The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-190-82 - EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT - RIVERBEND OFFICE PARKRWER BEND OFI'ICE PARK EIS EPIG190 -82 111LA 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor March 20, 1984 WILSEY & HAM, INC. Central Park Building 1980 112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Tukwila Bend Office Park EIS - EPIC - 190 -82 Dear Ms. Vollbracht: This letter is formal notification that the file on this matter is closed due to elapse of a reasonable time for preparation of the final E.I.S. (WAC - 197 -10 -550). Respectt, Rick Beeler Associate Planner RB /blk cc: Evergreen Management 0 OILA Asti City of Tukwila 19 08 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor December 12, 1983 WiTsey & Ham, Inc. Central Park Building. 1980 112th Ave. NE - Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Tukwila Bend Office Park EIS Dear Ms. Vollbracht: Since six months have elapsed since our sending you comments on the draft EIS and apparent progress has not occured, we can no longer consider this to be an active application. A reasonable time period for preparation of the final EIS (WAC 197 -10 -550) has elapsed. Therefore we have closed the file on the matter. If you have any questions you can contact me or Brad Collins, Responsible Official, at 433- 1845. Respectfully, RB:mlk cc: Evergreen Management Company 1721 132nd Ave. NE Bellevue, WA 98004 k1A-4- ►q 1 a —535 6- I y--1 z (2- (:,.-4-,, F ...fit D es s 75A-1 aM a re . a420 e4 , ti,.‘..- Pe I $ -� Ik.t • tt.e T. ..6 -b-t 66 -ba FF 15 . G -arm. a.* --�- , • S19J. L P- -P P"2"471 !'n ""lif Irk' V C 6 `J 1 `t C c - %`rj 0,4 r'97-/ !7 c of-7?-n7 rrn Lof p" 'vrif ~`° 1'l'' y �' '� c-ry s 0.1 3c`1OC` O% (NO (ti02l 01 m'vt7 d O - Oi(n104 -71d1-J �( Ssa2P d - C`I I 51 C'40 71210M C2 • aztoo7 A .15 s 1 srtwsn trot ; Q S I"� are% xam3 1908 • • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 1 JUN 1 3 1983 CITY OF TUKWILA MEMORANDUM To: MARK CAUGHEY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: June 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Response to E.I.S. for Tukwila Bend Office Park •1 I have reviewed the E.I.S. for the above mentioned project and have no disagreements with stated information. However, I would like the Planning Department to note two items. Please keep the second item in mind if and when the project progresses. My first concern involves the statements on pages 16 and 17 that the public will have available access to the river via the river trail. Not only do I want to make sure the public will have access, we will need in writing an agreement that allows city maintenance crews access to the city trail, via use of private lands, to maintain the trail. It should also have been noted under the "Public Services" section on page 49 that park maintenance needs will be increased if the trail is constructed. Secondly, on page 53 it is stated under the "Recreation" section ...publicly owned river bank along the site..." and "...much of the river bank would be deeded to the city as part of the project" and I am concerned this transfer of ownership takes place prior to or at the same time the project is approved by the City. The action of transferring ownership must be reviewed by the Park Commission and of course must be approved by the City Council. I suggest the transfer action be one of the first actions the developer /owner addresses. DW /blk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor 6 June 1983 WILSEY AND HAM, INC. Central Park Building 1980 112th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Judith Vollbracht Subject: Tukwila Bend Office Park EIS As you know, the prescribed period for receiving comments on the draft EIS for Tukwila Bend ended on 3 June 1983. We have received the following written replies to the general distribution of the DEIS document: King. County, Dept. Metro P.S.A.P.C.A. Wa. State Dept. of King County, Dept. Development City of Renton Seattle /King County Commuter Pool Wa. State Dept. of Transportation Wa. State Dept. of Game of Public Works Fisheries. of Planning /Community 1 page 3 pages 2 pages 2 pages 1 page 1 page 2 pages 2 pages 1 page The neict step in the process is preparation and distribution of the final EIS. It is the responsibility of the project sponsor, acting through Wilsey and Ham, to prepare a working draft of the FEIS with response to each of the comment letters received. That working draft should be forwarded to our office for review and will then be returned to Wilsey and Ham for printing and distribution. Please keep us informed of your progress, and call upon us as needed for assistance. TUKWIL!/ A�ANNING DEPARTMENT Mafk Caughey Associate Planner MC /blk JOHN SPELLMAN Governor • STATE OF WASHINGTON • DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 North Capitol Way, GI -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -5700 Mr. Brad Collins City of Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: June 3, 1983 FRANK LOCKARD Director MEM JUN 6 1983 CITY OF TUi vot.A PLANNING DEPT. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Tukwila Bend Office Park Adjacent to the Green River, Tukwila, King County . Your document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; our comments follow. According to the document, the proposed site is adjacent to the Green River and contains a seasonal pond. Both streamside and pond areas are valuable to wildlife. Riparian habitat is used by many species of wildlife. Streamside vegetation also benefits fish by providing cover and filtering pollutants from surface runoff. Ponds provide critical habitat for wintering waterfowl in the Green River Valley. As the Green River Valley has been developed, the number of ponds available to waterfowl has been severely reduced. Because the habitat value of this site is significant, we recommend that the city require the following mitigating measures: 1) A buffer zone of undisturbed natural vegetation should be retained along the Green River. This zone should be a minimum of 100 feet wide. Natural vegetation within the strip could be enhanced by plantings of native riparian plant species. 2) The existing seasonal pond should be retained in its natural state. If development does encroach within the area of this pond, a replacement pond should be constructed on -site, as suggested on page 25. This new pond should be revegetated with native wetland plants and be surrounded by a buffer of natural vegetation. For maximum benefits to wildlife, the replacement pond should be located adjacent to the riparian buffer zone along the Green River. Guidelines for revegetating streambanks and wetland borders are enclosed. Thank you for sending your document. We hope you find these comments helpful. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Betsy Wolin, Applied Ecologist Environmental. Affairs Program Habitat Management Division BW:cv JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 Brad Collins Director of Planning City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: June 3, 1983 !UN 6 1983 C.t T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. SR 405 /SR 181 DEIS Review Tukwila Bend Office Park (K -1181) We have reviewed the subject document and have the following concerns: DUANE BERENTSON Secretary 1) Page 46 - The proposal notes traffic mitigation in the form of a dual left -turn lane from the site and a separate northbound right -turn lane. These projects would require widening the Green River Bridge. Is this being proposed? Who will fund this roadway and bridge widening? 2) A southbound left -turn lane may be more beneficial for existing office peak traffic, but would also require widening the bridge. 3) Page 43 - The peak traffic from the proposal and Longacres may not coincide, but together the lower volumes may be higher than either peak. 4) Acoustics - The proposed building may shield Fort Dent Park from SR 405 traffic noise. A very positive spinoff from this project. 5) Air Quality a. The peak and eight hour carbon monoxide concentration results should be quantified. The only reported monitored data for CO was 9.0 ppm for eight hours, since then traffic volumes have increased and LOS is projected to be F (at the 405 inter- sections). The air quality modeling facts presented are vague and inconclusive with the final concentration as an estimate. • • Brad Collins June 3, 1983 Page 2 b. The report says Longacres has no affect on peak hour traffic (since it occurs before and after), but it certainly is a con- tributing factor in the eight hour average calculation. Has this along with the project traffic been investigated? c. Comment from Page 6 air mitigating measures. Traffic improvements constructed to minimize idling time, thereby reducing emissions. All LOS charts show the volume /capacity ratio higher at studied intersections for the build proposal. Also major roadway revisions would not be completed until 1990 or after. This project would be completed in 1984, which is before the federal air quality atain- ment year of 1987. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, G.L. GILBERT, P.E. District Design Engineer PRL:jcw COMMUTER POOL VANPOOLS RIDESHARING INCENTIVES RIDEMATCHING FLEXIBLE WORKING HOURS PARKING MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE District Administrator Washington State Department of Transportation • Traffic Engineer City of Renton Traffic Engineer King County Director of Public Works City of Kirkland Manager of Transit Development Metro Transportation Engineer City of Bellevue Traffic Engineer City of Seattle ENERGY EFFICIENCY AWARD The ResMentt Rogiem fly Energy EfIF incy SEATTLE/KING COUNTY COMMUTER POOL 710 Second Avenue, Room 300 Dexter Horton Building Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 625 -4651 Dune 19 :3. Brad Collins,, Director of Planning Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: MEM JUN 6 1983 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Seattle /King County Commuter Pool has completed review of the Tukwila Bend Office Park Draft.Environmental Impact Statement. We would like to make the following comments about the transportation, circulation and parking elements of the plan. 1. Commuter Pool is pleased to see the inclusion of Transportation SystemsF'Management (TSM) techniques as measures to alleviate the adverse traffic impacts of the proposed development. The specific measures discussed,.in the DEIS (p.46) are positive steps in encour- aging the use of alternative modes of transportation. 2. We note the,.sponsors proposal to provide parking in excess of the zoning code requirements (DEIS p.16). Our experience indicates that providing an abundance of free parking acts as a disincentive for commuting to occur by a ridesharing or transit.mode. A recent-study of suburban office sites in the Greater Seattle Metropolitan area was conducted by Commuter Pool to determine the effect the presence of an organized ridesharing program has on long -term parking demand. The study .concludes that the demand for long -term parking can be reduced up to 22% at locations that have active ridesharing programs. In light of the fact that the mitigating measures discussed in the DEIS contain the basic elements of a strong TSM program, we encour- age the sponsor to reduce the number of parking stalls provided in the.development. k;e also recommend that the sponsor consider implementation of the following measures to further justify a reduction of the parking supply, and to provide additional incen- tives for the use.of alternative modes of transportation. - charge for parking, providing discounts for carpools and vanpools - establish a transportation coordinator position - establish a commuter information center containing information about ridesharing and, transit in a.:,l:ocati.on' accessible to all employees of the office park Bran Collins_ Page 2 June 3, 1983 As discussed in the DEIS, the site of the proposed development is well served by transit. We feel that with the implementation of the TSM.measures set forth in the DEIS, along with our additional sugges- tions,'and the increased accessibility for transit, car /vanpools that construction of'HOV lanes on I- 405 will provide, that a significant reduction in project related vehicle trip generation can be achieved. We hope you find our comments useful. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, William T. Roach Program Manager RJL SERVING: KING COUNTY 200 West Mercer St. P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, 98109 (206) 344 -7330 •, KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island Residents Dial 344 -7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 (206) 383 -5851 00 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY gREMM � CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Brad- Collins Director of Planning City of Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 96188 Dear Mr. Collins: 200 West Mercer Street, Room 205, P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 344 -7330 June 2, 1983 Tukwila Bend Office Park The following comments are submitted following review of the subject draft environmental impact statement by our Agency. On page 27 of the report it is stated that the project site is located in a nonattainment area for both carbon monoxide and ozone. In December, 1981, the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) redesignated the carbon monoxide area in the Puget Sound region. As a result the carbon monoxide nonattainment area, which had comprised the entire federal aid urban area, became five smaller nonattainment areas. These are: the Seattle CBD, the University District, the Bellevue CBD, the Seattle Dearborn Street and Rainier Avenue corridor, and the Tacoma CBD. Legal descriptions of these areas may be found in the Federal Register Volume 46, page 61655. The line source model referred to on page 27 and referenced on page 64 is really Caline I. To our knowledge Caline IV has not been developed. The version of the model refer- enced has gone through several revisions, the most recent in 1979, and is now called Caline III. This is the current revised model that should be used to estimate carbon mon- oxide concentrations. The assumptions used in the model should be indicated such as, vehicle emission factors (should be from Mobile 2.5 program), vehicle speed, and location and number of receptors. SNOHOMISH COUNTY (206) 259 -0288 NEW PHONE NO. 1- 800 - 552 -3565 BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN: Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large; Ray Aardal, Commissioner Kitsap County; Randy Revelle, King County Executive; Morrie Dawkins, Mayor Bremerton; James B. Haines, Councilman Snohomish County; Charles Royer, Mayor Seattle; Doug Sutherland, Mayor Tacoma • VICE CHAIRMAN: Joe Stortini, Councilman for Booth Gardner, Pierce County Executive William E. Moore, Mayor Everett; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer Mr. Brad Collins June 2, 1983 Page 2 Although there has been no monitoring for carbon monoxide in the area since 1977, the maximum 8 -hour concentration of 9 ppm found at that time indicates the potential for violations of the 8 -hour standard. Due to the increased traffic and congestion in that area since 1977 it is likely that there are violations of the CO standard. On page 43 of the report in the Transportation Section it is stated that there "...will be severe congestion at Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard..." and that project related trips leaving the site will constitute. approximately 21.5% of the total vehicle trips at the inter- section. This is a substantial increase in traffic at an intersection that will be operating at a LOS of F as shown in Table IX on page 43. From this it would appear that a detailed analysis of project impact on air quality at these intersections is warranted using the current methods men- tioned previously. Based on the traffic analysis it would appear that more substantial mitigating measures are required to assure that air quality standards are not violated. These could be in the form of reducing the number of parking spaces, providing carpool and vanpool parking and requiring a carpool /vanpool coordinator and improving transit service. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Arthur R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer sj COMEMunicipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104 June 1, 1983 Mr: Brad Collins Director of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 • CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Tukwila Bend Office Park Dear Mr. Collins: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments. Wastewater Treatment Facilities We note the proposal is within Metro's Renton Treatment Plant service area. Metro has prepared a facilities plan for the Renton system with a grant from DOE and EPA, in part because the Renton Treatment Plant has reached its "design" capacity and continued development is occurring within the service area. A final plan for the Renton service area was adopted by the Metro Council in November of 1981 and contains a recommended program for upgrading the Renton system so that water quality and health will continue to be protected. The plan calls for these improvements to be on line in the summer of 1986. Water Ouality It appears that the majority of the 22 acre site is proposed to be covered with an impervious surface and the intended means of handling stormwater runoff will be via an existing outfall discharging directly into the Green River. Metro's ongoing water quality studies of the Green - Duwamish system indicate that non -point sources such as storm drains may account for a large percentage of pollutants reaching the river. Further degradation of water quality is likely to occur due to inputs of sediment, oil and grease, heavy metals, and other associated pollutants.. • • June 1, 1983 We strongly recommend, therefore, that an on -site detention system (including oil and grease separators) be used to remove the fine particulates to which such pollutants adhere. For example, under the section entitled "Water: Environmental Impact and Mitigating Measures" (page 24) the creation of a small pond is proposed. This pond could function as a settling basin, and improve water quality, while enhancing wildlife habitat and visual aesthetics. We also recommend that all mitigating measures for erosion and stormwater control (whether temporary or permanent) are implemented and that stormwater facilities are inspected on a regular basis and maintained in good working order. For additional information please consult the King County Conservation District's manual of best management practices for erosion - sedimentation control during construction activities (226- 4867). Metro has recently completed a two -year study of the Duwamish River that culminated in the Duwamish Clean Water Plan. Three of the plan's proposed recommendations are directly applicable to the Tukwila Bend Office Park project and site. They include: improving river access; increasing river -bank shading; and enhancing wildlife habitat. The DEIS discusses mitigating measures that would meet the objectives noted above. First, we strongly support the developer's proposal to deed land to the city for a riverbank trail as part of the project. Ideally, this land should be revegetated extensively appropriate plant materials. In this way, certain temperature and dissolved oxygen - related water quality problems in the summer months can be lessened; also, non - game wildlife habitat and riverfront aesthetics will be enhanced. A final beneficial impact of a trail would be increased public access to the river. The DEIS does not, however, contain a schedule for implementation of the trail system nor demonstrate that the City of Tukwila would view this as an acceptable arrangement. We suggest additional information in this regard be provided in the final environmental impact statement. For further information or assistance regarding water quality comments please contact Mr. Tom Hubbard of Metro's Comprehensive Water Quality Planning Division, at 447 -6891 2 • • June 1, 1983 Public Transit System Metro has found that transit demand at employment locations is largely a function of employment density as well as parking availability and cost. Large low- density developments with abundant free parking actually generate very little demand for transit service. This project has a floor area ratio of only 0.40 and contains some 260 more parking spaces than required by the Tukwila zoning code. Parking is provided at the rate of one space per 268 square feet of net leasable office space, or approximately one parking space per employee. Under these circumstances, it is likely that the transit and carpool incentives, cited as mitigating measures on page 46, will have little or no effect. Metro currently provides very good transit service along Interurban Avenue, as noted on page 40. The agency is also considering locating a new park- and -ride lot in this vicinity which could result in better bus service to the site. Together, these transit opportunities make the proposed amount of on -site parking seem somewhat excessive. We strongly recommend that the developer consider reducing the amount of parking to conform to Tukwila code. Attractive alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use should be instituted as well. For assistance regarding transit incentive strategies, please contact Ms. Shirley Larsen, Pass Sales Coordinator, at 447 -5858. For further information regarding transit comments, please contact Mr. Roger Pence of Metro's Transit Development Division at 223 -4708. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division RGP :lda cc: Tom Hubbard Shirley Larsen Roger Pence 1 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor DONALD W. MOOS Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 45%00 IM%EiT.3 June 1, 1983 Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200.Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: JUN 3 19 83 , CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Tukwila Bend Office Park. We reviewed the draft EIS and have the following comments: The "FEMA Floodplain Management Permit" listed on page 2, must be referring to Tukwila's Floodplain Management Ordinance ( #1220), as FEMA itself does not issue any flood - plain management permits. On page 21, the draft EIS states that the site is above the 100 year floodplain. It might be helpful to readers to refer- ence the community's flood insurance rate map which confirms that the'site is outside the 100 year floodplain. Also, this means the proposal complies with it's Floodplain Management Ordinance ( #1220). If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Janet Rhodes at (206) 459 -6281. Sincerely, Barbara J. fiitchie Environmental Review Section BJR:pp cc: Janet Rhodes OF ° BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Z RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR p9 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235 -2540 0,9 , SEPl„0- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR Mr. Brad Collins, Director of Planning City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 June 1, 1983 SUBJECT: TUKWILA BEND OFFICE PARK, DRAFT E.I.S. Dear Mr. Collins: The Renton Environmental Review Committee is in receipt of the above referenced environmental impact statement. The document has been reviewed by our staff as requested and we offer the following comments regarding storm drainage for your consideration. The water section on pages 22 -24 in summary states, that storm water detention is not proposed, but rather, a waiver of detention requirements is being sought from King County. We are concerned on the amount of runoff that will be increased from the site to the Green River via the existing outfall, and question whether this should be permitted when other developments are required to provide the detention storage. As stated in the final paragraph of the water section, a mitigation measure for the storm water could be in the creation of a landscaped seasonal pond that would lessen the frequency and duration of storm runoff. We suggest that this idea be studied more closely in the project's design. Thankyou for the opportunity to comment. For the Environmental Review Committee. Roger J. Bla lock Zoning Administrator RJB:JFL:cl 0081N King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director May 23, 1983 Mr. Brad Collins Director of Planning City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Draft EIS -- Tukwila Bend Office Park Dear Mr. Collins: • MAY 2 41983 CITY OF TUI0iii ..A PLANNING r T. Thank you for sending us a copy of the Draft EIS for the proposed Tukwila Bend Office Park. We have reviewed the Draft EIS and have the following comments: 1. The top of existing riverbank is currently above the maximum water surface elevation based on a controlled river flow of 12,000 cfs at the Auburn river gage. We recommend the top of the existing river- bank be at or above elevation 25 feet, Mean Sea Level Datum. This elevation includes 2 feet of freeboard for an additional safety factor and for possible changes in local inflow into the Green River. 2. Any unstable side slopes along the river should be stabilized prior to any development. 3. A State Flood Control Zone Permit will be needed for this project and special attention will be given to comments 1 and 2. 4. We believe a gravity flow system from this site is sufficient. However, when the river is at a high river stage an analysis should be made to show,where, if any, surface water will pond on this site. If any areas exist, they should be clearly shown on the development plans. If you have any questions, please contact Herb Young or Larry Gibbons of my staff at 344 -4036. Sincerely, .E. WANNAMAKER, P.E. Acting Manager Surface Water Management Division GEW:LRG:njm 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-2517 • WILSEY&HAM 1980 112th Ave. N.E. /P.O. Box C -97304 Bellevue, WA 98009 (206) 454 -3250 May 18, 1983 File No. 7- 498 - 0401 -40 Mr. Mark Caughey Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: TUKWILA BEND OFFICE PARK DEIS Dear Mr. Caughey: This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation on May 17, 1983. Copies of the Tukwila Bend Office Park Draft Environmental Impact Statement were mailed out on April 29, 1983 to addresses on the attached list. I hope I can continue to answer any questions or requests that you may have. Sincerely, WILSEY & HAM Judy Vollbracht Planning /Research Coordinator JDV /l j r /B7 Attachment public improvements engineering /development services/public policy planning and analysis/environmental affairs /surveying Toll Free Numbers Everett 353 -8837 . Tacoma 572 -9982 Offices located in: Bellevue, Washington • Portland, Oregon • Foster City and Fresno, California pet g o /ot -y0 , • - Mr. Jerry Jermann, Director Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington 213 Engineering Annex, FM -12 Seattle, Washington 98195 Department of Transportation District Engineer Dist. #1 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Attention: Jerry Zirkle METRO Water Quality Division 821 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 METRO - Transit 821 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 410 S.W. Harrison P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, Washington 98119 Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Ms. Barbara Hastings Seattle /King County Commuter Pool Program Arctic Bldg., Rm. 600 704 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: William T. Roach Program Manager Seattle Times Fairview & John Streets Seattle, Washington 98121 Seattle Post- Intellingencer 6th & Wall Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Offr. Highline Times P.O. Box 518 Seattle, Washington 98166 Renton Record Chronicle 801 Houser Way South Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Real Estate /Urban Affairs Daily Journal of Commerce 83 Columbia Seattle, Washington 98104 Greater Tukwila Chamber of Commerce 950 Andover Park E. - Tukwila, Washington 98188 Rainier Audubon Society Conservation Committee P.O. Box 778 Auburn, Washington 98002 Attention: Keith Bechard South Central School District #406 9690 South 144th Seattle, Washington 98168 Puget Sound Power & Light Company Puget Power Building Bellevue, Washington 98009 Attention: Harris Faikin Dick Causey Washington Natural Gas Company 815 Mercer Seattle, Washington 98109 Pacific Northwest Bell 107 N. Division Auburn, Washington 98002 University of Washington Library College of Architecture and Urban Planning University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Renton Public Library Main Branch 100 Mill South Renton, Washington 98055 King County Library System 300 - 8th North Seattle, Washington 98109 Tukwila Public Library 14475 - 59th South Tukwila, Washington 98188 King County Department of Public Works Surface Water Management 969 King Co. Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: George Wannamaker Director Joe Nagel, Manager King County Parks Department 706 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Street Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Dave Clemens Acting Director Environmental Evaluation Branch EPA 1200 - 6th Avenue, MS 443 Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Ms. Lisa Corbyn Director South Central School District #406 4640 S. 144th Seattle, Washington 98168 Office of Community Planning and Development Department of Housing and Urban Development Arcade Plaza Building, MS 427 Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Mr. Charles Bickley Director U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District NPSEN -PL -RP P.O. Box C -3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 Attention: Col. Leon Moraski Governor of the State of Washington Legislative Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management Legislative Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Washington State Department of Fisheries Natural Production Division 115 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Attention: Gene Deschamps Environmental Coordinator Washington State Department of Game Habitat Management Division 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Attention: Bob Zeigler Washington State Department of Ecology St. Martin's College Campus Lacey, Washington 98504 Attention: Stan Springer Head, Environmental Review Ecological Commission Department of Ecology St. Martins College Campus Lacey, Washington 98504 TO WILSEY & HAM, IN fell Engineering • Planning • air Ing Environmental Analysis Central Park Building • 1980 112th Avenue N.E. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-3250 41/ i ley Gity o TJPuv%/ HaMNm4_ g . - T U cT• OF UMQa6 01TUM /^ JOB NO. y9�/o ,2oy ATTENTION DATE RE >/adl/ (1,4• ja,/ rod to l/ Ie J DELS GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU Q Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1—elrw; /a goon/ DkaJt DDS THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: XFor approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO FORM 240 -2 - Available Irom fAreaJ Townsend. Mass. 01469 SIGNED: It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Mr. Jerry Jermann, Director Office of Public Archaeology University of Washington 213 Engineering Annex, FM -12 Seattle, WA 98195 Regional Offices Dept. of Transportation Attn: Jerry Zirkle District Engineer Dist. #1 6431 Corson Ave. South Seattle, WA 98108 Environmental Planning Division Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Metro, MS 63 821 Second Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 Metro - Sewerage 1200 Monster Road S.W. Renton, WA 98055 Metro - Transit 821 Second Seattle, WA 98101 2[EM Ih7.[E111( CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT._ Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Mr. A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Offr. 410 S.W. Harrison, PO Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98119 Puget Sound Council of Governments Ms. Barbara Hastings 216 First AVenue S. Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle - King County Department Public Health Dr. Jesse Tapp (Prefers Inter - Office Mail) 09 -07 -01 Seattle /King Co., Commuter Pool Program Attn: William T. Roach, Program Manager Arctic Bldg. Rm. 600 704 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 viii State Planning & Comm. Affairs Agency 400 Capitol Center Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 Environmental Review Section Attn: Debbie Kneeland Department of Ecology MS PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Department of Fisheries Natural Production Division Gene Deschamps, Environmental Coordinator 115 General Admin. Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Department of Game Habitat Management Div. Attn: Bob Zeigler 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources Harry Anderson Public Land Bldg. MS EX -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Dept. of Ecology Attn: Stan Springer Head, Environmental Review St. Martin's College Campus Lacey, WA 98504 Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Attn: Greg Lovelady 4800 Capitol Blvd. Tumwater, WA 98504 Department of Transportation Attn: Bernie Chaplin Environmental Planner Highway Administration Bldg. MS KF -01 Olympia, WA 98504 Department of Social and Health Services Water Supply & Waste Section, MS LD -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Historic Preservation Office Ms. Jeanne M. Welch, Director 111 W. 21st AVe., MS KL -11 Olympia, WA 98504 RECIPIENTS OF THIS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Federal Agencies Environmental Evaluation Branch EPA Ms. Lisa Corbyn, Director 1200 6th Avenue MS 443 Seattle, WA 98101 Environmental Protection Agency Attn: Walt Jaspers Director of Federal Affairs 1200 6th Avenue MS 623 Seattle, WA 98101 Office of Community Planning & Development Mr. Charles Bickley, Director Department of Housing and Urban Development, Arcade Plaza Building MS 427 Seattle, WA 98101 Department of Energy Ms. Nan Evans, Environmental Program Coordinator Room 1992 Federal Building 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA ,0-1.44981041. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Col. Leon Moraski Seattle District NPSEN -PL -RP PO Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Attn: Joe Henry, Dist. Conservationist 35 S. Grady Way Renton, WP. 98055 State Offices Governor of the State of Washington Legislative Building Olympia, WA 98504 Office of Finance Mgmt. Attn: Monica Jenkins House Office Building Rm 109 MS AL -01 Olympia, WA 98504 Office of Financial Management 101 House Office Building Olympia, WA 98504 vi Local Government King County Department of Public Works Surface Water Management George Wannamaker, Director . 969 King Co. Admin. Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Dept. of Budget & Program Development EIS Review Attn: Bob Edmundson 516 Third Avenue 400 King Co. Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 King County Drainage Dist. #1 Attn: Jack Nelson 25403 104th Ave. S.E. #3 Kent, WA 98031 King County Dept. of Comm. Development Attn: Ron McConnel Bldg. & Land Devel. 410 King Co. Admin.. Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 King County Dept. of Planning and Comm. Development Planning Div. Attn: Karen Rahm, Manager W217 King Co. Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 King County Soil and Water Conservation Service 35 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Auburn Planning Department George Schuler, Director 20 A. NW Auburn, WA 98002 Renton Planning Department Dave Clemens, Acting Dir. 200 Mill St. Renton, WA 98055 Tukwi a - ning De,- ment Brad Collins, City Hal 6200 Sout ter Blvd. Tuk.• a, WA .98188 5Owe3 i`�ns e4RI,(1 2zvs.r --« , 14,el44- t4-)A g9031. • ix City of iFerit-,Ti k,.,,(.k. Mayor City Council (7 copies) Planning Commission (9 copies) Public Works Department Parks and Recreation Department Police Department Fire Department City Attorney SEPA Information Center Utilities /Services Keirt`School Distr. #415 Attn: Phil Go • ales Fac i es Supervisor Adminis .t '.n Office 12033 SE 256 St. Ke- , WA 98031 Puget Sound Power and Light Attn: Harris Falkin - Dick Causey Puget Power Bldg. Bellevue, WA 98009 Washington Natural Gas Company 815 Mercer Seattle, WA 98109 Pacific Northwest Bell 107 N. Division Auburn, WA 98002 Libraries Kent Public Library Fourth & Titus Kent, WA 98031 %A A. Cca,A4-m( c Dis i«4* 44-, 4:i64o L t 4-04. -FNe WA 98/68 University of Washington Library College of Architecture and Urban Planning University of Washington Seattle, Wa 98195 Mat., 13rs.MC/L Nai4 y Icy /bp An )1 Sogi't Re.44-VA h WA °1 S oSS- Ki 45 c..c#. j/ L, 6ra�rJr 5 Sad 0'F'. %eagle WA "es ep9 Tuwcut c��1�1« Lt -6Ma y t4 4-75- S *L. S Ti�kw�iq� k)A cleiess Mc't� t3ratAci.. a� �,61tc 11LI6"ck'y 10c) 64111 Sou+& Re..4-z.t WA "Sass Newspapers Kent News Journal Attn: John L. Fournier, Jr. Publisher PO Box 130 Kent, WA 98031 Seattle Times Fairview & John Seattle, WA 98121 Seattle Post - Intellingencer 6th & Wall Seattle, WA 98121 Daily Journal of Commerce 83 Columbia Seattle, WA 98104 Private Organizations and Others Washington Environmental Council 107 S. Main Seattle, WA 98104 Kent Chamber of Commerce 604 W. Moeker Kent, WA 98031 KASY Radio PO Box 459 Auburn, WA 98002 Green River Study Group Carol Stoner PO Box 772 Kent, WA 98031. '••(,Q 1, 11.1. Ti�ss S=o• lactale SIel . 3.e l4 1e, ' 816d. Rear,) C v-0.1 (ale A++ `s Vu .4 , , #N Ms Sol Houser Nay Mae7÷1-4 1 ca4-ar; FVA °>BoSS' Cre -L. „4aV14"ron CL4:4..64e• 44 Ccw+gtreO 30co Ra.ti,e•- le_„1-t-cY1, l/l A cps oss Gres - TZakw,L C1.- -..402. Ce,..umeoc• 951, aaelesver. Qctr(c F T kwAa 4JA ai818 Ric art Chairma• of Kent D- opment Assoc. Inc. Green Riv- .vel 101 Sou - st venue Ke , WA 98031 Rainier Audubon Society Conservation Committee Attn: Keith Bechard PO Box 778 Auburn, WA 98002 xi R0. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor • STATE OF WASHINGTON WABW.H LMAY 19 1983 CITY OF TUYWtLA PLANNING DEPT. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -6600 • (SCAN) 234 -6600 LAND A. SCHMITTEN Director May 16, 1983 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Brad Collins Gentlemen: Draft EIS - Tukwila Bend Office Park - Green River WRIA -B- 09-.0001 We have reviewed the referenced document and have the following comments: 1) Water Quality Maintaining suitable water quality in adjacent streams is important in the preservation of the fishery resource of the system. During the construction phase, all runoff from the site should be directed into a settling basin to assure that only clean water is allowed to enter the stream. The final site plan should be graded to direct all surface water into a retention pond designed to separate the water from all settleable material and floating material including oil. 2) Water Quantity The stability of a natural stream system has adapted to the character of the watershed. The rate of runoff into the stream from adjacent property is determined by the slope, type of material and type of cover. If any of these factors are changed, like trading underbrush for asphalt, than the rate of runoff is changed. Increased runoff does two things: 1. Increases winter floods, and, '2. Decreases summer low flows. Both results are detrimental to the aquatic resources in the stream. Projects should be designed with detention ponds which will meter the runoff at a rate similar to that which existed before the land was altered. 3) Hydraulic Project Approval Any work which will directly involve a stream will require the proposer to obtain prior approval from the Department of Fisheries City of Tukwila -.2t.. flay 16.; 1983 and the Department of Game. Please contact us at 115 General Administration Building, Olympia Washington 98504. Allow 30 days for processing of the applications. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Rick Trosper; Habitat Manager Habitat Management Division cc: Game SEPA file RT:cp MEOWED MAY 4 1983 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director May 2, 1983 Mr. Brad Collins City of Tukwila Director of Planning City Hall Tukwila, Wa RE: Draft EIS - Tukwila Bend Office Park Dear Mr. Collins: This Division has no comment concerning this project, except to recommend you send a Draft EIS to the City of Seattle Parks Department, who maintain and operate Fort Dent Park. SM:de Si rel Steve Massey Project Admit' strator c-93 itb d pc�lT� 96109 Division of Parks and Recreation 709 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-4232 sti City • Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor 21 March 1983 WILSEY AND HAM, INC. 1980 112th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Bill Derry Subject: Tukwila Bend Office Park DEIS We have reviewed the revised draft prepared by Wilsey and Ham, Inc. and received by this office on 10 March 1983; we have the following comments: Page 1: Introduction - Under "Principal Contributors ": add Lance Meuller Associates for architecture /layout Page 5 -8: Summary of Contents of Draft EIS - Water: add d) Elimination of seasonal on -site ponding - C) Vegetation /Wildlife: 2) Mitigating Measures, add b) Shoreline landscaping will partially shade rivercourse, helping to control water temperature thus enhancing fishery value; c) Retention and enhancement of seasonal pond as a managed year- around habitat. - N) Aesthetics: under impacts add b) Possible unfinished appearance of the site due to incremental phasing of construction _"_ge 9: Summary of Alternatives - As a possible third alternative, the possibility of development of the project in phases should be evaluated. This analysis should include and emphasize aesthetic controls necessary to minimize visual degradation of the site during phasing, potential time- frames for phasing, and contingency provisions to be implemented in the event that full build -out is not acheived within the identified time - frames. Page 10: Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts - Under "Earth" add 3) Loss of topsoil productivity - Add "K) .Housing" 1) Insufficient.housing opportunity within Tukwila; increased housing demand may be transferred to surrounding communities Page 17: Existing Plans and Regulations Page -2- WILSEY AND HAM, INC. Attn: Bill Derry 21 March 1983 • - Under "Shoreline Master Plan," add final sentence: "However, landscaping treatment as prescribed in TMC 18.44 would be provided within the River Environment by the-project proponent as required by the City's shoreline official." - Include discussion of project compatibility with the general provision of the PSCOG King Subregional Plan as endorsed by City Resolution 728 (21 April 1980). Page 18: Missing? Page 19: Spelling corrections, line.6 of text Page 23: ,Editorial revisions as indicated in. draft EIS document Page 31: Glare Reduction - The diagram appears unclear as to whether it represents a typical, worst or best -case condition. In any case, this diagram is more simplistic than the originally prepared by Lance Meuller's staff for the proposed 3 story office building which would have been placed on the westerly portion of the. site..... Further refinement of the glare study is needed, as is : -.a ` textual clarifications of the assumptions is used. Page 33: Elements of the Human Environment - Under "Population and Housing ": The forecasting model used to predict in- city housing demand is rife with faulty assumptions and appears to be of little value: a). 1980. population of 5000 overstated; actually closer to 3600 (1981). b) 2% continued linear expansion of population not supported. c) Continued increase in total employment not in accord with actual conditions; trend. for 1981 -82 is down from 1980. d) Method of proportional comparison of net change. (rather than increase) in employment to projected in -city population growth appears valid, but should be refined by a coefficient comparing the present number of city residents employed within the city limits. Impact assessment appears based on absolute numbers, rather than on comparison of new potential housing demand with historic vacancy rates. Page 34: Eliminate item 3) at top of page; not geographically relevent to to Green River valley communities. Page 46: Note minor punctuation editing Page 47: Energy . - Under mitigating measures: Description of "adequate" energy availability seems somewhat contradictory with the statement that electrical service to the area is nearing capacity. A qualifier statement needs to be added to address this matter, especially since the project may be phased. If future phases of office construction come on -line after the electric Page -3- WILSEY AND HAM, INC Attn: Bill Derry 21 March 1983 • system reaches capacity, what are the implications for project energy consumption? Page 48: Utilities - Under "communications ": is the court - ordered divestiture of the Bell system likely to affect availability of service to the project? Page 49: Archaeology /History - "Impact" subheading seems appropriately placed above the second para- graph A possible second mitigating measure to be identified is the placement of an interpretive display on site discussing it's historic surroundings, perhaps at a focal point on the river trail. Page 50 -53: Fiscal Impacts - Appears unchanged from.the January 3rd rough draft; no apparent response to our concern regarding possible overstatement of sales tax revenue generated by the project. Again, the taxable sales /employee ratio for office use seems high, as does the 25% capture rate. Cal- culations are either incomplete or inaccurate in some instances. Also, a summary paragraph comparing cost /revenue data should be included along with any conclusionary statements. Transportation Section (received 3- 18 -83) 1) The following comment was not responded to: - The EIS describes 1 -405 as "occasionally congested." A more correct description would be "normally congested during peak rush hour traffic." According to paragraph 3, page 17 of the 1982 design report for Southcenter Blvd. by Entranco, "...'I -405 between Tukwila and Renton...is operating at level of service E during peak hours." Service E indicates intolerable delay. The following comment was not responded to: - Table III. does not correspond to page 21 of the 1979 T.I.P. by Entranco, or to pages 16, 17 and 20 of the Southcenter Blvd. Study. - Table VIII could be in error since it was produced from Table III which may also be in error. There may be some error in correlating the v/c numbers to the alphabetical rating for congestion. 3) The following comment was only addressed for the Interurban Avenue South- . Southcenter Blvd. intersection, the other intersections should be addressed. What will be the average increase in delay time at these intersections. The . table should demonstrate how recommended alternative 14 of the Southcenter Page -4- WILSEY AND HAM, INC. Attn: Bill Derry 21 March 1983 Blvd. Study would affect level of service of these intersections, with and without your proposed mitigating measure of a dual left turn . lane for the project. The following comment needs to be analyzed in more detail: - The EIS does not show adequately how the project's peak hour or average daily traffic compare with the projected 1990 rate, and the implications thereof. Indications are that the project will increase the traffic volumes close the the. projected 1990 volumes and shown on figure 14, page 57 of the 1979 T.I.P. and figures IV - 4, page. 35 of the Southcenter Blvd. Study. Compare these items to figure 7 of the DEIS. Table 7, page 60 of the 1979 T.I.P. shows that Interurban Avenue South from Southcenter Blvd. will need six lanes to accomodate projected 1990 volumes. - The second sentence in the second paragraph of Planned Long -Range Improvement may not be correct as it reads, "It is assumed that 1990 traffic volumes will already include project - related traffic since future traffic projections (at a rate. of 2.9 percent per year) are . intended to account for development growth in the area." Figure 14 of page 57 of the 1979 T.I.P. assumed that the p.m. peak hour traveling west at the Fort Dent intersection as 110 vehicles. There will be • 707 generated by just this development. - By comparing figure 7 of this report with figure IV -3 on page 34 of the Southcenter Blvd. Study, it can be seen that the additional vehicles from this project will increase the traffic volumes on Interurban Ave. So. between Southcenter Blvd. and Grady Way beyond the 1990 forecast by Entranco Engineers. - This report needs to discuss the 1979 T.I.P. recommendation on page 60 which. shows that six lanes are required on Interurban Avenue South for 1990 traffic volumes. Table IX of this:'report should also show the traffic LOS without Tukwila Bend Office Park. This information can be obtained from page 37 of the Southcenter Blvd. Study. Remove last line on first page of the transportation section. It is repeated on the next page. 7) Table IV of the study does not correspond to page 20 of the 1979 T.I.P. Which is correct? Change second line of second paragraph. under Traffic Impacts to read "Table VIII ".instead of "Table VII." Page -5- WILSEY AND HAM, INC. Attn: Bill Derry 21 March 1983 9) In the last sentence under Traffic Impacts include "for all directions" after "... 21.5 percent of the total vehicle trips at the intersection..." 10) The last four lines of the transportation section were repeated. It appears that further revision of the draft text will be needed prior to authorization of release for publication; please call upon us for assistance as needed. TUKWILA X7,ANNING DEPARTMENT Ma k Caughey Associate Planner MC/blk 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 18 January 1983 WILSEY AND HAM, INC. • Central Park Building 1980 112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: William Derry Subject: Tukwila Bend Office Park D.E.I.S. We have completed our review of the preliminary draft environmental impact statement received by our office on January 3, 1983, and have included our comments on a separate. enclosure. I believe you will find our remarks self - explanatory, but please feel free to call on me for further amplifica- tion as needed (433- 1849). I have also returned the DEIS document with notations of minor editorial changes which we would prefer to see in the final draft. The next step in the process, as we see it, is for us to review the final draft of the EIS once your revisions according to the enclosed comments ate completed. Again, please call upon us for assistance as needed. MC /blk Enclosure xc: Planning Director Tukwila/1" nning Department f Mpfk Caughey Associate Planner 14 January 1983 RIVER BEND. OFFICE PAP . EIS Review • - "Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation" a) Change format to "outline" impacts and mitigation under each category. b) "Air" - Describe what is meant by "proper construction techniques." c) "Water" - Impacts discussion should include description of project's affects on groundwater. - Mitigation discussion should include description of temporary siltation controls to project riverwaters during construction. - Cleaning of parking areas, direct discharge of roof drains to catch basins, frequent maintenance of stormwater system should all be included under mitigation. d) "Vegetation /Wildlife" - Impacts on Green River Fishery not identified; discuss affects of river bank landscaping as required by TMC 18.44.130 on mitigation of fishery habitat impacts. "Noise" / "Risk of Explosion" . - Suggested mitigation strategies not included. f) "Population /Housing" .- .:Disagree with conclusion of minor impact; see our comments under "Elements of the Human Environment." g) "Public Services" - Add discussion of mitigating measures: i.e., - Fire control systems in building; describe anticipated service demands on recreational facilities at Fort Dent Park. - Add notation of short -term impact on street clean activities of Public Works Department and mitigating solutions. - "Summary of Alternatives" .a) Change format to "outline" impacts and feasibility of each identified alternative. - "Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts" a) Change format to "outline" individual impacts. b).. "Soils" - add loss of top -soil productivity. Page -2- RIVER BEND OFFICE PARK EIS Summary c) "Water" - Increase in stormwater runoff volume increasing urban pollutant levels; potential decrease in groundwater quality. (add) d) "Light and Glare" - Increased light and glare potential from reflective building surfaces, lighting equipment and automobile traffic. - "Description of the Proposal" a) Physical and engineering aspects. - 4th paragraph: Note in text that parking provided is in excess of zoning code minimum requirements. - "Existing Plans and Regulations" Comprehensive Plan - Some of the policy statements identified do not in fact seem consistent with the impacts of the project. For example, the policy which speaks to preservation of wildlife habitat seems to contradict statements under "Unavoidable Impacts" which anticipate elimination of resident species. A short, amplified description of project consistency should follow each policy statement. Interurban Special Review Area - As this is a unique requirement of the project's geographic location, it should be described under a separate heading. - "Existing Conditions, Environmental Impacts /Mitigation" a) Earth — Attach Dames & Moore soils investigation as an appendix to the DETS. - Expand text to include summary description of soil bearing capacity and site seismicity. b) Water - Existing conditions narrative should expand to include discussion of flood control characteristics of this segment of the Green River and any anticipated improvements to be required for the river dike. Page -3- RIVER BEND OFFICE PARK EIS Summary - Discussion /analysis should be added concerning ground water quality conditions, impacts thereto and potential mitigation actions. - Provide simple diagram describing maximum limits of site's seasonal wetlands; discuss, as an alternative to its total °elimination, preservation and enhancement thereof as a feature of internal project open -space design. - King County Soil Conservation Service should have an opportunity to examine the erosion control plan. c) Wildlife /Vegetation d) Air - Narrative does not seem to recognize that existing vegetation within the 40 foot wide "river environment" management area is to be left undisturbed to the greatest extent possible, thus preserving existing habitats to some degree. - Mitigation description should recognize the value of river environment landscaping requirements (TNC 18.44.130) for enhancement of land - animal and fishery habitats. - Suspended particulate data (Pg. 25) does not agree with other EIS data on file with the lead agency demonstrating standard concentration level may be exceeded in project vicinity. - Paragraph 5 under "environmental impact ": explain why increased project - related traffic is not expected to increase C -0 concentrations in violation of site standards. e) Noise - Include appendix regarding definition of terminology and criteria (P. 27); otherwise, a very thorough analysis! f) Light and Glare - As noted in the 15 November .1982 scope -of -work memorandum, use of reflective exterior building materials will require inclusion in the DEIS of a solar- azimuth glare- reduction study. - "Elements of the Human Environment" Population - We disagree with both the conclusion reached under this heading.- Page -4- RIVER BEND OFFICE PARK EIS Summary and the method by which it was reached. 1500 plus employees expected under full . occupancy of the site represents nearly an 8% increase in total employment for the City. A quantita- tive assessment of population increase, and concommitant increase in housing demand, is possible using 1980 census data and PSCOG modelling techniques. This section and its `summary statements at the beginning of the DEIS. need ..to be revised completely, as we anticipate that the project will indeed increase housing demand relative to the City's limited housing resources. b) Transportation (Comments supplied by. the Tukwila Public Works Department) - The EIS describes I -405 as "occasionally congested." A more correct description would be "normally congested during peak rush hour traffic." According to paragraph 3, Page 17 of the 1982 design report for Southcenter Blvd. by Entranco, ...I -405 between Tukwila and Renton...is operating at level of service E during peak hours." Service E indicates intolerable delay. - Table III does not correspond to Page 21 of the 1979 T.I.P. by Entranco, or to Pages 16, 17 and 20 of the Southcenter Blvd. Study. - Table VII could be in error since it was produced from Table III which may also be in error. There may be some error in correlating the v/c numbers to the alphabetical rating for congestion. The table should demonstrate how recommended alternative 1/4 of the Southcenter Blvd. Study would affect level of service at these intersections, with and without your proposed mitigating measure of a dual left turn lane for the project. - In the second -to -last sentence in the first paragraph under planned long -range improvements it is stated that the proposed improvement of Southcenter Blvd. "...will improve the level of service at these intersections." How much improvement will result? According to the recommended alternative 1/4 on Page 45 of the Southcenter Blvd. study, this alternative ...would not meet the requirements for circulation and capacity..." - The EIS does not show adequately how the project's peak hour or average daily traffic compare with the projected 1990 rate, and the implications thereof. Indications are that the project will increase the traffic volumes close to the project .1990 volumes as shown on figure .14, Page 57 of the 1979 T.I.P. and Page -5- RIVER BEND OFFICE PARK EIS Summary figures IV - 4, P. 35 of the Southcenter Blvd.. Study. Compare these items to figure 7 of the DEIS. Table 7, Page 60 of the 1979 T.I.P. shows that Interurban Avenue South from Southcenter Blvd. will need six lanes to accomodate projected 1990 volumes. Aesthetics - Discussion assumes no aesthetic impact on surrounding • community with full buildout. Aesthetic impacts of phased development'alternatives should be analyzed. d) Archaeology /Historical - Attach U/W analysis as an appendix to the DEIS. - Discuss briefly historical antecedents of this geographic . sub -area: i.e. Interurban railway, Fort Dent Park... O. Economic Analysis - Justify approximate sales /employee generation rate of $46,330; (seems high). - 71,070,987 x .25 = $17,767,746 assumed subject to sales tax; .625 x that figure does not -= $66,298. Explain: 1) How you derived the $66,298. Any intermediate step not listed? 2) Justified estimate of $17 million dollars in taxable sales from an office project.: Tenant mix anticipated to include significant proportion of taxable businesses? - "Irreversible /Irretrievable Commitments" - Disagree with absolute wording of paragraph 2. Delay of the project would preserve existing habitats and minimize exacerbation of traffic impacts on the local street system. 0 a w *ILA • 4 City of Tukwila. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor 15 November 1982 'Wilsey and ,Ham, Inc. Central Park Building 1980 112th Avenue Northeast Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attn: William Derry, Environmental Planner Subject: River Bend Office Park E.I.S. We have reviewed the proposed scope of work which was submitted to our office on 2 November 1982 and find it quite a complete outline for pre- paration of the Draft Environmental: Impact Statement for the project. We would like to call your attention to certain details under various topic headings which should be included in the text content: Elements of the Environment Water: We are interested primarily :in-..:a_. quantitative assessment of run- off volumes generated by the project and a description of appropriate detention strategies needed to satisfy the standards of the various agencies concerned with water quality control for the Green River. Flora and Fauna: Where possible, we ask that the text discuss alternative approaches to habitat destruction, either through preservation of existing conditions or enhancement /reconstruction of habitat resources. Light and Glare: Prior development proposals for this site have envisioned use of mirror - reflective glass as a primary construction material; if this intent is carried forward in the River Bend proposal, a solar - azimuth glare reduction study will be needed. Public Services: Of special concern under "Parks and Recreation" is the status of existing and proposed improvements to the Green River trail system. Sidewalk access to Interurban Avenue and future linkage with the Christensen Greenbelt trail are of concern also. Utilities: Discussion of adequate domestic water supply for satisfaction of fire -flow - requirements should be included under this topic. Additional Elements: As specified in City Ordinance 1211, additional "elements" of environmental review may be required to ensure full disclosure of impacts and mitigation for topics of specific local concern. As this project is within the Interurban Avenue special review Page -2- Wilsey and Ham, Inc. 15 November 1982 area described in Section 18.60.060, we ask that the special element entitled "neighborhood cohesion and sociological factors ". be included in the E.I.S. Under that heading, the project's impacts on and enhancement of the long -term vitality of the Interurban Corridor area, physically and sociologically, should be addressed based on the . criteria contained in 18.60.060. We hope that this information is useful to your work on the project E.I.S. Please keep us informed of your progress thereon and let us know if we can provide .further guidance. TUKW IL ANNING DEPARTMENT Mark Caughey Associate Planner MC /blk xc: Ping. Dir. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 9 August 1982 Evergreen Management Co. 1721 - 132nd Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Attn: Thomas E. Moore Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - RIVER BEND OFFICE PARK (EPIC- 190 -82) Having completed interdepartmental review of your project's evironmental checklist form, the threshold determination process has resulted in a finding by the responsible official that this project as proposed may have a significant adverse environmental impact (see enclosure). In accordance with Section RCW 43.21C.O3O of the State Environmental Policy Act, it will be necessary to complete an Environmental Impact Statement before any other permits for the development are issued. Section 10 of Ordinance 1211 provides that the City may require the applicant to prepare the E.I.S. Document; it is our wish that you assume the responsibility to do so. In order to assure timely completion of the necessary documents, it is vital that our office provide you and your consultants withthe appropriate guidance. As a first step, therefore, we would like to schedule a meeting with you at your earliest convenience so that we may discuss and clarify . the many complexities . which are entailed in completing the•E.I.S. process. Please advise us of a suitable meeting date. Thanks for your cooperation. TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Mark Caughey Associate Planner xc: Ping Dtr MC:js CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL DECLARATION OF NW- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Office Park Proponent Evergreen Management Co., Bellevue, WA Location of Proposal Estly. Terminus of Southcenter Blvd. Lead Agency City of Tukwila File . No. EPIC - 0 -82 This proposal has been determined to (have/ MX - () a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (is /UXXXPAO 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 Di rector Date COMMENTS': • Signature Ce-e ..„,7 • CITY OF TUKWILA • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of S50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY 2. Address and Phone Numb,er.of Proponent:;; '1721 - 132nd Ave. N. E. Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 881 -2212 3. Date Checklist Submitted: July 9, 1982 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: PLANNING DEPT., CITY OF TUKWILA 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: TUKWILA BEND OFFICE PARK 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): Five, each, three -story buildings totaling approximately 383,500 sq.ft. of gross building area. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): The site is a peninsula surrounded by the Green River on three sides, with Fort Dent to the north and Interurban Avenue to the west. The site is currently undeveloped. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: December 1983 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. (b) King County Hydraulics Permit (c) Building permit YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit (f) Sign permit - (g) Water hook up permit (h) Storm water system permit (i) Curb cut permit (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: YES NO X YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connedted 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: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: N/A I I . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: _(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -9- YES MAYBE NO X_ �\ X X • YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: Normal clearing and grading will occur over the site for five buildings and parking with excavation for footings and structural fill under buildings. 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? Explanation: See Attachment. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, 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? (d) Change in the amount of surface 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? -3- X X X X X X X X X X • • YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters;? X (i) Reduction in -the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? X Explanation: The ground water is presently absorbed through natural soil percolation. In the future increased run -off from non - absorbent surfaces such as the w9 park' d building roof will be stored on site in retention facilities /arid r Org' rd f &d to off -site drainage at a rate equivalent to the natural flow. Oil run -off from parking lot will be limited by oil separating catch basins. 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)? X (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X • (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X Explanation: Field grass and a stand of alder will be replaced by trees, shrubs and lawn native to the Northwest and installed per Tukwila Planning Code. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? _(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Explanation: Small field .animals and birds nesting in trees and fields will be displaced. • YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X Explanation: During construction, there will be increase in noise and slight increase due to nature of use (office). 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Explanation: Parking lights and lights from buildings. Low glare fixtures will be used. There will also be increased glare due to the glass surfaces of the structures, with minimum impact on surrounding locations. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X X X Explanation: The buildings will be constructed of a combination of concrete, steel and glass with'the parking lot being asphalt. None of these materials are particularly scarce and they will have no significant impact on depletion of natural resources. 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 radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? X Explanation: • 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES MAYBE NO . X Explanation: With the tendency for people to live as close as possible to their work, the introduction of new office in Tukwila would likely cause an increase in population to the south side of Lake Washington. Some of these employees may already live in the subject area. Estimated employee load is 3,300 to 3,500 people. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X Explanation: See Explanation-11'.- 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? X (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See attached. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, o'r result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: X X X X - (a) Fire protection? X (b) Police protection? X (c) Schools? X -�> (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, .including roads? X • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X Explanation: 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? X (b) Communications systems? - X (c) Water? X (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X (e) Storm water drainage? X (f) Solid waste and disposal? X Explanation: (a) Natural gas will be brought in from main under Interurban Ave. (b) Pacific Northwest Bell is planning needed sub - station that will handle the additional load from this project. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: X • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE NO X Explanation: The office complex will integrate landscaping and site amenities with the City of Tukwila's river access easement. 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: See attached. CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: X 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 - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. EVERGREEN MA GEMENT COMPANY Signature and Title Mark Miller, Manager Construction Division. -8- X ATTACHMENT 2. Air. Explanation: An estimated carbon monoxide count of 1.53 parts per million would be produced from 4,100 two -way trips per day from this office complex. (Permissible count 9 million parts per million). Pollution from dust will be decreased due to the fact that the site will be sealed with asphalt paving and building. Landscape area will be professionally maintained and watered by an irrigation system. During construction, dust emission would be controlled by water and chemical surface spraying, cleaning street after each day's work and limiting dust and mud from truck tires, as recommended by the Puget Sound Control Agency. VICINITY MAP ilul Ni. Me . TUKWI • MIN ORLON • RIVER BOAT OMIT PARK (COUNTY PARK) ?O ISM YY. PROJECT STATISTICS 1ST. M.. mw lc •w CO•••. ••••• P•4 .O •Mama . 006 .1/1 /■0 1 006w+•w Ger• ro •10.441LW1 A ••cl r+..1 OW . &P. •*TONY t....eo• -12 §m� I. j \S wawa �= 1 ILI' 1 91T6 PLAN • •Wbf 10.r.• ..'d • slrl PI I�ST r1-001k rLdr1. 'b IVI /K' I�a.we f• neon •••••• P.M flu*sa rr.c-- r- IMMEMINSIM® • ■e•e.A..A mm∎■sesevso ' reeememm>va'' 'maw •IeUUUSMUG• egemer gee e■ ■• am FAWN ]eeae•ae■ ■ee!.'' "gees Geeeeeeelasitmz r7 "IIG =Otlm •.•emcee' MINE _._ e.e Z.,,i. iee ®ale■ f...••� _ .... ■.■ , t/frrn WIM11MMad EA, b-r et.EvaTb.N ememaaaaege� N e ,:. HIIIMM iii;ammalr Os Oa !9 1lf11fMI�'iGar• ' ' aeee�b c�� tO(J Ft- EV4T1Gtt o we }�Yfa�l6P N•v•• q rs ref e. Pomp, uMlM.n .i ,wfr. •: r�.w.r�' PrR an.e.a .wm...en VY. 11111•011.1. .VM1redp.r — .eA1.T. WO !J6 . nu <r.•...01 « r 9M. PP=eM■••W.D1 ' n roe ....al. OM • i ••=mo t iA U. -0EC..1i ort >4 +qM R err emeffa f•MfR — ..Maws nee. Mt. N*~.. i TMi w . y'ai.. •IMTIIMea 11P. ,,v? MR. •NPS V/F-' 0.4.7 pWL..AnKM • i ir • YMM 1•414 I U fiver.... ,(Na erwlr t 1 1 R 11 i lQ 0 0 — —a/ mama OMMia. .• hew "now ors ...NW —67. i — ■Mesdamoda. ream Idol mdmal. mdmmada addef•••• mar. .9 dr Poda Catetry Revco. W ...aso. • S.M. /Mom rdTm =110 6mad a ddimmem 16.64 4Wi rwe,. mcs' te.eari... • FNEF- 0 Mt AMA.= PIM. mad Imago . -• GrtgtH Weft. fb1:101M.1.=.1NE:1-- Pg0fILES 1 • a a a a 0/. Immo.. OW. Ina Vasal•L L.A. • 1.1,041. 1.4.0•• powlaaa. •••1•■••• ••• pboaa . . . 4deularslk W.••••6 efte_ pro us.rlin. co-etri fkl•lefz. reculientow. 411041 MIER - : ..• -.ToHORE-LINE • 11•140.0,- - • . .t / '• .- woman. 0'000, if0001 000 11.6.. r4.161000 TOP 0 11.00 06.1 *0.66.• S i6000.6. • 4000110.p. et papa. _mr 0•1 .0.116 0006.60 1•0011100,a0a..-. 0.4 ma. obea 00.0 6REEt4 ft4vEll• rq 1110.0,611. 606.11.0. 406060. 0 aa Ia▪ r ▪ vabb, , 110,. 061..$60 agtrarl=mil • 4"1*".100066 .// rarry 16.01.6. 06 0' 000 • / --11.00_61021_30.30 IUH p.. ILE1I FNe41 , • Y./ • -`6HORELIfig-7-1W0fitZ5--- • . .• e•refl pea ie.. 8 • 0.10.4. 00 040444 40•61V.I. atlie111111W:. ser 64..4 41,46:01 valMola. Cada. elwrIti 10■180: tiMniu.• Oftrare a .00.0.0111--* ..rer (me tiOiser■ RV. fade:Seri fLNE11- •••// / ...Amy Aka, /Ira. ,„ - 10e le 0.04411. —7.: • 4.,///... fieRlemati. Waammook 0/ • 111:. 'WY 00041.1' MO. ,,,.////////f / //. Tor or 01.1. rikont.n 1 : tr .:- 0 a a 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vogt.. Wk .♦ ■.Lm ..M 1.r•. 4/•'/ .: '1.. / //� 104114 OW* a.d... --a • s w •••c ad tlL_••Ar___ so SWAM +.,a.', •... ,..•• nw. o'..rtw .•• pw // K. Ad ML.1M •'M.■111-+ idctrt war. InM w.�nr / n... WWI M•ra% wYH all wra J W 0,11.00. 4•0.11wes. --■ 110.40.• waert flea fl..6 40.4ftas fo• afismr mihn 4m 110.0411 /5.11.• (NILO •wito. ■40.4.. a ea. /WNW/ 111•••14 INes. ILI OP eaaa 1 moo Asa yrs". /.."?...4/777//,'/,',/7/,..W1(/-W,/ 40.01,10., 11/ 11.146* 41,46r4 PAM it•e•rr r.ds /2/...;!%%•••• • Vembe... 410 MEMO SHOREL1116:1:11COFILES /.7Z77 7777- AWN iLMg 1. a z 3 w a 0 to 11 1 a 1 1 11 ••••• • r L 1 Il[47I'/'h1I/// / /l' 61 i "°�1` • at.I.' C J / / 1 SITE PLAN 2.423 ACRE PARCEL;FORT DENT OFFICE ASSOCIATES TUK W ILA, W A BHINGTON WkH WIL¢FY k HAM IM' oc+wislNc • P APIMIN6 • a,amoo •.NVI.WYWdL Awurm.. !il breaks Imarnal •k,A.• Tr•i1K141i1■ YW tlp9NMp WESTERN ATHLETIC CLUBS INC. SHORT PLAT — SITE PLAN Tukwila, Washington. 1V:1.111114. • 1•1 \. \I., . • •11.I %IV. • 1'.\ 11.,11 • 1u l.111•• • ,..an 0.0/ __ 4 _ n, I. 1�.,` WESTERN ATHLETIC CLUBS INC. SHORT PLAT — SITE PLAN Tukwila, Washington. 1V:1.111114. • 1•1 \. \I., . • •11.I %IV. • 1'.\ 11.,11 • 1u l.111•• • ,..an 0.0/ mY+ •• • \1 .. \\ ,, . M \ \ \ \\ \\ \\\\\\\\:2i\\\,\\\\\\\ ‘\\ \�� \ \\ \ • \ \� \ \\ \ \ \,1= , 1 % \ \ \ \\ 1 \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \, \\ \ .\p \ \A\ \\ \ 11\ 1 1 \\\ \ \\ \ l 111,'�1�1 \11 \1 \1 w� \ ‘."..\\; ' � iiii 111 �. i�1 �A '\ \I%1 i'1it 1 if '01 4I 4 • 1; • 1, _ coy' eft 4 lieu; I41,11111 II p11 • 1 I Iilllalll t 11.i' IllIIII �I , °1111ity, 1111111 �'.I 1 1•-afJI tIIIll ff,I L --i,, 1I�i11ji11 1 t� 1 � • II I p 111 11 11 1 1 - �"`/�/ /41 11 11 �^ ,11 ,, IIII 11 lig tail 1:111 /I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , • 1�} '' "' // / / /// in —�--�� . p L THRESHOLD DETERMINATION 110 RIVER BEND OFFICE PARK (EPIC -82) The proposed action is the issuance of a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit to construct five office buildings of three stores each, aggregating 384,000 square feet of floor area. The site is a 15.85 acre peninsula surrounded on three sides by the Green River and served with public roadway access by the easterly terminus of Southcenter Boulevard. The project environmental checklist was circulated to the various City departments, and comments representing significant concerns in their areas of expertise were received: A) Recreation Department: - Checklist Section II, Question 19 a) Drawing data insufficient to evaluate river trail system extension. b) Status of recorded trail access easements around entire property is not certain. c) Sidewalk access on Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Blvd. needed. B)_ Police Department: - Checklist Section II, Question 14b a) Disagree with response indicating no impact upon or increased demand for police services; traffic accidents.associated with increased volumes of project- related trips and significant concentration of population anticipate higher demand for Police services. Fire Department: - Checklist Section II, Question 14a a) Minimum fire -flow requirements not yet verified. D), Public Works Department: - Checklist Section II, Question 3 (Water) a). Storm water run -off volume /capacity and routing cannot be determined from the information given. A miniature hydraulic and flood water management study should be provided. ), Traffic study needs amplification and greater detail, especially in discussion of mitigating solutions. Planning Division: - Checklist Section II, Question 2 (Air) a) Checklist response is inadequate. Anticipated project- generated CO levels not meaningful if not compared quantitatively to existing and future conditions. Also other pollution components ignored. Page -2- THRESHOLD DETERMINATIgik RIVER BEND OFFICE PAR EPIC - 180 -82) Checklist Section II, Questions 4 & 5 (Flora/Fauna) a) Alternatives to destruction of indigenous animal life and habitat should be investigated, particularly within the shoreline environment. - Checklist Section II, Question 7 (Light & Glare) a) Glare patterns reflected to public roadways from building surfaces should be investigated. - Checklist Section II, Questions.11'& 12 (Population /Housing) a) Project - related demand'for housing within the community should. be forecast and_ compared mi th avai l abl i ty and historic vacancy levels experienced in'the community. Particular concern should be given to potential housing demand from lower - income employees. - Checklist Section II, Question 18 (Aesthetics) a) Disagree with checklist response. Building activity may obstruct views of river and of adjacent hillsides; view corridor analysis should be performed. CONCLUSION It appears that there are a number of topic areas which have not been investigated to the level of adequacy expected under SEPA. In addition, the _ Washington State Supreme Court, in its decision in the Norway Hill v. King County Council case (87 WN 2d. 267) articulated a series of criteria under which a Declaration of Significance is obligatory: 1) Change of use type from existing use: In the present case, the site is to be transformed from a vacant, unpopulated area to a vehicle- intensive, population- intensive office complex. Scale of the project: The amount of floor area in the buildings, and the amount of land -area to be paved for parking is substantial both in absolute terms and relative to other office developments in the general vicinity. Degree of change in use: As the only existing uses in the project vicinity within the City limits are low- intensity recreation oriented, the proposed office project represents a shift in the present use configuration of the general vicinity. For these reasons, a Declaration of Significance and requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with WAC- 197 -10 -350 is recommended. In reference to the concerns identified in the Threshold Determination Document, we suggest that the following additional elements from the list in Section 11 of Ordinance 1211 be included in the River Bend Office Park Draft E.I.S. Page -3- THRESHOLD DETERMINATII RIVER BEND OFFICE PAR. EPIC- 180 -82) • Elements (2) and (3): Ecomony /Tax Base - The content should be focused on a cost /revenue analysis of extending municipal services or upgrading existing services to this project site. CITY OF TUKWILA •�'�' ilk NUMBER - CGPROL NUMBER R2 -201 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM r NOTE -:. T1ZqqFIG c ' T ATfIkeHeA - T0: E BLDG, T PLNG, P.W. j--' FIRE F-- POLICE —. P.& R. PROJECT ADDRESS Easterly Terminus, Southcenter Parkway 'DATE TRANSMITTED 20 .luly F2 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY .2q July R? C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Mark- Planning RESPONSE RECEIVED SEPA Chklst. PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED >®Xixx NSC AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE • COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: 1) Le .7D At A.742.029V. pv 2) � o (/J D t- 771-101.--, SP 0 YLT 1) 17 k 1 lv k. C-4 I 1 3) 2 vat4 s I ti-NI (f 1 c i Tv,) j Fu. F1.s 4) two . j KS-Z4 River Bend Office Park ❑ 5) 6) 7) fl8) ni 9) 10) r--1 11) ri 12) 1---1 13) 01/4) a 15) D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED C PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED [111 PLAN CHECK DATE ///g1- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 ECEIVED ern/ f!?.F `Y 1 „fI w!LA Ju_j 1982 PUBLI ORKS DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA (PERMIT NUMBER , COilkOL NUMBER 8? -207 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM TO: E BLDG, PLNG. PROJECT ADDRESS DATE TRANSMITTED C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR River Bend Office Park P.W. FIRE P,& R. Easterly Terminus, Southcenter Parkway 20 July 82 RESPONSE REQUEST Mark-Planning RESPONSE RECEIVE $ W SEPA Chklst. PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED M04604tANCKAND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS By CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: 41✓ 117r" A ,./ A/'e- d%sG 3) 13a4) o � /.3 J■.e , �r•G-. ,�- " Sp „4.-7z'�= /,e.4" d EDI . r--1 5) 7) w 8) 7 7 - e - /} A ri 9) 10) a �� t.. - �e �4 �,.• �` - 11) , ...-„A✓ 444. ,� ��,.._ �.��. — „✓ 17.12) 11 13)Q�i�.�. -� EIE. 14)e ,I,.e. e `.e h aT Q 15) S f,.4 js D.R.C. REV EW REUESTt� U PLAN CHECK DATE —�- PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED 171 COMMENTS PREPARED BY- 1'y C,P,S, FORM 2 CITY OFT.UKWILA e "PERMIT NUMBER C( ROL NUMBER R2 -201 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM TO: 1 BLDG, F 1 PLNG, l . P.W. J FIRE Q POLICE PROJECT River Bend Office Park ADDRESS Easterly Terminus, Southcenter Parkway DATE -TRANSMITTED 20 July R2 . 1 P,& R, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 2q July R2 C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR Mark- Planning RESPONSE RECEIVED SEPA Chklst. PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED O xx NS( AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE • COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: . • - 2) ri 3) • ■ ,4) ❑ 5> FT 6) . , d 7) r18) 9). 10) m , 11> 13) 1>K1 14) 15) D,R,C, REVIEW REQUESTED C PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED E COMMENTS PREPARED BY PLAN CHECK DATE C,P,S, FORM 2 vs11LA City of Tukwila Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1909 Frank Todd, Mayor M EMORANDUM TO: Brad Collins, Planning Director FROM: Patrick Lowery, Chief of Police DATE: July 28, 1982 SUBJECT: River Bend Office Park The Police Department notes with some skepticism that this proposed project totalling approximately 383,500 square feet of office space where nothing existed before will not, in the opinion of the developer, affect police protection or any other public service. Any project this size will have a definite affect on an already serious traffic problem that exists in this particular area. The major inter- section providing access to the building location, Southcenter Blvd. and SR 181, is already a targeted high accident, high traffic intensity location. During the Longacres season it becomes a monumental traffic problem. We would be substantially affected by this project even if we only had to be concerned with the increased traffic problems which will undoubtedly come as a result of this proposal. We hasten to point out however, that this proposal will add more buildings and more people to our city. The buildings will require additional patrol on a routine basis. It can also be assumed that the buildings will be occupied by people who will, in all probability, require some police services from time to time. If the buildings are going to have alarm systems, that will also impact the department. It should be noted that projects of this magnitude affect the delivery of police services in a variety of ways and that the net result is an easing work load. rick J hief of lls CITY OF TUKWILA r (PERMIT NUMBER CAIROL NUMBER 8? -2o1 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM TO: BLDG, PLNG, T P,W, FIRE 1 POLICE P,& R, PROJECT River Bend Office Park ADDRESS Easterly Terminus, Southcenter Parkway DATE TRANSMITTED 20 July 8? RESPONSE REQUESTED BY . 29 R2 C, P, S, STAFF COORDINATOR, Mark - Planning RESPONSE RECEIVED SEPA Chklst. PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED MaaNDLANSKAND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE • COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY,CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: . n 1) PU(Ll (o out ur, �•v `e �- { � f -eczu c � N..€2(5 Per 2 e Se © e 2) /c2-7/ 6�/A. fs - 5Pfr-i44 fr c o 1 4) err:Vote_ ptv,7607`7,22.7 5) P,r-otiTae %o 5 4 ?0,45 okapi/174;1- ce -J /f/ 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) D,R,C, REVIEW REQUESTED E PLAN CHECK DATE 7 —2 PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED fl COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 Unfrerqpfqet5oumi Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development City of Bothell 18205 101 N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: TACOMA. WASHINGTON 98416 Department of Economics April 8, 1981 Re: Draft EIS - -Koll Business Center -- Bothell In my capacity as a consulting economist I was retained by the Koll Company to prepare an economic impact study for Koll Center proposed development in Bothell. A copy of this report is enclosed. I would like this letter and the enclosed report to be received by your office as comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and for both to be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. As you will note, the economic impact report includes an analysis for the proposed development as well as analyses for the five alternatives. The report considers the impact on the operating budget of the City of Bothell (fiscal impact statement), the impact on the local area economy (private sector), and impacts which could not be quantified. Thank you for your cooperation. BDM:ro -222- AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE KOLL CENTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND FIVE ALTERNATIVES, BOTHELL, WASHINGTON Prepared by: Bruce D. Mann, Ph.D Ernest F. Combs, Ph.D . Douglas E. Goodman, Ph.D .Department of Economics University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 March, 1981 • INTRODUCTION This report presents an economic impact analysis for the pro- posed Koll Center development in Bothell, Washington and five alternative configurations. Each of the six potential development plans was considered independently using the same set of data and assumptions. Hence, the results are comparable. This report is divided into four parts. The first part iden- tifies the six alternative configurations. Part two presents a fiscal (cost- revenue) analysis of the public sector impacts for each proposal. The third part presents for each proposal the private sector impacts. The last part provides some considerations of non - quantifiable effects for each proposal. It is important to note that a number of assumptions had to be made for the analysis in this report. Each assumption is ex- plicitly identified in the text. In all cases, subject to reason, these assumptions have been made so as to understate benefits and overstate costs. Therefore, the conclusions in this report are most likely conservative. -224- • • I. ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSALS This report considers the total set of economic impacts for six alternative development plans for a Cite located in Bothell Washington. The development plans will be designated as: Pro- , posal, Alternative 1, 0 , Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 4, and Alternative 5. This is the taxonomy used in the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement for the Proposal.' The alternatives differ in terms of their Proposal and Alternatives 1 and 2 are tail), office and industrial uses. Alternative 3, 4 and 5 are single use proposals. Table 1 summarizes the proposed Proposal and Alternatives, p d uses for the economic uses. The mixtures of commercial (re- Table 1: Economic Uses, in S.uare Feet, Pro osal and Alternatives Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Source: DEIS 990,000 484,561 717,255 1,884,406 0 0 1,540,000 779,769 1,155,137 1,884,406 564,773 1,044,830 1City of Bothell, Department of Community Development, Environme'ntalImpact Statement for Koll Center, "19. er "Draft referred to as DEIS. Hereafter -225- 2 • • II. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC SECTOR ECONOMIC IMPACTS • 5 Table 4: Net Revenue Estimates As Table 4 indicates, all alternatives generate a positive net revenue for the city. This means that each alternative will more than pay its own way. No matter which cost method is used, each alternative will pay for all associated municipal costs each year and contribute a surplus to the operating budget of the city of Bothell. Revenue Estimates For each alternative four sources of annual revenue were iden- tified. These were: 1) property tax collections, 2) city share of sales tax receipts, 3) residential non -tax revenues, and 4) utility tax payments. Revenues from each source were estimated independent- ly and then summed to obtain the total annual revenue for each pro- ject. Bothell property tax revenues for each alternative were calcu- lated by applying the city tax rate of $2.296 per $1,000 of assessed -229- Annual Revenue Annual Costs Revenue Employment Anticipation Proportional Valuation Annual Net (1) - (2) (1) - (3) (1) (2) (3) Proposal $778,584 $370,6.23 $228,476 $407,961 $550,108 Alternative 1 384,156 192,459 291,817. 191,697 92,339 Alternative 2 584,199 296,773 264,644 287,426 319,555 Alternative 3 702,673 180,285 268,354 .522,388 434,319 Alternative 4 664,277 201,075 266,031 463,202 398,246 Alternative 5 1,250,273 375,149 277,162 875,124 973,111 . As Table 4 indicates, all alternatives generate a positive net revenue for the city. This means that each alternative will more than pay its own way. No matter which cost method is used, each alternative will pay for all associated municipal costs each year and contribute a surplus to the operating budget of the city of Bothell. Revenue Estimates For each alternative four sources of annual revenue were iden- tified. These were: 1) property tax collections, 2) city share of sales tax receipts, 3) residential non -tax revenues, and 4) utility tax payments. Revenues from each source were estimated independent- ly and then summed to obtain the total annual revenue for each pro- ject. Bothell property tax revenues for each alternative were calcu- lated by applying the city tax rate of $2.296 per $1,000 of assessed -229- 6 value to the total value of each alternative. The total values are found in Table 2. To estimate the city share of sales tax receipts we assumed that only commercial and office uses would generate taxable re- tail sales.4 To calculate . the total amount of taxable sales we first estimated the average sales per commercial and office employ- ee. Based on the 1972 U.S. Department of Commerce's Census of Re- tail Trade the average sales per retail employee in Bothell was $53,885. We increased this figure by 8% per year (to reflect the differential in growth between sales and employment in retail trades5) to obtain our estimate of $67,480 per employee. This fig- ure was multiplied by the level of commercial employment (see Table 3) for each alternative to determine total retail sales. Based on Washington State, Department of Employment Security data6 the ratio of office sales per employee to retail sales per employee is .41. We used this factor to calculate sales per office employee as $27,660. This figure times the number of office employ- ees for each alternative produced our estimates of total office sales. We assumed that only 25% of all office sales would actually be subject to the retail sales tax. 3This is the 1981 city rate which is lower than the 1980. levy. However, most revenue forecasts suggest that future levies will be higher than the 1981 rate. Thus, using the 1981 rate for revenue . projections will produce a-conservative estimate. 4To the extent that industrial uses generate taxable sales, our estimates will understate this source of revenue. 5See: Economic Report of the President (for sales) and Employ- ment and Training Report of. the President, Department of Labor (for employment), both U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 6Employment and Payrolls in Washington State by County and by Industry, Third Quarter 1979, Employment Security Department, Re- search and Statistics Section. -230- • 7. 7These factors were calculated from the data in Bill Munday & Associates, Inc., "A Market Impact Analysis of the Proposed North Creek Neighborhood Center for the Koll Company ", Seattle, Wa., November, 1980. • • 8 ginated in the area also terminated within the area.8 Based on the preceeding data and on current trends in journey- to-work choices due to increasing gasolipe costs, we assumed that twelve percent of the estimated employment (for each alternative) would be local area residents. This twelve percent would be the combination of: 1) existing Bothell residents who will be employed at the project site, 2) employees who will move near the site but not live in Bothell, and 3) new residents to Bothell who will work at the site. It is our estimate that only one -half of these new employees would actually be new residents to the City of Bothell (type 3 above). The other half will be either non -city residents or current residents who become employed at the site. New residents to the City of Bothell, then, will be only six percent of the estimated total employment, given in Table 3. To determine the population impact we multiplied this six percent em- ployment increase by 2.3 - our estimate of the average household size. Our analysis of revenue sources for the City of Bothell indi- cated that three items were directly related to the city's popula- tion: Licenses and Permits, Charges and Fines, and Forfitures. We calculated the per capita revenue relation for these three items based on 1980 data. Finally, for each alternative we multiplied these per capita figures by the new residents to determine the res- idential non -tax revenue impacts. The final source of new revenue is the city 8 percent tax on utility sales. Five utility uses were identified. For each use 81970 data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, PHC (1) -195. 1976 data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Housing Reports, Seat- tle- Everett, Washington. SMSA, H- 170- 76 -60. Puget Sound Council of Government data obtained. from Labh Sachdevt, transportation planner. -232- .® • ■ ■ • a total cost was estimated9, and • 9 then the 8 percent tax ratio was used to determine city revenues. In terms of revenue generation the two most important uses were power (electricity) and telephone. In addition, we included water, sanitary sewer, and refuse uses. Table 5 presents for each alternative our estimates of reven- ues which will be generated from existing sources. We have not included any revenues which will flow to governmental units out- side of the city, even though they may return to the city as an intergovernmental transfer. Table 5: Revenues, by Source Property Tax Sales Tax Residential Non -Tax Utility Tax Total Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 $199,752 119,819 160,665 187,360 88,597 133,732 $155,013 49,598 104,545 -0- 419,928 828,411 $9,383 4,826 7,162 8,292 3,696 6,894 $414,436 209,912 311,827 507,021 152,056 281,236 $ 778,584 384,156 584,199 702,673 664,277 1,250,273 Cost Estimates We estimated the additional costs (associated with each alter- native) using two different methods. Each method additional costs arising from new non - residential related to a specific parameter of the city. cipation method relates costs to increases in The proportional valuation method identifies assumes that developments are The employment anti - local employment. costs with the size of the non-residential sector of the economy relative to the total area economy. Since the methods differ in terms of their assump- tions, we estimated costs both ways to determine if the net revenue 9These estimates were obtained from Wilsey and Ham Consultants. -233- • • 10 impact is sensitive to either set of assumptions.10 The basic data for our cost estimate came from the City of. Estimating • additional costs by the • employment anticipation method depends upon utilizing a set of impact coefficients. These coefficients have been determined by theiCenter for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers Universit 11 Y• For each cost category the impact coefficient is multiplied by total cost to determine the employment multiplier. The employment multiplier times the anti- cipated new employment yields the estimated.increase in annual costs. This procedure is used for both commercial employment (re- tail and office) and industrial employment. Table 6 presents the employment anticipation estimates of additional costs for each alternative. 11 Table 6: Additional Annual Costs - Em loyment Antici ation Method Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 'Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Additional Cost Due to: Commercial Employment $275,888 146,067 217,162 0.0 201,075 375,149 Industrial Employment $ 94,735 43,392 79,611 180,285 0.0 0.0 Total Cost $370,623 192,459 296,773 180,285 201,075 375,149 11 See, Burchell and Listokin, Fiscal Impact Handbook, op. cit, Chapters 6 and 7. -235- 12 The proportional valuation method estimates additional costs by assigning current costs into residential and non - residential parts. The non - residential costs are then allocated over the current non - residential tax parcels on the basis of assessed valua- tion. The new development is then assigned a value relative to its impact-on increasing non - residential assessed values. An increase in total operating costs is then estimated. This method does not disaggregate the cost increases into budget catagories. In 1980 . there were about 2,500 tax parcels with a total assessed value in excess of $114 million located in Bothell.12 We estimated that there are about 100 non - residential tax parcels in the city. 13 The standard approach when applying the proportional valuation method assumes a condition of decreasing costs. This assumption means that the costs of providing city services to new developments will be less than the current costs for existing users. This ap- proach is reasonable when the assessed value of the new development is small relative to the size of the current non - residential asss- sed value. However, this is not the case for the proposal or any alternative. Therefore, we used an assumption of constant costs. This assumes that the cost of services to new users will be equal to the costs for existing users. Based on our assumption of constant cost and our estimates for non - residential parcels and assessed valuation, we allocated 12These figures were obtained from the City of Bothell and the King County Assessor's Office. 13This estimate was provided by a windshield survey and are consistant with the Munday study cited above. • $750,000 (out of the $2,257,821 total) for the non-residential share of the budget. Then, g en, for the proposal and each alternative we used the proportional valuation method to estimat costs. � e increased Our results are presented in Table 7. 13 Table 7: Additional Annual Costs - Employment Anticipation Method Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 $228,476 291,817 264,644 268,354 266,031 271,162 . Net Revenue The annual net revenue to the city is calculated ting the annual additional cost from the annual by subtrac- ting all cases the net revenue to the city is 1 additional revenue. Y s positive. The pro- posal and each alternative will provide the City of Bothell w' annual fiscal surplus. This with an P means that each development proposal will pay for itself (based on operating costs) and contribute city's use ad- ditional revenues for the cit bute ad use. -237- SUGGESTIONS FOR STREAMBANK REVEGETATION IN WESTERN WASHINGTON Prepared by Thomas C. Juelson Wildlife Project Leader Applied Wildlife Ecology Habitat Management Division Washington Department of Game February 1980 • • SUGGESTIONS FOR STREAMBANK REVEGETATION IN WESTERN WASHINGTON Thomas C. Juelson ABSTRACT Benefits to fish, terrestrial wildlife, and aesthetics are derived by the presence of riparian vegetation. It provides cover, shade, insects, migration corridors, bank stability, and a feeling of the natural environment. When landowners or resource agencies attempt to stabilize eroding banks, their first consideration should be the establishment of woody plant cover. Willow, snowberry, vine maple, and red stem dogwood are valuable to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and also to' stabilize streambanks. Options of propagation include: 1) allowing newly controlled banks to reseed naturally, 2) sowing seeds of preferred plants, 3) planting cuttings of preferred species, or 4) planting rooted stock from commercial nurseries. Both cost and success go up from 1) to 4). If commercial nurseries are to be contracted, they require at least one year of lead time. Introduction Discussion • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Why Revegetate 2 Fish Benefits., 2 Wildlife Benefits 2 Bank Stability 2 Esthetics 2 Which Plants are Best 3 Propagation 5 Natural Seeding 5 Timing 5 Techniques 6 Seeds_— 6 Cuttings 6 Rooted Plants 6 Density 6 Sources 7 Collection from the Wild 7 Commercial Nurseries 7 Management Selected Literature 7 8 Appendix - List of Commercial Nurseries 9 • • INTRODUCTION Vegetation adjacent to streams in western Washington is being as- saulted by many elements of human society. Examples are: the grazing of domestic stock, logging, streambank stabilization projects, and the clearing of streambanks by private landowners to enjoy access to, and views of the stream. Consequently, natural riparian vegetation is dis- appearing at an alarming rate. Professional biologists generally agree that riparian vegetation has great values to both aquatic and terres- trial wildlife. This paper is an attempt to compile ideas regarding re- establish- ment of streamside vegetation in a way that allows the goals of man to remain in harmony with riparian dependent wildlife. DISCUSSION Why Revegetate Streambank planting following bank modification should be standard operating procedure, here are some reasons why. Fish Benefits Numerous studies (Workman 1975, Boussu 1954, Chapman, et al, 1969, Lagler 1956, Cedarholm 1972) have shown a positive correlation exists between the amount of overhanging vegetation and fish production in streams. Fish of all sizes and species are dependent on the protective cover and insect contribution of streamside plants. Streams devoid of cover have correspondingly low fish populations. Many species of fish, including salmonids that aren't actively migrating, exhibit distinct territorial behavior. Thus, it is not pos- sible to "just move to another part of the stream ", because that part of the stream-is-probably occupied by other fish defending their "place in the shade ". Additionally, the shade is very important in keeping water temper- atures from reaching lethal limits in late summer when flows are reduced and air temperatures are high. Wildlife Benefits Game management, ecology, and most soil conservation textbooks con- tain treatises on the value of riparian vegetation to wildlife. The ecotonal, or "edge" effect, is maximized where dense and usually diverse vegetation provides innumerable niches for myriads of creatures. Some- times narrow strips between water and cultivated fields provide the only shelter and migrational routes available, allowing movement between oases of favorable habitat. The diversity of floral species possible along a streambank is un- excelled in temperate climates, and diversity is the key to stability in plant and animal communities. Bank Stability The potential of plants as soil stabilizers has been known to soil conservationists for a long time. However, much of the research in this area has been concerned with grasses and herbs. These plants do, of course, have excellent soil binding qualities, but have rather limited value to fish and wildlife resources. There are some excellent papers, frecuently ignored, on the use of woody plants for erosion control (An- derson, et al, 1976 ?, Van Dorsal 1938, Woods 1938, Workman 1975). One of these (Woods 1938) was quite specific on the physical qualities of various woody plants in Washington as they relate to erosion control. Esthetics With the rapidly increasing recreational use of streamsides, the esthetic value of a stream- oriented experience is enhanced if the stream - bank appears "natural" (vegetated) as opposed to "man- made" (riprap). Of course, there must be access points through the vegetation in order to appreciate it! 2 Which Plants are Best • Native prints are usually the best choices because one of the most important criteria is whether they can flourish in a given environment. Native shrubs have already passed that test merely by being there. The following woody plants are most likely to grow in a riparian situation, provide cover and /or food for fish and wildlife, and provide stabilization to the streambank. They are ranked in order of desirability. 1. Willow (Salix spp.) preferably riparian spp. a. Probably the easiest woody species to plant successfully. b. Have rapid and luxuriant growth, providing early cover. c. Extremely dense network of small roots, providing excellent - soil binding qualities. d. Excellent browse for deer, elk, smaller mammals, and grouse. e. From the fish standpoint, one of the best because it tends to hang out over the water. f. Since they are relatively short - lived, they do not get large enough to fall from their own weight and tear out the bank. 2. Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) a. Provides excellent food and cover for many terrestrial and avian vertebrates. b. Has excellent soil binding roots. c. Relatively easy to start from cuttings. d. Available from many local nurseries. 3. Vine maple (Acer circinatum) a. Excellent food and cover for most wildlife. b. Excellent soil binding roots, particularly in the upper 4" of soil. c. Difficult to start from cuttings. d. Available from many local nurseries. 4. Red -stem dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) a. Excellent wildlife food and cover. b. Good soil binding roots. c. Easy to start from cuttings. d. Available from many local nurseries. 5. Wild rose (Rosa nutkana) a. Good wildlife food and cover. b. Good soil binding qualities. c. Reproduces by sucker. d. Will form thickets when well established. e. Available from many local nurseries. 6. Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) a. Grows almost anywhere, including rocky areas. b. Good soil binding roots. c. Fair browse for deer and elk. d. Available from many local nurseries. 7. Hardhack (Spirea douglasii) a. Provides dense cover. b. Does well in riparian situations. c. Available from several local nurseries. 3 • • 8. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) a. Excellent winter cover for smaller wildlife. b. Provides food for many terrestrial and avian species. c. Excellent soil cover against rain and water currents. d. Not as beneficial to aquatic life as terrestrial. 9. Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) a. Excellent soil binding roots. b. Important food for small mammals and some birds. c. Grows well in rock crevices. d. Available from many local nurseries. 10. Tall Oregon -grape (Berberis aquifolium or Mahonia aquifolium) a. Good soil control. b. Good wildlife food and cover. c. Available from most local nurseries. 11. Oregon myrtle (Myrica californica) a. Excellent wildlife food and cover. b. Van - Dorsal (1938) says it would make an excellent stream bank control plant. c. Available at some local nurseries. 12. Red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) a. Excellent food and cover for hundreds of birds and mammals. b. Grows easily in riparian situations. c. Available from some local nurseries. 13. Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) a. Easily propagated from cuttings. b. Good wildlife food and cover. c. Roots hold top soil layers well. d. Available from several local nurseries. 14. Service berry (Amelanchier florida) a. Excellent food and cover for many birds and mammals. b. Forms extensive thickets. c. Available from some local nurseries. 15. Mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii) a. Good food and cover for wildlife. b. Available from many local nurseries. 16. Snowbrush (Ceanothus velutinus) a. Excellent evergreen cover and fair browse. b. Important point is that its roots are nitrogen- fixing. c. Available from some local nurseries. 17. Huckleberry, blueberry (Vaccinium parvifolium, V. ovatum, V. ovalifolium) a. Excellent food and cover for wildlife. b. Forms thickets. c. Available from many local nurseries. 18. Hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) a. Excellent food and cover for upland game birds and many mammals. b. Can form dense thickets. c. Available from some local nurseries. • • 19. Alder (Alnus rubra) A special mention should be made here for alder because of its mixed blessings. It produces excellent cover while young and many species of birds feed on its fruits. It also has the ex- tremely valuable ability to fix nitrogen in the soil - an espec- ially disirable quality on barren soil. It is also a very ag- gressive pioneer species - one of the first woody plants to start in disturbed areas. Its greatest liability, however, is its shallow root system. Trees over 6 inches in diameter have a tendency to topple into the river, tearing out the bank. I believe this could be a very important species for streambank control if managed properly (i.e., pruned back to a height of 5 -6 -feet every 10 years or so). PROPAGATION Natural Seeding Allowing a streambank to revegetate naturally is the method accepted by most resource managers today. The reasons for this attitude include: not realizing the values of riparian vegetation, not having knowledge of techniques and plant species, and probably most important, not having funds available., Obviously, allowing a streambank to re -seed itself requires less initial money than an active planting program, but this is its only ad- vantage. It is a short - sighted one in view of the decreased wildlife values that accompany it. Natural seeding that get established alder and cottonwood two species not only woody plants, but at out the bank. is not selective, consequently the pioneer species are frequently not desirable ones. For example, are excellent pioneers on raw streambank. These exclude the establishment of desirable species of maturity have the nasty habit of falling and tearing Additionally, naturally seeded banks require 10 -20 years before they are contributing substantially to wildlife. Timing Nurserymen know that the time to handle most woody plants is during their dormant season (November through February in western Washington). Willows can be planted with some success at any season, but do better when handled during their dormancy. A more obvious factor of when to plant a streambank is whether there is any soil present. Newly riprapped banks are conspicuous for their absence of soil. If soil could be incorporated into the interstices of the rock at the time of construction, there would be a medium for root growth. Or, one can wait until flood waters have deposited silt, then plant the desired species. The problem with the latter alternative is that natural seeding will have already occurred and provided considerable competition for the desired species. Any attempt to plant a newly riprapped bank without the benefit of soil will meet with limited (at best) success. 5 • • Techniques Plantings can be achieved in three ways: 1) by seeding, 2) by planting cuttings, and 3) by planting rooted stock. Success increases from 1) to 3) but so does cost. Also, one species may be available only as seed, while another might be available only as cuttings. Seeds Van Dorsal (1938) maintains that "...propagation of plants from seed produces more vigorous plants ". However, seeds for most native woody plants are not available commercially, and collection of seeds from the wild is a time consuming and frequently "unfruitful" endeavor. Even when seeds are on hand, many species demand some special treatment maintaining certain temperature regimes, stratifying, drying, or scarifying) before they will germinate. Such specialized treatment is usually not available within the agencies concerned with revegetating streambanks. Cuttings - Success with cuttings is extremely variable due to time of cutting, treatment after cutting, when, where, and how cuttings are planted, and the species involved. For example, willow will survive almost anything short of de'ssication, while vine maple cuttings are difficult to get started even in a green house with constant attention. Any attempts to plant cuttings should incorporate the use of the commercial root - forming hormones, such as Root Tone or Hormidan. Stems should be cut diagonally (for greater exposure of the cambium) at the nodes, and if possible, a lateral branch included on each cutting. Rooted Plants Transplanting wild stock is not a very attractive proposition due to the extensive labor involved, the short season of dormancy, and the quantity needed for a viable planting program. If available, commercial rooted stock has the best chance of success, involves the least amount of labor, and in the long run, is probably the most economical method of all three types of planting stock. Consequently, this alternative should be given first consideration in control programs. Density Regardless of the type of planting stock used, the plantings should be as dense as finances, time, amount of planting stock, and suitable sites permit. In other words, the more that can be planted in an area, the more successful the program will be. The possibility of low success is the overpowering rationale for this philosophy. A professional horticul- turalist might consider it imprudent and wasteful, but when one is faced with all the variables involved, (e.g., season, time to do the work, di- verse soil and water regimes, amount of secondary care, use of untrained personnel, etc.) this approach becomes more attractive. 6 SOURCES Collection from the Wild Local procurement of stock is often possible in the immediate vi- cinity of the project, as most of these species are common to western Washington. However, this approach requires that permits or permission be granted from the appropriate land owner for the removal or cutting of wild plants, Commercial Nurseries 'Many commercial nurseries in western Washington are now growing the native species- listed or wotild be happy to do so if contracted. Some have contracts with state or federal agencies for producing thousands of rooted native stock every year. Rooted seedlings, called "lines" by nurserymen, are economical and have a high survival rate. These are started plants 12 -18 inches tall. Prices for this-year vary according to species, but start at about $.35 each for bare rooted material, and about $.45 each for containerized material. These prices are for large volume purchases. Most nurserymen will need a lead time of one year for most species of woody plants. , A list of local nurseries which can provide the desired plant species in western Washington is included at the end of this report. MANAGEMENT The less care required after a streambank has established vegeta- tive cover, the better. However, if a bank is allowed to seed itself naturally, then some management may be required. If alder gets started, then periodic prunings (every 10 years ?) may be necessary to prevent bank destruction that may occur if they are allowed to grow to maturity unchecked. A homogeneous cover of blackberry, although of benefit to some wild- life, is not as desirable as a more heterogeneous cover of plants. Black- berry should be controlled to allow other species to get established. 7 SELECTED LITERATURE Anderson, E.W. 1976(7). The Oregon Interagency guide for conservation and forage plantings. Un- numbered and undated pamphlet of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon 83pp. *Anonymous. Date unknown. Vegetative Bank Stabilization with woody veg- etation. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. No. 7 -1- 14000 -58. Boussu, M.F. 1954. Relationship between trout populations and cover on a small stream. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 18:229 -239 Cectarholm, C.J. 1972. The short -term physical and biological effects of stream channelization at Big Beef Creek, Kitsap County, Wash. Unpublished Univ. of Wash. M.S. thesis. 80 leaves. Chapman, D.W., and T.C. Bjornn. 1969. Distribution of salmonids in streams with special reference to food and feeding. Pages 153- 176 in T.G:-Northcote (ed.) Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Vancouver, B.C. *Issacsen, K. Date unknown. Use of native species on exposed'soil sites. U.S. Forest Service. Number unknown. Lagler, K.F. 1966. Freshwater fishery biology. Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque. 421pp. Van Dorsal, W.R. 1938. Native woody plants of the United States, their erosion- control and wildlife values. U.S. Dept. of Agri.', Misc. Publ. No. 303. U.S. Govn. Printing Office. 363pp. Woods, J.B. 1938. Ligneous plants for erosion control. Univ. of Wash. M.S. Thesis. 112 leaves. Workman, Dennis. 1975. An evaluation of stream improvements on Prickly Pear Creek. Pages 275 -283. Fifty -fifth Conf., West. Assn. St.Game/ Fish Comm. *Not cited in text. 8 APPENDIX SOURCES OF NATIVE WOODY PLANTS IN WESTERN WASHINGTON The three nurseries below contacted me in response to a letter sent to Washington nurseries. Newell Nursery, P.O. Box 372, Ethel, Wa. 98542, Ph. 985 -4252. - Has, or can produce, all species in suggested list, and has had large contracts with governmental agencies. N.W. Ground Covers & Nursery, P.O. Box 248, Woodinville, Wa. 98072, Ph. 486 -0768. - Has, -or can produce, most species in suggested list, and has had large contracts with governmental agencies. Arbor Meadow Nursery, Rt. 2, Box 384E, Snohomish, Wa. 98290, Ph. 794 -7444. - Has, or can produce, most species in suggested list. Other probable sources of native plants in western Washington: Alfred Teufel Nursery, 666 134th SW, Everett Wa. 98204 Brown Seed Co., P.O. Box 1792, Vancouver, Wa. 98663 Buckley Nursery Co., Rt. 2 Box 199, Buckley, Wa. 98321 deWilde's Wholesale Nursery, 6090 Guide Meridian Rd., Bellingham, Wa. 98225 Clarke. Nursery, Long Beach, Wa., 98631 Forest Gardens Nursery, Rt. 1, Box 148 -B, Granite Falls, Wa. 98252 Green River Nursery, 25041 70th S., Kent, Wa. 98031 Hart's Nursery, Inc., 1578 Best Rd., Mt. Vernon, Wa. 98273 Hollandia Gardens, Inc., 10725 39th Ave. NE, Seattle, Wa. 98125 J.L.C. Nursery, 6122 Goshen Rd., Bellingham, Wa. 98225 Kent Nursery, 8812 S. 218th, Kent, Wa. 98031 Rosso Wholesale Nursery, 6404 Ellis Ave. S., Seattle, Wa. 98108 Steward Nursery, W.M., Rt. 2, Box 225, Maple Valley, Wa. 98038 Vibert Nursery, 15025 124th Ave. NE., Woodinville, Wa. 98012 Viewcrest Nurseries, 9617 NE Burton Rd., Vancouver, Wa. 98662 9 DICE MEMO CITY OF TUKWILA TO: NIL Ott 4biZi - p. N./4 FROM: /Amu Ft464.3k)11.)C. DATE: 12 Jb.,IJ SUBJECT: givt,L. swap ftegkg MAI" Tie- Mori4WLIC. 4100 Tee'VrAt- 7/1'.Th .) 1 C-0007 UV-- (0%.)‘Z Fesr:91JS."... USW- riZt Diszf . • TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY For TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX A Report Prepared For EVERGREEN MANGEMENT COMPANY Bellevue, Washington By ENTRANCO ENGINEERS 1515 - 116th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 July 9, 1982 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 Existing Conditions 1 Future Traffic Conditions - Without the Tukwila Bend Office Complex 6 Future Traffic Conditions - With the Tukwila Bend Office Complex 6 Analysis 13 Planned Long -Range Improvements 16 Conclusions 16 FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map 2 2 Existing Conditions 5 3 1984 Traffic Volume Without the Tukwila Bend Office Complex 8 4 Trip Distribution - Daily Trips 10 5 1984 Traffic Volume with Development of the Tukwila Bend Office Complex 11 6 1981 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes - Southcenter Boulevard at Interurban Avenue 14 7 SEPA Checklist: Transportation /Circulation 19 TABLES 1 Level of Service 4 2 Level of Service, Future Year (1984) Without the Tukwila Bend Office Complex 7 3 Level of Service, Future Year (1984) With Development of the Tukwila Bend Office Complex 12 4 Level of Service Comparison - P.M. Peak Hour 18 • • INTRODUCTION The Tukwila Bend Office Complex, as proposed, will consist of 401,000 square feet of gross floor area on 16 acres of land located between the Green River and Interurban Avenue in the city of Tukwila. Access to the site will be via Southcenter Boulevard at its intersection with Interurban Avenue. This is the current entrance to Fort Dent Park, which will remain unchanged by this proposal. The complex, scheduled for occupancy in late 1983, will be built on a peninsula that is currently undeveloped. On -site parking will be provided for 1,251 vehicles. The existing zoning is C -2, regional retail, and the existing land use designation is commercial. The site location and vicinity are shown in Figure 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS Major roadway facilities provide excellent access to the site. Interstate 405, Southcenter Boulevard, Interurban Avenue (SR -181), and Grady Way are all within 1/4 mile of the proposed complex. Interurban Avenue becomes the West Valley Highway south of the nearby I -405 interchange. 1 -405 provides access to Renton and the Eastside communities and connects with I -5, I -90, and SR -520. Northbound and southbound on- and off -ramps to I -405 are conveniently located for employees and visitors. State Route 181 provides access to the Green River Valley as well as Kent and Auburn. Access to Renton is provided by Grady Way and I -405. Local access to the Tukwila area is provided by Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue. These two facilities also provide access to northbound and southbound I -5. All major intersections in the immediate vicinity are controlled by signals. Most of the roadways provide sidewalks or paved shoulders for pedestrians. The existing geometric configuration at the site entrance provides a four -lane section with left -turn channelization on Interurban Avenue. Southcenter Boulevard is a two -lane roadway with separate right- and 1 RNAttON AIRPOR -TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX South Center 3EATTLE•TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Benson Hill TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX NORTH 1 Mile TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 2 • left -turn channelization at the intersection with Interurban Avenue. The Fort Dent Park access /Tukwila Bend Office Complex entrance (the east leg of Southcenter Boulevard) is a two -lane section with left -turn channelization. Sight distance is adequate, and the pavement is in good condition. The intersection is controlled by a three -phase traffic signal. Current average daily traffic volumes on these roadways vary from about 88,500 on I -405 to about 9,000 on Southcenter Boulevard. Volumes on Interurban Avenue directly adjacent to the site are 16,000- 19,000 vehicles per day. Figure 2 shows existing traffic volumes and traffic control (signals and stop signs). The critical part of the day from a traffic operations standpoint is during the p.m. peak hour, which occurs between 4 and 5 p.m. on an average weekday in this area. This period will generally exhibit the highest levels of congestion and the greatest delays to motorists. A measure of the relative amount of congestion can be made by comparing the level of service for various intersections. Level of service is a term that qualitatively relates traffic volume to capacity. It can range from "A" (free -flow condition) to "F" (forced -flow or jammed condition). Level of service "D" (tolerable delay) is generally considered adequate for urban intersections. The p.m. peak hour level of service for 1981 at the five most critical intersections was calculated using "Transportation Research Circular Number 212," also known as the Interim Capacity Manual. Table 1 shows the results. These are also shown in Figure 2. All of the intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service, although the Grady Way /Interurban Avenue intersection is at level "D." During 1980 and 1981, accidents were not a serious problem at any of the five intersections. None of them experienced more than four accidents during either calendar year. 3 TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING YEAR (1981) Location P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Comments Interurban Avenue at A Si- gnalized Southcenter Boulevard Interurban Avenue at D Signalized Grady Way SR -181 at I -405 Northbound ramp B Signalized Southcenter Boulevard at T -line B Stop sign control on T -line Bridge bridge Tukwila Parkway at Andover A Stop sign control on Park E. Andover Park E. 4 FORT DENT PARK 3130 83120 TLI BRIDGE 22640 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX • TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND 3120 TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT) B LEVEL OF SERVICE ® TRAFFIC SIGNALS STOP SIGNS FIGURE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 • • Metro Transit provides excellent peak hour and daily transit service along Interurban Avenue. The various routes connect the site with Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, Seattle, Burien, Kent, and Auburn. He.adways vary depending on the route and the time of day. Ten routes serve the area, with seven passing through the Interurban /Southcenter Boulevard intersec- tion, and three other routes passing through the nearby Interurban /Grady Way intersection. Several of the routes operate only during peak hours. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS - WITHOUT THE TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX During the fall of 1981, Entranco Engineers completed the Tukwila Micro -Model Study. This study involved a computer simulation of traffic patterns in the Tukwila area. As part of that study, an extensive land use inventory and forecasting process . was undertaken. The forecast indicated a growth in vehicle trip ends of about 33 percent during the ten -year period between 1980 and 1990. This is an average growth of about 2.9 percent per year and is consistent with recent traffic growth trends in the area. Using this growth rate of 2.9 percent per year, daily traffic volumes for 1984 were forecast assuming the office complex was not built. These volumes are shown in Figure 3. P.M. peak hour forecasts were also made for 1984. The p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were used to calculate the level of service at the same five intersections previously discussed for 1984 without the office complex. Table 2 and Figure 3 show the results. All intersections should operate at level of service "D" or better. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS - WITH THE TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX Traffic volumes generated by the proposed complex were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) "Trip Generation Report" rate for general office complexes. This is consistent with other studies and environmental impact statements for office developments in the region. The trip generation rates are 12.3 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area per day and 2.2 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the p.m. peak hour. The directional split for 6 TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE YEAR (1984) WITHOUT TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX Location P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Comments Interurban Avenue at B Signalized Southcenter Boulevard Interurban Avenue at D Signalized Grady Way SR -181 at I -405 Northbound ramp C Signalized Southcenter Boulevard at T -line B Stop sign control on T -line Bridge bridge Tukwila Parkway at Andover B Stop sign control on Park E. Andover Park E. 7 FORT DENT PARK TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX 24780 16800 88570 19130 24020 TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX LEGEND 3320 Traffic Volume (ADT) B Level of Service (PM Peak Hour) e TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 3 1984 TRAFFIC VOLUME WITHOUT TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX 8 • • daily trips is 50 percent into the complex and 50 percent out of the complex. During the p.m. peak, the directional split is 15 percent into and 85 percent out of the complex. The complex will generate 4,930 daily trip ends and 880 p.m. peak hour trip ends. The p.m. peak hour split will mean that 750 vehicles will leave the complex and 130 vehicles will enter the site between 4 and 5 p.m. on an average weekday. The daily and peak hour trips were distributed to the roadway system using the trip distribution pattern from the Tukwila Micro -Model Study. The trip distribution for daily trips is shown in Figure 4. The peak hour distribution is similar, although a slightly higher percentage is destined for I -405. The trips generated by the Tukwila Bend Office Complex were combined with the projected 1984 non -site traffic to give estimated 1984 daily traffic volumes with construction and full occupancy of the proposed development. These volumes are shown in Figure 5. Also shown in Figure 5 is the p.m. peak hour level of service for both a "worst case" situation and a more probable level. The worst case situation is a very conservative estimate in that it assumes that all trips to the complex will be "new trips," no trips currently using the adjacent roadway system will use the proposed facility. Typically, 10 to 15 percent of the trips generated by the new development will already be on the adjacent street system, traveling to some other nearby destination. In order to avoid double counting these vehicles, they should be subtracted from the forecast. Additional reductions should also be made for diversion of vehicle trips to transit and carpools, neither of which is assumed to be of a significant level in the ITE trip generation rates. The resulting reduction in peak hour trips should equal approxi- mately 25 percent. As shown in Table 3, this "probable case" results in a significantly better level of service at intersections on Interurban Avenue 9 FORT DENT PARK ANDOVER PARK E (NORTH 250' 500' TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX LEGEND 24.2 Directional Split (%) of Tukwila Bend Office Complex Daily Trips e TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION DAILY TRIPS 10 FORT DENT PARK TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX 4930 TRIP ENDS 27990 10170 89850 20770 89380 co 24330 5300 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX • TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND 3480. Daily Traffic (ADT) B B Level of Service Level of Service - Worst Case (PM Peak Hour) e FIGURE 5 1984 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX 11 TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE YEAR (1984) WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX Location Interurban Avenue at Southcenter Boulevard Interurban Avenue at Grady Way SR -181 at I -405 Northbound ramp Southcenter Boulevard at T -Line Bridge Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park E. P.M. Peak Hour Worst Case Probable Case Level of Level of Service Service* E E D B B D D C B B Comments Signalized Signalized Signalized Stop sign control on T -line bridge Stop sign control on Andover Park E. * Adjusted for diversion of existing trips and transit and carpool usage. 12 and SR -181. Although this would provide an adequate level of service, some backups through nearby intersections can be expected due to the close spacing, which will cause a lower level of service at times. ANALYSIS The proposed complex will significantly impact the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue. A 1984 peak hour traffic turning movement diagram for this intersection is shown in Figure 6. Without this project (see upper half of Figure 6), the intersection would operate at level of service "B." With construction of the Tukwila Bend Office Complex (lower half of Figure 6), the level of service drops to " D" under the "probable case" site traffic estimate. To handle the increased traffic, changes in the existing signal phasing and timing may be required. Consideration should be given to providing a dual left -turn lane from the site (the east leg of Southcenter Boulevard) in addition to the through/ right lane. This three -lane approach would further improve the level of service to "C." The actual design changes necessary to provide adequate operation are beyond the scope of this report. Specific details regarding the signal wiring and controller, as well as geometric details of the intersection, would be required. The developer should encourage use of transit and carpools by providing convenient walkways to existing bus stops, shelters for those waiting, and incentives such as preferential, close -in parking for carpools and vanpools. Tenants should be encouraged to provide a subsidy toward Metro monthly bus passes, provide carpool /vanpool program assistance, and to implement flex -time or staggered work hours. These items are necessary to attain the "probable case" p.m. peak hour volumes. The Seattle -King County Commuter Pool can provide valuable assistance in implementing these incentive measures. 13 NORTH • ' t85o 8So 197o 000 PEAK HOUR Time Period PM Peak Hour Date 1984 W/O Tukwila Bend 10 to 4 4 4 1140 soo 1 l (0(00 0 r OS PEAK HOUR Time Period PM Peak Hour Date 1984 With .Tukwila Bend PROBABLE FORECAST T 12f_+—_lY _ /TiAt lQ. SOPA qSS 160 70 30 390 PEos i I I I I 2 or I(ola0 l 8501 1 1 L r x510 ; .J O Q TRA co LOCATION SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AT INTERURBAN AVENUE PROJECT TUKWILA BEND OFFICE COMPLEX 1984 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Compiled ByCACDate 6/4/82 Job No.83006 -30 _ FIGURE 6 . J 14 • • Final design of the on -site circulation and parking system should provide appropriate treatment for geometric, traffic control, and circulation route layout features to ensure adequate movement for automobiles, delivery trucks, fire trucks, and other emergency vehicles, as well as pedestrians and bicycles. This includes elements such as: driveway location and driveway width and radii; parking aisle width, pattern, and aisle intersection geometry; walkways; signing, markings, and lighting; and passenger and truck loading zones. The current layout of the intersection at Southcenter Boulevard and the Fort Dent Park access road will require signing and striping as a single- direction rotary intersection. Care must be taken to define and control proper travel paths at this intersection. The Tukwila zoning code lists two formulas for computing parking requirements for office and professional buildings. They would require either 1,243 parking spaces based on gross floor area, or 1,400 parking spaces based on net rentable floor area. The site will provide 1,251 parking spaces. Transit and carpool /vanpool incentives discussed above can help to ensure adequate parking conditions by reducing employee parking demand. The planned Metro Transit service improvements and Washington State Department of Transportation's I -405 transit /carpool lane project (noted below) will also provide incentives to reduce employee parking demand. 15 PLANNED LONG -RANGE IMPROVEMENTS Substantial changes to the area's traffic circulation system are planned by 1990. The Grady Way Bridge will be replaced with a four -lane facility and will be widened to provide a four -lane section from Interurban Avenue to Renton. There are also plans to widen and realign Southcenter Boulevard between Interurban Avenue and 62nd Avenue S. The new section would intersect Interurban Avenue at Grady Way, rather than at the Fort Dent Park entrance. The I -405 southbound ramps would be aligned with the Fort Dent Park entrance, rather than with Grady Way. The reduction in turning movements ( Southcenter Boulevard to Grady Way would have a straight through movement rather than a right turn and then a left turn) will improve the level of service at the intersections. Although these projects do not have full funding, they are expected to be complete by 1990. Additional transit service is also expected to be implemented by Metro. The increased service is linked to the construction of a transit center in the Tukwila commercial district. New routes will provide direct service from Tukwila to areas currently without service. Service will also be improved on existing routes. Finally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has programmed for the mid- 1980's the construction of transit /carpool lanes along I -405 from Bellevue through Tukwila to I -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to transit, carpools, and vanpools during peak periods, thereby enhancing the accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend Office Complex and reducing vehicular travel growth pressures in the site area. CONCLUSIONS The proposed development will generate 4,930 vehicle trip ends during an average weekday and up to 880 vehicle trip ends during the p.m. peak hour. This will have a significant impact on the adjacent roadway system, 16 but it will be mainly significant only for the Interurban Avenue/ Southcenter Boulevard intersection during the p.m. peak hour. These impacts can be mitigated to some extent by promoting transit and carpool usage. Through these programs and traffic lane improvements on the east approach of Southcenter Boulevard at Interurban Avenue (site access drive), an acceptable level of traffic service can be maintained at nearby intersections. Table 4 is a comparative table showing the level of service for all of the situations discussed. The on -site parking will probably be adequate to handle the demand. Measures should be taken by the developer and tenants to encourage employee use of carpools, vanpools, and transit through various incentives and measures. The complex will draw additional vehicles to the area by providing employment opportunities. There may also be some increase in truck traffic due to necessary deliveries. This may cause minor changes in present circulation patterns. There will be no alteration in waterborne, rail, or air traffic. Some minor increase in traffic hazard is expected at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue due to an increase in traffic volume and turning movements. Figure 7 shows the environmental checklist with the appropriate responses. 17 LOCATION Interurban Avenue at Southcenter Boulevard A B E D Interurban Avenue at Grady Way D D E D SR -181 at I -405 Northbound ramp B C D C Southcenter Boulevard at T -Line Bridge B B B B Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park E. A B B B TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON P.M. PEAK HOUR 1984 Without With Tukwila Bend 1981 Tukwila Worst (Existing) Bend With* Case Probable Improvements C D B B * Widen Southcenter Boulevard east leg to allow two left -turn lanes and one through /right -turn lane. 18 • • FIGURE 7 SEPA Checklist 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 transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? YES MAYBE NO X (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic? X (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? X 19 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 28 May, 1982 Institute for Environmental Studies Office of Public Archaeology Engineering Annex, FM -12 (206) 543 -8359 Thomas E. Moore, Project Manager Construction Division Evergreen Management Company 1721 132 Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98005 Re: Archaeological reconnaissance of the 16 acre Tukwila Bend Project Dear Mr. Moore: The following report, in letter format, details the findings of the Office of Public Archaeology's recent assessment of the proposed Tukwila Bend office complex. Assessment procedures included archival research and field investi- gation. Assessment activities were conducted by Mr. Guy F. Moura and Mr. Stephen Elmore on 7, 10 and 11, May, 1982. The Project Area The project is located on the west bank of the Green River, just north of the Interstate 405 and SR 181 junction, in the town of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The project is more specifically located on the western boundary of the NW and SW 1 /4s of Sec. 24, T23N, R4E (Figures 1 and 2). The project area now forms a rectangular peninsula on the Green River. This peninsula was created when a river bow was truncated by the Great Northern Railroad some time prior to 1949 (U.S.G.S. 1949). Immediately west of the site is a 150 foot bluff; to the north, east, and south lies the floodplain of the Green River Valley. An isolated hill rises 150 feet above the flood - plain, on the east side of the river, northeast of the proposed office com- plex. During on -site inspection, it was discovered that river sediments had been removed from the site and /or bulldozed into several mounds. Except for a narrow band of sands, retained by rip -rap around the periphery, the site is now composed of pebble to boulder sized rocks in a fine grained matrix which is presumably of glacial origin. When the river sediments were removed is unknown; it could have occurred when the road to the Fort Dent Athletic Com- plex was built (it now transects the site), or during railroad or highway construction. 0 Recycled Paper • • T. E. Moore 28 May, 1982 Page Two Brush growth on the dozer mounds and a small, established marsh in the cen- ter of the peninsula indicate that sediment removal occurred at least sev- eral years prior to this survey. Vegetation on the site consist of a ring of mature trees along the bank, with brambles, brush, grass and marsh vege- tation over the remainder of the site. Archival Research Archival research revealed that the project area had good potential for cul- tural resources because of: 1. its proximity to known prehistoric sites; 2. the ethnographic evidence. This area of the green river is known to have been heavily utilized by the Duwamish Indians; and 3. the historic evidence. Some of the earliest EuroAmerican settlers in what is now Washington State lived along the waters of the Green River; and Fort Dent was erected just north of the project properties, on the east side of the river, in 1856. Amore detailed cultural resource overview of the region is presented in Dalan, et al. (1981). Prehistorically, the Green River was part of a drainage complex which formed a highway for canoe passage between Puget Sound and the interior prairies and mountains. Besides temporary camps and fishing sites, major Indian villages were located along the river courses. Prehistoric archaeological sites are common in the vicinity. Three such sites, 45 -KI -6, 45 -KI -51 and 45- KI -59, are located within a kilometer of the project, along existing and extinct river banks. Ethnographically, the area was within the territory controlled by the Duwamish Indians (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930:10; Smith 1940:16; Spier 1936:38 and 42). Evidence of the Duwamish peoples' familiarity with the area is provided by the following place -names excerpted from T. T. Waterman (ca. 1920). These places are readily identified on modern topographic maps. 200. Where black river enters White river, Squoa'l -qo, "meeting of the rivers," a village. 201. The level land below the mouth of Black river at Renton Junction, on the E. bank, T3awe'dftc, "river duck." 202. An isolated knoll. There were "piles" of snakes there (apparently water - snakes). An informant found three piles, . each of them a yard high when he was a boy. This place would not submit to transformation, so it is a part of the "old" world, as it was before the Transformer came. T. E. Moore 28 May, 1982 Page Three 203. A sandy point, now occupied by the picnic - grounds at Renton Junction, Cuhu'dutugwEl, "burning each other;" (hud, "to burn "). Snakes who land here after swimming across the river, in the summer time, get burned by the sand and die. 203a. A place on the W. bank of the river, Bjs /g3a'ka, "where there are crows." 203b. Number not used. 203c. A bluff overhanging the river on its W. side, Bsts/ xEbe'dats, "place of ironwood." People used to go there for ironwood, tsEix'ilbdd. (Waterman, ca. 1920:31 and 32). Two historically documented villages (Dalan et al. 1981 and Hedlund 1981) are within a kilometer downstream of the project. These villages are distinct from the prehistoric sites mentioned earlier. The green river was settled by EuroAmericans early in the history of the Pacific Northwest. The property on which the cultural resource reconnais- sance was conducted may have first been claimed by William H. Gilliam be- tween 1850 and 1855. It is known that at the time of his claim, Gilliam was a single man who had not been in the territory prior to 1850. Gilliam claimed 160 acres in portions of Sections 23 and 24, for which he later re- ceived title under the provisions of the Donation Claim Land Law. Although residence and cultivation were required to receive title for the land, General Land Office plat maps (1861 and 1863) do not depict structures or farmed lands; nor do they even locate Gilliams' claim, which was patented in 1866 (Shackleford 1940). During the Indian Wars of 1855 -56, the local settlers constructed Fort Dent for protection against raids by the hostiles. It was built across the river from the project area, and today an historic marker indicates the former location (Dalan et al. 1981). Field Reconnaissance As stated earlier, upon arriving at the site it became apparent that consider- able surface sediment removal had occurred several years ago. The entire site was surveyed in 10 meter intervals and 14 core and 8 shovel test holes were placed to determine the limits of disturbance and to look for cultural re- sources. Because of this disturbance, and the small marsh, core locations and shovel tests were not systematically placed. Virtually all of the site, except for a narrow strip along the bank, was disturbed. It appears the site was bulldozed and several mounds of earth remain on the grounds to attest to this theory. No cultural resources were located during this survey. Recommendations While archival research indicated a high potential for discovery of cultural material, the disturbance to the site would have eradicated any such materials. We therefore recommend that this project be allowed to proceed. However, in • • T. E. Moore 28 May, 1982 Page Four the event that cultural material is unearthed during construction, even in the dozer mounds, work should stop immediately in that area and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation should be notified forthwith. A professional archaeologist should then assess the significance of the find prior to any further disturbance. The possibly intact peripheral strip of sediments is, at this time, protected on the river side by riprap and on the site by the mandatory 40 foot from high water setback. This report should not be considered to be permission to proceed with the project in question. It contains professional opinions on cultural resources which might be affected by the project. This report should be submitted to the appropriate review agencies for their comments prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. Sincerely, Guy F. Moura, Staff Archaeologist GFM:ALL Encl. ••....1:3••7•• .1•11 . •• _. •1140 ... 4 - i, 0 .j, • tri..... •.•N ,Il IAN '• Sat41111 • • •• mons • •••■•■ • ••••■• • • • • •••••=1, • • ••••1•• • • • • •■ • • 1■■• • • WM.. • • I DRAW MAN 1,1 MVO.. •• 4/11W I 1 II f 1111■0•• ( - k... --1 \ , \, l 1 L11._ j STUDY AREA 1-, 5.. -c..) \ I, i -t,,,-1\'.,11•:.y. t3 _„____... ''' :.•..t,.. , I 4 l/-TIN?7 I ""k " ' \'`-. 9,‘" , , ( ./..... ' ■- - i L. I t .... r_ rTA r--4e N • , • •111 .11•1 L. • FIG. 1 VICINITY MAP 1 5 1• 11 r• :4..0'. • I • L. .4,••• • ■sL 0 10 20 30 40 50 Scale In Mlles • FIGURE 2. Project location is circled and blacked out. • • REFERENCES CITED Dalan, Rinita, Sandra Hunt and Steve Wilke 1981 Cultural resource overview and reconnaissance: Green River flood damage reduction study. Geo -Recon International, Seattle. Government Land Office 1861 Plat Map T23N R4E A. On file in microfilm, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington, Seattle. 1863 Plat Map T23N R4E B. On file in microfilm, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Haeberlin, H. and E. Gunther 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 4(11). Seattle. Hedlund, G. 1981 Archaeological resources at the mouth of the Black River; a survey conducted for the King County Department of Public Works. Copy of ms. on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. Shackleford, C. 1940 Donation Claim Land Law. In Building a State, Washington 1889 -1939 Vol. 3, edited by 0. B. Sperline and C. Miles. Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma. Smith, M. 1940 The Puyallup - Nisqually. Columbia University, Contributions to Anthropology Vol. 32. Spier, L. 1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology 3. United State Geological Survey 1949 Renton, Washington. 7 1/2 minute Quadrangle Map. Federal Center, Denver. Washington State Archaeological Site Survey Records. On file, Offi.ce of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. Waterman, T. T. ca. 1920 An unpublished manuscript of Indian place- names. On file, Northwest Collection, University of Washington, Seattle. --rte P i<< F r- a s e•r- iL el .5 !fir f - nr° • c00,4 e 0 tCr Tic_ is II 644. 7^ / /, ( C��evS �a �L — OS �G De_ O c.atiadao��%� A- $. r io/c.r 0 �P °-a F� C- Lurr%(/ "q r +-72 c, r� OP f' -141%9 ff ✓ ✓J 4 a.r "bra / . r -- 3l /7 of 74-4' s ez - 7Cc --0. -re- g‘/L-ri1 d/ c 4r. a ca) bef e$a T4/4 w./ 4 d�orl -74o .01 ��— -- c- P. -7( e s ; tr 6 / -e/ro /'- de- ( e -J— `77Z d0 �- C to o' T e. c f 1 c / 0-----i 40 re`7. 0-4 / 9' 7 9 -7-4.„0 . (, c •z: ro 66 (.4, Tie) b y el..1 ray /6-, ( 1 c' Co - �f e GO O 3_2 (� P n-cv a/vc -eo/ rro ; s-rrnr' 5; hie ; f at T. 6 /e_ ZIP .1c){." c c> vi—� .S 71- ,' error- /'4.■ calr '-/c -74 ,5 4 42__J G. ( r -r / ' �c J('2 2Cq e e / /-e- ✓e / c' , 'Ar.,' ctl��S.e_ '714 -- 0 vv /�wre-s (e-ck 0.q y. • 1 1 1 CO' h -f �► % -4i+% '- 5 f • v- L 4 ` . - —5 e-'9 rTL_.- v- ta-l�el - -- - - -- Z. 6.,. -/-4-e_- S o rC / a S S L4 4- H c -c. , 4 T t.. "re ' r$ 4 p a r-y e- r Cr at.-r./ tr- e! o 1 ,fwd" ..4....., .2, --4e -o a., ... L^- -e.-s" -74 --(4-..-„/ a5-°-0/ - - -- .F- e r0 0 -.. P/A -7 i (.5 S cr -- 7/-4 • / rap r ' ,...,1 r1 v -e"."'', e--1r T u .. -5 o ,.744 c -41+4 744+,- B/ t/C1 ,--,-, W o ' / / j/ / 1,-,..D rO v <- --a-. / (-/-vl a 'f s a.-r 0.1 c'4-. Q, "74 74 l-e–. a, '{ter tee 'o r.,_` /1'1 C ""1. 9 b • d ry , ' l / 74-e , -s 1 a.. , ` ,..„..,P , -o ✓...y! 7 pQ-� c.- or-CI i' t�.rc — -- P5 , 41 S' off- S Gt, -7/4 4.e--0 fe,,-- P/ vol s TA y 744 :s 2 r, / - 7 ✓ L , w 0 ,./1 O? Y► p T rs .G. a T ," °-^91 td r' re-1 e...,--6r__ -- /, U S) 7- L` L s al0 c-c. .,. c� '7L a o re..., er 7gy/ S G G t.✓r+ 4 ci c..,„ f (owe c #1 ff.-0 (- .c,i• 0 r- ari e—ro dap .1›,.4-0.-4 F , C - - L 0 .......,p a r .e..., 640 ,‘ 74.4 4-4-G,,. p r ,_:11 .e._ / rr 9 G /`a ¢e1 - -- ce 4,04 f/..- ,'.......pr; ccfio_s , -7-71-1 0 f , T., (A.' c.-Q f,•a,.c ct r• - -t-- .71are 7' 74/c_ Pr-®.) a c14 eei /7/ h G r-e- -a S -e.... -111t 4- ✓ - c -r-"4 •• C.. rer N / ti ,w e.--,S c,.. / • s R... a 11 vG/ . S 4,.v?* G a ,.- .Par -e -, -G Se_ -tio '4r .9 vY'-e . `7 e`l 7a. R.44.9.40/ 0 -fi e_ 5' be Gr to r- T 4,44., 7TZ "e- / cr.? y ' 7-7f, 9 -, Tai /d- Z, t, , 60/ j Z aG✓,S i4 4,74' .4-4-i 4-edf v 40 rte.. 4j 1/ 'L , ...s' .ri/ 6 t.,+t e.),. :,r71# 8., Sot. ( e Y-e-r- s (id " e t o 7444-- 5 . c.744 CIS l-y / / , , , , ' — I S i -- 0 vv /�wre-s (e-ck 0.q y. • 1 1 1 CO' h -f �► % -4i+% '- 5 f • v- L 4 ` . - —5 e-'9 rTL_.- v- ta-l�el / • • 3) A study conducted for a major expansion of a Boeing industrial plant in Everett found that most employees would be present residents of the general area and would not relocate their residences (p. D3 Final EIS, Boeing Everett Facility Expansion, City of Everett, 1978). TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION EXISTING CONDITIONS Street System Interstate 405, a four -lane freeway just south of the project site, provides major access to the proposed office park. Although this portion of I -405 lies in an east /west configuration, its connection with Interstate 5, State Route 167 and I -405 to the north enables the project area to be regionally accessed from the north and from the south. To the west, State Route 518 connects with I -405 at I -5. (Refer to Figure 1.) State Route 181 /Interurban Avenue is the principal arterial currently serving the project site. Operating primarily as a four -lane arterial (on occasion a two -way left turn lane is added as a fifth lane), Interurban Avenue provides local access from the north and from the south. Access onto and off of I -405 is also possible via Interurban Avenue. An alternate local east /west roadway to the occasionally congested I -405 is Southcenter Boulevard and Southwest Grady Way. These two roads have a functional classification of "minor arterial" from I -5 into Renton. Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue is a narrow, two -lane curving road with unpaved shoulders and open drainage. There are plans to improve Grady Way to a five- lane roadway with curb, gutters and sidewalks. At this time, preliminary studies have been completed addressing possible realignments of Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue South and Grady Way. Consequently, in the future Southcenter Boulevard may be improved and realigned such that it connects directly with Grady Way, thus bypassing the office park entrance at Interurban Avenue. Traffic Volumes and Operating Conditions Current average daily traffic volumes along roads surrounding the project site are shown in Figure 4. These volumes are based on 1981 traffic volumes developed by Entranco Engineers for a recent Southcenter Boulevard design report. The 1981 traffic volumes were increased 2.9 percent to reflect an annual growth rate between 1981 and 1982. This rate is an average annual increase developed by Entranco for the years 1980 and 1990. (At this time, there is not sufficient traffic count data with the City of 34- 1702o 231300 NORTH Tukwila Bend 1982 Average Weekday Office Park Traffic Volumes FIG. 4 . • • to 1990. (At this time, there is not sufficient traffic count data with the City of Tukwila to obtain an accurate traffic growth rate; consequently, the 2.9 percent rate developed by Entranco is used here and will be used to forecast 1984 background traffic volumes.) Given the traffic counts in Figure 4, Table III shows the level of service at several major nearby intersections. The term "level of service" is a qualitative measure which describes the performance of an intersection or street segment. The levels vary from LOS A to LOS F, as described in Table IV. The method used to determine level of service is described in Appendix C. Capacity analysis worksheets are appendicized in Appendix D. TABLE III EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (PM Peak) Intersection Level of Service Volume /Capacity o Interurban Avenue S. & Southcenter Boulevard o Interurban Avenue S. & F S.W. Grady Way /I -405 SB Ramp o Interurban Avenue S. & I -405 NB Ramp A 0.72 0.56 TABLE IV DESCRIPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service General Description Capacity Ratio A Free Flow Below .60 B Stable Flow (slight delays) .60 - .70 C Stable Flow (acceptable delays) .71 - .80 D Approaching Unstable Flow .81 - .92 (tolerable delay) E Unstable Flow (intolerable delay - .93 - 1.0 capacity) F Forced Flow (jammed) Undefined As shown in Table III, the intersection with the worst operating condition is Interurban Avenue and Grady Way. Accidents The total number of accidents at the three nearby intersections for the years 1980 and 1981 is 45. This includes 25 accidents at or near Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South, 20 accidents at Interurban Avenue South and Grady Way and 1 accident at Interurban Avenue South and the I -405 northbound off /on ramps. Table V shows a four -year accident history at the three intersections. As shown in Table V, the total number of accidents at Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard has increased 116 percent between 1979 to 1981'. Accidents at Interurban Avenue and Grady Way have increased approximately 60 percent over the same four years. This increase in accidents may be attributed to a greater number of vehicles using Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way as an alternate route to I -405 between Tukwila and Renton. TABLE V FOUR -YEAR ACCIDENT HISTORY Injury. Property Intersection Year Fatalities Accidents Damage Only TOTAL Interurban Avenue 1978 0 0 6 6 & Southcenter 1979 0 5 4 9 Boulevard 1980 0 5 7 12 1981 0 5 8 13 Interurban Avenue 1978 0 2 3 5 & Grady Way /I -405 1979 0 2 4 6 SB Ramp 1980 1 1 10 12 1981 0 2 6 8 Interurban Avenue 1978 0 2 3 5 & I -405 NB Ramp 1979 0 0 1 1 1980 0 0 0 0 1981 0 0 1 1 Public Transportation The project site is served by eleven Metro bus routes. The majority of these routes provide peak -hour service only (morning and evening) while the remaining routes provide all -day service as well as weekend operation. Table VI shows the route numbers, major areas served by each route and type of service. Given the availability of the peak -hour routes, the proposed office park should have fair public transit service. TABLE VI EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Route Number Type of Service Major Areas Served* 145 Commuter Seattle CBD /Renton /Candlewood 146 Commuter Seattle. CBD /Renton /Candlewood 148 Commuter Seattle CBD /Renton /Candlewood 149 Commuter Kent /Renton /Harbor Island 150 Full Service Seattle CBD /Auburn /Southcenter 154 Commuter Harbor Island /Kent /Auburn 157 Commuter Seattle CBD /Renton /Kent /Auburn 158 Commuter Seattle CBD /Kent /Timberlane 159 Commuter Seattle CBD /Kent /Timberlane 240 Full Service Burien /Renton /Bellevue 340 Full Service Bothell /Bellevue /Renton *Includes Tukwila except for routes #240 and # #340. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Trip Generation A 1976 report prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) provides a guide on trip generation rates for many land uses and building types (Trip Generation - An Informational Report, ITE, 1976). These trip generation rates are presented in various forms including average weekday, Saturday and Sunday, and peak hours of the generator and of the adjacent street traffic. For the land use "office", several office types are identified in the ITE report. The most applicable type in this case is "office park." According to the ITE report, 20.65 trip ends are generated for every 1,000 gross square feet of floor area. Given the proposed total building size of 383,500 square feet, this is equivalent to 7,919 trip ends per day. (A trip end is defined as the total number of trips entering plus all trips leaving the site.) Table VII summarizes the trip generation rate and volume during the pm peak hour. TABLE VII OFFICE PARK TRIP GENERATION (PM Peak) Gross Floor Trip Rate* Trip Generation Area In Out In Out Total 383,500 sq. ft 0.33 1.84 127 707 834 *Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Trip Distribution Project - generated trips were distributed along adjacent arterials based on a micro - model developed by Entranco Engineers for traffic patterns in the Tukwila area. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of the trips are generated west and east of the project site. For the most part, vehicle trips generated from the west and from the east use I -405 to access the site. Consequently, 65 percent of the trips entering and leaving the site will travel south on Interurban Avenue towards the I -405 on /off ramps. The primary movement at the office park entrance, then, will be northbound right turns off Interurban Avenue during the morning and westbound left turns from the office access road during the afternoon. Traffic Impacts During the fall of 1981, Entranco Engineers completed the Tukwila Micro -Model Study. This study involved a computer simulation of traffic patterns in the Tukwila area. As part of that study, an extensive land use inventory and forecasting process was undertaken. The forecast indicated a growth in vehicle trip ends of about 33 percent during the ten -year period between 1980 and 1990. This is an average growth of about 2.9 percent per year and is consistent with recent traffic growth trends in the area. Given the trip distribution patterns in Figure 5 and the trip generation volumes in Table VII, 1984 traffic volumes were projected with and without the office park. (At this time, a specific schedule for construction phasing has not been determined. It is planned that construction of the five office buildings will proceed- as demand and the economy warrants it.) For purposes of this study, completion of the entire project was predicted for 1984. Figures 6 and 7 show the 1984 daily traffic volumes with and without the office park. The resulting level of service with and without the office park are shown in Table VIII below. (Capacity analysis worksheets can be found in Appendix D.) Tukwila Bend OfficeParkTrip Distribution FIG. 5 . TABLE VIII 1984 LEVEL OF SERVICE -- WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT (PM Peak) Intersection Level of Service Without Project With Project LOS V/C LOS V/C Interurban Avenue South and C 0.77 Fa 1.16a Southcenter Boulevard Interurban Avenue South and F 1.09 F 1.13 S.W. Grady Way /I -405 WB off -on ramps Interurban Avenue South and I -405 NB off -on ramps C 0.75 D 0.82 .aDoes not include project - related improvements. Even without the project there will be severe congestion at Interurban Avenue and Grady Way. With the project, congestion will become severe at Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard since the project will add approximately 834 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Project - related vehicle trips leaving the site during the p.m. peak will constitute approximately 21.5 percent of the total vehicle trips at the intersection in 1984, an increase of 25 percent. MITIGATING MEASURES Project- Related Improvements To handle the increased traffic, changes in the existing signal phasing and timing may be required. Consideration should be given to providing a dual left -turn lane from the site (the east leg of Southcenter Boulevard) in addition to the through /right lane. A northbound separate right -turn lane should be added to handle the increase in right -turn movements due to the project. This three -lane approach and separate right -turn lane would improve the level of service from -LOS F to LOS E in. 1984. Project- phasing over a period of years (or as demand warrants it) will lessen the immediate short -term impacts. The actual design changes necessary to provide adequate operation are beyond the scope of this report. Specific details regarding the signal wiring and controller, as well as geometric details of the intersection, would be required. 17,520 NORTH 0 500' 1000' r i // Tukwila Bend 1984 Average Daily OfficePark Traffic Volumes (without project) FIG. 6 . I$3(00 Site s 5(oyo NORTH 500' 1000' Tukwila Bend 1 984 Average Daily OfficePark Traffic Volumes (with project) FIG. • • The developer should encourage use of transit and carpools by providing convenient walkways to existing bus stops, shelters for those waiting, and incentives such as preferential, close -in parking for carpools and vanpools. Tenants should be encouraged to provide a subsidy towards Metro monthly bus passes, provide carpool /vanpool program assistance, and to implement flex -time or staggered work hours. The Seattle - King County Commuter Pool can provide valuable assistance in implementing these incentive measures. Final design of the on -site circulation and parking system should provide appropriate treatment for geometric, traffic control, and circulation route layout features to ensure adequate movement for automobiles, delivery trucks, fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles, as well as pedestrians and bicycles. Planned Long -Range Improvements Substantial changes to the area's traffic circulation system are planned by 1990. The Grady Way Bridge will be replaced with a four -lane facility and will be widened to provide a four -lane section from Interurban Avenue to Renton. There are also plans to widen and realign Southcenter Boulevard between Interurban Avenue and 62nd Avenue South. The new section would intersect Interurban Avenue at Grady Way, rather than at the Fort Dent Park entrance. The I -405 southbound ramps would be aligned with the Fort Dent Park entrance, rather than with Grady Way. The reduction in turning movements (Southcenter Boulevard to Grady Way would have a straight- through movement rather than a right turn and then a left turn) will improve maneuverability and traffic flow through these intersections. However intersection volumes at the Fort Dent entrance will not vary considerably whether the new alignment is constructed or not. Based on 1990 projected traffic volumes contained in the Entranco report, capacity analysis was conducted with and without the proposed realignment. (See Appendix D for capacity analysis worksheets.) It is assumed that 1990 traffic volumes will already include project - related traffic since future traffic projections (at a rate of 2.9 percent per year) are intended to account for development growth in the area. Results of the capacity analysis are shown in Table IX. TABLE IX 1990 LEVEL OF SERVICE -- WITH AND WITHOUT THE NEW ALIGNMENT (PM Peak) Intersection Without With New . New Alignment Alignment LOS V/C LOS V/C Interurban Avenue S. F 1.07 F 1.09 & Fort Dent Entrance Interurban Avenue S. F 1.27 F 1.07 & Grady Way Interurban Avenue S. F 1.02 E 0.95 & I -405 NB Ramp As shown in Table IX, level of service at the Fort Dent entrance will not dramatically improve with the new alignment. This is due to the high p.m. peak hour traffic volumes expected to use the I -405 southbound ramp. In 1990, project - related vehicle trips will constitute approximately 22.8 percent of the total p.m. peak hour intersection traffic volume at Interurban Avenue and the Fort Dent entrance with the new alignment and 21.4 percent without the new alignment. With or without the new alignment, background traffic volumes at this intersection will be considerable. Additional transit service is also expected to be implemented by Metro. The increased service is linked to the construction of a transit center in the Tukwila commercial district. New routes will provide direct service from Tukwila to areas currently without service. Service will also be improved on existing routes. Finally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has programmed for the mid -1980s the construction of transit /carpool lanes along I -405 from Bellevue through Tukwila to I -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to _transit, carpools, and_vanpools .._ _ _ during peak periods, thereby enhancing the accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend Office Park and reducing vehicular travel growth pressures around the site. • • Tukwila to I -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to transit, carpools, and vanpools during peak periods, thereby enhancing the accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend Office Park and reducing vehicular travel growth pressures around the site. PUBLIC SERVICES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Fire Protection The City of Tukwila Fire Department has two fire stations, each approximately a mile from the site. The Andover East Station has three pumpers, one 100 -foot aerial ladder, an aide car and support vehicles. The fire rating in Tukwila is Class 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 as excellent. The water supply available to the site is adequate for fire protection requirements. The project would require additional service from the Fire Department for inspection, fire suppression and emergency medical services. This increased demand will be offset by additional tax revenues generated by businesses in the project. The buildings will comply with city building code requirements for fire safety. Police Protection Police protection is provided by the City of Tukwila. The police station is located in City Hall approximately one -half mile west of the site. There are presently 27 commissioned police officers. Response time to the site would be two to three minutes for emergencies and service is considered adequate. A variety of circumstances in the proposed office park will require additional police service including car prowls, burglaries and domestic squabbles. This increased demand for services will be offset by increased revenues generated for the city. Schools There wouild not be a significant impact on local schools since there would be no significant shift in population as a result of the project. The project would generate approximately $86,200 in property tax revenues directly to the school district each year. Parks and Recreation The project is immediately adjacent to the Fort Dent Regional Park. This park is an athletic complex with large open spaces and picnic facilities. Employees from the proposed office complex will use Fort Dent Park for picnicking, jogging and informal 46 Fort Dent Park entrance, rather than with Grady Way. The reduction in turning movements (Southcenter Boulevard to Grady Way would have a straight- through movement rather than a right turn and then a left turn) will improve maneuverability and traffic flow through these intersections. However intersection volumes at the Fort Dent entrance will not vary considerably whether the new alignment is constructed or not. Based on 1990 projected traffic volumes contained in the Entranco report, capacity analysis was conducted with and without the proposed realignment. (See Appendix D for capacity analysis worksheets.) As a worst case scenario, it is assumed that 1990 background traffic volumes will not include project - related traffic although future traffic projections (at a rate of 2.9 percent per year) are intended to account for development growth in the area. Consequently, the addition of will cause 1990 projected volumes at the Fort Dent entrance percent without the new alignment and 20 percent with the new the capacity analysis are shown in Table X. project - related traffic to be exceeded by 19 alignment. Results of TABLE X 1990 LEVEL OF SERVICE -- WITH AND WITHOUT THE NEW ALIGNMENT (PM Peak) Intersection Without New Alignmenta With New Alignmenta Without Project With Project Without Project With Project LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C Interurban Avenue S. & Fort Dent Entrance Interurban Avenue S. & Grady Way Interurban Avenue S. & I -405 NB Ramp F 1.07 F 1.18 D .89 F 1.22 F 1.20 E .94 F 1.09 E .98 D .85 Fb 1.36b F 1.02 D .90 aAs ��six- lane ,/improvement to Interurban Avenue Tr nsportation mprovement Plan, October 1979. as recommended in the City of Tukwila's bInclude.s_cecommended project- related improvements: separate northbound right -turn lane. two westbound left -turn lanes and one As shown in Table X, level of service at the Fort Dent entrance will not dramatically improve with the new alignment. This is due to the high p.m. peak hour traffic volumes 47 • expected to use the I -405 southbound ramp. With the new alignment, level of service at the I -405 northbound ramps will improve from LOS E to LOS D with the project. In the event that the recommended six -lane improvement to Interurban Avenue between Southcenter Boulevard and the south city limits is not constructed, level of service at the Fort Dent entrance will not change. Level of service at the remaining two intersections, however, will vary somewhat. With the alignment and the project, Interurban Avenue and the I -405 northbound ramp will operate at LOS F, or at LOS E without the project. Without the project, Interurban Avenue and Grady Way will operate at LOS F. In 1990, project- related vehicle trips will constitute approximately 23.0 percent of the ' total p.m. peak hour intersection traffic volume at Interurban Avenue and the Fort Dent entrance with the new alignment and 21.0 percent without the new alignment. With or without the new alignment, background traffic volumes at this intersection will be considerable. ' Additional transit service is also expected to be implemented by Metro. The increased service is linked to the construction of a transit center in the Tukwila commercial district. New routes will provide direct service from Tukwila to areas currently without service. Service will also be improved on existing routes. ' Finally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has programmed for the mid -1980s the construction of transit /carpool lanes along I -405 from Bellevue through Tukwila to I -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to transit, carpools, and vanpools during peak periods, thereby enhancing the accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend Office Park and reducing vehicular travel growth pressures around the site. PUBLIC SERVICES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ' Fire Protection The City of Tukwila Fire Department has two fire stations, each approximately a mile from the site. The Andover East Station has three pumpers, one 100 -foot aerial ladder, an aide car and support vehicles. The fire rating in Tukwila is Class 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 as excellent. The water supply available to the site is adequate for fire protection requirements. ' The project would require additional service from the Fire Department for inspection, fire suppression and emergency medical services. This increased demand will be offset 48 ' DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTION FOR OFFICE PARK, TUKWILA ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT Earth Utilizing information provided by the Proponent, supplemented with information available from other sources such as previous impact statements potential impacts to the stability and landforms of the site, and from earth - moving, grading and erosion will be identified. The most important questions are: Will the soil support the proposed buildings, and will thesir construction cause erosion that could damage the river? • Air The Consultant will use a staff specialist to evalute existing information on climate and to identify existing air quality conditions. Once traffic volumes and other major sources of air pollution due to the project are identified, Consultant will use an appropriate diffusion model to forecast future impacts to air quality. Impacts will be explained and compared to existing standards. Water:- The Green River has been extensively investigated previously. Available data from previous studies will be researched and incorporated as appropriate. Mitigating measures to development such as oil /water separators, silt traps and a detention pond will be evaluated for effectiveness and additional measures will be discussed as appropriate. Flora and Fauna The Consultant will collect existing inventories and descriptions of the flora and fauna of the site and adjacent sites, evaluate them and incorporate them in the EIS. This information will be supplemented with a brief site visit by a staff biologist. Noise The Consultant will conduct noise monitoring on the site adjacent to Interurban Avenue to identify existing noise conditions. The results will be compared to existing and projected traffic volumes and any other source to predict noise increases that would be created by the proposed project. The effects of the predicted noise levels on surrounding residents and properties will be assessed and described. Land Use Existing use of the site, development trends in the area, and applicable policies and regulations will be compared with the proposed office park. Direct and indirect impacts to land use of the site and surrounding properties will be described. Applicable land use plans and policies of the city will be compared and discussed. Light and Glare, Natural Resources and Risk of Explosion From site inspection and utilizing existing information, these remaining elements of the physical environment will be assessed and incorporated as appropriate. Population and Housing The Consultant will review and supplement information as required to address popula- tion and housing including the demand for housing for future employees. Transportation and Circulation Using an in -house traffic engineer, the Consultant will evaluate existing traffic and prepare projections of traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed project. The Consultant will assign these volumes to adjacent arterials and intersections and address their capacities to handle the additional traffic in the years 1985 and 1990 during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Necessary improvements (including design if requested•as extra work) to handle the traffic will be identified. We are assuming that adequate data on trip distribution, origins and destinations, existing conditions (volumes by direction, level of service) and travel growth history are available from the city, and from the previous studies. Available information for traffic from surrounding developments will be incorporated. Public Services _ The Consultant will collect data from the city and other jurisdictions to identify the demands and costs for public services such as parks, schools, fire and police protection and maintenance from comparable types of development. The costs of providing the needed services will be compared with the revenue that will be generated by the project under Economics. Energy The EIS will identify quantities of energy required to construct and operate the proposed project. Mitigating measures for construction materials and techniques and transportation of future employees will be identified. • Utilites Demands for on -site and off -site utilities and impacts to existing utility systems will be identified with particular emphasis on storm drainage (potential water quality impacts and access to the lake), and the needs for extension of sanitary sewer and water mains. Aesthetics The Consultant will identify the potential for view blockage for surrounding residential properties. This will be accomplished by preparing topographic cross - sections and superimposing the project to show the extent view blockage. A general discussion of the appearance of the buildings and relationship to city policies will be provided. Archaeolgical /Histor ical The Consultant will incorporate the findings of a previous. study of archaeology provided by the proponent. Economics The general cost /benefit aspect of the project for the city will be addressed by analyzing a detailed breakdown of the city budget and comparing the demand for specific services with the city's cost of providing those services for comparable existing developments. Human Health This section will be completed using standard techniques and practices. ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives will be addressed. They are: 1. the no- action alternative. 2. less intensive use. 3. other uses allowed by the present zoning. Conceptual plans and relative impacts of each alternative will be described in text. 0 te• ci6771 • k. v . ,e,Ot..•,- ),,,,,li , /11 I h;I?Mill q . ,.../ / TO WILSEY & HAM, IN Engineering • Planning • ying Environmental Analysis Central Park Building 1980 112th Avenue N.E. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-3250 i,„140,(c? 4,0,02_ 4,4 ikrb . r7'u. Lt•q? (a u/'rB� 41'4 fer GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU KAttached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order LEI IJ 1Tr I ■ ©7 IrEG296J41 ar MEL A_ 24/ � 1e(3 JOB N� :-A.0-;°, ENTI p' �� nart 4,76723 DESCRIPTION `g/ �a- a _ k ■ a.rited I di-7- ❑ Plans the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications 0 COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION `g/ �a- a _ k ■ a.rited I di-7- THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit .4For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS FORM 240-2 - Available from rimes Townsend. Mass. 01469 It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. DDC f1 / pats • SUSPENDED PARTICULATES ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS (UG /M3) D STATION # REGION/ LOCATION P L 76 77 78 79 , 80 81 PUGET SOUND 4 1700002A King Co., Lake Sammamish St. Park -- -- -- • -- 35* 4 1700K05B King Co., Tolt River Watershed 12 11 10 16^ 12 15 4 1700K59B King Co., Duwamish Valley 49 52 53 58 51 55 4 '1700K69B King Co., Federal Way High School -- -- . -- 46* 40 42 4 1700K70B King Co., Cedar River Masonary Dam -- -- -- -- 12* 9 4 1704K51B Auburn, Health Department 49 54 54 62 59 54 2 1708004A Bellevue, Scan Design -- -- -- 57* 52 57 4 .1740K63B Kent, 86th Avenue South 49 57 54 66 51 45 1 '1740K94B Kent, Memorial Park X -- -- 65* 76* 60 55 4 1748001A Medina, 520 Toll Plaza -- -- -- -- 50 43 4 1774K09B Renton, Health Center 38 38 36 43 42 38 1 1774K67B Renton, Employment Security Building X -- -- 55* 59 53 56 4 1776K01B Seattle, Public Safety Building 50 55 56 58 60 56 4 1776K04B Seattle, Coast Guard Station 46 52 44 52 48 53 4 1776005A Seattle, Portage Bay — -- 42* 52 54 52 1 1776019A Seattle, Fire Station 010 X -- 65* 63 59 63 58 4 .1776028A Seattle, LDS Church -- -- 56* 61 58 57 1 1776030A Seattle, Highway Dept. - Georgetown -- -- -- 76* 70 64 1 1776K55B Seattle, Duwamish Pump Station X 75 94 102 106 82 87 2 1776K60B Seattle, Harbor Island X 83 88 90 95 84 83 2 17.76K618 Seattle, South Park X 52 56 56 60 53 53 1 1776K68B Seattle, 98th & Stone Avenue X — -- 53* 56 46 48 4 1776K71B Seattle, Harbor Island Texaco — -- -- -- 92* 93 4 1782K50B Tukwila, South Center 45 48 46 50 48 47 4 1806B04B Bremerton, E. 16th & Ironside — 27 28 31 30 32* 4 2718044A Dupont, City Water Supply — — 24* -- 31* 25 4 2726P03B Fife, Sr. High School 48 51 53 56 50 52 4 2780P12B Sumner, Jr. High School -- -- 43 48 49 44 1 2782P01B Tacoma, Fire Station 012 X: 87 91 100 112 101 94 2 2782P02B Tacoma, Benny's Nursery X 50 51 43 41 40 39 2 2782P05B Tacoma, Hess Building X 41 44 46 53 47 44 1 2782P08B Tacoma, Willard Elementary School X 58 60 59 64 53 48 2 2782009A Tacoma, Mt. Tacoma High School X -- 50* 52 53 46 41 4 2782P09B Tacoma, Taylor Way 65 86 83 88 71 72 4 2782P10B Tacoma, Cleveland Way 66 77 80 84 70 60 4 2782P14B Tacoma, North Baltimore. -- -- -- -- 42* 41 1 2182P503 Tacoma, Cascadia X 59 69 57 69 56 50 4 3100004A Snohomish Co., Lk. Stevens Weigh.Sta. — -- -- -- -- 31* 2 3124S03B Everett, Medical - Dental Building X 45 44 45 50 45 44 OLYMPIC- NORTHWEST 4 0526409G Forks, PUD Building 35 36* 34 36 36 27 4 0566004A Pt. Angeles, Olympic National Park -- -- -- -- -- 23* 4 05664070 Pt. Angeles, Hospital 42 47 37 47 40 41 4 0566411G Pt. Angeles, Pool Site 40 44 43 58 41 40 2 0566412G Pt. Angeles, City Light Station X 72 66* 66- 69 48 41 4 05760010 Sequim, Fire Station -- -- -- — -- 45* 4 0576413G Sequim, Creamery Square 37* 40 42 55 45 43* 2 14021016 Aberdeen, City Hall X 39 38 34 41 47 37 4 1422116G Elms, Ambulance Garage -City Garage 31 33 34 40 56 35 4 16665030 Pt. Townsend, Fire Station 31 34 33 39 39 29 4 23763070 Shelton, PUD Building 34 36 31 41 43 33 4 25000010 Ilwaco, Ft. Canby State Park -- -- -- -- -- 17* 4 25372070 Ilwaco, High School 24 26 23 21 25 17 4 25722010 Raymond, City Shops 37 38 32 36 43 29 4 2900028C Anacortes, Texaco Lab -- -- -- 21 21 19 4 2900034C Anacortes, Shell Transmitter Building -- -- -- 38 30 26 4 2906002A Burlington, City Hall 35 37 36 42 40 37* 4 2933066C Hamilton -- -- -- -- 31 24 4 2948011C Mt. Vernon, NWAPA Office 44 41 41 45 45 44 2 3460005G Olympia, Scahefer Building X 44 44 43 52 49 47 4 34820020 Tenino; Fire Station 38 37 37 41 46 32 4 3700014C Lake Terrell, Game Refuge 22 25 23 25 26 24 4 3700050C Bellingham, Brennan — -- -- -- -- 54 4 3700060C Ferndale, ARCO 02 -- -- -- 28* 29 27 4 3700063C Ferndale, Mobil NR4 -- . -- -- 35* 32 25 4 3700070C Ferndale, Merchant's Supply -- -- -- -- -- 81* 4 3706041C Bellingham, Georgia- Pacific 03 -- . — -- -- 70 57 2 3706055C Bellingham, Roeder School X , -- -- 46* 47 43 40 26 (g0 SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (UG /M3) FOR 1981 I D STATION = REGION/ LOCATION 11 DAYS MAXIMUM 1st (Date) VALUES 2nd (Date) 4i > 150 11 260 11 375 ANNUAL GEO.MN. PUGET SOUND 4 1700002A King Co., Lake Sammamish St. Park (Estab. 6/9) 34 92(8/14) 85(8/8) 0 .0 0 35 4 1700K05B King Co., Tolt River Watershed 58 85(8/14) 62(8/26) 0 0 0 15 4 1700K59B King Co., Duwamish Valley 59 158(2/3) 145(11/6) 1 0 0 55 4 1700K69B King Co., Federal Way High School 61 114(1/16) 88(1/4) 0 0 0 42 4 1700K7OB King Co., Cedar River Masonary Dam 358 89(8/6) 75(7/16) 0 0 0 9 4 1704K51B Auburn, Health Department 60 241(1/16) 163(1/10) 2 0 0 54 2 4 1708004A 1740K63B Bellevue, Scan Design Kent, 86th Avenue South 58 61 283(1/16) 137(8/26) 190(1/10) 130(1/16) 3 0 1 0 0 0 57 41 45 1 1740K94B Kent, Memorial Park 61 181(1/16) 154(2/3) 2 0 0 55 4 1748001A Medina, 520 Toll Plaza 58 158(1/16) 148(1/4) 1 0 0 43 4 1774K09B Renton, Health Center 59 113(2/3) 106(1/4) 0 0 0 38 1 1774K67B Renton, Employment Security Building 61 169(1/16) 127(2/3) 1 0 0 56 4 1776KO1B Seattle, Public Safety Building 58 136(11/6) 115(1/10) 0 0 0 56 4 1776K04B Seattle, U.S. Coast Guard Station 59 222(11/6) 137(1/16) 1 0 0 53 4 1776005A Seattle, Portage Bay 60 187(1/16) 128(11/6) 1 0 0 52 1 1776019A Seattle, Fire Station #10 56 224(1/16) 140(1/10) 1 0 •0 58 4 1776028A Seattle, LDS Church 57 227(1/16) 157(1/10) 2 0 0 57 1 1776030A Seattle, Hwy Dept. - Georgetown 51 165(3/11) 138(1/10 *) 1 0 0 64 1 1776K55B Seattle, Duwamish Pump Station 348 366(11/2) 355(1/16) 58 1 6 0 87 2 1776K60B Seattle, Harbor Island 81 317(1/16) 268(11/6) 5 1 2 0 83 2 1776K61B Seattle, South Park 60 201(1/16) 155(11/6) 3 0 0 53 1 1776K68B Seattle, 98th & Stone Avenue 72 112(1/16 *) 112(11/6) 0 0 0 48 4 1776K71B Seattle, Harbor Island Texaco 61 329(11/6) 244(1/16). 6 1 0 93 4 1782K50B Tukwila, South Center 61 120_(2./_3)___ _ .._..0 0 0_ _,4.7 4 1806B04B Bremerton, E. 16th & Ironside (Disc. 10/31) 44 95(1/16) 83(1/10) 0 l0000r0000 0 32 , 4 2718044A Dupont, City Water Supply 59 79(1/16) 62(2/3 *) 0 0 25 4 2726P03B Fife, Sr. High School 60 156(2/3) 135(1/16) 1 0 52 4 2780P12B Sumner, Jr. High School 59 148(1/16) 113(8/14) 0 0 44 1 2782P01B Tacoma, Fire Station 412 137 322(3/2) 217(2/9) 27 0 94 2 2782P02B Tacoma, Benny's Nursery 61 111(11/6) 110(8/8) 0 0 39 2 2782P05B Tacoma, Hess Building 61 169(1/16) 153(11/6) 2 0 44 1 2782P08B Tacoma, Willard Elementary School 57 177(1/16) 166(11/6) 2 0 48 2, 2782009A Tacoma, Mt. Tahoma High School 59 194(11/6) 158(2/3) 0 41 UTM (KILOMETERS NORTH) Paack qJq' 19e1-6 Ah PUGET lUND AIR POLLUTION COWROL AGENCY 5330.0 /- 5325.0 - 5320.0 5315.0 - 5310.0 - 5305.0 - 5300.0 - MARYSVILLE 20 SUSPENDED PARTICULATES 1980 RNNURL GEOMETRIC MEANS (MICROGRAMS/CU METER) N 5295.0 SNOHOMISH CO KING CO 5290.0 - 5285.0 5280. 5275.0 5270.0 5265.0 5260.0 5255.0 5250.0 52'45.0 5290.0 5235.0 5230.0 5225.0 5220.0 5215.0 TOLT WRTER RES _ 10 KITSRP CO PIERCE CO 12 KING CO tio PIERCE CO 30 5210.0 THURSTON CO PIERCE CO 20 MILES 510 0 515.0 520.0 525.0 530.0 535.0 540.0 545.0 550.0 555.0 560.0 565.0 570.0 575.0 580.0 585.0 590.0 595.0 600.0 605.0 5205.0 UTM (KILOMETERS ERST) 10 UTM (KILOMETERS NORTH) 5330.0 5325.0 5320.0 5315.0 5310.0 5305.0 5300.0 5295.0 5290.0 5285.0 5280.0 5275.0 5270.0 5265.0 5260.0 5255.0 5250.0 5245.0 5240.0 5235.0 5230.0 5225.0 5220.0 5215.0 5210.0 5205.0 510.0 MARYSVILLE SUSPENDED PARTICULATES 1981 ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEANS (MICROGRAMS /CU METER) _ SNOHOMISH MONROE SNOHOMISH CO KING CO TOLT WATER'RES +15 1 .4. BREMERTON SNODUALMIE KITSAP CO_ PIERCE CO SUMNER +44� KING CO 1 THURSTON CO PIERCE CO MILES PIERCE CO 20 a 15 515.0 520.0 525.0 530.0 535.0 540.0 545.0 550.0 555.0 560.0 565.0 570.0 575.0 580.0 585.0 590.0 595.0 600.0 605.0 UTM (KILOMETERS EAST) 11 SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (Micrograms per Cubic Meter) 1981 Location Monthly Arithmetic Averages ; No. Year Year { Of Arith Geom Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 Obs. Mean Mean { Tolt River Watershed, King County, Wa { Cedar River Masonry Dam, King County, Wa Highway 9 & 28th St NE, Lake Stevens, Waa { Medical - Dental Bldg, 2730 Colby, Everett, Wa 1 504 Bellevue Way NE, Bellevue, Wa { 20050 SE 56th, Lake Sammamish State Park, Wab { North 98th St & Stone Ave N, Seattle, Wa 1 5701 8th Ave NE, Seattle, Wa 2700 W Commodore Way, Seattle, Wa { Portage Bay, 2725 Montlake Blvd E, Seattle, Wa Public Safety Bldg, 604 3rd Ave, Seattle, Wa' { Fire Station #10, 301 2nd Ave S, Seattle, Wa { Harbor Island, 2555 13th Ave SW, Seattle, Wa { Harbor Island, 3400 13th Ave SW, Seattle, Wa 1 1 Duwamish, 4401 E Marginal Way S, Seattle, Wa rn 1 Georgetown, 6431 Corson Ave S, Seattle, Wa I South Park, 723 S Concord St, Seattle, Wa { Duwamish Valley, 12026 42nd Ave S, King Co, Wa I SE Dist Health Ctr, 3001 NE 4th St, Renton, Wa { 200 South 2nd St, Renton, Wa I Southcenter, 401 Andover Park E, Tukwila, Wa 2291. 8.th ve S, Ken , a _ { Memorial Park, 850 N Central Ave, Kent, Wa Federal Way HS, 1401 S 304 St, Federal Way, Wa { 115 E Main St, Auburn, Wa { Sumner Jr HS, 1508 Willow St, Sumner, Wa Fife Sr High School, 5616 20th E, Fife, Wa { 2340 Taylor Way, Tacoma, Wa Fire Station #12, 2316 E 11th St, Tacoma, Wa Treatment Plant, 1241 Cleveland Wy, Tacoma, Wa Cascadia, 2002 E 28th St, Tacoma, Wa Willard School, S 32nd & S 'D' St, Tacoma, Wa { Hess Bldg, 901 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, Wa { 4716 North Baltimore St, Tacoma, Wa North 26th & Pearl Sts, Tacoma, Wa { Mt Tahoma HS, 6404 S Adams St, Tacoma, Wa { City Water Supply Pump House, Dupont, Wa 1 East 16th St & Ironsides Ave, Bremerton, Wac 10 17 22 11 20 15 30 49 18 15 11 9 1 58 19 15 8 6 12 4 18 13 41 44 14 10 6 6 1 60 15 9 56 35 29 35 28 1 24 36 32 1 64 56 62 32 45 39 49 64 48 41 42 33 1 59 " 48 44 143 73 102 49 69 45 65 77 49 52 65 45 1 54 68 59 31 51 63 36 39 27 30 I 33 40 36 71 57 56 29 40 39 56 73 47 42 57 42 1 61 51 46 132 96 88 44 53 46 49 56 55 54 53 52 1 54 65 58 1 • 72 65 63 42 46 48 51 51 54 65 97 45 1 59 58 53 104 76 64 39 45 43 43 60 41 47 79 55 1 60 57 52 82 68 65 47 55 51 52 63 52 57 77 49 1 58 59 56 124 86 75 45 45 50 53 65 52 58 59 53 1 52 65 59 128 132 99 77 80 91 80 113 67 122 156 76 1 61 102 93 142 112 116 62 71 71 81 93 62 91 133 71 1 61 92 83 142 111 127 59 75 76 91 138 81 96 106 74 1 121 98 85 103 99 104 43 52 51 82 81 53 73 76 49 1 51 72 64 107 88 72 27 48 35 59 74 54 56 79 51 1 60 63 53 84 93 77 33 50 36 56 68 58 58 81 53 1 59 62 55 68 67 53 22 37 27 49 70 38 37 43 38 1 59 45 38 90 80 70 41 60 40 56 76 65 63 64 47 1 61 63 56 79 68 61 29 51 37 59 59 46 43 53 37 1 61 52 47 7969 58. 254 `8`3 "3�`66�865"46�48�37 -I'61— 5345 100 92 76 50 64 39 69 73 44 55 58 44 { 61 63 55 71 50 50 27 40 33 46 58 43 43 48 38 1 61 46 42 122 89 65 36 48 35 56 67 45 52 63 55 { 60 61 54 84 63 52 24 42 29 55 69 42 42 56 55 1 59 51 44 102 89 69 25 52 32 63 83 57 57 65 56 1 60 62 52 132 107 77 38 69 52 90 104 75 80 98 66 1 58 81 72 126 123 138 77 80 95 114 111 90 93 92 66 1 119 100 88 126 84 67 37 55 46 86 98 66 56 71 57 1 58 69 60 99 83 60 25 56 .32 85 82 63 50 61 51 1 61 62 50 108 133 56 20 44 27 60 64 53 60 72 51 1 57 59 48 100 75 50 23 35 28 38 50 47 51 77 42 1 61 51 44 75 70 22 19 44 22 52 64 61 47 57 42 1 57 49 41 72 62 49 20 40 20 46 55 47 49 59 37 1 61 46 39 71 76 69 18 44 24 53 54 50 62 65 34 1 58 51 40 44 36 28 14 23 15 33 39 32 35 25 26 1 58 30 25 84 48 54 19 28 20 29 34 35 36 1 44 36 32 a Sampling started 8/08/81 b Sampling started 6/09/81 Sampling ended 10/31/81 • cAr cue SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (Micrograms per Cubic Meter) 1981 Statistical Summary Location 1No. I Frequency Distribution - Percent I 1 I Geom ; Arith 101 I IArith{Geom I Std { Std Obs.; 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 (Mean (Mean 1 Dev I Dev Tolt River Watershed, King County, Wa { Cedar River Masonry Dam, King County, Wa Highway 9 & 28th St NE, Lake Stevens, Wa 1 24 Medical - Dental Bldg, 2730 Colby, Everett, Wa { 59 504 Bellevue Way NE, Bellevue, Wa { 54 20050 SE 56th, Lake Sammamish State Park, Wa { 33 North 98th St & Stone Ave N, Seattle, Wa 1 61 1 5701 8th Ave NE, Seattle, Wa i 54 { 2700 W Commodore Way, Seattle, Wa 59 Portage Bay, 2725 Montlake Blvd E, Seattle, Wa 1 60 Public Safety Bldg, 604 3rd Ave, Seattle, Wa { 58 Fire Station #10, 301 2nd Ave S, Seattle, Wa 1 52 Harbor Island, 2555 13th Ave SW, Seattle, Wa 1 61 { Harbor Island, 3400 13th Ave SW, Seattle, Wa { 61 I Duwamish, 4401 E Marginal Way S, Seattle, Wa 1121 Georgetown, 6431 Corson Ave S, Seattle, Wa { 51 South Park, 723 S Concord St, Seattle, Wa 1 60 Duwamish Valley, 12026 42nd Ave S, King Co, Wa 1 59 SE Dist Health Ctr, 3001 NE 4th St, Renton, Wa { 59 200 South 2nd St, Renton, Wa 1 61 1 Southcenter, 401 Andover Park E, Tukwila, Wa 61 22916 � • th Ave S, Kent, Wa 1 61 Memorial Park, 850 N Central Ave, Kent, Wa 1 61 Federal Way HS, 1401 S 304 St, Federal Way, Wa 61 { 115 E Main St, Auburn, Wa 1 60 Sumner Jr HS, 1508 Willow St, Sumner, Wa 1 59 Fife Sr High School, 5616 20th E, Fife, Wa 60 2340 Taylor Way, Tacoma, Wa 1 58 Fire Station #12, 2316 E 11th St, Tacoma, Wa 1119 { Treatment Plant, 1241 Cleveland Wy, Tacoma, Wa 58 { Cascadia, 2002 E 28th St, Tacoma, Wa 61 Willard School, S 32nd & S 'D' St, Tacoma, Wa 57 Hess Bldg, 901 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, Wa 1 61 { 4716 North Baltimore St, Tacoma, Wa 57 { North 26th & Pearl Sts, Tacoma, Wa 61 Mt Tahoma HS, 6404 S Adams St, Tacoma, Wa 58 { City Water Supply Pump House, Dupont, Wa { 58 East 16th St & Ironsides Ave, Bremerton, Wa 144 58 7 .9 11 13 15 17 22 27 32 43 1 19 1 15 1.96 ! 14.35 60 { 2 3 4 6 8 10 18 27 36 51 1 15 { 9 i 3.12 1 16.22 16 18 22 24 35 38 45 52 59 68 1 36 1 32 1 1.66 { 17.73 24 29, 32 39 44 51 59 64 74 83 1 48 { 44 1.58 1 22.39 33 38 44 51 58 63 69 81 114 121 1 68 I 59 1 1.68 1 44.48 15 22 25 31 39 43 52 54 59 68 1 40 I 36 1 1.67 1 19.61 1 • 28 30 33 37 45 52 65 69 84 90 1 51 1 46 1 1.53 1 22.36 30 40 46 50 54 58 64 76 110 139 1 65 1 58 1 1.58 1 36.86 34 36 44 50 53 54 63 68 82 91 1 58 1 53 1 1.48 1 29.68 35 38 39 44 49 52 60 73 87 115 I 57 { 52 { 1.51 1 28.90 1 38 43 46 50 53 58 64 69 89 104 I 59 I 56 1 1.38 1 21.58 37 38 45 48 53 60 66 76 106 123 1 65 1 59 { 1.54 1 34.9u 58 65 77 84 93 98 112 124 147 195 1 102 1 93 1 1.53 1 49.33 1 47 57 66 71 80 88 99 113 137 179 1 92 1 83 1 1.56 1 50.09 1 46 55 62 68 79 95 109 143 166 210 1 98 1 85 1 1.69 1 57.28 1 36 40 44 50 67 71 77 112 125 133 1 72 1 64 1 1.62 1 35.16 1 26 32 36 41 49 62 70 89 109 133 1 63 1 53 1 1.75 1 38.09 1 29 34 39 45 56 61 69 89 100 133 I 62 1 55 1 1.63 1 31.95 18 25 28 33 39 46 49 63 91 100 1 45 1 38 1 1.83 1 26.54 1 29 36 41 48 53 64 75 88 104 118 1 63 1 56 1 1.61 1 30.71 1 1 25 29 32 41 49 55 60 69 78 91 1 52 1 47 1 1.59 1 24.55 1 1 1 19 25 33 39 49 55 61 76 96-T10-- 1 53 1T45 1 5:82 1 29.97 1 24 36 42 53 59 66 70 87 103 116 1 63 1 55 1 1.73 1 32.94 1 • 24 27 32 37 45 48 51 59 72 76 1 46 1 42 1 1.55 1 19.45 1 30 36 39 42 49 57 67 82 107 109 1 61 1 54 1 1.64 1 37.47 1 18 30 34 38 48 50 57 71 87 104 1 51 1 44 1 1.74 1 27.60 1 20 29 38 44 52 63 73 95 115 134 1 62 1 52 1 1.87 1 36.49 1 38 44 51 57 74 82 93 113 139 149 1 81 1 72 1 1.64 1 42.39 1 46 57 66 75 91 104 123 138 170 189 1 100 1 88 1 1.68 1 50.30 1 27 34 43 50 56 71 79 97 112 140 { 69 { 60 1 1.71 1 39.06 1 19 26 35 41 51 57 76 96 111 134 1 62 1 50 1 1.92 1 39.84 1 18 25 29 36 46 59 72 83 110 133 1 59 1 48 1 1.93 1 39.29 1 21 25 30 36 40 47 56 71 98 118 1 51 1 44 1 1.75 1 33.15 1 16 25 29 35 41 45 56 74 96 105 1 49 1 41 1 1.83 1 29.16 1 17 20 25 32 38 48 61 74 84 99 1 46 1 39 1 1.83 1 27.19 1 16 21 29 35 44 49 57 64 93 125 1 51 1 40 1 2.02 1 37.76 1 12 15 19 21 26 34 38 45 50 59 1 30 1 25.1 1.81 1 16.34 1 17 20 23 28 31 33 44 47 63 75 1 36 1 32 1 1.64 1 19.24 1 sitfck e( g SUSPENDED PARTIv.ULATES (Micrograms per Cubic Meter) 1981 Summary of Maximum and 2nd High Observed Concentrations • Location : Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Mar Mar Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Oct Oct Nov Nov I 4 10 12 16 3 9 2 11 3 16 6 8 14 26 7 14 23 2 6 Sun Sat Mon Fri Tue Mon Mon Wed Fri Thu Thu Sat Fri Wed Mon Wed Fri Mon Fri ITolt River Watershed, King County, Wa ;Cedar River Masonry Dam, King County, Wa ;Highway 9 & 28th St NE, Lake Stevens, Wa -- -- -- -- -- -- IMedical- Dental Bldg, 2730 Colby, Everett, Wa -- 121 -- 115 1504 Bellevue Way NE, Bellevue, Wa -- 190 -- 283 120050 SE 56th, Lake Sammamish State Park, Wa -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ;North 98th St & Stone Ave N, Seattle, Wa -- 112 15701 8th Ave NE, Seattle, Wa 157 -- 227 -- 12700 W Commodore Way, Seattle, Wa -- 137 ;Portage Bay, 2725 Montlake Blvd E, Seattle, Wa 1 -- 187 :Public Safety Bldg, 604 3rd Ave, Seattle, Wa I 115 -- -- ;Fire Station 910, 301 2nd Ave S, Seattle, Wa 1 258 224 ;Harbor Island, 2555 13th Ave SW, Seattle, Wa 1 -- 244 ;Harbor Island, 3400 13th Ave SW, Seattle, Wa 1 -- 317 • 1Duwamish, 4401 E Marginal Way S, Seattle, Wa 1 355 ° ;Georgetown, 6431 Corson Ave S, Seattle, Wa 1 -- :South Park, 723 S Concord St, Seattle, Wa 1 -- 201 -- 1Duwamish Valley, 12026 42nd Ave S, King Co, Wa 1 -- -- 158 ISE Dist Health Ctr, 3001 NE 4th St, Renton, Wa 1 106 -- 113 1200 South 2nd St, Renton, Wa : -- 169 127 1Southcenter, 401 Andover Park E, Tukwila, Wa I_ -- 131 120 122916 86th Ave S, Kent, Wa 1 -- 130 ;Memorial Park, 850 N Central Ave, Kent, Wa I -- 181 154 'Federal Way HS, 1401 S 304 St, Federal Way, Wa 1 88 -- 114 1115 E Main St, Auburn, Wa 1 163 -- 241 ;Sumner Jr HS, 1508 Willow St, Sumner, Wa 1 -- 148 ;Fife Sr High School, 5616 20th E, Fife, Wa 1 -- 135 156 1;12340 Taylor Way, Tacoma, Wa -- 165 -- • -- 230 ;Fire Station 912, 2316 E 11th St, Tacoma, Wa 1 217 322 .:Treatment Plant, 1241 Cleveland Wy, Tacoma,'Wa 1 - - -- 222 i::Cascadia, 2002 E 28th St, Tacoma, Wa 1 -- 163 1Willard'School, S 32nd & S 'D' St, Tacoma, Wa 1 -- 177 U.Hess Bldg, 901 Tacoma Ave S, Tacoma, Wa - 75 89 85 62 - - -- 85 92 - - -- 75 - - 222 - - 128 1 - - 136 - -- 329 1 - - -- 268 1 366 230 -- -- -- 1 - - -- 155 1 -- -- -- 145 1 -- 169 4716 North Baltimore St, Tacoma, Wa 1 -- r,�th 26th & Pearl Sts, Tacoma, Wa Tahoma HS, 6404 S Adams St, Tacoma, Wa 1 Water Supply Pump House, Dupont, Wa ; -- 79 62 i1'6th'St & Ironsides Ave, Bremerton, Wa 1 83 -- 95 137 113 - - -- -- 145 179 -- -- - - -- -- -- -- 153 -- -- 123 115 - - - -.110 -- -- -- 111 -- -- 179 -- 194 -- -- 62 -- -- -- -- Indicates no sample on specified day. • 11111111110111111111111116, To Fort Dent Park T e TER 0 W. ?a rukw ila t BOULEVARD h To Grady Way Iciel Sdv r3luol, CJe-s:9,... Si" Figure IV -4 1990 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ALTERNATIVE 4 REALIGNMENT AT GRADE 35 600 NORTH 0 1200 SCALE:1".1200' 30* 110 1 17 te.. tP 1370 /r 2100 16192(qieca ,.3 .0 j p..;:t 290* eoo* 460T---._ 440 1750 830 , 310 • .0%if —11 1800 00 610 '.111600\ier 1070* 320 830 340 780 1 •k 710 920 1 17 0 4 at i, 1090 tilig* 4 70 49oo 760* ., 760 5563;* ''!)n 350 2070 1250 2180 380 1090* 980 1100 1510* x 350 rr BOO 900 4 I 550°- I 830* STRANDER BLVD \ 960 4--.- )- 1180* 1530* 1610 1270 460 L....... . itt mummumlily: 1 TO 111114,. TUKWILA CITY LIMITS tavt1 et'1111111111111111111111111111 FC28. CPR CMS =I 11119 OM MS It I. PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY ENTRANCO Enineers .../ 610 710, ..1 >. 250 350 6 1 1060 i • • Zi I .e.,..1580 ,1440 860 670 1090 180th ST , 1260 • 1 115003,7 . 47 . t 14 : : \ \ .,..:442._.,27, _ it,14 -If.•,::'(% ; ; vooioo A:.,... 2260 .390 ..,, ,....-....._-_----..--*-41---:-?., ,-...,..\ it 810 4 4 , 220*. I 1 ,1 .370 yi 220 LEGEND 390 A.M. PEAK HOUR 1530* NOON PEAK HOUR 1610 P.M. PEAK HOUR 57