Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-177-82 - CITY OF TUKWILA - SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD REALIGNMENTSOUTHCENTER BLVD REALINGMENT EPIG177 -82 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor 26 February 1982 Phil Fraser Acting Public Works Director City of Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: WSDOT Correspondence of 25 February 1982 Regarding the attached letter from the State Department of Transportation about the environmental assessment process followed for the preliminary design study for realignment of Southcenter Boulevard, please note the following: A) The comments transmitted by the WSDOT Design Engineer were received on 17 February late in the business day and were not men- tioned in the transmittal letter to D.O.E. The.comments therein have now been made a part of the permanent file on this matter. 8) We do not feel that the design engineer's comments warrant re- assessment of the Declaration of Non - Significance as approved by this office. We realize that the checklist on which the DNS was issued is not design- specific, and the "comment" section of the D.N.S. form allows for separate environmental assessment of specific design matters should the need for such further assessment arise. We expect that the design engineer's concerns about the project's impact on the Grady Way /S.R. 181 /I -405 ramp interchange will be addressed in detail in the specific design assessment phase. For the foregoing reasons, we see no need at this time to modify the Declaration of Non - Significance granted under City File No. EPIC- 177 -81. Tukwila P1.' ing Department Brad Col , Director Caughey, Associate Planner MC /blk xc: file • 10:::1 ;'aLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • 13-1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 February 25, 1982 Mr. Phil Fraser Acting Public Works Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Phil: NNW FEB 2G 1982 JF TUKWILA NNING DEPT. City of Tukwila Southcenter Blvd. 62nd Ave. So. to Proposed Grady Way Bridge FAITS: M- 1147(5) Environmental Considerations We are returning your Consultant's letter of February 22, 1982 and attached documentation requesting further direction from State Aid on environmental considerations. The letter to the Department of Ecology dated February 17, 1982, transm{tting your Final Declaration of Non - Significance, mentions . no comments were received on this determination. On that same date the WSDOT District No. 1 Design Engineer sent his comments to the City of Tukwila stating that the proposed project would have a sig- nificant impact on the safe operation of the Southcenter Boulevard/ Grady Way /Interurban Avenue (SR -181) intersection, as well as the I -405 southbound off and on ramps. In view of the comments from our Design Engineer we suggest you re- examine your Declaration of Nop- Significance. We also recommend that you review the requirements of Division 9 in the Local Agency Guidelines. . When you are satisfied the proper steps have been followed, please forward the documentation to this office for review and further direction from State Aid. JHN:nc Enc. cc: Brad Collins Ed Bershinski Don Hoffman Very truly yours, J.D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Administrator T.T. MC LEOD, P.E. District State Aid Engineer W. A. BULLEY Secretary JOH ELLMAN Governor • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Brad Collins, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 E BERENTSON cretary February 17, SR- 405 /SR -181 City of Tukwila Southcenter Blvd. Improvement and Relocation SEPA checklist Dear Mr. Collins: The Washington State Department of Transportation has reviewed the subject proposed Declaration of Non - Significance and we would like to make the following comments: 1) The proposed project would have a significant impact on the safe operation of the Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way /Interurban Avenue (SR -181) Intersection, as well as the I -405 Southbound off and on ramps. Review of preliminary design concepts would be desired by this Department to determine the feasibility of such a project relative to impacts on SR -405 and SR -181 during and after con- struction. 2) Clear spanning the SR -405 ramps and SR -181 would prohibit traffic access to and from SR -181 and SR -405 from Southcenter Boulevard at this location. The explaination in the transportation/cir - culation section (d) states that the project may alter patterns of traffic movement. The clear spanning alternative would definitely alter the existing pattern of traffic movement. 3) The Department of Transportation is currently planning to build high occupancy vehicle lanes along SR -405 from Tukwila Interchange to the Sunset Interchange. This project may involve the widening of the SR -405 bridge crossing of the Green River. This bridge widening may affect the alignment of the proposed southcenter boulevard project. While we are very concerned about any adverse impact that the proposed project may have on state highways, would look favorably upon any roadway Mr. Brad Collins February 17, 1982 Page 2. project that would improve the traffic circulation in this area. Please continue to keep this department informed of any further action on this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Very truly yours, J. D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Adm;nistrator OL D. L. HOFF , P.E.. District De gn Engineer KT:db cc: D.E. Wirkkala '<N 8LA 4 City of Tukwila J +� 6200 Southcenter Boulevard ul p Tukwila Washington 98188 = 2 Frank Todd, Mayor 17 February 1982 State of Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: SEPA Public Info. Center Subject: Final D.N.S. EPIC - 177 -82; City of Tukwila Enclosed is a copy of the Final Declaration of Non - Significance issued by the City of Tukwila as lead agency for the proposed alignment and improvement of Southcenter Blvd. A proposed Declaration of Non - Significance was circulated to other agencies with jurisdiction in accordance with WAC- 197 -10- 340(3 -7) and no comments were received. We request, therefore, that the subject Declaration of Non - Significance be entered on the "SEPA Register" as provided in WAC- 197 -10 -831. Questions about this matterr should be directed to the Planning Division at 433 - 1849.. Tukwila anning Department Ma Caughey Associate Planner MC/blk encl. xc: Planning Director Public Works Entranco Engineers CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Southcenter Blvd. Improvement and Relocation Proponent City of Tukwila Location of Proposal Southcenter Blvd. @ S.R. 181 /Grady Way Interchange Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 177 -82 This proposal has been determined to (7h iXE /not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (LOVis not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Date �' z 141 8 . Signature COMMENTS: This threshold determination pertains to the non - specific design concept for realignment of Southcenter Blvd. Additional environmental review of specific topics on the Environmental Checklist may be required by the lead agency prior to completion of final design of the project. NN1Lq 4 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor 1909 TO: FROM: DATE: M EMORANDUM Agencies with Jurisdiction City of Tukwila Planning Department 2 February 1982 SUBJECT: Proposed Declaration of Non - Significance EPIC - 177 -82 Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Checklist and proposed Declaration of Non - Significance for the proposed improvement and realignment of Southcenter Blvd. within the City of Tukwila. As an: agency with permit jurisdiction, we are sending this material to you in accordance with WAC- 197 -10- 340(3 -7) for your review and comment. Your comments, if any, should be returned to the City of Tukwila as lead agency on or before 17 February 1982. Please send your comments to the attention of Planning Director Brad Collins at the above address. MC /blk CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Southcenter Blvd. Improvement and Relocation Proponent City of Tukwila Location of Proposal Southcenter Blvd. @ S.R. 181 /Grady Way Interchange Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 177 -82 This proposal has been determined to ()h lk /not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (it/is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Position /Title Brad Collins Planning Director Date /'dt.vik,.n 1-I I182— Signature COMMENTS: This threshold determination pertains to the non- specific design concept for realignment of Southcenter Blvd. Additional environmental review of specific topics on the Environmental Checklist may be required by the lead agency prior to completion of final design of the project. A F F I D A C T OF D I S T R I . t'" ' 1 ° T I O N I, , being duly sworn, hereby declare that has been mailed to each of the following addresses. Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 1 Department of Ecology 4350 150th NE Redmond, WA 98052 Puget Sound Air Pollution 410 W. Harrison St. P. 0. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 cow -rtix, etr,cacri Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 PEFT or Dm Aom c o!Ps or uto kie -e45 4735 p. /MAR403.L wee`( 5. ; A.i1.c, Ws . GO KMANDc'R.- t311 GDAST 6'VAaW D SECOUa Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 Notary Pulbic in and for the State of Washington, risiding at City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 M EMORANDUM To: Brad Collins, Planning Director FROM: Mark Caughey DATE: 29 January 1982 SUBJECT: Threshold Dtermination - (EPIC- 177 -82); Southcenter Blvd. Realignment The subject Threshold Determination is requested as a pre- design assessment of environmental significance for the Citycof Tukwila's.proposed realignment'. of Southcenter Blvd with the new Grady Way bridge expansion.. While this proposal is project - specific, no definitive design -work has been completed to date. It is difficult, therefore, to gauge the magnitude of any particular impact topic on the local environment, particularly as any of the project ..alternatives may adversely affect the Green River riparian habitat and future implementation of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail. However, the supplemental responses to checklist itmes I.6 and I.7 seem to indicate awareness on the designer's part of the City's policjes regarding development in environmentally - sensitive areas. I recommend, therefore, that the proposed Declaration of Non- Significance be approved with the proviso that additional environmental review of specific impact topics may be required prior to completion of final design of the project, should the need for such review arise in the responsible official's judgment. As there are several other agencies with jurisdiction affect1i`ngimplementation of this project, we are required to transmit to them a proposed Declaration of Non - Significance for a fifteen day review period according to procedures outlined in WAC 197 -10 -340 (3-7). A final threshold decision should follow at the end of that time. MC /blk • • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To' A-cD F u (( Attention: U. RANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Job Title: (4.),)-1-4--,. ‘D. k ex c_,r Location: Off ice: Date: G-,-‘ . lei Job No Subject: We are sending herewith via' titc� c 1/4( e are sending under separate cover via: No. of No. of No. of No. of Description Originals Sepias Prints (Other) For Approval n For Your Information r- Returned for Corrections as noted ri As Per Your Request (( n Approved as Noted Please Re- submit ` rte' �� 4— ` -0 (e* -h.A ?.'\ -Pc' (` f�' -�,' e W c - �o� —C J''� rt8 I C c1C' .,^ rte; rkc i Remarks' AcLck GR,_„ ± -'� 4 ctirN. \i"\_ 1 � ‘17 �p t r ,r`C—l." . �- o �1 EE _+EVU =. WA. ;XI 1? :• G.E.S.E, 98004 (2) 454 -0683 SPOKANE, 144 . W.1625 4th AVE, 99204 (509) 838-S46 PETERSB R0. AK. (CT. 910, 99833 (907) 772-3191 PORT ORDKARR0, 18. 1208 Ea.,' ST, 98366 (206) 87b -1400 By ;■ nn n .,. ......A C /•C ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM. • I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent City of Tukwila 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency. Requiring Checklist City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Southcenter Boulevard Improvement and Relocation 6. 'Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (includ- ing but not limited to its-size, general design ele- ments, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): See. attached . 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information.needed to give. an accurate understand- ing o'f the environmental setting of the proposal):. See attached 8. Estimated pate-for Completion of the Proposal: Construction 5/1983 through 10/1984 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local- - including rezones): City of Tukwila Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit; State Flood Control Zone Permit; State Department of Game & Fisheries Hydraulic Approval; U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit; U.S. Army . Corps of Engineers 404 Permit; and State Department of Transportation Approval. • 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion,. or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: YES. (a) The replacement of Southwest Grady Way BridaoP (b) The cnmpletion of the ChrietPnsen Greenbelt Trail 12. Attach any other application form that has been com- pleted regarding the proposal; if none has been com- pleted, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: NONE ANTICIPATED 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal: The existing portion of Southcenter Boulevard scheduled for improvement is a two -lane, 30 -foot wide facility, lying between 62nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. The planned improvements will widen this eastern portion of roadway to match the five -lane, 60 -foot wide driving surface of Southcenter Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue. In addition to widening, the eastern terminus of Southcenter Boulevard would be extended and realigned to link with the new Grady Way Bridge. (The new Grady Way Bridge is presently under design and will be con- structed while this project is being designed.) The link would be a new at -grade intersection at Interurban Avenue (SR 181) or a "direct connection to Grady Way by an elevated structure spanning Interurban Avenue. Any of the extension alternatives would require at least one new crossing of'the Green River as well as modifications to the I -405 southbound on /off ramp. The proposed project would provide the missing link necessary to complete the Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way connection. This new system would serve as an alternate route to I -405. It will also provide improved safety, capacity and access for vehicles approaching Southcenter from the north and east. The improved continuity of design at the Interurban highway will promote access for transit, decrease response time for emergency vheicles, and allow completion of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail. 7. Location of the Proposal: The project area is almost entirely within the City of Tukwila limits. However, the connection point to Grady Way lies within the boundaries of the City of Renton. The proposed improvement and relocation would begin at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and 62nd Avenue South. Then, proceeding in an easterly direction, the new roadway would parallel the north side of I -405 extending over the Green River and across Interurban, Avenue to link with S.W. Grady Way. No definite plan has been approved for the design of this improvement and relocation project. Conflicts with I -405 ramps may be resolved by clear spanning the ramps or by modifying the ramps to carry the new roadway under them. Interurban Avenue may be spanned or crossed with an at -grade inter- section. Bridges over the Green River will be designed to allow the com- pletion of the Christensen Greenbelt. The greenbelt is completed to the north and south of this area. Ramps and roadways will require placement of fill in the Green River flood - plain, but not the floodway. The land is presently undeveloped. No new right -of -way is required, but some access agreements will have to be obtained to allow construction. • „ • 3 $ as . • • • ; • ;••• t 4'1 :;:t t N. • r: • ; 6.7 'A , J , 14 , 41 ,••• • ; • • i.,i • • .*; • : . • , .••-„ ;• • ; , ,„ ' CI .,.•..... • .:, : ,,;:.;,, ) • •''' ,,, '.' - . . ,.:' • • ,‘ • -• •'` .‘1,..•,,..; ,,, s.::::: •,...„,",.,,,,,"±:-.. 2". -'::' ,'.P.;• , -.1"-`i"'", '.• . A , -..,: li • .i:r :0 ,-,.'7, , - •.':,. .)•• '44', ., ' ‘ ' ' ' •;, ..fs,.• - . st . '',U ""•:76-".'..-1 : - :. : :-..,.',.'.1.1..!f.:', •‘ ,,...., .,,,,,.,... ...‘., ;;.,::.' '',..\ k","‘,.. ''. ' .L.' : , .':,. ••:•:' /s.4,,,'''''' :7-- :4'..:.;.,.';-.;.•::''"•<, '4, e .•, .'a ,,, s'•,...- , I.... >a i <, -.< • -4- a, .- ... ..• a.< • ., .• i-a --- . • . < ,: ,s.,: .. .., •,, j:„.8 NoHTHOOUND '' ;.4. !. • . A : .3 1‘...:.; ... '' '' •41.--- • .. , ; rin-airli-aciutaD<<-k. • . . ,', ....1. <,•7 r c ;: :', • •,. • • • *, ,,,„,, ,a,,,,,,,,,,.;..4, , • 1.,11 t;!.:, .."' . . ;‘..\ ...:, .,r3, t...1. ''' ' 4 . 1":;• .. ;4:1" .. :;:•:: 1.<;.. . ,;.. ; :a. i: '....'..r.../..:,a..„1....*•:!,..s.,..Q.,:,,., iii "-V < s:ra;."''';k ‘..',:s .r• 'e .. • - `s,a "'< ,. • '''<a,a `"'• ••• • ' ' ' *, ,..' ..,,;,... , ..1. , ..' '4 . • • • • '. , ... , ....,%. 4... .,. •'.:., `...',...,,... <,'. ,", . , .:,‘:./<:, 4; , , ' V :•••••:—.. A ' . '. •<, S.' :.: • ' '.'''‘ ..; .' ^'''''''''• f 7•• %•• .- • 4 ic.', It 'c;;!.,1ti .3 'i,.,1,,f.; :. , 'k , '.%•.,,f.:••• I T. •: 1 ', S. 1 e ,,,' . .• .. .. •••:• e ...1 .;''' .".1 ...i--.'.:1''' ':.••. . , • ° . , $ i '• .,;.° ' ,.... ' ...1.0.,; : .. ;.',...,. ' i -: .• i'.1,< ', .. ".., '!..t',,:' vt .', 1: ':' ;,'. •' , -7„,".r.",e, ,'$,..``'' :1 .., ' ,'... ,. : ..'""? :, '-..t.;;,,,,,x4' • f , 1,-.'•ti2 ±Z•r•%; +r‘.■:. •,'," t. ' 1,?..-1" ' ..:i 5%:.•,:',."1:'!",',..!,tt. ...!..,.,,,, •,,,,.., -...... '•• y N.„.. ..''.. s '; ..sa o't • •a.;"0..• ' a. ‘...,-., . • ,,..-a <0 < . < a /,.. • 1, :, , •, ,', :,.; s. ' + 1 : si .t ' ,,,, - 1;:;f e •a<••• -4-a-sN . 3.-' r.,,,'" ,,,4). : .-- :. ?-..?*';'4 •N . ' ' . • ' 7 ': '. l' ',,•;.;,,,,,,..,,,.!., e4.4•1 ow,,, 4,31, %'' 4 r"-: .>.,`' 1.. ''i.`• tsf'. • ;".• • ..\,' .. ' . i ' . s • '„•,,' „.„, !■I'''.! ',t ..t: • :-., i, .., t., • '; ..,$ , -1,, i 4. ,11... c ' • ...2 .., ••'3 ,, .1' .`,•'t".... 3 • ' : ' • 4) '$' 14 "3, i ...-,1" .", k tl.... • i i t, r% r '....j., .. ) ■ is. .i•:, • ; ; . ,, •••••! . ,1.4,..,.....,...1..,.. ‘ .. ; • , , . ,...._ • ,1,9 ,.• ; ,.•,...,.,• ... ,:av;'..i.*'• i ,",-.k . 4a, < ay ;.-1 ;. 43 ; ' ; ii ''''': ' ‘1144.1+4.• ...-5, ., . ,. .,,, • - • -v- ;„.; t; s ,, •”•,.......,.,...„ .... • , ,, ... , . , . I , \ ‘,.;•,:t . .1 :.,. 17.:, 1 *". 1.V ''i ", s' '. • .. • .., , • :i.:%,-s.'""' , ,:',7" .7.'"-<: . '.7 `...,.., . , ::.:7:"..r.:;,;.•-":.•:::.l'.5,7;i:611::ck:Air::;';:::1'::'::.:;1.'::::., 4,1:74.v.44:j.::114:':.:':''' G--Ik'. (;' r:141?—:f*-ill' 4. .,:1a '.i,z-.. " <•• "'• ..., ' t' '1 ' ' ..1 '• • '' 3, '24' ,4! •, • ), -` ,, 3••', " •, ■ ' \ . . ' • •',',„ 1' ' '''' ..'" • . ' ',<3.,'•.' . 2 ' ,... '' .L ' • ' :'''.",33:1 i....23,,k,,...3•,',,e, ,,„ ,, _ , . , 4 ,•••3, .•,,.. • ''.=g3p,<,--z.- ,;-.'"; ...,',.:',1-, - I it, - y.,,,,.,,,,,..;;, ...,:,,,,,,,,,, 0.-..., ....,/,,,,i-, -,:.....,,...... ,so,..„. ,; .....:,:;•:: .4 ,, ..., •,‹ , 4:,#;•.).",/ ... ": p l',‘ 4, , ;, ., , •••••• .): ! -.t. , 1. , , • f! 3 • / !.,'• ••“$.:, 2 ,; .,, ,.,.. , ....e„..„, r„,,;.„ --.; ..11,- .=<.,'. .,it ;. ,z< a '-, ..< c ;•;.- ' • . • . <.'-..< -,u4ic 11.?"4.(•,< /•,-.‘.-. . if a••• - . . ., . • ,.., <,-, ..,<, ).;,1•,...,,,,,....,_ • • •...<, .3A ••', :...„, 1.< -,•,....,, :, • .;<:....;<, .,,.. :,'..s-,,.- ..... Eivrt„..a.,‘ -.,•.t.,,, • . ., 4 ? '', `3,,./. ' • ',...,•.'"34,35,,,%, .......> '''. ` j ....;.• '.,:..,, • , , ..• .> ' -' ''' '''''' ''"..'7 ' ' ' • '''s ' ' . - . ': :' ! .4 ' - "/%41 '` ' 1'v .' 47Tuk 116 f!' ‘‘'''''' *..,...,,,..1 .04 . . , .7 ,,. z „Longacros'. 7. /.., . ,,, ,,.,..f..../..,..:, .. • ,.., , t >,.‘,..., „ • - ,:, ..... , • : . 'N ,, . • 4.1/0 .. ' W , 8..* . ,..., , * :419 4•• "•'.•;:r•--„ ..,°.? .. - , ' • ,„ •,,, ' !.. • , •,,,! " ' -• ..,,, ..-",^so., •-•. '15 . 'City Hail', ',---..: 4 . ; ,:. ' e i , : i • ,. . , $ .•44 • , , • 1 • , . s , , , , • , , „ q., , , ,,,„ , ,.. . ,., . , ,. . \ .. , , ,, ,,,,;,. , . , , „ , . . . , ., , ,'' „ :. ' . . , : ;>`. , ;:: ••7 . . ,.I.,., : ,.,,, ' • • ' ,•• 0 ' . '' '^. e0.,.:l• . ,., , ..,- „ , It ,. • ,''' .' . ' ::e: , ,,. ,, : ;..” r,:,. ,• '". ; k• , • . i - r :,1 4 .- . .' , ;: ;,,,t , ,. 74-c, ::s, . Y, ' ' . '. i',• ;0, , 2 :Ii • • '1 ,. i' a' . c . o . . . T ,•,•,•••r, •'•'a. c...':-. „ k.'' t , 0 ' '. f r A ■' ..en 3 ‘ • • '' 1 ; ' : : ' i ,3 • ., ' ''', • • 3 4 31.'2, , . ' . ,. " ':;!''..• •3: :'."''f. .4..• 4 ',,,'..', ;.'3, :\ 3 i;.'.. 1' •■`.,'. , , , • - ' ,• , ,,,,,',•,,)„.7.'. , '..,:• ,,' ,•,". . *(.„, ,:,.. ., ,.. k N . 1' 0".•? ,f.,'„,',,;;..• , ,-;43 ''.:' . ', ,.',..'•,,:':"*.'':'',!...k . '.?42; „ 11../7.t.'.,"' : ,f..,...',:,',. 1,A„ ' -..,,'• ,. 11...,..1• ...,- ,./•7-'''"''' -„ , ,. . ,,,. .7t ', ' ,.;,1",'11'..., ':;:'-•,.. '1, 1'..‘ ."■ ! ' ...' , 7 ),;', 1.••<•'..:•..-; fr:. ': ! 9t.-t; . : ..•;;;;? .1 ;•;. ‘...i: ',,e. ' .: .":!,'f';‘:::::'7.;•7' . ,;,,';'.."*."7,N, ',•••., 433 9 •.!.,..`,C.f...'.'., !. ..1.,1•; '.,.‘ ' , , ., , .,; ci i I: .... ..,..TU.,: WILA P A. R.TAfe . 1,,,-, .'1..,- ,*,.,-:. ,:: ,,..:.;, .,..,..,::"., ,xtu. ..".. ;Je.i....:::._.:,...„.0..,4,;,::.::"'•.'"'.;:.).., .. ., : f , ;.:' :1:'' : ...: . , .a...a, i 1. ,,,s, ., .,.,, ...::,:e.';', ... ,1•':,. , .,.. l'.‘ ' . ;3.3,...'; . •• '': ,tt: ..., ' ,: •..4 .' ''' , -....... • ' ' • , i . . . .. , i tis ., ,, „ 4., , . .‘,..,;‘,.,. i . ..i3.,,,,. ,.., ., ,4 „ .,. ':<.,..•i •i 0 c 1 . ''•'1'.?* 4 .'. 7 . .: 'A)i....' 7 '• ..' ''' . . .. ‘•.. . .. t, •., 4'.;•..' ...'...4$ ' t.733 ,3k, .4....;'''.' '• ‘• ; .....• •'‘.• ;:•)i''- •I''''..'4.:...",...',-,, • ,.",. .,: ,. ,.,. , k ,3 „•../.....1 . . .. • I..., .3.3-.4.. 3...,•• •• - 4. • , • • .,..., ,, , .. „ i. ... , , i"..",. 3 ,, 4 4. 3 4,"77i •,.., . . , . ,4',.,1. . i •,........ . , 4.) 1.1., ) , 0;4,4 •.$ 0,„: k 4 '''' "...• ..” i?.. ' . ''''' ' ' . ‘;'s . ' ' ... . ' ' ! : i ' ' 1.' : : , 1 ‘),.', .' 4. ''''' ' ' *•:;A.1, tL. , 1 : .. , .. A I,' ., '. 3 . 1 ' ' S' ' . • i ' ::4,i i'":, '. . y ..• '... 4 C., { . 7. 1...' ., ..,''. • t. 1. 4 t'..;:',,;''',Z ,; 1 . i .4 f 4., t. i!„.... i ..•,.,.,.,:,: 2.; ..... ; • . 1 / • ' . ' outhcenter•:,-"7. .. 5 ! .-s...,,,.„:„).1fk-, !, ,, . . , •,.' t.s.,,..,-,,,,,,,,,-..1 v,,,,•„„, ..,..„ ';*,it' ,vs . :, --*• . ., r " ' 1?- !.. . r"I.•. , , •.'..•.., ,'t; i., ?, ..,...,,..:,t,•.1. •. ,1 , ,' o• ,.e :fr.. ,t•• I, % v ,. , .,N .- .,■. , 0 '‘*:,.'' .,i3 ' ':4 ';• '4 '', ' '." ; ' ' -'! .a1 I '' 4 ;fl:;';,i,, . .;, , ,/ , f, *. ! , • •' 4 3. '';3 . :; ,•; .. a,: , l. ; 4,::`,' „.;-I ,t ,.', ,,; ;,. . , 11 ‘2 i,: , I . 4 :".1; •1.,, . '; L .,,• ...1,?,,'',? %„ , ".1,?3` ,,;,,..., 1 ,''a ', ..,'. . ;, 4' .. . .'.— ,— ', ! -"< 4/ .•. 1: :. ' i• t; ‘ :' ,:. 7 4, 1. .•,, -,',. ' , ,.:1 ., . '1. . :4;. .. . .-s‘..,.a, ..y ” , . ' ,; •. ., ,!,, ,• , , / i' ; ' • ., . 1, .- . '•a . 4 • : , % .; ‘. < . , '. " < , a . .-. •.• :. ,(50 ..',';i ' :*, '. ',.„ .'• ' .' ' ,.• '..;• „ .., ' 3 i ' .. . 1.. i S;...°,s ... .I.h?•. • T o p' . .t. ,..e, . ::, " .:r.T *. 4• .•''y::!;, 1•1.':` ';. : 1,:„ '.,' ‘:::„:'‘,,,:,:,,,. ,:c .:„ ;,..:.: . ::.a0 :,:..:. : :• : ::' :. • ' — ::- „' >."'. 7 ..—:..:. • 4... . ;: ",' , ' i .;e: i„,.7" , : ,. .,.2.'.? ' 1 . N 1 ,1,,,.,::.,"'.".* • :'1, . •., * k ' ,.!, ( 4. ' , 3415 - :, , k - l::: : . . 7‘ :1, :1 :: 1 J. 1,3, .. . y,. . . 7. . . , . . i,• . .. :: .2.-.:: . , : : a 1 :,,. 4. .,i :.,. „ . L? 4 tI:,. ., . . , :. , , , . YI;,, r.: :."7.•.: -:, ; 7 ;: -• , . : . -,...: : ..4 ,., •;,v. , ,.;;,,:-,:., I ,— '. : 2 ‘. .. ....-..” . : „.• 7 .. • .:: ., "''''• .. • • t , .'"si`!.;',,, ...fl 4,g :1;',.... :„,..... ,•,- 3 4.'.."3. $'7)...5,:*.:,1• f'...:T•sl1.'Xi:!*.:1!. ' i,',.., ..,? .., , .,,,,,--, ,:i.r .';',,:,;•c4 l,V,Tr",rt,lh4'' . ' ,•:, ..*•, • . 4 ' ' ■ ' t 1 ' . ' . ..f.'"<<•.,.,, ' , ,...A., . • ,-,.....,;,,,...:,..,.;>... .;..:.( '...........--....... . „,..„: , ”. . , .. -?;«-'-..7 . •.: . • ; ---;°..,,--- ., Aw' \ '.•...,: ?.: . , • ,.; a , ',, ‘.. -"r , •<: , '-''r .1-.•<-',.,=,„a"a.f,••3;%.,,,,:..„,:.• • , :-;• , ae, .. r.---7:77-7..:.°. „' . . • • • • ' ' ; , ,..' „.- ..,..'' .!” . „— ..'."- / ... .. , '•‘ ..• . rr— 1Y.. ‘ , :,:,, .....i.1,.;• ,',;;'.":.;,,.i, :• 4 ." • ' , `":` t‘j • ••':'' 'fi's 1 3- jr,14.1 117! 319 1 • ; ti • ; •••, ;.• • •• :!. 4 t,, 4 -A : ., ; : • 3 • ; , 3,4 '4'4 .. ; .4 4 , ,4 4,, 4 , !... 4, 1: t ' •!); ts • , • ■.„ , ' • • • • '51-7 NORTH ISZI I= PROPOSED PROJECT 04.TS,401. CITY OF TUKWILA SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT AND RELOCATION VICINITY MAP II. ENVIRON ENTAIIIMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.) ATTACH EXPLANATIONS-ON SEPARATE SHEET ON BACK - USING CORRECT • NUMBER ASSIGNMENTS. Yes Maybe No (1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — (b) Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X ___(c) .Change in topography or ground surface relief features? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or "physical features? (e) Any increase -in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f). Changes in deposition or ero- sion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water move - ments, in either marine or fresh waters? (3) (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c). Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X X (d) Change in the amount of sur- face water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct in- jection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Yes Maybe No Yes t taybe i .o • • (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? .(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife. habitat? (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? (7) Light and Glare. Will the pro - posal produce new light or .glare? (8) Land Use. Will the proposal .result in the alterationof the present or planned land use of an area? • (9) Natural Resources. Will the pro- posal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an-acci- dent or upset conditions? (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? (12) }sousing. Will the proposal affect existing 'housing. or create a demand for additional housing? X X X X X X • ill- Maybe No (13) Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing trans- portation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or 'pedestrians? (14) Public Services. Will the pro- posal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or al- tered governmental services in any of the following areas: • (a) Fire protection? (b): Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? (f) Other governmental services? (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the develop- ment of new sources of energy? X X X X X X (16) Utilitiell0 Will the proposal result in a need for r.-: systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? -(19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing -recreational opportunities? (20) Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Yes Maybe No • X X X X III. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- signi- ficance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Explanations to Yes and Maybe Answers II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (1) Earth. (b) Widening of the. existing portion of Southcenter Boulevard will require compaction and over - covering of the soil along both sides of the existing roadway. Excavation and fill for the ex- tension and ramp modifications will disrupt the existing soil and require fill material to be imported to construct new embankments. (c) Embankments will be as much as 35 feet high, depending upon the alternative selected. This will alter the local topography. Em- bankments, pavement and bridges will modify the ground surface relief features. (e) Until new embankments or disturbed soils are stabilized, the potential for erosion remains high. Temporary means may be utilized to prevent erosion during construction. (2) Air. (a) The project will improve the movement of traffic from the north and east and may promote traffic usage, thereby increasing vehicle - originated air emissions. However, if the project functions as an .alternate route to I -405 and reduces congestion, it may help im- prove air quality. Construction equipment will produce a temporary increase in air emissions. (3)-Water. The new facilities will result in some minor changes in drainage patterns and slight increases in the amount of runoff. All drainage now flows into the Green River, which may have a minor increase in volume during storm events from the additional runoff. Due to the potential for erosion during construction, the water quality in the Green River may be degraded during rainstorms if soil is not stabilized. (4) •Flora. Grass, shrubs and trees bordering the Green River and growing within or adjacent to the proposed roadway will be removed or over- covered. The loss of these plants will be permanent with some compensation of loss from post- construction landscaping. • • II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (continued). (5) Fauna. (a) Birds, small mammals, reptiles, etc. that presently inhabit the area planned for construction will be destroyed or displaced when the facility is built. Displaced wildlife usually dies or forces its competitors to flee and suffer a similar plight. (d) There may be a deterioration in the amount of riparian habitat along the Green River wherever bridge crossings are made. (6) Noise. Noise levels will increase during construction from the operation of heavy equipment. Noise may also increase over the long term due to the additional vehicles using the new facility. (7) Light and Glare. Slight increases in light and glare may result from the installation of new light fixtures. The removal of vegetation may also result in minor light and /or glare impacts. (13) Transportation/Circulation. / (a)) The revised alignment and connection to Grady Way will allow this L_// route to function as a practical local alternate to I -405, thereby promoting additional vehicular movement. (c) The proposed project will modify the entire Southcenter Boulevard/ Grady Way /Interurban Avenue intersection, as well as the I -405 south- bound on and off ramps. There will be some delays and detours during construction, but there should be a positive impact on the operation of the system after construction. (d) The project may alter patterns of movement by realigning Southcenter Boulevard in a new tangent with Grady Way and by possibly changing the point of entrance and exit of I -405 southbound. (14) Public Services. (a) The proposal should have a positive impact on fire protection by improving response time. (b) Police protection should also be positively impacted by faster response time. • (14) Public Services (continued) (d) The project would facilitate the completion of a missing link in the Christensen Greenbelt and trail along the Green River. The improvements will initially reduce current maintenance needs. However, these improvements, like all new facilities, will even- tually need maintenance, including resurfacing. (16) Utilities. (a) In order to construct the proposed project, some power lines may have to be relocated. (b) Telephone lines may also have to be relocated to construct the .roadway. (e) New storm drainage will be included as part of the facilities. (19) Recreation. The project will promote and incorporate the necessary design features to complete the Christensen Greenbelt. • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: • G)7 '' Rid (4/ -44, r et z� xi�f�C4/R.- /37441, re-di-//9 57rg Jas g Attention' rani c5; )6!;" ENTRANCO Engineers• ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1 ob Tit 1 e: .g/erei Office: e/ /rV/1'e Date• /9ea Job No' ig 20 2:<&'-'20 Location: Subject' /49/bjc2..:1— �Ac /- Ne are sending herewith via' ,'C" We are sending under separate cover via: No. of No. of No. of No. of Originals Sepias Prints (Other) Description �(-5P6'fr 5— ehr /e- o .P ,t;C:17 s • ❑ For Approval For Your Information As Per Your Request ❑ Approved as Noted Remarks' Returned for Corrections as noted Please Re- submit BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 1515 - 116th AVE. N.E.. 98004 (206) 454 -0683 By A -02.2 revised 12/80 5oc,c1-HG c2 L 1/ TASK DESCRIPTION • - 7- / / - / / -i. gZGZ8 -2a FEB /14 1. i4PR 15 1 15 1 15 WORK FLOV1 .1-lTIPJ% KRENECEINIMMIEWINIMMI FITMUIPAIIIIIIIIIIIIII =IN EMI MEM ����__ ■■ice ®�;c� MIN __ __ -- ��MI= MEME MN 1111111111111=i— =VII MIMI MINN NNW IIIIIMIIIMEOW MIIIIMILMTIMII EMI MIN NM MEN =MN NMI --__ ■ _� NMI MEM NMI MUM MI __ME�� -- __MIME- IIIM MI= �� M� MIME IMMO OMNI NM MI= MEN�� EMI NOM iEMI a11•11 BEM EMI MI= MIMI MMI iii= =I=1 MIMI In= MEM �ow= =M���� 101111111 EMI SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD DESIGN REPORT ASSIGNMENT' OF EVENTS A - Bannon B - Perteet C - Schrengohst D - Treman E - Berschinski A - Bannon A -1 IDC #1 A -2 IDC #2. A -3 IDC #3 F - High G - Geotechnical Engineers H - Landscape Architect I - City of Tukwila B - Perteet B -1 Begin Traffic Data Collection Analysis B -2 Begin Alignment Studies B -3 Begin Preliminary Right -of -Way Limits B -4 Begin Drainage and Utilities B -5 Begin Channelization, Signals, and Illumination B -6 End Traffic Data Collection /Analysis B -7 End Alignment Studies B -8 End Drainage and Utilities B -9 End Channelization, Signals, and Illumination B -10 End Preliminary Right -of -Way Limits B -11 Cost Estimates C - Schrengohst C -1 Begin Contract and Grant Administration C -2 State and Federal Liaison (Meeting No. 1) C -3 Begin Community Liaison C -4 Begin Parks and Trail C -5 Begin Design Report C -6 State and Federal Liaison (Meeting No. 2) C -7 End Parks and Trail C -8 End Community Liaison C -9 Deliver Design Report C -10 Publish Final Report C -11 End Contract and Grant Administration D - Treman D -1 Begin Bridge and Structures Preliminary Design D -2 Identify Beginning of Detailed Geotechnical Investigation D -3 End Bridge and Structures Preliminary Design D -4 Cost Estimates E - Berschinski E -1 Begin Environmental Data /Analysis E -2 Begin Environmental Checklist E -3 Begin Permit Process, State and Fedral Requirements E -4 End Environmental Checklist E -5 Begin Community Liaison E -6 Begin Environmental Assessment and 4f Statement E -7 End Permit Process, State and Federal Requirements E -8 End Community Liaison E -9 End Environmental Data /Analysis E -10 Deliver Environmental Assessment and 4f Statement E -11 Publish Final Environmental Assessment F - High F -1 Begin Base Sheet Preparation F -2 Prepare Vicinity Base Map F -3 End Base Sheet Preparation F -4 Meeting Graphics F -5 Begin Alignment Plan Drafting F -6 End Alignment Plan Drafting F -7 Channelization, Signals, and Illumination Drafting F -8 Drainage and Utilities Drafting F -9 Bridge Drafting F -10 Begin Design Report Drafting (Special Graphics) F -11 End Design Report Drafting (Special Graphics) - Geotechnical Engineers G -1 Begin Geotechnical 'Investigation G -2 Begin Detailed Geotechnical Investigation. G -3 Submit Draft Soils Report G -4 Deliver Soils Report H - Landscape Architect H -1 Begin Park and Trail Design H -2 Begin Streetscape H -3 End Park and Trail Design H -4 End Streetscape I - City of Tukwila I -1 Environmental Determination I -2 Begin Review of Design Report and Environmental Assessment I -3 End Review of Design Report and Environmental Assessment SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD DESIGN REPORT SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 1- NOVEMBER I 8- 15- 22- 29- DECEMBER 6- 13- 20- 27- i JANUARY 1 FEBRUARY 3- 10- 17- 24- 31- 7- 7- f MARCH 21- 28- 7- 14 -. 21- 28- APRIL 11- 18- 25- 1 7 1 14 1 21 I 28 1 5 1 12 1 19 1 26 1 2' 1 9 I 16 1 23 1 30 1 6 1 13 1 20 1 27 1 b 113 I Zu 1 Z V 1 .5 1 1u 1 1/ 1 L4 1 JU A Bannon 1 2 ' .3 B Perteet 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 C Schrengohst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 D Treman 1 2 3 E Berschinski 1 2 3 4 5 .6 7 8 9 10 11 F High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 G Geotechnical Engineers 1 . 2 3 4 H Landscape Architect 1 . 2 3 �4 I City of Tukwila • 1 . 2 3 *ILA 44,S 4 City of Tukwila 1909 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor TO: Mark Caughey FROM: Don Williams DATE: January 18, 1982 SUBJECT: Widening of Southcenter Blvd. - E.C.F. Response MEMORANDUM The Department of Parks and Recreation is very interested in the continued development of Southcenter Blvd., specifically the sidewalk's width and location. We look at the sidewalk sections as additional links in an interconnecting pedestrian /bicycling system within the community. Any provision for a sidewalk will be a step forward from what we have, or rather, do not have now. I would encourage the wide development of the new sidewalk to match the present sidewalk, narrowing to not less than eight feet. Also, all curb ramps for the handicapped and bicyclists should be included. I am most concerned on how the new roadway /sidewalk.(s) will connect into Christensen Greenbelt Park (Trail) and into any future sidewalks along Interurban Ave. The goal of our department has been to interconnect the residential area, Fort Dent Park, Christensen Trail and the commercial area, including the ability of a citizen or shopper to use a sidewalk to reach any of the four areas via a safe route. What will cloud my ability to evaluate any specific road design is the lack of final design for Phase III of Christensen Trail. We have discussed, a number of times, with the State's D.O.T. the route of our trail, either going under their 405 bridge that crosses the Green River..or widening, with a sidewalk, their Christensen Road bridge (T -Line Bridge). D.O.T. prefers we widen the Christensen Road Bridge. No final route has been selected, thus it will be difficult to evaluate what may be designed for the Southcenter Blvd. extension. Perhaps the road redevelopment will provide the City with the platform to finalize the trail design. I would encourage all parties involved in this project to keep this trail extension in mind. Please keep me informed about this project. DW /blk cc: Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director Mayor Frank Todd City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boule\ d Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 11 / JQINI / 8 li TO: t ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ,-OLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT_. ❑ PROJECT: iii117SN11\16 LOCATION: G► J>=' The above mentioned applicant has submitted for the above reference project: Environmental Checklist ❑ Environmental Impact State- ment ❑ Site /Development Plans the following plans or materials ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑Final Plat ❑ Rezone Request. ❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 21 / J1`.1 / 02 Review Depart rr ent comments: l� a 4 �A�„,, By: LOLOpv,„.(9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL li / / 62- TO: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. IRE DEPT. ❑RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, ❑ PROJECT: \Q Irst l6 lz1.- -'1107e LOCATION: ' Tf 1 ')61" — The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑Environmental Impact State- OFinal Plat ment ❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request. ❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 2i / JAN /01% Review Department comments: Relocation of water mains should be approved prior to plans development by the fire department. Questions of emergency vehicle access should be addressed prior to construction, since this is the one.area in town where all responding units merge. Fire protection for bridge structures should be address as in area of the interstate system. No immediate impact on the fire department. City of Tukwilib 6200 South enter Bouleva Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL 1 DATE OF TRANSMITTAL it / / 8� TO: T -'61lILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: 41117SNin16 � �►�+ LOCATION: Grri 1 ixvj�lJT The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑Environmental Impact State- OFinal Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request. ['Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ['Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested, response date: 21 / .)AW / 8 2 Review Department comments: By: alf Date: /3/7i02- 190S City of Tukwil 6200 South; enter BouleM Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 11 / JQq / f li TO: XJ BUILDING DEPT. FIRE DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.. • POLICE DEPT. RECREATION DEPT. PROJECT: V117SN11\16 .1..=v1117; LOCATION: GI 1''T The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: )1161knvironmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Deve,lopment Plans ❑Rezone Request. ['Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ['Conditional Use Permit ❑ Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 21 / JaN /01% Review Department comments: By: Date: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORA: 1. BACKGROUND 1. Name o^ Proponent - City of Tukwila 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency. Requiring' Checklist City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Southcenter Boulevard Improvement and Relocation 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (includ- ing but not limited to its size, general design ele- ments, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): See attached . 7. _Location of Proposal, (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understand- ing of the environmental setting of the proposal): . See attached 8.. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Construction 5/1983 through 10/1984 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local- - including rezones): City of Tukwila Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit; State Flood Control Zone Permit; State Department of Game & Fisheries Hydraulic Approval; U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit;.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit; and State Department of Transportation Approval. • 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: YES.- (a) The replacement of Southwest Grady Way Bridge (b) The completion of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail 12. Attach any other application form that has been com- pleted regarding the proposal; if none has been com- pleted, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form:. NONE ANTICIPATED 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal: The existing portion of Southcenter Boulevard scheduled for improvement is a two -lane, 30 -foot. wide facility, lying between 62nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. The planned improvements will widen this eastern portion of roadway to match the five -lane, 60 -foot wide driving surface of Southcenter Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue. In addition to widening, the eastern terminus of Southcenter Boulevard would be extended and realigned to link with the new Grady Way Bridge. (The new Grady Way Bridge is presently under design and will be con- structed while this project, is being designed.) The link would be a new at -grade intersection at Interurban Avenue (SR 181) or a direct connection to Grady Way by an elevated structure spanning Interurban Avenue. Any of the extension alternatives would require at least one new crossing of the Green River as well as modifications to the I -405 southbound on /off ramp. The proposed project would provide the missing link necessary to complete the Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way connection. This new system would serve as an alternate route to I -405. It will also provide improved safety, capacity and access for vehicles approaching Southcenter from the north and east. The improved continuity of design at the Interurban highway will promote access for transit, decrease response time for emergency vheicles, and allow completion of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail. 7. Location of the Proposal: The project area is almost entirely within the City of Tukwila limits. However, the connection point to Grady Way lies within the boundaries of the City of Renton. The proposed improvement and relocation would begin at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and 62nd Avenue South. Then, proceeding in an easterly direction, the new roadway would parallel the north side of I -405 extending over the Green River and across Interurban Avenue to link with S.W. Grady Way. No definite plan has been approved for the design of this improvement and relocation project.. Conflicts with 1 -405 ramps may be resolved by clear spanning the ramps or by modifying the ramps to carry the new roadway under them. Interurban Avenue may be spanned or crossed with an at -grade inter- section. Bridges over the Green River will be designed to allow the com- pletion of the Christensen Greenbelt. The greenbelt is completed to the north and south of this area. Ramps and roadways will require placement of fill in the Green River flood - plain, but not the floodway. The land is presently undeveloped. No new right -of -way is required, but some access agreements will have to be obtained to allow construction. jj'' °7 6Y -1-r r! NORTH ® PROPOSED PROJECT Y: A�+ Cll!._ MM+ f! Fr�:l.. Hl�JCx+. �elMt, val.l Y. e. �! a�6�u:,.. w,....^ F? T2P:. ie.. ��llcc Stl» NK+.:. i'. �a .�ie'iwAYYTJIiR.'¢tlFlt6lS$S' �rrJ CITY OF TUKWILA SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT AND RELOCATION VICINITY MAP II. ENVIRON ENTALWACTS • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required,) ATTACH EXPLANATIONS ON SEPARATE SHEET ON BACK - USING CORRECT NUMBER ASSIGNMENTS. Yes Maybe No (1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — (b) Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X _(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? •.X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?,.. (f). Changes in deposition or ero- sion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? (2) -Air. Will the proposal result: in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? • (b) The creation of objectionable odors? . .(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any .change in climate, either locally or regionally? (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water move- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X X X (d) Change in the amount of sur- face water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct in- jection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? Yes Maybe No X' X X X X X X (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? X (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X • (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: *(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? .(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered . species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? ) Light and Glare. Will the pro - posal produce new light or glare? (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Yes • ;Maybe No X (9) Natural Resources. Will the pro - posal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release .of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an acci- dent or upset conditions? (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? (12) housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing. or create a demand for additional housing? X • • Maybe No (13) Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing trans- portation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? (14) Public Services. Will the pro- posal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or al- tered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b). Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? ,(f) Other governmental services? (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the develop- ment of new sources of energy? X X X X Yes Maybe No • (16) Utilities•Will the proposal • result in a need for r.-: systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) • Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? (20) Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object _or building? X __ X X X III. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state'that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- signi- ficance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: • • Explanations to Yes and Maybe Answers II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (1) Earth. (b) Widening of the existing portion of Southcenter Boulevard will require compaction and over-covering of the soil along both sides of the existing roadway. Excavation and fill for the ex- tension and ramp modifications will disrupt the existing soil and require fill material to be imported to construct new embankments. (c) Embankments will be as much as 35 feet high, depending upon the alternative selected. This will alter the local topography. Em- bankments, pavement and bridges will modify the ground surface . relief features. (e) Until new embankments or disturbed soils are stabilized, the potential for erosion remains high. Temporary means may be utilized to prevent erosion during construction; (2) Air. (a) The project will improve the movement of traffic from the north and east and may promote traffic usage, thereby increasing vehicle- originated air emissions. However, if the project functions as an alternate route to I -405 and reduces congestion, it may help im- prove air quality. Construction equipment will produce a temporary increase in air emissions. (3) Water. (b) The new facilities will result in some minor changes in drainage patterns and slight increases in the amount of runoff. (d) All drainage now flows into the Green River, which may have 'a minor increase in.volume during storm events from the additional runoff. (e) Due to the potential for erosion during construction, the water quality in the Green River may be degraded during rainstorms if soil is not stabilized. (4) Flora. (a) Grass, shrubs and trees bordering the Green River and growing Within or adjacent to the proposed roadway will be removed or over - covered. The loss of these plants will be permanent with some compensation of loss from post- construction landscaping. • II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (continued) (5) Fauna. (a) Birds, small mammals, reptiles, etc. that presently inhabit the area planned for construction will be destroyed or displaced when the facility is built. Displaced wildlife usually dies or forces its competitors to flee and suffer a similar plight. (d) There may be a deterioration in the amount of riparian habitat along the Green. River wherever bridge crossings are made. (6) Noise. Noise levels will increase during construction from the operation of heavy equipment. Noise may also increase over the long term due to the additional vehicles using the new facility. (7) Light and Glare. Slight increases in light and glare may result from the installation of new light fixtures. The removal of vegetation may also result in minor light and /or glare impacts. (13) Transportation /Circulation. (a) The revised alignment and connection to Grady Way will allow this route to function as a practical local alternate to-I -405, thereby promoting additional vehicular movement. (c) The proposed project will modify the entire Southcenter Boulevard/ Grady Way /Interurban Avenue intersection, as well as the I -405 south- bound on and off ramps. There will be some delays and detours during construction, but there should be a positive impact on the . operation of the system after construction.. (d) The project may alter patterns of movement by realigning Southcenter Boulevard in a new tangent with Grady Way and by possibly changing the point of entrance and exit of 1 -405 southbound. (14) Public Services. (a) The proposal should have a positive impact on fire protection by improving response time. (b) Police protection should also be positively impacted by faster response time. • (14) Public Services (continued) (d) The project would facilitate the completion of a missing link in the Christensen Greenbelt and trail along the Green River. (e) The improvements will initially reduce current maintenance needs. However, these improvements, like all new facilities, will even- tually need maintenance, including resurfacing. (16) Utilities. (a) In order to construct the proposed project, some power lines may have to be relocated. (b) Telephone lines may also have to be relocated to construct the roadway. (e) New storm drainage will be included as part of the facilities. (19) Recreation. The project will promote and incorporate the necessary design features to complete the Christensen Greenbelt.