Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E97-0009 - CITY OF TUKWILA / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PACIFIC HIGHWAY REVITALIZATION PLANPACIFIC HIGHWAY REVITALIZATION PLAN STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION FOR PACIFIC HWY CORRIDOR (HWY 99) S. 116T" ST. / MILITARY RD. S. / S. 16OTH/42AVE.S E97-0009 AFFIDAVIT ONatice of .Notice a -f Public Hearing Public Meeting _Board cf Adjustment Agenda Packet Ecard of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission. Agenda Packet. Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 FDISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Q Notice of Application far Shcrel i rie Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit Determination of Non—.-... significance M. tigated..Determi.nation of.. Mansicn i ficance UDeterrinati on of Significance and Scop i rg ,Notice Notice of Action Official Notice TOther 1 J$ 4110P7V444 (� Other was mailed tc each of the fallowing addresses on Name c f Pro j ect 07-eoD Signature File Number TBv/6gn Nva/'qai eldt-m7 City of 27gsllla Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ADDENDUM John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Description of Original Proposal: Sub -area Revitalization Plan for Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor Description of Addendum: Revisions to the adopted Revitalization Plan necessary for readoption as an Urban Renewal Plan per RCW 35.81. Proponent: City of Tukwila Location of Proposal: Study area is bounded by S. 116th Street, Military Road S., S. 160th Street, and 42"d Avenue S. in Tukwila. The urban renewal area is bounded by S. 140th Street, 42"d Avenue S., S. 146th Street and approximately 37th Avenue S. Lead Agency: City Of Tukwila File Number: E97-0009 The City has determined that the addendum does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The original DNS was issued April 17, 1999. This addendum is adopted on October 20, 1999. Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official City of Tukwila, Washington 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 ° Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Project File FROM: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official RE: E97-0009 SEPA Addendum Sub -area Revitalization Plan for Tukwila International Boulevard DATE: October 20, 1999 The City of Tukwila issued a DNS for its plan to revitalize the Pacific Highway (later renamed Tukwila International Boulevard) Corridor on April 17, 1998. A final Revitalization Plan for the area was adopted in August 1998. This plan listed a variety of methods for achieving the Community's revitalization goals, including City use of urban renewal law for involvement in property acquisition. In order to comply with the requirements of the Washington State urban renewal law (RCW 35.81) the adopted Revitalization Plan must be revised and readopted as an Urban Renewal Plan. This addendum to the previous SEPA Determination covers the changes necessary to implement the Urban Renewal Plan. These changes involve documenting the blighted conditions in the designated area, defining the Urban Renewal Area, stating the necessity for the action, and documenting conformance of the Urban Renewal Plan with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the attached document. C:\Nora's Files \SEPA MEM\E97 0009 Addendum.doc , SOUNDTRANSIT May 4, 1998 Steve Lancaster Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Steve: RECEIVED MAY -6 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Tukwila's Determination of Nonsignificance for the Sub -area Revitalization Plan for 99 Corridor. We understand that the deadline for comments was Saturday May 2, 1998. We hope that our comments will still be considered submitted in time. As you are aware the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority or Sound Transit is developing a light rail transit system that will go through the Cities of SeaTac, Tukwila and Seattle. Over the last five months or so, Sound Transit has been busy developing alternative routes of which the most promising will be considered in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be released this fall. One of the route alternatives, the Pacific Highway Route goes through the study area of the City's revitalization plan for Pacific Highway (SR99) and is considered one of the more promising routes. On May 14, 1998 the Sound Transit Board will decide which route alternatives will be considered in the Draft EIS. Following the release of the. Draft EIS public hearings will be conducted in January of 1999 with a preferred route identified in the spring of 1999. We understand that the Sub -Area Revitalization Plan for 99 Corridor is "non-proje t level planning proposal" and we like to offer the following comments for your consideration. Page 1 Section A.7. While Sound Transit has not identified a preferred route for its light rail system, a note referencing the potential for a light rail system on Pacific Highway as a related future activity would be appropriate. Page 2 Section A.9. The applicant's response to A.9: "Sound Transit, who has a plan showing Pacific Highway as an alignment alternative for light rail passenger trains" should be clarified or updated to say "the Central Puget Sound Transit Authority or Sound Transit is considering including in its Draft EIS, a light rail route alternative on Pacific Highway." Page 2 Section A.11. Although the Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan does not include a light rail transit system in its list of recommended actions, which is intended to change Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 1100 Second Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-3423 Reception 206.684.6776 Facsimile 206.684.1234 www.soundtransit.org Chair Bob Drewel Suoltntuisp,Chttnty. Executive. Vice Chairs Paul Miller "I'aeonta L'ou,ui/,n •ntber Greg Nickels King County Couneilutentber Sarah Casacla Pierce County L'outu•tbutvnber Ann Davis Lakeuvnu) Couurtlotentber Dave Farling Edmond., Conttetlntenther Mary Gates I•ideral Way Counrilntemlier Jane Hague • Kitty County Cou,etlnu•ndter Ed Hansen Everett dlayor Richard McIver Seattle Count -limonite,. Rol) t\lcKenna King Comity Cou,, i/menii a Sid Morrison Il't.,bigg6at State Department of Traa.gatrtatioa Secretary Dare Russell Kirkland Coum•ilntentber Paul Schell ,Seattle alayor Ron Sims Kitty County Executive Cynthia Sullivan King County C'ouneilmentber Doug Sutherland Pierre County Ii.reeuttre lith \\'hite Kent ,Ila yor Executive Director, Bob White / the character and physical environment of the Pacific Highway area, many communities around the United States and other countries have considered and developed light rail systems to achieve revitalization goals and objectives in their communities. Page 5 Section 2.a & c. Although the revitalization plan does not consider Sound Transit's study of a light rail system on Pacific Highway as one of its implementation strategies, the potential for a electrical light rail system to contribute to a net reduction in automobile emissions in a region are well documented. Page 17 Section 14b. The applicant's response to 14b on transit service to the site includes information on routes serving the study area and commute times to Seattle. It may be appropriate to note that a portion of the study area is being considered for a high capacity transit system. Additionally, proposed commute travel times from the study area to downtown Seattle is approximately half the stated 40 minutes. Page 17 Section 14c. The applicant's response to this question includes information on the number of parking spaces that would be Toss due to implementation of revitalization plan strategies. It may be noted that a light rail system on Pacific Highway may have a similar impact. Page 19 Parking Impacts Table. Where are the parking options A, B & C explained? Page 20 Section 14.e. Although the revitalization plan does not consider rail as a future transportation facility on Pacific Highway, Sound Transit considers the Pacific Highway a promising light rail route. Page 21 Sectionl5.b. One response to 15.b states "The City will seek partnerships with and grants from other agencies to assist in implementing the Plan's recommendations. Although a light rail system being studied for Pacific Highway is not considered an implementation strategy for the areas revitalization, a light rail system on Pacific Highway could bring significant resources to bear on City's planned revitalization efforts. Page 24 Section D.4. In the applicant's response to D.4: "The Plan recommends interties in the traffic signalization system that would created more efficient platooning of traffic. Pedestrian and transit improvements should encourage higher numbers of walking and transit trips", it should be noted that a light rail system may achieve the same energy conservation objectives through similar signalization and traffic platooning techniques that coincide with light rail train movements. Additionally, well-designed transit oriented pedestrian improvements will encourage more walking and transit usage. Page 26 Section E.2. In addition to alternatives expressed on this page for achieving the objectives of this proposal as stated in Section E.1. a high quality transit system such as light rail is supportive and consistent with a number of these objectives including: Eir SOUNDTRANSIT • Improving the overall livability of the area for residents and businesses by providing an alternative to the single occupant vehicle; improving air quality by reduced auto emissions, stimulating economic development and providing access to employment areas. • By designing stations areas that act a focal point for the community and serve as a source of civic pride; • By improving the functionality of the street by introducing certain levels of control to the street system; • By increasing the number of persons and "eyes" on the street and thereby contributing to a safer environment. • By providing opportunities to address the human service needs of a very mobile population residing in the study area by improved access to employment and services, and by stimulating economic development in an area that needs it. This concludes our comments on this DNS for the 99 Corridor. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions please contact me at 206-689-7412. Sincerely, Leonard McGhee Project Coordinator Light Rail Department LM:am P:\Tukwila\Pac Hwy DNS.doc AFFIDAVIT OF 1, I/W4c(c/ &411 []Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting riBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet []Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet IlNotice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance ElMitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official 'Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project fi(/Z/tZ4h Signature File Number ��%0OO /asp-- I -Natural Environmental Elements Inventory 1. Air Quality 2. Geology & Soils 3. Hazardous Materials 4. Water Quality 5. Waterways, Flood Plains, Fish Passages 6. Wetlands 7. Vegetation, Wildlife & Fisheries II -Community Environmental Elements Inventory 1 -Noise 2 -Economics and Community Growth 3 -Land Use Relocation 4 -Visual Quality 5 -Historical & Architectural Facilities 6 -Non -motorized & Recreational Facilities 7 -Public Services • Schools • Religious Institutions • Medical Services • Cemeteries • Fire & Police Protection 8 -Utilities 9 -Permits Table 8-1 Natural Environment Impacts Environmental Element .Level of Detail Findings Air WSDOT reviewed Air Quality •• Project is a maintenance area for ozone and carbon monoxide status and analysis parameters Project must conform to State Implementation Plan (developed and used to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards). Geology & Soils ' King County Folio Maps No erosion areas •• No landslide areas mapped •• No seismic areas Hazardous Materials EDR, Consultant -- researched 83 potential locations identified existing databases Locations include gas stations, car washes, car rentals, printers, cleaners, lumber supplies, car repair and rebuild • Several locations have leaking underground storage tanks Water Quality Reviewed WSDOT Highway • All projects adding at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface Runoff Manual (February 1995) will comply to Minimum Requirements 2 through 9. ••• If not practicable to meet requirements then follow procedure outlined in Section 5-2.11. Waterways, Flood Plains, Fish Passages King County Sensitive Area Maps 1 creek, 2 creek tributaries, and 8 unnamed streams Field Review in July 1997 No flood plains in the project corridor • • No known fish passage problems in or near the -project area Wetlands King County Sensitive Area Maps 12 potential wetlands east of SR 99 Field Review in July 1997 13 potential wetlands west of SR 99 • 9 located in Tukwila, 7 in King County, 4 in Federal Way 3 in SeaTac, 1 in Kent, and 1 in Des Moines Vegetation, Wildlife & Fisheries Letter from WSDNR (7/9/97) + Identified red alder/salmonberry association, low level elevation sphagnum bog, and low elevation fresh water wetland Letter from US Dept of Commerce, NOAA (7/9/97) ••• No listed or proposed salmon species or their designated critical habitat occur in the project area Letter from Fish & Wildlife Service •• One bald eagle nesting territory (T23N R4E S34) (7/29/97) Candidate species - Oregon spotted frog Species of Concern - northwestern pond turtle Draft Pre -Design Study SR 99, Pacific Hwy S. Redevelopment Project Page ! Environmental Inventory WSDOT - OUM /Sverdrup Civil sz_dfrh8.doc -- 9/2/97 Table 8-2 Community Environment Impacts Environmental Element .Level of Detail Findings Noise Reviewed requirements for traffic •. Traffic noise analysis is required for projects that increase the noise analysis - number of through -traffic lanes on an existing highway Section 3-1, Environmental Procedures Manual outlines procedure Economics / Community Growth Reviewed right-of-way plans, listing General width of existing right-of-way is 100 feet of current driveways, & Local jurisdictions will need to address environmental justice environmental justice Driveway densities vary from 0 to over 40 per mile Land Use / Relocation Reviewed Comprehensive Plans, identified land uses and future traffic Land use: business and commercial, residential, & undeveloped SR 99 is a regional facility which serves as a local arterial growth rates Growth rates vary between 1.5 and 2.5 Visual Quality Reviewed 4f requirements .• 4f properties:.WA Memorial Park Cemetery & Angle Lake Park ••• Visual quality issues will be addressed in design phase. Historical, Archaeological Reviewed existing report on . Twenty-six historic properties (along SR 99) associated with inventoried properties; conducted transportation were inventoried in 1994 a field review in July 1997 for No properties are listed on the NRHP potential properties; contacted SHPO •. Twenty-four additional properties are potential historic properties Non -Motorized & Recreational Facilities Contacted local agencies and •. Nine parks in the vicinity of the SR 99 obtained parks & recreation •. Six existing non -motorized facilities cross SR 99 and one crossing comprehensive plan or information is proposed. City of SeaTac is constructing sidewalk along SR 99. Public Services Conducted a preliminary research 17 schools exist in the vicinity of SR 99 using the Thomas Guide, telephone •• Several governmental agencies (fire, police, city hall); and many directories, comprehensive plans; many religious institutions and medical services are located along conducted a field review, July 1997 SR 99 . Utilities Reviewed franchise and permit Eight utilities exist within the project limits • listings Approximately 28 utility companies have permits or franchise for their utility along or crossing SR 99 Permits Reviewed list of permits in WSDOT Hydraulic Project Approvals from WSDF&W (Fish & Wildlife) Design Manual may be required at stream crossings Local jurisdictions will be responsible for permits. Draft Pre -Design Study SR 99. Pacific Hwy S. Redevelopment Project Page 2 Environmental Inventory WSDOT - /Sverdrup Civil sz_envJ:doc -- 9/3/97 Fa? Table 8 -3 AMBIENT AIR .QUALITY STANDARDS POLLUTANT NATIONAL Primary: ' Secondary WASHINGTON STATE PUGET SOUND REGION Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour Average 1 Hour Average 9 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 35 ppm . 9 ppm 35 ppm Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Average 24 Hour Averagea 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 ' 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 Total Suspended Particulate Annual Geometric Average 24 Hour Average • 60 ug/m3 . 150 ug/m3 60 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 Ozone 1 Hour Averageb f 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm , 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm Sulfur Dioxide• Annual Average 30 Day Average 24 Hour Average 3 Hour Average 1 Hour Averaged 1 Hour Average 5 Minute Averagee 0.03 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.50 ppm 0.02 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppm ' 0.02 ppm 0.04 ppm 0.10 ppmc 0.25 ppm 0.40 ppmc 1.00 ppm Lead Calendar Quarter Average 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3. 1.5 ug/m3 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm NOTES: (1) ppm = parts per million (2) ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter (3) Annual, Quarter and 30 day standards never to be exceeded, shorter term standards not to be exceeded more than once per year unless noted. a. Standard attained when expected number of days per year with a 24 hour concentration above 150 ug/m3 is equal to one or less. b. Standard attained when expected number of days per year with an hourly average above 0.12 ppm is equal to one or less. c. Sulfur Dioxide short-term standard never to be exceeded. d. Not to be exceeded more than twice in seven days. e. Not to be exceeded more than once in eight hours. Air Quality Analysis SR 99 International Boulevard • • CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: SUB -AREA REVITALIZATION PLAN FOR 99 CORRIDOR PROPONENT: LOCATION (IF PROPOSAL, INCLUDTNGSTREET:AUDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 61-0,0 *26-4f3&JO�J 13y .5.14, Sr Andinow&s- :5A osr: 4 4V S. m/00/164 ) PARCEL NO : (j u 1,77p' mgeas. $e-er AurMenitexlr izdo. SEC/TWN/RNG: A151,23/4;22/23/49/23/4:16/23/4 , Amemus LEAD AGENCY:, CITY. OF,TUKWILA FILE NO.: 'E971-0009 The City nas-determined.that the pr does not have a pr,obable significantadyerse impact on the envtronment. An,environmental impact statement (EIS) is not:required under RCW 43,.,21c.030(2)C-c). This deOsion was made after reviewof a completed environmental, checkliSt and other information on'fi-le.with the lead 'agency. ':This informati-on is available to the,public. on request. • *****4**k4r**********,*II*414.:***************4:***14.4*******k* • Thi isued ,,under 07-,.1.1340(2) ;''-c-oiiterits must be submi tted bv The lead agency wi 1 1-- nOt ,aCt on' this 7oposal for 15 day frO;L'the,,date,..beloW. Steve Lan'easter, Responsible Official , Date City of TtAwila, (206) 431-3630 6300 Southc:enter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 93133, Copies of the-proedures for SEPA appeals are Department of COmMupity Development. 46) 17 )q, available,with the CITY OF TUKWILA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter BL. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431-3670 4. Date checklist prepared: 16 April 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan review and adoption is scheduled for spring and summer of 1998. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Plan recommends actions that involve, Capital Improvement Plan commitments for construction projects, annual City budget commitments for programs and services and City regulatory amendments. These actions would begin in 1998 and continue through 2004 and beyond. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 1 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An environmental impact statement and addendum were prepared for the City's 1995 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code. (Tukwila File Number L92- 0053) The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code established goals and policies that have lead to the preparation of this Revitalization Plan. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Tukwila has not received any applications for governmental approvals within the study area for the Plan. Other agencies have or are developing plans that would directly impact the area including: o The Washington State Department of Transportation, who is coordinating a Redevelopment Plan for the street - Pacific Highway - from Federal Way to Tukwila. o Sound Transit, who has a plan showing Pacific Highway as an alignment alternative for light rail passenger trains. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Washington State Department of Transportation Channelization Approval will be needed for the design of the Pacific Highway street improvement project Future SEPA project level determinations will be needed for construction projects such as the Pacific Highway improvement project and cross streets improvement projects. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan is a strategic implementation document for the Pacific Highway corridor. Attachment One (Table 8, page 93 of the Draft Plan.) is a list of the recommended actions intended to change the character and physical environment of this area. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 2 A detailed description of each recommended action is described in Chapter Four of the Draft Plan. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic may, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Attachment Two is a zoning map of the study area for the Draft Plan. The area extends generally from S. 116 St. at the north; to S. 160 St. on the south, the City limits on the west and 42 Av. S. on the east, north to S. 130 St. 13. • Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive. Some of the area within the study area is environmentally sensitive. The Duwamish Valley wall and the upper reaches of Southgate and Gilliam creeks bisect the study area. Attachment Three and Four are copies of city-wide maps showing slopes and creek systems within the City of Tukwila. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one):Flat rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Attachment Three is a slope map of the City with the study area highlighted. It provides an overview of the slope conditions. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest part of the study area would be valley walls that exceed 40% ; however, the majority of the area has slopes of less than 15%. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 3 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Because of the relatively large size and diverse terrain, there is a wide variety of soil conditions within the study area. These conditions duplicate those found throughout much of the Puget Sound area. This area is largely the result of glacial and post glacial events. Soils in general are made up of bedrock sedimentary materials that consist largely of volcanic rock fragments. The next younger group of rocks consists chiefly of volcanic sandstone, siltstone and shale derived from erosion of the Cascade mountain range. Overlying this layer is a layer of sandstone, siltstone and coal. Glacial drifts then covered the above described bedrock and produced various types of sediments consisting of silt, clay, sand and gravel. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Yes, a fill portion of the hillside at 13500 Pacific Highway South was unstable and caused evacuation of a portion of a mobile home park. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. At this phase of non -project level planning, approximate quantities of filling is not know. Construction projects recommended by this Plan are not developed to a level of detail sufficient to estimate filling or grading. Fill may be required for street reconstructions and other capital improvements such as the park and trail improvements. However, all projects recommended, except Southgate Park, are on existing developed sites so fill should be minimal. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of future construction projects anticipated by the Plan; however, at this phase of non -project level planning, sufficient project level detail is not available to describe impacts. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt, or buildings)? Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 4 At this phase of non -project level planning, detail on site coverage is not available . h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Best management practices and compliance with the King County Storm and Surface Water Manual will be used during any City construction projects. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Estimates of changes in automobile trips as a result of the Plan's recommendations have not been made. Implementation of Plan recommendations may result in lower automobile trips due to the recommended pedestrian improvements. Trip reduction could be effected and travel efficiencies would be improved through the street/sidewalk/transit improvements, signal intertiesand intersection reconfigurations. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Historically the land use zoning allowed commercial and residential uses that typically do not emit obnoxious odors. The new zoning that allows light manufacturing, is subject to performance standards that would preclude businesses that emit odors offensive to off-site users. The primary source of emissions are from general vehicular traffic and there are occasional smells of jet fuels from SeaTac airport, when there is a strong southwesterly wind. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The Plan's recommendations for street reconstructions and signal interties will potentially reduce emissions to air. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 5 WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide' names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Southgate and Gilliam creeks all flow from west to east through study area to the Green/Duwamish River. Attachment Four is a streams map of the City with the study area highlighted. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The Plan recommends reconstruction of Pacific Highway and trail improvements to Southgate Park, that will require work adjacent to Southgate and Riverton Creeks. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. At this phase of non -project level planning , estimates of fill and dredge materials are not available. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. At this phase of non -project level planning, effects on surface water is unknown. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The entire study area is in Zone X, which is described as the 500 year floodplain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 6 The Revitalization Plan is a nonproject proposal and does not involve any discharge to surface waters. However the Plan does support and encourage the redevelopment of existing developed sites, and the development of vacant sites, which will result in discharge to surface waters. Redevelopment of existing developed sites will be subject to environmental review as required by SEPA and City codes. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will'water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No withdrawals of ground water are anticipated. The study area has water service primarily through Water District 125, small areas at the north and south ends have service from Water District 20 and Highline Water, respectively. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic Sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The study area is served by the Val Vue Sewer District, who provides acceptable sewerage collection and METRO who provides primary and secondary treatment and then discharge to Puget Sound. No waste material discharged into the ground is anticipated. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm and surface water from all sources in the Plan's study area flows through the Southgate, Gilliam and Riverton Creek Subbasins to the Green/Duwamish River. The Pacific Highway Street Improvement Design Report, being developed by Perteet Engineers for the City of Tukwila will analyze opportunities for creating storm water detention and biofiltration for not only the street system but for the commercial areas of Pacific Highway as well. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 7 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Implementation of the Revitalization Plan's recommendations should prevent waste materials from entering ground or surface waters. Currently waste materials could be entering surface or ground waters. Many developments within the corridor were built prior to storm water standards, it's likely that waste materials such as motor oils are transferred downstream to the Green/Duwamish River. This Plan is expected to encourage redevelopment of sites and will improve the street storm water collection system, which will result in higher quality designs for waste collection and disposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The Pacific Highway Design Manual recommends site planning alternatives that use surface water detention and natural treatment of storm water flows. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the site: _x_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs ,x_grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _x water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? At this phase of non -project level planning, detailed planting plans have not been developed to determine vegetation impacts. Redevelopment of private property is encouraged, therefore vegetation removal could occur. Native vegetation exists on slopes adjacent to creeks and may be Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 8 affected by street reconstruction and or park development There are also some significant poplars, and "landscape" materials that are scattered throughout the developed areas. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be in the study area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to *preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Implementation of the Plan will result in a greater amount of landscaping. Street trees and possible sidewalk and median plantings are proposed. Redevelopment of sites would include landscaping along site perimeters, in parking Tots, and be included as recreational areas in multiple family developments. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: crows, red tail hawks, great blue heron, green heron, kingfisher, mallards, robins, starlings, and other small songbirds Fish: Coho salmon, cutthroat trout, three spine stickleback, suckers, sculpin Mammals: gray squirrel, coyote, raccoon, feral cats, rodents (several species) Invertebrates: crayfish, snails, insect larvae (many species) worms, slugs b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be in the area. c. Is the study area part of a migration route? If so, explain. Coho salmon use the Duwamish River and the lower reaches of Riverton Creek for migration. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Efforts will be taken during design of construction projects to preserve significant vegetation. A design criteria regarding incorporating significant Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 9 vegetation is also included within the Pacific Highway Design Manual; which will guide future development within the RC, NCC and MUO zoning districts. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electrical, natural gas, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No change in energy needs is anticipated due to the Revitalization Plan. The area relies on natural gas and electric power for energy. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy, if any: Development or redevelopment promoted by the Plan could affect the potential use of solar energy because recommended standards and guidelines do not consider solar use in site development. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any? The Plan recommends improvement to pedestrian, transit and bicycling facilities, thereby encouraging less use of the automobile for both work and household related trips. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No known environmental health hazards are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 10 Standard fire, health and public safety emergency services at current levels would be required for the area. Public safety requirements for the study area are high relative to other similar areas. The goal of this Plan is to reduce public safety needs. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: During street reconstructions, fire hydrant spacing will be improved. Redevelopment would result in new commercial space and multi -family units, which are required to be sprinklered. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other): The study area is bisected by Pacific Highway, which is a principal arterial with traffic levels that vary along its length from approximately 22,500 to 26,500 vehicles a day. The study area is also situated between the landing and take -off flight paths for King County International Airport (Boeing Field) and SeaTac International Airport. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. The Plan recommends a series of street reconstruction, park development, multiple family and commercial redevelopment projects. There will be short term noise and traffic impacts associated with each project. Noise impacts are controlled by the City's Noise Ordinance that limits construction noise between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The City has adopted standards and procedures for noise in the Tukwila Municipal Code that limits the hours that noises may exceed acceptable standards. The City of Tukwila also participates in Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150, noise programs sponsored by the Port of Seattle and King County, who operate these airports. A purpose of Part 150s is to ensure appropriate land use planning adjacent to airports based upon noise contours that result from arriving and departing aircraft. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 11 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties The current uses in the study area range from: vacant land, single unit detached dwellings, multiple attached dwellings, commercial retail, commercial services, public schools, church, light manufacturing, and public storage. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The Riverton Heights area, as it was known as it became settled during the late 19th and early 20th century Europeans, was primarily a residential neighborhood and developed gradually beginning in the 1920's. Small scale farming on residential sites did occur in the past. c. Describe any structures on the site. Structures in the study area range from mobile homes to apartment houses to Targe masonry commercial service and retail structures. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The Plan encourages redevelopment and reinvestment. As individual property owners make decisions relative to redevelopment, demolition of structures may occur. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? There a number of zoning classifications within the study area from low density residential to commercial/light industrial. Attachment Two is a zoning map of the study area. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation .of the site? The comprehensive plan designations are the same as the zoning designations shown in AttachmentTwo. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 12 The Duwamish River flows under Pacific Highway just to the north of the study area and is designated as a Manufacturing/Industrial Center Environment downstream from the bridge and Urban - Open Space upstream. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Attachment Four is a copy of the historic creeks within the City limits. The environmentally sensitive areas are the watercourses, steep slopes'and wetlands. The City has produced numerous basin studies of storm water flows and water quality issues including the following most recent reports: Fostoria Basin Stormwater Quality Plan, (Herrara, 1996;) Riverton Creek Basin Draft Stormwater Quality Management Plan, (Entranco 1997;) Gilliam Creek Basin Drainage Study (KCM June 1986;) Gilliam Creek Detention and Water Quality Enhancements (Perteet Engineering, Inc., October 1994.) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 1410 people are employed in the study area according to information obtained from 1995 Tukwila Business Licenses. 4850 people reside within the study area, based upon a count of detached single unit houses depicted on Kroll Maps and of a count of apartment units from business license listings maintained by the City Clerks Office. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? At this phase of non -project level planning, displacement numbers cannot be determined. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: The Revitalization Plan recommends partnering with housing agencies to replace/remodel existing low and moderate income housing. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The Revitalization Plan has been developed in response to policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Where there is a conflict with the adopted policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan amendments to that Plan are proposed. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 13 m. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: No shoreline impacts are anticipated. Land use impacts are anticipated to be beneficial. Overall construction quality and site materials are expected to improve, transition areas between residential and commercial/light industrial districts will improve when redevelopment occurs, poorly maintained and operated apartments are expected to change, public infrastructure serving the area's uses will be improved. 9. HOUSING. a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposal is a non -project action and does not provide new housing. The Plan recommends that the City take a number of actions that relate to housing. For example, the Plan recommends that the City proactively work with rental housing managers on code enforcement and crime -free multi -housing enrollment. The Plan also discusses "potential redevelopment" zones, where aggregation with commercial properties and then redevelopment are encouraged. Those actions will be developed to a greater level of detail if approved. b. Approximately how may units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The Plan encourages redevelopment of various commercial and residential properties. No estimate of unit elimination can be projected. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan proposes partnerships between the City and housing advocates to improve the housing existing within the study area. 10. AESTHETICS a. What if the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? No changes are proposed in the allowable heights in the underlying zones for the area. Standards for building heights are not recommended for change except Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 14 where commercial structures abut residential, in which case a new standard of a 1.5:1 ratio of height to setback is proposed. The recommendation is to increase the setback of one story commercial structures that exceed 12 feet when they abut a residential zone. The Pacific Highway Design Manual, recommended as part of this Plan, does not specify exterior building materials. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This a nonproject proposal that does not recommend any change to development standards such that views would be altered. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: This Plan recommends adoption of the Pacific Highway Design Manual to guide the decision makers during design review. Design review and use of the Design Manual is recommended for development proposals of sites with structures of less than 5,000 square feet occur in the RC districts. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of Tight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Additional lighting of streets, buildings and parking lots is recommended as part of this proposal. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This Plan is a nonproject proposal; therefore, safety hazards and view interference for the project level cannot be determined. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No area -wide or site specific sources of light or glare are known to affect the study area. d. Proposed measures to reduce of control light and glare impacts, if any: Public street lighting improvements will establish criteria for adequate safe lighting of streets so that safety and residential livability are balanced. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page is 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Attachment Five is a Community Facilities Map (Figure 2, page 13 of the Draft Plan.) Informal recreation is available at the four school sites and adjacent to the study area and Southgate Park, which straddles the eastern study area boundary. North SeaTac Regional Park and the SeaTac community center is approximately 1/2 mile west of Pacific Highway in the 14200 block of 24 Av. S. No formal public recreation opportunities exist within the study area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No existing recreational uses will be displayed due to the Plan's recommendations. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The Plan recommends increasing the recreational opportunities by locating and constructing a neighborhood park within Cascade View, providing trails through Southgate Park (which will also increase access to the Tukwila Community Center in Allentown and the Green River Trail) and redeveloping existing multiple family sites - thereby improving and recreational opportunities on-site for its residents. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION The information conveyed in this checklist was obtained from the 1994 Historic Properties Survey prepared for the Airport Communities Coalition by Glen Weiss. a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 16 One site within the Plan's study area has been inventoried by King County as a potential historic site - The Riverton Park United Methodist Church( Currently the Beth Ha Shofar Messianic Congregation) at 13001 37 Av. S. The church was built by community members in the late 1900's and remained an active meeting site until the congregation joined with the Riverton Heights Methodist Church in 1966. In 1968, the Gospel of Peace Tabernacle acquired the site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Housing developed for W.W.II defense industry workers are located in Subdivision '44, Cascade View and consists of 169 homes. This unique housing development is most visible along 38 Av. S. and is distinctive from the surrounding area because of its sidewalks, street trees, and particular housing style. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No measures proposed 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Attachment Two shows the streets and highways within and surrounding the study area. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, Metro Route numbers 174 and 184 travel north and south on 99 every 30 minutes and stops in 6 locations along the length of 99 in the study area. Transit service operates approximately 20 hours a day. There are 8 transit stops along Pacific Highway within the study area. Below is a table of a weekday's average ridership use of the bus stops. Bus Stop location S. 126 S. 130 S. 135 S. 140 S. 144 S. 148 S. 152 S. 160 Northbound 3 44 14 45 223 70 134 69 Southbound 7 43 22 69 245 69 127 58 Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 17 The Church by the Side of the Road serves as a Park N' Ride location. for 100 vehicles. Typical commute time to downtown Seattle, averages 40 minutes. There are additional transit stops along the edge of the study area on Military Road S. and portions of 42 Ave. S. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This is a non -project level action; however, the conceptual design for the street improvement project will have parking impacts. For a majority of the highway's length in Tukwila, there is no curb. Current parking conditions on the Highway include on street parallel and ninety degree parking backing out into the street as well as parking Tots off the street. The Pacific Highway street improvement would eliminate approximately 86 formal (paved and striped) and 50 informal parking spaces, affecting nineteen parcels. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 18 Parking Impacts Existing # of Total # Existing Business Frontage Stalls Parking Stalls Address Marked & Marked & (Unmarked) (Unmarked) Parking Options No Off Site or On Site Options Indian Palace/Nick's Beverage House/Residence 13925 Pacific Hy. 0 (6) 0 (6) C J Jacobsen Man. 15029 Pacific Hy. 0 (1) 0 (1) C Quality Rentals 14604 Pacific Hy. 0 (7) 0 (16) C Jasmine Thai/Sixplex 14835 Pacific Hy. 7 (0) 20 (0) C China Pavilion/ Stop -Buy Groc. 14855 Pacific Hy. 4 (0) 22 (0 C El Rey Video/ Moonrise Motel 14440 Pacific Hy. 3 (0) 27 (0) C On Site Options and/or Off Site Options Executive Cleaning Services 13740 Pacific Hy. 0 (5) 0 (5) B Tuk. Police NRC 14661 Pacific Hy. 0 (7) 0 (7) B Big Wheel Auto 14013 Pacific Hy. 10 (0) 10 (0) B Don's Barbershop/Farmers Insurance 14452 Pacific Hy. 3 (0) 3 (0) A Southtowne Annex 14862 Pacific Hy 0 (6) 0 (6) A Southtowne Auto 14864 Pacific Hy 0 (6) 0 (6) B Appliance Distributors/A to B Auto/Horrocks/ Sylvia's Videos 14638 -Pacific Hy. 14 (0) 17 (0) A Yoshikawa Fourplex 14412 Pacific Hy 0 (3) 0 (4) A,B East/West Video /Moonrise 14404 Pacific Hy. 7 (0) 18 (0) B BV Nails/Riverton. Hts. Groc./Deja Vu 15011 Pacific Hy. 12 (0) 38 (0) B Newporter Apts/ Dawson SVC, Inc. 14840 Pacific Hy. 0 (6) 21 (6) A Trudy's Tavern 15037 Pacific Hy. 5 (3) 79 (3) B Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 19 There are several design options that are proposed to mitigate the impacts associated with the curb and sidewalk. One is to design the street such that there is right-of-way remaining outside of the travel lanes and sidewalks that could be used for parking by the adjacent property owner. This parking behind sidewalk can be maximized for one side of the street when the centerline of the street is moved east of west of the centerline of the right-of-way. Two is to include a frontage road between the travel lanes and front of buildings to allow on -street parking within the right-of-way and acquire an easement to locate the public sidewalk on private property behind the right-of-way. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The Plan proposes public street improvement projects for Pacific Highway and cross streets between 42 Avenue S and Military Rd. S. including 152, 150, 148, 146, 144, 141, 140, 139 Streets. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. This is a nonproject action that will not require any immediate use of transportation. The study area's north boundary is within a mile and a half from the southern boundary of King County Airport (Boeing Field.) The study area's south boundary is a quarter mile from the northern boundary of SeaTac Airport. Rail has never served the study area. Existing rail and water transportation are to the north in the valley approximately 1 mile from the study area's northern boundary along E. Marginal Way. BNSF Burlington Northern has a rail yard that serves as a truck: rail transfer area within Allentown, off of 124th Street, which is approximately one and a half miles from Pacific Highway. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No change in forecast vehicular trips are anticipated due to this Plan. A prelude to street design included a traffic forecast analysis by Transpo(September 1995.) The analysis forecast a maximum potential increase of 84% trips over the current Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 20 number of trips within the analysis study area (modified from the Plan's study area) over the next 20 years based upon the land uses of the Comprehensive Plan and development standards of the Zoning Code. Significant changes in development density and use are not proposed as part of this Draft Revitalization Plan. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Improvements to the street and intersections should improve vehicular, pedestrian and transit travel. The proposed design of Pacific Highway is the result of a collaboration with the Washington Department of Transportation, who have authority over channelization for Pacific Highway, a citizens task force comprised of residents, business and City Planning Commissioners, the City Council, and discussions with a number of affected property owners. Street design solutions include limiting the travel lanes to four, and moving the centerline of the street within the existing right of way in order to maintain some existing frontal parking along either the west or east edges of the street. In other locations, the City proposes using a "frontage road" concept with the sidewalk on private property with public easements thereby allowing some parallel parking within the right-of-way. There are also solutions that property owners could undertake on their properties to make them for efficient for circulation and parking vehicles. In order to mitigate unacceptable LOS levels on cross streetsimprove pedestrian crossings, the City will monitor the intersections and conduct warrant analysis when appropriate. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The study area currently requires an inordinate amount of public safety resources compared to other corridors in the City. Successful implementation of the Revitalization Plan may cause a decrease in service needs. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 21 The City will seek partnerships with and grants from other agencies to assist in implementing the Plan's recommendations. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No new utilities are needed for this nonproject proposal. However water line extension and upgrades are recommended. Undergrounding of overhead utilities will be required with street reconstruction projects per City ordinance. Improvements to the electronic communication lines are also proposed. C. SIGNA, URE The above an ers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these question, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 22 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The Draft Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan does not recommend changes that will alter the amount of development coverage or types of uses likely to increase discharge to water, emissions to air, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances, or production of noise. There would be short term noise impacts associated with new construction of streets and private development projects. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Any short term noise impacts will be mitigated by adopted noise standards of the City that limit when construction noise may be heard. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? The net effect on plant and animal life from the Revitalization Plan is difficultto forecast at this planning level phase. Overall it is anticipated that there should be an increase in landscape area and storm water improvements, which would have a positive affect. It also seeks to maximizefuture development by encouraging development that meets the height, area and bulk standards. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plant, animals, fish or marine life are: The Pacific Highway street reconstruction project will analyze opportunities for improving storm water drainage from the street, including detention and/retention needs of the commercial properties within the study area. This may include locating off site treatment and detention sites and may result in the greatest natural environmental benefit of the Plan's recommendations. Development projects that are recommended within the Revitalization Plan would be required to complete a SEPA checklist, which requires identification of any plant, animal and fish or marine life impacts. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The intent of the Revitalization Plan is to encourage redevelopment and infill at higher densities than what currently exist but that are allowed. While this means Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 23 there is an increase in demand for resources because of the higher densities, it would be a more efficient use of available energy resources. Proposed measures to conserve energy and natural resources are: The Plan recommends interties in the traffic signalization system that would create more efficient platooning of traffic. Pedestrian and transit improvements should encourage higher numbers of walking and transit trips. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? At this non -project planning level, assessment of impact is difficult. Additional environmental analysis will be completed during the project level phase. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impact are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? No change in shoreline uses is proposed as part of this plan. The land use changes are minor adjustments of commercial boundaries that are intended to encourage development of commercial sites. The adjacent residential propertiesthat would be used for the commercial development are currently fully developed with residential developments or in two instances vacant. The land use changes may result in an increase in the of amount of area devoted to the commercial versus the residential. However, mixed use residential and commercial could be developed on the sites. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The Draft Plan proposes modifying the setback requirement for one story commercial and industrial structures adjacent to residential districts so that there is a greater setback or a stepped building line along residential district property lines. How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 24 Not applicable 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? An increased demand for utilities and transportation was considered during the planning for the City's Comprehensive Plan and is not anticipated to change significantly with this proposal. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No response is proposed. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts are known. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the plan. The Plan does not conflict with goals or policies of the Comprehensive Plan and is instead intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan. In order to do so however, Comprehensive Plan amendments to the map and land use legend are recommended. Analysis conducted during preparation of the Revitalization Plan revealed that markets for uses envisioned in the Comprehensive_ Plan are weak. Actions to remedy these factors are recommended to see the Plan implemented. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts are: The Draft Revitalization Plan recommends amending the Comprehensive Plan to: expand the size of selected commercial sites within existing commercial districts into adjacent multi -family districts; allow multi -family projects in Regional Commercial zones; give authority to the Board of Architectural Review to modify setback and landscape standards; increase the allowable number of residential units within NCC zones. E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 2 5 The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? • To improve the overall livability of the area for residents and businesses • To create an area that serves as a source of civic pride and conveys information on the heritage of the area for the community of Tukwila • To improve the appearance of the area by increasing the amount of landscaping; providing edges that define boundaries; enforcing sign standards, decreasing the amount of signage and improving the quality of signs, improving the quality of the future built environment of medium to large buildings and their development sites. u To improve the functionality of the area for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists o To improve actual and perceived comfort and safety of the area for its users and residents and decreasing the crime that occurs in the area 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The key to the proposal's recommendations is for the City to improve the public environment and to become involved in a limited way with the private built environment. An alternative approach is for the City to complete plans for the design of the public streets and rely entirely on the private owners to incrementally improve their frontage at the time of redevelopment. With regard to poorly operated and built apartments, the City could also wait for eventual redevelopment. An alternative means of improving safety and decreasing crime would be intensive educational and human resources to train people on safety and employment skills. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action. It is difficult to focus on the human resource and educational alternative because the City governs such a small fraction of the populace who use the study area and the people who are within the City's limits are very mobile. Human service Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 2 6 efforts are most successful when they are long term, intensive, and multi -staged efforts and that cover a Targe percentage of the population. . 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the plan. No, this proposal implements policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: No measures are proposed. List of Attachments: One List of strategies recommended in Pacific Highway Draft Revitilization Plan Two Zoning & Study Area Boundary Map Three Slope Map Four Stream Map Five Community Facilities Map Pacific Highway Draft Revitalization Plan: SEPA File E97-0009 Page 2 7 04/15/97 11:43 ARC ARC Architects 1101 East Pike Street Seattle, WA 98122-3915 206.322.3322 206.322.9323 Fax arcQaa.net $2063229323 • ARC G. Weiss • DATE: April 15, 1997 .TO: • City of Tukwila ATTN: Moira Bradshaw FROM: Glenn Weiss SUBJECT: Historic Properties ❑ TRANSMITTAL ❑ MEMO ❑ FAX _ SHEET(S) 2001/007 The Tukwila Section is 35 pages so I am sending you the map section and three pages of descriptions for T40-73, T10-30 and T20-63. ,1`b The "T" is for Tukwila, the "40, 10, or 20 is for the 20th Century decade and the number follow the dash is just a sequential number. If I can help any more, let me know. document4 RECEIVED APR 151997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 04/15/97. 11:43 122063229323 • ARC G. Weiss In 002/007 1994 I Historic Properties Survey A Survey of Historic Properties within the Boundariesof the A.C.C. Cities Appendices �AII A.C.C. Cities Prepared by Glenn Weiss/ for the Airport Communities Coalition Robert Olander, Executive Director Airport Communities Coalition City of Burien City of Des Moines City of Normandy Park City of Tukwila 04/15/97 11:43 '8`2063229323 SEE �� P 5 5T;, q s ATH ST `\ n f. �n '' Q v61*�' r e'Ahr >E ..N , S 1597 �' 1 87I ). )60:010...% : �NC3 °a I i ate.• ,1p• - � . c) 130Th • •.• ST�p� t . 599., ARC G. Weiss V1003/007 • T10-43 • T20.52 / N. 5 128TH St WI a A .5 i sr ST ST 2600 tV Al. SEE 685 5 179TH MAP 04/15/97 11:45 02063229323 Historic Properties Survey: City of Attila Location/Code His'94 Intearliv Qn entlrformation ARC G. Weiss T40-73 Rive Riverton Heights 6None None • Subdivision '44, Casade View 1944 Macry, BId. Assessor 94 Of the 169 houses, 42 are in original condition, 104 have minor changes, 21 have major changes and 3 have been completely remodeled. Casade View Homes 169 Homeowners 13503 37 Ave South Tukwila 98168 T50-01 655 rt°n None Owner l•1r Southgate Elementary School 1950 Ralph Burkhard, Arch. Steinbnreck 53 r A A Fair condition. Some interior changes with dropped ceilings. Cafeteria may be addition or altered. New community center planned. T50-02 655ter None None A r ., A 81004/007 40 Significance WWII Defense Industry housing for workers In the Duwamish Boeing Factories. The 169 houses have three plans with roof and facade changes to make about 14 models. All are one story wooden houses with an interior chimney and one picture window. Tukwila Community Center South Central Sch. Dist. 4101 131 Street South Tukwila . Designed by prominate Normandy • Park architect, Ralph Burkhard. School was included in top 100 Seattle area buildings tour for 1953 National American Institute of Architects'. convention. Classic simple forms connected by glass cooridors. His finest work. Foster High School, was demolished in 1990. *Foster. High School Stadium 1952 Steinbruedc 53 Unaltered condition except possibly for press box. Werner Neudorf Memorial Field South Central School District 4242 144 Street South Tukwila 98168 T50-03 Foster 655 None Owner :r rrr 1; T50-04 655ter None None rrJ Foster Senior High School 1952 Ralph Burkhard, Arch. Steinbreudc 53 Demolished In 1990 for new school. • F Remaining structure from 1952 award winning school design. The stadium seating is a cantilevered roof over hillside seats. "Demolished'' South Central School District 4242 144 Street South Tukwila 98168 Designed by prominate architect, Ralph Burkhard. School was included in top 100 Seattle area buildings tour for 1953 National American Institute of Architects' convention. In 1952, won First Place in the Competition for Better School Design sponsored by the American . Association of School Administration. C A T60-01 Foster 655 None None Frani 8 Foster Library 1959 Keinartz 91 Existing in 1994 in original condition to be replaced in 1996. Foster Library King County Library 4205 142 Street South • library Tukwila 98168 First built Library building in Tukwila. Undistinguished modern design. St. Thomas Catholic Church 1963 Keinartz 91 Good, original condition on exterior. St. Thomas Church St. Thomas Church 4415 140 Street South Tukwila 98168 Key to Categories Above (If Said HissdeorboadP` y Survey Number Thanes Mc Page Number ' OmeR(Historic st N Archives: WA Slate, King Courtly RA_nre3, Development a Owner [Dale of %%ve lem survey 1 t Arc3+'natse s. History ere is emptyy, the other fields move up in one eokann) Original Site. Name Dale of Construction Arrhhed Or Builder, tf known References 1994 Condition of Site Asterisk designates Map Number Community church organization since 1912. Forced to build new church with demolition of 1912 building in the construction of 1-5. Built with typical light weight, brick and window walls. Strips of colored glass in sanctuary walls. T e rte 9-0 Ofd T ne rte 9-0 TI one one 9-0 ert one 1994 She Name. lfKnorm 1994 Owner, If Recorded street Address City and Zlp Code Key Short Statement of Significance History Codes: A: tmponant. 8: Rare Bu1die0. C: Commas U: Unknown rch Aitecture Codes Ai aye. B: Common, C: Minor Alteration of A" or '8", 0: Lamer A5tamdon. F: Ramose! or Demolition. 04/15/97 11:45 $2063229323 Historic Properties Survey: City ola • Location/Code Historic Infomaation & '94 Integrity ARC G. Weiss Currentioformation • rgitaance T20-59 Foster 655 None None Johnson House (temp) 1929 Assessor 94 Unaltered Johnson House James Johnson 14406 42 Ave South Tukwila 98168 Ij 005/007 20 11 �1.(s One story, side gable, wooden house. T20-60 6251ng None None LUifai B U Josie House (temp) 1929 Assessor 94 Unaltered Josie House Anna Josie 10035 East Marginal Way South Tukwila 98168 One story, front gable, wooden house. T20-61 65omdyke 5 None None Viggiga B U Lee House (temp) 1929 Assessor 94 Unaltered Unknown Robert M. Lee 4240 146 Street South Tukwila 98168 One story, side gable, wooden house. • T20-62 *Monroe House Allentown 625 None None iii C C 1929 KelnartZ 91 Excellent condition in 1994 with picture and metal replacement windows. Ritch House Lloyd & Doris Ritch 11616 42 Ave South Tukwila 98168 Stucco home of builder/carpenter Paul Monroe who constructed 100s of Seattle homes in the 1920s, T20-63 •55 rton Heights None None B B *Northwest House (temp). 1929 Assessor94 Unaltered Unknown Ndrthwest Development Trust ' 3730 142 Street South Tukwila 98168 One and one-half story, steep roof, . front gable, shingled house.. Very good design and unusual In Tukwila. T30-01 Riverton 655 None None B U Davidson House (temp) 1930 Assessor 94 Unaltered Davidson House (temp) B. Davidson & G. Evans 4020 128 Street South Tukwila 98168 One and one-half story, front -side gable, wooden house. T30-02 Allentown 625 None None Kiri B U Dingle House (temp) 1930 Assessor 94 Unaltered Dingle House Helen Dingle 4115 114 Street South Tukwila 98168 One story, side gable, wooden house. Key to Categories Above wreid Is mkt. rreother fields moveupineach trobmmn) Historic Neighborroperty Survey Number Original genal Site Name 'tomee Map Page Number Date of Censtn,olon Oeter Iflstarle Archives: WA Sate nog County ' Architect or Builder. If known nuke She: Nene. NRq nra3, Development 8 owner Re1ererteee I Date of tNind:mold sunny ( Codes Aruhhedure d History • 1994 Condition df Sde 1 (see letlslde) Asterisk designates Mem Number 1994 Site Name K Known 1994 Owner, u Recorded Street Address Cay oro Zlp Cede Short Statement of Significance History Codes: A Impotent. B: Rare Building, Common. th Unknown Architecture Codas: A Spot 5 , B: Commoft C: Manor Alteration of A' only;1 D: Larger Ahoration, F: Remodel or Demolition. a tk N( 6 T3 Mt 65 Nc Nt KF tar 04/15/97 11:46 '8`2063229323 Historic Properties Survey: City of TuTcw'rla LocationLCQsle Historic Information &'94 Integrity ARC G. Weiss Current information Significance Ij006/007 22 T30-09 Foster 655 Norte None i B U Trone House (temp) 1930 AnAssess4 9 Trone House Larry Trone 14020 43 Ave South Tukwila 98168 One story, front side gable, wooden house. T30-10 Thomdyke 655 None Norte B U Zuvela House (temp) 1930 Assessor 94 Unaltered Zuvela House George Zuvela, Jr. 15205 51 Ave South Tukwila 98188 One story, side gable, wooden house. T30-11 Allentown 5 None None uarai B U Barrett House (temp) . 1931 Assessor 94 Unaltered Unknown Randy Barrett 12250 48 Ave South Tukwila 98168 One story, side gable, wooden house. 730-12 Riverton Heights 655 None None =Chi B U Baugart House (temp) 1931 Assessor 04 Unaltered Baumgart House Martha Baumgart 3241 135 Street South Tukwila 98168 Very nice one story, front -side gable, wooden house. T30-13 Allentown 625 None None Braucher House (temp) 1931 Assessor 94 Unaltered Braucher House Anne Braucher 12223 43 Ave South Tukwila 98168 One Story, front gable, wooden house. T30-14 Allentown None None Milli B U • Driscoll House (temp) 1931 Assessor 94 Unaltered Driscoll 'House Dennis Driscoll 3944 113 Street South Tukwila 98168 House •' T30-15 Riverton None None "Ii B U Goodale House (temp) 1931 Assessor 94 Unaltered Goodale House George Goodale 3726 128 Street South Tukwila 98168 One and one-half story, steep roof, brick 1930's house. T30-16 Rainier View 625 None None ALIA 8 U Anderson House (temp) 1932 Assessor 94 Unaltered Anderson House Lloyd Anderson 4908 114 Street South Tukwila 98168 One story, side gable, wooden house. • Key to Categories Above Of field ie empty. the other fields more up In each column) NProperty Survey Number orhood Themes Mep Pepe Number Other Historic Atehirex WA Sano, Kng County Rick le She: None, NRA nra3, Development & Owner Codee: Architecture & HIstorY (bee tetteide) I Dad, 04 windshield survey 1 *Original Site Name Date of Construction Archils or &slider. If known References 1994 Condition of Sae Asterak designates Map Number 1994 Site Nana if Known 1994 Owner. If Recorded Sweet Acoreas City end Zip Code Short Statement or Significance History Codes: A: tmpQnaru, 9: Rare 9uuildlng, C: Common, Ut Unkno m Architecture Codes, A Seeds] SIYIe, e: Common. C: Winer Alteration of -A- err 9'- D_ Larger Alteration. F: Remodel or Dereethior► Imo Nor Nor ra 655 Nor Nor �13( X62: Not Not Rlv Nol No' T31 ME 62: NO No T3i Rin 851 No No T3 Mc 65 Nc Nc KE 04/15/97 11:46 $2063229323 ARC G. Weiss • 1994 Historic Properties Survey: Additional Histpric Resources Contact List City of Burien 415 SW 150th Street, Burien, WA 98166 241-4647 Laura.Yeats-Quilici, Planner: 248-5510 City of Des Moines 21650 11th Ave South, Des Moines, WA 98198 878-8626, FAX 870-6544 Corbitt Loch, Planner: 870-6568 City of Normandy Park 801 SW 174th St, Normandy Park, WA 98166 248-7603, FAX 439-8674 Stephen Bennett, Planner: 870-6568 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, WA 98188 431-3651, FAX 431-3665 Moira Carr-13radshaw, Planner: 431-3651 Resources Contact List, Page 3 Ij007/007 04/08/1997 13:00 206-296-8629 • KING CTY CULT RES FAX TRANSMISSION KING COUNTY OFFICE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES Arts Commission Historic Preservation Program Public Art Program 506 Second Avenue, Room 1115 Seattle, WA 98104-2311 DATEMME: y 8. 9 �] PAGE 01 • APR 08 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 296-7580 VSD (206) 296-7580 Fax: (206) 296-8629 Staff e-mail: firstname.lastname@metrokc.gov TO: /10/rdt "Allhia PAGES: including cover sheet OFFICE: FROM: RE: COMMENTS: DCS C4 Colas 6-ra Pk., 01),14* — FAX# 443/ '3445 `lit 4ii c SVlrs /trt 44ci i, •c G.o f Ark. ,, ',vs, w h.. c Ar/ '•ci.- "D �c i� yi'3s,' arte a „kyr (o4 eg L✓! Pe.49 17, / . G `V /N Li &t a', eik n (i�/rw 4 d /;7 a,6r a wS.% — ,y,•.l• d ores..-4O.�o,.0 y ! Girl not Suns 7/ 72-r S / 4 r 1a, d0 1 l0(Cal2i 40658 ch 17Pf 444��- '�GKY 3eArs. U tirr 070 SAk-,T11sAnred ,417,141/ • Si kJ- /07 7 -. ®�.vL kr� / 06,141 73 Alt A. h 0,4 er ry i `J 1)7 a e 1- 1,,,4 0 ay101 i dl n 4/7 % 17 .11 s/ 7 6 1< / /7;Ae'm G41-7 2'6-84 frZ 04/08/1997 13:00 Tutt Property 1923, Innrth tri Masonic Temple Masonlc Temple an Park UnitedMithodls�t • 011P.eace Tabernacle/Beth:nalr j 206-296-8629 • ouWe ng House n hnson Residence hnson Residence Cabin ntana Property PfannlitA Aryl lakszlix Highline Highline Highline Highline Highline Highllne KING CTY CULT RES • Addatee Sdf�c 13000 East Marginal Way S. Seattle Icro Yes/ Tukwila 13034 41st Avenue South (Brldge0 • Seattle Inc Yes/ Tukwila Approx. 10.001a7tF _Ave=S Seattle tam Yes/ Tukwila 4$106, 1,00thrSt Seattle Incoro Yes/ Tukwila 13136 42nd Ave S Tukwila �! Incoro Yes/ Tukwila 13017 40th Avenue S Seattle IncorD Yes / Tukwila (o Af 1/-0/ ,0AF-n2,i' b1 1 PAGE 02 $IB Parcel number 15-23-04 734060-0820 15-23-04 734160-0050 15-23-04 735960-0765 15-23-04 734060-0769 15-23-04 15-23-04 192080-0015 /G( �� c- /G� 1C,-" Highway Runoff Manual M_31-16 February 1995 RETURN TO Transportation Library � Washington State Department of Transportation �I/ Environmental and Engineering Service Center Chapter 2 Minimum Requirements 2-1 Introduction All project designs that include clearing and grubbing, embankment work, or other earth work will include a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. The TESC will show which Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to meet Minimum Requirement 1. Additionally, all state projects adding at least 5,000 square feet (465 square meters) of impervious surface will comply with Minimum Requirements 2 through 9. The designers will apply BMPs to the maximum extent practicable for each project. In the case where it is not practicable to fully implement the required BMPs, the procedure explained in Minimum Requirement 9 and Chapter 5 shall be followed to show what mitigation has been done and why further mitigation is not practicable for the project. 2-2 Minimum Requirement 1 — Erosion and Sediment Control Projects will be designed and managed to prevent erosion and sediment from leaving the site. The designers will design the project to protect adjacent properties from sediment deposition and increased flows. Any temporary conveyance systems will be designed to handle flow from the 2 -year design storm for the developed conditions. The configuration of the project stormwater management design and the temporary BMPs used during construction will be shown on the Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) (Minimum Requirement 9). 2-3 Minimum Requirement 2 — Preservation of the Natural Drainage System Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the site shall occur at the natural locations. 2-4 Minimum Requirement 3 — Source Control of Pollutants The project will be designed to prevent stormwater from coming in contact with pollutants. This shall include, but not be limited to: • Minimize natural vegetation removal. • Vegetation restoration after construction. • Maintain vegetative buffers around water bodies. • Proper storage and handling of potential pollutants. • Establishing vegetation management plans. • Street sweeping on a regular basis. While source control is the preferred method of eliminating pollutants, there are few opportunities to practice source control on typical highway projects. The exception being during the construction phase of all projects and for the permanent phase of park and ride, regional offices, area maintenance offices, storage facili- • ties, and and rest area projects. Chapter 4 provides a more detailed description of sources control BMPs. Highway Runoff Manual Page 2-1 February 1995 • Minimum Requirements 2-5 Minimum Requirement 4 — Water Quality Treatment All projects shall provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff from the newly created impervious surface. The practicality of providing water quality treatment for runoff from any existing impervious area shall be investigated. The. associated costs for treating new and existing impervious areas shall be recorded in the project's Hydraulics Report. BMPs for existing impervious runoff will be implemented whenever the investigation dcmonstrates that it would more feasible to construct the BMPs during the current project instead of waiting until a futurc date to fully retrofit the entire roadway. section. BMPs for existing impervious runoff will also be installed whenever the benefit derived from immediately retrofitting the roadway can be shown to outweigh the cost of installing the BMPs. The treatment is to be designed to reduce pollutant loads and concentrations in stormwater using physical, biological, and chemical removal mechanisms. Water quality treatment BMPs will be designed to treat the 6 -month 24-hour design storm. The volume of the 6 -month design storm is equal to 64 percent of the volume of the 2 -year design storm. 2-6 Minimum Requirement 5 — Water Quantity Treatment All projects that do not meet one of the exemptions listed below shall provide water quantity treatment of stormwater runoff from the newly created impervious surface. The practicality of providing water quantity treatment for runoff from any existing impervious area shall be investigated. The associated costs for treating new and existing impervious areas shall be recorded in the project's Hydraulics Report. BMPs for existing impervious runoff will be implemented whenever the investigation demonstrates that it would be more feasible to construct the BMPs during the current project instead of waiting until a future date to fully retrofit the entire roadway section. BMPs for existing impervious runoff will also be installed whenever the benefit derived from immediately retrofitting the roadway can be shown to outweigh the cost of installing the BMPs. Infiltration is the preferred method of reducing the quantity of stormwater runoff. If infiltration cannot be used at the project site, then the peak rate of runoff from the treated area after project completion shall be no greater during the 2 -year design storm than 50 percent of the existing conditions 2 -year peak runoff. The peak rate of runoff after project completion shall be no greater during the 10 -year and 100 -year design storms than the existing condition 10 -year peak runoff and 100 -year peak runoff respectively. Projects do not have to include water quantity treatment if any one of the following apply: • The discharge is directly to a body of salt water. • The discharge is directly to one of the major rivers listed in Figure 2-6.1. • The discharge is directly to a lake with a surface area greater than 300 acres. There are other situations when providing no water quantity treatment for a projcct may be preferable. For instance, if the project is located in a rural basin and an analysis shows that sheet (low from the roadway will fully infiltrate prior to reaching the nearest receiving water body, then it may he beneficial to allow this to occur instead of collecting the runoff and discharging it as surface flow to the Page 2-2 Highway Runoff Manual February 1995 • Minimum Requirements receiving body. Anytime the designer believes that water quantity treatment should not be included but the project does not meet one of the three exemptions listed in the previous paragraph, he/she must contact the Hydraulics Section as early in the project as possible. The Hydraulics Section will aid the designer in properly analyzing the effects of the project's runoff. The Hydraulics and Environ- mental Sections will also coordinate with the appropriate state, local, and federal agencies to ensure adequate protection of all natural resources. Whenever thc project utilizes a detention BMP (RD.l 1 Dry Pond or RD.20 Dry Vault/Tank) a factor of safety must be applied to the BMP volume. The factor of safety is dependent on the percentage of total area that is impervious which is contributing flow to the BMP. The factor of safety is obtained from Figure 2-6.2. The factor of safety will be applied by first designing the BMP using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (see Chapter 3) and then multiplying the initial design volume by thc factor of safety to obtain the final volume. The BMP's volume must be increased from the initial design volume to the final volume without increasing the average depth. Highway Runoff Manual Page 2-3 February 1995 f--/.. Minimum Requirements River Upstream Point for Exemption Bogachiel Bcar Creek Calawah . Sitkum Rivcr Chehalis Bunker Creek Columbia Canada Border Cowlitz Skate Creek Elwha Lake Mills Grande Ronde Oregon Border Hoh South Fork Hoh River Humptulips West & East Fork Confluence Kettle Canada Border Klickitat Little Klickitat River Lewis Swift Reservoir Methow Lost River Naches Nile Creek Nisqually Alder Lake Nooksack Glacier Crcck South Fork Nooksack Hutchinson Creek Okanogan Osoyoos Lake Palouse Idaho Border Pend Oreille Idaho Border Puyallup Carbon River Queets Clearwater River Quillayute Bogachicl River Sauk Clear Creek Satsop Middle & East. Fork Confluence Skagit Cascade Rivcr Skokomish Vancc Creek Skykomish Beckler River Snake Idaho/Oregon Bordcr Snohomish Snoqualmie River Snoqualmie Middle & North Fork Confluence Sol Duc Beaver Creek Spokane Idaho Border Stillaguamish North & South Fork Confluence North Fork Stillaguamish Boulder River South Fork Stillaguamish Canyon Creck Toutle North & South Fork Confluence North Fork Toutic Green River White Grccnwater River White Salmon Trout Lake Creek Wynoochee Wishkah River Road Bridge . Yakima Kecchclus Lakc Rivers Exempted From Minimum Requirement 5 ' Figure 2-6.1 Page 2-4 Highway Runoff Manual February 1995 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 Minimum Requirements 1 1 i f F t f I 1 t 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Site Impervious Cover (%) Factor of Safety for Detention Ponds and Vaults Figure 2-6.2 2-7 Minimum Requirement 6 — Wetlands Stormwater runoff discharging to a wetland must be treated for water quality and quantity in a manncr consistent with that described in Minimum Requirement 4 and 5. Stormwatcr treatment facilities should not be placed in the designated buffer for a wetland. Wetlands arc more sensitive to varying site specific and regional conditions. Thus every wetland must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine impacts of stormwatcr discharges. The diversity in the values and functions of a wetland, as well as the uniqueness of the type of wetland, will need to be understood before determining if the treatment provided by Minimum Requirements 4 and 5 will adequately protect the receiving wetland. In addition, the management strategy for wetlands on a watershed basis will influence available stormwater control options. The best source of information regarding wetlands is the service center Biology Unit. Preliminary guidelines arc provided in Section 5-2.10. If a wetland is created to replace wetlands that were unavoidably dcstmycd during design and construction of a project, that wetland can not be used for stormwater treatment. Constructed wetlands can be designed to treat stormwatcr runoff. A constructed wetland must be in an arca that was not a wetland and be designed specifically for the purpose of treating stormwater. The designers should see the Hydraulics Section for guidance if they want to use a Constructed Wetland BMP. 2-8 Minimum Requirement 7 — Downstream Analysis An analysis shall be performed to determine the potential impacts from the project on the downstream system. At a minimum, the downstream analysis will include the arca from the project site to a point one quarter of a mile downstream of the HlghwajRunoff Manual Page2-5 February 1995 • • . 'Minimum Requirements project site. The analysis must proceed far enough along the drainage course to determine that nothing downstream of the end point will be affected by the project's runoff. Chapter 5 contains a detailed description of how to perform a downstream analysis. The results of the analysis will be included in the Stormwater Site Plan. 2-9 Minimum Requirement 8 — Sensitive Areas and Basin Plans There arc some drainage basins throughout the state where local agencies (in particular, those with a stormwatcr utility) have performed detailed analyses of the basin's hydrologic characteristics. These basins have typically been studied because they are known to be sensitive areas and often require the stormwatcr runoff to be treated in a special manner. Along with studying the hydrologic characteristics, the local agency will publish a document that describes the method to be used for stormwater treatment in the specific drainage basin. These docu- ments are referred to as basin plans. When a project or a portion of a project is located within a basin that has an adopted basin plan with recommended design standards, the methodology found in the basin plan shall be used. There arc two exceptions to using the methodology in the basin plan. The first exception occurs if thc requirements of the basin plan arc less stringent than the requirements of this manual, in which case the requirements of this manual shall be used. The other exception occurs when the designer can show that by applying the requirements of this manual, the receiving body is adequately protected. 2-10 Minimum Requirement 9 — Stormwater Site Plan For each project subject to any of these requirements, the designers will develop an SSP. This will include the hydraulic report, the TESC Plan, the BMP Selection Form (found in Chapter 4), the project specific maintenance schedule and any other information that shows the design and implementation of thc stormwater treatment measures. Chapter 5 of this manual gives a detailed description of the material that should be included in the SSP. If the minimum requirements for a project have not been met because the designer has determined that it is not practicable to include the necessary BMPs, then an explanation must be provided in the SSP. The explanation shall include the reasons why the minimum requirements have not been met for the site and the amount of stormwater treatment that can be provided. The explanation will be used by the the Hydraulics and Environmental Sections and any agencies that will be issuing permits for the project to accept or reject the request to allow the project not to meet the minimum requirements. P3:HRM2 Page 2-6 Highway Runoff Manual February 1995 • • Stormwater Site Plan Limit post -development stage excursions of 15-30 cm above or below the prc- development stage to a total duration of no more than 72 hours in any 30 -day period. Limit post -development increase or decrease in dry period (whcn pools dry down to the soil surface everywhere in the wetland) to 2 weeks in any year in wetlands with pre -development dry periods averaging greater than 8 weeks. Peat wetlands (bogs and fens): Limit post -development stage excursions above the pre -development stage to a total duration of 24.hours in any ycar. Forested wetlands and zones (wetlands or zones with at least 30 percent cover of trees at least 20 ft tall): Limit the magnitude of post -development stage excursions above the pre -develop- ment stage to no more than 20 cm, and limit the duration of these excursions to no more than 48 hours in any 7 -day period during the early growing season (1 March - 31 May) and to 96 hours total over the full growing season (1 March -31 August). Avoid sediment accumulation of more than 20 cm in any ycar. Sedge meadows (wetlands or zones with at least 20 percent cover by Carcx, Eleocharis, Scirpus, or Dilichium): Avoid sediment accumulation of more than 15 cm in any ycar. 5-2.11 Explanation of Nonpracticability For some projects, it will be physically or economically not practicable to include stormwater BMPs. If the designer feels that this is the case for a specific project, a document must be prepared which states why, in the designers judgment, a pre- scriptive treatment should bc considered nonpracticable. This document should yield a strong argument that supports the decision to not fully treat the stormwater runoff. The documcnt will be reviewed by the Hydraulics and Environmental Sectionsand any agencies that will bc issuing permits for the project. Poor plan- ning is not a valid reason to allow release of untreated stormwater from a site. This document should also discuss the stormwater treatment measures that will be used in the project even though they will be less than required. Every project site will have the ability to provide some amount of stormwater treatment, even if it is nothing more than the use of grassed ditches as,a portion of the conveyance system. P3:HRM5 Page 5-12 ' Highway Runoff Manual February 1995 Table 8 -4 Streams in the WSDOT SR 99 Right -of -Way Name Jurisdiction Classification Buffer Comments Riverton Creek Tukwila Tukwila Type III Watersource 5 meters (15 feet) Fish use Riverton Creek upstream from the crossing under SR 99. Four Unnamed Streams in Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila Type III Watersource 5 meters (15 feet) None of these streams are known to support salmonids. They are known to be seasonal and partially fed by surface runoff and ditches. Des Moines Creek Tributaries SeaTac Unclassified Stream ---- Neither crossing of the tributaries and SR 99 could be found during a field investigation. Both tributaries are_possibly in culverts. Unnamed Stream South of SR 516 Kent, Des Moines Unclassified Stream ---- Parallels SR 516 on the south side. During a field investigation no stream could be found. Unnamed Stream at 260th Kent Unclassified Stream ---- • Cross SR 99 south of 260th Street and 260th Street 20 meters east of SR 99. During a field investigation of the stream was found meandering west of SR 99, crossing under 260th street 20 meters east of intersection with SR 99. Unnamed Stream South of SR 509 ' Federal Way Unclassified Stream ---- Cross SR 99 south of SR 509. Salmonid use undetermined. Stream could not be located within WSDOT right-of-way. Likely that it runs in a' culvert. Unnamed Streams Parallel and Cross SR 99 South of 312th Federal Way Unclassified Strewn ---- During a field investigation one unnamed stream was found South of 330th Street, 50 meters west of SR 99. None of the three places indicated on the King County Sensitive Area map were streams crossing SR 99. Likely that they run in culverts for large stretches of the upstream reach. SR 99 Redevelopment KH C83.DOC -- 9/2/97 • '64\ S 96TH S • S 40+Suar 3 112TH ST 136TH 3 14.1T11 ST .t.0 3 142ND ST 1•4 TN 55 u SEATTLE -TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 5 170”. ST SEATAC Source: SR 99 Redevelopment 356th Street to LtStII Street Stream and Wetland Inventory Washington Department of Transportation July 1997 99 SR 99 PACIFIC HICHwAr REDEVELOPMENT 41111111h. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION /Pr OTOS Or IMAIN 1.1111.T1 Sverdrup Clwg . 3.4C TITLE STREAMS WATER BODIES WETLANDS FIGURE 1 J ` _ jry 4 r ♦ t DLoge 5 . ST G r`��s .v / z �� At _ _ r 1eerN sr `itu �� ST 9I3 ST S 1933 ST 1/ I /1/ �� \ / NORMANDY PARK g T.o e Ang1e ea29 S GSST Ll �•�_ rd 'a s 200717 Si J 37 4J •; s 200T11 s 200TH sr • 0trir 99 < / • S 208144 ST ggR7 i , SEATAC cYT•r :: t.r72rT3 = M DES MOINES CRTs mer N C X ST pM -C4, VT N 212TN ST £ TA, _ 5 216TN ST J t✓ i ti g , ` S. < s zrerx 3 222.0 sr ST 5 2223 ST a anti V 5 12180 ST _ CR g n 3 ' S221RDSI TENT 509 SEATACI A al 1 i- l7rTJ ® �lhl• / y QO S .0.60DES y �y�' ?SI§ ii) l4 • MOINES ` ) Wiliam g9 1'lir co �Z., \ •• N240TN ST 3 N - T IW6I6 IT @ ; Q m " G, a a E .2 errr S g o es N �t� tp s• I Z O a" O Crrr •. t V R Rp W7 A .,s,'" rM1 S 760 Sr ti KENT l�ff ori � Coke Source: Fenwick SR 99 Redevelopment a a M1,$ I W 9199 356th Street to a " E4 116th Street ' IW19 Stream and Wetland Inventory x Washington Department of Transportation = WIE, July 1997 11----• TITLE STREAMS SR 99 WASHINGTON STATE Sverdrup 99�_k PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT or .,TRANSPORTATION C2v2,_• r^'c WWI{ .r vaua .nam WATER BODIES 1 WETLANDS FIGURE 2 • Star Lake POVERTY BAY 5 255th 5T Lake Dollop 5 ]16TH 320TM 3215T 5T North Lake Sources SR 99 Redevelopment 350th Street to 110th Street Stream and Wetland Inventory s 25e114 Washington Department of Transpor a on July 1997 SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Lake KIllorkey 41111116, WASHINGTON WSTATE DEPARTMENT or , TRANSPORTATION smog WA.. ram Sverdrup Clv:L. t'MC STREAMS WATER BODIES A WETLANDS FIGURE 3 Table 8 - 5 Wetlands East of SR 99 Wetland Jurisdiction Location Estimated Size [m]'. Vegetation Class ;;.' Class Buffer meters [ft]. EI Federal Way between 351st and 356th Street part of 5 to 10 acres of wetland SS no classes used in Federal Way 30 meters [100 ft] E2 Federal Way north of 350th Street 0.2 acres SS no classes used in 30 meters [ 100 ft] Federal Way E3 Federal Way south of 18th Ave . PFO, SS no classes used in 30 meters [100 ft] Federal Way E4 King County • between S 260th and S 266th Street part of 5 to 10 acres of wetland PFO, SS, PE King County II 15 meters [50 ft] E5 SeaTac north of 216th Street < 0.1 acres PE SeaTac III 8 meters [25 ft] E6, E7, E8 Tukwila between 141st and 1 acre each PFO, SS, PE Tukwila 15 meters [50 ft] 37th Street Class II E9, El0 Tukwila between 37th and 0.1 acres each SS, PE Tukwila 15 meters [50 ft] 130th Street Class II E 1 1 Tukwila between 125th and 2 acres SS. PE Tukwila 15 meters [50 ft] 126th Street Class II E12 Tukwila south of 116th Street 2 acres SS, PE Tukwila 15 meters [50 ft] Class II PE: Palustrine Emergent SS: Scrub -Shrub PFO: Palustrine Forested Classes are not given for vegetation that covers less than 30% of the substrate (Cowardin et al. 1997). 3 First dimension is along SR 99, in north south direction Si? 99 Redevelopment KH_C82.DOC -- 9/2/97 Table 8 - 6 Wetlands West of SR 99 Wetland Jurisdiction Location : Estimated : Size [m]2:: ,Vegetation etation > Class Class Buffer meters [ft] W I SeaTac corner 116th Street, SR 99 overpass 10m X 15m PE, PFO King County Class II 15 meters [50 ft] W2 Tukwila 0.5 miles north of 130th Street/SR 300m X 15m PE, PFO Tukwila, Class II 15 meters [50 ft] 99 intersection W32 Tukwila south of S 137th Street 3m X 4m • PE Tukwila, Class III 8 meters [25 ft] W42 SeaTac south of 280 Street 100 m long, begins 5 m of EoP SS SeaTac, Class III 10 meters [35 ft] W52 Des Moines south of 226th Street 20 m long, begins 12 m of EoP PFO Des Moines Important Wetland 10 meters [35 ft] W6 Kent south of 246th Street 20 m long, begins 20 m of EoP PFO Kent, Class II 15 meters [50 ft] W7 - King County north of 260th Street 20 m long, extends past PFO, SS King County, Class II 15 meters [50 ft] RoW W8 King County south of 260th Street PFO, SS King County, Class II 15 meters [50 ft] W9 King County south of 262nd Street 50 meter long PFO, SS, PE King County, Class II 15 meters [50 ft] W IO2 King County 0.5 miles north of 268th St. SS, PE King County, Class III 8 meters [25 ft] WI 1 King County north of 268th Street, south of `Heartland Barn Sale' 20 meters long, extends past RoW SS, PE King County, Class III 8 meters [25 ft] W122 King County south of 268th Street SS, PE King County, Class III 8 meters. [25 ft] W 13 Federal Way between 351st Street and 356th 0.5 miles long • PFO, SS no classes used in Federal 30 meters [ 100 ft] Street Way PE: Palustrine Emergent SS: Scrub -Shrub PFO: Palustrine Forested Classes are not given for vegetation that covers less than 30% of the substrate (Cowardin et al. 1997). EoP: edge of pavement RoW: right-of-way First dimension is along SR 99, in north south direction 2 Potential wetland SR 99 Redevelopment KH_C82.DOC -- 9/2/97 Procedure for Analysis and 3-1 Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise Introduction Bibliography The Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) tries to minimize adverse impacts while constructing, operating, and maintaining the state's transportation system and facilities. Where impacts cannot practically be avoided, WSDOT employs feasible and reasonable mitigation measures. This section provides guidance and criteria for conducting traffic noise impact and mitigation analysis consistent with federal highway traffic noise standards (23 CFR 772, "Procedures for Abatement of HighwayjTraffic Noise and Construc- tion Noise"). Traffic noise analysis are required for projects that involve construc- tion of a new highway, or projects that significantlychange the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through -traffic lanes on an existing highway. These include state funded, federal aid, new construction, and highway improvement projects 1. Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772). 2. Guide on Evaluation and Attenuation of Traffic Noise, 1993, AASHTO. 3. Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771.135), Section 4(f) "Use." 4. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S. EPA, 1974. 5. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis: Reasonableness and Feasibility of Abatement, FHWA, May 1992. 6. Noise Evaluation Procedures for Existing State Highways, WSDOT Directive D 22-22, dated November 2, 1987. 7. Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report, • FHWA-DP-45-1R, dated August 1981. 8. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108, dated December 1978. 9. ACTION: Guidance for Highway Traffic Noise Analysis, Memorandum from Director, Office of Environment and Planning, Federal Highway Administration, HEP -41, dated December 1, 1993. 10. Predicting Stop -and -Go Traffic Noise Levels, NCHRP Report 311, November 1989. 11. Highway Construction Noise: Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, FHWA Special Report. Environmental Procedures Manual OffiC 3-1 Pana 1 Procedure for Analysis and Aba.nt of Highway Traffic Noise Glossary 12. Background Report on Outdoor -Indoor Noise Reduction Calculation Procedures Employing the Exterior Wall Noise Rating, FHWA-TS-77-220, March 1978. Design Year The future year for which a highway is designed. Values for various design criteria, including traffic volumes, are estimated for this year. Ten to twenty years beyond construction completion is generally used. Existing Noise Levels The noise level from natural, mechanical and human sources, normal to an area before project construction. The noise analysis should identify all sources of noise such as traffic, industrial, airport, etc. Only traffic noise shall be quantified. Leq The steady-state sound level that contains the same acoustic energy as varying sound levels during the same time period. Current practice uses a one-hour time average, denoted LAeq, lh, Leg(h) or Leq. The "A" refers to a frequency -weighted decibel scale that adjusts levels in accordance to human perception. Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) The following are NAC category levels. Activity Category A — Lands where serenity and quiet are extraordinarily signifi- cant and serve an important public need. Assess noise impacts for this category on a case-by-case basis, consulting with other appropriate agencies and WSDOT disciplines Activity Category B — Includes picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. The approach or exceed threshold for Category B is an Leg(h) of 66 dBA. A 10 dBA increase is considered substantial if the resulting level is greater than 55. A 5 dBA increase is considered substantial if the resulting level is greater than 62 dBA. Activity Category C — Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B. The approach or exceed threshold for Category C is an Leq(h) of 71 dBA. A 10 dBA increase is considered substantial if the resulting level is greater than 55 dBA. A 5 dBA increase is considered substantial if the resulting level is greater than 67 dBA. Activity Category D — Undeveloped lands. The threshold and substantially exceed values for this category are left undefined. Activity Category E — Interior spaces of residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums or offices. The approach or exceed threshold for Category B is an Leq(h) of 51 dBA. A 5 dBA is considered substantial if the resulting level is greater than 45. 3-1 Page 2 Environmental Procedures Manual February 1995 Procedure for Analysis and Stement of Highway Traffic Noise Reasonable and Feasible Noise Abatement Measures Mitigation measures considered appropriate, by WSDOT, after careful and thorough examination of a wide range of criteria. Reasonable means that common sense and good judgment were used to make a decision. Feasible means that it is physically possible to do proposed work. Traffic Noise Impacts Impacts that occur when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC), or when the predicted traffic noise levels substan- tially exceed existing noise levels. Threshold and substantially exceed values are summarized in each NAC category (see above). Information Required for a Noise Analysis See Appendix A for a sample traffic data request form. Data required to complete tha analysis should be requested early in the environmental documentation stage. How to do a Traffic Noise and Mitigation Analysis The major objectives are to: • Define areas of potential noise impacts for each project alternative. • Evaluate impacts and mitigation measures. • Compare the various alternatives on the basis of potential noise impacts and associated mitigation costs. Include all alternatives under detailed consideration in the analysis. The level of analysis required depends on the type of project, impacts and/or associated issues (see Appendix B). The Environmental Program Manager,or designated representa- tive, determines the level of analysis required. Refer to Appendix C for a copy of 23 CFR 772 Document the results of the analysis in a Traffic Noise Report. This report provides useful information to both official personnel and the lay public. The scope of the report includes: an executive summary, table of contents, introduc- tion, coordination with other groups or agencies, identification of land use, study methodology, impacts analysis, mitigation analysis, construction noise commen- tary, conclusions, and a bibliography. Use the following formats for each of these. A. Executive Summary 1. The objectives of the project. 2. Current noise environment, including impacts. 3. Impacts of all alternatives, including the no -build altemative. 4. Recommended mitigation. 5. Comparison of alternatives based on impacts and cost effectiveness of mitigation. B. Table of Contents C. Introduction Environmental Procedures Manual February 1995 3-1 Page 3 F�.I Procedure for Analysis and Abafbnt of Highway Traffic Noise 1. A detailed description of the project including, but not limited to, project termini, project objectives, discussion of proposed alternatives, major terrain features, current land uses, vicinity and project maps. 2. General discussion on noise and noise issues including common terminology, human perception of increased sound levels, and examples of sound levels emitted from some typical sources. See Appendix A for typical sound sources. 3. Criteria used to determine an impact. Discuss the NAC levels found in 23 CFR 772. Address both the AOE and SE impact criteria. D. Coordination With Other Groups or Agencies A summary of efforts to coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies and the public. Include their level of involvement, and any unresolved issues or areas of conflict. Emphasize any coordination with, or input from, cooperating agencies. Also, discuss the results of scoping and any public involvement. E. Identification of Land Use For each alternative, use a graphic display, narrative, and/or other means, to show. the location of noise sensitive areas and structures that may be affected by highway noise. Include the type(s) of land use and consider any changes to local zoning or planning. Contact the regional field office or local planning agencies for this information. The identification process may include field inspections and review of aerial photographs or maps. Begin identification in the early phases of the project and include the following: 1. Developed lands and undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed, or programmed. 2. Lands for which no development is planned, designed, or programmed. 3. Lands which are categorized Section 4(0. F. Discussion of Study Methodology Describe the procedure used to conduct the noise analysis (see below for the typical procedure). Always note that the analysis includes all alternatives under detailed consideration (including the no -build alternative) and that the model used is consistent with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108. The following is the typical procedure used: 1. The project is divided into study areas as necessary. 2. Field measurements are taken. The measurements need not be taken during peak hours. See "Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report," FHWA DP -45-1R, for guidance on measuring noise levels. The traffic noise model is verified by comparing measured levels with the predicted levels at the same location. The traffic volumes collected at the site are used for the comparison. Enough measurements are taken to sufficiently define the study area. 3-1 Page 4 Environmental Procedures Manual February 1995 Procedure for Analysis anciatement of Highway Traffic Noise 3. Existing noise levels are predicted and used as a baseline for comparison with all other alternatives. Noise levels are predicted for all altematives, including the no -build alternative: All predictions shall conform to the following guidelines: a. They shall be made where noise is a known problem or where the. additional noise from highway sources will likely create a problem. Enough sites shall be selected to sufficiently define the noise environment. b. They shall be predicted using the worst case scenario. • The worst case scenario is determined by examining volumes, truck percentages of traffic flow throughout the day, and speeds (operational speeds are used in cases where they consistently differ from the posted speed). • The effects of stop -and -go traffic are considered where necessary (NCHRP Report 311, Predicting Stop -and -Go Traffic Noise Levels). • Conditions of the worst case scenario are documented. c. Noise levels are reported in Leq. d. Terrain features or shielding that may affect the noise environment are discussed (see FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). e. Adjustments for pavement type are not used. Cautionary Note: Be careful not to predict noise' levels which are excessively distant from the roadways. Usually, anything over 150 meters (500 feet) from the roadway is considered excessive. G. Impacts Analysis Use the traffic noise analysis (see 'F' above) to identify and describe noise impacts, from traffic only, which the proposed action will cause. Tell how these changes will effect population and/or land use. 1. Describe the existing noise environment, including any traffic impacts. 2. Identify impacts for all alternatives, including the no -build alternative, using the noise abatement criteria (see Glossary). Consider exterior use areas first. Use interior criteria only when there are no exterior activities to be considered, or exterior activities are so well shielded or so far from the roadway that impacts are avoided. Estimate interior levels by applying commonly accepted reduction factors to exterior measurements, see FHWA TS -77-220. a. Tabulate the "before" and "after" levels of the sites used in the noise prediction model. Show any displaced sites. b. Assess impacts in each study unit. c. Quantifythe numbers and types of the impacts. Environmental Procedures Manual February 1995 3-1 Page 5 Procedure for Analysis and Ab41lent of Highway Traffic Noise d. Identify noise levels at impacted locations using one of the following methods: (1) Tabulate the number of impacts by land use category and noise level in 5 dBA increments. (2) Use noise contour maps in 5 dBA increments. Contours shall show general, not highly localized, conditions. Show the noise receiver points that were used in the prediction model and give the numbers of points used in plotting contour lines. 3. Document the findings even when you determine that noise impacts do not exist (they do not approach or exceed threshold or substantially exceed existing levels). H. Noise Mitigation Analysis The goal of mitigation is to eliminate all impacts if reasonably and feasibly possible. If it is not reasonable or feasible to eliminate an impact, then at least a 10 dBA reduction to first row receivers must be sought. This portion of the noise report discusses the options available to acheive these goals. Feasibility refers to the physical restraints of constructing mitigation. Project circumstances may exclude certain mitigation measures. See bibliography #5 for further information. Use the following list of minimum criteria: a. Topography must be compatible with constriction of the mitigation measure. b. Provisions for future access, drainage, safety, and maintenance requirements must be possible. c. The measure must be able to achieve a minimal reduction of 7 dBA for first row receivers. Reasonableness is determined by weighing and evaluating a variety of factors. Criteria may vary, depending upon project circumstances. • Discuss the factors used to determine the reasonableness of mitigation measures. See bibliography #5 for further information. Consider the following: a. Resident's desires. b. Time of development versus time of highway construction. c. Age and type of existing development. d. Projects contribution to area noise levels. e.. Differencebetween existing traffic noise levels and levels at design year. f. Absolute noise levels. g. Effects of mitigation on the environment. h. Changing land use. 3-1 Page 6 Environmental Procedures Manual February 1995 • Procedure for Analysis andOtement of Highway Traffic Noise i. Cost/benefit:ratio. Calculated using current WSDOT techniques. Cost should not be the sole criteria for determining reasonableness. For traffic noise impacts only, consider mitigation measures for each impacted area in each alternative. Analyze and recommend the measures that meet feasibility and reasonableness requirements. Compare each alternative based on the number of impacts, recommended mitigation cost, the mitigation effectiveness, and any remaining unavoidable impacts. 1. Investigate mitigation measures listed below: a. Traffic management. b. Alteration of horizontal and/or vertical alignments (e.g., depressed highways). c. Construction of noise barrier. Use current WSDOT estimating techniques and values to estimate costs. The maximum height for a noise wall is 4.3 meters (14 feet) from the pavement when located on the roadway shoulder, and 5.5 meters (18 feet) above the ground line when located on the ROW line. Walls that exceed these limits require design deviation approval by the State Design Engineer. d. Acquisition of property rights (either in fee or lesser interest) for construction of noise barriers. e. Insulation of public use or nonprofit institutional structures. f. Other measures that appear feasible and reasonable for cases where severe impacts exist and/or are expected, and where the above mitiga- tion measures are determined infeasible or unreasonable. On projects which involve federal funds, any such measures require FHWA approval. . 2. Document the estimated cost, decibel reductions, and geometry of the various mitigation measures under detailed evaluation. Note any exceptions or deviations from the guidelines contained herein. 3. Make recommendations for mitigation measures. I. Construction Noise Analysis A detailed construction analysis is not possible at the environmental stage, since detailed construction plans are not available then. Instead, discuss the general effects of construction noise on noise sensitive land areas. Also discuss the temporary nature of construction noise and any local noise . ordinances that apply. J. Conclusions and Recommendations Briefly describe the findings of the impact and mitigation analysis. Describe the current conditions and any major changes in the noise environment which would result from the project. Highlight any recommended'mitigation. K. Bibliography Include a listing of all documents used to preparrl the report, referenced in the report, or directly cited in the text. 3-1: EMP8 Environmental Procedures Manual February 1995 3-1 Page 7 /4=71,2 istoric Properties Su A Survey of Historic Properties within the Boundaries of the A.C.C. Cities All A.C.C. Cities Prepared by Glenn Weiss for the Airport Communities Coalition Robert Olander, Executive Director Airport Communities Coalition City of Burien City of Des Moines City of Normandy Park City of Tukwila 1994 Historic Properties Survey: Contents • Introduction • Survey Methodology • Surveyor's Report by City • Appendix 1. Building Index Arranged by Historic Name 2. Comprehensive Historic Sites Database Arranged by File Number 3. Thomas Guide Maps with Prioritized Sites 4. Survey Database Codes 5. Survey Sources List 6. Additional Historic Resources Contact List Introductory Page 1 • • 1994 Historic Properties Survey: Jntroductlon The 1994 Historic Properties Survey was developed for the Airport Communities Coalition and was supervised by Steve Bennett from the City of Normandy Park. The survey was intended to be as broad as possible and to identify all potentially valuable historic properties in the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park and Tukwila. Significant properties in the City of SeaTac and nearby unincorporated King County were also surveyed to a lesser extent. The National Register of Historic Places requires a structure to be 50 years old to be nominated to the register. As a result, all pre -1945 buildings were surveyed in August and September, 1994, by Glenn Weiss. Pre -1955 buildings of significance were surveyed for a future local landmarks designation program with a 40 year old eligibility requirement. Due to time constraints, Burien and Tukwila were comprehensively surveyed only between First Ave South and Fifty -First Ave South. Although, previously published historic sites were surveyed in the remainder of these two cities. The survey produced prioritized lists of properties for nomination as a historic place or landmark under the existing National Register of Historic Places and a possible future landmarks designation program in each city. The prioritized list was identified by the surveyor after consultation with Julie Koler, King County Landmarks Preservation Officer, on the application of national and local standards during a tour of Normandy Park and Des Moines. The list is summarized in the report and marked on the accompanying maps. The results of the survey includes one photocopied document of historic resources in each city, one photocopied comprehensive report, a "Paradox" database file, and hanging files with the surveyor's notes and photocopied research. The survey hanging files include 1994 King County Assessor Lists, for each city, of buildings constructed before 1945 and 1955. The pre -1945 list is arranged by street address and the pre -1955 list is arranged by year, and then address. Introductory Page 2 1994 Historic Properties Survey: Survey Methodology Between August 1 and September 30, 1994, Airport Communities Coalition Planning Intern, Glenn Weiss, researched and surveyed potential historic properties in the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park and Tukwila. The research involved reading all available histories of those cities completed since 1972 (see Sources List in appendix) and recording a list of sites discussed in those texts. Other potential sites were identified through the King County Landmarks Commission's 1979 Survey of King County Historic Properties, through private discussions with local historians, and by contacting prominent architects regarding past work in the study area. A windshield survey of these properties was conducted. For this study, "windshield survey" means a visual inspection of the front elevation from the street or driveway. Each building was judged to fall in one of five categories based on the front elevation only and without checking any photographic records. (see Database Codes in appendix) Therefore, buildings were judged to be altered or unaltered based on the surveyor's judgment of appropriateness of materials and design related to the researched construction date of the property. For example, if horizontal windows were present in a dated 1910. structure, then the surveyor presumed the windows were a later change to the building, since vertical windows were typical for 1910. The surveyor is aware of some inconsistencies in the survey especially related to siding materials and addresses, such that structures may be judged "unaltered" when newer siding materials existed and some addresses may have caused the wrong building to be judged. Finally, due to lack of time, the surveyor always presumed the correctness of the researched date of construction and therefore declared buildings demolished or remodeled if the structures appeared totally constructed at a later date. The surveyor estimates errors related to siding to be less than 3%, and errors related to address and date of construction to be less than 1%. After the surveyor surveyed all buildings referenced in historic writings, the surveyor acquired lists of all properties developed before 1945 and 1955. The lists were generated by the King County Assessor by. searching tax records for the date of construction. The surveyor conducted a "windshield survey" of all pre -1945 buildings in Normandy Park and Des Moines, all pre -1945 buildings east of First Avenue South in Burien and all pre -1945 buildings west of 51st Avenue South in Tukwila. Additionally, Subdivision 44', Chelsea Park and several other pre -1955 subdivisions were surveyed in Burien. The subdivisions were found by analysis of the King County Assessor lists to locate series of buildings constructed in the same year on the same street. With a survey of over 3000 structures completed, a database of over 700 records was created of all historically referenced buildings that were presumed extant in 1994 and any unaltered buildings surveyed from the assessor's records. The database is accurate for use in identifying and locating historically valuable properties and as a list of properties to re -survey buildings to determine scarcity of buildings and comparative quality. Since no verification techniques were used, the list is not recommended as a sole source for establishing landmark designation status. Introductory Page 3 Rorie Properties in the City of Tukw' a Surveyor's Report Draft Date: October 13, 1994 The Windshield Survey • West of 51st Ave South Based on a "windshield survey" of all buildings constructed before 1945, I can report the following summary of existing buildings in original condition. Each of the buildings in the columns below is based upon a preliminary assessment that requires further research to verify the history and integrity of each building. The first column contains sites with the potential to join the National Register of Historic Places. The second column includes special architectural examples that might (or do) qualify for designation in a future local landmarks designation program. The third column includes all existing buildings with no readily apparent alterations. Three other groups exist in the survey, but are not displayed in the chart: existing buildings with minor changes; existing buildings with significant alterations; and completely remodeled or demolished buildings. Potential Landmark Buildings from Each Major Historic Period West of 51st Ave South Per•iod• of Construcrinn National Zafidiilark Local Laddinurk E fisting us Original . Pre -1910 2 5 14 1910-19 3 5 39 1920-29 0 4 51 1930-39 1 2 68 1940-44* 1 2 72 1945-54 • Not Eligible 2 Not Surveyed Total* 12 20 244 Note: AH figures are cumulative; figures for the local and existing columns include previous columns. 'One site in all columns includes 42 buildings in original condition in Subdivision '44, Casade View. A Few Conclusion Based in the Survey' ' West of 51st Ave South • .Native American :Sites, Tukwila was inhabited by the Duwamish people for. centuries. Of the myth sites, the ku-LAH-hand or Northwind Fishing Weir, is in original condition. Archeological sites have been found along the Duwamish and Green Rivers in Tukwila. •. • Pioneer Tukwila Foster's maple tree and the Duwamish Church are the only remaining elements of the pioneer period in Tukwila. . • Farming The farming history of Tukwila is preserved in several structures from the large dairy farms of Codiga and Nelsen, to smaller farms of Ray and Lincoln and the later Italian immigrant families of Carrossino and Torre. These structures are endangered by neglect and commercial development. • Jnterurban Communities The towns of Allentown, Foster, Riverton and Tukwila were primarily created as a result of construction of the Interurban Trolley Line in 1902. By 1912, the entire area had been subdivided and platted for homes and businesses. Many small homes exist from this period in all styles: the one story pyramid house, simple & elaborate craftsman style homes, and very simple front & side gable houses. Allentown Acres Addition of 1906 is the subdivision most easily understood by the visitor, and contains 90 years of inexpensive homes. • Interurban Community Historic Districts The communities of Allentown and Riverton include sufficient properties for nomination as a historic district from the Interurban period (1902-29). Riverton today has 19 original condition homes and the OC Thompson store. Many other homes exists with minor alterations. . • Community Facilities: 1920s From the 1920s, community facilities were built for the maturing Interurban suburbs. Some facilities still exist include the Tukwila Grade School (A National Landmark) and the Tukwila Community Club Hall, the Riverton Hospital (Dr. Nichols House), the Duwamish and Allentown Bridges, and the Rainier View Community Club. Tukwila, Page 1 I—ilstoric Properties in the City -of • Tukwila Surveyor's Report Draft Date: October 13, 1994 • WWII Defense Industry During WWII, northern Tukwila was an important part of WWII defense industries through Boeing and related companies. The original Boeing Building 105 exists from 1909, but no WWII Boeing buildings remain in Tukwila. Jorgensen Forge is the largest WWII industry building extant. • WWII Defense Industry Housing During WWII, at least three developments were constructed to house defense industry workers in the Duwamish Boeing factories. Chelsea Park in Burien is the largest, followed by Subdivision '44, Casade View in Tukwila with 169 houses and then Subdivision '44, 7th Ave South in Burien which is in the best original condition. • School Facilities: 1939-54 School structures from the 1939-54 reflect the history of post -WWII Tukwila and its continued growth as a residential community. The South Central School District constructed buildings of exceptional modern design including the Showalter School, Southgate Elementary School and the demolished Foster High School. • Missing and Endangered History Several attributes of Tukwila history have not survived over time. No structures remain from Native American villages, pioneer/homestead buildings and logging camps. Although buildings remain, the history of farming in Tukwila north of SR 518 is difficult to sense. Only the endangered Miyao greenhouse remains of Asian American history, the African American history in Tukwila needs further research, and the endangered Ray and Torre buildings remain from Italian American history. The most endangered building type is commercial with less than 10 buildings remaining in any condition from pre -1945. Legal Designation Potential historic properties are divided into severalcategories below. These categories are determined by the criteria established for the National Register of Historic Places and the King County Landmark Commission program. The properties in each category are based on limited research and will most likely be reduced in number with further research that discovers physical changes to the structures. All pre -1945 buildings West of Fifty -First Avenue South were examined to establish the list. National Historic Places Nomination • West of 51st Ave South • ,. The. following. building.appears jn.excellent physical condition with an intact architecturalintegrity from the date of construction. The building responds to a significant national, regional or community historic movement. Riverton Hospital (Dr. Nichols House), 1919, Community Hospital, 13041 E. Marginal Way S. Exceptional Architectural Quality and Community Significance .National Historic Places Nomination: Verification Required West of 51st Ave South The following sites appears in excellent physical condition but require further research to verify architectural integrity from the date of construction. Additional research should be conducted into the human history.of the site. Codiga House, 1919, Farming House and Landscape, 12523 50th Place South Architectural Integrity and Community Significance Haggard House (temp), 1903, Exceptional Folk Design & Craftsmanship, 11532 40th Ave S. Excellent Architectural Integrity and Quality ku-LAH-hand, (Northwind Fishing Weir), Dateless, Native American Cultural Site, 2800 112th S. Physical Integrity and Native American Cultural Significance Riverton Park United Methodist Church, 1910, Community Church, 13001 37th Ave S. Architectural Integrity and Community Significance Showalter School, 1939, Early School Site & Rare Concrete Building, 4628 144th Street S. Exceptional Architectural Uniqueness & Community Significance Subdivision '44, Casade View, 1944, WWII Defense Industry Housing, 37th Ave, etc. National Housing & Political Movements Tukwila, Page 2 Historic Properties in the City of Tukwila Surveyor's Report Draft Date: October 13, 1994 Local Landmark West of 51st Ave South A future Tukwila landmarks program might recognize landmark status for the following structures pending further research into the precise scarcity and integrity of the buildings. Sites qualifying as local landmarks should be important to the history of Tukwila and retain their architectural integrity. In reference to common buildings, complete architectural integrity is usually essential. Buildings increase in priority of historic importance with the scarcity of that building type during a given historic period. Any nomination for designation would include a list of other similar buildings remaining from the same period. (All buildings and sites in the two National categories above should be considered for local landmark status.) Allentown Acres Addition, 1906, Interurban Plat, 42-50 Ayes S. between 122 & 125 St. S. Best Intact Subdivision in Tukwila Allentown Bridge, 1927, Pratt Truss Bridge, 12600 42nd Ave S. One of only ten steel bridges left in King County Cavanaugh House (temp), 1901, Subdivision Pyramid House, 4026 130th Street S. Earliest remaining house in this popular pre -craftsman style Duwamish 99 Bridge, 1927, Pratt Truss Bridge, 11600 Pacific Highway S. One of only ten steel bridges left in King County Fetters House (temp), 1919, Single Family House, 14019 37th Ave S. Only brick, craftsman style, house in Tukwila study area Foster High School Stadium, 1952, High School Football & Track Stadium, 4242 144th St. S. Excellent example of cantilever stadium engineering Jorgensen Forge, 1943, Steel Fabrication Plant, 8531 E. Marginal Way S. Original metal sheds of Duwamish industry from WWII Lincoln House, 1908, Early Valley Farmhouse, 13243 40th Ave S. One of six remaining farmhouses in a unique style Northwest House(temp), 1929, Single family house, 3730 142nd St. S. Unique, late 1920s, steep -roofed, shingled house Pacific Highway Signs, 1934-42, Three Electric Signs -(Ben Carol, Southcity and Trudy's) • 14110, 14242, & 15001 Pacific Highway South 2 ':, .. Excellent designs & last remnant of Pacific Highway's trucking .past. ...... Southgate Elementary School, 1950, First Post -WWII School, 4101 131 Street S. • Exceptional modern design by Ralph Burkhard, Architect Thompson, O.C., House, 1914, Riverton Businessman's House, 4049 128th Street S. Exceptional craftsman style house of important citizen Thompson Store, 1928, Furniture Store, 4010 130th Street S. Last intact commercial building at Riverton Crossroads Tukwila, Page 3 • • Historic Properties in the City of Tukwila Surveyor's Report Draft Date: October 13, 1994 Compromised Integrity in Significant Buildings West of Slst Ave South The following structures have had a significant role in Tukwila history, but the architectural integrity has been compromised. Restoration of several buildings is possible. • Boeing Building 105, 1909, Wooden Commercial Building, 9404 E. Marginal Way S. Christian Science Church, 1933, Small Community Church, 13045 42nd Ave S. Codiga Dairy Barn, 1928, Large Dairy Barn, 12523 50th Place S. Delta Masonic Lodge, 1927, Two Story Brick Meeting Hall, 13034 41st Ave S. Duwamish Church, 1870, Oldest Structure in Tukwila, 11814 42nd Ave S. Merkle House, 1908, Wooden Pyramid Roof House, 12244 42nd Ave S. Delia "Grandma" Merkle was maker of home remedies in Allentown Miyao Greenhouse, 1930, Wooden Greenhouse Structures, 11600 39th Ave S. Japanese American business in Quarry/Allentown Monroe House, 1929, House by Skilled Craftsman Paul Monroe, 11616 42nd Ave S. Rainier View Community Club, 1928, Simple Wooden Meeting Hall, 10915 51st Ave S. Ray House, 1900, Farmhouse, 11269 E. Marginal Way S. Early Duwamish farmhouse and later home to Carrossino Family Riverton Heights Presbyterian Church, 1930, Important Community Church, 3728 160th Ave S. Torre House, 1908, Early Allentown House, 3914 115th Street S. Early Allentown house and later home to Torre Family Tukwila, Page 4 • • Historic Properties in the City of Tukwila Surveyor's Report Draft Date: October 13, 1994 The Windshield Survey East of 51st Ave South Most of the historic sites visited in the "windshield survey" east of 51st Avenue South in Tukwila were identified through historic references. No complete survey of all existing pre -1945 buildings has been conducted. Most likely, additional local landmarks would be identified with complete research. Potential Landmark Sites from Each Major Historic Period East of 51st Ave South Period of Construction ;;National rr`tidui rIt ,v Pre -1910 1 3 Survey Incomplete 1910-19 • 0 1 Survey Incomplete 1920-29 . 2 2 Survey Incomplete 1930-39 0 0 Survey Incomplete 1940-44 0 0 Survey Incomplete 1945-54 Not Eligible 0 Survey Incomplete Total 3 3 NA Note: All figures are cumulative; figures for the local and existing columns include previous columns. ocal an( 1/1 r : ; . • tilts s. I'trt National Historic Places Nomination East of 51st Ave South The following buildings and sites appear in excellent physical condition with an intact architectural integrity from the date of construction. Each building or site responds to a significant national, regional or community historic movement. Nelsen House, 1905, Victorian Farmhouse, (State Historic Registry), 15643 West Valley Rd. S. Excellent Architectural Quality and Community Significance Tukwila Grade School, 1920, First Community School (National Register), 14475 59th Ave S. • Architectural Integrity and Community Significance National Historic Places Nomination: Verification Required . East of 51st Ave South The following site appears in excellent physical condition but require further research to verify architectural integrity from the date of construction. Additional research should be conducted into the human history of the site. Bergquist House, 1924, Craftsman Style House, 14455 58 Ave South Architectural Integrity and Community Significance Local Landmark East of 51st Ave South A future Tukwila landmarks program might recognize landmark status for the following structures pending further research into the precise scarcity and integrity of the buildings. Sites qualifying as local landmarks should be important to the history of Tukwila and retain their architectural integrity. In reference to common buildings, complete architectural integrity is usually essential..Buildings increase in priority of historic importance with the scarcity of that building type during a given historic period. Any nomination for designation would include a list of other similar buildings remaining from the same period. (All buildings and sites in the two National categories above should be considered for local landmark status.) Foster Maple Tree, 1865, Northwest corner of Foster Golf Course Tree Planted by Foster on original homestead. Mess Pioneer Family Cemetery, 1900, Family Cemetery, 19200 Frager Ave S. Only remaining family cemetery in Tukwila - Tukwila, Page 5 • Historic Properties in the City of Tukwila Surveyor's Report Draft Date: October 13, 1994 Henke House, 1918, Tukwila Leaders' House; 14222 58th Ave S. Excellent craftsman style house of two important citizens Regal House, 19??, Tukwila Leader's House (Not Located on. Map) Compromised Integrity in Significant Buildings East of 51st Ave South The following structures have had a significant role in Tukwila history, but the architectural integrity has been compromised. Restoration of some buildings is possible. Kassner House, 1904, 14406 59th Ave South Nelsen, Fred, Farm, 1901, 7107 Grady Road S. Large Dairy Barn and Farmhouse Shoemaker House, 1906, Two Story House, 14243 58th Ave South Home of Tukwila's founder, Joel Shoemaker Tukwila Community Club Hall, 1923, Simple Wooden Meeting Hall, 14257 Interurban Ave S. Tukwila Park, 1935, Conservation Core Park, 15300 65th Ave S. Tukwila, Page 6 c 59 S.18 ST 133 ST Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan Figure 3 Zoning & Enterprise Development Zone Map No Scale 401 12/57 u - Inn= 111 gogqr r%1 =U `. �:�.1 =` A Rio lilac) 130 ST El.a1 S 135 ST 7:111111171, • v. r WEI LUR r • I IA sumir tiErime 1111 1111IL IELEM11111 Jai EN -- f1.11111111.11._A(J I I LI1 S140S Zoning Designations * LDR-Low Density Residential MDR -Medium Density Residential HDR -High Density Residential 0 -Office MUO-Mixed Use Office NCC -Neighborhood Commercial Center RC -Regional Commercial CLI-CommerciaVLight Industrial Public Recreation Overlay LDR 0 Tao 01160 1I HDR • • 111a T -:111111s :a Mr li�tili " ■ ll!Li. ©z- 1l III vi.,lelta NMI ii Zia NI --- 0 :7: rAii V u a w... a, Ellill -4,11LN re • - 1 ' " Fa z r. C= r"Ism L 144 ST Enterprise Development Zone Boundary ----- Tukwila City Limits *Comprehensive Land Use Plan designations & boundaries are the same as the zoning designations and boundaries. S146S S148ST S150ST 5 bJTL4IiIM., I m. hk1i1 4111111114111"' ST ST S 139 ST S 140 ST S 144 ST 0) S 146 ST LU S148ST pm A..,11111 t 'AB X71 /I Mg Ji*Alio.00 ����, D R _ � I �mm 11■laboara S 158 s ' 11 —His,. N S150ST S 152 ST W . ATTACHMENT TWO S • 'n. brook Creek Lake Washington z F Q WtSt v*uLr Ito NF PERIMETER SEATTLE—TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOEING FIELD/ , KING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Kramer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1917 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 LEGEND PACIFIC HIGHWAY REVITALIZATION PLAN STUDY AREA TUKWILA CITY LIMITS 0-15% SLOPE • F7_Al 5-15% SLOPE 15-25% SLOPE OVER 25% SLOPE CITY OF TUKWILA SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SLOPES IN TUKWILA TUKWILA 3/4V 84TH AVE S S • 'n brook Creek o� / Lake Washington W{S1 VAl1IY *D ERIMETER BOEING FIELD/ KING COUNTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SEATTLE -TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT L LEGEND PACIFIC HIGHWAY REVITALIZATION PLAN . - HISTORIC CREEK KCM Kromer, Chin & Mayo, Inc. 1917 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Y01 STUDY AREA CITY OF TUKWILA SURFACE. WATER MANAGEMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TUKWILA CITY LIMITS ATTACHMENT FOUR HISTORIC CREEK CORRIDORS Rainier Golf Course AndCountryClub S 116 St King County Airport (.Hilltop Elementary School Highline Home Health/Hospice Agency Hope Christian Church 12847 Military Rd. S. Riverton Clinic 13050 Military Rd. S. — Cascade View Elementary School 13601 32 Ave. S. Riverton Medical Center 13030 Military Rd. S. 0 W South Seattle Spine Clinic 13100 Military Rd. S. S128St)J Highline Community Hospital S130St 3eatac S 133 St S 135 St Riverton Park United Methodist Church 3188 S.140 St. Riverton Heights Lutheran Church Seatac Park FmCWU Branch Campus Riverton Heights Elementary School Cascad S 140 St Neighborhood Resource Center Church By The Side Of The Road Valvue Sewer District 14816 Miliary Rd. S. S 144 St Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan Figure 2 Community Facilities Map No Scale ED 12/97 Southgate Park 40 Ave. S. & S. 133 St. King County, South Central Swimming Pool 44 14 S. 144 St. Foster High School 4242 S. 144 St Showalter Middle School ci)/ 4628 S. 144 St. CD v4 4 4. Tukwila School District Administration S 146 St irr S 148 St A Fire Station #53 4237 S. 144 St. Foster Library 4205 S. 14+St. King County Housing Authority Water District 125 rn . S 150 St S 152 St 1 a S 154 St State Patrol Office SR518 0D N Sea Tac International Airport 14111. Washington )/ IMemorial / Park 1 S 160 St Legend Bus Stop 11 Church (� Library School Law Enforcement Facilities Park or Recreation Facility Medical Facility WUTC =Jr 4112 0 0 Washington Utility Transportation Communication Fire Station Airport Post Office ATTACHMENT ; FIVE 0 0 rn a O 0 0 20600 1600 Eo eY5Y 0,7 5 X YZA ANDOVER PARK EAST 700 6 9900 z r W ES? V ALLE HWY 31900 25700 10200 • W W J h • ANDOVER PARK EAST 4141* 32700 0 0 co N r) WEST VALLEY HWy ANDOVER PARK WEST 21700 58 AVE S SOUTHCENTER Russe4 1-5 ON RAMP MACAD 178100 53 AVE $ 51 AVE S [ 151 AVE S uN 11700 1300 88001 42 AVE S 70 00 0 0 42 AVE S co 5 — Eo m 8900 19001 30100 No - 0 N V) N \E\C 0 0 0 Co cis fj O MIWTARY O to P 4o scr 4 0 N , N /64/3 6 Gf 14 AVE S S 0 0 r ZMIK 1 FIGURE 3• 16000 1991 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 24 HOUR AWDT JOHN W. RANTS ROSS EARNST RON CAMERON MAYOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC VOLUME SCALE 5000 20000 0� (OR LESS) 10000 25000 15000 30000 1-5,1-405, AND SR -518 ARE APPROXIMATELY HALF SCALE FILE: H:\MAPS\TRAFFIC\FLOW.DWG STUDY LI MI T SOUTH END &.W. 00 ".%:q..14„.;44' • ;.; _�:09 !j tMiItiTititd;TilitlTl!iTits!i'isi'4iiiFi?i_i?iYiie:t3t�!!ililtfiti� # 11. `� 04!i!:!6!i!ai!:!itir iiiWi�iii'ahhatieleALiWAI!i: 14 Ali ii ig iii I iailil laiiia is DENSITY LEGEND 99 Amb. urn"— ru 1T.01T.T101 SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Huirdrup TITLE DRIVEWAY DENSITIES FIGURE 8-8 0.1111*1.01 1.11.11 E. 011A1. n \;nn\n1lR1R\42(10\dwn\dvwvden.dnn Aun 13. 1997 14' 59: 08 POVt Hl Y BAY OR S 2141 641E 5 1E1, OR 3 L 3 6464... _6464. Iu41 .1,t s [kalif ltiv ' — Icln wt s i •�ii't��,l. DES tt Ve `.i 41 S4t�• \ nr $ 3h..t:�t 11141 .. M0 I NES wKING C 0 d'`�' x.141 641E 3 \ �; ii rirrr.%fr riiii ////� �/✓%%%j��Ti .ti_�i 6464.___- 0, � ri✓rij ii///� Atil+ittT♦tit�I�i. ss �,IL.. .� - _ KENT - r. itfit DENSI TY LEGE[O 11611 99 _\1XT iT,rtI.00, 0[I113T, t.T 01 Tt[.tIO.TE: SR o0 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT 5w.rdrup TITLE DRIVEWAY DENSITIES FIGURE 8-7 1:41 1411201. 141:\111n\n af19\42nn\rlwn\rlvwvripn dnn Ann 11 1947 14.511-'3F 11[.11.1, 3 011,3. • • SEATTLE -TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT ;$$$$ DE NSI TY LEGEND LI Wt 1-h WVE .11. E04LM T» -U au VOwvf L[ 1(�rr >�� OU RIwrlh LC fT\sno\n11919\4200\rlwo\rlvwvden flan Aun. 13. 1997 14:92:33 • • Table 8 - 7 Existing Driveways Along SR 99 Jurisdiction Driveway Density Location Federal Way Light 0-20 driveway/mile S. 356th Street to S. 348th Street Kent Medium 20-40 driveway/mile S 348th Street to MP 12.15 King County Medium 20-40 driveway/mile MP 12.15 to S. 272nd Street King County Heavy > 40 driveway / mile S. 272nd Street to MP 14.15 — Kent Heavy > 40 driveway / mile MP 14.15 to SR 516 Des Moines Heavy > 40 driveway / mile SR 516 to S. 216th Street SeaTac Heavy > 40 driveway / mile S. 216th Street to S. 208th Street SeaTac Medium 20-40 driveway / mile S. 208th Street to S. 176th Street Tukwila Heavy > 40 driveway / mile S. 176th Street to S. 160th Street Medium 20-40 driveway / mile S. 160th Street to S. 152nd Street Tukwila Medium 20-40 driveway / mile S. 152nd Street to S. 130th Street • Light 0-20 driveway / mile S. 130th Street to S. 116th Street Table 8 - 8 Land Use Along SR 99. Jurisdiction Land Use Type Location Federal Way Undeveloped S. 356th Street to S. 336th Street Kent Business & Commercial S. 336th Street to S 304th Street 1.50 Residential S. 304th Street to Mile Post 12.15 King County Residential Mile Post 12.15 to S. 272nd Street 2.00 Business & Commercial S. 272nd Street to Mile Post 14.15 Kent Business & Commercial Mile Post 14.15 to SR 516 Des Moines Business & Commercial SR 516 to S. 216th Street SeaTac Business & Commercial S. 216th Street to S. 152nd Street Tukwila Business & Commercial S. 152nd Street to S. 140th Street Residential S. 140th Street to S. 128th Street Undeveloped S. 128th Street to S. 116th Street Table 8 - 9 Traffic Growth Rate Jurisdiction Recommended Growth Rate Federal Way 2.50 King County 1.50 Kent 1.50 Des Moines 1.50 Sea Tac 2.00 Tukwila 2.00 Project 2.00 ti ti � Gy N N 5 Z 2 Wt 5 SU9 tP '•y.,<a1i'��'L11990M0°n.T Innn.n91 7tiZ1 _1J4 1141 LEGEND tulll.:ii nC 03094J[I.l Yii10.1I.1 YAM u0[KLV[O 99 41111, iMIYOTOM VMS frjj D(Iag tYT 01 T44MlT.TIOY SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Sverdrup TITLE .LAND USEAGE FIGURE -- _-- tNORL. C. 11.11 V n \inh\013818\4200\dwq\]anduse.dgn Aug. 13. 1997 14: 56: 43 1. WWI, • • • HAAT M" n[W 4 f l Eln .VE S S Oq KING CO / \�qLl lagV RD`_ SAN Ise. VIEW OR AWE AVE ' S IMI VI DR. At. 2111 AV lit AVE 5 DES MOINESI ST IN ::❖:•.-• _ \ ... •� AWE ......:.;.;yS:::::::::•. o.:;:•• .:.:•:::::�:.:::.. 99 qF 1E10AI At DA [In AVE S KENT f MLI --I. ITn qp 516 1O[ w; :tititi� m400.1 1 LEGEND wSI1ESS AND CO4ERCIM. RESIDENTIAL wavCLOED 99 A ■umnomR n[n D[IRRTY[Yi OS }RERS10ttut[OY 9R 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Sverdrup TITLE LAND USEAGE FIGURE [MARE IFA n- \ ir,h\f111R1R\4200\dwo\landuse.don Auo. 13. 1997 14:57:26 8413 1/ S. 05145. SEATTLE - TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1titi1 rig IL4;I1 LEGEND gum was AKI COM. Kf10C*ll.l uOEv40vc0 99 a ..,V," eor.n�nr. or tuouo7E.noo SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Sv rdrup TITLE LAND USEAGE FIGURE __ L.w.rsE. IG+ to. u. v E. ODA 0• ' : r,n\ n 1P i n\ 42nn\ rlwn\ 1 AnrincP rinn Alin 1947 14: 41: 55 PSI -141 Lucky'. Used Truck. 1 t.ulpment Mn. • .. •-T••.11. PS1-142 United Molor. PSI -148 Bel Tong Thal Restaurant lea. hallo e11•.. 1. M.T. 111Malbk t)1 r . SBATAC geo �IO L/ PS1-150 Pate'• 24 Hour Towing eu.l I..ln. .y..y .-Y1... SoorccAn In..ntorr and Evaluation of Historic Pr.p.rtl.. Associated with Tn.n.port.tIon Washington Stet.. Eastern Washington University. June MI5 PSI -152 M..1 Tim. Drl.•-In .am I..ln.111.b.., ...11114..T i4 s PSI -143 Peelle Auto Serried 1._4 •.•Itl. II by ..T••.14 PSI -144 N.wport.r Apartment. 1.•..I..ItI..I... •..T.•.Il• PSI -145 J 1 L Auto Service INN Iuln. 1111•..r ... M.T.. PSI -147 Johnson Trailer Supplies owl. r.at .10..t .- PSI -148 A C Unllmll.d Used Cars 1 Truck. PSI -149 Pacific Auto Brake 1 Mul Her .ISIS. hnrN III.•.. •. M.T.. PSI -151 U..d Tire World 99 u�A T.JW[LCTCW n.t ocramrYT) tlAY.fdlt.. SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Sverdrup TITLE •HISTORIC TRANSPORTATION PROPERTIES FIGURE 1 PSI -155 PSI -153 Bucky'• Muffler Break Radiator elm h.ln• •le.war 2,14.••, PSI -158 Mldw.y Pr•me 1 Alltnm•nl PSI -154 Yldw•y Dr1e••1n Th PSI -157 S.• Tac Tr•neml.slon PSI -158 99 �.■..RI.9TO• „Alt DIPAIT01.T 0 ., TTrg lgg T10 S..rlew Motel SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT PSI -159 Sverdrup loaC Rose's His .y Inn PS1-180 Budget B.tterle. Rett's R•di.lor 1 Muffler PSI -181 Redondo H•Ight• Auto Parts/Towing (MI r..m..ywq 11.11** PSI -182 Al. Holz Tr•nsmisslon PSI -183 Steel Lake Village AUBURN PSI -184 FEDERAL WAY PSI -185 Used Tire Wherehou.• C f""" Source: An Ineentorr and tvlu•tlon of Historic Properties Associated with Tr•nsport.tIon In V•shington Sl.t• Washington University, fun• 1990 PS1 188 Motel Siesta TITLE HISTORIC TRANSPORTATION PROPOERTIES FIGURE 2 Non Stop Bar 1 Grill Pae Auto 5.1•. Raeldanna Bernie 1 Boy. Market South city Mot•1 larmine T1.1 Culalna 99 Aft- ■A]D[DtUDToa ]LiT.A....T SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT R•eldene• SEATAC P•on a Loan V,I.P. Sporle Bar Restaurant IMO P.M. a1.a..r ... Emerald TAM Cul.ln• SOCK!: 0 DO1 r$eld Nee.. lull 15 1997 Bark•r. Antique. TITLE POTENTIAL HISTORIC TRANSPORTATION PROPERTIES FIGURE I If) 11071 MOINES Antique Junction • Redondo r.lnlI Oroc.rr• POvERTr 9.r 1 ITO I AUBURN w • Prop.rly•n.. been In..nlorl.A by n Unl..rdl7 5 ■5007 n.la /l.+i.. July 10.1997 •_.cr-! L_ 99 _ ■.[Y1Y979Y O t..RY[Y7 7[.Y[.OR17 SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT TITLE POTENTIAL HISTORIC TRNASPORTATION PROPERTIES FIGURE 2 -11-4 Table 8 -10 Non -Motorized Facilities & Parks Along SR 99"" Jurisdictions Parks in Vicinity of SR 99 Non Motorized Facilities in Vicinity of SR 99 Federal Way Sacrajawea Park Trails within Wildwood and Hylebos State Park Wildwood Park Steel Lake Park City Center Park Hylebos State Park King County No parks within project limits No facilities within project limits Kent Parkside Wetlands Park No facilities within project limits Des Moines Midway Park SR 516 crossing on one side (concrete sidewalk) Parkside Park South 216th Street crossing (asphalt path) Parkside Wetlands South 260th Street crossing (concrete sidewalk) South 272nd Street crossing (concrete sidewalk) SeaTac Angle Lake Park 170th Street crossing (west side existing, east side proposed) South 188th Street crossing (existing) South 160th Street crossing (proposed) • Concrete sidewalk along SR 99 (Phase 1 & 2 projects) Tukwila No parks within project limits No facilities within project limits (1) Information taken from jurisdictions Comprehensive Plans r_, • S HIST. ST 200TH 5 S 200TH ST SEATAC OINES S 214TH 52 5 222.0 ST 5 22200 cem' SEATACI ,? 5-4:z KENT Lake Ferny/ck LEGEND A PARKS ❑ SCHOOLS RELI GI OUS INSTITUTION 15 MEDI CAL SERVICES 0 OTHERS KEY 22 ANGLE PARK 23 SEATTLE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (ELEMENTARY & HIGH SCHOOL) 24 AIRPORT CHIROPRACTIC 25 FIRE STATION 26 MAORONNA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 27 OOMINION COLLEGE LIBRARY 28 CHRISTIAN FAITH CENTER 29 VISTA RETIREMENT HOME 30 CHRISTIAN FAITH SCHOOL (ELEMENTARY & HIGH SCHOOL) 31 MONARCH CARE CENTER 32 DES MOINES VETERINARY HOSPITAL 33 FIRE STATION 34 MIOWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 35 MOUNT RAINIER HIGH SCHOOL 36 PACIFIC MIDDLE SCHOOL 37 WASHINGTON STATE VEHICLE INSPECTION 38 NUTRITIONAL PHARMACY 39 MOM AND DAD'S SENIOR VOLUNTARY CENTER 40 MIOWAY POST OFFICE 41 HIGHLINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 42 PARKSIOE PARK 43 PARKSIOE WETLAND 44 SEATTLE FULL GOSPEL CHURCH 45 MIDWAY DRIVE-IN THEATRE 46 EVERGREEN LUTERAN HIGH SCHOOL 47 SEATTLE FULL GOSPEL CENTRAL CHURCH 48 MIDWAY OENTAL CENTER 49 FAMILY MEDICINE 50 MIDWAY FOOT ANO ANKLE CLINIC 51 W000MONT CHIROPRACTOR MASSAGE CENTER 52 REDONDO PHYSICAL THERAPY 53 FIRE STATION 99 SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT _ WASHINGTON STATE WDEPARTMENT OF , �S OP TRANSPORTATION YT Sverdrup C2v It_. Itit: IN TITLE PUBLIC SERVICES FIGURE 2 C,1 C11 co O rn rn CU fU Ot 7 m cu co 01 E N / 01 N CO m 0 O 55 s 2a9Tn ST Steel Lake 3 31CTM 3T n 320Tn 3SOT.. FEDERAL WA Nor Lair 3 344 TN 3 99 SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT _ WASHINGTON STATE .,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION tows r uu+r rrrtT Cake KillO, LEGEND A IS 0 PARKS , SCHOOLS RELI GI OUS I NSTI TUTI ON MEOI CAL SERVI CES OTHERS KEY 54 CHIROPRACTOR 55 FAMILY DENTAL CLINIC 56 CHURCH OF CHRIST WEST CAMPUS 57 FEDERAL WAY VISION CENTER 58 ANIMAL HOSPITAL 59 SMART START CHILDCARE LEARNING CENTER 60 SACAJAWEA PARK 61 SACAJAWEA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 62 SAINT VINCENT OE PAUL SCHOOL 63 MAYHEW CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE 64 WILOW000 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 65 WILOW000 PARK 66 A-1 DENTURE CLINIC 67 HELENA CATHOLIC GIFT CENTER 68 CHI ROPRACTOR 69 PREGNANCY HELP MEDICAL CLINIC 70 FAMILY OENTAL CENTER OF FEDERAL WAY 71 CHIROPRACTOR 72 FEDERAL WAY HIGH SCHOOL 73 PETTIBON CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 74 CAREPLUS MEDICAL CENTER 75 FAMILY DENTAL CENTER OF FEDERAL WAY 76 PACIFIC CHIROPRACTIC 77 FEDERAL WAY LIBRARY 78 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 79• HIGHLINE PHYSICAL THERAPY ANO SPORTS CLINIC 80 CITY CENTER PARK (UNDERDEVELOPED) 81 POST OFFICE 82 BIBLE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH 83 FEDERAL WAY CITY HALL 84 FEDERAL WAY POLICE 85 TWIN LAKE BAPTIST CHURCH 86 ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL 87 HEALTH SOUTH REHABILITATION CENTER 88 NORTHWEST CHIROPRACTIC CENTER 89 HYLEBOS STATE PARK 90 CHRISTIAN LIFE PREP Sverdrup w TITLE PUBLIC SERVICES FIGURE 3 bS rn rn Qf N rn 7 0 01 E N 0 N m a 0 i —.d7 Table 8 -11 Existing Utilities in the Vicinity of SR 99(1) Utility Utility Company Sewer Federal Way Water & Sewer District Des Moines Sewer Lake Haven Sewer District Midway Sewer District . Val Vue Sewer District Rainier Vista Sewer District King County Solid Waste Department Telephone . U S West Communications AT&T Communications, Inc. Power Puget Sound Power & Light Company (Puget Sound Energy) Seattle City Light ' BPA City of Tacoma Natural Gas Washington Natural Gas (Puget Sound Energy) Water Lake Haven Utility District Highline Water District King County Water District #43 King County Water District #125 King County Water District #75 King County Water District #64 King County Water District #124 Federal Way Water & Sewer District Seattle Water Television Cable Cable TV Puget Sound Tribune Pub. Co. TCI Cablevision of Auburn Northwest Cablevision, Inc. Petroleum Products Olympic Pipeline Storm Sewer Port of Seattle (1) Information taken from franchise and permit listings Permits and Approvals Permit Approval Grantor Conditions Requiring When To Initiate Who Applies References Section 10 Army Corps of Engineers Obstruction, alteration, or improvement of any navigable water (rechanneling, piers, wharfs, dolphins, bulkheads, buoys...) Section 404 Army Corps of Engineers Coast Guard Coast Guard Section 9 FAA Airport/ FAA Highway Clearance Restricted FERC Hydro -Electric Land Fish & Wildlife USFWS Coordination Wetlands USFWS Report Endangered/ Threatened Species Prime & Unique Farmland 4(f) Historic Section 106 USFWS/NMFS Soil Conservation Service FHWA and Affected Agency OAHP Sole Source EPA Aquifer Hydraulic Dept. of Fisheries and Dept. of Wildlife Water Quality DOE Certification Floodplains DOE/Counties Design Manual September 1990 Discharging,dredging, or placing fill material witin waters of the USA or adjacent wetlands Bridges and causeways in navigable waters, including all tidal influenced streams Airspace intrusion of highway facility (proposed construction in the vicinity of public use/military airports may require FAA notice) Utilize land from a FERC licensed project Consultation required when any waters are proposed to be modified or con- trolled Impact to lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes temporary/ intermittent waters (swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes...) Plant or animal species that are suspected to be, or actually are, of the endangered or threatened status Lands impacted are of prime or unique status Use of park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites of national, state, or local significance Suspected/actual historic/archaeologi- cal properties impacted by project Any activity which may affect the aquifer recharge zone Projects that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any state waters (culvert work, realign- ment, bridge replacement, etc.) Prior to issuance of a federal permit/ license for activity which involves discharge into navigable waters, 'certification of compliance with state water quality standards is necessary Any structure/activity which may adversely affect the flood regime of stream within the flood zone Figure 240 -la Early stages of project development Early stages of project development After design During design/prior to work During preparation of environmental document During preparation of environmental document During preparation of environmental document During preparation of environmental document During preparation of environmental document During preparation of environmental document During preparation of environmental document During preparation of environmental document After/during preparation of environmental document During project development After/during preparation of environmental document District Rivers and Harbors Act —1899 33 USC 401 s 10 District Sec. 404 FWPCA 1972• 33 USC 1344 HQ Bridge Rivers and Harbors Division Act — 1899 33 USC s9 District FHPM 6-1-1-2 FAA Rags. P.77 District 18 CFR Part 2.13 District FWCA s 2 33 USC 66., 662 District requests HQ 49 USC 1651 EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) District 16 USC 1531-1543 requests HO District District District to HQ 7 CFR 650 49 USC 1651 (f) DOT Act of1966s4 (Amended 5/19/78) FHPM 7-7-2(20) 23 CFR 138 RCW 43.51.750 36 CFR 800 16 USC 470 Historic Preservation Act s 106 District SDWA P.L. 93-523 District RCW 75.20.100 DOE issues w/o requests FWPCA3401 RCW 90.48.260 WAC 173-225 District State -Flood Control Zone Act of 1935 Federal -EO 11988 (Flood plain Mgmt.) 240-11 Pae Auto Sales State Form In•ur•ne• I; � •S i � I misintin um. „at. f ,..., , mr.J_______.„... 1:wir.R.. ,�,� �Il,1 IIIIMM� 11.111111.1111L 1/ r -- TULW 4411 -2111 ' ________,115„ -To if to \ PARi O • Nen Slop 9•r L Grill South SIt7 NoI.I P•.n a Loan SEATAC Emerald Thal Cul.ln• 51.1• Farm 1n•ur•ne• 9•rk.r• Anllqu.• f•f MI•el0 -�/ a DrrlR.r -, Two•-f�a, SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Sverdrup TITLE POTENTIAL HISTORIC TRANSPORTATION PROPERTIES• FIGURE t PSI -141 Lucky' U..d Truck. 1 t-ul•m•nt PSI -142 United ilotor. PSI -146 AI -u M1 - Vilma iiiirrpErM1/ ilikurson parammift � r 9.1 Tont Thai Re.l.ur.nl Ile. 11.11.. • I a....T.. In -Or ,�' NORMANDY I \ PARI I PSI -150 P.t.. 24 Hour Towing Satires- PAn 4n•ent•ry •ndl £dnh..tlon of 144.lorio a Tr.nsperl.tIon ••.h .• lntl.n St.l C ■..hlntlon University. len. 1093 • O PSI -152 0•..1 Tlm• Drl..•In 1• • f PSI -143 Peelle Auto Service I.M. 1..1114 MI , . .-r... 14. PSI -144 N•.port.r Ap.rtm•nt• 1.•.1 1..111. MI •.. •-T.•.u. PSI -145 1 1 L Auto S•rrle• IWO1..111.M1I..11 HO.. PSI -147 Johnson Trailer Supplies *.1..1..111. �...r.. PSI -148 A C Unlimited Used C.r. L Truck. 10•111 1..1 • MI ... •. 1..T.. PSI -149 natio Auto 9r.k. L Muffler eau P..ui..y...> s.. •..T.. PS1.151 Used Tir• lorld 1.0111 P..m. MOW, ._ 1....T amok sukl.cTOM stat[ 9[1. V7). -.t.R.RY[MT T SR 99 PACIFIC HIGHWAY REDEVELOPMENT Sverdrup TITLE HISTORIC TRANSPORTATION PROPERTIES FIGURE 1 CI • X OF TLKWILA J 1 i t o. ;J L.....ry— MDR L:' -i T ITI 6 066/6 City of Tukwila Pacific Highway Revitalization Area �r LJ NOM February 28, 1997 Zoning Designations LDR-Low Density Residential MDR -Medium Density Residential HDR -High Density Residential 0 -Office MUO-Mixed Use Office NCC -Neighborhood Commercial Center RC -Regional Commercial Gill-Commercial/Light Industrial Public Recreation Overlay - Tukwila City Limits DR D LdR-- IMMO • s, 130 sr. g‘l /i.3/V'19v 690 Pe Hilfilefm41 LDR u. r c1 H DR: i IDR 4111p Key Map 11�k1 41111_1"n"C11�Ir" '' 11NIIH1 IIIIl1111111111 111111/ 1114 11111 1�:. 1 nl • -111l 1 IIIdNNlll 111 �� 1✓ w 111116 luul-_III 11111111111..:4..• ■ IIh r 11111111111wN1a1111111 / i - 1 t' IIIIt1111111I 1[11111111 IIgi�Ill MI ' �Iltll .�• �• — \— w 111 M�11 1111111111;!1';!111 P , 1` ..� w :14111 .x11111: , `"'w nl. ii1 M ria1 mp(�i � • 1 P. i Illr"^r 1w srg1 I! II I' S'� r- �� �=�111��:��•`�_ ` �1►�-'��1��h �M1 �I BI1I"J15 1111 1 ..'-"11111 ;edr 1•I.4.n.: - 161. oo( o vv (7v1 M.F Rondo 1 Calor Linc. r--1 Ifl'?Xr F\IoE Lao wre ray. Study Boundry EDR-Area/Corridor Study SR 99 Redevelopment Project RuKarlinu Legend in)yam 1-7 ScmntlK Rooc1rs 0 1 . 2 4 Scale in Miles EINk a F L1 ,o m 3 s 0 cn Pa[oad luaiudolanapaa 66 IIS xpn2s ioppioJ/ rv- 2IQa • Focus Map 3 edr Plan.: 800.3520050 fv1 Rads ® Major Rods �c1-ince F7-1 WO -Yr Roca Zoom W.b ..r. EDR-Area/Corridor Study SR 99 Redevelopment Project IM vv Powerlircs Railroads Legend Superraaa S:as Elij limed s.c. WYa ©Scoria.%Reoepa. 0 1/4 1/2 Scala In Mlles Focus Map 5 • ■ 8 8 ■1•■ ••■ no7o‘t_ ULi, � b q G4 • ■11• :r 71f ,r1 !r4 :rf;friMI rVI5lt PdM, AVON A' r, T119,, 1114104 Sid 7+U aaaaaaaaaaa ■1111•••••• •.ailii.•a1i. -4 y fn 1 MINIM EMU Ear mom 111 - rom1 1 NMI Nis ate 111 NM EDR-Area/Corridor Study SR 99 Redevelopment Project imvimaillimi 9,4 esN 41) oQ� Scale In Mlles N 0. 2 0 L 0 I3 D eu I I Scala In Mllec Focus Map 10 EDR-Area/Corridor Study SR 99 Redevelopment Project O C jEL l J 1 1 Scale In Mlles • Focus Map 12 •r edr Phon.: 800-362.0050 ICO -Yr Flood lam n Wiry ©Study Bounder/ EDR-Area/Corridor Study SR 99 Redevelopment Project Legend Poomdirros RuYvds 111 Saa.ovc Raoapa. 0 114 1/2 Scale In Mlles Focus Map 14 • e Plor.�: BOO•:is 2.00SO [NI EDR-Area/Corridor Study SR 99 Redevelopment Project Legend Raab n Wra..ya , 1 _ .1 i Fu.alian ' n 9�ipvfund Sian XLimed Sim fivi M. Rab c.- lady guneyy �F 1 Raib b nay WrIX' b I S ails< Reactors =Gumim ~. C1 a' l; 1 100 -yr Rood Zane. 0 114 1/2 Scale In Mlles *iv