlying Green River alluvial fan deposits were not identified by borings made within the proposed project area (based upon previous work done by others in this area), they may be present at greater depths. Nearly all of the material penetrated in the borings made within the proposed Southcenter South Industrial Park site can be assumed to be White River alluvium, overlain by a variable thickness of White -Green River flood plain deposits. White River alluvium varies in depth throughout the Green River Valley, with portions in the middle of the valley containing deposits as thick as five hundred to six hundred feet. Areas near the valley walls usually have only a few feet of alluvium. At least two hundred feet of. White River alluvium underlies the proposed project site, below which are coarse Cedar River and Black River fan deposits, averaging one hundred feet in thickness. The subsurface alluvial material observed during the most recent borings in 1973 are consistent with those encountered during earlier work at this site in 1965. The underlying sediments are predominantly sandy. The sand is generally fine -to- medium or fine -to- coarse in gradation, quite clean, and relatively compact. The subsurface conditions observed in the most recently drilled northernmost boring represents an exception to the general conditions across the site. At this location, except for a few feet of surficial silty sand, the sediments consist almost exclusively of the.clean sand which is found only at greater depth in the other borings at the project site. Environmental Geology - Soils All of the soil types found within the project site are fine -to- medium textured alluvial soils which have developed from the silt, sand and clay flood plain deposits of the White and Green Rivers. Specifically, large areas of Newberg silt loam and Nooksack silt loam soil types dominate the project site. The Newberg soils make up the western portion of the site bordering the Green River; the Nooksack soils occur in the interior and eastern portion of the site. A small (5 -10 acre) area in the extreme southeastern corner of the property consists of Woodinville silt loam, while the natural levee which parallels the Green River and forms the northern boundary of the site consists of Puyallup fine sandy loam. A discussion of the characteristics of the various types follows. Newberg silt loam is a well- drained alluvial soil distinguished by surface layers of very dark grayish -brown silt loam and very fine sandy loam. This twenty-inch thick layer is underlain by deep layers of stratified very fine sandy loam, loamy very fine sand, loamy sand, and silt loam. Newberg soils are extremely productive, being one of the most suitable soils in the Puget Sound Region for row crop. cultivation. Newberg soils are typically found along the natural levees bordering major streams. Nooksack silt loam is a very deep, well- drained silt loam soil of a pronounced gray to gray -brown or olive drab color. The subsoils are fine textured, dense and rather heavy, with superior moisture holding capacities. Sometimes subject to overflow, they are productive and often utilized for hay, pasture, and small grains. Puyallup fine sandy loam is a recent alluvial soil, and normally occupies low stream terraces and natural levees. They are gen- erally adequately drained and not subject to frequent overflow. Characterized by brown to brownish -gray fine sandy loam surface soils underlain by coarse gray to grayish -brown sandy subsoils, Puyallup fine sandy loam usually experiences only limited periods of high water table related problems. Mottles are found below 20 or 30 inches, indicating the rather well drained nature of this soil. Puyallup fine sandy loam is productive and especially well suited for garden crops, vegetables, small fruits, hay and forage crops, corn and some small grains. Woodinville soils are rather poorly drained silty clay loam alluvial soils, highly mottled with iron stains 12 inches below the surface, and containing layers of peaty material throughout the profile. Woodinville `soils lack an organic layer between 20 and 40 inches below the surface of the profile. The surface soils are grayish - brown and highly organic. Surface drainage and subsoil drainage is poorly developed. Woodinville soils are subject to frequent over- flow and ponding and maintain a high water table throughout the year. When cleared of brush and drained, they can be used success- fully for hay and pasture purposes. See Figure 3 for a map of soils on the project site. soils (1971) urban 64 puyallup File sandy loam r3 Wood In vi Ile Sill - loam f'le,wbexg SiIT loam 11ooksack sill- loam c. Hydrologic Conditions 1) Surface Drainage Standing water occurs in several of the remaining farm drainage canals throughout the site as well as in two small . depressions . located in the central and east - central portion of the site. The lush vegetation which occurs throughout the project site indicates that it is wet throughout the year. There would be even more on -site wetness and ponding if not for the existence of large stands of willows and cottonwoods. Willows and cotton- woods are unique in their great capacity to drain soils by evapotranspiration processes. 2) Ground Water High water table conditions are experienced in the Green River Valley in the vicinity of the project site. As elsewhere in the watershed, ground water varies seasonally with the level of water in the adjacent Green River. This ground water (aquifer) is contained in the coarse Quarternary deposits which underlie the project site. Within the project site there is upward leakage from the subsurface aquifer which takes the form of a spring at the north end. 3) Water Quality Surface runoff from the project site currently flows into the Green River, which forms the west and north boundaries of the project site. Thus, the water quality parameters of the Green River are most critical to the development resulting from the proposed action. The Green River undergoes its most critical biological, physical and chemical stress in summer months. For example, in the vicinity of the project site the River's high summer temperature and low flows result in major physiological stresses on aquatic organisms. To gain a dynamic perspective of the Green River, water quality data was obtained from several sampling stations, both upstream and downstream of the project site during three representative months of 1972 (Tables A, B, C.). These data were obtained from the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle water quality monthly reports. The stations in these tables are at locations shown on the map (Figure 4), and range through the Green - Duwamish River system from Station 315 at Kent, downstream to Station 301 at the base of Elliot Bay. These data give a broad perspective of river water quality and reflect changes in water quality due to human activities alongside the river. Thus, the significance of future activities within the project site can be evaluated in terms of the total context of human activities affecting the river. In addition, more specific data is included in Appendix A for one month of summer 1972 (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4) for two monitoring stations. One is downstream at the Kent 212th Street Bridge; the other, upstream at the Renton Junction Bridge. These monitor the most complete spectrum of water quality parameters within the vicinity of the project site. Temperature in Class A waters should not exceed 21 °C. The stretch of the Green River between the Kent 212th Street Bridge and the Renton Junction Bridge, which flows by the project site, was found to have an upper limit of 20 °C, a minimum tempera- ture of 13.5-14°C and an average temperature of 17.5 °C. The 4504 Mop, (reel • chemical and /or bio(ogpc i 5faf►on o bactriolopcal 'fation e Combin[,cf 4ation - • regulator or. storm to. ter- siafioh relative stability of this water mass is reflected in the small standard deviation values of 1.2 and 1.4 °C. However, a temperature increase of 0.8 °C is recorded between these two sample stations, and this means that the river is near its thermal capacity. Temperatures for the river from Kent to the Renton Plant are lower than those which would indicate thermal pollution levels. The river responds to inputs of warmer water from the Renton Treatment Plant as seen at several stations downstream. For example, at Station 3077 a small increase occurs as a result of the Rainier Vista effluent. Also, the average dissolved oxygen values exceed the Class A standards at both the Kent 212th Street Bridge upstream and the Kent Junction Bridge downstream. Of these two stations, the upstream value for dissolved oxygen was 0.66 mg /1 higher, of which 0.2 mg /1 might be accounted for in the solubility differential due to the temperature range involved. This still leaves an average depression of 0.4 mg /1, resulting as water passes through this reach of the river. This is reasonable evidence to support the premise that this reach of river is loaded slightly beyond its natural biological oxygen demand (BOD) tolerance. While the BOD (listed as variable #7) in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, does not seem unreasonably high (1.92 and 2.3 mg /1), the standard deviation near the equiva- lent of 1/2 the average values suggest a problem may exist. The 24 -hour data plot in Appendix.A (Figure 1), collected during the same time period, documents the existing drastic BOD load fluctuations. The Kjeldal (total) nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen levels are all relatively low, and the sample taken from the City /County pond during February, 1973, had a total nitrogen value of 0.796 milligrams per liter, which would be within one standard deviation, based on existing data of the average values above and below its discharge site. The total phosphate, hydrolizable phosphate and the biologi- cally most available orthophosphate are all reasonably low, as is the one sample from the City /County pond which had a hydrolizable phosphate . value of 0.147 mg /l. This would indicate the system is not presently receiving unusually high nutrient loading and might tolerate additional loading. However, if this pond is allowed to stabilize or accumulate much organic detritus, with adequate light conditions'substantial algal blooms might be anticipated. The plots in Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2 for the Renton Junction Bridge and for the Kent 212th Street Bridge respectively, show the blue -green nuisance algae are not the predominate species during summer months, but their substantial numbers indicate that this part of the river has adequate nutrients and water conditions to readily become a problem area; any standing pond with similar water composition would, in time, emit an odor and take on an unpleasant appearance from the natural die -off of these algae. The chlorophyll A levels (variable 8 in Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2) of 5.0 and 4.3 mg /m2 are relatively high for a river system, indicating that the river is both biologically viable and sufficiently enriched. Substantial nutrient levels exist in the river as shown in Tables A, B, and C. The concentrations of the nutrients at least double as a result of the inputs from the Renton Plant. The highest levels are seen to be in the fall and winter. However, when light conditions are minimal, a severe algal bloom probably cannot be sustained. The tendency for problems to be caused by these nutrients most likely depends on the rate of flow of the river. Soluble trace metal concentrations for copper and lead (Table D) are fractions of a part per billion in the estuary water. These data were obtained from the trace metal laboratory, University of Washington, Department of Oceanography. Obvious- ly, the fate of metals borne by the river is transferral to the sediments. The concentrations of lead and zinc at the surface of the cores and one meter deep in the cores are extremely high and demonstrate how effectively the transfer proceeds. The cores were obtained in June, 1973, and were analyzed by the Region Ten Environmental Protection Agency laboratory. Since nearshore ocean sediments contain an average of 60,000 ppb lead and 150,000 ppb zinc, it appears that the Duwamish estuary sediments have been greatly enriched by inputs from the river and from industrial sites around the estuary. Therefore any contamination from the proposed site (such as auto exhaust borne lead), introduced into the river, would be transferred downstream to the surface sedi- ments and would comprise an undetectable increase in the already heavily loaded sediments. The metals, copper and lead, are not in significant concentrations to be of biological concern. Total and fecal coliform values at the Kent and Renton sampling sites (Appendix A, Figures 3 and 4, variables 21 and 22) did not meet. Class A or even Class C water requirements. In fact, median coliform counts normally exceed established standards up river from Tukwila. In the Kent area, normally high coliform counts have occurred for a number of years, though, since the interception of the Kent and Tukwila treatment plants by Metro, the bac- teriological quality of the lower Green River has been substantially improved. Prior to the Metro interception, MPN values ranged from 230 to over 240,000. Occasionally, however, MPN values are still abnormally high in the lower Green River. These abnormally large values are due to isolated discharges into the River above Kent (including the Auburn Sewage Treat- ment Lagoon) and the influence of livestock and human activi- ties throughout the Green River watershed. The exact source or sources of this contamination are unknown. In 1972,Metro began a special survey of the Green River to ascertain these sources. The results of this investigation are not available at this time. - - - - - Table A July.1972 Green River Water Quality: Kent to Elliot Bay Median Coliform Count /100 ml Fecal Metro present last last count Ammonia _Nitrate Phosphate Temp Depth Station month month year per .100 ml mg/1 mg /1 mg /1 deg. C meters 301 430 870 300 54 16.0 0 10.8 5 306 2300 2900 14,000 440 .47 .47 .35 15.1 1 .09 .31 .25 14.1 6 307 3400 2300 2600 330 .14 .45 .18 15.9 1 .15 .41 .30 15.9 6 3077 20 30 20 10.95 .56 6.35 15.9 1 308 980 1100 190 .18 .41 .28 14.3 1 309 500 1100 810 170 .09 .43 .32 14.5 1 351 20 80 980 20 .50 6.30 9.20 17.9 1 311 870 740 270 230 .06 .27 .11 10.3 1 312 530 510 120 .06 .23 .11 13.1 1 313 470 410 95 .06 .21 .09 13.1 1 315 640 440 450 220 .06 .21 .08 13.1 1 Table B October 1972 Green River Water Quality: Kent to Elliot Bay Median Coliform Count /100 ml Fecal Metro present last last count Ammonia Nitrate Phosphate Temp Depth Station month month year per 100 ml mg /1 _ mg /1 mg /1 deg. C meters 301 390 1500 1200 55 10.9 1 306 2500 6600 3700 530 .35 .43 .33 11.0 1 .06 .35 .18 10.7 6 307 5800 6300 2600 510 .28 .41 .30 11.1 1 3077 .30 - .37 .15 10.5 6 16.75 1.10 8.00 13.2 1 308 5500 6300 2500 520 .45 .52 .43 11.3 1 309 4200 6600 1200 220 .66 .54 .53 10.7 1 351 1300 980 190 39 11.00 4.80 6.00 17.6 1 311 1500 2800 2600 82 .10 .34 .13 10.0 1 312 2400 790 110 .10 .32 .12 10.0 1 313 1400 800 73 .09 .33 .11 9.6 1 315 1500 720 140 .09 .28 .09 9.5 1 Table C February 1973 Green River Water Quality: Kent to Elliot Bay Median Coliform Count /100 ml' Fecal Metro present last last count Ammonia Nitrate Phosphate Temp Depth Station month month year per 100 ml mg /1 mg /1 Align deg. C meters 301 400 . 500 430 54 7.5 1 7.4 5 306 620 1600 1900 130 .22 .50 .26 6.0 1 .29 .58 .31 5.5 6 307 320 1800 1200 49 .17 .50 .28 5.9 1 3077 63 360 39 19.10 .15 9.20 8.0 1 308 940 470 1500 170 .38 .57 .28 6.6 1 309 530 3000 720 84 .34 .55 .21 6.4 1 351 840 50 46 20 4.87 3.20 4.80 14.0 1 311 80 180 1200 20 .27 .54 .24 6.2 1 312 53 150 23 .12 .33 .10 6.1 1 313 53 140 20 .13 .33 .10 6.1 1 315 150 150 810 39 .12 .35 .17 6.4 1 d. Biologic Conditions 1) General Biology During the 8 to 10 year period following the abandonment of the lettuce farming enterprise which had utilized the project site, plant succession had transformed the bare fields into groves of trees and shrubby thickets. Currently, the entire site, with the exception of the old homestead area, contains healthy, vigorous early and mid - successional plant communities. Due to the prolific production of seeds, fruit, and new growth typical of such plant communities, a substantial animal population is found within the project site. The thick shrubby habitats provide a great deal of cover, and the former drainage ditches and tractor roads which traverse the site break the plant communities into many smaller units, resulting, in a high proporotion of edge habitats. Both of these factors, coupled with the generous food source provided by the present plant communities and the many water sources found in springs, ditches, and ponds throughout the site, allow the project site to support large, dense populations of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Also, the diversity of the plant communities presently utilizing the project site has attracted a diverse range of animal species, each favoring particular portions of the site. Far more bird species were observed in the inventory of the project site than normally would be expected to occur within more developed sites in the Kent /Tukwila region. Botany The plant communities established upon the site are quite varied. Ten distinct plant associations are distinguished (Figure 5). Approximately half of the site is made up of mid - successional communities which have, during the last 8 to 10 years,substantially changed the character of the site. Commonly known as the "shrub stage" of plant succession, these communities become established during the fourth or fifth year after disturbance, when deciduous brush invades herbaceous open areas and fields. Mid - successional communities will CENTER VTRIAL minunzties plant co mixed uiooJIand s{andi int exotic and ornctme►4tal Mgmixed woodland stand i r► native species mid-successional 43i.. cottonwood stand mitt - SuccessionaI mixed willow/cotton wo J mid - Successional blackberry dominant Itike mid -suce essional mixed shrub comm. earim suficessional i tansy tt, fireweed dom. irTrf earlcl suc.essional crass dominant Fid&trkt successional; horsetail dominant eariit successional 'rived herbaceous remain intact until overshadowed by growing tree saplings. At the project site two distinct variations of mid - successional plant communities can be differentiated; a shrub variant and a sapling variant. The shrub mid - successional community is characterized by the thickets which it forms. These are made up of blackberries, salmonberries, red elderberries, vine maple, willows, and Sitka Mountain Ash. Blackberry and Sitka Mountain Ash thickets dominate drier portions of the site while the salmonberries, vine maples, red elderberries and willows pre- fer shaded, cooler and wetter locations. Often, patches of Himalayan blackberry occur, particularly along road edges and in disturbed areas. The sapling mid - successional community is characterized by groves of young trees which have not yet fully taken on the form of mature trees. Within the areas delineated as "sapling mid - successional" communities, saplings ranging from 20 to 30 feet in height are beginning to overshadow the shrubby under- growth. No dominance has been established, however, and even the very large "saplings" which occur must be considered mid - successional. Two such sapling mid - successional communities occur within the project site. The most common consists of a mixed willow - cottonwood association, in which the saplings reach 20 feet in height. These stands are quite dense and mixed. Consider- able brush and undergrowth occurs. The second sapling association consists of almost pure stands of black cottonwood saplings, some of which are over 30 feet in height. Cottonwoods exhibit a rapid growth rate of 3 to 5 feet per year. It appears that a large female cottonwood "snag" (tree stump) near the levee at the end of South 184th Place has provided the :seed source for these dense stands. Since cottonwoods are anemophilous (wind - pollinated), winds probably distributed seed to these areas. Conditions at the time of seed dispersal must have been optimal for such dense (2' to 3' o.c.) even -aged stands to develop. Very little undergrowth occurs in these cottonwood groves. Early successional plant communities make up approximately one third of the project site, and consist of what is commonly termed the "weed stage" of plant succession. Numerous weedy, herbaceous annuals and perennials, ferns, grasses, and rushes make up these plant communities, which generally only last 4 to 5 years after their initial establishment. Typically, the annuals dominate until the third or fourth year, at which time the perennial species invade and dominate. Because at least 8 years have passed since the initial establishment of early successional communities on the project site, limiting factors have prevented the continuation of plant succession to a more advanced stage. Due to the nature of some of the early successional plant association variations, these limiting factors can be ascertained. Approximately one third of the early successional areas consist of mixed herbaceous communities, containing pea vine, vetch, thistle, grass, clover and assorted shrubs. Encroachment by blackberries and willows is underway in these areas. Along the Green River levee, bunchgrass, bluegrass, and rushes dominate, with shrubs and tall weedy perennials occasionally occurring. These grasses were probably hydro- seeded during the last few years as the levee was raised, and have success- fully stabilized the levee slopes. A unique area near the West Valley Road at the eastern boundary of the site consists of a horsetail- dominated community, denoting the marginal character of this particular area. Thistle and some grass species are subdominant in this area. Adequate water seems to be provided, as evidenced by the luxurient growth which occurs, but the concrete -like surface of much of the soil in this area prevents other plants from gaining a foothold. the remainder of the early successional areas of the project consist of the tansy- fireweed dominating the flat along the western portion of the site. Here, drier conditions appear to prevail, perhaps due to the soils and /or the exposure to warm afternoon sun and the prevalence of water- demanding willow and cottonwoods. Comprised almost entirely of tansy and fire- weed, often over 6 feet high, this area supports a moderately large population of small mammals and birds. In the vicinity of the former farmhouse and outbuildings, large deciduous and coniferous trees occur, forming mixed woodland stands. Near the site of the farmhouse and in the adjacent orchard areas, exotic and ornamental species dominate. Fine English holly, Lawson cypress, deodar cedar and laurel- cherry specimens are found. The orchard yields poor quality fruit, probably due to a decade of neglect. Some fine large specimens of native trees, including big -leaf maple, black cottonwood and red alder are also found in these myriad woodland groves of the northern portion of the site. See Table E for a listing of plant species found on the project site. Terrestial Wildlife Twenty -eight species of birds and 3 mammal species were observed during 6 1/2 hours of on -site field investigations over the course of three days in August (Table F). Table G lists the sighted birds and habitats in which they were found. The densi- ties and variety of wildlife populations observed were extensive. The species utilizing the proposed project site favor various portions of the site. Most are found only in certain habitats, though a few species are found throughout the site and have adapted to broader niches. Robins, for example, are very adaptive and favor no particular portion of the site. In general, robins suffer less from development within their habitats than most other species of birds. Within the early successional portions of the site, substantial breeding populations of Savannah Sparrow and Goldfinch occur. TREES Common Name *Lawson- cypress *Deodar Cedar Black Cottonwood Pacific Willow Scouler Willow Red Alder Cultivated Pear *Cultivated Apple *English Holly Big -leaf Maple Cascara SHRUBS Hooker Willow Sitka Alder Red - flowering Currant. Black Hawthorn Indian-plum *Laurel- cherry Bittercherry Chokecherry Rose var. Salmonberry *Himalayan Blackberry Sitka Mountain Ash Vine Maple Red elderberry HERBACEOUS PLANTS Water Horsetail Common Horsetail Bracken Fern Stinging Nettle Doorweed var. Dock var. Common Purslane Chickweed var. Buttercup var. Pacific Blackberry *Evergreen Blackberry Peavine var. Clover var. Vetch var. Fireweed Wild Carrot Sweet Fennel Foxglove Common Plantain TABLE E PLANT SPECIES FOUND ON THE SITE Scientific Name Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Cedrus deodara Populus trichocarpa ' Salix lasiandra . Salix scouleriana Alnus rubra Pyrus communis spp. Pyrus rna l us . spp, Ilex •aquifolium Acer macrophyllum ' Rharnnus pursh i ana Salix hookeriana Alnus sinuata Ribes sanguineum Crataegus douglasli Osmaronia cerasiformis Prunus laurocerasus Prunus emarginata Prunus demissa spp. Rosa spp. Rubus spectabilis Rubus discolor Sorbus sitchensis Acer circinatum Sambucus racemosa VP- Equisetum fluviatile Equisetum arvense Pteridium aquilinum Urtica dioica spp. Polygonum spp. Rumex spp. Portulaca oleracea Cerastium spp. Ranunculus spp. Rubus ursinus. Rubus laciniatus Lathyrus spp. Trifolium spp. Vicia spp. Epilobium angustifolium Daucus carota Foeniculum vulgare Digitalis purpurea Plantago major HERBACEOUS PLANTS cont. Common Name English Plantain Teasel Yarrow Pearly- everlasting Mayweed Chamomile Common Burdock Thistle var. Common Tansy Common Dandelion Rush var. Sedge var. Spike -rush var. Bulrush var. Grass spp. *Denotes exotic species Scientific Name Plantago lanceolata Dipsacus sylvestris Achillea millefolium Anaphalis margaritacea Anthemis cotula Arctium minus Cirsium spp. Tanacetum vulgare Taraxacum officinale Juncus spp. Carex spp. Eleocharis spp. Scirpus spp. Gramineae spp. DATE: TEMPERATURES: TIME: CONDITIONS: AREA SURVEYED: TABLE F TERRESTIAL WILDLIFE 1 August 1973 85° F 3:00 - 4:00 PM (1 hour) Clear, hot, little or no wind 80 + acres Sightings Species 1 Mourning Dove 1 Western Wood Pee Wee 24 Violet -green Swallow 9 Tree Swallow 15 Barn Swallow 4 Common Crow 8 Black- capped Chickadee 4 Robin 4 House Finch 10 American Goldfinch 21 Savannah Sparrow 2 Fox Sparrow 6 Song Sparrow 13 Unknown Sparrow DATE: TEMPERATURE: TIME: CONDITIONS: AREA SURVEYED: 2 August 1973 70° F to 80° ,F 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM (4 hours) Clear, warm, light breezes 80 + acres Sightings Species 2 Great Blue Heron 2 Green Heron 3 Killdeer 2 California Gull 8 Mourning Dove 2 Traill's Flycatcher 2 Western Flycatcher 1 Western Wood Pee Wee 4 Violet -green Swallow 10 Tree Swallow 10 Barn Swallow 22 Unknown Swallow 10 Black- capped Chickadee 2 Common Bushtit 3 Bewick's Wren 32 Robin 2 Cedar Waxwing 1 Black - and -white Warbler 2 MacGillivray's Warbler 40 Brewer's Blackbird 33 American Goldfinch 9 Rufous- sided Towhee 28 Savannah Sparrow 7 Fox Sparrow 11 Song Sparrow. 11 Unknown Sparrow DATE: 4 August 1973 TEMPERATURE 60 °.F to 65° F TIME: 7:45 PM - 9:15 PM (1 1/2 hours) CONDITIONS: Cool, light breezes, twilight AREA SURVEYED: North half of site (+ 40 acres). Sightings Species 2 Killdeer 1 Mourning Dove 1 Unknown Owl 5 Violet -green Swallow 2 Tree Swallow 10 Barn Swallow 18 Unknown Swallow 2 Common Crow 4 Black- capped Chickadee 1 Bewick's Wren 9 Robin 2 House Sparrow 8 Brewer's Blackbird 6 American Goldfinch. 5 Savannah Sparrow 2 Fox Sparrow 5 Song Sparrow 5 Unknown Sparrow DATE: CONDITIONS: 1 August 1973 (see bird census data sheets) Sightings Species 3 Eastern Cottontail Rabbit DATE: CONDITIONS: 2 August 1973 (see bird census data sheets) Sightings Species 1 Shrew-mole (dead) 2 Eastern Cottontail Rabbit DATE: CONDITIONS: 4 August 1973 (see bird census data sheets) Sightings Species 1 Vagrant. Shrew (dead) 5 Eastern Cottontail Rabbit TABLE G Common Name Scientific Name Great Blue Heron Green Heron Killdeer California Gull Mourning Dove Unknown Owl Ardea herodias Butorides virescens Charadrius vociferus Larus californicus Zenaidura macroura Traill's Flycatcher Empidonax trailli1 Western Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Number Seen or Abundance 2 2 5 2 10 1 2 2 Western Wood Pee Wee Contopus sordidulus 2 Violet -green Swallow Trachycineta thalassina Common Tree Swallow Iridoprocne bicolor Fairly Common Barn Swallow Riparia riparia Common Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Black- capped ChickadeeParus atricapillus CommonBushtit Psaltriparus minimus Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii Robin Turdus migratorius Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Black - and -white Mniotilta varia Warbler MacGillivray's WarblerOporornis tolmiei House Sparrow Passer domesticus Brewer's Blackbird House Finch American Goldfinch Euphagus .cyanocephalus Carpodacus mexicanus Spinus tristis Rufous -sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus. Savannah. Sparrow Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Common 6 Common 2 4 Common 2. 1 2 2 Over 40 4 Common 9 Passerculus sandwichenis Common Mammals Observed Vagrant Shrew Shrew -mole Eastern Cottontail Rabbit Sorex vagrans Neurotrichus gibbsi Sylvilagus floridanus 11 Fairly Common 1 (dead) 1 (dead) Common Location Green River Shore Green River Shore Green River Shore and levee bank Green River Shore Sapling Groves Cottonwood Grove near spring Cottonwood Sapling grove edge Cottonwood Sapling grove edge Sapling Grove edge Throughout site Throughout site especially near the Green River Throughout site especially near the Green River and in open fields Old Cottonwood snags All shrub and sapling areas All shrub and sapling areas Sapling Grove edge Throughout site Cottonwood Grove Cottonwood Grove Cottonwood Grove edge Shrub areas Open field areas Shrub areas Early successional and and shrub areas Shrub areas and sapling grove edge Early successional areas, including the levee bank Shrub areas and sapling grove edge Shrub areas Early successional area Cottonwood Grove Throughout site except very open exposed areas Many immature birds were observed. These birds rarely occur elsewhere in the densities observed within the proposed project site. The thistle and berries which now comprise a major food source occur in other portions of the project site. Figure 4 shows the habitats found within the project site. The mid - successional, shrub variant habitat supports large populations of a variety of bird species, including Chickadees, Bushtits, Bewick's Wren, Goldfinches, Towhees, Savannah, Song, and Fox Sparrows. This dense, thick habitat is intensely used for nesting and cover purposes. Chickadee, Goldfinch, Towhee, and Sparrow nests were found, and many immature birds of these species were observed. No other large areas of this type of habitat occur within close proximity to the site. The closest mid- successional shrub variant habitats are located on the steep valley walls approximately one mile west of the site, 2 miles east of the site, and 2 -1/2 miles north of the proposed project area. The mid - successional, sapling variant habitat is utilized by the largest variety of bird species including Flycatchers, Warblers, Towhees, Song and Fox Sparrows, Mourning Doves, Robins, Waxwings, Wrens, Bushtits, and Chickadees. The cottonwood sapling groves in particular, attract a great number of bird species. It is likely that no suitable alternative reparian habitat exists in the lower Green River Valley. These sapling areas, if removed, will lessen the amount of suitable habitat available for a number of resident and migratory species. Special mention should be made of the Black - and -white Warbler observed within the proposed project site. Black- and -white Warblers are quite rare in the State of Washington and are usually seen only once or twice each year. Generally, they are passing through the region as post - breeding migrants in the late summer and frequent prime warbler habitats such as the sapling groves found on the project site. Figure 6 CENTER TRIAL habitats hlid- su.ssional (Saplin Varian+) mid - suucssional shrub Variant) early successional (meadows and Melds) mixed woodland sand The mixed woodland areas, including the old orchard area, support smaller populations of birds than found in the sapling grove. This phenomenon is probably due to seasonal high temperatures. In cooler weather a larger number of birds would probably be observed in these trees, particularly in the old orchard area. Along the Green River,Great Blue and Green Herons were seen, as well as gull and shorebird species. Swallows are especially abundant in this area, feeding on the insects which fly above the Green River and the proposed project site. At least another 40 species of birds can be expected to be seen within the proposed project site during other seasons (See Table H ). For example, many other migrant birds, such as the Black- and -white Warbler observed on the project site, probably use the area in late summer and fall, as well as in the late winter and spring. Since the project site lies within the Green River Valley portion of Pacific Migra- tory Waterfowl Flyway, numerous ducks, geese, and shorebirds use the Green River and levee areas during migration. Also, the ponding situation which occurs on the project site in the winter provides a wetland feeding and resting area for some of these waterfowl. Small mammals occur throughout the site, as evidenced by burrows, nests, runways, seed piles, and feces. However, only three species were actually observed, as previously indicated. The cottontail rabbit is quite abundant throughout the site, particularly in the sapling grove and shrubby thicket areas. Many young rabbits were observed. The rabbit population has not yet, however, reached the carrying capacity of the site. No suitable alternative habitat for most of the mammals now - inhabiting the site occurs within the vicinity. As with some of the resident bird species, some mammals may be able to move through the tall grass and shrub areas of the levee to find suitable habitats upstream or downstream. See Table 1 for mammals likely to be found on the project site. TABLE H Disregarding the many waterfowl and shorebird species which are attracted to the Green River and its shores, the following additional bird species are quite likely to be seen within the proposed project site. Common Name Red - tailed Hawk Rough - legged Hawk. Marsh Hawk Sparrow Hawk Ruffed Grouse California Quail Ring- necked Pheasant Barn Owl Screech Owl Short -eared Owl Common Nighthawk Rufous Hummingbird Red - shafted Flicker Yellow - bellied Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker Rough- winged Swallow Red - breasted Nuthatch House Wren Swainson's Thrush Golden - crowned Kinglet Ruby- crowned Kinglet Water Pipit Starling Red -eyed Vireo Warbling Vireo Orange - crowned Warbler Nashville Warbler Yellow Warbler Myrtle Warbler Western Meadowlark Bullock's Oriole Brown- headed Cowbird. Black- headed Grosbeak Pine Siskin Oregon Junco White- crowned Sparrow Golden - crowned Sparrow Lapland Longspur R= Resident M=M i g ran t S= Summer only W= Winter only Scientific Name Seasonality Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lagopus Circus cyaneus Falco sparverius Bonasa umbellus Lophortyx californicus Phasianus colchicus Tyto alba Otus asio Asio flammeus Chordeiles minor Selasphorus rufus Olaptes cafer Sphyrapicus varius Dendrocopos pubescens Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Sitta canadensis Troglodytes aedon Hylocichla ustulata Regulus satrapa Regulus calendula Anthus spinoletta Sturnus vulgaris Vireo olivaceus Vireo gilvus Vermivora celata Vermivora ruficapilla Dendroica petechia Dendroica coronata Sturnella neglecta Icterus bullockii Molothrus ater Pheucticus melanocephalus Spinus pinus Junco oreganus Zonotrichia leucophrys Zonotrichia artricapilla Calcarius lapponicus R W R R R R R R R R S S R R R S R M S R W W R S S S M S R S S S R R R M W TABLE 1 The following mammals are likely to be observed at the proposed project site, either as permanent residents or transients. Common Name Marsh Shrew Townsend's Mole Coast Mole Various Bats Common Deer Mouse Townsend's Meadow Mouse Oregon Meadow Mouse Mountain Beaver Norway Rat Black Rat House Mouse Pacific Jumping Mouse Coyote Red Fox Raccoon Short - tailed Weasel Striped Skunk Spotted Skunk Domestic Dogs Domestic Cats Scientific Name Sorex bendirei Scapanus townsendi Scapanus orarius. Chiroptera sop. Peromyscus maniculatus austerus Microtus townsendi Microtus oregoni Aplodontia rufa Rattus norveglcus Rattus rattus Mus musculus Zapus trinotatus Canis latrans Vulpes vulpes fulva Procyon lotor Mustela erminea Mephitis mephitis Spilogale putorius 4) Aquatic Wildlife Fisheries resources within the Green River consists of resident populations of various trout, non - resident salmon, and anad- romous trout, as well as spiny -rayed fish, coltids, and stickle- back. Populations of all of these species exist in the Green River, its tributaries, and most of the lakes and ponds within South King County (Table J). The Green River produces hundreds of thousands of resident and non - resident fish annually, the majority of which are released as fry or fingerlings from the Washington State Department of Fisheries Hatchery on Big Soos Creek, one half mile above its juncture with the Green River. This hatchery is the largest in. the Puget Sound area and is considered to be one of the most productive salmon hatcheries in the state. As many at 50,000 fish return to the hatchery during peak years. Much natural spawning also occurs. Three Pacific Salmon and three anadromous trout species migrate, spawn and rear in the 105.2 miles of the Green River and its tributaries. Figure 7 illustrates the timing of these activities for each species. Chinook Salmon spawn in the mainstream of the Green River between the Tacoma Water Diversion Dam and in Newaukum and Big Soos Creeks; and juveniles are reared in the entire accessible length of the Green River, its tributaries, and in estuarine waters. Coho Salmon utilize virtually all accessible streams in the Green Basin. Spawning occurs in some parts of the mainstream as well as Newaukum, Crisp, Burns and Big Soos Creeks upstream from Auburn and also in Springbrook, Garrison and Mill Creeks near Kent. Juveniles rear in all waters used by adults. Chum Salmon migrate throughout the Green River drainage. Adults favor the channel split and the slower velocity sections between Newaukum Creek and Kent. Spawning occurs in the same tributaries as Coho. The mainstream Green and Lower Duwamish TABLE J FISH OF THE GREEN RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF THE SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK SITE Chinook Salmon Coho Salmon Chum Salmon Cutthroat Trout Steelhead Trout Dolly Varden Trout Prickly Sculpin Threespine Stickleback Longnose Dace Speckled Dace Mountain Whitefish Starry Flounder (juveniles) Rainbow Trout Eastern, Brook Trout Brown Bullhead Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus keta Salmo clarki Salmo gairdneri Salvelinus malma Cottus asper Gasterosteus aculeatus Rhinichtays cataractae Rhinichthys oculus Prosopium williamsoni Prosopium stellatus Salmo gairdneri Salvelinus fontinalis Ictalurus nebulosus Rivers, and the marine environment of Elliott Bay, are essential rearing areas. Summer Steelhead, Winter Steelhead, and Sea -run Cutthroat Trout spawn in large quantities below the Tacoma Water Diversion Dam, especially in the Big Soos and Newaukum Creeks. They also spawn in Springbrook, Garrison, and Mill Creeks, though the quality of spawning habitat in these streams is quite low. The Green River supports significant populations of Rainbow Trout, and Cutthroat Trout are common in many tributaries to the Green River. Eastern Brook Trout have been introduced into most tributary streams and some lakes and ponds within the Green River watershed. Resident as well as Sea -run Dolly Varden Trout are found in the upper section of the mainstream. In addition to trout, Mountain Whitefish are quite abundant throughout the Green River. f. Atmospheric Conditions 1) Weather and Climate The average rainfall for the vicinity of the subject site is 36 inches. Yearly extremes are 24 and 55 inches. On a long- term average there are 151 days per year with over 0.01 inches of precipitation; 93 days with more than 0.1 inch; 18 days in excess of 0.5 inch; and 4 days with over 1.0 inches a day. Average yearly snowfall is 8 inches. Generally, temperatures vary from an all time high of 100 0F in August to a record low of 3 °F in January. Monthly temperature ranges and frost probability are summar- ized in Tables K and L. The percent frequency of occurrence of hour average surface winds for the project site is given in Figure 8 in the form of a wind rose. TABLE K Temperature Ranges in Andover Park Area (Boeing Field /Renton Airport) , Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual Mean 31 42 45 51 57 62 67 66. 60 53 44 40 52 (+ extremes) +7 + 8 +9 +10 +11 +11 +11 +11 +11 +9 +8 +7 +10 Highest 69 70 76 85 90 99 99 100 92 82 69 67 100 Lowest 3 4 16 30 30 37 44 43 33 24 8 11 3 (Extremes represent the average maximum and average minimum) TABLE L Probability of a freezing temperature after the given date (spring) and before the given date (fall) is shown below (Figure 5). Temp. Probability - Spring Probability - Fall ( °F) 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 10% 25% 500 75% 90% Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. May Oct. Oct. Nov. Nov. Nov. 15 27 9 23 4 10 21 2 15 25 32 28 24 Feb. .Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. Oct. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. 5 23 9 23 4 26 5 17 2 16 Jan. Feb. Feb. Mar. Nov. Dec. 18 9 25 9 20 5 TOTAL OBSERVATIONS- 8536 FIGURE 8 (Source: Puget Sound i D. 11 r,,.,1-. -„� 1.1- 4.0- 7.0- 11.0- 17.0- OVER 3.9 6.9 10.9 16.9 21.9 21.9 KNOTS 1 1 1 1 F 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 PERCENT Air Quality Air quality is measured at 3 air quality sampling stations within close proximity to the project site. These stations are maintained by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and are located at 227 Andover Park East, in Tukwila (K50) 200 Mill Avenue in Renton (K54), and at McMicken Heights on South 176th and 42nd Avenue S in Tukwila, (T1.) The sampling station at McMicken Heights has been in operation since April 20, 1972. Although the McMicken air quality sampling station samples the most complete spectrum of air quality parameters, the data does not go very far back in time. The data for these stations indicate that in general, suspended particlates have been increasing in the vicinity of the project site in the last few years. Suspended particlates have been measured at K54 since 1970. In that year suspended particulates at sampling station K54 were recorded at 61 micrograms per cubic meter (ugm /m3) and subsequently dropped to 43 ugm /m3 in 1971 and have gradually increased from that low point: 1970 1971 1972 1973 (First 6 months) 61 ugm /m3 43 44 48 (Annual geometric mean) The Tl sampling station recorded 37.0 ugm /m3 annual geometric mean for the first 6 months of 1973. The values from this sampling station are generally lower because of its location on the hill. By way of comparison, clean country air is 40 ugm /m3 and 80 ugm /m3 is typical of city air. The Seattle area average is 52.7 ugm /m3. The ambient air quality standards as established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 are: 75ugm /m3' annual geometric mean never to be exceeded and 260 ugm /m3 24-hour average not to be exceeded more than once per year. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has adopted ambient air quality standards for suspended .particulates that are more stringent than the above national standards: 60 ugm /m3 annual geometric mean never to be exceeded and 150 ugm /m3 24 -hour average not to be exceeded more than once per year. The 1972 annual average for sulfur dioxide concentrations at the K50 sampling station was 0.004 ppm, and averaged 0.005 ppm during the first 6 months of 1973. Since the Tl sampling station is relatively new, there is no computed annual average of sulfur dioxides for 1972; however, sulfur dioxides averaged 0.007 during the first 6 months of 1973. The national ambient . air quality standard for sulfur dioxide is 0.03 ppm annual average, never to be exceeded, and the Puget Sound air quality standards are 0.02 ppm annual average never to be exceeded. In summation, the sulfur dioxide concentrations, as measured in the vicinity of the project site, are well below both the Federal and local air quality standards. There are no gross point stationary sources of air pollution in the immediate vicinity. The major source in the immediate area is probably from auto traffic on Interstate Highways 5 and 405, the Valley freeway, and local traffic, especially in the Southcenter and Longacres parking areas. The major source for the general area is the South Seattle industrial area. Air pollution from this source would be significant when the wind was from the northwest quadrant, which occurs 17% of the time (See Figure 8). With the wind from the south and south- west, the Tacoma industrial air pollution is measurable. g. Ambient Noise Levels Ambient levels were determined by on site measurement of the existing levels at the site. Measurements were made in the afternoon of Tuesday, August 7, 1973, at a point near the southwest corner of the site. The observation point was on the levee. Measurements were made with a Bruel & Kjaer Model 2204 precision sound level meter fitted with a Bruel and Kjaer Model 1613 octave band set. Measurements were made at a height of 1 -1/2 meters from the ground. A wind screen was fitted to reduce interference from the slight breeze that was blowing. The sound level meter was calibrated with a Bruel & Kjaer Model 4230 portable calibrator. The site chosen was representative of the entire site and was chosen because it was located some distance from the two major roads in the area, South 180th and West Valley Road. This made it easier to obtain the ambient levels, which are determined by the lowest level that the meter indicates repeatedly during a short observation period. A noise histogram of this data is presented in Table M and the same data are tabulated below. The corresponding A weighted and C weighted sound pressure levels were 50 dB(A) and 62 dB(C), respectively. The column labeled "Corrected Level" is used in additional computations and can be ignored here. TABLE M AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPOSED SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL AREA. OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (HERTZ) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 3o 4o 50 60 BAND CENTER FREQUENCY BAND C.F. BAND LEVEL CORRECTED LEVEL 63 59 33 125 52 36 250 52 43 500 48 45 1000 45 45 2000 37 38 4000 30 31 8000 23 22 B. Existing Conditions (Cont'd.) 2. Human Use, Development and Values 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. a. 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 b. 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 c. Industrial 1) Mining 2 2) Construction 2 3) Manufacturing a. Southcenter 7 b. Other than Southcenter 24 d. 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 e. Recreational 1) Minor Parks (Less than 5 Acres) a. Picnic Tables b. 2 Tennis Courts 2) Golf Courses 1 3) Tukwila Community Club 4) Race Tracks (Longacres) 5) Numerous Fishing Sites Along the River f. Transportation 9. 1) Railroads (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 3) Sr. High 1 1 h. Religion 1) Churches 10 ■ Tukwila has grown to become a major 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 $68,000,000 in 1971 to $89,641,130 in 1972. By official estimation, the City has become a "S90 Million Dollar Corporation" and by 1975 the assessed valuation will increase to $120,000,000. The latest 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. Typically, a city with a population the size of Tukwila would probably support a few policemen, a volunteer fire department, and a part -time mayor. Tukwila supports a police force of 26, a fire fighting force of 16, and a full -time mayor. Other branches of the city administration are also very extensive, commensurate with the necessity to provide services for the large scale urban activities occurring within the city limits. A consideration of existing social conditions must take into account the larger area to be affected by the proposed development. A large number of persons from outside of the city limits will utilize the facility as well as the supporting city services. The Green River Valley and the Duwamish Industrial Area, in the vicinity of the project site, along with the Seattle central business district and the City of Bellevue represent King County's largest employment centers. Total employment was estimated to be 499,100 in 1970, and increasing to 641,300 by 1990 (280 change) as per Puget Sound Governmental Conference Survey. Employment forecasts show significant new growth in the Green River Valley and the Duwamish Industrial Area,and continuing growth in the central business districts. One of the analysis districts studies by. Puget Sound Governmental Conference encompasses the lower Green River Valley around the subject site. Employment within this Small Urban Park (Acres) district was estimated at 20,800 in 1970 and increasing to 36,100 in 1990. One of the consequences of the recent trends in urban growth in Tukwila is a -growing deficit in small urban parks. The PSGC has surveyed open space requirements for King County. It was noted that parks and open spaces are used by persons who live in reasonable proximity to them without regard to political boundaries. Small urban parks needs are based on a rough standard of 1.25 acres small urban park space per 100 people. The Tukwila community area, studied by PSGC extends beyond the geographical limits of the City to include persons in adjacent areas, both incorporated and unicor- porated. Thus, the following projection of Tukwila's growing small urban park deficiency is based on the distribution of the present and future population of the .community. TUKWILA COMMUNITY AREA 1970 1980 1990 Existing Need Deficiency 6.11 27.29 21.18 Population 24,980 Need Deficiency 34.17 28.06 27,340 Need Deficiency 39.46 33.35 31,570 As previously noted, Tukwila has undertaken efforts to institute a system of mini -parks and trails along the Green River as part of implementing the Shoreline Management Act. If successful, this effort could serve to counteract the growing deficit in small urban park spaces. Elsewhere in Tukwila are a privately maintained golf course and a racetrack. Also, a fifty acre site is scheduled for development jointly by King County and the City of Seattle as a regional recreational center. C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A consideration of impacts must address all possible positive and negative changes in the existing environment that will follow 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. Environmental impact is not limited to changes in the bio- physical environment, 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. 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 the Natural Characteristics a. Topography and Geology The Green River Valley had undergone some minor alteration during previous farming activities and levee construction, but for the most part, it retained the basic characteristics of a mature flood plain up to the recent period of industrialization. Development of the project site as an industrial area will require initiating a program of earthwork. The surface elevation of the project site will be established by altering the existing topo- graphical variation created by the Green River. Regrading of site will primarily be accomplished by balancing cuts and fills. The organic material from the surface and larger roots will be disposed of in this process. Earth from outside of the project site, as well as soils from the higher areas within the site will be placed in some areas of the site to a depth of 2 -3 feet. Due to the fine grained nature of the existing upper soils on the project site, there will be required close control of moisture content in order to achieve proper compaction. The spreading and drying process will provide a potential source of dust if these fills are deposited during the summer months. After the materials have been left in place for an adequate period of time and settling has occurred, the individual sites will be regraded according to the requirements of the specific building proposed. b. Impact on Surface Drainage Upon completion of the grading program, surface drainage will no longer flow to the southeast of the project site. Drainage from the individual lots within the site will drain towards the streets and be collected in a retention pond in the southwest corner of the project site. High peaks in runoff coefficients will be reduced and water will drain into the Green River through a flap gate or be pumped during times of high water. Ultimately,drainage will be directed to the P -5 pipe system proposed by the Soil Conservation Service. Ultimate development of the project site will markedly increase surface water runoff coefficients and divert more water into the Green River due to the increased quantities of paved surfaces. Also, the ground water presently occurring on the project site due to the existing artesian spring will be diverted to the storm drainage system. Removal of the cottonwood and willow stands will also have an impact in terms of drainage of the project site. At present, these trees are a major factor in the drainage of the project site, in that they are capable of evapotranspiration of large quantities of water. c. Impacts on Biology The impact of development on the existing biological conditions will be significant. The major impact on the existing biological conditions occurred years ago when the project site was first cleared for farming purposes. However, due to the high produc- tivity of the soil, native vegetation has rapidly re- established on the site. For example, cottonwoods are growing at a rate of 5 feet per year. Also, due to the natural plant successional stages which have occurred in the years that the farm has been uncultivated, a significant wildlife habitat has been re- established. The existing project site conditions provide habitats for a large number of diverse mammal, bird, amphibian and reptilian species. While the green areas and landscaped features of the developed project site will provide alternative habitats for some of these species, many others will be faced with no suitable alternative habitats. The filling of existing wetlands and the clearing of the existing vegetation will also have an impact on existing non-resident species such as migratory waterfowl. This impact is not quantifiable without involved studies of migratory bird resting places. In any event, migratory species will not be affected to the same extent that the resident species will be affected. Populations of other terrestial wildlife found within the project site will decline significantly, or completely vanish. d. Impact on Atmospheric Conditions The concentration of suspended particles can be expected to tempor- arily increase markedly during the land filling and construction phase of the proposed action. Increased traffic flow will increase the concentrations of all common air pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen. The air quality impact that will occur as a result of use of the project site for industrial purposes is unknown at this time. e. Noise Impacts In predicting levels for construction and operation of the project site, it was necessary to estimate the types of noise sources that might be expected on the fully developed site. During the construction phase, this can be estimated with some confidence, based on past calculations for similar construction work. Little information is presently available regarding the operations phase. In considering noise levels that will result from development . of the project site, the construction noise levels and noise levels at the project site upon ultimate development are considered separately. i. Construction The make -up of the machinery used during construction will vary as the development proceeds. The earth working phase is usually one of the noisier phases, and so this phase was chosen for study. It is estimated that approximately 82,000 cubic yards of material wil have to be moved on the site, spread, leveled, and compacted. During this operation, trucks will probably converge on the site in large numbers. In order to estimate the number of trucks to be used, it was assumed that each truck can haul 10 cubic yards of fill, requiring 8,2.00 truck loads. If the earthwork is spread over 3 -1/2 months (normal shifts) then there would be approximately one truck unloaded every 5 minutes. It is assumed that as many as five trucks would be on the site at a time. In addition to the trucks, dozers, graders, compactors, and other equipment would be used. The mixture chosen is a some- what arbitrary choice. For the purposes of this study, the following consist was chosen: ITEM NUMBER OPERATING Dump Trucks 5 Dozers 4 Large engine powered machines 2 Small engine powered machines 2 Using these figures and information on the spectral characteristics of the machines, values for the total sound power at the site are obtained. These values are shown in the histogram in Figure 2. These data can then be converted to A- weighted sound pressure levels at any desired distance from the site. In this analysis, it is assumed that the sources are concentrated at the center of the site. This is a valid assumption for distances far from the site. These data are tabulated below, along with data for the operational phase. Attenuation due to atmospheric absorption is neglected. A- weighted noise levels around the proposed Southcenter South Industrial Park site: Distance from Site Center Phase 1000 ft 2000 ft 3000 ft 1 mile Construction 73 67 64 59 Operation 68 62 69 54 ii. Operations noise upon full development of the project site. When the project site is fully developed, the principle sources of noise on the site will occur as a result of truck and rail traffic. The values assumed for these such traffic will probably run on the order of 5 rail car deliveries per week and as many as 200 truck movements. Using these figures, it was assumed that at any given time there might be one locamotive and five trucks working on the site. The resulting spectral histogram is given in Figure 9 and the data are reduced as in the case of the construction noise. FIGURE 9 SITE SOUND POWER LEVEL HISTOGRAM DURING CONSTRUCTION 150 I 140 I 130 I 120 I 110 I ** ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * * ** ** *;: * * ** * * ** **** * * ** * *** * *** ! * * *** **** ** ** **** **** **** * * ** * *** **** ** ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** ** ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** :: * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * *** * * *': ** ** * * ** * * ** * *** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** ** ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** :: * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** ** ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 Octave Band Center Frequencies (Hertz) f. Social Impact The proposed development represents a continuation of the existing trend of rapid urbanization which is occurring within the corporate limits of the City of Tukwila. The assessed value of the City will increase and the area will continue to grow as a regional employment and industrial center. Along with the trend of rapid urbanization, the City will continue to experience a growing deficit in small urban park spaces and scenic vistas along the Green River will continue to disappear. Depending upon the success of the City's Master Program for River Development under the Shoreline Management Act, the institution of a system of mini -parks and trails may preserve some of the aesthetic qualities of the Green River. It should be noted, however, that the proposed uses of the project site, under the M -2 zoning classification (Heavy Industry), represents a partial departure from the type of industrial development that has occurred to date in Tukwila under the C-M zoning classification (Industrial Park). The proposed development will fulfill a need for rail serviced industrial parks. D. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATING MEASURES The following is a discussion of adverse effects and possible mitigating measures relating directly to an expanded discussion of the above described environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action. 1. Geological and Soils Effects Levee building at South Center South Industrial Park could cause silt runoff into the Green River. However, this could be prevented by care- ful construction of a compacted levee capable of resisting erosion by the river and storm water wash. Moderate to substantial floor slab settlements will be prevented by surcharging for all buildings with 300 pounds per square foot design loads of excess fill. Surcharging with a three foot thickness of excess fill for a period of two months should .reduce post - construction slab settlement to approximately one inch. For buildings with an expected floor load of 125 pounds per square foot, surcharging with 1 1/2 feet of excess fill for a period of two months should also reduce slab settle- ment to one inch or less. The earthwork operation for surcharging often creates dust and frequently adversely impacts surface water quality through sheet erosion. The filling program will have an unavoidable adverse effect on the quality of the soil in most portions of the site. The addition of fill material will reduce the productive capacity of the soils. 2. Effect on Surface Drainage The development of the drainage scheme for the project site will have an impact on surface drainage and water quality as discussed previously. Several measures are available to mitigate potential adverse effects on water quality. Water quality will be influenced by pollutants in storm runoff from the developed areas, which can have some influence on the river system. Hydrocarbons from paved surfaces will enter the drainage system as well as other substances from the completely developed project site, which are unknown at this time. It is advisable, therefore, that skimmers, or separators or other pollutant control facilities be designed for the retention pond as well as for the P -5 drainage canal to be constructed at a later date. In addition, accelerated surface runoff markedly increases the temperature of the receiving body. As noted above, the Green River is near thermal capacity, so the discharge from the retention pond should be considered a pollutant if it increases the river temperature. Relative discharge to river volumes make this adverse effect unlikely. Within active construction sites, there will be adverse effect on water quality from siltation which originates from the washing of exposed earth- work areas. This effect will be minimized by adherence to sound engineer- ing and hydraulic principles. 3. Biological Effects The above noted displacement of terrestrial, botanical and wildlife species will be an unavoidable adverse environmental effect. Existing habitats will be cleared and filled. Migratory birds which may pause in the remaining ecologically least-disturbed parts of the project area will be diminished in number. Mammals observed to exist in the area, as well as the many birds, amphibians and reptiles are not likely to be displaced to other locations due to the unavailability of suitable habitats. These organisms will be reduced in number, as they will not be able to exist in very high densities in the least disturbed portions of the project site. The plantings in the vicinity of the retention pond in the southwest corner of the site, as well as areas retained as green space could be inter- preted as somewhat mitigating the removal of existing vegetation. However, the total biomass of these plantings is small, compared to the total biomass of the existing vegetation of the site. There is no known tech- nique for retaining wildlife in an intensively developed area. The Soil Conservation Service suggests, however, that some songbirds will use ornamental plantings for nesting areas and food. 4. Atmospheric Effects Some increases in noise and air pollution will be unavoidable effects on the commercial /industrial expansion within the project site. Due to the location of the project site in relationship to existing. freeway systems and major arterials, the development of the project site will probably not add to any highly localized sources of vehicular contaminants. It is not possible to predict the exact nature of the air quality effect, as it is not known how intensive, or for what industrial purposes the project site will be used until future tenants are. identified. 5. Noise Effects The effects of project site noise on the adjacent areas will not be problematical at the present time. There are no close residences or other sensitive receptors of noise that will be generated on the project site. However, as the general vicinity develops and if noise control becomes necessary, mitigating measures could be implemented. For example, as a condition to the sale of lots within the project site, protective covenants could be implemented to limit noise generated by engine - powered equipment to 84 dB(A) as measured 50 feet from the source. E. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. Alternative Projects or Programs Alternatives to the proposed action would have to begin with alternatives to Tukwila City Policies which the proposed action serves to implement. City policy decisions dealing with the project area have, for some time, favored commercial /industrial development over other land uses including former agricultural uses. City policy makers and the citizens they represent, have valued the benefits of a higher tax base and increased employment opportunities above other considerations relating to the subject area. Alternatives to the proposed action, therefore, must begin with alterna- tives to adopted policies at the local and regional level These alternatives could conceivably be three in number. ... Do not approve further land development within the subject area (the traditional "do- nothing" alternative). ... Revert the undeveloped and partially filled portions of the subject area to agricultural use. ... Direct the undeveloped portions into other than commercial /industrial uses. a. 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. Loss of the subject area as an available commercial /industrial land resource would very possibly shift the burden of demand for this resource to another part of the region which may be governed by lower development standards, and /or which may not serve this land use as efficiently in terms of access to transportation, etc. and /or which may result in even greater environmental impact than will result from the proposed action. A "do- nothing" alternative would result in a net increase in the biomass of the project site as the vegetation of the vacated farm- land continues in successional stages to an increasingly denser plant cover. Existing wildlife habitats would be expanded in the process. Storm runoff would be reduced by an increased capacity for infiltration, absorption and evapotranspiration as the plant mass continues to increase; paved surfaces resulting from the proposed action would not occur. Water quality would remain as it is or improve, depending upon the amount of offsite water which is absorbed by the undeveloped land, rather than allowed to enter the river. Air quality would be improved by the respiratory processes of the increased plant mass. Physical site characteristics would remain the same. b. Reverting the land back to agricultural uses is technically feasible, however, such a land use may prove to be economically unfeasible in the long run. Areas adjacent to the project site are likely to continue to be developed for commercial and industrial purposes. A farm in such a setting may experience the consequences of land use conflicts. High tax assessments on land of this value in a commercial/ industrial setting may not be sufficiently offset by return from farm products. Accomplishments of this alternative would be the preservation of agricultural use on soils suitable for this activity. This land use is currently being zoned and assessed out of existence in the Green River Valley. If preservation of agricultural use in the Green River Valley evolves as,a true regional policy, it could be more feasibly accomplished in other areas not already committed to a trend of commercial and industrial development. Reverting the land to agricultural uses would have many of the same impacts to the project site as would the proposed development. Exist- ing vegetation and associated wildlife habitats would have to be removed. If an agricultural alternative were pursued, some wildlife habitats would be associated with the cultivated lands. c. The third alternative of directing the remaining undeveloped or partially developed portions of the subject area to other than commercial /industrial uses is perhaps the most feasible of the three alternatives discussed. It remains contrary, however, to established market trends and would require a shift in political and economic policies to stimulate such a change. Some of the other land uses that could occur are residential sub- divisions, parks and recreation facilities, and institutional uses such as hospitals, government centers, schools, housing, etc. As with agriculture, residential uses would have to be subsidized in some manner because the high costs of land development in the subject area precludes a favorable economic return on any but the most intensive uses. The demand for parks and institutional uses is such that it can be as easily met at other, less costly sites. An example is King County's recent purchase of a forty-nine acre park site, one half mile north of the subject area. The site is undeveloped farm land purchased for $15,000 to $20,000 per acre. Partially developed land, within the subject area, which is served by established arterials and utilities systems would cost proportionately more. Accomplishments of the alternative would be to shift from the commercial /industrial uses at this location which has served as a precedent for the entire Green River Valley, to other forms of development. Though these uses would possibly be less intensive in nature, they would still require land development measures similar to those resulting from the proposed action. The environmental impacts of this alternative, again would be similar to those which will occur as a result of the proposed development for the project site. 2. Alternatives Within the Proposed Development a. Project Layout Since the proposed action will result in the development of the project site according to the needs of future tenants, any alternative within the proposed development plan must be considered primarily in terms of its economic viability. Secondarily, the internal layout of the development must be related to traffic flow on West Valley Highway. This arterial makes a sharp turn around the northeast bend of the project site, and any proposed entrances must take this traffic safety factor into consideration. Given the above limitations, several schemes for road and track layouts within the project site were considered. One previously, considered alternative involved looping the proposed cul-de -sac back to the main entrance boulevard, and extending the proposed rail tracks. This scheme was rejected in favor of the present plan in order to preserve a green park -like area to the north of the project site. Alternative railroad track layout schemes are limited, in that needs of future clients can be most readily met by rail service to the rear of the lots and road service to the front. b. Green Space An alternative within the layout scheme could be considered such that some of the more significant trees on the project site could be pre- served (Note the location of Black Cottonwood stand in the mid - successional plant community north of the old east -west farm road in Figure 5.). Due to the high productivity of the project site soils, these trees are growing at a rate of 5 feet per year. A typical ten year old cotton- wood sapling transpires one ton of water on a typical summer day. If an alternative to the project site plans could be devised to preserve some of the cottonwood stands, these trees could materially aid in the drainage problems associated with the present site. Furthermore, preservation of these trees would accomplish an enhancement to the trend of industrial development in the area. Employees of future industrial tenants would have an interesting green area for various breaks and so forth. F. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY Short -term uses for the subject area will constitute a transition time only in which all of the land within the subject area will be converted to commercial, industrial and business uses. Potentials for long -term productivity of involved, nonrenewable resources largely involve the land area itself. Development resulting from the proposed action will preclude the land being used for agricultural purposes, except if market conditions determine that the need for land for commercial /industrial uses 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. Future economic productivity will largely depend on the industrial growth trends in the central Puget Sound Region. Industry will continue to be largely distributive and service oriented rather than manufacturing in nature. G. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. Commitments The proposed action will result in the commitment of the subject area to commercial and industrial land uses, which, in turn, will commit financial 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. 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 7.38o 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 8 TURBID 30 3.630 2.448 14.000 1.300 3.300 12.700. 9 KJ NIT 27 0.447 0.374 2.200 _ 0.180 0.350 2.020 10 NHO 30 0.075 0.103 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 PO4 30 0.149 0.056 0.390 0.090 0.130 0.300 Table 1 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 2 - -' - 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 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 5 Variable No. Variable Number 15 ORTHO P 29 16 COPPER 29 17 LEAD 2 18 ZINC' 29 19 MERCURY 2 20 T COLIF 28 21 FECAL CO 26 22. CHLORO A 30 STATION 5 KENT 212st BRIDGE Standard Average Deviation Maximum Minimum Median Range 0.105 0.044 0.240 0.060 0.090 0.180 0.028 0.035 0.190 0.010 0.020 0.180 0.100 -0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.010 0.009 0.045 0.001 0.008 0.044 0.200 0.000 - 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 39145.105 88073.750 4.45000.000 250.000 3500.000 444750.000 659.039 1357.757 5500.000 24.000 187.000 5476.000 5.095 3.317 11.900 1.070 3.965 10.830 TABLE 4 - - .- _ - - `- - - - - Cell Counts Per Milliliter eco e5 Figure . Renton Junction Station Algal cell courts. (No observations: 8/8/72 - 8/10/72) - -0 -- Centralcs - -t -- Coccoid Pluc -Green — 0 --Filamentous Blue -Green — d — Pennales 7/26 7/27 7/28 7/29 7/30 .7/31 8/1 8/2 I : -;l 8/3. 8/4 8/5 8/6 8/7 • 8/8 8/9 8/10 8/11 8/12 Study Dates - 1972 F IGU1RE '1 8/13 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/17 8/18 _ 8/19 8/20 8/21 8;22 Cell Counts Per P".111111ter 1 6_: 5- - "777:77- -7 1 1 - ; . 1 . : "t 2-- Ts\ — I ... I ' " . ....-.: --- - - - ' 7"-- ' ' ' Figure : Kent 212th St. Bridge System 7_._.! , ' Algal Cell Counts. (No obser - 1 vations: 8/10/73). .,,,.•.'. ,, -_.=-1. - -- 4__ .... .. il" . -A Coccoid Blue-Green ... I. - . . % i .().- Centrales ; . . : ..-.... , —0 —Filamentous Blue-Green \ . : it - 7--V a — Pennales i : \ :- / ---..- i ... .1.7.•,•-i t :I.,: . , ■ ■ 1 ,,- : •-: : ■ . ' , 1 . : . , - - 1'11 •-• . _ • ..'-... _ . -:. 1• ..... :-1---- - _ ft • I : • 1 ' 1 . 77 r.' 1 _: _ , 1 : i -, I 4. 10 1 , / . . _1 _ _ ,__ . Study Dates - 1972 r % - - - L 1-- "----: - i - : • I . 7 .. : : . • 'i . . . / 1 • , . . - - . . ... •- / --.----:J--- ":-' --- 1-: - -t --i---i-4---47--. --1-,]. , • 1 ,a 21 r - • • 5__0..... . _ .. . . . 1 rr . — - - , - : • • I , ' . •! r N 0- - ` - ." • ` - - - - - r -: / ; I ::- -i - . -‘, 7--7E- - • -..I .• , ; --. -1-t---: -----1---4-.-•-.-16 --4--!-----j7,--7-•-,----- 4-- --4-,,-i---;-: -.4- --', -4- -.-1.-:-----4.-:F.-.- r---i---- --L..-Ls-:- ,- -1. -•- -.--e.-. 4- t • 1 _:. ./..'1...::.i . 1. ! , : • /. ...: :.! .. % ' '• ... ..:.._.::: : .‘ • :..:- 2 : :__::::. :P._ _i ... 2 .:k _ ..1.. ._..:.'i-.E. ......1.: ....J..._..i...:7 .: : .... .• .. ; ... . : /.... I - ' ' . . 6 --- .. ; . ‘• ' • • • t. .. / ...... • .: : ..• ...: . : • , I . • • . • • , :pf • , , •__ ... • : 1.7 : - ,./ -- .:-..- --::- .-17'.: - ::.17, -::!::-...:.',.-.: • /.::::::..-. . . .. . '. .-..*.-:._trt:_1,.1 : .-,.....'..i\‘. :.: : .-.: - .; : - [ ... • / : . _ . ,....;. :. ..:.1...-.F.--tr-: :.:..-1--;_ _-17 j---. t.-,- -!':1 .-; .-, . -. :7.:„ :-.1 ;:' :-r.--,.r -1-;:f-i- -::!..1.-- rti ! : 1-T---i-t-i■-::.1g1 .1.--.:1 : ::::::.1.' ' . :: -...1. - " II • 1Li --,:,.-1-1.7 IT' t, 8/1 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 8/19 .8/20 8/21 8/22 . 1 : •. : __,' : . , ,3,. _H- :. 7126 7/27 7/28 7/29 7/30 7/31 8/1 8/2 8/3 FIGURE 2 Frank Todd, Mayor C 1 TY o F TU KW LA 14475 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 5 November 1973 McCann Development Corporation ATTN: Mr. Harold Blean 8013 Perimeter Road South Seattle, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Blean: PLANNING - DEPARTMENT ,p�� .� 61, IR gg�� �,s► rrzs , :-4 ;Uitf 1913 Ate pie$ The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Southcenter South Industrial Park .has been circulated to the applicable_ agencies and-the .bulk of their comments'have been received. Copies of those comments are enclosed for your perusal and guidance in revising-the Draft Statement to establish 'a Final Statement. Attention should be focused on those comments suggesting additional discussion of specific matters. The inclusion of those discussions should be adequate to satisfy the respective agency's concern and thus satisfy the require- ment for a complete Final Statement in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any questions or desire any assistance. in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 242-2177. Sincerely, / e Crutchfie Planing Techn 1 clan Encl: 1. Ltr, Corps of Engrs, dtd 30 Oct 73 2.. Ltr, Dept of Fisheries, dtd 26 Oct 73 3. Ltr, PSAPCA, dtd 29 Oct 73 4. Ltr, Fed Hwy Admin, dtd 25 Oct 73 5. Ltr, Dept of Soc & Health Svcs, dtd 31 Oct 73 6. Ltr, EPA, dtd 23 Oct 73 7. Ltr, Pks & •Rec Comm, dtd 1 Oct '73 cc: Mayor Todd NPSEN -PL -ER • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1519 ALASKAN WAY SOUTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 Mr. Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: g0 OCT 1973 We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Southcenter South Industrial Park in Tukwila, Washington. We do not identify any Corps of Engineers' concerns in the area which, would influence this proposal. In general the EIS appears to cover most impacts that such a facility would have on the environment. Our review indicates that the EIS. should more specifically address the issue of water quality. We hope the following suggestions will be useful in preparing the final statement: a. Existing Conditions. Section 3, Water Quality: (1) Suggest map showing water sampling stations be revised to indicate station 3077 referred to in Tables A, B and C. (2) Paragraph 2 indicates water quality data was obtained from sampling stations "during three representative months of 1972 (Tables A, B, C)." Suggest EIS explain basis for selecting these months, and consider additional months when aquatic organisms experience most stress from varying water quality conditions (i.e. highest water temperatures, lowest dissolved oxygen, and highest concentrations of silt). (3) Suggest EIS be revised to include more specific water quality data in Appendix A for summer month of 1972. Statement should indicate specific month samples were taken at the listed stations, and the rationale behind selection of that month and time for water sample collection. • NPSEN -PL -ER Mr. Delbert F. Moss (4) Paragraph 3 indicates that maximum water temperature of 20 degrees C., is reached in stretch of river adjacent to proposed project site. The EIS should state the time and duration of this upper temperature limit. b. Environmental. Impact of the Proposed Action. Suggest EIS discuss impacts of construction and operation of proposed facility on Green River biota and water quality including runoff and discharge from retention pool as required by_ Code of. Federal Regulations in Title 40, Chapter V, Part 1500.8(3)(i, ii), Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines. c. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects and Possible Mitigating Measures. (1) Suggest first paragraph include: (a) Impact of silt on Green River water quality and aquatic life. (b) Statement on drainage scheme for project site specifying its effect on surface drainage and water. quality. EIS does not address itself to basic question: How will this drainage system stress or increase stress on aquatic life? (2) Second paragraph should include discussion of storm water runoff pollutants and their effect on aquatic life. (3) Sixth paragraph should discuss question of mitigation on problem of siltation resulting from project. How will this problem effect aquatic life i n Green River? Sincerely yours R. P. SELLEVOLD CHIEF, PLANNING BRANCH 2 RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS a. Existing Conditions. Section 3, Water Quality: (1) Originally the water quality monitoring stations were assigned a 3 digit number. As additional stations were added, a 4 digit number was assigned. Station 3077 is the sampling station monitor- ing the discharge from the Ranier Vista Treatment. Plant pipeline just at the head of the estuary. (2) It is beyond the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement to (3) analyze all of the voluminous data available relating to water quality in the Green River, or to perform every conceivable study. Rather, the purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement is to alert officials and planners to probable impacts. Accordingly, the water quality data selected for inclusion in the Environment Impact Statement was intended to give both a broad perspective of conditions in the river as well as additional more detailed inform- ation for the summer of 1972 when the river undergoes the greatest . biological, physical and chemical stress. The data is a summary of data gathered by WRMS (Water Resource Management. Study) from mid July through mid - September. Additional information concerning the Green River will be available when METRO completes the most recent six month report. The identification of water quality problems experienced by the Green River is 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 phytoplankton blooms, caused in part by nutrients brough in by the Green River, and from low dissolved oxygen which is consumed by the algae and benthos. (4) Temperature is recorded by a continuous monitoring system. Additional information may be retrieved from data banks maintained by METRO, 410 West Harrison Street. b. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action The development resulting from the proposed action requires an Environmental Impact Statement prepared according to the State Environmental Quality'Act, (R.C.W. 43.21C), and accordingly the Code of Federal Regulations in Title. 40, Chapter V, Part 1500.8(3) (i,ii) do not apply. However, the following information below may be helpful in determining the content of surface runoff. WASTE LOADINGS PER ACRE RIBCO STREAMS - REVISED AUGUST 1973 Impervious Area Biological Oxygen Demand Imp' lb /ac /day Per2 lb /ac /day Sub3 mg /1 Conductivity Mhos Imp1 mhos /ac /day Per mhos /ac /day Sub3 mhos /cm3 Existing Developed Site Conditions Site Conditions 5% 95% .018 .39 .018 .39 0.5 2.5 1.4 11.0 1.4 11.0 100 500 Total Coliform Organisms. Imp' 104 /ac /day 1000 Per2 104 /ac /day 1000 Sub3 na/100m1 100 10,000 10,000 500 Fecal Organisms Imp1 106 /ac /day 10 170 Per2 106 /ac /day 10 170 Sub3 na /100m1 50 100 Organic Nitrogen Imp' lb /ac /day Per2 lb /ac /day Sub3 mg /1 .003 .0068 .003 .0068 .Ol .01 NH3 Imp1 lb /ac /day .0026 0.2 Per2 lb /ac /day .0026 0.2 Sub3 mg /1 .005 0.1 NO 3 Imp lb /ac /day Per2 lb /ac /day Sub3 mg /1 .0014 .0025 .0015 .06 .15 .4 Poo (Continued) WASTE LOADINGS PER ACRE RIBCO STREAMS - REVISED AUGUST 1973 Existing Developed Site Conditions Site Conditions Imp1 lb /ac /day .002 .03 Pert lb /ac /day .003 .003 Sub3 mg /1 0.2 0.2 1 Impervious area rate accumulation 2 Pervious area rate accumulation 3 Subsurface area rate accumulation c. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects and Possible Mitigating Measures The information given above indicates the impact of the proposed project on runoff which will eventually have an impact on the river, however, it is beyond the scope of the present analysis to assess the effect of this input to the total river system. Aquatic life is affected by the Green River water quality problems, which are due to the continuing trend of development along the river. ANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • PHONE 753 -8600 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 October 260 1973 Planning Department City of Tukwila 6320 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98067 THOR C. TOLLEFSON DIRECTOR Gentlemen: Your letter of September 25, 1973 invites our comments on a draft Environ- mental Impact Statement on proposed development of the.Southcenter South Indus- trial Park. Following are our comments: 1. In the "Summary Sheet" under "Biological Impact ", we suggest that the following sentence be added: "Surface runoff and river -front develop - ments will affect fishery resources." • 2. Projects involving the Green River will require a Hydraulics Project Approval from the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Game (RCW 75.20.100). 3. We were pleased to note that Tukwila plans to institute a system of . mini -parks and trails along the Green River in implementing the Shore - line Management Act. A buffer strip of stream-bank vegetation will help to maintain water quality and enhance aquatic life as well as preserve some of the aesthetic qualities of the Green River, 4. The second paragraph under "Aquatic. Wildlife" should read: The Green River produces hundreds of thousands of resident and non - resident fish annually. Most of the chinook runs are produced from fry or finger - lings released from the Washington State Department of Fisheries' hatchery...... Much natural spawning of chinook and other species of salmon also occurs." 5. In Table J the scientific name for starry flounder should be listed as Platichthys steilatus. Since this error has occurred in other EIS's submitted by your department, I suggest that you check the original reference source. We appreciate the opportunity to comment upon your draft statement. Sincerely, Gilbert A. Holland Fisheries Research Coordinator RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES These comments are incorporated by reference. ISERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. Seattte, 98119 (206) 344 -7330 KITSAP COUNTY ;i0} a�1p J 410 West Harrison Street, Seattle, Washington 98119 (206) 344 -7330 October 29., 19.73 Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila. 6320 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98067 Subject: Southcenter South Industrial Park Pratt Environmental Impace Statement Dear Mr. Moss: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject statement prepared by Wilsey and Ham, Inc. In accordance with the policy of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency we have limited our comments below to air pollution aspects of the proposal. The discussion of air quality in the body of the report shows that some consideration has been given. to investi- gating existing ambient . levels of air pollutant concentra- tions. However, the primary purpose of the environmental impact statement is, as far as air pollutant levels are - concerned, to access the effect of the proposed change. The statement indicates that "it is not possible to predict the exact nature of the air quality effect, as it is not known how intensive, or for what industrial purposes the project site will be used until future tenants are. identified". Accordingly, we suggest that a new statement (or state- ments) be prepared as soon as prospective tenant's begin their development plans. These developers should be informed of this Agency's emission and ambient air quality standards and its broad powers under Regulation I, Article 1101. They should also be aware of complex source regu- 385 lation under State WAC 18 -24 and of the existence of the -EPA (Region X) parking management regulation. Development could be affected by any of these regulations. If you have any questions regarding these comments please let us know. ,•.; : r.. .ai (rntat Oleg. •.i , -, O: Nit IWi 1 :lit: ARD:JKA:br Yours truly, .• "�f\ & t` ;; t It uL () A. R. Lt:t;f iukoeh1Cr - Air Pollution CQAt.'Q1_- .. l- i.,K.c.i:_..,...,_- RESPONSE TO PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Due to the size of the proposed project, reviewed under either the complex source regulation (Washington Administrative Code 18 -24) or the EPA (Region X) Transportation Control Strategy, or both, will probably be necessary. The traffic analysis provided in response to the letter from the U.S. Department of Transportation will apply as well to the above mentioned reviews. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Room 412 Mohawk Building 222 S.W. Morrison Street Portland, Oregon 97204 October 25, 1973 .. Mr. Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 6320 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: IN REPLY REFER TO 10-00.33 We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the Southcenter South Industrial Park, as transmitted by your September 25, 1973 letter, and offer the following comments for your consideration._ in preparing the final statement. A key map showing at least the entire Seattle area would be helpful to those not intimately familiar with the project location. The impact of the proposal on adjacent highways should be discussed from the standpoint of safety and capacity as they may be affected by increased traffic from the industrial park and the addition of a rail - road grade crossing. We note that West Valley Highway is Federal -aid Secondary Route 231 and South 180th Street is Federal -aid Urban Route 3090. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this statement and presume that other interested highway agencies have been similarly consulted. Very truly yours, L. E. LYBECKER • ••Regiona Administrator By / HUGH 't. HENRY, Director Office of Environment and Design RESPONSE TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Assumptions Assumptions used in determining probable future traffic and attendant facilities needs are: 20 buildings 1,000,000 square feet giving an average building size of about 50,000 square feet devoted to manufacturing. Based on these,data was reviewed from the Maryland Study dealing with similar building sizes devoted to manufacturing. Traffic The number of trips generated by the site, developed to the above configuration, will be about 10,500 per day. With truck traffic comprising 26 percent of the total, and recognizing a vehicle occupancy faces of 1.31, vehicular traffic expected at the site is: cars 5950. trucks2750. total 8700. Employment at the site is expected to be about 3,450 and, if parking were to be provided not in accordance with zoning statutes but in accordance with "like" facilities, about 3,500 spaces would be built. Existing Facilities The only existing facility directly serving the site is the West Valley Road, S.R. 181. In 1970 . this road carried 9,700 vehicles per day. It now carries 12,700 vehicles per day. The construction of manufacturing facilities at the site with generated traffic as described above will increase traffic on the West Valley Road to about 19,650 (on the north leg of the intersection of the site access road), and about 14,440 on the south leg. With peak hour volumes of 766 access road 1730 West Valley Road severe capacity deficiencies exist. Indeed, even with a four lane highway serving the site, .congestion will be heavy during the peak hours. During the eight highest consecutive hours of the day, the following volumes at the site and on the heaviest leg of the West Valley. Highway are expected. Time % Site W. Valley 7 -8 4.8 418 944 8 -9 8.8 766 1730 9 -10 3.4 296 668 10 -11 2.2 192 432 11 -12 2.5 218 492 12 -1 3.5 304 688 1 -2 3.0 261 590 2 -3 3.0 261 590 With traffic at the industrial site in the order of 8,700 vehicles per day, vehicle operation on the site parking, unparking, and entering /leaving is expected to be 23,900 vehicle- minutes. Railroad Hazards With anticipated train arvice of one train per week, the railroad crossing hazard is so low that it is expressed in terms of years per accident, rather than the reverse. According to the Railroad Grade Crossing Protection Study in the Green River Valley, published by the Valley Regional Planning Commission, the site will be expected to produce about 0.0049 accidents per 10 years or, more realistically, one accident every 2,000 years. This low expectation is due to the infrequent nature of the service and the short length of the trains. Conclusion With the existing roadway serving the site, severe congestion can be expected on that roadway - -West Valley Highway. Further, with only one intersection serving the site, in effect only one access road, little likelihood exists for relieving the problem. With respect to railroad hazards - -none exists. DANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 1+475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: MONEY• E.: SMITH' SECRETARY HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION P. O. BOX 1788. OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 JOHN A. BEARE, M.D. ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY October 31, 1973 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK- We have reviewed the above referenced' statement and find that. the environmental health issues of concern to this agency have been dealt with adequately. • Very truly yours, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS CARL SAGERSER, R . Administrative Consultant CS :vim 00'741. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X REPLY TO ATTN OF: 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 October 23, 1973 10MEI - M/S 325 Mr. Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator. Planning Department City of Tukwila 14475 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the development of the Southcenter South Industrial Park, Tukwila, Washington. We find that the draft statement sufficiently describes and analyzes the adverse impacts associated with this project. We foresee no other impacts in our areas of expertise. Thank you for the opportunity . to comment. Sincerely, ti Hurlon C. Ray Assistant Regional Administrator: for Management GOVERNOR DANIEL J. EVANS COMMISSIONERS: JEFF D. DOMASKIN THOMAS C. GARRETT 14. MRS. KAY GREEN RALPH E. MACKEY JAMES G. McCURDY JAMES W. WHITTAKER WILFRED R. WOODS DIRECTOR CHARLES H. ODEGAARD kfJiL WASHINGTON STATE PARIS & nr.C.MEATIOIST COMMISSION LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER PHONE 753-5755 P. 0. BOX 1128 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 October 1, 1973 Mr.- Delbert F. Moss Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila 14475 - 59th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98067 Dear Mr. Moss: Environmental Impact Statement - Southcenter South Industrial Park - City of Tukwila The'Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the above noted environmental impact statement and does not wish to make any comment at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, .0:_e4/61-4 DWH:sg David W. Heiser Assistant Chief, Research, Planning and Acquisition Director / Carl N. Crouse Assistant Directors / Rdlph IV. Larson Ronald N. Andreuv 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 DEPAFUTM3ENT OP' 600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504 November 7, 1973 Delbert F. Moss, Planning Coordinator City of Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Moss: Your environmental impact statement - Southcenter South Industrial Park - was reviewed by our Seattle region office; our comments follow. Your Proposed Action description provided a very thorough account of project activities, justification, and relationship to current planning and legislative processes. It is clear that project plans have been carefully designed to meet industrial expansion goals set forth by the City of Tukwila. Very little emphasis was placed, however on elements of the City's Master Program which call for partial preservation of Green River's aesthetic qualities and corresponding actions on your part to help further this goal. However, while the proposed development does fit into Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan (1962), we note that it is "partially incon -• sistent with current regional plans ". The Puget Sound Governmental Conference study found that available vacant land within areas currently being used for industrial purposes is sufficient to satisfy projected needs until the year 2000. We would like to emphasize this fact due to the expected impact upon natural and agricultural values. This is of major concern to us. because site's riparian habitat and the valuable wildlife it supports constitute an irreplaceable natural resource as well as an aesthetic resource of invaluable quality. In view of this, we urge you to strongly consider that this precious buffer be retained as partial or total fulfillment of open space requirements established under the Shoreline Management Act and included in the City's Master Program for river development. Any efforts to provide continuity to thie greenbelt (versus scattered small parcels) will increase its productivity as wildlife habitat and correspondingly its aesthetic value.. Your description of . wildlife and fishery resources in the section, Existing Conditions, stated our areas of concern quite well. The segment on "Water Quality" gave an excellent description of Green River's limited potential to absorb increased levels of pollution. In view of this, the pollution threat which this project presents is of special concern to us as it constitutes a serious threat to Green River resources. We recommend that all mitigative measures and alternative plans be examined and that they ha inrl.uinr1 in +hn final nlnnc env. +kn nv.L • Mr. Moss, Planning Coordinator -2- November 7, 1973 Green River is near thermal capacity, BOD tolerance is exceeded . in certain stretches, potential problem areas exist due to existing nutrient levels and water conditions, and other such assessments of Green River condition indicate an awareness by the investigators that the Green River is presently very sensitive to developments of the type proposed. We ask that you seriously weigh these factors before your final decisions are made. We noted your plans to utilize skimmers or separators at the holding pond (Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project). We view this as a positive step toward minimizing impact on water quality. However, you state that the holding pond will be voided by gravity at low river flows or by pump at high flows. It is essential that some explanation be included regarding pollution abatement treatment of the pumped runoff. Perhaps it would be feasible to utilize the collecting basin as a temporary holding area during high flow periods and allow water to drain when the river drops. This might lessen the impact of storm flows which is inevitable when a large area is paved and runoff collected. We concur with your assessment of project impact on wildlife in the section, Adverse Environmental Effects, however, some quantification of wildlife which will be impacted should be made. This information seems necessary for an adequate appraisal of project consequences and decisions which would be an irreversible committment of these resources. We find it difficult to accept your thesis (Alternatives to the Proposed Action, b) that agriculture "... could be more feasibly accomplished in other areas not already committed to a trend of commercial development ". First, availability of prime farm land similar to that found in the Green River Valley is unknown to us. And, second, the wisdom of. "commitment" to commercial and industrial development of the Green is being questioned by land use planners and citizens. Our earlier comment regarding inconsistencies of Tukwila "s Master Plan with PSGS Studies also alludes to this subject. We agree with the tenets discussed within the section on green space in Alternatives to the Proposed Action concerning cottonwood physiology and support measures which would preserve such natural vegetation within the project site. Thank you for sending your draft statement. We hope our comments will be of help when you prepare your final draft. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAM ESD: jb cc: Chitwood, Agencies Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief Environmental Management Division RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF GAME, In response to your request for quantification of wildlife which will be impacted, Charts G, H, and I have been amended, and are duplicated on the following pages. Common Name *Great Blue Heron *Green Heron *Killdeer *California Gu l l Mourning Dove Unknown Owl Traill's Flycatcher Western Flycatcher Western Wood Pee Wee Violet -green Swallow *Tree Swallow -Barn Swallow TABLE G Scientific Name .. Ardea..herodias Butorides virescens Charadrius vociferus• . Larus californicus .Zenaidura macroura Empidonax traillii Empidonax'difficilis Con.topus sordidulus Trachycineta.thalassina. Iridoprocne bicolor Riparia riparia Common Crow . . Corvus brachyrhynchos Black - capped ChickadeeParus atricapillus Common Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewicki1 Robin Turdus migratorius Cedar Waxwing Bombycilia cedrorum Black - and -white Mniotilta varia Warbler MacGillivray's Warbler0porornis tolmiei House Sparrow Passer domesticus Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus American Goldfinch Spinus tristis Rufous -sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus • Savannah Sparrow Fox Sparrow Song Sparrow Number Seen or Abundance Location 2 2 5 2 10. '1 2 2 2 Common. Fairly Common_ Common 6 Common 2 4 Common. 2 1 2 2 Over 40 4 Common 9 Passerculus sandwichenis Common Passerella.iliaca Melospiza melodia Mammals Observed Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans Shrew -mole Neurotrichus gibbsi Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus .Rabbit Fairly Common 1 (dead) 1 (dead) Common Green River Shore Green River Shore Green River Shore and levee bank. Green River Shore Sapling Groves Cottonwood Grove near spring Cottonwood Sapling grove edge Cottonwood Sapling grove edge Sapling Grove edge Throughout site Throughout site especially near. the Green River Throughout site especially near the Green River and in open fields Old Cottonwood snags All shrub and sapling areas All shrub and sapling areas . Sapling Grove edge Throughout site Cottonwood Grove Cottonwood Grove Cottonwood Grove edge Shrub areas. Open field areas Shrub areas Early successional and and shrub areas. Shrub areas and sapling grove edge Early successional area including the-levee ba Shrub areas and sapling grove edge Shrub areas Early successional area Cottonwood Grove Throughout site except very open exposed area Not likely to be significantly affected by the proposed action. TABLE H Disregarding the many waterfowl and shorebird species which are attracted to the Green River and its shores,. the followi;ng additional bird species are quite likely to be seen within the proposed project site. Common Name Red - tailed Hawk Rough- legged Hawk Marsh Hawk Sparrow Hawk Ruffed. Grouse California Quail Ring - necked Pheasant Barn Owl Screech Owl Short -eared Owl Common Nighthawk Rufous Hummingbird Red - shafted Flicker Yellow- bellied Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker *Rough- winged Swallow Red - breasted Nuthatch House Wren Swainson's. Thrush Golden- crowned Kinglet Ruby - crowned Kinglet Water Pipit *Starling Red -eyed Vireo Warbling Vireo Orange - crowned Warbler Nashville Warbler Yellow Warbler Myrtle Warbler Western Meadowlark Bullock's Oriole Brown - headed Cowbird Black - headed Grosbeak Pine Siskin Oregon Junco White- crowned Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow Lapland Longspur R= Resident M= Migrant S= Summer only W= Winter only Scientific Name Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lagopus Circus cyaneus Falco sparverius Bonasa umbellus Lophortyx californicus Phasianus colchicus Tyto alba Otus asio Asio flammeus Chordeiles minor Selasphorus rufus Olaptes cafer Sphyrapicus varius Dendrocopos pubescens Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Sitta canadensis Troglodytes aedon Hylocichla ustulata Regulus satrapa Regulus calendula Anthus spinoletta Sturnus vulgaris Vireo olivaceus Vireo gilvus Vermivora celata Vermivora ruficapilla Dendroica petechia Dendroica coronata Sturnella neglecta Icterus bullockii Molothrus ater Pheucticus melanocephalus Spinus pinus Junco oreganus Zonotrichia leucophrys Zonotrichia artricapilla Calcarius lapponicus Seasonality. R R R R R R. R S S. R R. R S R S. W R'. S S S M S R 5 S S R_ R R. M W * Not likely to be significantly affected by the proposed action. TABLE 1 The following mammals are likely to be observed at the proposed project site, either as permanent residents or transients. Common Name Marsh Shrew Townsend's Mole Coast Mole Various Bats Common Deer Mouse Townsend's Meadow Mouse Oregon Meadow Mouse Mountain Beaver -Norway Rat ::Black Rat -,House Mouse Pacific Jumping Mouse Coyote Red Fox * Raccoon Short - tailed Weasel Striped Skunk Spotted Skunk • *Domestic Dogs *Domestic Cats Scientific Name Sorex bendirei Scapanus townsendi Scapanus "orarius Chiroptera sppo_. Peromyscus .rnan i cu iatus Microtus :townsendi, Microtus oregoni Aplodontia rufa Rattus norvegicus Rattus rattus Mus musculus Zapus trinotatus Canis "latrans Vulpes vulpes fulva Procyon lotor Mustela erminea Mephitis mephitis Spilogale putorius. austerus * Not likely to be significantly affected by the proposed action. VICINITY . MAP UTILITIES MAP LAND USE MAP. l..,YZNO iT PREPARED BY, P.O. Box.. 9760 1319 DEXTER AVE . 90 ".SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. 98109 RIVER ELEV. 23.0 Seaton/4 ono • la" WATER 'MAIN . TELEPHONE LINE' • - SO" STORM DRAM aTORM DRAIN. SANITARY SEWER WATER. SAS: POWER AND TEL MAHONE SYSTEMS ARE outmost. TO SE EXTENDED W1TH STREET SYSTEM Ali REOUIS CO. • % ELEV. 230 •'"•SEWER FORCE MAW . SO. R•aaRVu• ANNAN/ WITH 10" ul1LRY ow now elm • IE•, WSTART_ aaWER LOS ELEV.226 .IS." WATER- MAIN - IS" WATER LLAIN 30" STORK ORA01 SANITARY SEWER LINE • 1^ SAE. Lfl ''LANTUIS STRIP UNOSA CROONS • POWER LINE ELEV. 23.0 x tt+r-� --- VALLEY HIGHWAY ELEV. '2348+ • FIRE HYDRANT STREET l..OHT DO - CATCH' BASIN O MANHOLE - -PUGET POWER VAULT 9, TELEPHONE' VAULT. • BRUCE E : Mc CANN SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK UTILITIES. MAP SUU lit-LEN I LK Sill 17F, :. INUUS-.f DIAL. NAKK A PQRTION . ;OF HENRY : ADAMS- LAND CLAIM <NO 43 SECTIONS 35 & 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TODD 80575 Of 8CAorN6S- . L JMS(Pr, 69/0 - 90970 ZONE • NOTE ..naor. L.f .s obwwr :N.rt 4r55o01Alw4" 005/110/0 0.114/ • ..'r.r .W. +f -. rfa w.r,+ w.r ww..0 Irf 0 J 6'ArPr..t./ 55 55 7..„1,,,,L 9 40w,.w�ro- . ALG'rr /.'L /ff (AtGNEn.I AS '`SNOS'N ON lN75 PL4f . 7E ,7,4e• A25 OEOrcwrra 70 7NC 5775 OF 77/Cwrc 0 ;OQ ro/CQ N.f r7 BRUCE E. Mc CANN SOUTHCENTER SOUTH: INDUSTRIAL. PARK LAND USE MAP 10.110 - -_ OATS, __.ALGy.STaIS7.L scut 100 . C.AWIM6-V. __.9.47 __ •M9O1F0.