Loading...
Koll North Creek - Final EIS - 1981 I. I I I ! I , -I -I -I "I- , 'I I I ~\I , I I.t I , :- ,I ~I I ,I , I :1 .,:: . '", FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR KOLL CENTER CITY of BOTHELL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT in compliance with: THE WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1971 CHAPTER 43.21c REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON REVISED SEPA GUIDELINES, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 21, 1978 CITY OF BOTHELL SEPA GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THE NORTH CREEK VALLEY PLANNING AREA DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT: February 20, 1981 DATE COMMENTS DUE: March 27, 1981 DATE OF ISSUE OF FINAL: June 3,1981 COST OF COPIES: $13.00 Kol\ (Sc.hY\..h.er) I I . I I I I '. '1 I I . I I I .. , I i I I FOREWORD This Final EIS includes the complete revised text of the Draft EIS, ali comments received during the review period and responses to those comments. Revisions in the text were made in response to the comments. Each revision is noted in the margin by ~ the symbol of an R with a slash through it. Major revisions have been made to the sections on natural resources and transportation. All policies of Bothell's plan for the North Creek Valley are now included and discussed in the DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL. The Technical Appendix to this EIS contains several technical studies as well as background information related to the project. The documents were bound separately due to the length of the Final EIS and the detailed technical nature of much of the information in the appendix. The Technical Appendix is available by request from the Department of Community Development. A petition for a public hearing on the Draft EIS was received by the Department of Community Development. A public hearing was held and a complete transcript of the hear ing and responses are included in this document. - i - I I I i I I I I I, I I I I I I I , , I ! I I Table of Contents FOREWORD. . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS . SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF THE FINAL EIS Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures Elements of the Physical Environment . Elements of the Human Environment . . . Elements of the Economic Environment. . Alternatives to the Proposed Plan '. . Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Name of Proposal and Sponsor . Project Location. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. Other Agency File Numbers. . . . Construction Schedule . . . . . Physical and Engineering Aspects Relationship to Existing Plans and Regulations. EXISTING CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Elements of the Physical Environment: Topography Geology . . Soils . . . Vegetation. Wildlife . . Water.. .. .. Air Quality. Noise .. .. .. Natural Resources Light and Glare.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emission . Land Use .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . Elements of the Human Environment: Population and Housing . . . Social.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Transportation and Circulation Public Services . Energy . . . Utilities. . . . Human Health . Aesthetics. . . . . . Recreation.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Archaeological/Histor ical Resources. Elements of the Economic Environment. SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. . . . . IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES,. . . . Pa~e . i 1 3 . 5 5 7 11 11 12 15 15 15 15 18 19 29 29 31 33 36 39 42 49 55 57 59 59 67 71 71 93 97 99 102 102 106 . 106 111 119 120 Page ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 LETTERS OF COMMENT AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS TO DRAFT EIS 141 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 2: Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 3: Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 4: Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 5: Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 6: Creek Channel Cross - Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 7: Air Quality Receptor Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Figure 8: Noise Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 9: Noise Contours (L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Figure 10: Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 11: Census Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 12: Existing Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure 13: Retail Employment Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Figure 14: Office Park Employment Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . . 77 Figure 15: Light Industry Employment Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 16: 1980 PM Peak Hour Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Figure 17: 1985 PM Peak Hour Traffic (without Project) . . . . . . . . . 82 Figure 18: 1982 PM Peak Hour Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 (with Initial Koll Development) Figure 19: 1985 PM Peak Hour Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 (with Full Koll Development) Figure 20: PM Peak Hour Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 (with Full Development - North Creek Valley) Figure 21: Sketches of Existing Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Figure 22: Visual Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 LIST OF TABLES Table I: Koll Business Center Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table II: Air Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table III: Emissions Due to Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Table IV: Carbon Monoxide Emission Factors for Various Vehicle Speeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table V: Predicted Eight -Hour Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide . . . 48 Table VI: Existing Noise Levels (dBA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Table VII: L Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table VIII: Predicted L Noise Levels (dBA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table IX: Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table X: Population Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Table XI: Housing Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Income Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . Proportion of All Trips by Types of Employment, Average Trip Length!: , , , , , , , , , , , , Trip Generation,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intersection Capacity and Levels of Service Related to Completion of Improvement , , , ,', , XVII: Heating and Cooling Degree Days for Seattle, XVIII: Projected Property Taxes , , , , , , ,., , XIX: Projected Utility Taxes , , , , , , , , , , XX: Short-Term Employment and Income Impacts , XXI: Summary of Site Coverage Alternatives '. , " XII: XIII: XIV: XV: XVI: Pa~e 70 75 79 83 90 99 , 114 114 115 123 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Introduction ACTION SPONSOR The Koll Company 2021 152nd N,E, Redmond, Washington 98052 (206) 643-1776 PROPOSED ACTION The sponsor is requesting all necessary approvals to develop a commercial/retail, office and light industrial complex on a 14O-acre parcel of land in general conformance with the North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan, PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located within the Bothell city limits, bounded on the west by Interstate 405, on the south by N,E, 195th Street, on the east by 120th Avenue N,E, and by the King County-Snohomish County line on the north, LEAD AGENCY City of Bothell Department of Community Development RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL/CONTACT PERSON Daniel W, Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st N,E, Bothell, Washington 98011 (206) 486-8152 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS This environmental impact statement has been prepared under the direction of the City of Bothell Department of Community Development, Additional research and analysis was provided by the following firms: Environmental Analysis and Document Preparation: Wilsey &. Ham, Inc, 1980 112th Avenue N,E, Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 454-3250 Industrial Market Analysis: Rea1esearch Cumberland Realty Group, Ltd, Retail Impacts: Bill Mundy &. Associates, Inc, 900 Seattle Tower Building 3rd &. University Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 623-2935 _ 1 _ -z- '. i , , I , i , ~ I I I '. ! , I , I i i I ; i I ,:i I j I . I I ,I I I I d I "~ ArchaeologicaJ/Histor ical Resources: Geo-Recon p, 0, Box 55189 Seattle, Washington 98155 (206) 362-9484 REQUIRED PERMITS/ APPROV ALS Substantial Development Permit (Shoreline Management Act of 1971, RCW 90,58,140) Hydraulics Permit Construction/Extension of Sewer System Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Flood Control Zone Permit Platting Reclassification of Zoning and PUD Approval (A Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit may be required) COST OF COPIES Final EIS - $13,00 Technical Appendix - $6,00 DA TE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS February 20, 1981 DATE OF ISSUE OF FINAL EIS June 3, 1981 I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I ! I i , I i I , I , i Recipients of the Draft EIS Federal A~encies U,S, Environmental Protection Agency, Region X State A~encies Department of Commerce and Economic Development Governor of the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Office of Community Development Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Game Department of Natural Resources Department of Social and Health Services Transportation Commission Regional A~encies Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO, 2 copies) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Puget Sound Council of Governments - King Subregional Council Puget Sound Council of Governments - (Main Office) Puget Sound Council of Governments - Snohomish Subregional Council Snohomish County A~encies/Offices Snohomish County Department of Public Works Snohomish County Economic Development Council 9 Snohomish County Parks Department Snohomish County Planning Department Snohomish County Public Utility District No, 1 Kin~ County A~encies/Offices King County Department of Budget and Program Planning (4 copies) Cities - Kirkland Redmond Lake Forest Park Utilities/Services A1derwood Sewer District General Telephone Puget Sound Power &. Light Sno-King Garbage Company Washington Natural Gas Water District No, 104 - 3 - - 4 - , , I ! I I -II . "~ I .I I I t' , I , ~ I I I I , , I i I I I, I , . I i I Libraries Bothell Public Library (5 copies) North Creek Branch of Sno-Is1e Regional University of Washington Library Architecture &: Urban Planning Branch Newspapers Daily Journal of Commerce North Shore Citizen Seattle Post-Intelligencer Seattle Times Western Sun Others Bothell Chamber 'of Commerce South County Homeowners' Group Washington Environmental Council Additional Copies Sent To: King County Cooperative Extension League of Women Voters Muckleshoot Indian Tribal Council U,S, Bureau of Indian Affairs U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service U,S, National Marine Fisheries Service U,S, Senator Lowry Washington State Representative Teutsch Washington State Senator B1euchel .,f ~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , :, '. I I Summary of Contents of Final ElS The Koll Company is requesting approval to d~velop a retail/commercial/office/light industrial complex on a 140,1-acre site in 80th ell, The site, located at the northeast intersection of 1-405 and NE 195th Street, would require rezoning from A (Agricultural) to MU (Mixed Use), as recommended in the North Creek Valley Plan, No area other than North Creek Valley has been recommended for mixed use within Bothell, Based on present market projection, the sponsor estimates that the development, would include up to approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, 350,000 square feet of office space, and 990,000 square feet of light industrial space, The development approval process and market condition could affect the ultimate mix of uses, However, it is not anticipated, at the present time, that the retail would exceed 200,000 square feet, The proposal would include approximately 5,225 parking spaces and 28 acres of stream buffer and natural open space designed to enhance the overall character of the development, ENVlRONMENT.q IMPACTS AND MmGA TlNG MEASURES ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY The entire site would be graded to allow level areas for buildings and parking, This would result in lowering perimeter areas from four to twenty feet, GEOLOGY AND SOILS The existing peat would require surcharging to compress it prior to construction, On- site cut materials would be utilized thereby eliminating the need for fill material, The areas of deepest peat deposits would be preserved in open space, The proponent would develop an erosion control plan during construction and proposed landscaping would minimize erosion upon completion, AIR QUALITY Heating and cooling of buildings, traffic added to local roads, and construction activity would be the expected sources of air pollutants emitted from the project, Increases in traffic would cause the majority of emissions, especially carbon monoxide, With the aid of more stringent federal regulations, pollutant levels from vehicles would remain well within accepted EPA standards, Levels would be further reduced if traffic impacts are mitigated, _ 5 _ Construction impacts could be minimized by operational techniques such as watering, WATER The proposed modifications to the creek channel are intended to result in improved water quality; however, impacts to surface water would occur due to re-alignment of North Creek, intensive site grading, and an increase in impervious surfaces, The banks of the creek would be planted with trees to provide stability and shade, Improvements in water quality are entirely dependent on proper design and construction of the channel, Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces would be collected by underground catch basins and storm sewers routed to a surface retention pond, From here, the water would flow by an existing surface ditch into the Sammamish River, VEGETATION The majority of existing on-site vegetation would be eliminated by the proposed site grading, Natural vegetation would be re-established along the length of the relocated creek channel, and within the greenbelt and greenbelt/storm retention areas, Native trees are proposed along the creek banks to provide shade. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC &. R's) would specify acceptable landscaping plans, Tnput from the Departments of Fisheries and Game would be solicited during the preparation of final designs, Individual parcels would be seeded upon completion of grading if development is not to occur immediately as required by Bothell codes, WILDLIFE Most of the existing habitat (abandoned pastures and the stream channel) would be eliminated during construction, However, upon completion of the project, stream ~ habitat would be improved, riparian habitat and possible marsh/wetland habitats would ~ be created, These can be far more productive than the mix of pasture and shrub habitat 1l presently' covering the site, The success of the proposed habitat improvements is entirely dependent on proper design and careful construction, NOISE Noise impacts from the proposed development would originate from the added traffic volumes and from short-term construction activities, Noise in the area would increase slightly even without the project, Additional traffic would create substantial noise increases along N,E, 19.5th Street near 1-405 and along 1-405 south of the interchange, Activities within the site would be mainly confined to daytime hours, - 6 - , :~ , I ... , I I I , I . I ... I , , I .. I , I , I " I , , I : .~ I ... I , . I '.' I .~ :A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I LIGHT AND GLARE The proposal would add on-site sources of light from overhead lighting of roadways and parking areas and from buildings, Lighting would be directional and would be restricted by CC & R's, and conform with all applicable regulations and energy-saving guidelines. LAND USE Approval of the rezone would permit the former agricultural land, now vacant, to be ~ developed as a mixed-use center, Development of the !lite would have a slight ~ seCondary impact of pressuring additional development of surrounding residential areas. ~ The intensity of the proposed project could have an indirect effect of encouraging development of other valley floor property, The proposal would be controlled by mandatory adherence to applicable land use codes and regulations including specifically the North Creek Valley Plan and its implementing mitigating measures, Adding greenbelt areas, and meanders to North Creek channel and complying with proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions would help to minimize impacts on surrounding land uses, NA ruRAL RESOURCES The existing vacant !lite would be substantially developed into a business center facility iii. upon completion, and prime agricultural soils of the site would be covered by the iii. development, Fossil fuels would be consumed during the construction and operational iii. stages of the project and by vehicles traveling to and from the site, Potential iii. alternative uses of the site would be substantially reduced after development is complete, Augmentation of the proposed North Creek Trail network would reduce the impact of losing the natural character of the site, Site and building conservation techniques would be utilized to reduce energy use, RISK OF EXPLOSION OR HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS A temporary risk of equipment-related accidents would occur during construction, All applicable safety measures would be observed during construction, On-site spillage would be handled by expert consultation, ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT POPULA TION AND HOUSING The.project could have a secondary impact of accelerating the demand for developing housing units in the surrounding areas, Demand for housing units resulting from this proposal could be met by developing present residentially-zoned properties within the area including the adjacent hillside areas, in conformance with the North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan, - 7 - - SOCIAL In addition to changing the lifestyles of the two families currently living on the site, surrounding residents may also perceive their neighborhoods becoming less rural, TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Initial development of the proposed business center would cause the northbound 1- 405/NE 195th Street interchange to operate at Level of Service "D", 85 to 92% of full capacity, When the project is complete in 198' the intersection would be operating at Level of Service "F" with a demand 25% over capacity, The southbound off-ramp would also move to Level of Service ''F'' to accommodate 1985 traffic volumes generated by the project, The remaining intersections have sufficient capacity to handle the estimated additional traffic, If improvements were not made, traffic would divert to other local streets in the area, In order to mitigate the adverse impact to traffic at 1-405/NE 195th Street, widening and signal improvements would be needed to aid traffic flows, Improvements would bring traffic operation at both intersections to Level of Service "B" and allow complete development of the site by 1985, ~ A master traffic plan for the entire city of Bothell, including the North Creek Planning ~ Area, is presently being prepared, ~ PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Completion of the project would create substantial additional demands for fire protection from the City of Bothell Fire Department, All buildings would be designed with required fire detection and supression devices, Recommendations from the fire department would be incorporated into the design of the site and structures, Police The proposed development would create additional demands on law enforcement personnel that would be offset by additional tax revenues generated by the project, Certain crime-re1ated activities associated with developments of this size and type can be expected to occur, Police recommendations, approved locking devices and building and parking security lighting would assist police patrols, Schools The proposal is not expected to cause a substantial shift in population nor significantly , - impact area schools, It would result in a minor addition to the established growth trends in the area, - 8 - I I -. j '. J I . ., I , . '. J , I , , I I I , I ,I Ig ,I I , I , I I . I I I I ,l I . . I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I Parks No direct impact on existing park or recreation facilities is anticipated, The conceptual site plan shows the relocation of the creek channel into a meandering pattern, flanked by greenbelt areas in native vegetation, Pedestrian trails would augment the propo!led trail network for the North Creek Valley area facilitating public utilization, Maintenance A portion of the property tax revenues resulting from the development of the site would be allocated for repair, maintenance and improvement of roadways, Ener~y Construction and operation of the development would result in the consumption of various forms of natural resources, Upon completion as proposed, the project would use an estimated 267 billion BTU annually for heating, lighting and equipment operation, For comparison, a 2,000-square-foot home in this area uses approximately 150 million BTU annually or about half the energy of commercial buildings per square foot, Building and sitework energy costs would require an estimated 1,33 trillion BTU for construction and site development, The proposal will utilize the most current design concepts and materials to assure energy efficiency, UTILITIES E1ectr icity Electricity would be required to satisfy the majority of power requirements and must be provided by Puget Power, Energy-efficient design would minimize the use of electricity, Major site improvements would be required to adequately service the site, including transformers, transformer pads and underground feeders, Natural Gas It is not anticipated that full development would impact the ability of Washington Natural Gas to satisfy current and projected demands in the area, Water Domestic water consumption would increase upon full development of the site, Final plans would require fire marshall approval prior to construction, Water lines would be brought into the site at the developer's expense and the developer would assist the City in constructing a reservoir facility subject to the city's approval, Upon completion of these improvements, adequate water would be available, - 9 - Sewers The size and type of the development proposed would not significantly impact the capacity of the METRO trunk line south of the site, A sanitary sewer line would be extended from the METRO trunk line, approximately 2,760 feet, to the site, This line would be oversized in accordance with City requirements to serve potential additional development in the area. Storm Water Impervious surfaces would cover approximately 60 percent of the improved site, Sediment levels would substantially increase during site-grading periods, Those areas not scheduled for immediate construction would be seeded after grading is complete to reduce runoff and erosion, Storm water generated by impermeable surfaces would be handled by catch basins, storm sewers and a retention pond, AESTHETICS The development would be visible from the surrounding hillsides, and from the adjacent streets and highways, Meandering the creek channel with adjacent open space would create a more natural appearing stream corridor, Earth berms, walls, fences, and landscaping would buffer the presence of 1-405 and would improve the overall appearance of the proposal, Architectural design standards would be imposed on the development through private conditions, covenants and restrictions, RECREA TION The proposal would have a positive impact by providing recreational opportunities not currently present on the site, The greenbelt open space and creek would comprise a 28- acre area of space open to public use and accessible from public rights-of-way, A pedestrian trail network would augment the proposed North Creek Trail System, Jointly uS,ed parking areas are also planned, ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL Surface and subsurface archaeological investigations have been conducted on the site, No resources were discovered, The existing structures (barns and houses) were investigated and, although the barn is perceived by some as a community landmark, no histor ical significance was identified, The sponsor intends to preserve the present Davie's residence (former golf clubhouse) as a community center, To be certain that development of the site would not result in the loss of any undiscovered archaeological resources, the archaeological subconsultant recommended that they be retained to be present during early site grading, - 10- '. . " ~ '. J .. , ! I . . I j I , I , I , I I I .., I ~.-. I .J I I I j I J I .,j I "" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I ELEMENTS OF THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT PROPOSED USES Using land sales and land absorption levels of established industrial park!: as indicators of market demand, the entire development as light industrial use would be absorbed at approximately 30 acres per year, This would account for 35% of the projected demand for competitive development on the Eastside, The 105 acres of net developable land would be absorbed in about 3,5 years, Commerciat/retail use of the site would be dependent on market demand at the time of sale or lease, Growing residential development throughout the area shows a good market potential for commercial/retail services and no significant adverse impact to existing downtown Bothell retail businesses, Office space demand, based on employ- ment projections, Indicates that the proposed project would account for 3,6% of King County's total ten-year demand, T AX REVENUES The assessed value of the proposed development would total $87 million and would ~ generate $697,141 in annual tax revenues to the City of Bothell and over $587,433 in initial permit fees and taxes, EMPLOYMENT Employment would be created by the proposed development in the short term by ll. construction and in the long term by 3,220 permanent on-site employment opportuni- ll. ties: 500 estimated for commercial/retail use, 1,400 for office, use, and 1,320 for light industr ia1 use, DEVELOPER'S FAIR SHARE Development of the proposed center would require capital improvements in public facilities, The, developer will be required to finance improvement to utility systems and streets needed to serve the project, NET FISCAL IMPACT An analysis of the net fiscal impact indicates that the proposed development would ~ have a positive net impact of $383,406 annually when considering total costs of services and total revenues of the project for the City of Bothell, AL TERNA T1VES TO THE PROPOSED PLAN Denial of the proposed rezone, the "no action" alternative, would temporarily retain the site as is and eliminate its attendants beneficial and adverse impacts, The proposal is substantially consistent with Bothell's guidelines for development in North Creek Valley -11 - and if denied, would probably only delay development, Potential improvements to the North Creek channel would be eliminated, Other sites in the area, also in the jurisdictional control of Bothell, are suitable for this type of development, Since existing conditions are substantially similar to those of the Koll site, environmental impacts of development would also be similar, As a comparison to the proposal, a number of variations in the mix or size of the proposed uses was analyzed by changing the amount of site coverage and/or the type of proposed uses, The following is a summary of all alternatives considered, In all of the alternatives considered proportional changes resulting from a smaller development or one of uniform use would occur in the following: potential for wildlife habitat dependent upon carefully landscaped open space, including cover vegetation and surface water; air quality as affected by traffic volume; future intensification of land uses in the vicinity as indirectly affected by the intensity of the proposal; pressure for additional nearby housing caused in part by on-site employment; traffic volumes in approximate proportion to the size and type of use considered; and economic impacts regarding tax revenue and site employment, Proposal A1t, 1 A1t, 2 Alt, 3 A1t, 4 Alt, 5 - - Percent Impervious Surface Coverage 50%* 27% 40% 60% 27% 50% Total Acres of 105 140 10' 105 140 105 Salable Area Maximum Floor Area (Square footage): Commercial Office Industrial* 564,773 1,044,830 200,000 108,910 159,272 350,000 186,298 278,610 990,000 484,561 717,255 1,540,000 779,769 1,155,137 (35.4 {17,9 (26,5 Acres) Acres) Acres) * The proposed project would slightly exceed 50% since calculated at 60% impervious surface coverage, UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 1,884,406 1,884,406 (43,3 Acres) half of 564,773 1,044,830 03 (24 Acres) Acres) the industr ial portion is Total Unavoidable adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated or avoided as a result of the proposed development are listed below, Earth- T opo~aphy, GeololO' and Soils Leveling and redistribution of site soils from grading, excavations and construction of access roads and parking areas, _12 _ '. , I '. , I I I 'I I -, " .. " J I , f I 1 I . I , , . , , , .. ,.t I , ; I , , , I l . ,; I ,.I I .';" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I / , Air Deterioration in air quality although remaining within federal standards, Water Temporary impacts resulting from re-alignment of the creek channel, site grading until stream channel is stabilized and vegetation estab!i!lhed, Long-term impacts due to incr~ased impervious surfaces, resulting in increased runoff and reduced infiltration of stormwater, Ve~etation Removal of existing site vegetation by site grading, Wildlife Wildlife habitat essentially eliminated as construction is implemented, but replaced by a more natural riparian corridor habitat, Noise Increased noise levels on and adjacent to the site and along the 1-405 corridor, Li~ht and Glare Additional on-site sources of light and glare resulting from building, parking and roadway lighting, Land Use Loss of existing open, undeveloped agricu1tural1and, Secondary impact of encouraging development of adjacent hillside and valley floor areas, Alternative site uses would be lost, Natural Resources Consumption of fossil fuels during the construction and operational phases of the project and by vehicles traveling to and from the site, Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions Temporary risk of equipment related accidents would occuring during construction, . Population and Housin~ Secondary impact of accelerating demands for adjacent housing resulting from in- creased on-site employment oppor'tunities, Transportation and Circulation Although mitigated by widening of 195th and improvement to several intersections, there would be a significant increase in traffic along NE 195th Street and the intersection with 1-405, -13 - Public Services - Fire. Police Project development substantially increasing demands on fire protection and law enforcement personnel requirements, EnerRY Construction sitework and operation of the proposal consuming energy for heating, lighting, equipment operation, construction and employee commuting, Aesthetics The existing pastoral setting replaced by a 14Q-acre mixed-use development, _14 _ -, . ,I ., '. j -I ..1 '. ..i .. ,j I , . I t I ., ~. I , , I ',I I I I ~ I I I i I .1 I ,j I , I I I I I I I I I I .i I I ~ ~ ~ I ) I ! I Description of the Proposal NAME OF PROPOSAL AND SPONSOR The proposal is to construct a business center in the City of Bothell, to be known as the Koll Business Center - Bothell, The goals of the project are to: 1, Construct an economically competitive mixed use, business park, 2, Implement the North Creek Comprehensive Plan by developing land within the planning area. 3, Provide the services offered by an office/industrial/commercial-retail de- velopment, The sponsor and developer is the Koll Company, USe!: on the site would be limited to office, light industrial, and commercial/retail activity, PROJECT LOCATION The development would occur on a 140-acre site located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of NE 195th Street and Interstate 405, a major north-south freeway serving the east side of Lake Washington, The site is bounded on the east by 120th Avenue NE and on the north by the King County-Snohomish County line, Figure 1 shows the project location in its regional context and Figure 2 shows the conceptual site plan, OTHER AGENCY FILE NUMBERS None known, CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Subject to approval by the City, the proponent would begin construction of internal streets, the str'eam relocation, open space, common landscaped areas, and basic utilities in mid-1981, The project sponsor intends to begin marketing the site in late 1981, Development after sale is dependent in part on whether developers, investors and users perceive the demand for undeveloped land exceeding its supply, When this occurs, the rate of sale will be faster than the rate of actual development due to the tendency to purchase for development, expansion or investment, The sponsor estimates that the sell-out time for lots could range from 2,5 to 3 years, or at a rate of 3.5-40 acres per year, Construction ~ on individual parcels could begin any time after initial sale and would continue for an unknown period of time after the sale of all lots has occurred, _15- PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS Development of the site as projected would result in up to approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, 3.50,000 square feet of office space, 990,000 square feet of light industrial buildings and nearly 2 million square feet of parking area, 28 acres of natural greenbelt areas and a meandering creek (See Table I for details). This could change depending on market demand and the development approval process. But no increase in retail is foreseen at the present time. Since the development is subject to P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) requirements, building covenants and restrictions would be stringent. Development concepts and actual building designs for each individual lot. would be reviewed and accepted or rejected by an architectural control committee in addition to the City of Bothell Planning Commission. TABLE I KOLL BUSINESS CENTER PROPOSAL Buildin!!s Ultimate (1986) Office Uses 3.50,000 square feet Commercial/Retail Uses 200,000 square feet Light Industrial Uses 990.000 square feet 9- - Total floor area proposed: 1,.540,000 square feet Parkinl!: Office Parking 1,7.50 spaces Commercial/Retail Parking 1,000 spaces Light Industrial Parking 2.47.5 spaces .5,22.5 spaces - Total parking coverage: 1,9.59,37.5 square feet Impervious Surface Proposed: Office .50% Commercial/Retail .50% *Light Industrial ~ at .50% ~ at 60% * The .sponsor has estimated that roughly half of the proposed light industrial uses would qualify for the 10% bonus in impervious surface allowable under the Bothell Municipal Code for clean, light industrial uses. Therefore, these calculations are based on the assumption that half of the light industrial area would be developed at .50% and half at 60% impervious surface. - 18 - ., I , '. .1 '. ,I :, '. .1 .. j I .l I .! I . i I .1 I , i I d . iJ . iJ . ',j , d I fj I :.1 !---. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I The process used to determine site coverage for various land uses is discussed in detail in Appendix B. RELA TIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANS AND REGULATIONS . Zoninl!: The proposal site is zoned for agricultural use. Ordinance No. 971 amending the Bothell Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on August 4, 1980. It established, among other provisions, a new land use classification designated "Mixed Use Zone (MU)" to serve the following purposes: . To establish areas permitting a wide variety of land uses which co-exist compatibly with each other and the environment. . To promote land uses which have a positive contribution toward meeting housing needs, providing local employment opportunities and which contribute to the City's tax base without contr ibuting to visual, air, light, water or noise pollution. . To promote uses of land in a manner which tends to meet community open space and recreational needs by fostering agricultural, recreation and other open space uses. . To encourage development which is architecturally and aesthetically compati- ble with the surrounding environment and land uses. The uses proposed in this development conform to those permitted in Chapter 17.23.020 of the amended zoning ordinance. Chapter 17.2.5.010 establishes the North Creek Special District as an overlay zoning classification for the purpose of implementing the goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Bothell/North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan. Regardless of which underlying zoning classification may in the future be assigned to the property, this chapter must be satisfied to guarantee that all development occurring within the North Creek Special District will comply with minimum development standards. The proposal must also go through the planned unit development process as established in 17.2 of the Bothell Municipal Code. The actual rezone of the property would be obtained after final development plan approval. When the North Creek Valley Planning Area is rezoned into classifications imple- menting the Comprehensive Plan discussed below, the entire valley floor, including the site, will probably be zoned Mixed Use. - 19- . Comprehensive Plan In response to increasing development pressures in the North Creek Valley, the City of Bothell supplemented its comprehensive plan by developing and adopting the North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan. The North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan addresses the community's concern for maintaining the residential and semi-rural atmosphere while improving the local tax base. The plan presents a variety of goals and implementing policies for development of the valley and adjacent hillsides. An environmental impact statement and supporting studies were prepared prior to adoption of the plan. Among the policies developed in the plan to address community concerns 'is the concept of limiting allowable impervious surfaces for new developments in the 9. valley. The applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this document (including the 9. impervious surface limitation) are presented below. Each policy is followed by a brief 9. analysis of how it relates to the project as proposed. 9. Goal: Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: Objective .5: 9. Objective 6: SECTION ONE GENERAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE NORTH CREEK VALLEY PLANNING AREA Recognize the North Creek Valley as a unique resource suitable for a multiplicity of uses by providing for a var iety of uses which will be compatible with each other and with the setting. Uses within the North Creek Valley Planning Area should be regulated to preserve and improve the quality of life in BothelL The upgrading of North Creek as an important fisheries resource should be given a high priority consideration. Uses within the North Creek Valley Planning Area should make a positive contribution to housing, local employment oppor- tunity and the tax base without contributing to visual, air, light, water or noise pollution problems. Make a major contribution to the Open Space needs of the Northshore Community by promoting the use of land for certain agricultural, recreational and open space uses without locking the valley floor into mandatory agricultural use. . Utilize th~ unique setting of the North Creek Valley Planning Area to help meet the recreational needs of the Northshore Area. Development on the wooded slopes should be in conformance with the general development policies of the Bothell Compre- hensive Plan with particular attention to the feathered edge concept and the retention and encouragement of tree cover to minimize the visual impact. - 20 - -, I .. j :, -, J ., .J , .J ., j , . , I j , , I ; I .1 I ,,: ; I <-; I .I . ,. J I I , ..J . " I I , I , I I , I I I I I I I I , ; I I I I i I I I I , Objective 7: Objective 8: Objective 9: Objective 10: Development in upland areas should provide needed housing opportunities and related neighborhood amenities while retain- ing the natural character of the area to the maximum extent feasible. Streets and utilities in the Planning Area should be planned to support the variety of uses and should provide a logical network related to all segments of the planning area and to the community at large. 1-40.5 and SR .522 should be recognized and utilized as the . major transportation spines for the area, but should be acous- tically and visually screened from the surrounding area. Encourage expanded public transportation throughout the Planning Area. SECTION TWO POLICIES FOR THE NORTH CREEK VALLEY PLANNING AREA I. POLICIES FOR THE V ALLEY FLOOR I. All developments on the valley floor shall be subject to the Planned Unit Development process with a general set of standards developed that will be applied through this process including architectural and landscaping conceptual approval as part of the preliminary PUD. ll. The conceptual site plan shows proposed building sites, roads, recreation/open spaces and major natural features such as North Creek. Design Guidelines and Covenants, Conditions and restrictions were developed in consideration of the PUD approval process. ll. 2. Open space should be encouraged to the maximum extent practical in all developments on the valley floor. If large areas of impervious surfaces are necessary, landscaping should be extensively utilized to avoid negative visual impacts on the surrounding areas including adjacent upland and slope areas. ll. The proposal includes the provision for 28 acres (2096) of open space comprised of greenbelt/flood plain areas, a storm retention pond area and a stream buffer area. This open space is centrally located on the site, allowing public enjoyment of a meandered North Creek. 9. An impervious surface coverage allotment shall be utilized as a foundation of the plan. This gives limited development rights to every property owner in the valley while providing enough control to limit negative impacts on the environment. It helps maintain open space and leaves agricultural and development choices open for future generations since land once covered by an impervious surface can not be easily returned to agricultural/open space uses. 3. 9. - 21 - - 22- ., -, ',' ., I I .1 ., .1 ., . j I .1 I .1 I .1 I I I ! I , . . , .J I I .~ I .1 , j I '~ .~ A basic planning allotment of 2796 impervious surface coverage is allowed. The project proponent has elected to supply sufficient environmental informa- tion to assess additional impacts resulting from .5096 maximum impervious surface coverage and up to 6096 in the case of clean, light industrial uses. Open space and North Creek considerations are two major general categories of impact mitigation incorporated into the proposal which may warrant an increase in the basic allotment. If constructed, the project would eliminate the potential for agriculture on the site for future generations. 9. 4. The types of uses that will be encouraged subject to adequate controls to preserve and improve the quallty of life in Bothell include: A. Non-polluting manufacturing B. Business-professional uses C. Educational facilities D. Recreation facilities E. Non-freeway oriented public accommodations F. Retail outlets 9. G. Hospitals, clinics, medical-professional buildings H. Multi-family residential uses 9. The proposal is planned for a mix of light manufacturing, business and professional offices, commercial/retail uses, and recreational facilities. 9. .5. The following uses are to be restricted from the valley floor: . A. Single-family and mobile home residential uses B. Open storage except for certain agricultural purposes 9. No residential uses are proposed. Open storage would be restricted to small, screened areas accessory to enclosed primary uses. 9. 6. Energy conservation should be one of the major considerations in the locations and specific siting of buildings and landscaping. 9. The siting and landscaping of individual buildings would be up to purchasers of the individual lots, but would be subject to review and approval by the design review committee and the City of Bothell. 9. II. POLICIES RELATED TO NORTH CREEK 1. Surface water discharge systems entering North Creek should be' designed to control the quality of water as well as the quantity. The quality should be equal to or better than occurs naturally. 2. Surface water runoff flowing into North Creek should utilize a sewerage system if necessary to maintain established water quality and water quantity levels. It is the intention of this policy to keep 9. I II I I I . I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I , I pesticides and herbicides such as are utilized on ornamental plantings and agricultural crops as well as animal wastes out of North Creek. 9. ll. The proposed project would utilize on-site catch basins, an oil separator and 9. storm sewers to dispose of on-site runoff into an existing channel to the 9. Sammamish River. A detention pond with a variable rate discharge outlet would be provided to eliminate potential increases .in the peak rate of runoff 9. from the site. No runoff from developed portions of the site would enter ll. North Creek. 3. Potential flood plains along North Creek should be protected to eliminate the necessity for further channelization of. the Creek for flood control purposes. ll. ll. The proposal provides for a 6..s-acre greenbelt/flood plain area to capture any North Creek flood waters. During normal water levels, this area would be ll. utilized as a natural vegetation open space. A. Pending a detailed study by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers or HUD, no development should be allowed within the Shoreline Management areas of North Creek. ll. A preliminary study has been completed by HUD. The project would result in expansion of the 100-year f100dway through the site. Much of the site is within the 100-year floodplain according to the HUD study. ll. ll. B. Flood plain zoning should be used to protect the f1oodway, and zoning and flood-proofing techniques should be used to protect the flood fringe in any flood plain. ll. The proposed design provides a clear floodway and full protection of the flood fringe. The northern boundary of the site would be diked against the 100-year flood. The capacity of the f100dway through the site would be expanded by the proposal. ll. 4. North Creek should be upgraded to a major fisheries area. A. The feasibility of meandering North Creek should be explored. If this is at all practical, the City of Bothell should work with interested state agencies in developing a plan for North Creek which could be accomplished over time either as a public works project or by private developments as they occur. ll. ll. As part of the proposal, North Creek would be meandered at private expense. The concept, design and construction must be reviewed and approved by the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game. - 23 - - 24- ~, ~, :, '. .. :, :, .. ,1 I j ., . . .1 -. ..1 I . i I .1 I .1 I ..1 I ..1 I . i I :.i I .1 9. B. Short of major relocations, design standards should be developed with the appropriate agencies to allow for the ultimate upgrad- ing of North Creek within its existing channel or for minor deviations carried out as part of private development concepts. ll. In addition. to the meandering discussed previously, the channel would be designed to allow minor deviations and these would be encouraged by place- ment of large rocks. Alternating pools and riffle areas would also be created. 9. The project sponsors propose meandering the North Creek channel as shown on the conceptual site plan (See Figure 2). The sponsor has met with the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Game to discuss the concept of relocating the stream channel to improve salmon habitat (see WILDLIFE section of this report). Shading and natural habitat cover is proposed to control water temperatures to reduce algae growth and solar heating, thereby improving the quality of North Creek as a fisheries area. A gravel bottom is also proposed to provide an appropriate spawning environment. ll. C. The location of fish-rearing ponds and other fisheries-related facilities in the valley which could relate to North Creek should be seriously promoted. It Such facilities were not recommended by the Department of Fisheries and are not included in the proposal. The fish will use the stream habitat to the maximum extent possible. Artificial rearing ponds cannot boost production beyond what the stream can support. ll. v. POLICIES FOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE I. A sports-field complex should be developed on the valley floor designed to serve the active recreational needs of the Northshore area. ll. Active recreation would conflict with the value of the proposed open space as wildlife habitat, and is not proposed. ll. 2. Commercial recreational uses of an open space nature such as golf courses and riding stables should be encouraged. ll. Commercial recreational uses could occur but are not likely to be able to 9. compete given the probable prices for land within the project. ll. 3. . By purchase and easement agreements, develop the capability for a complete trail network in the North Creek Valley Planning Area. A. Trails along both sides of North Creek should be coordinated with any relocation plans for North Creek. B. Trails along North Creek should utilize culverts and bridges for crossing under highways and major streets to insure complete separation from vehicular traffic. C. Final development of these trails should wait for the flood plain study so grade changes, berms, walls and massive plantings can be used to partially deflect noise from 1-40.5 and SR .522. . D. Any development whatever in the North Creek Valley Planning Area other than traditional large acreage agricultural practices should include provisions for pedestr ian access. ll. .ll. The proposed development provides pedestrian paths along the creek, intended to augment the proposed North Creek Trail System. Several bridge crossings ll. would allow maximum usage of the open space provided. 9. . I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I 4. Joint use of parking lots in the area should be encouraged to allow recreational users off-hours use of developed parking. ll. ll. The joint use of parking areas would be explored to encourage off-hour use of the parking by recreational users. ll. Preliminary design plans have been submitted which indicate the nature of the proposed open space. Open space includes natural open space, passive areas and trails, and formally landscaped areas. ll. 9. 6. Require all development proposals to indicate the nature of the open space to be left and how it is to be maintained. A. Open Space Categories may include: sports fields natural open space certain commercial recreation areas semi-public passive areas or trails publicly dedicated open space agricultural space formally landscaped areas 7. Credit for open space requirements for private development may be transferred to other areas on the valley floor. ll. No transfer is proposed. ll. VI. POLICIES RELATED TO STREETS AND UTILITIES 1. Development of all new streets and utilities in undeveloped areas should be at private developer's expense in accordance with the patterns and standards established by the Plan. ll. The "fair share" of improvements financed by the sponsor. required to serve the project will be - Zs- ll. 2. -, _ i " '. . f '. . , , -. .1 -, I i . , ..' I , ~ . ., I .1 -. ;. ,~ I ~ 5 . ,I I .t I '1 I .1. . Encourage orderly development of property as the need arises based on the proximity of existing streets and utilities. However, in cases where development is beyond the range of existing facilities the developer should make the necessary off-site improvements and depend on late-comers fees to compensate for the additional cost. 9. ll. All streets and utilities required to serve the project would be improved at the expense of the sponsor. 9. 3. Provide adequate east-west access in the Planning Area by establish- ing a connection for NE 19.5th Street.. 9. This extension has already been constructed. ll. ll. 9. 9. The interior boulevard and improvements to NE 19.5th and 120th NE within Bothell would be improved at developer expense. Other arterials will be developed as the property to the south and southwest is developed. 9. 4. Develop a complete collector system to support the level of develop- ment allowed in the Planning Area. .5. A void long dead-end streets by providing for logical connections between areas potentially available for development. ll. The proposed collector collector arter ials. 9- road within the site provides a link between two 6. Sewer lines provided in the Planning Area should be sized to accom- modate adjacent service areas at their appropriate density. ll. The sewer line will be oversized to serve adjacent areas if Snohomish County and METRO can reach an agreement on the issue. ll. ll. VII. POLICIES RELATED TO 1-40.5 AND SR .522 ll. Actual building location or design has not been determined at this time. Major design considerations would include orientation and screening of service functions from 1-40.5. A landscaped buffer is proposed along 1-40.5. 9- ll. I. The negative visual impact of buildings with their rear elevation facing 1-40.5 or SR .522 shall by avoided by building orientation and design and/or effective screening and stringent control of trash receptacles and loading areas. The WSHD should be encouraged to heavily landscape the area within its R.O. W. Building design and location should be planned to. act as noise buffers from the freeway. 2. 3. - 26 - ":..~ I . . I I . I I I I I I I I I . I , I I !l 4. Commercial development in the North Creek Valley shall not include businesses which are dependent on attracting freeway motorists in order to sustain themselves. Commercial signs should not be oriented towards attracting the traveling public. The intent of this standard is to encourage a variety of businesses, such as corporate offices, a convention center complex, restaurants, computer software sales, and var ious professional offices to locate as a group in the Valley without the economic need for freeway advertising. 9. ll. The development would not include business dependent upon attracting free- 9. way motorists for a substantial portion of their business. The proposed ll. Covenants, Codes and Restrictions establish guidelines for signs in conform- 9. ance with this policy. ll. .5. No street or access road should be constructed immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange. Street intersections should not impair or disrUpt easy access on and off freeways. ll. 1l The proposed access road is located approximately .500 feet from the freeway interchange. Shoreline Master Prol!:ram for the City of Bothell. Washinl!:ton The Bothell shoreline development concepts were designed to preserve, in the general public interest, future options for development along North Creek and the Sammamish River, with emphasis on providing view corridors. The overriding purpose of these regulations is to guarantee sufficient opportunity for public access to and enjoyment of the shorelines and water resources within the City of Bothell. The goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program were incorporated into the Bothell Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies relating to North Creek are discussed above under the Comprehensive Plan section. The Shoreline Master Program designates the North Creek shoreline as urban. The proposed development would provide for public access to the creek which is not presently available. - 27- I . . I , . I I I I . I I . I ; I I I , , I Existing Conditions, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation . Elements of the Physical Environment TOPOGRAPHY Existi"'~ Conditions Topography was established by a field survey and is shown in Figure 3. Most of the site is a nearly level valley floor, but the western edge slopes up to 1-40.5, gradually rising about 32 feet. The North Creek channel cuts through the site from north to south. A few areas in the eastern half of the site are lower than the creek channel. Steep valley walls rise 200 to 300 feet to upland plateaus east and west of the site. Environmental Impact The site will be graded for development of buildings and parking areas. This will result in lowering the western edges of the site from ten to twenty feet. The northeastern corner of the site will be lowered up to ten feet. Along the eastern boundary of the site, 120th Avenue NE will be lowered up to six feet at one point. GEOLOGY Existin~ Conditions The valley was created by glacial processes several thousand years ago. North Creek has subsequently become entrenched in the valley. The lowering of Lake Washington in 1916 and the more recent channelization of North Creek and the Sammamish River have ended seasonal flooding and deposition of fine grained sediments on the site (see following paragraphs). A Flood Insurance Study (Preliminary) was recently completed for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It states that although much of the site is within the historic 100-year flood plain, the 100-year f100dway is now confined to the stream ll. channel through the site. Hydraulic calculations prepared by the project engineer (Horton-Dennis) for the KolI proposal indicate that the lOO-year flood volume is 760 cfs while the capacity of the channel through the site is only 6.50 cfs in some locations, thus the 100-year flood may exceed the capacity of the channel and cause flooding on the ll. site. Localized seasonal ponding occurs on the site due to the flat topography and fine textured soils. - 29- I I I i . I I I . , . I j I I ; " . I . I I i I . . Environmental Impact It There will be no significant impact to the geology of the area. The f100dway for the creek will be designed to handle the 10o-year flood (760 ds) plus an additional l~ feet of freeboard will be added to the channel dikes. Thus the capacity of the channel to handle flood waters will be greatly increased (in excess of 1,000 ds) on the site, but the It north boundary of the site will be diked to prevent flooding. SOILS Existinll( Conditions ll. Soils of the site have been investigated on previous occasions for proposed development. Recent on-site investigations were conducted by a geotechnical consultant and included numerous bar ings of the site and review of previous studies. Soil studies conducted by the Soil Conservation Service are also presented here (Figure 4). The findings of the on-site investigations generally coincide with the descriptions of soils by S.C.S. Along the western edge of the site, there are 7 to 10 feet of loose sands immediately beneath existing grades. These sands become more dense below the loose surficial layer. In the northwest corner of the site, very dense sands were encountered below 20 feet. This condition generally corresponds with the hillside in the western portion of the site. Throughout the rest of the site, there is 10 to 90 (near the center of the site) feet of peat immediately beneath the existing grades. Below the peat is compressible silt of medium density, grading to dense and very dense sand and gravels to the depths explored. In some of the borings and probes, beds of loose sands from .5 to 20 inches thick were encountered in the peat. Also some layers of loose sands were encountered immediately beneath the existing grades overlying the peat. In most of the borings, the peat was fibrous in the upper 10 feet, then mixed with more silt. At depth the peat grades into soft organic silt immediately above the underlying sands. Near the north center of the site, twelve feet of loose sands were encountered immed- iately beneath the existing grades increasing in density with depth. The compressible nature of peat will require special design considerations for any development of the site (e.g. pilings, surcharging). Environmental Impact The peat found over most of the site will require surcharging to compress the peat prior to construction. It is the intent of the proponent to utilize soil materials on-site for the - 31- I I -' I .1 . .' I I . ! I Hi . :- I , i . ~. I ., . I . I I ~ I I I surcharging, thus no significant quantities of fill are expected to be imported or exported. However, significant quantities of earth will, be repositioned within the site. The less compressible soils along the western and eastern borders of the site will be moved inward and used for surcharging in stages as 'development occurs. The loo~ sands near the north central part of the site present the potential for seismic instability due to liquefaction. This would result in minor settling of the low building types proposed that could be accommodated in the building design.. If buildings greater than two star ies are built in this area, they would be built on piles dr iven through to the underlying till to eliminate the possibility of the structures tilting during a major earthquake. The areas of the deepest peat deposits will be preserved in open space. Some of the peat removed during construction will be used in landscaping. During construction, there will be a temporary increased potential for erosion. Mithi:atinl!: Measures The proponent will develop an erosion control plan to minimize erosion during construction. The proposed landscaping will minimize erosion following construction. During surcharging and until development occurs, all disturbed areas should be seeded to control erosion. VEGETATION Existinl1: Conditions Study of vegetaticc> :or this, project consisted of reviewing previous studies, a brief site visit and ana!'" Y!',~nt aerial photographs. The vegetation communities of the site are iIIustrat'. ,: . <. '.:"~ .5. The site was used for agricultural crop production until approximately seven years ago. Since that time, it has been abandoned and allowed to develop natural vegetation. The ll. majority of the site now supports common pasture grasses, weeds and shrubs. Three areas of slightly varying soil and water regimes have developed distinct vegetation communities on the site. These include: J) an area of rushes and buttercups, 2} an area 9. of rapidly growing, young cottonwood trees and rushes, and 3) an area of young willow ll. trees. These are indicative of communities that can tolerate the seasonal ponding on' the site, but these species cannot tolerate soils that are predominantly wet. The it goundwater table is several feet below the surface in the summer. Cattails occur in a roadside ditch along the east boundary of the site and along drainage ditches within the - 33- , I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I ~ site. A few riparian shrubs and trees have grown along North Creek, but, with the ll. exception of a portion of the stream near the northern boundary of the site, not enough to provide significant shade for the creek or riparian habitat. Several native and exotic ornamental trees, shrubs and flowers have been planted near the two houses on the site. There are no known rare or endangered plant species on the site. Environmental Impact Most of the existing vegetation of the site would be eliminated by the extensive site grading proposed. Natural vegetation would be re-established along the entire length of the relocated creek channel (J I acres), within the 6..5 acre greenbelt, and within the ll. greenbelt/storm retention area (.5 acres). Depending on final design, much of the proposed greenbelt may become marsh, particularly the storm water retention area. This would provide productive wildlife habitat and improve water quality. Native tree species are proposed to be planted along the creek banks to provide shade for the stream. Since detailed planting designs have not been completed, the species, size and spacing for these trees has not been specified. The proponent will completely landscape the main boulevard, 19.5th and 120th, adjacent to the site, and the perimeter of the site. The individual parcels will be landscaped by the tenants as they are developed. If there is a delay between grading and development the individual parcels will be seeded so that they are not left barren. Mitigating Measures The city and the proponent should continue to work closely with the Departments of Fisheries and Game to prepare final designs for the creek corridor, greenbelt and storm water retention area. Species, size and spacing of planting stock should be specified to assure effective shading of the creek immediately without waiting for trees to mature. With proper water/soil conditions, the greenbelt could become a valuable wetland or shrubby thicket habitat for wildlife. ~ Individual parcels will be seeded upon completion of grading if development is not to occur immediately. The covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & R's) will specify landscaping requirements. _ 3S- W8.DLIFE Existing Conditions Information relating to wildlife of the site was obtained by reviewing previous studies, observations on the site, analysis of habitat types, and by contacting the Department of ll. Fisheries and the Department of Game. The site is primarily grassland habitat supporting animals such as savannah sparrows, pheasant, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, and small rodents. Song sparrows and robins are common in the areas of young trees. Marsh wrens were observed in the area dominated by rushes and buttercups. The few brushy areas support additional species such as American goldfinch and yellowthroat. Several species of swallows nest in the barn area and feed over the entire site. The site provides feeding habitat for migratory ducks in winter. The creek corridor is not well-developed riparian habitat due to prior disturbance (Jimited primarily to grasses down to the water). However, it does support wildlife. A long-tailed weasel, ll. great blue heron, mallard and swallows were among the wildlife observed along the creek. The creek has been channeled and is straight with a uniform gradient throughout (no pools and no meanders). It is primarily a corridor for several species of salmon <Coho, sockeye, chinook) and sea-run cutthroat trout that spawn in the creek upstream from the site. Upstream from the site, North Creek is a very productive salmon stream. Spawning has not been observed on the site and previous studies have classified the stream as a migration corridor only. However, contacts with the Department of Fisheries have indicated that spawning may occur due to the gravel bottom. The creek provides limited habitat for downstream migrating coho fry due to the absence of pools and streamside vegetation. The absence of streamside shrubs or trees to provide shade results in higher water temperatures during the summer, reduced oxygen and high levels of algae growth. The overall productivity and diversity of the site has increased annually as native vegetation communities develop, since agricultural activities on the site ceased in 1973. The species present are common in the region and no rare or endangered species are known to inhabit the site. Environmental Impact Nearly all of the existing habitat would be eliminated during construction. Upon completion of construction, stream habitat may be improved; additional riparian habitat - 36- J J ., :1 . j I cd I ;.j I .cI I ..1 I .: .~ I ..1 I ,1- I .i I ,.I - .\,1 I ,.I I ,I I j I J I I I , I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and marsh/wetland habitat may be created. The riparian and the marsh/wetland 9. habitats are more productive than that presently covering most of the site. Thus, the loss of existing habitat will be offset once the new habitat is established. The proposal would relocate the stream within a new corridor 130 feet wide as shown on the site plan (Figure 2) and in the typical cross-sections on the. following page. Construction of the stream relocation is scheduled for the summer of 1981. An additional 14 acres of natural open space would be provided along the stream including a storm water retention basin (the storm water retention basin would not be connected hydraulically to North Creek). The project would create additional riparian habitat and is intended to improve water quality and habitat for salmon and trout. To be successful in improving habitat conditions, the existing concept would require carefully prepared, detailed, construction specifications, conscientious construction practices and monitoring of design and construction by the public agencies with jurisdiction. The City of Bothell must review site plans to approve the rezone and PUD, and must review construction drawings during the building permit phase. The Washington State Department of Fisheries and/or Department of Game must review construction plans to issue a Hydraulics Permit (required for any in-stream construc- tion). However, the City of Bothell does not have staff expertise to review the stream channel designs or the actual construction as it relates to salmon habitat. While the Department of Fisheries has such expertise, it cannot always afford to assign staff to monitor construction. Thus, while the stream relocation has the potential to improve r ipar ian and stream habitat, it is not assured under the present system; however, the sponsor will assist in funding additional staff time as needed to monitor construction of the stream channel improvments in accordance with the Department of Fisheries specifications. In reviewing the planning, design and construction of the stream relocation, several conditions must be met. The following conditions must be met if the project is to improve conditions for adult salmon migration and spawning. Adequate water depth (8-12 inches) is necessary to allow passage for the fish. A clean. gravel stream bed is necessary for spawning to occur. This requires' adequate gradient and flow, clean gravel and protection from erosion and siltation in the future. Therefore, the stream channel and banks must be stable and silt must not be allowed to enter the stream from the adjacent area. For the eggs (buried in gravel) to survive, they need clean gravel to provide good water circulation. Good water circulation brings oxygen to the eggs and carries away wastes which can encourage diseases. - 37 - The fry (juvenile fish) of Coho salmon stay in the stream for up to a year before migrating to salt water. At this stage their requirements are similar to trout and improving the habitat for salmon will also benefit the trout. The juvenile salmon still require dean' water with high oxygen levels and low temperatures. In natural stream corridors,' dense and continuous vegetation provides shade to keep water temperatures down and oxygen levels up. The young salmon and trout also require alternating deep pools and shallow riffles. The fish tend to stay in the pools while the 'shallow sections produce the food (insects) they require. Insects falling from overhanging shrubs are also eaten by the fish. To create habitat by new construction requires: I. dean gravel for the stream bed, 2. adequate channel width to allow the stream to develop its own meanders by repositioning the gravel, 3. stable stream banks to prevent erosion, 4. the proper gradient to retain gravel riffle sections, .5. occasional diversions, such as large boulders, to create meanders and pools (one pool every five times the width of the stream channen, and 6. large, dense, continuous vegetation to provide shade and a food source. If all of the above conditions are met, stream habitat will be improved for salmon, trout and other stream inhabitants. (Construction drawings will be reviewed by the Department of Fisheries prior to initiation of construction). Continuous public access to the stream would conflict with wildlife; therefore, the public trails should not be immediately adjacent to the stream. The creation of a wooded riparian corridor will benefit other wildlife by increasing the variety of habitat types and by providing additional food (insects, seeds) and shelter. Once established, this should increase the diversity of wildlife populations on the site. The formal landscaping along the boulevard and on individual parcels will not pr.ovide significant wildlife habitat. Miti!l;atinR Measures A portion of the greenbelt area and the storm water retention area could be designed to become wetland habitats. This would greatly increase their productivity for wildlife. Detailed planting designs for the greenbelt and stream corridor should be completed and reviewed by the city prior to initiation of construction; Plant species should be selected to provide food and shelter for wildlife in addition to shading the creek (a list of recommended species is available from the Department of Game). - 38 - 'I .. j '. ,.1 :, I ,j J ~ I ,".I I ,J I ti I ., I . I , i :1 d I ~_.i I :d I ..f I ,-J I , , I I I I I I ,I I I I i - I I I I I I I I I A construction monitoring program should be established to assure that the stream channel construction and plantings are completed according to design. The sponsor has agreed to establish such a program. WATER ExistinR Conditions Surface water bodies on the site consist of North Creek and several drainage ditches. Thorough water quality data for North Creek is available from METRO. Water quality was sampled monthly for all of 1979 and through March of 1980. Although water quality in North Creek is generally high, the creek has high nutrient P. levels and coliform content (see Technical Appendix for a more detailed analysis of water quality). Th'is is due primarily to the agricultural (pasture) usage of the valley upstream from the site. Substantial algae growth and solar heating occurs since there is little shading of the creek by riparian vegetation. Groundwater is generally at or near the surface during winter months due to the soil types. In summer the water table is several feet below the surface. The site has been It drained by several ditches, remnants of the previous agricultural use. Environmental Impact The proposed modifications to the channel are proposed with the intention of returning the stream to a more natural condition and improving water quality. However, impacts to surface water will occur due to re-alignment of North Creek, extensive earthwork on the entire site during construction, and an increase in impervious surfaces resulting in increased runoff. The proposed channel re-alignment of North Creek is illustrated in the site plan, Figure 2. Cross-sections of the new channel are shown in Figure 6. The new channel will be constructed and stabilized first. Then, a cut will be made in the existing channel to allow the stream to divert to the new channel. After the stream is diverted, the old channel will be filled. The new channel will ~ave a gravel bottom and will be wide enough to allow the stream to meander slightly and reposition the gravel. Bank stabilization will be necessary in constricted areas under bridges and on outside curves or other erosion surfaces. The banks will be planted with trees to provide shade and stability. If protected from other disturbances, the stream should stabilize within a year. At that time, if properly designed and constructed, the water quality, of the stream should improve. The - 39- I I I ,I I I .. I I I .. I .1 I I I I I I additional shade should reduce summer water temperatures and increase oxygen levels . in the water. Algae growth should also be reduced by the shading. Improvements in water quality are entirely dependent on proper design and construction of the channel. Critical factors in design and construction include: 1) adequate shading by plantings (this requires sufficient size and spacing) and topography; and, 2) stabilization of banks and channel bottom. All channel work must occur during the summer to minimize impacts to upstream migration of adult salmon in the fall and downstream migration of juvenile salmon in the spring. The exact dates allowed for construction will be specified by the Department of Fisheries. There will be unavoidable temporary turbidity created when the stream is diverted. Storm water runoff will increase significantly due to the increase in impervious surfaces (see UTILITIES). Storm water from roadways and individual parcels will be collected by underground storm sewers and routed to a surface retention pond. Settling basins would be included in each catch basin and an oil/water separator would be incorporated at the inlet to the retention pond. From the retention pond, storm water would flow by surface ditch to the Sammamish River. The retention pond would retain storm water so that peak runoff rates from the developed site would not exceed runoff rates of a ten-year storm. Although peak runoff flows would not increase, the duration of peak flows would be prolonged due to increased run-off from impervious surfaces. A study done for EPA "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants" (EPA- R2-72-081l gives some idea of the kinds of pollutants to expect. Runoff from commercial ar'eas is typically high in nutrients (phosphate, nitrate) and heavy metals (lead and zinc from automobile use). The high nutrient levels would be similar to existing conditions on the site. The proposed settling basins would remove most solid materials such as silt and heavy metals from the runoff, and the skimmers would remove petroleum pollutants and other floatables. The significant remaining pollutants would be nutrients. If allowed to support vegetation, the settling basin may remove some nutrients from the storm water runoff and provide valuable marsh habitat. A temporary erosion control plan will be developed by the proponent to control erosion dur ing construction. - 41- It is the proponent's intent that storm sewer facilities located on private property and the retention pond will be maintained at private expense by the proponent or a tenants' association (required by CC &, R's). Storm sewer facilities, including catch basins located within dedicated road rights-of-way, would be maintained by the city. Groundwater recharge and storage capacity of the site will be reduced by the increased impermeable surfaces and compression of the peat soils. Compression of the soils would be limited to the top several feet of soil, thus groundwater flows would not be significantly affected. Mith1;atiOl~ Measures The following items' are included in the proposal and would minimize adverse impacts: 1l collection of storm water runoff in a storm water sewer system, 2) settling basins to remove solids from runoff, 3) skimmers to remove petroleum pollutants and floating debris, ,.) retention ponds to eliminate increases in peak runoff rates, 5) shading of the creek by vegetation, 6) sanitary sewers to protect water quality, and 7) temporary detention ponds during construction to collect silt. Other measures which can minimize water quality problems include frequent street sweeping, litter clean-up, and storm water control facilities maintenance. Design specifications and construction should be reviewed by the city to assure protection of North Creek. If allowed to support marsh vegetation, the retention pond can provide additional wildlife habitat and remove some nutrients from runoff. AIR QUALITY Existinll; Conditions The Puget Sound area has a typical Pacific Coast marine climate. Temperatures are mild with moderate precipitation, the majority of rain occurring during the winter months. '. . Data taken at Seattle (University of Washington - the closest weather station) show that temperatures vary from an average of ,.iioF in January to 650 in July, with 530F the annual average. Extreme temperatures are unusual. Temperatures rarely reach 1000F in summer or OOF in winter. Precipitation averages 35 inches annually but can vary from 22 to ,.8 inches. December is the month with the maximum, an average precipitation of 5.5 inches and July the least with an average of less than 0.8 inches. The maximum precipitation for one day is just under 3 inches. Snowfall averages about 8 inches annually from a minimum of zero and a maximum of 3,. inches. - 42 - I ,j ~ I .b I. ,t I ,.3 I. ..j '. i I \ I ~ I .i; I , I I I , I I . , I :,1 I " I '. j - . I . -~ I I I ,I I ,I J I I, I I I I I I I I ,j I Wind patterns at Lake Forest Park (from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency records) indicate that prevailing winds are south-southwesterly 30% of the time, northerly 20% of the time and calm 5% of the time. Southerly winds prevail during the winter months and northerly winds prevail during the summer months. Meteorology creating the "worst case" air quality conditions is most likely to occur for several days during the late winter months with overcast skies. Localized inversions can occur under northerly winds during the late summer and fall months but usually disperse each afternoon. Drainage wind patterns, influenced primarily by topography under calm night tonditions, will be generally southeasterly towards Woodinville. The site has flat terrain and is presently undeveloped. The nearest complete air monitoring station is operated at the'Tulalip Test Facility, adjacent to Interstate 5, north of Everett in a'similarly undeveloped area. Oxidant has also been measured at the Fernwood Fire Station at 180th Avenue S.E. and 32nd Street S.E. Carbon monoxide has been measured at three locations in the immediate vicinity of the site by the Washington State Department of Transportation. A summary of the data is shown in Table II. As shown in Table II, the air quality in the area is excellent. Suspended particulate levels are quite low, among the lowest in the region. Nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide are also well below standards. The proximity of the Tulalip station to Interstate 5, accompanied by the light winds found in the area, may have contributed to the occasional elevated hydrocarbon levels at the site. Sulfur dioxide was well below the standard. Oxidant levels at the Fernwood Fire Station, about ten miles north of the site, are within the new EPA standards. Carbon monoxide levels are within the air quality standards as shown by the data. When the station was first established at the elementary school, high carbon monoxide values were recorded the first nineteen hours of sampling. The data showed a one-hour maximum of 10 ppm and an eight-hour maximum of 8 ppm. There are three reasons to believe that these 'high values are erroneous. First, data taken simultaneously at the Woodinville cemetery, across the street, showed concentrations averaging less than half those obtained at the elementary school. Secondly, high concentrations were recorded between midnight and 6 AM, a period of almost no traffic or other source of carbon monoxide. And third, these values do not follow the general pattern of diurnal fluctuations in concentrations that can normally be expected to occur. On this basis, it was assumed that the first nineteen hours of data were caused, in part, by an equipment malfunction and yielded erroneous data. These figures were therefore deleted from the analysis. - 43 - -44- I , I i_fl I . J ~ '1" A '. d I cl ,I . b I , d I ,. I ,J I d I .J I oj I ,J I .-1 ,I i I . i TABLE II AIR QUALITY SUMMARY TULALIP TEST FACILITY Pollutants Sampling Data Years Parameter Standard 1975 1976 1977 Suspended Particulate Annual Mean 60 ug/m3 20 ug/m3 26 ug/m3 19 ug/m3 Sulfur Dioxide Annual Mean 0.02 ppm 0.00 ppm 0.00 ppm 0.00 ppm 2,. hour max. 0.10 ppm 0.00 ppm 0.0 I ppm 0.00 ppm I hour max. 0.,.0 ppm 0.02 ppm* 0.03 ppm 0.002 ppm* 5l Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Mean 0.05 ppm 0.002 ppm 0.009 ppm - 24 hour max. None 0.02 ppm 0.03 ppm - I hour max. None 0.06 ppm 0.06 ppm - Carbon Monoxide I hour max. 35 ppm - 2 ppm* 2 ppm* 8 hour max. 9 ppm - I ppm* I ppm* Hydrocarbons 3 hour max. 0.2" ppm 0.23 ppm 0.43 ppm - (6-9 AM) No. of occur- rences greater than 0.2 4 ppm - 0 5 - Oxidant Not measured - - - - 1977 1978 Oxidant I hour max. 0.12 ppm - .10 ppm .07 ppm FERNWOOD FIRE STATION 10lst AVENUE & SR 522 BOTHELL 1 Standard 1974 1977 Carbon Monoxide I hour max 35 ppm 10 ppm - 8 hour max . 9 ppm ,. ppm - Carbon Monoxide I hour max 35 ppm 5ppm 8 hour max 9 ppm 4 ppm WOODlNVILLE CEMETERY WOODINVILLE ELEMENT AR Y SCHOOL Carbon Monoxide I hour max 35 ppm 7 ppm 8 hour max 9 ppm 5 ppm I I I ,. I I ,. I I I I I I , 1 , , I i I j I 'j I I The site is in a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide and oxidant, which includes the greater Everett-Seattle-Tacoma area. Under' the state implementation plan, regional transportation control strategies will be implemented to attain compliance with these ambient air standards by 1987. Included in these strategies is a vehicle inspection/maintenance program scheduled for, implementation in 1981. In general, however, existing pollutant concentrations in the area are quite low. Pollutant concentrations at the site are expected to be similar to those found at the monitoring stations. The majority of pollutants in the area are created by vehicular traffic, with carbon monoxide the principal emission. Other sources of pollutants on the present site are negligible in comparison to those pollutants emitted by vehicles on the arterials NE I 95th Street, 120th Avenue NE and Interstate 405. Environmental Impact Air pollutants created by the project are expected to be: 1) pollutants emitted from the heating and cooling of the buildings; 2) pollutants from vehicles added to the local roads and arterials; and 3) short-term pollutants created during construction activity. At the present time it is anticipated that the project will be heated and operated by a combination of electricity and natural gas. Table III shows projected annual and "worst- case" day emission levels if natural gas is used for all heating. ~ TABLE m EMISSIONS DUE TO HEATING Annual "Worst-Case" Day Pollutant Tons/Year Pounds Particulate 1.3 25 - 30 Oxides of Sulfur 0.1 1-2 Carbon Monoxide 2.7 50 - 60 Hydrocarbons 1.1 20 - 25 Oxides of Nitrogen 16.0 300 - 350 Emissions due to heating with natural gas are low; natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels and produces the lowest emission levels. The majority of pollutant emissions is due to vehicle activity in parking areas, and on adjacent roads and arterials. Of the pollutants emitted from automobiles, carbon - 45 - monoxide occurs in the greatest quantity and is the one most likely to exceed the ambient air standard. There would be an increase in vehicle-related activity in the area between now and 1985, due to the proposed project. Concurrently, however, federal standards for vehicle emissions are becoming increasingly stringent, causing a decline in vehicle-related emissions. Based on existing data and implementation of federal law, vehicle emissions are expected to decline as shown in Table IV for the various vehicle speeds (indicated by Environmental Protection Agency emission factors). TABLE IV CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS VEHICLE SPEEDS. (gm/mil M.P.H. 10 25 30 ,.5 50 1980 - - ,.9 - 35 1985 60 31 27 20 - · Assumes an engine condition 50 percent hot stabilized, 30 percent hot start and 20 percent cold start. Vehicle distri- bution is 88 percent autos, 10 percent light trucks, and 2 percent heavy trucks and buses. From the available data on traffic and traffic speeds (see TRAFFIC AND CIRCULA- TION section), a California Division of Highways line source model (Caline 3) was used to predict the existing and future concentrations of carbon monoxide. Receptor sites were located just south of SE I95th Street and just west of Interstate ,.05 and are shown in Figure 7. Table V shows concentrations at the receptor sites at the right-of-way line of 1-,.05 and NE 195th Street respectively. Eight-hour carbon monoxide levels are predicted to be well below the standard, assuming that adequate improvements to local streets and intersections are completed as suggested in the TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION section. (Without street improvements, the traffic from the proposed project would cause federal standards to be exceeded.) Background concentrations of up to ,. ppm are predicted and must be added to the localized concentrations in Table V. The eight-hour standards would not be exceeded by the addition of a ,. ppm background concentration to the localized concentrations. _ 46. .~ 4 :1 :" I "I :, t , . I ,'; I ,I I .J I '" " I ;j I .;I I LJ I j;.,i I ,1 I 'I " .-' I J I . , There would be a short-term increase in summertime dust levels due to construction of the project. However, this would be confined to the area under construction and would cease upon occupancy by the tenants. Mitil1;atinl!: Measures Dust resulting from construction work can be minimized through the use of good operational techniques, such as watering of exposed areas. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency regulations require that precautions be taken to minimize the entrain- ment of dust in the ambient air. Other precautions should include careful design of all street and driveway systems to provide the best circulation of vehicles possible to reduce traffic congestion and vehicle-idling times. See TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION section for mitiga- ting measures to improve vehicle circulation. TABLE V PREDICTED EIGHT-HOUR CONCENTRA TlONS OF CARBON MONOXIDE (ppm) Site I 2 West of South of Year Source (soeed) 1-405 NE 195th 1980 (Existing Conditions) 1-405 (50) 2." 0.0 NE 195th (30) 0.1 0.4 Total D 0.4 1985 w/o project 1-405 (45) 1.7 0.0 NE 195th (30) 0.1 0.3 Total 1.8 0.3 1985 w/ project 1."05 (,.5) 2.1 0.0 ,w/o mitigating measures NE 195th (0) 0.2 1.6 Access Road 00 0.3 1.4 Total 2.6 3.0 1985 w/ project 1-405 (,.5) 2.1 0.0 w/ mitigating measures NE 195th (25) 0.1 0.9 Access Road (25 0.2 0.7 Total 2.4 1:6 Assumptions: Meteorological Conditions: Temperature = ,.O~ "E" - Atmospheric Stability Wind Speed = I metr/sec. (2 MPH) Wind Direction - Northeasterly (drainage flow) Carbon Monoxide Standards I Hour - 35 ppm 8 Hour - 9 ppm - 48- ~ ,~ ~ ,I ' d I "I i d I d I d ,I u 'I iI .. \l , d I u " ~.i I ~J I d I ~-J 1 ,I I I I , ,I i I i ,I , I I I 'I I , I' I , I , I I I J I ! I I NOISE Existinll; Conditions To determine existing noise levels on the site, measurements were taken at seven locations at three different times. The measurement locations are shown in Figure 8. ~ A summary of the noise, readings is shown in Table VI. See Technical Appendix for a general description of noise. TABLE VI EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Midday Peak Hour Night I PM - 3 PM ,. PM - 6 PM II PM - I AM Location LIO L50 L90 LJO L50 L90 LIO L50 L90 I. End of 31st Ave. SE adjacent to Monte Villa Farms 6,. 59 5,. 68 6,. 60 60 56 ,.7 2. 120th N.E. at Bothell city limits 64 ,.9 45 70 58 53 50 ,.8 ,.5 3. NE Holly Hills Dr off NE 195th 49 ,.7 ,.6 55 5,. 53 51 ,.8 ,.5 4. NE 195th at 120th NE NE corner 63 ,.6 4,. 63 55 53 51 50 ,.7 5. NE 195th at North Creek 66 5,. 51 6,. 60 58 56 52 50 6. Across from 19121 Beardslee Blvd. 66 60 57 66 61 58 57 5,. 50 7. 112th NE at NE 200th 79 76 69 81 78 73 74 6,. 56 Noise measurements were taken on Wednesday and Thursday, May 21-22, 1980, with a Quest 215 Type II sound level meter with wind screen attached. The meter was calibrated before and after each set of readings with a CA-12 calibrator. - 49- I ,I 1 i ,I I .-: I I I I , I " I I I I I I , I " , I I Weather' was variable. During the, midday readings the weather was overcast, temperature approximately 55~ with no winds. Weather during the peak hour readings was partly cloudy, temperature about 55~ with winds gusting to 8-12 mph. During the night readings, weather was partly cloudy, temperature about 50~ with no winds. Synopsis of noise measurements: Site I A t this location the principal source of noise was traffic on Interstate ,.05. A plane flyover occurred during the peak hour readings. Chirping birds were audible during the midday readings. Site 2 Traffic on Interstate ,.05 was audible, but not the principal noise source, with the exception of loud trucks climbing the grade out of the valley. Local traffic on 120th NE had a more significant impact. Chirping birds were also audible and distinct during the midday and peak hour readings. Site 3 The principal source of noise was traffic on Interstate ,.05 at the interchange with SR 522. A plane and jet flyover and a passing motorcycle occurred during the peak hour readings. Site ,. Sources of noise were local traffic on NE 195th Street and Interstate ,.05. During the midday and peak hour readings, chirping birds were audible. Two plane flyovers and a mooing cow also contr ibuted to the noise at this site. Site 5 Principal sources of noise were local traffic on NE 195th Street and Interstate ,.05. A plane and jet f1yover also occurred. Barking dogs contributed to the midday noise readings. Site 6 Traffic on Beardslee Boulevard and Interstate ,.05 was the principal source of noise. Other sources during the midday and peak hour readings included chirping birds (quite loud), a plane flyover and some boys playing basketball at the house adjacent to the site. Site 7 Traffic on Interstate ,.05 was the dominant noise source, overwhelming any other potential noise source. - 51- In summary, the dominant source of noise surrounding the site is traffic on Interstate ,.05 and on local streets. Other sources affected the noise levels but were of short duration. Based on the noise readings shown in Table VI, existing Ldn noise levels (day/night average) and the corresponding EPA designation are shown in Table VII. TABLE VII Ldn NOISE LEVELS Site Ldn (dBA) EP A Designation I I 66 Significant adverse noise impacts exist 2 65 Adverse noise impacts exist 3 57 " " " " 4 60 " " " " 5 62 " " " " 6 64 " " " " 7 80 Unacceptable public health and welfare imoacts Environmental Impact There are two principal noise impacts that would be created by the proposed develop- ment. There would be a long-term increase in noise levels created by additional traffic on and adjacent to the site and a short-term increase in noise during construction of the new facilities. The principal long-term increase in noise would come from the increased traffic volumes attracted to the, site. Table VIII shows the predicted Ldn levels with and without the project. A graphic representation of the existing conditions and predicted impact on noise is shown in Figure 9. TABLE vm PREDICTED LdnNOISE LEVELS (dBA) Existin'" 1985 Without Proiect 1985 With Proiect EPA EPA EPA Site Ldn Designation* Ldn Change Designation Ldn Change Designation I 66 SA 67 +1 SA 68 +2 SA 2 65 A '66 +1 SA 66 +1 SA 3 57 A '7 0 A 58 +1 A ,. 60 A 61 +1 A 61 +1 A 5 62 A 63 +1 A 67 +5 SA 6 64 .A 65 +1 A 66 +2 SA 7 80 U 81 +1 U 82 +2 U * GA- A- SA - U- Generally Acceptable Adverse noise impacts exist Significant Adverse noise impacts exist Unacceptable public health & welfare impacts - 52- I " ; . I ,.8 I ;,ij I ..} I I dl I : i I :i I '. : "..9 I :J I ,; I, I,' I .,..i I d ~ I d I ',j ,I i I , As shown in Table vm, there would be a small increase in noise levels on the site even without the project. With the proposed project, the noise increases would be small, except near noise measurement sites 5 and 6. The traffic increase along NE 195th Street would create the noise increase near site 5. The additional traffic U-405 south of NE 195th) would create the noise increase at measurement site 6. Both sites 5 and 6 would change from EPA designation "adverse noise impacts exist" to "significant adverse noise impacts exist". The EPA designation at the other sites would remain unchanged. The noise increases on the site itself would occur primarily during daylight . . hours, conforming to the work schedule of most employees on the site. There would also be a short-term increase in daytime noise levels due to construction activity. The following chart lists typical noise levels which can normally be expected from the types of equipment used in construction: NOISE LEVEL (dBA at 50 feet> Earth-Movinl1; Equipment Tractors Trucks Backhoes Graders Compactors (rollers) 70 - 95 82 - 9,. 71 - 93 80 94 73 - 74 Materials-Handlinl1; Concrete Mixers Concrete Pumps 75 - 88 81 - 8,. Impact Equipment Pneumatic Wrenches Jack Hammers (and rock drills) 82 - 88 81 - 98 Other - , Vibrators Saws 69 - 82 72 - 82 Noise from construction activities will generally range from 69 to 95 dBA, with some higher peaks if impact equipment is used. Construction noises around the site would cease upon completion of the project. Mitil1;atinl1; Measures Long-term mitigating measures are difficult to implement because the principal noise increase is due to the traffic that the proposed project would generate. The noise levels predicted address the "worst-case" traffic generation. Measures to mitigate traffic patterns are found in the TRANSPORTATION and CIRCULATION section. - 54- I >1 - '- I " , , I , i I ::i1 ..~ I ! I :.i I :.J.! I .1 I <j I' '.J I :\.,i ,I ~.l W 'I "I I i I I I I , I I I I I I I I' I ',' .1 I I , I , I I Noise abatement procedures during construction could include: Using and maintaining properly operating mufflers and quieting devices; Using the quietest.availab.le machinery and equi~ment; , . Using electric eqwpment In preference to gas, diesel or p!leumatl,c .machlnery;. Locating construction equipment as far from nearby nOISe sensitive propertIes as possible; Shutting off idling equipment; Limiting construction hours to coincide with the normal workday period (e.g. 8 AM to 6 PM weekdays). NATURAL RESOURCES ExistiOl1: Conditions The site contains prime agricultural soils and a creek that has been previously characterized as a salmon transit corridor for productive upstream spawning and ~ rearing areas (described in the WILDLIFE section of this report). 5l To address the question of the potential for agricultural use on the site, staff from the following agencies were contacted; the King County Office of Agriculture, the King County Cooperative Extension Service and the King County Assessors' Office. For a history of the economics of farming on the subject site the owners were contacted. The owners of the dairy farm to the north were also contacted. A summary of the financial records of the farm during the years 1958-1972 is provided ~ in the EIS for the Bothell Regional Center (City of Bothell, 1973) (see Technical ~ Appendix for an updated estimate of farming costs on the site). It shows that income to the working partners was far below national average even though the land was owned outr ight by the partners. The low economic return was based on several factors that forced the owners to conclude that produce farming on t~e site was no longer feasible ~ (see letters in Technical Appendix). In 197,., the final year the site was farmed, it was leased to an independent farmer for $90/acre. The farmer lost money and declined to lease the following year. Although available, no other offers for leasing have been received. ~ The Certified Public Accountant for the owners (Koll site) reviewed the financial records of the farm and prepared an estimate of the potential return from farming the site in 1981. This is provided in the Technical Appendix and also projects significant annual loss from farming even without land costs. Several letters from others with farming experience in the area including the dairy farm north of the site are also included in the Technical Appendix. The collective exper ience has been that it is not economically feasible to farm in such close-in areas for a variety of economic reasons of which the cost of land is only one. - 55 - The King County Agricultural Preservation Program was developed in an attempt to provide a potential solution to the economic problems of local farmers and to preserve 5l farmlands as open space. King County has recently finished its appraisals of agricultural lands in the Sammamish River Valley. Appraisals for three comparable sites in terms of valley bottom soils and size (but without freeway access or sewers) were averaged to estimate the value of the Koll, site under the King County Agricultural Preservation Program. The county's appraisals indicate that the market value of comparable farmland is $7,738 per acre or $1,983,320 for the Koll site. After purchasing development rights, the county estimates for the restricted value of the 5l comparable parcels for open space uses is $5,066 per acre or $709,240 for the KolI site. For comparison, staff in the county's Office of Agriculture estimated that land in agricultural areas more distant from urban centers such as the Snoqualmie or Skagit Valleys would cost from $2,500 to $3,000 per acre. There appears to be a market for 5l open space near Seattle (e.g., private or commercial horse ranches) that pushes the cost 5l of the land above the market value for agricultural uses even after speculation for 5l development is removed. Sale of the site for such other use would preserve the potential for future agricultural use if economic factors change. Maintenance of the site in open space would provide aestfletic and other values to Bothell residents' but would not generate significant revenue to the city or provide significant employment 5l opportunities. Neither produce farming nor dairy farming would be feasible at the projected cost of the land under the King County Agricultural Preservation Program. A review of government publications related to farming reveals that it is widely recognized that farming near urban areas is plagued by a variety of problems includin~ incompatibility with residential uses (noise, odor, predation of livestock by dogs), taxes and land costs. This has resulted in a variety of government programs and studies to 5l assist the farmer. For example, one study provided by the Cooperative Extension 5l Service indicated that the most productive local dairy farms (one of the most successful 5l agricultural activities in the area) generate up to a 13.8% return on investment ~ assuming maximum efficiency techniques, and a $6.00/hour wage rate for the operator 5l when the land is already owned or is available only for the cost of the interest on a 5l total debt of $10,000 (Cooperative Extension Service, 1979). The State's open space use taxation program reduces taxes on agricultural or open space uses. The average valuation for comparable farms in King County last year was $620 per acre. At Bothell's taxation rate, this would result in taxes of $881 annually for the site. - 56 - I .1 I , .j '~ I ;li I d ,J , ~ I , . I ..1 I d I . ~ I . . I _I ,I ",.I I c... I ...b I "I I j I .i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I 5lln summary, local experience has shown that agricUltural use of the site is not feasible, even with the variety of public programs designed to assist farmers. One remaining ~ natural resource would be the large parcel of vacant, undeveloped land in a rapidly developing area of King County. Environmental Impact Existing non-productive agricultural land, topsoil, natural vegetation, wildlife and the fishery resources would be affected with development at'proposed levels. Fossil fuels would be consumed by construction activities and by vehicles traveling to and from the project upon completion. Building construction would result in the consumption of concrete, metal, asphalt, lumber and other resources. These material construction requirements would be substantially the same at alternative locations. Electrical energy and natural gas would be consumed by facility operation. The undeveloped land itself would be committed to the proposed uses for the foreseeable 5l future and alternative uses such as agriculture for the site would be lost or substantially reduced. Mitil1;atinl1; Measures Careful placement of the buildings on the site and clustering could provide for more continuous open landscaped areas. The configuration of North Creek. would be changed to a meandering pattern, with tree cover and natural habitat cover added to improve the water quality of North Creek. Provisions for community access to North Creek would result by developing a trail along the creek and by providing open space which could be utilized by the public as a recreational area. Such provisions would eliminate the impact of losing the undevel oped natural site by providing future public access to and use of portions of North Creek as a recreationaJ area. The development would utilize significant site and building energy conservation techniques, including site orientation, appropriate overhangs, and landscaping. Topsoils could be scraped and used for landscaping or sold for use in other areas. LIGHT AND GLARE ExistinR Conditions Light and glare in the vicinity of the proposed development site are produced by both stationary and mobile sources. The stationary sources are largely attributable to: J) freeway lighting to the west of the site, 2) existing single family homes above on the hillsides, and 3) light and glare from the two homes located on the development site and - 57- visible from the freeway. Mobile sources originate primarily from motor vehicles traveling on Interstate 405, NE 95th Street and 120th Avenue NE. Environmental Impact The proposal would add sources of light to the site from overhead lighting of roadways and parking areas and from buildings, including interior lighting of offices and retail/commercial spaces. Lighting on the site would be visible to residents living on the adjacent hillsides. Those uses generally operating from 8 AM to 5 PM would not be a major source of light during the evening hours when most residents are home. Headlight glare from vehicles within the parking lot might be visible to the same single family residences on the adjacent hillsides. Any construction-related lighting would be for security purposes and would conform to the guidelines set forth below. It is not anticipated that construction would proceed after dark. Mitigating Measures All measures will be taken to have on-site lighting contribute to the safe and efficient use of the development site without casting glare onto adjacent lots or streets. Lighting design will conform with all applicable regulations and with energy-saving guidelines. To implement these objectives, the following measures will be incorporated into the lighting design: I. All lighting visible from an adjacent street shall be indirect or shall incorporate a full shielded fixture. 2. Parking areas, access drives and internal vehicular circulation areas shall be uniformly light, with a maintained average illumination level of I-foot candle (to a minimum of 0.3 foot candle). 3. Any necessary service area illumination shall be contained within such areas, with no spillover occur ing outside this area. 4. Building illumination, signs and architectural lighting shall be indirect in character (no visible light source). 5. Pedestrian walkway lighting should be uniform in outdoor use areas, or "point-to- point" to identify pedestrian walkways and directions of travel. - 58 - I .1 I d ~ I '.,/l I ., , I d ~ I ~ I :-u I ,I I .\.M_ I ',j I .ji , I ;.' I d I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ., I ., I i I I I I I I RISK OF EXPLOSION OR HAZARDOUS EMISSION Existing Conditions g. There is currently no activity on the site that would present a risk of an explosion or emission of hazardous substances. Environmental Impact During the construction phases of the development, a temporary risk of equipment accidents would occur. At this time, it is not known whether the warehousing of volatile materials can be expected. If such a use is proposed, the City of Bothell should condition granting a building permit on compliance with applicable safety ordinances. Mitigating Measures. It is not anticipated that warehousing or the production of hazardous or dangerous materials would occur on the site. Such a use would be subject to governmental approval. Safety measures would also be observed during construction and the risk of explosion would be no greater than at similar construction sites. The discharge of any chemicals into the sanitary or storm sewers would be conditional upon conformance with regulations governing such discharge. The disposal of chemicals directly into North Creek would not be permitted. Anyon-site spillage would be guarded against by the exercise of utmost care. Surface spillage occurring on the site would be handled by consultation with experts in this area and, where possible, by storm water retention ponds. LAND USE Existing Land Use The site is mostly vacant, agricultural land which has not been farmed since 1973. Three residences and several farm buildings are clustered on the southwest portion near the freeway interchange, and a small amount of agricultural activity occurs in conjunction with the residences. Properties to the north and south are currently in agricultural use, predominantly pasture land for dairy cattle, with some row crops. The wooded hillside to the east is mostly undeveloped, with one residence located at the base of the slope near the south corner of the site. To the west, beyond the 1-405 freeway, several houses, mostly older and on large lots, are scattered along the base of the wooded hillside. Scattered areas of suburban-density, single-family subdivisions and mobile home parks are located on the plateaus to the east and west, and to the south of SR 522. - 59- Existing Zoning The site is currently zoned for agricultural use. Land to the south, both within Bothell and in King County, is also zoned agricultural. The Snohomish County zoning to the north is RC, Rural Conservation. The hillsides and plateaus to the east and west of the site are zoned for various densities of single-family use, from one to four lots per acre. It is anticipated that much of the surrounding land will be reclassified prior to development in line with the uses and densities designated in the applicable comprehen- sive plans described in the following section (Comprehensive Plans). These plans generally indicate that the valley floor area will eventually be predominantly zoned for commercial and light manufacturing use and that the surrounding hillsides and plateaus will include areas zoned for single-family, multi-family, professional office and neighborhood business uses. In this regard, Bothell City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97 I amending the city's comprehensive zoning ordinance. This amendment creates and defines new land use classifications intended to implement the comprehensive plan. Actual reclassification of land has not yet occurred. Comprehensive Plans City of Bothell: The primary instrument for regulating development on the site is the recently adopted North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan, which supplements the Bothell Comprehensive Plan. The new plan details community goals and objectives for developments of the North Creek Valley and surrounding hillsides. The boundaries of the planning area include land within three jurisdictions: Bothell, King County and Sno- homish County, as shown on Figure 10. Although the policies of the Plan cannot be legally enforced beyond the boundaries of the City of Bothell, the Plan will help to coordinate planning and decision-making regarding adjacent lands within the valley "influence area". The Plan recommends designating the portion of the planning area within the City of Bothell as a Special District. The District is to be governed by the Plan's policies and standards with respect to use, and density with rezones as necessary, obtained as part of project development approval. The Plan incorporates the concept of impervious surface coverage and the concept of slope in standards for lot coverage. The standards reflect the desire to improve the local tax base while retaining the semi-rural, residential quality of life in the area. In order to further these aims, most development in the planning area is subject to the Planned Unit Development process. - 60 - ~ l' :, ~ I .i 'I ;. . I .1 :1 ,.1 ,I ! ,. j I .1 ;1 ~_i I ._f " .... I ,.1 I ,j I .J I j I , , I ~ A discussion of the adopted Goals, Objectives, and Policies for the planning area, is presented in the DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL section. g. Snohomish County: Adjacent property to the north is in Snohomish County and is part of the county's North Creek Planning Area. The land falls into two designations on the North Creek Comprehensive Plan map. The westerly area, within about 800 feet of the freeway, is designated "suburban" for residential development at one to four dwelling units per acre. The balance, and the greater portion, of the land to the north is designated "water- shed - site sensitive areas". This designation is applied to existing valley agricultural g. land as well as to other sensitive areas. The North Creek Plan encourages the retention g. of viable agricultural enterprises (see Technical Appendix for discussion of the g. feasibility of farming on the site). It also establishes policies for conversion to g. residential uses. g. The above described Snohomish County lands within approximately one-quarter mile g. north of the subject site are overlapped by the "valley floor" and the Holly Hills upland g. portions of Bothell's North Creek Valley Planning Area. The valley floor portions are g. influenced by the same development guidelines as the site. The Bothell plan calls for mixed-use while the Snohomish County plan calls for residential. In the upland area, Bothell's plan calls for residential densities of 9,600 square feet while Snohomish g. County's plan allows low-density residential in the overlapping areas. g. Although no formal mechanism exists for enforcement of Bothell's policies within g. Snohomish County, informal discussions are continuing to take place between the two g. jurisdictions regarding compatibility of their policies within this overlap area. The KolI project would result in a situation very similar to several sites in Snohomish County's g. North Creek Planning Area. The map element (included in the Technical Appendix) of the county's plan places light industrial and business park uses adjacent to watershed- site sensitive and residential uses and, in at least two places on sites previously used for g. agriculture (i.e., Mill Creek Plaza, and I-405/SR 527) conflicting with policies 2 and 3 under Agriculture. This illustrates that not all policies can always be follows in implementing a plan (generally recognized as tradeoffs). There is a minor difference g. between the plans, in that the County's plan requires a 50-foot buffer between the uses g. and the City's North Creek Plan does not require a similar buffer. Both plans encourage retention of agriculture. The Bothell plan does not allow single family residential uses on the valley floor while the Snohomish County plan does. - 62 - I ,~ ,1 ;,! 'I ~ J..' I :di I : :~ I ;."~ I , i , .J( I , a I : ~ I ,j I ;; I d " d ,I if :1 ;.1 ':1 . ; :,,1 I I r--- I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I ! I J I I I I I g. In summary, while there are inconsistencies in the designated uses where the plans It overlap, Bothell's adopted policies guiding future development of the subject site are g. generally consistent or compatible with policies affecting adjacent land within Snoho- g. mish County. Further communication between the two jurisdictions is required to It provide an adequate forum for resolving differences of opinion regarding inconsistencies and for providing adequate protection for the rights of affected property owners. King County: Adjacent properties to the east of the northern half of the subject site, and in proximity to the southwest portion of the site, ar~ in unincorporated King County and are part of the Holly Hills community which is part of King County's Northshore Community Planning Area. King County's Northshore Community Development Plan designates the land to the northeast for residential use at three dwelling units per acre. This designation is generally consistent with Bothell's North Creek Valley Plan which indicates basically residential use, with some multi-family and office-professional uses allowed on areas of less than 15% slope. The King County areas near the southwest portion of the site are currently undergoing a g. plan amendment process which may modify the current agriculture designation. Draft proposals indicate a possibility of higher density residential use as well as some professional office and manufacturing park uses. The uses proposed in the Bothell North Creek Valley Plan would be compatible with the uses proposed in the new King County plan. However, the proposed King County plan is less restrictive and could allow more intensive development that would adversely affect projects developed under City of Bothell regulations. Informal discussions have taken place between King County and Bothell officials. Further discussions are needed to resolve plan discrepancies. In summary, King County and Bothell are maintaining informal communications which appear to be effective in avoiding any major problems within the areas of overlapping influence, and no significant incompatibilities in policies can be identified which would indicate that development of the subject site per Bothell's guidelines would create a significant conflict with the policies controlling development of adjacent or nearby lands within unincorporated King County. g. . .' King County's Draft General Development Guide promotes the concept of urban centers for growth and the preservation of open space where possible within urban centers. The Bothell plan and the KolI proposal are consistent with this by promoting growth and - 63 - designating open space within an existing urban center (Bothell). The General g. Development Guide is expected to be adopted this year. New drafts have just been released. The plan concept map illustrating the growth strategy and related policies It are included in the Technical Appendix. It KinR Couny SubreRional Plan: In this plan, Bothell is designated by the PSCOG as a It suburban activity center. This is the same designation given to areas such as g. Tukwila/Southcenter, Kent and Auburn. The city passed a resolution endorsing this plan g. and defining the North Creek Valley as a special low-density activity center. The city's plan and the KolI proposal are consistent with the goals and policies of the subregional g. plan. Environmental Impact Approval of the rezone would allow the vacant agricultural land to be developed as a commercial, office and light industrial center. The requested rezone is "Mixed Use Zone" (MU), which is consistent with the proposed development. The purpose of this newly created zone is to permit a wide variety and types of uses. The direct impacts of this proposal, limited to the site, may have secondary impacts on adjacent land uses. These secondary impacts would be regulated by the North Creek Valley Special Distr ict Ordinance. The development of the site on the North Creek Valley floor would likely create pressure for more rapid development of flanking hillsides into residential areas. Chapter 17.15 to the zoning ordinance anticipates this development need by designating a "Hillside Residential/O-P Zone" to regulate development in hilly areas in a manner which substantially preserves the natural wooded character of the area. The intensity of the proposed project would have the indirect effect of encouraging further development on other land parcels on the valley floor. Similar proposals are being considered by other developers for parcels directly south of the KolI site. Increased pressure may occur to amend Snohomish County's North Creek Compre- hensive Plan and to rezone parcels north of the site to more intensive uses. It, Without an adequate buffer, the proposed project may not be compatible with It residential uses on the property 'to the north if that site is converted. It The proposal is in general conformance with the goals and policies of the Comprehen- sive Plans discussed above. - 64 - I . s I d I . J I , I I " I ~ I , i I i I , , , I I I , ~~ I I I , I I f I I , I I I I I I I -1 I , I - , - I I I " , I I I i I , ,I I I i I I MitiRating Measures To minimize impacts on surrounding land uses, the development would be controlled by mandatory adherence to applicable land use codes and regulations and the CC & R's of the development. The proposed concept is designed to minimize adverse effects on surrounding land and on the site itself. Mitigating measures include greenbelt and open space, meandering the North Creek Channel, augmenting the proposed North Creek Pedestrian Trail System, enhancing the quality of the creek as a fisheries and wildlife habitat, and strict adherence to covenants, codes and restrictions which serve as design guidelines and aid in the review of plans submitted for approval. Control of the development ,will be accomplished through development standards of the CC & R's, and the Bothell Zoning Code. It A landscaped buffer along the northern property line would reduce incompatibility with land uses north of the site. A 50-foot buffer is required in similar situations in Snohomish County. - 65- I I .I I , I I I , I I I , , . I , .J ~ I I , ,I r I I I I I ~ ~ - } I . Elements of the Human Environment POPULATION AND HOUSING ExistinR Conditions The proposal site is located within Census Tract 218 (see Figure ll), but for purposes of this study, Census Tracts 217, 219, 220, 221, 323 and 519 will also be considered for analysis (see Table IX). These seven Census Tracts include the entire North Creek Valley Planning area and the area immediately surrounding the proposed site which represents the population and housing groups potentially impacted by the proposal. King County and Snohoniish County are included in the table for comparison purposes. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) most recent projections for population growth in the next twenty years indicate that the population of Census Tract 218 (A.A.M. District 4530) is projected to rise to nearly 12,000 people by the year 2000. This represents a 103 percent increase over 1970 levels and a 65 percent increase over estimated 1980 levels (see Table X). Census Tract 218 is typical of King County characteristics with a few exceptions: J) the number of persons/household is higher in the study area than in King and Snohomish Counties, 2) the median value of housing units is higher in Census Tract 218, and 3) the percentage of owner-occupied housing units is higher in this tract. Age distr ibution patterns for residents of the census tract in which the proposed site is located, adjacent tracts and King and Snohomish Counties are compared in Table IX. The distr ibution patterns fall within a 4 percent differential. Table XI shows data on housing within the study area. As discussed above, the size of families, median house values and median rents are higher in Census Tract 218 than in the county. In addition, there is a low demand to rent homes and a high demand to buy in relation to the counties as a whole. Two housing units are located on the site. Income characteristics are shown in Table XII. Environmental Impact The two on-site residential housing units would be lost by construction of the proposal. The project may have a secondary impact of accelerating the demand for developing multi-family housing units on the surrounding undeveloped hillsides. A few of the It projected 3,220 employees could change their residence locations as a result of the project, although significant relocations are not anticipated. Clientele for possible commercial/retail business would be drawn from existing neighborhoods. -67- - TABLE X POPULA TION PROJECTIONS 1970 1980 1990 2000 A.A.M District 4530** (Corresponding Census Tract 218) February, 1977 5,945 6,666 8,484 10,691 June, 1979 5,945 7,259 9,277 , 1l,959 **PSCOG T-208 Projection TABLE XI HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS King Sno. Census Tracts: Zl7 218 219 220 221 323 519 Countv Countv Year-Round Housing Units 1,074 1,804 1,429 1,899 1,249 4,237 6,270 423,183 88,044 Persons/ Household 2.72 3.26 3.79 3.30 3.75 3.12 3.43 2.72 Z.97 Median Value 23,500 23,800 29,800 23,600 22,900 23,800 22,200 21 ,700 20,800 Median Rent 134 137 128 129 - 127 128 120 134 Year-Round % Vacant 5.77 4.60 5.45 7.42 .4 8.02 4.26 4.35 7.47 % Owner- Occupied 65.64 71.23 88.24 80.99 90.55 68.82 82.00 58.55 59.Z5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 TABLE XU INCOME CHARACTERISTICS King Sno. Census Tracts: 217 218 219 220 221 323 SI9 County Countv Median Income II ,426 II , 909 14,143 12,304 12,447 12,156 11 ,378 II , 886 10,897 % Below Poverty 4.3 4.8 2.8 3.9 5.1 4.1 3.7 5.0 6.0 Source: U.S. Census ~ureau, 1970 -70- -:l ,I II ~ ~ I 'I, ;-' I d I ;1 I .,J. I oj I ~ I .d, '. , . :..~ I , 'I ... ,I .-1 ~:.J; I lJ I .J J I <, .'..1.1 I ,J I I I I I I ; I .1 I ..' I ,I I '. ." I I ,I I I I I J I ) I SOCIAL Existing Conditions The lifestyles of the two families presently living on the site are directly affected by the site. These families enjoy the use of the site as private open space and both families maintain large gardens. Indirectly, the lifestyles of families living adjacent to the site are also affected by the lack of development on the site. The pastoral appearance of the site and lack of activity have a pleasing effect on many persons when they view the site from their homes or when driving past the site. Many other local residents from a larger area may also realize some psychological benefits when viewing the site on a daily basis from their automobiles. Environmental Impact The social environment of the two families presently living on the site may change significantly when they are relocated for the development. As development occurs and the intensity of activity in the area increases, the lifestyles (at least psychologically) of adjacent residents will also change. Adjacent residents will begin to perceive their neighborhoods becoming more suburban and less rural. The differences between physical impacts to lifestyle and perceived impacts often become indistinguishable and unquantifiable. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Existing Conditions Street Descriptions and Operation: The project site is bounded by Interstate 405 on the west, NE 195th Street on the south, and I20th Avenue NE on the east. Northeast I95th Street and 120th Avenue NE are classified as collector arterials. West of the freeway, Beardslee Boulevard is also a collector arter ial and leads to downtown Bothell which is about one mile to the southwest. Figure 12 shows the site relationship to ,these arterials and to downtown Bothell. State "Sign Route" '2,2 (SR 522) is the primary east-west route in the Bothell area, leading west from Bothell to intersect with 1-5 in North Seattle. State Route 522 also leads east to 1-405 and on to Monroe in Snohomish County. Major north-south traffic through the Bothell area is carried on Interstate 405 and SR 527, also known as Everett Way NE. Traffic from downtown Bothell reaches 1-405 by either SR 522 or the 195th Street interchange via Beardslee Boulevard or Ross Road. -71- I I I I I i I I ) I I I I I I I I i I , I , I I Beardslee Boulevard, Ross Road, NE 195th Street, and I20th Avenue NE are two-lane arterials. All except Ross Road have 60 feet of right-of-way with asphalt shoulders and posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour. Ross Road has only 40 to 45 feet of right-of- way, no shoulders or curbs, and a 2S-mile-per-hour speed limit. North of , Ross Road, Beardslee Boulevard changes to 112th Avenue NE, and has dirt shoulders and a 2S-mile- per-hour speed limit. One Hundred and Twelfth Avenue NE dead-ends at the Snohomish County line. The intersection of Ross Road/NE 195th Street and Beardslee Boulevard/ 112th Avenue NE is controlled with stop signs on Beardslee Boulevard and 112th Avenue It NE. Northeast 195th Street has recently been extended to the east from the intersection of 120th Avenue NE, and it connects with residential areas above the North Creek Valley. The freeway overpass is two lanes with two-foot concrete shoulders. It Average weekday traffic is shown in Figure 12. Traffic volumes are quite low, even during rush hours because of the generally undeveloped area served by the NE 195th Street interchange with 1-405. The low volumes are also far below the vehicle carrying capacity of any of the streets, and no additional traffic controls such as signals or stop signs appear to be needed. Public Transportation: Bus service is provided to the Bothell area by METRO Transit and Snohomish County Public Transportation. The Snohomish County bus runs from Lynnwood to the Bothell Park-and-Ride Lot off SR 522. The bus leaves hourly during off peak periods and twice hourly during peak hours. The METRO bus connects Bothell to downtown Seattle with buses running hourly during off-peak and twice hourly during peak hours. The intersection of JJ2th Avenue NE and NE 195th Street is now being used as a makeshift park-and-ride lot for carpools, and accommodates approximately twelve cars. A survey of vehicle occupancy in 1977 showed that the average occupancy per vehicle in the morning rush hour was 1.22 on Ballinger Way near Kenmore. It It Traffic Safety: In 1978 and 1979, there were ten reported accidents on the arterials near the site (excluding 1-405). As shown in the diagram below, only two arterial intersections near the site have recorded accidents: (I) the northbound 1-405 off-ramp at NE 195th Street, and (2) 195th Street at 120th Avenue NE with one and two accidents, respectively. The accident rates per million entering vehicles is 2.2 at the 1-405 ramp and 5.7 at the NE 195th and 120th Avenue NE location. ' Even though the 5.7 accident rate is relatively -73- high (average intersection accident rates at suburban intersections are usually lower than 2.5), there is no real significance here because the "sample" is too small to have any statistical meaning. ~ ~ N ... I>> < ~ .. ? ~ . Site __1925-' _ _ __ __ _ __ ~ Trip-Making Characteristics: An origin-destination survey around Bothell was taken on June 24, 1980 for the three It classes of land use expected to occur on the site: 1) moderate-size retail shoppin~ ~ center; 2) light industry; and 3) office park. The origin-destination portion of the survey was conducted by contacting employees at the Woodgate Shopping Center, and at light industries and offices along the Woodinville-Snohomish Road. The Koll Business ~ Center on II/8th NE in Redmond was used to refine trip generation estimates, and for other reasons such as comparing trip length distribution, mode split and vehicle occupancy with the Bothell area surveys. The survey response was very good for a voluntary, mail-back survey. Out of 70 questionnaires distributed to retail employees, 41 were returned (5896); out of 157 questionnaires distributed to office park employees, 51 were returned (3296), and out of the 776 questionnaires given to the employees at light industrial facilities, 284 were returned (3696). The surveys of visitors to and customers of these businesses had lower response rates, and incomplete information exists as to exactly how many forms were taken. Thirty-five questionnaires were returned for shopping and personal business trips -74- I I I I I I ;1 t u I iJ ~ :, o ;: I I>> ;,1 < !D ., ? d !D I ,J I , f I .~ I " , I I I . j I d I ,.1 I I 'I II I I l I , I I I I i I i ~ ~ I I I , I I I I I ! I , , I I (i.e., visits to doctors, banks, real estate agents, etc.). Neither the office park nor the light industry businesses had many visitors, and the number of returned questionnaires from these two land uses (9 and 12 respectively) were not sufficient for further analysis. However, direct contact with all the employers in the office parks and light industries surveyed revealed that few expected more than one or two visitors daily. The majority of trips to and from these businesses are made by employees going to and from home, and to have lunch, shop or conduct personal blisiness. No attempt was made to estimate the total volume of trips to and from these business types in Bothell; rather, what was sampled and is reported here was the proportions of all tr ips between Bothell and other parts of the urban area. Figures 13, 14 and 15, show the trip interchanges for employees between Bothell and the various other communities in the area (i.e., this is where people who work in Bothell go to and come from). Note the substantial differences between retail employees and the others. Table XIII summarizes these patterns. The percentages do not add up to 10096 because some areas are included twice (part of "Bothell Vicinity" is in "Snohomish County", for example). TABLE XIII It PROPORTION OF ALL TRIPS BY TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT , (All destinations in Bothell within two miles of Site) Origin Retail Office Park Lil1:ht Industry Bothell Vicinity 34% 696 2096 Kenmore 896 4% 296 Snohomish County 15% 2096 3396 E. Sammamish Plateau 2096 496 8% Eastside (King County between Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish) 5596 57% 5096 Seattle 1096 1296 9% North of Snohomish County 096 096 0.296 Pierce County Oel(, 096 196 Average trip lengths were calculated for trips to and from each type of land use. Table XIV presents this data. -75- I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I , I ! I l I , , I I TABLE XIV AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS Type of Trips Average Trip Lengths Retail Employees to/from Work 6.14 miles Office Park Employees to/from Work 8.85 miles Light Industry Employees to/from Work 9.84 miles Shopping and Personal Business Trips 2.89 miles The differences in trip lengths are all statistically significant. Average trip length data for the Seattle 'urbanized area are not directly comparable with the data here; the BotheU data provide far more detail than regional travel data. However, the average home-to-work trip (all classes of employment) exceeds ten miles in King County, and the average auto trip length is about six miles (all purposes). The conclusion is that average work trip lengths to suburban employment are somewhat less than for the entire county, and this is probably due to the longer average work trips to and from the Seattle CBD. AU but two shopping/personal business trips were made by car (two motorbikes were reported), and the average vehicle occupancy was 1.42 persons per car. For the home.: to-work trips, the average vehicle occupancies are: J. Retail Home-to-Work = 1.22 persons/vehicle 2. Office Park Home-to-Work = 1.24 persons/vehicle 3. Light Industry Home-to-Work = 1.35 persons/vehicle The average morning peak-hour vehicle occupancy of 1.22 persons per vehicles, from a monitoring station on Ballinger Way near Kenmore, is not significantly different from the occupancies found for the retail and office employees. The 1.35 persons per vehicle occupancy rate for light industry employees is significantly higher and can probably be explained by Commuter Pool Program marketing activities at the larger businesses surveyed, such as General Telephone on the Woodinville-Redmond Hi~hway. Of interest is the fact that no one reported getting to work by bus, only one by bike and one by walking. Three trips out of the 376 returned employee questionnaires were made by motorcycle, about 0.896 of all work trips made. -79- ~ Environmental Impact . Projection of Existing Traffic Projected population increases in the census tracts discussed in the POPULATION section show that 1980 population and employment levels are expected to increase in It the King County portion of the planning area (see Figure ll, Census Tracts) at the rate of approximately 2% per year over the next 10 years., Population and employment in that portion of Snohomish County located in the planning area is expected to increase at approximately 4.5% per year over the same 10-year.period. This range of growth is typical of developing areas at the fringe of the Seattle metropolitan area, and has led It to an annual traffic growth rate of 4% to 6% on the major freeways and arterials in the region. However, more locally-oriented streets in growth areas show far larger increases when development takes place. If the industrially zoned land in the planning area is developed, the minor arterials and collectors in the immediate vicinity will experience far higher rates of annual growth. For example, this proposal will result in a 250% growth in traffic volume on NE 195th in the short term. To estimate annual traffic growth rates without industrial development, a 5% rate per year was used. Figure 16 shows PM peak traffic volumes on 1-405, NE 195th, 120th Avenue NE, and 1J2th Avenue NE in 1980. Figure 17 shows projected traffic volumes on these same arterials in 1985 without traffic generated from implementation of any phase of this proposal. The design capacities of these facilities can adequately accommodate 1985 traffic projections. . Trip Generation Trip generation rates as used in this study consist primarily of national average data supplemented with information from the Bothell 0 & D Survey in the case of office and industrial park use. Trip generation rates used in this study are based on national data, but there is strong evidence that trip generation in the proposed development will more It closely approximate the' rates shown from our traffic surveys. Table XV lists the various vehicle trip generation rates used in this study for the proposal as well as for Iil five alternatives. The 0 & D Survey showed that the number of office park employees per square foot, in suburban King County analogous to those of the proposal, number about one per 490 square feet whereas one employee per 250 square feet is normally It used as a planning average. The number of light industrial employees per square foot used in this study is one employee per 750 square feet, fairly close to the national averages reported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Another local study (Andover Industrial Park) conducted by Wilsey and Ham about five years ago showed that the mix of distribution, warehouse and manufacturing uses yielded a ratio of one -80- I' ,~ I ~ .,#. I a , I ~ Ii I . ~ .~;'" I ;1 I , .;li I ~1 I , , I ,i I J I iJ I " d , ~ J: I i I j I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I TABLE XV TRIP GENERATION u.. ":;''' I"'umoer eneratlon ates e Ie e " . 01 _I~'"Y" - ....uY - Sa. Ft. molov... n Out n Out In Out n Out Initial Commercial 166,17a NA 79.0' - . 2.". 2.1. 12,962 0 0 399 a., Development 1 Office 103,666 212 3.31 0.a7 0.16 0.12 0.a2 706 100 3a U 19 Indus".lal 290.191 317 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 D." 1,23& -m '0 loa 20' Total ~O,O31 14,906 3n 34 -m --m Full CommerdaJ 200,000 NA 09.9. - - 2.1* 2.). U.600 0 0 a&O ,"0 Development J Office 3$0,000 714 3.33 0.a7 0.16 0.12 0.a2 2,371 336 lIa 16 300 Industr tal 990.000 1320 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 D." 0.224 937 172 3~ 700 TotaJ 1,540,000 22,202 -rmm -m ""Tm Initial 2 Commercial 166,174 NA 79.0. - . 2.". 2.7. 12,962 0 0 399 449 Development Office 103,666 a13 3.33 0.a7 0.16 0.12 0.a2 1,3&2 I" 66 '0 174 Industrial 290.19& 3&7 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 D." I 23& 2n '0 lOa 20' Total '60,031 13:m f-iYij ill -mIE Full Commercial 200,000 NA 09.'- . - 2.1* 2.). 13,600 0 0 a&o '40 DeveJopment2 Office 3lO,OOO laOO 3.33 0.a7 0.16 O. i2 0.a2 11,"2 6'& 22a 16& 3sa Industr iel 990.000 1320 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 D." a 224 -rllitn 3$6 700 Total 1,540,000 24:al6 139 m 1004 1m Ahernative 1 Commer2'a! 10&,910 NA 60."e 1.0. 0.9. LO. 1.'* 6,'7& 109 9& U2 17" Offjce 116.29& 733 3.31 0.a7 0.16 0.12 0.a2 2,440 3a4 117 sa 30S Indus". laJ aa4.~1 646 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 D." 2.067 ....ill ~ ...!.ll-ill Total 779,769 11,0&' 912 299 414 &2" Ahernative 2 Commer~al 139,272 NA 60."- 1.0. D.'. l.". 1.'* 9,620 139 143 223 233 Ollie. 271,610 1114 3.31 0.47 0.16 0.12 0.42 3.710 '2' 17& 134 a6& Industr iaJ 717.233 "6 3.20 0.71 0,13 0.27 D." 3.0'9 -ill ill. ..ill ---1Q! T ota! 1,133,137 16.3&9 1362 aa3 613 1230 Alternative) Industrial 1,114,406 2'13 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 D." &Oal 17&4 327 679 1312 Alternative" Commercial 36a,773 NA )4.'- 0.4). 0.21* 0.12* 0.1'. 19.a&' 243 119 463 a&6 Alternative' Commercial 1,0411,&30 NA 31.1- . - 0.92- 1.21- 32,~94 - . 961 1264 Full Development KolI Commercial 261,360 NA lf9.9- - - 2.1- 2.3- 13.042 0 0 349 601 (Ph..ell) Office '44, '00 217& 3.33 0.47 0.16 0.12 0.a2 7,233 1024 3a& 261 913 Industr ial 91a.760 1220 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 0.33 3.903 ~139 329 647 Total 1,720,620 24,191 1&90 lO7 I 139 2iiJ Quadrant Commerdal 321, '67 NA ClO.,.- - . 2.1- 2.3- 1),274 0 0 690 736 Office 6I4,'la 273& 3.33 0.a7 0.16 0.12 0.42 9.111 12&7 a31 329 1130 Industr aal 1.149.9&4 1333 3.20 0.71 0.13 0.27 0.33 4.906 ~ 199 41a &12 Total 2,163,06$ 27,29& 2373 ill 1433 2m Truly Commercial 160,000 NA 60."- 0 . 2.6- 2.'- 9,'&4 . - al6 a~4 Property Office Park II aCTes NA 31,0 - - 32.;~ ',&70 . - - 94' M.F. Residential )7' Units NA 6.100 - - 0.,.00 0.2 2,211 - - 130 73 Industr iaJ 4' acres NA >>.40 - . . 10.10 2 33& --: ~ 69 3&6 Total 103 acres 19:9&0 633 Ii70 CRAND TOTAL - ALL DEVELOPMENT 71,a76 - . 3207 6731 2-way H.e., in and out together) vehicle trip generation rates for "Daily'" liven in trips per thousand square feet of Voss floor area (CFA). Otherwise, vehicle trip generation rates are given per employee. -. General Light Industr ia) . 3.20, Office Park. 3.33, Commercial: ,o-JOO,OOO ft2 . 79 200-300,000 ,,2 . 49.9 , o trips per acre 00 tr ips per unit Office based on I employee/490 ft ~ Office based on J employee/2,O ft I 2 -83- -84- I ;,i I I , I I .~~ I ",I I ,~ I ;J I d I ,~. I , ,~" I :;J I "J I ,.I .! ,~ '~ I employee per 827 square feet. The use of one employee per 750 square feet for this It study appears reasonable and consistent with national data. . Trip Distribution It The 0 &: D Survey, in conjunction with travel time studies on all roads in the vicinity, was used to project the likely travel routes of the vehicle trips for each use. Projections were made for each of the three proposed uses because the geographic distribution patterns of each are significantly different. The separate projections were then added together for total vehicle volume estimates for both average weekday and It afternoon peak traffic. Generally, routing via 1-405 and SR-522 freeways were faster even for trips to the northeast, so almost all traffic to and from the site will use the freeway system for access rather than 120th NE, NE I95th Street and the streets and roads of Snohomish County. . Estimated Traffic Operating Characteristics It "Level of Service" (LOS) is a term used to describe the quality of flow along traffic It routes and at intersections. Theoretically, LOS is a qualitative description of the entire It, driving experience and includes consideration of congestion, speed, safety, comfort and convenience, directness of route, and aesthetics among others. However, adequate indices have not been developed relating the qualities of each of the factors to each other with respect to LOS. Therefore, LOS is usually used to describe only the relative It level of congestion and travel speed. At urban and suburban intersections, LOS "A" It represents operation at less than 70% of theoretical design capacity; "B" represents It operation at 70-77% of theoretical capacity; "C", 77-85%; "D", 85-92% of capacity; and "E" represents flows exceeding 92% of theoretical capacity. Level "F" is undefined in g. percentage terms, but represents stop-and-go conditions with extreme traffic delays. If demand exceeds capacity, obviously severe traffic congestion results with related delays. Some drivers will seek alternate routes to avoid this congestion. It Traffic impacts of the full project would not occur initially. Due to the soils of the site (see SOILS section), the proposed sequence of earthwork for the project would result in the development of the parcels along the western border of the site first by 1982 (see Site Plan, Figure 2). Traffic projections estimated for 1982 are shown in Figure 18. With minor improvements to intersections (channelization and turn arrows), the initial development will not adversely impact traffic in the immediate area. Development would cause the northbound off-ramp intersection with 195th Street to operate at 54% of capacity by 1982. It With full development of the property by 1985, and without mitigating measures, the It NE 195th intersection with both the 1-405 ramps and the road into the KolI project It would operate at LOS "F" with demand theoretically exceedin~ capacity two times over, which will not actually happen. Rather, many trips would not be made to or from the KolI development and some would be diverted to other local streets if no g. improvements were made. Figure 19 shows the 1985 traffic distribution. It It is not possible to forecast how many drivers will divert to alternate routes to escape congestion. It should be noted thai the alternate routes also have severe congestion It potential. Southeast 228th Street in Snohomish County, as it nears SR 527, would also become congested if traffic were to divert from the I-405/NE 195th Street interchange. The interchange of SR 522 and 132nd Avenue NE is also heavily loaded during peak hours. Traffic from the proposed development, diverting to the 132nd/SR 522 interchange, would also cause severe traffic congestion at that interchange. The area streets leading to these alternate interchanges are two-lane, rural roads that cannot It safely accommodate traffic diverted from the I-405/NE I95th interchange. In short, It without mitigating measures, all roads in the area would operate at LOS "F" both in It Bothell and most collectors and arterials south of SE 228th between SR 9 and SR 527 in Snohomish County if drivers were to divert from NE 195th Street. Other development beyond the KolI proposal is planned for the North Creek Valley, and It Table XV shows the magnitude of the combined trip generation of full development in It the valley. If all these developments were to proceed, peak-hour vehicle tr ip-ends would approach 10,000 in one hour, with 6,750 vehicles attempting to proceed outbound It from the North Creek Valley. Total daily vehicle trip ends generated by these proposals It would exceed 70,000, about 70% of the total vehicle trip ends in all of downtown il Bellevue (CBD west of the freeway). Clearly, the roads in the area as they are today il cannot support this valley-wide development without the mitigating measures listed It below and other potential improvements to be'identified by the city-wide traffic study. It Mitigating Measures · The sponsor's anticipated sequence of development would allow mitigation of the traffic impacts at NE 195th Street and the off-ramps of 1-405. The proposed sequence of project development allows time for further consideration of possible mitigating methods and procedures to deal with area traffic increases caused by valley-wide developmel')t beyond the KolI project. With minor improvements to intersections (Jeft- turn lanes) development through 1982 will not adversely impact traffic in the immediate area. Widening of 195th and the freeway overpass and signal improvements -1l6- I ~ I ~ I 8 I ..., I .>> I ;i I i.~ I . ! I ,j '. iJ I d ~, . .;~ '~~ ;. : i I ~! li - I d ,I d \1 I d I f~ 'l' I I I J I I di -_~-:::-~ I ~:I l- ~~ oi; iT I .1 I I : d ;1 , t '(..1 I It along NE 195th Street would be required prior to completion of the ultimate project. g. However, the entire capacity of the overpass would not be required to serve the KolI project and and the sponsor would be required to pay only a pro-rata share of the total cost of the overpass. It The sketch below shows a schematic representation of mitigating measures for just the It KolI proposal through 1985 while the sketch following shows more extensive measures for the combined impacts of the valley-wide development (KolI,.Quadrant and Truly It development proposals). This interch!nge reconfiguration is needed if the majority of traffic movements in the area use 1-405 and SR 522, even for trips to and from It W oodinville and other nearby locations. With KolI Project , I I:; I ~ ~ ~; ; Ul \ q; I , I I ,~ I ~/4! I \ CD ----_a ~ I.. ~--;:u-------.:I cF~--~ c c - - - - -- -------- -- --~ n.e. 195th st, SITE I a) I Ie I Ia) I I ------ - -- -- . Free right turn I l~ .0 1<11 I I I , I \ I I + n CSIGNAL . STOP SIGN Schematic only, not to scale With Full Valley Development ).1 -- 1: Is::.-' --- ---.---- I I , , , I , SITE - - - --- C m~ . Free rtgflt turn '\ '\ I, " 'I " \1 + Schematic only, n not to scale Il C SIGNAL . STOP SIGN -88- J I ~ i'l I I ! I {~I I Ii; ..8 l,c I o. N -,.J ... *:1 Il I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I For just the KolI development, the following improvements and traffic control strategies are suggested: It I. Widen NE 195th to five lanes including the approaches to the two rampf intersec- tions, and to four lanes from the 1-405 northbound ramp to just east 0 the road into the KolI proposal. , It 2. Widen 1-405 overpass with funding to be shared on a pro-rata basis by North Creek Valley develoments and other funding sources. It 3. Install signals at the two 1-405 ramp intersections with NE 195th and at the KolI road on NE 195th. ' Widen the 1-405 off-ramps as shown. Include lighting, curbs, gutters and sidewalks in all roadway improvements. It 4. Its. Table XVI shows the expected effect of the mitigating measures. The measures will result in relatively free traffic flow which will enable the local street system to support II the KolI proposal in 1985. However, normal travel growth after 1985 resulting from It other development in the area will not be able to be accommodated without further It efforts. "Transportation System Management" measures have been successfully used in the Seattle metropolitan area to reduce vehicle trip generation, and thereby reduce It project-related traffic. These strategies include: . Charging a monthly fee to employees for parking at the site, with a discount to It carpools. It . Other ride-shar ing incentives including employer-sponsored vanpools, preferential It parking location for carpooling employees, subscription bus service. It . Discounted' or free transit passes for employees. II . Bicycle racks, and a locker room with showers. It . Special traffic congestion bypass lanes for transit and carpools. It . Establishment of a local area ride-share coordinator. AU of these need to be considered by the city and developer prior to completion of the It project. Potential peak-hour travel reductions could exceed 10% if a comprehensive program were developed. II Generally, large, 'singIe employers can implement ride-sharing strategies, and many II have done so in their own self interest (3M, Seattle First, Boeing, etc.). In'the case of a It business center with many business tenants, issues arise such as enforcement, who is to It subsidize the ride-sharing strategies? how can the strategies, once implemented, be It continued and maintained? and what happens if some or all of them prove unworkable or It fail to meet the intent of using them? If any of these "soft" transportation It improvements are to be used in the KoU Business Center, these issues must be resolved and a mechanism must be found that protects the interests of all concerned. -89- TABLE XVI INTERSECTION CAPACITY & LEVELS OF SERVICE RELATED TO COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENT Mitigating Intersection Condition Measures V/C LOS NE 195th & Beardslee I982-initial project none .21 A NE 195th & Beardslee 198.5-Koll-full project yes .40 A NE 195th & Beardslee 198%AIl North Creek Valley* yes .52 A NE 195th & SB 1-405 ramps 1982-initial project none .60 A NE 195th & SB 1-405 ramps 1985-Koll-full project* yes .76 B NE I95th & SB 1-405 ramps 1985-AII North Creek Valley* yes .49 A NE 195th & NB 1-405 ramps 1982-initial project none .54 A NE 195th & NB 1-405 ramps 198.5-Koll-full project* yes .82 C NE 195th & NB 1-405 ramps 198.5-AIl North Creek Valley* yes LI5 F NE 195th and Koll Access Rd. I982-initial project none .37 A NE 195th and Koll Access Rd. 198.5-Koll-full project* yes .68 A NE 195th and Koll Access Rd. 1985-AlI North Creek Valley* yes L 14 F 195th @ I20th NE I982-initial project none .03 A 195th @ 120th NE I985-Koll-full project yes .05 A 195th @ 120th NE 198.5-AlI North Creek Valley* yes .60 A g. It It It It It It It It * signalized, otherwise intersections are stop sign-controlled It SB-southbound It NB-northbound It With full development of the entire North Creek Valley beyond the Koll proposal, a iii. hypothetical arterial network in two increments was assumed as shown in the following It sketch, and additional widening and reconfiguration of the I-405/NE 195th interchange It was assumed as shown in the previous schematic. The second increment to the arterial network (which consists of three new grade-separated crossings across both 1-405 and SR 522) was developed after traffic assignments to the reconfigured I-405/NE 195th It interchange showed that 1-405 south of NE 195th Street had a higher demand than capacity. There is a potential overreliance on the freeways to accommodate relatively iii. short local trips because, other thoin the interchanges of NE 195th/I-405 and 132nd NE/SR 522, there is no way to cross the freeways. This can be solved with new arterial It grade-separated crossings, two, across 1-405 and one across SR 522, to supplement the interchange crossings. - 90- J J I '~ J' J..... ~, t iJ t V~ I .t I ,,~ I ,,li I cJ I d I d , ,~ I d I r I j I , I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I " I I .I I ) - , I 1 I Potential I,i Arterial System ~ t M . I,... Holly Hille BOTH Ell Quadrant \l :i l 11 It Figure 20 shows traffic assigned to the potential new arterial system without the new g. grade-separated crossings. With full development of the North Creek Valley beyond the It KolI proposal, the new arterial system without additional arterials crossing the II freeways, the reconfigured interchange and the widening of NE 195th Street to seven lanes between 1-405 and the new KolI/Quadrant projects, levels of service on NE 195th It will move just into ,the "F" range. With the ride-sharing strategies discussed above, levels of service could rise to "D" or "E" at the most critical intersections. With added arterials crossing, 1-405, traffic on NE 195th could be further relieved and accom- It modated at acceptable levels of service; perhaps 25 to 30 percent of the traffic using the freeway interchanges would be relocated to the new arterials crossing the freeways, It not at interchanges. As can be seen in Figure 20, if full valley development occurs without additional grade g. separated crossings of the 1-405 and SR 522, 554 vehicles per hour would travel north to It Snohomish County, and would disperse onto many of the local roads between SR 9 and It SR 527 south of SE 228th Street. Approximately 250 cars per hour will be attracted to - 91 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I , I I I L__ 240th Street SE and 45th Avenue SE to 228th Street SE. Another 250 cars per hour g. would travel through Holly Hills via NE 195th Street to BOth Avenue NE, and then g. north to NE 205th and then onto Snohomish County roads such as 58th Avenue SE, 237th g. Place SE, 63rd Avenue SE, and 233rd Place SE to SR 9. However, for most of the It traffic, the I-405/SR 522 route is the fastest and best route to SR 9 and to the northeast. This EIS is not an appropriate place to develop new arterial plans for such an extensive It area. An update is needed of Bothell's transportation plan, and in fact, the city has just g. started a city-wide transportation study. Because of planned business growth in this g. area, the master traffic study will place particular emphasis on the North Creek Valley. It The purpose of such a study and plan regarding these developments is: (J) to detail an adequate arterial and road access system; (2) to identify needed capital improvements; and (3) to set conditions for development of the site and the valley floor beyond 1982. It Included in the plan will be strategies (e.g., local ,improvement district development It assessments) for implementation of needed capital improvements and for accommodat- It ing the anticipated growth in the planning area for both upland residential and valley floor mixed-use. It The mitigating measures for full valley development suggested above may change once the planning process is complete. Therefore, the conclusions and recommendations of It the forthcoming plan will supersede the mitigatinl'! measures suggested in this EIS for It full valley development except in cases where the plan reiterates the EIS suggested strategies. It If adequate improvements are made adjacent to the site to provide convenient access to 1-405, no significant volumes of traffic will divert to other local arterials. The city could set limits on initial development and establish a traffic monitoring program to ver ify impacts. PUBLIC SERVICES FIRE Existing Conditions Fire protection for the site is currently provided by the City of Bothell Fire Department. The station, located at 10726 Beardslee Boulevard in Bothell, houses four pumper trucks. Twelve full-time employees are based at the station. The City of Bothell also provides fire protection to three other districts currently under contract: King County Fire District No. 42 in Woodinville and Snohomish County Fire District Nos. 9 and 10. King County Fire District No. 42 has a station at 126th Avenue NE and NE I73rd Street in Woodinville with one pumper. Snohomish County Fire - 93 - District No. 9 has a station under construction at 228th Avenue NE and 4th Street SW, and Snohomish County Fire District No. 10 currently has no station. The City of Bothell contributes $298,707 to fire protection per year. On a per household basis, this costs approximately $103. The two homes on the site would, therefore, require about $206 annually in public expenditure for fire protection. The city-wide insurance rating is "4" on a scale of "I" (Best) to "10" (unprotected). No pipes or hydrants exist on or near the site to provide fire protection. Environmental Impact The proposed project would create significant additional demands for fire protection on the City of Bothell Fire Department, which at present could not adequately serve the site. The City does not presently have a ladder truck to serve high-rise buildings. Fire departments generally report that developments of the type proposed generate more tax revenues than they demand in fire services. However, the demand could occur before tax revenues generated by the project become available. A full discussion of tax It revenues and their application to public services is presented in the Technical Appendix. MitiRating Measures All structures would be equipped with required fire detection and suppression devices to reduce the incidence and severity of fires. Recommended measures from the fire department would be incorporated into the design of the site and the individual structures to assure quick access of fire equipment and personnel responding to all types of calls. Hydrant locations and fire flow design would be subject fo fire department approval. Fire lanes would be designed into the site to provide easy movement of equipment to all parts of the complex. Turning radii, overhead clearance and deck strength would accommodate all types of equipment. Sprinkler systems would reduce the impact this proposal would have on the City of Bothell Fire Department. POLICE Existing Conditions The site is under the jurisdiction of the City of Bothell Police Department. At present, the police force is undermanned by two positions, but two officers are in training and are expected to be productive in the next 6 to 10 months. It is anticipated that the department will be near 1.9 officers per 1000 population by early 1981. The current national average is 1.85 officers per 1000 population. Police response time is 3 to 4 minutes to any point within the city limits. Physical plant conditions are currently excellent and will accommodate future growth for the next 8 years. - 94- I I ;;i I .~ I d I d I .J1 , I -3 I 'j; I "J: I .j; I ,.~ I d I .:;.j I .:.b , I oj I . j I ,j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I i I I I I U1 Environmental Impact The proposed development would create additional demands for police services. Increases in vehicular traffic will also create additional demands upon traffic control personnel. Although this proposed development would not contribute especially to anti- social behavior, certain crime-related activities, including auto theft, shoplifting, check and credit card fraud and possibly robbery and burglary, could be expected to occur. These activities should be no greater than those experienced in similar centers. A similar tax revenue/service situation exists as in the discussion of fire service impacts. Mitigating Measures Approved doors and locking devices would be installed throughout the development. Any recommendations from the police department on measures to enhance the security and safety of people, buildings and autos would be incorporated into the design phases. Building and parking design and lighting would serve as burglary prevention measures and to aid police patrols. Additional tax revenue generated by the site development would help offset the cost of any additional police personnel required to patrol and provide security to the site. SCHOOLS Existing Conditions The property is included in the Northshore School Distr ict No. 4 I 7. No schools exist on the property, but primary and secondary schools lie nearby. Those which might serve any residents of the site are: Woodin Elementary, with an enrollment of 580 in April 1980, Canyon Park Junior High with 715 students, and Bothell High School with an enrollment of 1,367. By the time the project is completed, the new Woodinville High School will be open. School officials project enrollments of 13,600 in 1980 and 15,200 in 1984. During the 1979-80 school year, the Northshore School District spent $22,915,663. Serving 22,000 households, this averages $1,302 per housing unit, or $2,406 for the site as it exists. Environmental Impact The proposed site development is not expected to have a significant impact on schools in the area since the~proposal is not expected to cause a substantial shift in population. Increased demands on upland housing could have a long-term spreading effect on the additional number of-students attending any particular school within the North Creek Planning Area. As can be seen in the average trip lengths of employees at similar employment centers (see TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION), the employees will be distributed over a rather wide area and would not significantly impact one school or - 95- It district. As shown in the Technical Appendix the projected annual revenues to the It school district by the completed project would be $243,840. MitiRating Measures The expenses attributable, to possible increases in school enrollment resulting from development of this site would be met by additional tax revenues paid by occupying businesses. PARKS Existing Conditions No parks are within or directly adjacent to the site. Park and recreation facilities located in King County include the Sammamish River Trail, Northshore Pool and Recreational Facility, The Tolt Pipeline Trail, East Norway Hill Playing Fields and Gold Creek Park. The City of Bothell park system includes the park at Bothell Landing on the Sammamish (2.5 acres), Blyth Park (11.5 acres), Memorial Park (0.5 acres), Royal Oaks Park (2 acres), Conifer View Park (J.5 acres), and William Penn Park (2.75 acres). In addition, over 33 acres on the Sammamish River and 25 acres of land owned by King County contiguous to Blyth Park are available for passive-use development. Existing demands on parks in the Bothell city park system has necessitated plans for expansion and remodeling of several park facilities. Environmental Impact The proposed type of development is not expected to directly impact existing park and recreation facilities because the project is not expected to cause any significant shifts in population. Long-term demands for upland housing which is expected to result from development of the valley floor would impact current recreational facilities. Mitigating Measures The North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan sets forth several policies for recreational and open space uses. The proposed site plan (Figure 2) shows the proposed relocation of North Creek into a meandering pattern and provides nearly 30 acres of greenbelt/storm water retention areas to be planted primarily in native vegetation. Trails along the creek would be linked to any network in the area, ,and bridges crossing the creek would facilitate public use. Joint use of parking lots would allow recreational users off-hour use of developed parking. The provisions for public use would mitigate developmental impacts on the site and would alleviate the strain on existing city and county recreational facilities. - 96 - I I I I Ui I I i.-:I I :Jl I LiI I d; I , n"li I "I I ,J I ~l-1 I 'e' I c.! , I ..i I J I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I ; ~ i I MAINTENANCE Maintenance of the buildings, facilities and grounds within the site boundaries would be the responsibility of the owner(s). Private utilities would maintain their on and off-site facilities. Municipal utilities would be maintained by the municipality. Maintenance costs for additional and improved roadways would result from site development. The proposal would generate property revenues. A portion of the property taxes would be allocated for repair and maintenance of roadways. The maintenance allocation of the property taxes generated by the proposal should cQver any additional maintenance resulting from the development. LIBRARIES The nearest library is the Bothell Library at 9654 NE 182nd Street. This facility is a branch of the King County Library system. The Kenmore and Kingsgate branches are within reasonable driving distance, and King County also provides a mobile outreach library service to the area. The North Creek Library at SE 18323 Bothell/Everett Highway is a nearby branch of the Snohomish County Library. The King County Public Library had an annual operating budget of $6.6 million. This figure averages to about $25 per housing unit in King County outside of Seattle. The proposed development would have little or no significant impact on existing Iibrar ies. MEDICAL FACILITIES Evergreen Hospital is the nearest medical faCility, approximately four miles to the south. It has 76 beds and emergency facilities. Minor increases in demand for medical services would be expected to occur as a result of accidents on the project site. This increase would be the same at alternative sites of comparable size. ENERGY Existing Conditions There is presently no. significant energy consumption or production on the site. Local residents utilize energy to travel greater distances to places of employment and to competitive services at other sites. - 97 - Environmental Impact An indication of the heating and cooling needs for the project are shown in Table XVII. The heating requirements are much greater than the cooling requirements. The average temperature must be increased by 250F per day during January to maintain a design temperature of 65~. The average summer temperature must be reduced about 50F daily to attain the 60~ cooling requirement. The completed project would use an estimated 267 billion BTU's or 78,23.0,000 KWH annually for heating, lighting and equipment operation. These impacts are commensurate with commercial developments of this size and scope. Building and sitework energy costs would require an estimated 1.33 trillion BTU's for construction and site development. The rate of use of motor fuel for public and private transportation to and from the site is largely dependent upon driving distances from residential areas to this facility. The It concentration of potentially 3,220 workers upon full development would provide sub- stantial opportunities for carpooling and could lead to expansion of transit service to the area. These factors, along with the opportunity of living within close proximity to the site could tend to reduce fuel expenditures by site employees and other employees in the vicinity. Mitigating Measures The proposal will incorporate the most current design concepts and materials to assure energy efficiency. Building design and construction would comply with the Washington State Energy Code. To optimize thermal efficiency, the heating and cooling requirements of the buildings would be analyzed by computer modeling techniques. Building configuration, insulation thickness and utilization of skylights would be employed to reduce operating expenses. Other energy-saving measures that could be used include: . compact buildings which result in the lowest wall to floor ratio; . roof !l"d ceiling heights kept to a minimum thereby reducing building volume; . roof insulation to reduce heat loss and solar gain; . energy management systems to limit heating and electrical demand by reducing loads on a priority basis; , . directional skylights to provide natural light in appropriate areas, thereby reducing artificial lighting requirements during daylight hours; . artificial lighting utilizing low energy systems to prove more light for a given amount of energy; . utilization of locally produced building materials wherever practicable; . jointly used parking areas to reduce the number of lights required in the parking areas without sacrificing safety requirements; . continual maintenance of heating, ventilating, air conditioning and lighting systems to ensure efficient operation. . passive or active solar systems; and . pedestrian/bicycle linkage to adjacent residential areas to encourage non- motorized commuting. - 98- I H '~ I I Ui I' ~ ! ~ I ~ I ,,~ I " , . I , .. I ,1 I ;..: "" I ;oJ I : " I , l I ,.1 I ,I I I I UTD.ITIES I ELECTRICI Existin~ I Puget So is obtaine I ~ Puget Po constructi increases I the utiliti I I I Heating (650F Ba I Cooling D (600F B I *Heating size of he I da ys are example, was 340, I obtain 18 degree da Cooling d I degree da the mean There are I Environm Electr icit I provided b use of ele i I the site, i I , I TY Conditions und Power and Light supplies energy to the site through overhead lines. Power d from two coal-fired generators in Montana, hydr?-electrical plants and BPA. wer has two cOal-fired plants and one nuelear facility proposed for future on. Public opposition is delaying plans to facilitate projected population within proximity of the site. Electrical power demand is growing faster than est ability to increase supply. TABLE XVD HEATING AND COOLING DEGREE DAYS* FOR SEATTLE Month J F M A M J J A SON D Annual Degree Days 738 599 577 396 242 1 17 50 47 129 329 543 657 5524 se) egree Days ase) 3 28 68 164 158 65 8 494 degree days are largely used for determining the heating requirements and ating equipment that will be needed for a particular location. Heating degree determined by subtracting the mean temperature of the day from 65. For if the maximum temperature for a particular day was 600 and the minimum the mean would be one half their sum or 47. Subtracting this from 65 we degree days for that day. If the daily mean is greater than 65, the numher of ys is 0 - there are no negative degree days. egree days are computed in exactly the same manner. In computing cooling ys the base being considered is subtracted from the mean temperature. When temperature for a day is less than the base, the cooling degree days is O. no negative values. ental Impact y would be required to satisfy the majority of power requirements and must be y Puget Sound Power and Light. Energy-efficient design would minimize the ctricity. Major site improvements would be required to adequately service neluding transformers, transformer pads and underground feeders. - 99 - The development would be designed to be energy-efficient by minimizing the use of electricity and other forms of energy. (See ENERGY section for details). Buildings could be heated by natural gas to relieve demand for electrical service. NATURAL GAS Existinll: Conditions There is no gas service currently, but Washington Natural Gas could serve the site through a 4-inch main in NE 195th Street under the freeway. Approximately 3,600 residential homes are currently being serviced by Washington Natural Gas in the Holly Hills area. Washington Natural Gas indicates there would be no problem servicing the site via this 4-inch unpressurized main. Environmental Impact Natural gas is expected to be used for heating and restaurant/cooking demands. It is not anticipated that full development would significantly impact the ability of Washington Natural Gas to satisfy current and projected demands. Miti~atin~ Measures See ENERGY section. COMMUNICA TIONS Existin~ Conditions The project site lies in the General Telephone service area. The Bothell branch at NE 228th west of 27th Street NE, handles calls in the area north of Bothell. Environmental Impact The Bothell branch was designed to facilitate expansion northward from the city such as proposed. All on-site lines would be underground. The telephone company could supply service to this site at no more cost than would be incurred in supplying the .same demand at alternative sites. WATER Existin~ Conditions The project lies within the service area of the City of Bothell, but the two homes now on the site use well water. The elosest mains are on the west side of the freeway in Beardslee Boulevard and Ross Road. A casing runs under 1-405 north of the interchange. The City of Bothell purchases water from the City of Seattle. Adequate supply is available to the City. -100- I I I , I \Li ! ~ I i.i I ,P I ,f I d I d I 'i,,1 I 'i:~ I ;.& J I ,j ...~ I , .j II I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Environmental Impact Domestic water consumption is minimal for a development of this nature. There would be a slight increase in domestic use of water due to the number of offices and commercial/retail stores. An estimated 72,000 cubic feet of water per acre of development would be needed each year to serve the site. City fire marshall approval would be required 'upon finalization of site and building plans. New water lines would be brought into the site from the east at the developer's expense and the developer would assist the local water district in constructing a reservoir facility, per City of Bothell requirements. SEWERS Existin~ Conditions The site is not currently served by sewer; the existing structures are served by septic tanks. The North Creek sewer trunk line runs north and south across the site. It is a 24-inch pipe now operating at about 70% capacity. The line is within the corporate city limits of the City of Bothell, but is owned by the Alderwood Water District and cannot be used to service the site. The,nearest city mains are in Ross Road and Beardslee Boulevard. A 60-inch METRO trunk line runs parallel to NE 185th Street, transporting sewage to the METRO treatment plant. Environmental Impact Developments of the size and type proposed do not generate relatively large amounts of sewage. The increases in sanitary wastes would be within the capacity of the existing system. Sewer lines from the project would be connected with the Metro trunk line south of the site at the developers' expense. -101- Mitl!l:atin~ Measures An on-site surface storm water retention system and storm sewers would be utilized to handle increased storm water runoff resulting from increased impervious coverage. Addition of the retention system to accommodate the increase in impervious surface coverage is expected to maintain existing storm water discharge rates. Storm water runoff would be handled by on-site storm sewers which channel the runoff into a retention pond where it is recharged into the soil and/or released via an existing ditch into the Sammamish River. Catch basins for sediment would prohibit impurities from enter ing the pond. Any water which' should happen to overflow the rechanneled banks '. of North Creek would not re-enter North Creek but would either be recharged into the soil or enter the storm sewer system. SOLID WASTE Solid waste generated on the site is collected by the Sno-King Garbage Company, a private commercial hauler. Refuse is brought to the King County disposal sites in Woodinville or Rose Hill. Upon finalization of site plans, consultation between the disposal company and the project designers would ensure an efficient solid waste disposal system. All on-site disposal facilities would be located and architecturally screened to reduce visual impacts. HUMAN HEALTH No conditions would be created by the proposed development that would become health hazards to the building occupants or to the surrounding population. All buildings would be designed in accordance with applicable building codes and health requirements prior to operation. Any proposed food establishments would be required to adhere to all health standards in the maintenance and operation of the business. AESTHETICS Existin~ Conditions The site is a broad, flat valley floor. It still has the general appearance of a farm due to open fields, large barns, and the continuing agricultural use of adjacent properties ~ (see following Figure 21 and cover photo). The barns are attractive, older, wooden structures and add visual interest to the site. Bounded on the sides by steep, wooded valley walls, the valley is highly visible from the surrounding hillsides where roadways have resulted in the removal of trees. Many homes in the area also have views of the valley. The surrounding hillsides frame most such views and provide visual contrast resulting in pastoral and attractive views. -102- I UI , I {, , J 'I ;:,;., I ;,j I ...d I , ., I .'.f I .:.J I ,.~ " I iJ I .,1 I . i I .1 I , ., I f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I , , I I On a daily basis, the site is viewed most often by people in cars on 1-405 which forms the western boundary of the site at the base of the valley wall. The site is also visible from SR 522 to the south. The site comprises a large area of undeveloped land. Surrounding development is predominantly single family residences sited on the wooded hillsides to the east and west of the proposed development, and farm buildings located to the north in Snohomish County. Environmental Impact The proposal would substantially alter the existing visual character of the site. The 105 acres of commercial/retail, office and light industrial buildings and parking areas would be visible from the surrounding hillsides, producing the appearance of a large activity center. From the adjacent streets and highways, the low profile buildings would appear similar to other nearby commercial centers. The visual impact of the proposal is ~ illustrated in Figure 22. Substantial open, green areas would remain within the proposed development. Miti~atin~ Measures Altering the pattern of North Creek into a more natural meandering configuration and providing for open space in the interior of the site along the creek as proposed would improve the appearance of the project. A variety of views of the creek and adjacent open spaces would be provided from the commercial/retail and office buildings. Earth berms, walls, fences and appropriate landscaping materials would be provided to achieve a high aesthetic quality, to soften the visual impact of the freeway and to buffer freeway noise levels. The interior boulevard and the exterior perimeter of the site along 1-405, 195th Street and 120th Avenue would be landscaped. Buildings would be designed individually to avoid any repetitious appearance. Building materials and colors would be compatible with the natural surroundings and pastoral valley setting. Private conditions, covenants, and restrictions would ensure high quality architecture by establishing design standards and a private architectural review board. Design standards inelude but are not limited to views and vistas, vehicular and pedestrian flows, energy conservation through facility design, highlighted visitor entrance and parking areas, decorative pedestrian walkways, accent landscaping and lighting, dynamic building and roof forms, striking window patterns and light and shadow patterns. -105- -I tl -106- I l.J I f~ I ;M I ,E1 I I ;~.>> I .i,~ I ;,~ '. ...~ '. ;,I I , d I ,J I d I d I , " I ,J I ,I I Although different in scale and character from surrounding development, the proposal is in conformance with the amended Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and would not be aesthetically incompatible with any nearby activities. No significant views would be obstructed and no offensive views would be created. RECREATION Existin~ Conditions As private property, the site currently offers no recreational opportunities. Environmental Impact The proposed development would have a strong, positive Impact on recreational opportunities. The original meandering pattern of North Creek would be restored. Stream buffers and greenbelt areas would comprise a 28-acre area of open space, accessible and usable by the public. A pedestrian trail system with creek crossings at strategic locations would augment the proposed North Creek Trail network. This proposed pedestrian path would allow public access to the open space flood plain left in native vegetation. The sponsor would construct two exercise/jogging trails, a seasonal ice-skating rink and provide a community elubhouse for public use. Jointly used parking areas are also proposed to allow and encourage recreational users to utilize the opportunities provided. Careful consideration is being given to the development of a complete non-motor vehiele traffic network which does not currently exist. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES Existin~ Conditions An archaeological reconnaissance strategy was developed to determine general land use history and field characteristics of the study area. This strategy ineluded subsurface soil sampling, a literature and records search, interviews with current residents of the property and a field examination of all bare ground on the site. Subsurface reconnaissance of the central portions of the project area revealed soil types character istic of stream bottoms. Since these areas were seasonally saturated and probably flooded prior to the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916, it is unlikely that cultural resources existed within these formerly swampy areas. Areas more likely to contain artifacts are located along the western border of the project and a portion of the northeast margin. Subsurface sampling in these areas I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ,I I I I ! I I consisted of coring to a depth of four feet at a lOa-foot grid interval. Recent prehistoric use of the area most likely consisted of sporadic visits for hunting and gathering purposes. Original inhabitants were members of the Duwamish tribe. No village or special features have been located within the project area, and no evidence of prehistoric use or occupation was uncovered in literature search or soil sampling. The 1870 Government Land Office Plat Map for the Bothell area indicates few settlers had penetrated this portion of the Puget Sound basin. Since the 1870's, the local flora has been extensively modified by logging and agriculture activities. The North Creek Valley provided many of the cedar logs used by the large mills in Bothell. The study area was homesteaded until 1911 when it was conveyed to Bothell Dairy Farms. In approximately 1897 a flume to carry logs was built from the Sammamish River through the site and several miles to the north. About this time, the creek was relocated for the first time. From 1929 to 1933, a portion of the property was used as a golf course. The land was plowed up when this venture failed and has been truck farmed from the early 1940's to 1973 by the Vitulli family and the current tenant, Dan Davies. North Creek was relocated to facilitate farming in the 1930's and again in the late 1960's. Its original course is undeterminable and the extent of the land disturbance unknown. Other modifications in the vicinity include changes to the Sammamish River channel, the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916 and the construction of Interstate 405. Four residences (two unoccupied), a greenhouse, a large storage shed, a barn and at lea'st seven outbuildings are presently located on the land parcel. The 1-405 construc- tion resulted in the demolition of one structure and the relocat'ion of several others, including Mr. Davies' residence. The present Davies residence was constructed between 1929 and 1930 and once served as the "clubhouse" for the golf course. It is noted that this structure represents a combination of styles and could contribute to the understanding of historic design processes. The rest of the standing structures are less than 50 years old, not representative of a particular style and in poor condition. None have been listed by the King County Office of Historical Preservation and do not merit listing on the Washington Inventory of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places. Only 0.04% of the study area was bare ground that permitted archaeological reconnais- sance. Although groundwater and high summer vegetation made field examination -109- difficult, much of the parcel was investigated on foot to locate any above ground archaeological features. A single scatter of historical artifacts was found in the vicinity of the greenhouse located in the southwest portion. This scatter is tentatively identified as fragments of household ceramic utensils and glassware dated 1900 to 1920 from the Dominic Vitulli household. Mr. Davies indicated that he had walked and plowed the entire property in conjunction with his truck farming activities and has never discovered any historic or prehistoric artifacts nor knew of any Native American materiaIs collected from the immediate vicinity. Environmental Impact and Mith;:atinll: Measures On the basis of the evidence presently available, the proposed development would have no effect on archaeological or historical resources. To be certain that development of the site would not result in the loss of any undiscovered archaeological resources, the archaeological subconsultant recommended that they be retained to be present during site grading. If archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, further disturbance in the immediate area would be halted until the significance of the resources can be determined. The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation would be notified of any findings. The sponsor intends to preserve the present Davies' house (former golf clubhouse) as a community clubhouse. -110- I I i;J I Ln I ~} I H I .~j I .,~ I ,,1. I ", .io: "~ I .i" I ,\ I l.~ ., I , ',-' I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Elements of the Economic Environment ECONOMIC AND POPULATION TRENDS The Puget Sound area is the industrial heartland of Washington State. The economy is centered around transportation equipment, lumber and wood products, wholesale and retail trades, services and the shipping industry. As of 1978, manufacturing employ- rnent comprised 21% of total civilian non-agricultural wage and salary employment in the Seattle-Everett SMSA. Wholesale and retail trades made up 25%, service and governmental sectors made up 19% and 16% respectively. Population in the Seattle-Everett SMSA between 1970 and 1979 represents the economic downturn at the beginning of the decade. During this period, growth showed only a 0.8% or 12,400 per annum increase, down from a figure of 2.7% per annum between 1950 and 1970. Population growth in the 1980's is anticipated to be 1.9% per year in King County, 2.496 per year in Snohomish County, and an average of 2.0% per year in Seattle-E verett SMSA. The Bothell area has grown significantly in the last five years. Annexation and development plus a healthy regional economy induced population to grow from 5,885 in 1975 to 7,217 in 1979, while at the same time the assessed valuation in the city grew fr'om $62.7 million to $102.2 million. INDUSTRIAL USE A market study conducted by Realesearch for the sponsor (the KolJ Company) addressed the market demand for light industrial development on the site. Trends in Land Sales and Absorption Industr ial land sales and land absorption levels are fairly accurate indicators of market activity and demand. In the greater Seattle market, development has been escalating during the last three years so that sales and absorption statistics give a trend of activity in the area. Land absorption in anyone year is defined as the total amount of land receiving new building permit approvals during the year and would represent land developed with buildings and not land sales. Analysis of annual absorption of industrial land in King County and on the east side of Lake Washington, and from annual absorption rates experienced by established industrial parks, results in an estimated absorption at the proposed KolJ development of approximately 30 acres (net) per year. The estimated 30 -111- acres (net) per year absorption at the subject site would comprise approximately 35% of the projected demand for competitive developments on the eastside of Lake Washing- ton. Assuming that 75% efficiency of land is achieved, the 105 acres of net developable land would be absorbed in approximately 3.5 years if the entire site were developed in light industr ial use. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USE Approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial/retail floor space is proposed. Amounts developed will be dependent on market demands at the time of sale or lease. The amount of space considered in the proposal would accommodate a shopping mall, similar to Lake Forest Park in size. For comparison, the recently completed Canyon Park Center north of Bothell has approximately 100,000 square feet of commercial! retail space. In order to analyze the market potential, the following items must be considered: 1) the local transportation system, 2) local population patterns, and 3) current shopping opportunities and shopping patterns of the local residents. The site is served directly by 1-405. It is accessible to residential areas to the east via 120th Avenue NE, and to downtown Bothell via Beardslee Blvd. and Ross Road. Interstate 405 is the major commuter link for the local residents to employment centers in Everett, Bellevue and Seattle. ~ Contacts with prospective commercial tenants indicate general agreement in projecting a high demand for the shopping services proposed for the site. Competinll: Facilities Supermarkets generally rely on a market area within a radius of one mile or less, while superdrug stores draw from a market area with a radius of five miles. There are three supermarkets and four drug stores approximately one mile west of the site in downtown Bothell. There are no supermarkets within a mile to the east, north or south. A new superdrug has recently been opened at Canyon Park Center approximately one and one half miles northwest of the site. An inventory of existing Bothell businesses indicated that there is presently 172,339 square feet of retail shopping space. To assess the potential economic impacts to existing downtown Bothell businesses, an economic subconsultant was contacted (Bill ~ Mundy &: Associates whose study is included in the Technical Appendix). Their analysis concluded that: -112- ~ ~I iill 11 it , t ."~ I u.. '. ",1 '. .: i I ,; '. '. I . ..1 '. ni '. ;.i -. d . , ~ I i . . . , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I 1. Bothell is presently losing significant sales volume to other shopping areas due to first, an inadequate mix of retail shops, and second, inadequate floor area or sales area (which therefore, restricts inventory and therefore, choice) in many existing shops. The analysis indicated another 105,000 square feet of sales area could 'be supported in 1981, increasing to 111,000 by 1983, in downtown Bothell. Additional evidence to support this contention is based on the success that the Bothell Landing has had (which, except for two small shops has been fully absorbed) and the Canyon Park Center has had (which opened in the spring of 1980 and is fully absorbed except for three small'spaces with some 3,700 square feet of rentable area). 2. Assuming that present Bothell stores retain an equivalent or superior competi- tive character, vis-a-vie the proposed center including product line and quality, product pricing, and promotion, the North Creek Center, as presently proposed, will not have a significant effect on sales volumes of downtown Bothell stores. First, the trade area analysis clearly showed that Bothell's trade area is relatively compact and bounded on the east by the 1-405 freeway. It is highly likely that the freeway will also form a western boundary for the proposed center, with the primary trade area extending in a northeasterly direction. Second, most of downtown Bothell's shoppers live quite elose to Bothell (within 1 to I ~ miles from the city centerl. It is easily accessible, thereby causing the compact trade area character. OFFICE USE The proposed project includes 350,000 square feet of office space. In order to assess the impact on King County, of the provision of office space and assuming 300,000 square feet, forecasts for employment increases from 1980-1990 were utilized as the basis for projections of office space demand. A total of 33,000 jobs requiring office space (between 1980-1990) indicates a need for approximately 8.25 million square feet of office space in King County. This projection does not, however, inelude an allowance for replacement, nor a factor for higher space requirements. The actual demand may total one million square feet per year, or ten million square feet over the 1980-1990 time period. A large portion of this demand, approximately 40%, would be allocated to the Seattle CBD, with 30% to Bellevue, and the remaining 30% to the Sea-Tac airport, Tukwila and other portions of King County. The proposed project accounts for 3.6% of the county's total ten-year demand. -113- TAX REVENUES Direct income to the public sector would consist primarily of property taxes and business and operation taxes. The assessed value of the tract as industrial land is estimated to be $18 million. It may be assumed that the value of the land added to the costs of improvements ($69,398,000 estimated for construction and site improvements) gives an indication of the assessed value of the proposed development. This would total an approximate value of $87,398,000 for the completed proposal. The millage rate for property taxes was 19.87 per thousand based on the average of the past three years. However, the 1981 rates are lower as shown in Table XVIll. The breakdown of property taxes on an approximate $87 million assessed value is shown in Table XVII. TABLE XVDI PROJECTED PROPER TY TAXES (1981 Estimated Rates) Real Estate Tax School District City of Bothell (regular and excess) Other Total M illa~e/Thousand 2.79 2.29 Total $ 243,840 200,141 443,108 $ 887,089 5.07 10.15 The business and operations taxes generated by the proposed business park cannot be accurately projected without knowing the tenants and type of businesses. Likewise, sales tax revenues cannot be projected without knowing the type of goods sold. Assuming that 200,000 square feet of proposed retail space is developed, sales tax revenues would total approximately $100,000. The estimated annual income to the City of Bothell from utilities taxes generated by ~ the project is $397,000 as shown in Table XIX. TABLE XIX PROJECTED UTILITY TAXES (8% of base billing returned to BothelJ) Utilit ~ Power (a~ electric) Telephone Water Sewer Solid Waste TOTAL Base Annual BiIlinll: 52,895,000 $1,848,000 $ 100,000 ~ 71,000 ;) 35.000 54,949,000 Bothell Tax 5232,000 $148,000 $ 8,000 $ 6,000 $ 3,000 5397,000 -114- I I -. I I c. I '. .~ '. .. . . , , , . ; I ,.jl I , . . d . ~_I I d I ,I . I . , I I I . I I I I . I I I . I I ; . I I I I In addition to the direct tax income, the water and sewer utilities may realize some benefits from 'economics of scale due to the substantial increase in annual operating budgets. The indirect impact of additional income and employment in the area may have a significant impact on the private sector of the local community. These indirect impacts are not readily quantifiable and, as such, are not calculated as part of this analysis. EMPLOYMENT , The City of Bothell is primarily a suburban community whose residents commute to other areas for work each day. Within Census Tract 218 in 1976, PSCOG estimates that 331 were employed in retail trades, 243 in services, 56 in manufacturing, 27 in wholesaling, transportation, communication and utilities, and 631 in government and education. - The employment impact on the City of Bothell has been evaluated in terms of both income and employment. As a basis for evaluating those impacts, the following cost estimate was developed: Type of Construction, Commercial/Retail - 200,000 s.f. @ $35/s.f. Office - 350,000 s.f. @ $70/s.f. Industrial - 990,000 s.f. @ $35/s.f. Site Improvements @ $1.50/s.f. TOTAL Construction Cost $ 7,000,000 24,500,000 34,650,000 3.248,000 $69,398,000 'The percentage of total construction cost allocated for labor is estimated at 33%, or 'approximately $22,901,340. This would equal 1,832,107 man-hours @ $12.50/hour or 909 man-years of employment as shown in Table XX. TABLE XX SHORT-TERM EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME IMPACTS Approximate Total Construction Cost Payroll Man-Hours @ $12.50/hr Full Time Employment $69,398,000 22,901,340 1,832,000 909 Man-Years -115- It Total on-site employment upon full development would be approximately 3,220 persons. The commercial/retail uses would provide about 500 jobs, based on one employee per 400 square feet of space. The proposed offices would employ about 1,400 persons at ~ one per 250 square feet. The light industrial uses would provide another 1,320 jobs. Additional employment opportunities may be provided in management, maintenance, service and auxiliary operations of the proposal. DEVELOPER'S FAIR SHARE The proposed development and increased traffic would result in increased costs to the , . . City of Bothell for public service improvements such as police and fire protection, transportation and circulation improvements, street maintenance, sewer and water, schools and other governmental services as discussed below. Costs of providing essential services are primarily financed from city revenues previously discussed. The developer will be required to finance his fair share of improvement to utility systems and streets needed to serve the project. These improvements include a storm sewer system for the site, on and off-site improvements to the water system, construction of a connector to the Metro sanitary sewer trunk line, construction of interior streets, and ~ improvements to 120th Avenue NE, NE 195th Street and to the intersections with 1-405. ~ FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE PROJECT An analysis of the estimated costs and revenues associated with the proposed development, was conducted to project the direct costs incurred by the City of Bothell, and the immediate revenues which would be generated by the commercial and industrial development of the subject property. Indirect impacts (such as those attributable to the effect of the proposal on residential development and related service needs and/or revenues) are not considered. Such secondary impacts are nearly impossible to predict, and separate from primary impacts. The costs and revenues examined in the analysis are expressed in 1981 dollars. The fiscal impacts of the proposal, therefore, are considered in terms of the costs and revenues that the facility would generate if it were completed and operating in 1981. ~ A detailed discussion of the analysis is presented in the Technical Appendix. In summary, the analysis indicates that the proposed development would have a positive ~ annual net impact of $383,406. However, local service costs attributable to the project might initially exceed the revenues generated, due to the lag between the demand for services and collection of annual tax revenues. The evaluation of the immediate fiscal impact was beyond the scope of this analysis. Despite this limitation, and the other -116- I ,f.U . i.~ t 1-.8 t d '. ~_i' I ;,Ii ~I i..:i I ~I ." I . _I I , i '. ., '. .,1 I ,.c I . I ,.I . ! I I I I I I I . I I . I I I . I " I , I , . I ~ assumptions upon which the analysis was based (see Technical Appendix), the results are a useful means of quickly evaluating the service requirements of the anticipated development, and monitoring the costs of the proposed instant land use decision. The City of Bothell has no formula by which to allocate tax revenues to individual service categories. It is not possible, therefore, to compare revenues to costs for each service function. The analysis showed, however, that the total long run revenues generated by the proposal would exceed its total servicing costs. Finally, it is important to ~ remember that the net surplus of $383,406 is expressed in 'purely financial terms. The analysis is not a substitute for the evaluation of non-fiscal or' intangible costs and benefits, nor an analysis of cost effectiveness. - 117- I I I I . I I I . I I . I . I , . I i I I Short-Term Environmental Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity (THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY) Implementation of the proposal would result in the transformation of the existing rural/semi-rural environment into an urban environment, foreelosing future use options and alternatives. This long-term foreclosure of options would be offset by short-term gains from the proposal, including additional tax reyenues, additional employment opportunities, the availability of retail goods and services, and the preservation/enhancement of the quality of North Creek as a fisheries resource. The site is presently open space and is not utilized for any large scale agricultural production. The proposal represents a long term resource commitment supporting human activity with a corresponding reduction in wildlife and vegetation habitats. Some plants and animals tolerant of human intrusion would, to some extent, replace existing vegetation and wildlife types. Short-term airborne pollutant levels would increase upon actual construction and occupancy of the buildings to be developed. Over the long term, however, pollutant concentrations in all areas may decrease as the implementation of federal vehiele exhaust emission legislation becomes effective. Noise levels would increase with development and traffic increases. This increase would be long term. Site development would increase storm water runoff and decrease ground water recharge. This effect would continue with the retention of impervious surface coverage. Even though the site is not currently being used as agr icultural land, implementation of the proposal would indirectly pressure remaining agricultural lands within the area. Delaying implementation of the proposal until some future time would not produce any anticipated long-term environmental benefits. Delayed implementation would sub- stantially increase cost with similar impacts occuring whenever the project proceeded. Preserving the land in an undeveloped state without any economic return would eliminate resulting economic benefits (employment opportunities and tax revenues). Advantages of delaying development includes preservation of existing open space and elimination of adverse environmental impacts associated with development until some future time. -119- Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Natural resources, financial backing and manpower would be committed to the development and maintenance of this proposal. Natural resources would be expended in the form of materials to be utilized in construction and maintenance, in the generation of energy for heating, cooling, lighting; construction, repair, transportation and manufacture of materials. A commitment of public services would be made for fire and police protection, schools, parks and other recreational facilities. Development of the land from its existing open state to commercial/retail/industrial uses would result in an irreversible commitment of land for the useful life of the structures and for energy resources to develop, construct and maintain the proposed facilities. The public service and facilities needs of the building occupants would be irreversible as demands for water supply, roads, solid waste disposal and sewage treatment increase, requiring long-term maintenance commitments. A significant financial investment has been made by the developer and would continue on an increased scale if the project is approved. The above commitments of resources would be substantially the same whether the proposal were built on an alternative site or for alternative uses or densities. -120- t .1JI .. :- iJ: - ",6 '. ~~ '. L~ I d '. .~ .;., '. " $ '. ~ ~ I I ; ~ I , . I d -. ; . I , ~, I I I I I . I I I I . I I I I I I . I I I I I . I Alternatives to the Proposal THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE Denial of the petition to rezone the site or denial of other required city approvals would result in the site remaining in its present condition for an undetermined time and would eliminate, for the time being, the beneficial and adverse impacts discussed in this document. All environmental impacts of the alternatives discussed herein would be eliminated under this "no action" option. The "no action" alternative would result in the retention of the semi-rural character of the area with a corresponding inability to improve the local tax base. The proposed improvements to the North Creek channel would not be possible. Since the proposal is substantially consistent with the city's guidelines for development in the North Creek Valley, denial of the proposed action, or a reasonable approximation of the proposal with conditions, (the "no action" alternative) would probably only delay development. It could also cause similar developments to locate in less compatible areas. AL TERNA TIVE SITES II. The City of Bothell currently exercises jurisdictional control over one other site in the ~ North Creek Valley Planning Area south of the site, as discussed below. Since one of the objectives of the proposal is to implement a recently adopted comprehensive plan which was addressed in a previous EIS, the sites considered as alternatives are limited to the area of that study, the North Creek Valley. However, within the entire City of ~ Bothell there are no other areas which are of suitable size and have appropriate access ~ for the type of master-planned development considered. The economic study of industrial lands prepared for this project addressed competitive industrial parcels from ~ Redmond to Paine Field. For a discussion of the impacts of comparable development in appropriately designated areas in nearby Snohomish and King Counties, the reader is referred to Snohomish County's North Creek Comprehensive Plan and EIS, and King County's Northshore Revised Community Plan and EIS (incorporated here by reference). ~ A parcel of land located partially in King County and partially in Bothell, bounded by ~ State Route SR 522 on the south, Interstate 405 on the west, the KolI property on the ~ north and the valley walls on the east is controlled by the Quadrant Corp. and is being ~ considered for a development of a similar type and size. With similar physical ~ conditions and development potential, the development of this alternative site would ~ result in similar environmental impacts (see also TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULA- ~ TION section). - 121- The Quadrant parcel contains a significant amount of low wetlands on the southern ~ portion of the site, and the environmentally sensitive North Creek. Remaining existing ~ conditions are substantially similar to those of the Koll site. ~ The parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Interstate 405 and SR 522 ~ intersection (in King County) has some similar characteristics to the proposal site and ~ has been designated by Bothell's and King County Community Plans for a similar type of ~ use. Impacts would be comparable at this location as North Creek also passes through ~ the site and the physical conditions of the sites are sim i1ar. F or a discussion of impaCts, see King County's Revised Northshore Communities Plan and EIS, incorporated ~ herein by reference. ~ The parcel north of the Koll site is presently a dairy farm and land use is controlled by Snohomish County. The county's North Creek plan and zoning allows continuation of agricultural activities or develoment for residential uses (see LAND USE section). The Bothell plan for the valley would allow development of this site under the "mixed-use" classification similar to the Koll proposal. Impacts of developing the project on this site would be slightly greater since there is existing agricultural use that would be displaced, the site is closer to a greater number of residences and freeway access is not as direct. ~ All of the sites in the valley have been used for agricultural purposes. AL TERNA TIVES TO THE PROPOSED PLAN As a comparison to the proposal, a number of variations in the mix or size of the proposed uses can be analyzed by changing the amount of site coverage and/or the type of proposed uses. To aid in examining the effects of such modifications, the chart which appears under each alternative discussed below was developed to show changes in square footage of each use in the proposal and the approximate percentage change in the average weekday vehicle tr ips (A WDT) generated. A summary of all alternatives considered is illustrated in Table XXI. In all of the alternatives considered proportional changes resulting from a smaller development or one of uniform use would occur in the following elements: . Potential for wildlife habitat dependent upon carefully landscaped open space, including cover vegetation and surface water. . Air quality as affected by traffic volume. . Future intensification of land uses in the vicinity as indirectly affected by the intensity of the proposal. . Pressure for additional nearby housing caused in part by on-site employment. . Traffic volumes in approximate proportion to the size and type of use considered. . Economic impacts regarding tax revenue and site employment. -122- t :...lW !. ~.~ ". , . '. . '. .;.;: '. .ji '. i' . t . I . , I , I j . , . . I I , . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I TABLE XXI SUMMAR Y OF SITE COVERAGE AL TERNA TIVES Prol>osal Alt. I Alt."'- Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Percent Impervious 27% 50% Surface Coverage 50%* 27% 40% 60% Total Acres of 105 140 105 105 140 105 Salable Area Maximum Floor Area (Square footage): Commercial 200,000 108,910 159,272 - 564,773 1,044,830 Office 350,000 186,298 278,610 - - - Industr ial * 990.000 484.561 717.255 1,884.406 - - Total 1, 540,000 779,769 1,155,137 1,884,406 564,773 1,044,830 (35.4 07.9 (26.5 (43.3 (l3 (24 Acres) Acres) Acres) Acres) Acres) Acres) * The proposed project would slightly exceed 50% since half of the industrial portion is calculated at 60% impervious surface coverage. -123- Alternative No. I This first alternative is based on a consideration of a mix of commercial/retail, office and industrial uses similar to the proposal. However, the basic aIlotment of 27 percent of aIlowable impervious surface coverage is used with no adjustments. Change in Square Footage of Floor Area from the Proposal Chan~e in A WOT -3,402 -4,813 -1,836 -10,051 Commercial/retail ~ Office ~ Industr ial ~ Total -91,090 -163,702 -505.439 -760,231 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Based on the amount of land available for development, the maximum size of this alternative in terms of building floor area approximates 780,000 S.F., considering a mix of uses similar to the proposal. This figure represents a 760,231 S.F. reduction in floor area, In some cases, additional open space could result in larger greenbelt and stream buffer areas. The reduced project size would not generate the financial resources necessary for improvement to North Creek or for provision of public recreational facilities. Chan~es in Impacts The adverse effects of this Alternative I would have an impact similar to those of the proposal but on a smaIler scale. This option would be accompanied by the foIlowing changes in environmental impacts. Air Air quality impacts in the area directly attributable to this alternative would be reduced due to the decrease in generated vehicular traffic. Water The potential for degradation of North Creek, due to surface water runoff not disposed of by storm sewers, would be reduced as would the potential for improvement (meandering, shading) which would not be financiaIly feasible. Ve~etation Less area would be covered by impervious surfaces, resulting in the potential for and preservation of existing vegetation. Increased open spaces would result. -124- I ~~ '. , ~ .. i.1i '. .~ ;. ... J d '. ',I . .; ~ '. j} . ... . ,..v . ~ :1 .:'Jl I _.i .. :-.., I .1 . I . l . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Wildlife Attendant with increased open space would be flexibility in building location. Setbacks from the creek could be increased and large areas of existing habitat would be preserved. With this minimum development alternative, no improvements to the c~eek or wildlife habitat would be made. The overall effect would be more open space, but less potential for fisheries and other wildlife enhancement programs, and less impact on existing populations. Land Use The intensity of the site development would be reduced and the secondary effect of encouraging the trend toward more intensive land utilization in the vicinity would not occur to the same degree. If it would be economically possible to develop only 27 percent of the site, some portion of the remainder could possibly be leased as incidental agricultural land use. R Economics/Employment This alternative would result in the employment of approximately 1,663 persons. Commercial/retail trades would account for 272 persons, offices would add another 745 and warehousing/light industrial would provide approximately 646 jobs. The figures for commercial/retail are based upon Employment and Households Esti. mates For the Bellevue Area 1976, '80, '90, June 1977. The remaining figures are I.T.E. national standards. R R R R Since this alternative allows a lesser economic utilization of the site, property values would not be increased to the extent of those of the proposal. Adjacent upland residential property values would be enhanced to a lesser degree due to the decrease in on-site employment opportunities and potential demands for nearby ho usi ng. R A somewhat lesser commitment of public funds would be necessary to service this alternative. Development and associated population and traffic increases would require a lesser commitment of public funds to accommodate the demand for new roads, traffic control, utilities and other improvements. Tr ansporta t ion/Circula tion The reduction in the size of the project would reduce demand on the local arterial system. The key intersection of Interstate 405 with NE 195th Street would operate at Level of Service "F" in 1985. Similar road improvements would be necessary. - 12 s- Public Services/Ener~y/Utilities The alternative would reduce demand on these elements, but the utilities would still have to be brought to the site. Aesthetics The commercial/retail, office and light industrial uses proposed by this alternative are the same type of uses set forth in the proposal, but at lower impervious coverage percentages. Like the proposal, siting of these uses would be limited by considerations for preserving and enhancing the quality of North Creek and other environmentaIly sensitive areas. Development proposed in this alternative would reduce the potential for visual blight regardless of design considerations or mitigating measures. The aesthetic benefits of a meandering creek and riparian corr idor would be reduced. Summary of Alternative I Like the proposal, this alternative would change the character of the area from rural to commercial/industrial. The cost to develop the site with 27 percent impervious surface coverage might delay development. With just normal traffic growth on Interstate 405 by the year 2000 demand wiIl exceed capacity and congestion will occur at several roadway intersections even without development. A proposal at any density will have an impact on projected traffic circulation. The reduced amount of traffic in this alternative would mean slightly better air quality than that of the proposal. A lesser amount of impervious surface would reduce surface water runoff entering the Sammamish River and allow more preservation of existing habitats, but would eliminate the potential improvements to North Creek. Development at this lowered intensity would probably destroy the project's economic viability and would hinder or eliminate any "spin_off" development in the vicinity, thereby resulting in little or no improvement in the local tax base. -126- . ,G '. ,.~ 'I . a I " I .:i I ...~ I ,'J; I i , I . I , , I ,I I I .1 , , . . I I 'I I J I I I I I I . I 'I I '. I I I I I I I I I Alternative No. II This alternative is based on consideration of a mix of commercial/retail, office and industrial uses similar to the proposal, with a 40 percent impervious surface coverage. This coverage represents a 25 percent reduction from proposal levels. Change in Square Footage of Floor Area from the Proposal Chan~e in A WDT Commercial/retail, Office Industr ial Total -40,728 S.F. -71,390 S.F. -272,745 S.F. -384,863 S.F. -360 -483 -1,507 -2,350 One hundred and five acres of usable land for development with a 40 percent impervious surface coverage results in 1,1.55,137 S.F. of buildings. This figure represents a 384,863 S.F. reduction in building floor area. Chan~es in Impacts The adverse impacts of this option would be similar to those of the proposal but on a slightly smaIler scale. Alternative II would be accompanied by the following changes in environmental impacts. Air The decrease in the area coverage of this alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts due to the decrease in vehicular traffic levels. Water The reduction in intensity of development in this alternative would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces and an attendant reduction in the amount of surface runoff. Ve~etation See Alternative No. I. Wildlife See Alternative No. I. -127- Land Use This alternative provides for the development of a mix of uses similar to the proposal. However, the size of the specific developments would be less due to the decrease in the amount of allowable impervious surfaces. This 40""' coverage is substantiaIly less than other commercial developments in Snohomish and King Counties. Since 40% coverage is probably not economically viable, there would be little or no "spin_off" development of similar scales 'in the vicinity. ~ Economics/Employment This alternative would result in the employment of approximately 2,468 persons. Commercial/retail trades would account for 398 persons, offices would add another 1,114, and warehousing/light industrial would provide approximately 956 jobs. These figures are based on City of BeIlevue Planning Department estimates. ~ Alternative II allows lesser economic utilization of the site resulting in a slower increase in the value of adjacent properties. The demand on upland residential property would be enhanced to a lesser degree, due to the decline in on-site employment opportunities. ~ R ~ A corresponding smaller commitment of public funds would be necessary to service this option. Development of any associated population and traffic impacts would also require a lesser commitment of public funds to accommodate new roads, traffic control devices, utilities and other improvements. Tr ansporta tion/Circula tion The reduction in the size of the proposal is estimated to reduce traffic generation by 32% assuming a similar mix of uses. Traffic at the intersection of 1-405 and NE 195th Street would operate at Level of Service "F" at completion, and similar mitigating measures would be needed as with the proposal. Although demand on the local arterial systems would be reduced, estimates show that before the year 2000 both Interstate 405 and NE 195th Street would be operating at capacity, and congestion would occur during peak traffic periods even without any development on this site. Any contributions to these conditions as they wiIl exist would have a significant impact. Public Services/Ener~y/Utilities See Alternative I. -128- t ,i.~ ~I "'>> I a t d '. "::ii '. \;,0. J . , '. .~ , , . I ". -~ I , j} . . ~. ., I ,1 , I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I . II I I Aesthetics Alternative II is comprised of the same types of land uses contained in the proposal, but at a lower impervious surface coverage. Arrangement of the buildings would be limited by considerations for preserving and enhancing the quality of North Creek and similarly sensitive areas. The reduction in the total amount of impervious surface coverage of this alternative would not have a significantly different aesthetic impact than that of the proposal. Summary of Alternative II Alternative II would change the character of the area from rural to com mer- ,cial/industrial. The site development cost at 40 percent impervious coverage may delay development. Densities considered would impact existing arterials which are projected to be operating at capacity. To a lesser degree than Alternative I, the amount of surface water runoff would be decreased due to lower levels of impervious surface coverage, air quality would improve, and vegetation and wildlife habitats could be established on the site. Development at this lowered intensity level would probably destroy the project's economic viability, and would hinder or eliminate any adjacent development, thereby resulting in little or no improvement in the local tax base. -129- Alternative III This alternative considers a 60 percent impervious coverage of all light industr ial uses. This intensity of development would result in an 22 percent increase in the total amount of floor area coverage from that of the proposal. Change in Square Footage of Floor Area from the Proposal Chan~e in A WDT Industrial +344,406 S.F. -7,421 One hundred and five acres of usable land for development with 60 percent surface coverage results in 1,884,406 S.F. of buildinK floor area. Chan~es in Impacts The adverse impacts associated with this alternative would be different from those of the proposal, both in terms of type and magnitude. The impacts discussed below would result from Alternative III implementation. Air In comparison with the proposal, this alternative would result in a decrease in carbon monoxide emissions. The amount of heavy truck traffic would increase as a result of light industrial use. This increase would be offset somewhat by the elimination in pollutant emissions associated with trips to and from retail uses. Water The total amount of impervious surface coverage under this alternative is slightly more than that of the proposal. No major change in surface water runoff would occur. Land Use This alternative provides for the development of the entire l40-acre site into all light industrial uses at a 60 percent coverage. This intensity of development is less than other general commercial areas within Snohomish and King counties, and could result in similar development patterns in the North Creek Valley area, particular Iy on the valley floor. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emission Depending on the type of materials warehoused, the risk of explosion or hazardous emission could increase due to the larger amount of storage space considered. It is -130- t J I i;U '. IS '. :,y '. ..4- ., . . ,I 3 'I , f 'I ~ I . t 'I ~,;2 . .1 . , ! I -~ I I . . . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ not anticipated that warehousing or the production of hazardous or dangerous materials would occur on the site. Such a use would be subject to governmental approval. Safety measures would also be observed during construction and the risk of explosion would be no greater than at similar construction sites. Economics/Employment Alternative III would result in the employment of approximately 2,512 persons. This figure represents a slight decline in the projected number of employment opportunities resulting from the proposed development. This decrease results from the lower number of workers employed in light inClustr ial jobs per unit of floor space. Development of the site with this type and intensity of use will cause adjacent property values to inflate and will increase the demand on upland residential property. These increases would be similar to those of the proposal and less than Alternatives I, II and IV. R R T r ansportat ion/ C ir cula tion The traffic associated with light industrial uses is expected to decrease the total traffic generation rate by 61 percent from that of the proposal, but peak hour generation is only reduced by 38 percent. The daily number of expected visitors to this type of development is expected to be small, with the majority of trips beinK made by employees going to and from work and conducting personal business during "breaks." The number of large trucks making deliveries and pick-ups would increase with the development of industrial uses at the site. R With Alternative III the majority of traffic flow would occur during peak hours. Evening peak hour traffic would operate at Level of Service "F" at the intersection of 1-405/NE 195th Street, both southbound and northbound. Extreme traffic delays would be experienced as demand would exceed capacity over 20 percent. Delays could cause some drivers to divert to alternate routes. Southeast 228th Street through Snohomish County could become congested near SR 527 and the interchange of SR 522 and 132nd Street NE could also become overloaded. Public Services/Ener~y/Utilities This alternative could result in increased amounts of energy consumption and utility demands. These increases would likely stem from unique and specialized types of operations associated with light industrial uses and their corresponding utility requirements, such as high voltage electricity, high pressure water systems, and special sewerage requirements. -131- -, Aesthetics The impact Alternative III would have on this element of the environment would be llreater than impacts associated with the mixed-use proposal. The type of buildings expected to locate on the site with Alternative III development might be visually less pleasing due to scale and cost limitations depending on the type of industrial development. Open spaces and greenbelt areas and storm water retention areas would help to mitigate the increased aesthetic impact. The diversity of building types and design considerations attendant with the proposal would be lacking under this alternative. The potential for nighttime use could also increase the amount of light and glare generated on the site. Summary of Alternative III This alternative would change the character of the area from rural to light industr ial. A surge of evening peak hour traffic would cause overloads at the 1-405 interchange possibly causing traffic to divert to local two-lane roads. The aesthetic impact of this alternative might be greater due largely to the scale, building plan and materials which are necessary to make light industrial development economically viable. -132- t .. ,= ~I " -,-2. 'I " "~ 'I ,f: '. ,.f 'I <.S :1 "j .. 'I I .< I " ~ . ;.ii . :~.,a -. "~ '. ,6 I ,~ . 1 I . . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Alternative IV This alternative is based on a consideration of 27 percent impervious coverage of commercial/retail uses. Alternative IV would result in a 63 percent decrease in the total amount of surface floor area from that of the proposal. Change in Square Footage of Floor Area from the Proposal Chan~e in A WDT +1,662 Commercial/retail -975,227 S.F. This alternative would result in over 564,000 S.F. of commercial/retail structures and parking. The entire site would be occupied by an undetermined number of commercial/ retail buildings. Due to economics, this is the most probable alternative use at 27%. Chan~es in Impacts Adverse impacts attendant with this option differ from those resulting from the proposal, in terms of magnitude and type. Alternative IV would be accompanied by the following changes in environmental impacts. Air This alternative would result in a significant degradation of air quality due to the increase in vehicular traffic levels. These increases are anticipated despite the reduction in the overall size of the proposal. Water See Alternative II. Wildlife No improvements to the North Creek Channel or adjacent habitat would occur. Land Use This alternative considers the entire site to be comprised of commercial/retail structures at 27 percent coverage. This figure represents a significant decrease in the average impervious coverage common to commercial developments in Snoho- mish and King counties. Economics/Employment This alternative would result in the employment of nearly 1,400 persons based on a Bellevue Planning Department study. 'This figure represents a decrease in the number of on-site workers. -133- Alternative IV aIlows lesser economic utilization of the site resulting in a slower increase in the value of adjacent properties. The demand for upland housing would also be lessened due to the decline in employment opportunities. This option would require a greater commitment of funds to accommodate the demands for new roads, traffic control devices, utilities and other improvements. The 13 acres of commercial/retail development could have a significant adverse effect on the existing Bothell Central Business District. Such effects could lead to the degeneration of some smaller businesses. ~ Tr ansportation/C ircula tion Total daily traffic flow would decrease by 6 percent over that of the proposal but peak traffic would be reduced by 72 percent. ~ The interchange of 1-405 and NE 195th Street would operate at Level of Service "D" during the evening peak hour. Mitigation measures similar to those of the proposal would be needed a few years after 1985. Public Services/Ener~y/Utilities See Alternative I. ll. Aesthetics There would be more open space with this alternative, but the retail use would be much more intensive with more expansive parking areas. Summary of Alternative IV This alternative would result in changing the character of the site from rural to commercial/retail. The site development cost at 27 percent coverage may be prohibitive of any development at this time. The use considered would have a significant socio-economic impact on the existing Bothell business district. The extent of this impact would depend on the size and type of commercial/retail businesses ll. attracted to this center. The reduction in the amount of impervious coverage could help to enhance the quality of North Creek by reducing surface runoff. Increases in the local tax base may be delayed due to site development costs, as may associated development in the North Creek Valley expected to follow implementation of this type of proposal. Retail is the most probable use of the site if restricted to 27% coverage. - 134- I ~. I ~ (; I ,; ~ I ,9 I -:.5 , I .. . ,1i I :i:. . " I -.is I . .~ I ....:-i' I ;.~ I ;.f I ! I , I I I . I I I I I I I I I I . . I I I I I Alternative V This alternative is similar to the retail use discussed in the prior option except that imper~ious coverage is considered at 50 percent. Change in Square Footage of Floor Area from the Proposal Chan~e in A WDT Commercial/retail -495,170 S.F. +14,671 Approximately 1,044,830 S.F. of commercial/retail structures would result from imple- mentation of this alternative. Chan~e in Impacts Environmental impacts resulting if the project were to be carried out as proposed would be changed in degree and kind if Alternative V was chosen. Impacts resulting from this alternative would be similar to those discussed in Alternative IV but would occur on a larger scale. The following changes would be associated with the implementation of Alternative V. Air Air quality impacts would be worse due to traffic levels generated by commercial/ retail uses. Water See Alternative I. Land Use Alternative V considers 50 percent of the entire site covered by commercial/retail uses. This figure represents a decrease in the surface coverage of typical commercial developments in Snohomish and King counties. Implementation of this alternative would result in changing the character of existing land use from rural to commercial/retail. Such a change could be expected to set a precedent for similar projects in the North Creek study area. Economics/Employment Such substantial retail development could have a significant socio-economic impact on existing retail businesses in Bothell and the surrounding area. Any increase Alternative V would br ing to the tax base would have to be considered in light of -135- possible loss of existing tax revenues from operating businesses affected by retail development of the site. The 50 percent commercial/retail impervious surface coverage alternative would result in the employment of approximately 2,612 persons based on Bellevue City Planning Department figures (I employee/400 square feet). This figure represents nearly a 26 percent decrease in employment opportunities compared with the potential number created by the proposal. This alternative considers the maximum impervious site coverage permitted by the Bothell Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for this use in the North Creek Valley planning area. Maximum utilization of the site could be expected to contribute toward inflating the market value of adjacent properties. This alternative would require a commitment of public funds to maintain roads, utilities and other improvements made necessary by such a development. The cost of construction and installation of necessary on- and off-site improvements would be borne by the developer, either privately or through available state or federal grants. Use of public funds for such improvements would eliminate their availability for commitment to other uses. R T r ansporta tion/ C ircula t ion The commercial/retail buildings would result in a 57 percent increase in traffic generation over proposal levels. Impact on adjacent arterial corridors resulting from this alternative would be significant. The increase above the normal growth rate of traffic is projected for arterials that would be operating at capacity before the year 2000. The northbound and southbound ramps for Interstate 405 would operate at Level of Service "F" by 1985 if Alternative V were implemented. Drivers probably would divert to local roads north through Snohomish County and east to Woodinville, thereby causing adverse impacts to neighboring jurisdictions. Aesthetics The aesthetic impact of Alternative V would be similar to that resulting from the proposal. The reduction in the amount of surface coverage would result in improvement in the overall appearance of this option. This increase in open space, together with an anticipated well-designed appearance and location of commer- cial/retail use structures, could contribute toward aesthetic improvement provided repetition is avoided and building placement is done with considerations for preserving and enhancing environmentally sensitive areas. This could be offset by increased uSe of signs and lighting typical of commercial and retail uses. -136- 1 ..",. '. ,t 1 ..;-,~ '" ,. t ::.!; -. ..: 'I ;; I . , I , I i I ." ~ . ~ 09 I " .~ " ., . . ,~ I I . I ,. I I I . I . I . I . I . . . . . . I. Summary of Alternative V This alternative would also result in changing the character of the site from rural to commercial/retail. Site coverage at 50 percent is the maximum allowed by the Bothell Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance covering the North Creek Planning Area. The commercial/retail use at this level of intensity would have significant environmental impacts on the existing Bothell retail community. The extent of this impact would depend largely on the type and size of businesses attracted to this retail center. The retail use would generate a significant amount of traffic which would contr ibute toward projected traffic congestion and accelerate the need for improving traffic facilities. The surface water runoff resulting from the impervious surfaces would have to be handled carefully to avoid degradation of North Creek. This alternative could be expected to improve the local tax base due to its economic viability which was lacking at lower surface coverage percentages. Any such increases would have to be viewed in light of expected impacts on existing retail businesses which would be competing for business with uses considered under this alternative. Similar proposals for other parcels could be expected to follow if development of the site should occur. -137- I I . I I I I I I I I . I I I, . . 1 I Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Unavoidable adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated or avoided as a result of the proposed development are listed below. Earth- Topo~raphy, Geolo~y and Soils Leveling and redistribution of site soils from grading, excavations and construction of access roads and parking areas. Air Deterioration in air quality although remaining within federal standards. Water Temporary impacts resulting from re-alignment of the creek channel, site grading until stream channel is stabilized and vegetation established. Long-term impacts due to increased impervious surfaces, resulting in increased runoff and reduced infiltration of stormwater. Ve~etation Removal of existing site vegetation by site grading. Wildlife Wildlife habitat essentially eliminated as construction is implemented, but replaced by a more natural riparian corridor habitat. Noise Increased noise levels increase on and adjacent to the site and along the 1-405 corridor. Li~ht and Glare Additional on-site sources of light and glare resulting from building, parking and roadway lighting. -139- - Land Use Loss of existing open, undeveloped agricultural land. Secondary impact of encouraging development of adjacent hillside and valley floor areas. Alternative site uses would be lost. Natural Resources Consumption of fossil fuels during the construction and operational phases of the project and by vehicles traveling to and from the site. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions Temporary risk of equipment related accidents would occuring during construction. Population and Housin~ Secondary impact of accelerating demands for adjacent housing resulting from in- creased on-site employment opportunities. Transportation and Circulation Although mitigated by widening of 195th and improvement to several intersections, there would be a significant increase in traffic along NE 195th Street and the intersection with 1-405. Public Services - Fire, Police Project development substantially increasing demands on fire protection and law enforcement personnel requirements. Ener~y Construction sitework and operation of the proposal consuming energy for heatinli!(, lighting, equipment operation, construction and employee commuting. Aesthetics The existing pastoral setting replaced by a 140-acre mixed-use development. -140- I '. u; I '. ._~ '. ...It . ,6 I i.1I . ,lo I ,\...2 I :Ii I ,]t I "j I 4.ii . ... ~. ... ,. ." ~ I "I . . , I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Letters of Comment & Responses to Draft EIS Letters of comment on the Draft EIS were received from the organizations listed below. Each letter is followed by its respective response. Author Alderwood Water District Washington State OffiCe of Archaeology and Historic Preservation City of Bothell Fire Department Mary E. Bunney Washington State Department of Ecology Keith E. Berry Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Washington State Department of Game METRO, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Puget Power Timberline Reclamations, Inc. King County Department of Budget and Program Development Washington State Department of Transportation Bar bara Jackson Frank A. Saksa U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X Roderick J. McNae, Inc. Tony Vivolo Maria A. Walsh King County Department of Budget and Program Development Jackson D. and Norma R. Nickols U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration League of Women Voters of Lake Washington East KOLL Contractor University of puget Sound, Department of Economics Snohomish County PlanninK Department Susan M. and Robert B. Sparling Washington Environmental Council Washington State Planning and Community Affairs Agency King County Cooperative Extension Ruth H. and Richard Gordon McCloskey Judith Fisher Snohomish County Public Works Ann Aagaard Jerry L. Pyle Lesley V. Berry Washington State Department of Fisheries Maria A. Walsh Bothell Chamber of Commerce Input from Public Hearing Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Fisheries Department -141- ~ 2/24 2/25 3/5 3/19 3/20 3/23 3/23 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/25 3/25 3/26 ,3/27 3/27 3/27 3/30 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/8 4/9 4/10 4/10 4/10 4/10 4/12 4/12 4/13 4/13 4/13 4/13 4/13 4/14 4/14 4/14 4/15 Pa~e 142 145 147 149 1.51 154 1.56 160 166 171 175 181 187 189 192 194 196 198 202 205 207 209 212 214 222 2.5.5 268 270 272 280 283 285 293 302 315 317 319 322 324 326 336 .~-"-' .. / '. \ I ' , "', ( ~..-;: ",- """"1 ..... . "" \..t . ,,' ~. ii" ALD"'R\~/""'OD \'i.'-~',;, l: 'I U J . .-\ , ...' , 3626. 156m SI. ,.:", LYNNWOOD. WAS;;!I'!':;:":,,'; ,.,' 743,4GOS I _ __~"JO' /~, ~ ""1 I L..i...:":"..'_l j . -. ._-- .~ '. -\ 1 "! .: r ~ ""-:"::"';;'> '.di: Serving Sourh SnOn!)!il;.."{J WATER SERVICE / 2 - "O~ SER"IC. .=...n ". c~ February 24, 1981 Mr. Daniel lV. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st N.E. Bothell, UA 98011 Dear 11r. Taylor: SUBJECT: Draft EIS Koll Business Center Thank you for the opportunity to review the above Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The surcharging and compressing of existing peat as men- tioned on page 3, together with relocating North Creek could impact the stability of our existing sewer line shown on fig- ure 2.' A portion of the sewer line is on piling, not designed for lateral loads that could develop during surcharging of peat. The Developer of the Business Park shall be responsible for protecting the District's sewer facilities and shall re- tain a licensed professional foundation engineer to design and inspect the foundation and soils work. On page 8 it is proposed to extend an oversized sewer line from the Metro trunk line South of the site. This would no doubt parallel the District's existing trunk line, thus resulting in two sub-trunks in the same vicinity extending North from Metro's facility. The existing District sewer line is a temporary facility which would be abandoned when Metro constructs the North Creek Trunk to the County line as called for in the Alderwood-Metro Sewer Agreement. On March 11, 1977, we wrote Metro advising them of the growth in the North Creek drainage basin that could impact the scheduling of the construction of Metro's North Creek Trunk sewer. l1etro was again contacted in March, May and June of 1980 regarding the limited capacity of the District's temporary sewer line and regarding potential land use change of the sub- ject property both of which could affect their construction schedule. -i42- '. ..~ J I .. . I ,., I ti . .i} I ~-i ~ I ,..t. I .;-~ I -,x I 1: I , ! I , i I , ) I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I . 2 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor -2- February 24, 1981 If the subject business park develops as proposed, the end result would be three trunk sewers in the North Creek Valley, an Alderwood Water District Trunk, a Bothell Trunk, and a Metro Trunk (probably constructed after the business park has been developed). We recommend coordination of the Business Park development with the extension of the Metro trunk sewer and urge construction of one permanent sewer system that will provide regional sewer service. We will be pleased to discuss this further if you so desire. Sincerely, ALDEro~OOD WATER DISTRICT ~~ LOE:eh cc: Bob Hirsch, Hetro L. O. Erikson General Hanager -143- - The Alderwood line lies in an area proposed for a roadway and open space buffer. Surcharging along the sewer line would be minimal to avoid potential damage to the existing line. ~. ,u.!OI '. :..'~ '. '"'~ '. ,. '. ':;'01 -. .,:...~ '. -~ . ,; . . ~ - I \1 I , ~ . ;:,;'1 I dl I :...= I . d . , . Comment Letter from Alderwood Water District Response I: Response 2: The City of Bothell and the engineers for the proposed Koll project have met with METRO, Alderwood Water District, King County, and Snohomish County officials to negotiate an agreement for joint use of a sewer main. These meetings are continuing. METRO is presently conducting additional feasibility studies. If an agreement cannot be reached for a joint sewer line, a new line will be constructed to the Koll project. This line will be owned by the City of Bothell but construction would be financed by the Koll Company (see response to Snohomish County Planning). -144- . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION WASHINGTON 111 W... Twonty.F;... Awn.., M.S. KL.ll, Olympia, Wuhing10n 98S04 2061753-4011 Date: February Log Reference: Project Title: Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 - 101st N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 Dear Appl icant: 25, 1981 210-C- KI -03 Kell Business Bothell DEIS Center - We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and find there are no historic or archaeol09ical properties on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington State Inventory of Historic Places, that will be impacted by the project. In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvert- ently unearthed during construction activities, please notify the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, and the Washington Archaeological Research Center in Pullman, Washington. Si ncere ly, db ,."" Sheil a A. Stump Archaeologist Form AHP R-6 (1/8l) -145- Comment Letter from State of WashinRton Office of Archaeolo!!:y and Historic Preservation Response:. In the event that archaeological resources are inadvertently unearthed during construction activities, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Washington Archaeological Research Center will be notified. -146- '. ,." I ;{l I ,.. I , ~ I , I , I ~' . I L I .c. I I ., I .) . .:.<J I .., I , I I I , I I I I CITY OF BOTHELL I FIre Department March 5, 1981 I '1'0: Dan Taylor - Department of COll1lllunity Development FROM: :. ;' Chief Dunc~',._:-- I SUBJECr: KOLL CENTER DRAFT E.I.S. I The current language, although lightly, expresses the Fire Department viewpoint and concerns. There are, however, a few points to which they are silent or merely brushed over. I I I On page 81 the draft states "The proposed project would create significant additional demands for fire protection," and goes on to say that at present the Fire Department could not adequately serve the site. Until such time as City revenues are substantial enough to provide adequate manning of required engine companies, this will remain as stated. I A recent study, "Fire in the United States", shows that occupancies such as are contemplated for this site pose the greatest danger to firefighters and rank fourth in number of fire occurrences. Only residential type occupancies have a higher rate of fire occurrence. I I Another area of major concern is the proposed five-story highrise. This department is not currently equipped with a ladder truck, and even if one was authorized today. it would take approximately 2 to 2~ years before the unit would be in service in the City. I I Until such time as this department is equipped with a ladder truck, I would recommend denial of any proposed structure in excess of 35 feet in total height. I Factors which would assist to mitigate the impact upon the Fire Department could be: I 1. Provide the expected revenues the completed project will generate until such time as the project is "self-supporting." ..::. 2. Equip ~ structures with automatic fire sprinkler systems. I 3. Provide the City with a ladder truck which complies with department specifications. I 3 With the exception of Item #1, these measures do nothing to reduce the impact upon our manpower needs. While it is true that sprinkler systems, detection systems, etc. do help to reduce the probable level of severity, without adequate manning levels all of the sophisticated equipment is of little value. I I I RD/cb' -147- Comment Letter from City of Bothell Fire Department Response: The project will be built according to City of Bothell requirements for fire safety.. As stated in the Draft EIS, the City will receive several hundred thousand dollars in various direct revenues from the project prior to its operation which will go into discretionary funds. If needed, the City may choose to purchase a ladder truck with a portion of these funds. Also as stated in the Draft EIS, the project will generate a significant netfisca1 benefit to the City annually for the life of the project. This will allow the City to improve fire protection manpower. -148- t I :ij~ , I ,.J I :;~> I ::.:i I ~..~ I . . I ..... I f I -~ I I .-2 I ,/" I o.;.~ I , I ..1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mrs. Michael J. Bunney 19l03 Ross Road Bothell, Washington 980ll March 19, 1981 Mr. Dan Taylor Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st N. . E. Bothell, WA. 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Koll Business Center / My husband and I strongly object to the proposal that the section of North Creek Valley of King County be rezoned to high density multi- family, manufacturing partk and commercial. We object because this rezoning would seriously devalue our property, as part of the value of our property is the aesthetic beauty and en- joyment of the view of the North Creek Valley floor in its present form. 2- We also oppose this proposal as it would be damaging to our environ- ment in the form of noise and air pollution. It would more than double the population of our area which would be very detrimental to our street and road systems (it is very dangerous to walk on our street because of the high volume of traffic now!), water and sewer systems, and last but not least, our fire and police protection sys- tems. which are at capacity now. We believe if you put this proposal to a vote among the affected pro- ~erty owners, it would not pass. We respectfully request that you do not allow this rezoning and develoment proposal to take place and that the impact statement be redrafted to return the valley to agricultural zonin[.. Sincerely, ~~~ Mrs. Ilary E. Bunney -149- There is no evidence to indicate that adjacent property values will decline. Property values may increase due to improved shopping and employment opportunities. (Please refer to AESTHETICS section of EIS.) I ;;;.i; I ,.., I I ~ .tl I . I d/. I _'.il I " I . I . I !.Ii I ~~ I ,.~ I a I ,,:, I _I I i I J I Comment Letter from Mrs. Mary E. Bunney Response 1: Response 2: The impacts to noise, air quality, population, traffic, water, sewer, fire and police are discussed in the Draft EIS. Many of these issues are also discussed further in the following comments and responses. The writer of the letter lives on Ross Road and is referred to the revised TRANSPORTATION section of the Final EIS and other comments and responses. -150- I JOHN SI'WMAN I ~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 3 4- 5/ .~ DONAlD w. MOOS DirKtor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY MailSlopPV'17 . Olympia. WashD1gron98504 . (106)753-2800 March 20, 1981 Mr. Daniel W: Taylor Bothell Department of Community Development l8305 - lOlst Northeast Bothell, Washington 980ll Dear Mr. Taylor: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental impact statement for the Koll Business Center. We have reviewed the EIS and have the following concerns: l. A short term exception to the water quality standards will be required from the Department of Ecology for the work to be done in North Creek. The stream may have to be diverted during the relocation project to prevent any work-related turbidity. 2. The plane and specifications for the sewer extension should be submitted to the Department of Ecology for review and approval. These documents should be submitted to the Department of Ecology, Northwest Re9ional Office, 4350 - l50th Avenue N.E., Redmond, WA 98052. 3. During the construction phase, storm water runoff will eventually discharge into the Sammamish River which is classified as a Class AA waterway -(WAC l73-20l-080). Temporary storm water detention facilities should be designed, operated, and maintained so that any discharge will not violate the water quality standards. We are particularly concerned about possible violations of the turbidity standard (WAC l73-20l-045{l)). 4. The Sammamish River is experiencing high temperature problems, especially during the summer months. The runoff from the pavement of this devleopment will augment this problem. The impacts on the water quality and fisheries resources should be addressed in the EIS. 5. The contractor should be aware of the mitigating measures and special concerns identified in the EIS. -151- -.::;r , : - .. I I .,).:>0: J I ;;,t: I ,..-~ I ;;:;U I ;.~ I '.!.!: I ~r'} I , I '. ~ I I d , ~:'.e I "'.li I .1 I I I i I Mr. Taylor March 20, 1981 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call Mr. Mike Dawda of our Northwest Regional Office at 885-l900. - Sincerely, .. ~a.~-a.--..t't-;1Z:~~ " Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR :me . cc: Mr. Mike Dawda -152- -. I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment Letter from State of Washin!!;ton Department of EcolollY Response 1: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response 5: The sponsor will apply for a "short-term exception." The entire new channel will be constructed prior to any activity in the existing creek. The plan and specifications will be submitted as required. During construction, all on-site runoff will. be collected and routed to temporary stormwater detention facilities. No runoff from construc- tion areas will flow directly to the Sammamish River. The proposed stream improvements, including shading, may reduce temperatures in North Creek, thus helping to reduce temperatures in the Sammamish River. As a mitigating measure, to decrease the temperature of runoff, the detention pond could be excavated to a permanent minimum depth of approximately six feet. This would lower temperatures of runoff by dilution prior to leaving the site. Aeration could prevent thermal stratification in the pond if needed. The feasibility of this is sti1l being considered. The seasonal potential for thermal pollution does not coincide with critical life-cycle stages of the fisher ies resources. The City will generally use the EIS in the decision-making process and in establishing conditions for granting permits. -153- - 3610 233rd S. E. Bothell WA 98011 March 23, 1981 Mr. Dan Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 - 101st N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: As a resident of south Snohomish County, living approximately one mile north of the proposed Koll Business Center, I feel compelled once again to convey to you my deep misgivings about the aforementioned project. I have reviewed the draft environ- mental impact statement and some weighty questions remain, which I feel need further investigation. My main points of concern are as follows: I A. Traffic: With an anticipated 25% over capacity by 1985, what steps are anticipated to overcome this problem of congestion, and who will be the responsible agency, City of Bothell, or King County, and to what extent is the overview of traffic flow being coordinated with Snohomish County, from whence a large percentage of traffic can be expected? With the "anticipated sequence of development", through-traffic to other business centers such as Redmond, Be11evue and Seattle can be expected to increase, further aggravating the problem. Who pays for the necessary road improvements? z B. Natural Habitat: The area in question is presently popu- lated or visited by a wide variety of wild life, including water-fowl, herons, red-tailed hawk, pheasant, kestrels, coyotes, weasels, migratory birds, and last but by no means least, numerous varieties of salmon, I feel that the plan as presented in the E.I.S. does not adequately preserve this habitat, much of which will be totally destroyed during and after construction. What safeguards, if any, will there be during the construction periOd, which is as yet undetermined and could theoretically never reach a conclusion, (page 13, E.I.S.l and how long will it take for wildlife to adjust to the proposed habitat? To summarize, this proposed development exhibits signs of creating many more problems than it will solve, at the expense of the residents, the environment and overall quality of life in this area. Sincerely, k f:. . Kei th t: Berry -lS4- I ~.f I ::'J: I ~." '. _l" 'I . ~ I ::.iJ I "5; I J: I > I ~: I . I ';, . " I c~ I " -. I "-,k I I I I I > I -. I . . I I I . I . I I I . I . I I . Comment Letter from Keith Berry Response I: Response 2: As stated in the Draft EIS, improvements required to handle traffic from the Koll project at completion include widening NE 195th Street and the 1-405 overpass, and widening, channelization (turning lanes), and signalization (traffic signals) of adjacent intersections. The Draft EIS further states that an area-wide traffic study (currently being prepared) is needed to adequately address improvements needed by other proposed developments in the valley. The City of Bothell will be the responsible agency but the City will work with the State, King County and Snohomish County (see comment and response from Snohomish County Public Works). The KolI project and other developments in the valley will pay on a pro-rata share basis for the improvements necessary to handle the increases in traffic forecasted to result from the respective project. The Draft ElS recognizes the value of the site as wildlife habitat. We have observed the species you mention on or near the site. Many of the animals present would be eliminated by the project due to the change in habitat types. As stated, the increase in productivity of habitat type upon completion of the project could offset the loss of the existing animals. The Draft EIS also recognizes the conflict between use of the open space for recreation and for wildlife habitat as encouraged by the Bothell Comprehensive Plan. Safeguards for stream construction include the services of the special- ist.in stream relocations hired by the KolI Company (see comment to Draft EIS from Timberline Reclamations) and the Department of Fisheries' Hydraulic Permit review process plus on-site supervision of construction and on-going maintenance upon completion. The present construction sequence anticipated by the City would have all improvements to the stream and adjacent open space completed at the outset of project construction. The stream would stabilize within a year, while the upland habitat would stabilize as soon as the vegetation becomes established in one to three years. Wildlife will adjust as soonas the habitat stabilizes. -155- SERVING: .cINQ COUNTY .'0 W"1 104""'-' 51. PO. Sol: 1183 Some, 1NI1D1 (2OI)3oMo7330 .crTSAP COUNTY Dial o...ror lOt TaIt F... NumDet z..m I38S ~tSlInd,."D Oil' 30U07330 PlEACI! COUNTY 213...... 8WcIng TacomI. sae.o2 (201)383.5851 SHOHOWISH COUNTY ,-- BOrAAD 0' DIRECTORS ;<:;f~~~f~tF ;:.:~':.'~: ~. ...;;..:....... , ",,->l: . ;'.' .;. 410 W_ H_ 5..... P.O. Boll98l13 12081 344-1. _.. W""'invIo" 98109 . l. March 23, 1981 I ;t~ , O~ I '~:i I ,~ I _'v , " I ..~ I ~ I " . . I .oj; I ..li I ~ .t I :..~ I .j I ; Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 - 101st N.E. Bothe11, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: Ko1l Business Center - Bothe11 I The following comments are submitted in response to review of the Ko1l Business Center - Bothe1l, draft environmental impact statement, by our office. It appears that an error was made in transposing numbers in Table III on page 35 of the report. The nitrogen dioxide standard is 0.05 ppm and not 0.0 ppm as stated. Enclosed is a copy of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for your information. 2. Due to the potential impact of automobile traffic on the carbon monoxide concentrations it is suggested that all mitigating measures be implemented to reduce the impact of automotive emissions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Arthur R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer sj Enclosure OWAMAN:a...l~.c... __,I(l1MDCcu'rtr. Ran 0ufMID. King eo....r." uecuuwe; H.",., 8. Poll....., II Utge; Glenn tC. .aam.o. ....,. BterMnott: ow.. Ao".......,. s..me; -lS6- WllttImE.Moate......,."E~ .-SIonn.c....~ ~__, PilttceCcutty; VUCHArAMAN:...".. 8. H........COl.W'lc:IlmIn ~C4ultv ....,..,.......ftQtT=- A.A. 0""""""'."" PoIIulIClft Conttat()rhc,. -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Oxld.nts .re produced In the .tmosphere when nitrogen oxtdes .nd SOUl! hydro- c.rbons .re exposed to sunlight. Ozone ts the oxld.nt found In largest 'lIIOunts. It ts. pullllOnary Irrlt.nt th.t .ffects lung tissues .nd respiratory functtons. Ozone tll1>.lrs the nonnal function of lung and. at concentrations between 0.15 .nd 0.25 ppm. c.uses lung ttght- ness. coughlng. .nd wheeztng. Other oxld.nts, produced In smaller _unts than ozone, cause eye irritatton. Per- sons with chronic resplr.tory rroblems such IS asthma seem DDst sens ttve to changes tn ozone concentration. NITROGEN DIOXIDE , Nttrlc oxide results from the flx.tlon of nitrogen .nd oxygen .t hlgh teq>er- .tures as In fuel codlustton. There are 5e veral a tDDsphertc reactions whtch le.d to the oxld.tton of nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide. Ind the presence of nitrogen dtoxlde tn _lent .Ir Is essentlll to the production of photochemlcll oxtdlnts. The presence of nitrogen dloxtde In .mbtent Ilr hiS been Issocl.ted wtth I vlrlety of res- plr.tory dlse.ses. HYDROCARBONS Defined .s org.nlc compounds composed .excluslvely of clrbon Ind hydrogen, hydroc.rbons Ire primarily Issocllted with the use of petrolelll1l products. They Ire the main components of photo- chemtc.l slllOg. Hydroclrbons Ilone hive no known effect on human hellth. there- fore the sole purpose of prescribing I hydroc.rbon st.ndlrd Is to control photochemlcll oxld.nts. LEAD Lead affects humans tn numerous ways, but the greltest effects .ppe.r to be on the blood-forming system. the nerv- ous system. Ind the ktdneys. ft .f- fects some persons more than others. Young chtldren (Iges 1-5) .re plrttcu- l.rly sensitive to leld exposure. The st.ndlrd for leld In .tr ts tntended to preventlllOst chtldren from exceeding blood leld levels of 30 mtcrogr.ms per deciliter of blood. PSAPrA R/nn OZONE ppm parts per mt Ion vg/mo . mtcrograms per cubic meter N /l N PRIMARY SECONDARY 0 0 0 t ; I~ SULFUR OX fOES ppm ppm e OPll Olllll AnnulI Average 0.03 . 0.02 . 0.02 . 30 d.y Average O.oq . 24~hour Average 0.111 b 0.10 b 0.10 . 3.hour Average 0.50 b J-hour Average 0.25 c 0.25 c I-hour Average 0.1l0 b 0.1l0 I 5 mtn. Average 1.00 d SUSPENDEO ~g/m' ~g/m' ~g/m' ~g/m' PARTICULATES Annual Geo. Mean 75 60 . 60 . 60 . 24.hour Average 260 150 b l50 b 150 b CARBON MONDX fOE ppm a-hour Average g same b same $Ime I-hour Average 35 b OZONE ppm I-hour Average 0.12 same e s.me S'1lll! . NITROGEN DIOXfDE ppm Annual Average 0.05 same . same same HYDROCARBONS ppm (Less Meth.ne) b 3-hour Average O.211 same LEAD ~g/m' Calendar Quarter same as Average 1.5 same . N.tfon.1 PUGET SlXIND REG faN WASHINGTON STATE Never to be exceeded /lot to be exceeded more th.n once per ye.r Not to be exceeded more th.n twIce tn Seven d.ys Not to be exceeded more th.n once tn eight hours St.nd.rd .tt.lned when expected number of d.ys per ye.r with maxtmum hourly Iver.ge .bove 0.12 ppm Is equ.l to or less th.n one Applies 6 ..m. to 9 '.m. d.lly ONAL HAT . b c d e f The presence of sulfur oxides In the .mblent .Ir h.s been .ssocl.ted wfth . variety of respiratory diseases and In- creased mortality rates. Thp.y repre- sent a significant economic burden and have a nuisance impact. When sulfur oxfdes Ire Inh.led wtthsmall p.rtleles. the effect on he.lth ts Incre.sed. fn- h.laUon of sulfur dtoxtde cln c.use Increased airway resistance by con- stricting lung p.ss.ges, PARTICULATES Small dtscrete masses of solid or liq- uid mtterdtspersed In the Itmosphere. especially those of one micron or less In diameter. are associated with a v.rlety of Idverse effects on pUbltc he.lth .nd welf.re. P.rttculate mat- ter tn the respt r.tory tr.ct may pro- duce Injury by ttself. or It may .ct In conjunction with gases to Increase the effect on the body. Small p.rU- eles suspended tn the Ilr .re chiefly responstble for reduced visibility In the Puget So~nd .re.. Soiling of butld- t ngs .nd other property Is. coamon effect of high p.rtlcullte levels. C.rbon IIIOnoxlde re.cts with the h....- globin In red blood cells to decrease the oxygen-c.rrylng clp.clty of the blood, The n.tton.l prtmary stand.rd for carbon monoxide was based on evi- dence th.t levels of c.rboxyh....globtn In human blood.s low IS 2.51 may be 'Ssoclated with tmp.lrment of .btllty to dlscrlmln.te time Intervlls. The n.tlon.l .mbtent Ilr qu.llty st.nd.rds for carbon monoxide are Intended to protect against the occurrence of car- boxyhemoglobin levels .bove 21. Note: Smoking up to 2 p.cks of clg.rettes I d.y rllses c.rboxyh....globln levels to .bout 51. This Is equlvllent to expos- ure for 8 or more hours to 30 ppm of carbon monoxfde 1tlN0XlDE SULFUR OXIDES CARBON , ~ <n .... , PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 410 West Harrison S.r... P.O. Bo. 9863 Suttle, Wilshineton 98109 a SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS In addition to ambient air quality standards, the federal Clean Air Act specified that standards were to be set to 1 imit emissions from specific categories of air pollution sources These stand- ards are A new approach to air pollution control. came into being with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970. The law requires the U. S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency to promulgate national Jrimary and secondary ambient air quality standar s. The pri- mary standards for each pollutant are based upon known health effects for that particular substance as detailed in "air quality criteria" documents published by the federal government. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pol- lutants - These standards are intended to protect the publ ic from emissions of pollutants which could cause serious illness or deaih. Primary standards protect the public health and must allow an adequate margin of safety. Second- ary standards IOOSt protect the public welfare against other adverse effects. These include effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man- made materials, animals, wild life, weather, vis- ibility, climate, property,' transportation omi c va lues and persona 1 comfort and well Nel'/ Source Performance 5tandai'ds - These stand- ards are applicable to certain categories of industries which significantly contribute to air pollution. They apply to new or modified instal- lations of i ndustri es for whi ch performance s tand- ards have been set econ- being Another limit on air pollution exists in the fed- eral Clean Air Act to protect areas which have cleaner air than that required by National An~bient Air Quality Standards. While not strictly a stand- ard, the Act does contain numerical limits on the amount of increase allowed for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide in clean air areas , .... V1 ex> , Pursuant to the schedule established by the Con- gress, the Envi ronmental Protection Agency pub- lished on April 30, 1971, the first national ambient air quality standards. In January, 1979, the standard for photochemical oxidant was re- named "Ozone, II and was changed from 0.08 ppm to 0.12 ppm. A new national standard for lead in air was adopted in October 1976. standards on control i r pollut i Information about is available from: of Ecology a Protection Agency , Seattle 98101 State Department Olympia 98504 S. Environmental 1200 6 th Ave Washington U Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency P. O. Box 9863, Seattle 98109 SU'I'.ng KING, KITSAP. PIERCE c,- SNOHOMISH COUNl1FS _ _ _ _ .._ "'_._ .._._ '_ .._._ '_ "q '_'" ".'1IIIiII ,.... '" ..... '-' ...., ~ i-~ ~. ~5 ",,",', t.... <'>< ~". ,...;. ~,_ ~~. ~, .~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l___. Comment Letter from Pu~et Sound Air Pollution Control A~ency Response I: The error has been corrected in the Final EIS. Thank you for the additional information. Response 2: The City will require appropriate mitigating measures for traffic. . -159- , : JOHN SPEUMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME 6OONorthc.p<<orWay, CI-ll . Olympia, Washinglon98S04 . (206)7SJ-S700 March 24, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st N~E. Bothell, Washington 98011 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Koll Business Center - Bothell Commercial office and light industrial complex on 140 acres - N~, Section 4 and 5, T26N, R5E, King County Mr. Taylor: Your document was reviewed by our staff as requested; our comments follow. On page 4 you state: "However, upon completion of the project, stream habitat would be improved, riparian habitat and possible additional marsh/wetland habitats would be created. These are far more productive than the pasture presently covering the site." / We question the applicant's ability to enhance the existing area for all species. From your discussion, the site supports a wide diversity of habi- tat (stream, marsh, and wooded swamp surrounded by pasture). Wetland soil types (Seattle muck and Tukwila muck) are predominant. While it may be possible to enhance an area for a target species, it would be extremely difficult to enhance an area for all species. It is not easy to engineer a biological system that works better than one that develops naturally over time. 2 In 1974 in responding to your Bothell Center Draft Environmental Impact Statement, we said then: "Studies have proven that man cannot create, despite significant efforts, biologically-productive stream courses which require the interaction of natural processes over long periods of time... The successful design and maintenance of a viable anadromous fish spawning chann~l requires greater degree of research and planning than we would anticipate in the hydraulic project approval process, which is the only method of interagency cooperation referred to." -160- ~, '. it I ,J '. 4,,&j I B '. .:,1i '. _1J$ I .:i\ . .; I , I - ~ I . ~ I i'~ I I .-j I .8 I ..I I ~ . I: I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 8 9 /0 '. Page 2 . March 24, 1981 3 In your proposal, existing diversity would be reduced. Natural benefits of wetland soils would be greatly reduced. The compacted peat would no longer serve as a controller of stream flow. No longer would it store water in winter like a sponge, and release it in the low flow months of summer. 4- On page 33 you discuss your stormwater system and conclude: "If allowed to support vegetation, the settling basin may remove some nutrients from stormwater runoff, and provide valuable marsh habitat." We wonder how these facilities would be cleaned, and how they 'would serve as valuable wildlife habitat when they contain oil, grease, and other stormwater pollutants. Farm lands also provide valuable wildlife habitat. They provide for water- fowl feeding in winter, as well as small game birds, non-game birds, raptors, and small mammals. We support efforts to preserve farm lands because of their value to wildlife. 5' 6 Not only would you rezone this site from an agriculture designation, but you may impact the ability of other farms in the valley to exist. Exten- sion of sewer and water could produce secondary impacts, and lead to loss of other agricultural lands. Where would sewer and waterlines run in relation to North Creek? Are stream crossings proposed? If so, how would utility lines cross? Secondary impacts to fish and wildlife can be very severe. In a study on stream invertebrates in the Renton area, the Environmental Protection Agency found an inverse relationship between percent of urbanization in a sub- drainage basin, and percent of important fish food organisms (larval mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly). They state: 7/ "One way to analyze the impacts of future growth on fishery resources is to simply look at the increase in urban acres within sub-drainage basins." It would appear that your proposal would conflict with at least one of your North Creek policies. Policy II-3A states: "Pending a detailed study by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers or HUD, no development should be allowed within the Shoreline Management Areas of North Creek." What other policies does this business center conflict with? Because of the sensitive nature of the proposal, we would recommend an alter- native location for this proposal. Appropriate development should occur in areas most suited for it, and avoid sensitive sites. If this site is de- veloped, a 100 foot buffer of vegetation should be retained on both sides of North Creek and around wetlands on the property. -161- - -162- AI. ::- ';:.2 t ll-~.,; I -,;r,;d I i.:i t d ., J ...:i I .'.;': I ;.Ii I ,~:--.; I ~.~ I ,., I ~J:i I ~"-;.Z I d I ,., I ,.l I r I Page 3 March 24, 1981 If you have any questions, please call us at 753-3318. Thank you for sending your document. We hope you find our comments helpful. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME / / doC 3 ,edA.- Bob Zeigler, APPlieJ0Ec0109ist Envi ronmenta 1 Affa i rs Habitat Management Division BZ:mjf cc: Agencies Region Attachment , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment Letter from State of Washin~ton Department of Game Mr. Zeigler has subsequently visited the site with representatives of the City and the Koll Company to view the wildlife habitat firsthand. Response I: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: As stated in the Draft EIS, the site was farmed until 1973. To accommodate farming, the site was drained by a series of ditches. The "wetland soil types" were formed long before farming began early in this century and do not necessarily indicate an existing wetland. As stated in the Draft, "The overall habitat has increased annually as native vegetation communities develop, since agricultural activities on the site ceased in 1973." However, to describe the site as marsh and wooded swamp is misleading, since the site is essentially grasses, shrubs and young trees (although growin~ rapidly). There are no marsh or wetland areas on the site. A few cattails occur along the drainage ditches. The drainage ditches and absence of large trees can be seen in the aer ial photo. The existing habitat has developed "naturally over time" only since 1973. Please refer to comment from the Department of Fisheries and Timberline Reclamations, and the Horton-Dennis report concerning the North Creek relocation in the Technical Appendix. The sponsor has hired a specialist in stream relocation to assist in research and planning. As stated in the Draft EIS, the major areas of peat soils would be preserved in open space. The existing dikes along the creek greatly restr ict the effectiveness of the peat soils to moderate flows. Since the site is very near the mouth of the stream, it has little effect on the overall flow rates. Also as stated, the site has had only seven years to develop as habitat, and diversity is limited. As stated in the Draft EIS, "Settling basins would be included in each catch basin and an oil/water separator would be incorporated at the -163- inlet to the retention pond." Thus, silt, oil and grease would be removed prior to entering the retention pond. The responsibility for maintenance is also discussed on page 33 of the Draft EIS. Response'= We concur, in general, with your statement regarding agricultural land and wildlife. Response 6: The previously adopted BothelJ Plan for the North Creek Valley already allows for the development of other uses. Sewer trunks already pass through this site, the site to the north and the two largest agricultural parcels to the south. Therefore, the addition of sewer mains, although necessary, is not likely to be a major inducement in converting agricultural lands to other uses. Water is available along the east and west valley walls. The other farms in the area have not found it feasible to continue farming and consider agriculture an interim use only. See revised section on NATURAL RESOURCES. Response 7: Utility lines would be attached to the bridges. Response 8: We concur. However, Renton is one of the older industrial, commercial and residential areas in the region. It was developed prior to major awareness of environmental concerns and without the precautions proposed in the Koll project. Response 9: The detailed technical study has been completed and published in preliminary form as stated in the Draft EIS. It will be approximately a year before the final report is adopted. The HUD study identifies the f100dway as being confined to the existing channel. The proposed project would significantly increase the capacity of the channel through . the site. See revised discussion in EIS section on GEOLOGY. A complete list of policies of the plan for the Valley is included in the Final EIS. Response 10: Alternative sites were considered under AL TERNA TlVES TO THE PROPOSAL and ELEMENTS OF THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT in the Draft EIS. If the stream is retained in its present location with -164- I ~~ I :,~ I "H 'I "..,j J I .'-.tI I I ~ ~: , I ,i;, ~ I ,. I A I .,~ ÿI .:-ii I ,J,i I j I ,; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IOO-foot setbacks, approximately 13.4 acres of open space grassy habitat would be preserved. This is significantly less than that offered by the present proposal which would provide 12 acres in the stream corridor and approximately 13.4 acres in the greenbelt adjacent to the stream corridor. -165- ~~mETRO ' ii Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle &dwIge BIdg. · an Se..undAve.. Seattle. Washington 98UM March 24, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 - 101st Street Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Koll Business Center Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments. / Transportation Metro staff anticipates a development of the ultimate size of Koll Center to generate demand for direct bus service from both King County and Snohomish County. The boulevard through the site should be built to accommodate transit vehicles and should be provided with sidewalk areas adjacent to the curb at designated bus stops. Contact Mr. Bob White of Metro's Transit Development Division at 447-6381 for further information about bus route facilities. The City of Bothell should recognize that Bothell transit service may require revision to allow service to the Koll Center. Future route alternatives should be incorporated into the upcoming transportation study. 2 Wastewater Facilities/Water Qualitr We note that in the EIS reference 1S made to connecting sewer lines from the project to a Metro trunk line south of the site (p. 88). Any direct connection to a Metro inter- ceptor requires certification (Metro Council Resolution No. 2933) that sewer service is consistent with the local land use plans and policies of the affected jurisdictions. Mr. Bob Hirsch of Metro's Water Quality Division coordinates the administration of Resolution No. 2933 and should be -166- <. ~.2 l' ,. rl ~ ,.' ~'~j. t ;}:;- '. ,:..,j 'I .'.1; I 'o'i' , I I I : j, I "<A I j,. I :~ I 'S I , I i I , I II' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I s 6 Daniel W. Taylor, Director DEIS/Koll Business Center March 24, 1981 Page two 3 contacted at 447-6577 should you have any questions regarding certification. The following comments are offered in regards to the pro- posed North Creek re-alignment and possible water quality impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project. 1) Page 31 - The construction-related turbidity impacts predicted for North Creek and the Sammamish ,River needs more information. Specifically, what will be the expected turbidity range and duration for site grading and channel re-a1ignment activities? How will this impact the fish migration? If channel stabilization is expected to take one year, are elevated turbidity levels expected throughout this period? Page 33 - At a minimum, preliminary details should be provided of the anticipated erosion control plan the proponent is willing to commit to water quality impact mitigation. + 2) Pages 19, 33 - More details are needed to define the pre- dicted effectiveness of the storm drainage system. At least preliminary information should be provided on expected site runoff volumes in relation to the expected detention time of the pond, sedimentation and phosphorus removal effectiveness and expected discharge volumes. Other concerns include: a) whether or not design for a 10-year storm is appropriate versus a 25-year recurrence interval; b) What are the effects of the high water table and design capacity on the effectiveness of the system? Are the pond discharge volumes compatible with the capa- city of the drainage ditch to the Sammamish River or will downstream erosion occur? 3) Page 25 - will the planting of trees along the new stream channel be possible in areas to be protected from erosion (e.g., rip-rapped stream bends)? We agree that a significant criterion for revegetation planning should be to provide maximum canopy to reduce insolation and provide cover for fish. -167- -168- I ~::.tt I .:...11: , I ,.il" I ,'.j; . ':"0 . '. , - . .:: I ....it I .. <~' . .\., . :. ~ I ,,' . .1 I ,I . I Daniel W. Taylor, Director DEIS/Ko11 Business Center March 24, 1981 Page three Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, ~-"" //;2 ' I\nt~l~Ln) Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division RGP:kej cc: Bob Hirsch Rob Morrice Dale Anderson Ann Aagaard Bob White I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment Letter from METRO Response I: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response .5: The boulevard will be designed to accommodate bus service. The KolI proposal and transit service will be considered in the city-wide trans- portation study which is just getting under way. The City will work with METRO to meet requirements for connecting to the METRO Trunk Line. Meetings with METRO are continuing (see response to Snohomish County Planning). The proposal is consistent with Bothell's land use plans and policies. The stream channel should stabilize from a turbidity standpoint within one to four weeks. The change in streambeds would be timed to avoid salmonid migration periods; thus, the impact of temporary turbidity on salmon should be insignificant. The reference in the Draft EIS to the stream requiring a year to stabilize was intended to apply to fish habitat, specifically the establishment of biological food organisms required to support fish life. The creek is entirely contained within a dike at present; thus, no runoff or silt from the site can enter the creek. Temporary erosion control ponds will be established on each side of the creek and will be constructed to contain silt during construction. These w ill be designed to percolate into the ground (present conditions); no construction runoff will enter the creek. The details of the design will be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of building permits. The system has been designed according to the City codes, which require detention storage capacity for a I DO-year storm, pipe sizes for a 2.5-year storm, and a release rate for a ten-year storm. There will be no increase in the maximum rate of runoff leaving ,the site; thus, there should be no capacity problems for the drainage ditch to the Sammamish River or from downstream erosion. -169- Response 6: The storm sewer system will incorporate catch basins. The detention pond, as presently designed, drains out entirely between storms. Thus, its effectiveness at removing sediments and nutrients will be minimal. As a mitigating measure, the detention pond could be excavated to a permanent depth of six or more feet. This would increase detention time, significantly increasing sedimentation. Vegetation growing in the pond would also help remove some of the nutrients. The feasibility of a permanent pond is still being considered. 'I ,'.' ." I " .'" . :'Li; I .(; I .,ii I ,,~ I I l I I t I I ,ii I ~" I ._~ I ,I I ,.I I i I , I It will probably not be possible to plant trees on rip-rapped stream bends. However, this should be a relatively small proportion of the total stream banks. -170- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PUGET POWER March 24, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st NE Bothell, Washington 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: Koll Business Center - Bothell Draft Environmental Impact Statement We have reviewed the subject document and offer the fOllowing comments for your consideration: / Page 85, Energy, Environmental Impact - The first paragraph indicates that the proposed project would use an estimated 78,230,000 KWH annually for heating, lighting and equipment operation. A con- sumption of that magnitude will most likely require the construction of a new electrical substation. Puget Power does not want to be placed in an adversary position with the surrounding community or the City of Bothell as a result of providing for the electrical power needs of the project. We, therefore, request that space be made available within the development for the substation and that the facility bean outright permitted use. Further, because power must be supplied to the substation by overhead 115 kV lines, it is requested that routes for those lines be identified and agreed to prior to authorizing construction of the proposed project. 2 Page 86, Utilities, Electricity, Existing Conditions _ The statements regarding puget Power's energy supplies are not complete. More detailed information on that subject is provided on page 15 of our 1979 Annual Report, a copy of which is enclosed for your use. -171- Puget Sound PcMer & L.snt Comoany Puget ~r BUlld.ng Bellevue, Wasn.r'9lon 98009 (206) 454-6363 Mr. Dan~el W. Taylor March 24, 1981 page 2 3 Page 145, Appendix C, Fiscal Impacts, Revenues - The cost of $.4l/KWH is incorrect. Puget Power's present average general service rate for commercial customers is 3.7~ ($O.037)/KWH. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. }17l=" W: J. ~innegan',Dfr L1cens1ng & EnV1r '- Compliance Enclosure -172- I -:{<t t .L' I ::::.:.. t ,),..1: 'I ~J:: '. :::z I ;:.; I " " I , I I ,,~ . _,il I .> I .~ I . .' I ~ I I I I . erally, Lasl year, lor instance, 19 per- cent of the State's jobs were in the manufacturing sector compared with 24 percent for the nation, Despite less dependence on man- ulacturing overall, aerospace con- tinued to exert considerable influence on the State's economic growth, Our; ing the past two years, Boeing has doubled its production to 28 airplanes per month, As a result, Boeing em- plovment increased bv 18 percent in both 1978 and 1979, brlnging total employment for the aerospace firm to 76,800, Boeing estimat,'5 the addition of approximately 6,lXXl to 7.lXXl new ;oDs in 1980, Aher that, the company expects employment to level ofl as it moves into production of its 757 and . 'I I . . "During 1979, 78 percent of Puget Power's total energy production was supplied by hydro resources." . '. I 767 airplanes, Even so, both the State and region are far less dependent upon Boeing than in years past. Overall. the economic outlook lor the State and Puget Power's service area is favorable, even in the face of a national recession, Aviation and the region's other diversified manulactur- ing operations should continue strong, Non.residential construction isexpeeted tn hold its own at fairly hIgh levels, and international trade is projected tocontinueasa major strength, In fact, the only potential \\'eakness~s In the region's economv are those industries, such as forest ' products, which have exposure to possibly soh national markets, In shoTt, continued, il slower, growth is assured unless the national downtum proves more serious than currentlv predicted, . Hydro a Plus. While demographic and economic growth within Puget Power's service area will continue, the Companv's ability to meet the rapidly increasing demand for electricitv is being stretched thinner with each passing year due to exces- SIve dela~s in new generating plant constructiOn, OUri,ng 1979,78 percent olPuget Power s total energy production was . 1 . . . . . l, PUGE! POWER PEAK RESOURCES I< ENERGY PRODUCTION 1919 PEAK RESOURCES ENERGY PRODUCilON KihIW.ns'" HYDRO. ~~~~:~(~;d~~l~~bia' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PUDcontracts) ....................... PurcNse(other) ........................ Total Hydro .......................... THERMAL: Company--ownl!'d g~I:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Pun:hase(Coal) , ""'.........""",'., Purchase (Nuclear) ...................... Purchase (Oil) .......................... Total Thennal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tot.IHydroI<Thermal."",....,...., , supplied by hydro resources, making it one 01 the largest hydro-based, investor-owned electric utilities in the United States todav, The remainder 01 the Company's output was thermal, mainly coal-fired generation, The Dulk of Puget Power's h\'dro resource is in the form of long-ierm contracts with three IVashington pub- hc utillt\' dlstncts (PUOs) which own five mid-Columbia River hvdro- electric projects, Under terms of the Company's contracls with these PUOs, Puget Power purchases a por- hon of the output of each project on a "cost-of-service" basis. IVith essen- tially level debl service payments, low maintenance costs. and virtuallv no fuel expenses, these contracts provide the Companv with an assured, low- cost and generally inflation. proof resource. Another portion of Puget Power's hvdro resource base results !Tom a treatv between the United States and Camida in which the Canadians pro- vide additional water storage on the upper Columbia River, The Companv has long-term contracts which allow It to purchase a portion of Canada's share of the increased output at hvdro projects in the United States froni this storage, In addition, Puget Power also owns and operates six hydroeleetnc plants in IVestern Washington, Thermal generation and purchased power have become increasinglv im- portant to Puget Power Decause'the region's hydroelectric potential has been almost fullv realized, The Com- pany's largest thermal resource is its -173- YEAR IN REVIEW 309,900 9,3 1.821.000 5U ~ 15,7 2,(.57,400 79,4 421. 900 12,6 184,650 5,5 84,000 2,5 _690,550 20,6 3,347,950 100,0 - J9i"J ENERGY PRODUCTlON Kilow~lt.Hnun .,. ITHOJ.:SANDSI 1.198,894 7,9 7,507,130 49.8 3,076,061 20,4 11.782,085 78,1 2,345,391 15,6 222.780 1.S 304,6% 2,0 405,473 2,7 14.431 0,1 3.292,771 21.9 15,074.856 100,0 MID-COLUMBIA PUD CONTRACTS CURRENT AMOUNT PURCHASABLE AS OF DECEMBER 31,1979 PROJECT Rock Island Rockv Reach ... . Wells.......... Priest Rapids ... Wanapum ..... Total....... . "'"'OF OL'T1'\1T 95.J 54,9, 47,0 9,8 12,6 KllO\\'ATI CArACm" IA~ROXIMAm 583,000 705,000 330,000 88,000 115,000 1.821.000 CO!lo"TR", EXPlRATI\ DATI 201~ 2011 2018 2005 2009 .Subl<<t toc"ttlin n$Jrts (lfu'ithd'tlWDl bit thtprojtdown(T~ IIndtr proviSions ollhr long.trrm poU,>d pllrchllM co"'ract~ hall-interest in tw0330,OOOkilowatt coal-fired generating plants al Col- stnp, Montana. Coal lor these plants is assured under long. term contracts essentially extending over the life of the units, In addition, lhe Companv owns a 7 percent interest in a 1.313 . million kilowatt capacilv coal-fired facility near Centralia, ~Vashington, The remainder of Puget Power's thermal capacity during 1979 was de- nved from the Companv's standby oil-fired plants and froni nuclear power purchased through the Bonneville Power Administration, Since 1964, the Company, along w,th 15 other Pacific Northwest utilities and agencies, has been a par- hopantln a regional power coordina- hon agreement. Extending bevond the year 2lXXl, the agreement mate- nally Increases Puget Power'sability to meet customer requirements with eXIsting resources during periods of Comment Letter from Pu~et Power Response I: Response 2: Response 3: The KoU Company will designate a suitable location for a substation and for a 11.5 KV power line within the site. Thank you for this information. It is incorporated here by reference and is available for review at the City of BotheU Department of Community Development. Thank you for the correction. The cost figure of $O.041/KWH was provided by Puget Power's marketing staff during preparation of the Draft EIS as an appropriate estimate of commercial rates for 1981 if presently requested increases are approved. If $O.037/KWH is used, the projected annual revenue and the annual net fiscal benefit to the City of Bothell attributable to the Koll project would be reduced by approximately $11,84.5 (this has been incorporated in the Final EIS). -174- ~, '. ill I m>> I ;.~ I ~Jj: '. ;'1 . 1.' I , . . 'u . , . .~ . lj . L~ . :.fl . ..! . ..,; 1 ; . -I I I I I . I 1 I . I . . I . . . . I _ T'unber1ine ~~lDl~m<C. 127 West Main Bozeman, Montana 59715 (406) 587.9004 March 24, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st N.E. Bothel1, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed Ko11 Business Center at Bothell, particularly as it relates to North Creek. The mitigation regarding North Creek is of particular interest to me as I am president of a firm acknowledged as the leader in the field of stream rehabilitation and habitat improvement. My firm has been retained by The Koll Company as design consultants and construction supervisors of the North Creek relocation. As noted on page 29 of the draft EIS.... "While the Department of Fisheries has such expertise. it cannot always afford to assign staff to monitor con- struction. Thus, while the stream relocation has the potential to improve riparian and stream habitat. it is not assured under the present system; however, the spon- sor will assist in funding additional staff time as needed to monitor construction of the stream channel im- provements in accordance with the Department of Fisheries specifications." I feel our involvement will assure the duplication and improve- ment of salmon habitat in North Creek. The Koll Company finds itself in a unique position regarding the improvement of North Creek. As stated in the draft EIS, North Creek is channelized and is thus largely devoid of salmon habitat. Pools, natural riffle areas, overhanging vegetative cover, and standard stream- side habitat is absent. This undoubtedly accounts for the ab- sence of spawning activity in this section, in spite of the fact that North Creek upstream from the site is quite productive from a reproduction standpoint. The Koll Company has proposed reintro- ducing the stream into a meandering channel, with the goal of im- proving aquatic and riparian habitat, and it is to that concept I wish to address my comments. A) This section of North Creek will again have excel- lent potential as a primary salmon spawning area. Proper engineering will assure a duplication of spawn- ing habitat, and fish which previously utilized the affected area of the salmon stream only as a transit corridor will adopt the new channel. The resulting -175- - Mr. Daniel W. Taylor March 24, 1981 Page 2 abundance of salmon fry will be utilized as a food source by other sa1monoids such as cutthroat and rainbow trout. B) With streamside habitat reconstructed, I believe that a trout fishery will re-establish itself. C) I believe that the planting of streamside vege- tation will create overhangs which will shade the stream, lowering the overall water temperature to the benefit of North Creek as a whole. The vegetation will also produce habitat for terrestrial insects, which in turn are utilized by sa1monoids as a food source. D) I believe the water quality of North Creek will improve. Although some increased siltation will occur when the stream is introduced into the new channel, methods of sediment control can be implemented which will lessen this impact. (While on the subject of water quality, it should be noted that the water in North Creek will be well separated from the storm ~ ~ drainage system and retention pond.) E) The creation of a wooded corridor along North Creek has the potential for use by waterfowl as ideal wetlands habitat. I would like now to address portions of the EIS in which my experience in stream relocation may produce some useful insight. As noted on page 31 of the draft EIS.... "The new channel will have a gravel bottom and will be wide enough to allow the stream to meander slightly and reposition the gravel. Bank stabilization will be ne- cessary in constricted areas under bridges and on out- side curves or other erosion surfaces. The banks will be planted with trees to provide shade and stability. If protected from other disturbances, the stream should stabilize within a year. At that time, if properly de- signed and constructed, the water quality of the stream should improve." When the new streambed is constructed, water quality should only be a problem during the initial four weeks following introduction of water into the new streambed. Our experience has demonstrated that a stream can stabilize itself from a water quality (sediment- ation) standpoint within a fraction of the one year period sug- gested in the EIS. Adverse environmental impacts will be addition- ally minimized by introducing water into the new streambed at the most appropriate time in the year-long cycle. To lessen the ef- fects of sediment runoff during rain, I would suggest jute netting to stabilize the banks until the vegetation takes hold. rhis method, used in conjunction with other sediment control measures, will minimize negative water quality impacts on downstream areas of North Creek. -176- I ~ I ,~}; I 1 .>: .:::.iIi I ~3 I .,~ . ~,.~ I ..S . ,:~~ I ~ . , ~-. A: 1 d~ . ~.~ . ;.Z I ,.~ 1 , '. I '~ . , ! . .....::1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor March 24, 1981 Page 3 I would suggest that specific areas of the new stream be designed for salmon spawning and that specific areas be designed for holding water and security holds. This will necessitate the use of varying sizes of rock and gravel for the streambottom, as well as pre-con- structed undercut banks and holes. A primary problem with stream relocation is the fact that under normal circumstances, fish are unable to utilize the stream until habitat. consisting principally of vegetation, is established. I would suggest the construction of wing deflectors and shore-anchored habitat structures (S.A.H.S.) in the stream prior to water intro- duction so as to provide immediate cover for salmon. (See enclosures) We have experienced migration by fish from other areas of streams to reconstructed sections, simply because the installed habitat was superior to existing habitat. These devices are natural ap- pearing and eventually are unrecognizable as artificial structures. I believe that North Creek and the wildlife dependent on it would greatly benefit from the relocation process. I believe spawning can be re-established and that a trout fishery will follow. Ad- ditionally. this area of NOrth Creek will see migration of salmon from other sections in search of the superior habitat and the es- tablishment of a productive fishery is a certainty. It appears to me that all areas of the draft EIS concerning wildlife (pp. 28- 31) will have their standards met or exceeded. In my professional opinion. The Koll Company has created a stream design which will greatly benefit all types of wildlife using the area. I believe The Ko11 Company has demonstrated extraordinary environmental foresight, and based on the draft EIS. I suggest approval of this project. Sincerely. TIMBERLINE RECLAMATIONS, INC. EJJA'-11{~ ~.- Richard A. McIntyre President RAM:s1h Enclosures -177- - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I HABITAT STRUCTURE ANCHORED SHORE ) S.A.H.S. ( level Excavate according to specifications details opsoi fine I grove course - wire screen r iprop fi SAHS. ~ , I-' .... co , t-u<; -~ ..... \ .*.~\ ~~'z:;('-"I~ C'_ \J S T"i~ ,;1 - r"ct.c!,...cc!. DEADMEN Course to fine grovel topped with no les3 than S" of Topsoil. 10 be seeded with nolive grosses and p10nled with nolive shrubs to prevent erosion and provide cover. - Comment Letter from Timberline Reclamations. Inc. Response: Thank you for the additional information and opinions. It should be noted that Mr. McIntyre states the importance of maintenance. Main- tenance will be the responsibility of the tenants' association. -180- I .;i,;;;" I I ~<.i I .k I .;:.E J .~ I ~ I :.'i I ->,: I ,;10 I ..... I :c,j; I -'Ii I ~.:; I .1 I ~.i - I I I I , , I I ,I I. I I I I I I I I , I I I King County, State at Washington Ron Dunlap, County Executive Department of Budget and Program Development Room 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 John M. Rose. Director (2ll6) 344 3434 March 25, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Dept. of Community Development City of Bothell 18305 101st Avenue N.E. Bothe11, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: The draft E.I.S. for Kol1 Business Center has been reviewed by several King County departments and we offer the following comments: / 1. An error was made on page 57 in the discussion of the Northshore Community Plan designations for the property to the southwest of the proposed Koll Business Center. The area that is subject to revision is currently desig- nated Agriculture rather than two dwelling units per acre. 2. There should be a discussion of the relationship of this proposal to the policies of both the King County Comprehensive Plan and the proposed General Development Guide. The Urban Center concept has been supported by the County Council and will continue as an element of the General Development Guide. The E.I.S. should discuss how this proposal is consistent or inconsistent with this concept. 2. 3 3. The Quadrant Corporation recently submitted conceptual development plans for the property to the south. The discussion of traffic impacts and mitigating measures, especially concerning N.E. 195th Street, should also consider the additional traffic that could occur from the adjacent development. 4. The mitigating measures portion of the Transportation and Circulation section should address how the proponent will participate in needed improvements such as signalization of the I-405 northbound ramps at N.E. 195th Street and widening of N.E. 195th Street. 4- -181- .5 ~ 16. 717. 8 ;p 10. /0 11. II 12. /2 8. 9. 5. I I 1J Trip generation rates for the proposal seem to be low, parti- I cularly the P.M. peak hour rates. Use of the Institute of . Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates yields considerably~ more trips: I P.M. Peak Trips Land Use Daily Rate Trips Hr . Rate In Out d I bJ '. .ti I d The employment estimates used in calculating the trip generation .~ are not consistent with those listed on page 9 of the DEIS. . l . i I . I I ..1 . d:A I d I ,I I I I I . , , I Daniel W. March 25, Page 2 Taylor 1981 Commercial Office (general) Industriats 54.2/1000 12.3/1000 5.4/1000 SF SF SF 10,840 4,305 5,346 4.8/1000 2.2/1000 1. 05;1000 SF SF SF 460 140 198 500 630 841 TOTAL 20,491 798 1971 The ITE estimates for the P.M. Peak Hour Rate is 86% higher for the outbound trips and 70% higher for the inbound trips than those figures calculated for the DEIS. The trail that. is recommended along North Creek should be discussed in terms of its relationship to any existing or planned trails on nearly or adjoining properties. The discussion of erosion control and seeding that is to be required by covenants and restrictions should include how this can be enforced by the City of Bothell. The enforcement of these requirements is a critical step in the development process to ensure protection of North Creek. Additional discussion is needed pertaining to the stream relo- cation and the concept of having pools, riffles and clean gravel to enhance North Creek for salmon migration and spawning. The topography map indicates the elevation change is only approxi- mately three feet over the 3900 feet of relocated stream. This gradient is too little for riffles. There is also the potential that the gravel will silt in from upstream erosion. More details should be provided about the "stream construction monitoring program" that the applicant has agreed to. This is another critical part of the development process that may affect the water quality in North Creek. . The DEIS should include an explanation of the surcharing process that is proposed to compact the peat on the site and an explana- tion of why the peat is not being removed. The section dealing with the stream corridor and the stream cross-sections should include a discussion of the 100 year flood- plain. The final width of the stream corridor should be depen- dent on the ability of the proposed channels to accommodate the 100 year flows. -182- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I i I I Daniel W. Taylor March 25, 1981 Page 3 /3 13. with the property being served by public water and sanitary sewers, the Health Department indicates there are no environ- mental health impacts. 14. The DEIS makes no mention of the property's eligibility for King County Farmland Preservation program. If the land has produced a gross income from agricultural uses of $100 or more per acre per year for the last ten years, it would be eligible under priority 2C of Ordinance No. 4341. If the landowner cannot prove such income, the. land would not be eligible under any priority of the program. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, ohn M. Rose, Chairman Environmental Impact Committee JMR/pt -183- Comment Letter from Kinlt County Department of Budltet and ProlUam Development Response I: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: The Final EIS reflects this correction. The City of Bothell is an existing urban center. Thus the proposal is consistent with the Urban Center concept. The plan is also generally consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and the proposed General Development Guide since these documents recommend that development occur in existing urban centers. A copy of the map for the Draft General Development Guide is included in the Technical Appen- dix. The proposed project is less intensive than the recommended land use revisions for the North Creek valley in the King County Northshore Revised Community Plan. The County's Draft EIS (September, 1980) for that document, which calls for "manufacturing park" in the North Creek Valley, states: "The proposed plan revisions are generally in conformance with regional development policies (Puget Sound Council of Governments), the King County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed General Development Guide and the existing Northshore Community Plan concepts." The KOII proposal meets or exceeds the requirement for the County's manufacturing park designation and is thus consistent with the Northshore Communities Revised Plan, the King County Comprehensive Plan and the General Development Guide. See revised discussion under LAND USE. A discussion of this has been added to the TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION section of the Final EIS. The actual .means for the developer's participation have not yet been finalized. Options include: Il direct financing of specific adjacent improvements,. 2) a per-vehicle charge at the outset with the City having the discretion of where and when to make improvements, or 3) developer participation in an L.I.D. to improve roads. Although the methods of participation may vary, the sponsor has agreed to pay its fair share of the costs of improvements utilized by traffic from the project. -184- I , I I I .iJ I I. " I I .i.i I c} I J.:t I . } I d I a ~ ~ ~. I oj I .1 I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response .5: , The trip generation rates have been revised for the Final EIS. (See TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION) Response 6: The employment estimates in the ELEMENTS OF THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT section have been revised for the Final EIS to be consistent with those in the TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION section. . In the Draft EIS, the estimates for the two sections were . based' on independent surveys with slightly different .findings for light industrial and office uses. Response 7: The trail will be constructed to the property boundaries at both ends of the site to allow future connection to trails on adjacent properties and to the Sammamish River Trail. To the extent that Bothell controls development of the sites to the south, extension of the trail to the river will be completed. Response 8: The City can issue stop-work orders for non-compliance with the conditions of the construction permits. Response 9: Hydraulic calculations prepared by the design engineer (Horton-Dennis, Inc.) indicate that there is sufficient gradient change to create pools and riffles and to maintain sufficient velocity to avoid siltation of riffle sections. This is a concern that is still being studied by the project engineer and will be reviewed by the Departments of Fisheries and Game. . Response 10: See comments from Timberline Reclamations, and the Department of Fisheries. Further requirements may be established by the Department of Fisheries prior to issuance of a Hydraulics Permit. Response II: The surcharging process will consist of moving soil from the higher elevations of the site to areas of compressible soils. The soil will be leJt in place long enough to compress (surcharge) the underlying organic soils (peat). Then it will be moved sequentially, on-site, to other areas of compressible soils. The peat is very deep in some places and removing the peat would be more expensive and would cause greater -185- impacts than surcharging, using on-site materials. The areas of the deepest peat deposits will be left in open space and wi1l not require surcharging. Response 12: The existing lOll-year flow for North Creek exceeds the capacity of the diked channel through the site. The capacity for flood flows and flood storage would be increased in the proposed channel. Additional detail is provided by the Horton-Dennis report in the Technical Appendix. Also see revised discussion under GEOLOGY in the Final EIS. Response 13: The property has not produced income from agricultural uses since 1973 and is, therefore, not eligible for the program. -186- I I 1'~ I .Hl I i;~ I ;;;B .. lj I .d I .d I .{; I : ~ I .1 I .d I i.li I d J I ;J I ..1 I .1 I I W. A, BUllEY Secret irv I JOHN SPEllMAN Governor I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I i I I Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st. N.E. Bothell, Washington 98011 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Highway Administration Building . Olympia. Washington 98504 . (206) 753-6005 March 25, 1981 City of Bothell Koll Business Center Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Taylar: We have reviewed the subject document and have the followin9 comment: During the 1960's when the northerly portion of 1-405 was being planned, it was not anticipated that commercial/industrial de- velopment would take place along this corridor. The Department, therefore, did not make provisions for this accelerated rate of traffic growth. The existing N.E. 195th Street interchange does not have the capaCity to handle the traffic valume that this project will generate at full development. As stated on Page 78 of this document, widening of the 195th freeway overpass and signalization of the ramp terminals will be required by 1985 if this development is completed an schedule. The Department would like to point out that we have no money in aur current six year operating program ta accommodate the expense of the above-refer- enced impravement. Therefore, the lead agency and the developer will be expected to develop a plan for financing the aforemen- tioned improvements. We take this pasition an the grounds that developments of this size and nature will significantly accel- erate the functional and aperational degradatian of the above mentioned interchange, forcing improvements in advance of pre- vious,schedules and budgets. If you have any questions, please call Jim Leonard at 753-6644. Sincerely, ROBERT S. NIELSEN Assistant Secretary for Public Transportatian and Planning /1.L< By: JOSEPH BELL, Manager Planning Implementation and Environmental Policy RSN:kls JB/WBH cc: J. O. Zirkle/To R. Burke -187- ~, - Comment Letter from State of Washin~on Department of Transportation Response: The City is aware of the 'lack of State funds at the present time for widening of the overpass or signalization of the ramp terminals. The City and the sponsor are developing a plan for financing the necessary improvements. Improvements listed in the draft EIS as mitigating measures for the Koll project include widening NE 19.5th Street and providing signals and turning lanes at the 1-40.5 ramp terminals. It should be noted that the City's comprehensive plan in effect at the time 1-405 was planned did call for industrial development. .-188 - I ~ I ;t~ I I "j) I ~~ I I H I ...i I ;,~ I ..-! I .li I i..I I i-.i I "b I ,;,! , I j I .1 I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -3 Karch 26. 1981 Barbara Jackson 10509 N.E. 187th Bothell. 'RA David W. Taylor. Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st N.':: Bothell. ',VA Dear Mr. Taylor: I wish to express my ccncern about the proposed development of a business center in North Creek Valley. It seems to me that the Draft Environmental Im~act Statement submitted by the Koll Company to your department is at. variance with some of the objectivea of the North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately address the following objectives: / Objective 1: Uses within theNarth Creek Valley Planni~g Area should be regulated to preseve and improve the quality of life in Bo thell. Even the developer is not likely to argue that the ~lacement of a busi~ess center in one of the more scenic parts of our city is likely to result in an improvement in the quality cf life. It must be demonstrated that the proposed development does not inhibit the recreational use of the Valley. This can not be accomplished by vague references to open ap9ces, fields, fisheries develo~mer.t, etc. The city must establish concrete plans for recreationsl land use. and business development plans should be better defined than the Koll D.E.I.S. 3imilar comments can be made with respect to Cbjectives ~ and 5 of the North Creek Plan, which also relate to the quality of our lives. Cbjective 8: Streets and utilities in the Planning Area should be planned to support the variety of uses and should prOVide a logical network related to all segments of the planning area and to the community at large. The Koll D.E.I.S. estimations of traffic volume increases are questionable. How is it possible that a business center of this size'will increase the peak traffic on the main westerly access (Ross Road) by a mere 3%? The possibility of error suggests itself, calling into question the methods used in arriving at the traffic flow est~ates. It seems to me that the proposed business center is a first ste~ in the wrong dirction as far as development of the ~otential of North Creek Valley is concerned. Will the commercail int~rests get first claim. with leftovers denoted "open space"? Will the s~orts fields of the valley come complete with numerous bridges to span the Koll Center 2 1 -189- drainage ditch? The North Creek Valley Comprehensive Flan is a good beginning. City ofricials must now rollow through with. positive steps to ensure that the citizens or Bothell are not short changed. Respectfully. ;::;;~..' ~.~ -C.t '~.'~~ /~ i \. . ~ - ., I .,.., .7' '. ..-I' ~ ,..iI'","':.W'T,-, I :/ Barbara ,Jackson -190- 2 11 k' I J I t I :!:ll I ':' ;. ;.! '. q I ;';1 '. ~:J . ;-,A 'I :~~ '. d I ;i . OJ I .J . i I I . I I I I I . . I I I . , I , I . I I I I . , . I Comment Letter from Barbara Jackson Response I: Response 2: Response 3: The aesthetic impacts of the project are discussed and illustrated under AESTHETICS. Recreational use of the site as proposed would be greatly improved. At present, the site is private property and is not available for public recreational use. The proposed project would provide parking, open space, trails, two par courses, a community clubhouse and a seasonal ice-skating pond. This is discussed in the Draft EIS. Additional recreational activities would severely restrict the ability of the pro- posed open space to function as wildlife habitat. The City is presently preparing a transportation plan that will address the North Creek Valley. The traffic projections are based on an origin and destination survey of employees and customers conducted at similar businesses in the local area. It indicated that most people would travel to the site via 1-40.5. The independent study of the retail market also concluded that only a small proportion of the retail trade for the KolI project would come from west of 1-40.5. See revised TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULA- TION in Final EIS. -191- 27 ,'kz,tcA, '7'" I u I lill :1 I .lJ I a . d I ii . J..-5 . ;~ .,,,101. I ,.~ .~ . .j I tt I :1 . .1 . .1 . .1 - I Dart T a:/.wll. ~Ute.Cf.OIl !.Je,?f.. Of &,n.'lWI.ilil fJe.ve.wpmen:i. (uiI 0/ !JO:6.1.eli /1 zl 31 4/ TAe "lle44 0' f.illle do e4 rwf. oe/UIli...f. art ade'juaie lle4po~e f.o f.he Aoli C eniell , I I.". II' I . ,7lWpo4<L<., iJlU..e,....:; Itell.e a..te ITlj conc:ell/1.cl, . T ll.attic ~m.i... . af.i..rtr; "le<21u,te4 .to Ileduce f.Ae u;'f'act. _oj a.ui.o "e"'t"'""wn1. , c;;teczf.ed f.o f./vwugil, .t1\2 OIl<!,?-!4e4 ge'}f.eIl <In .tAe C.Lt.:; 01 i)of.tteli W,1<'C/l ....., a nat. ;,eo:lAaprt<.ca..l. i!1I.a,q.-i...c ;,oil....enec<. RUflOdd wrf.e,t t.empellczf.u~e.~ - impact. 01 lI.l..mo.f1 !IW"! ,oave,nenf. ,IJ./i....,!- neei .to /;e cont.ltolied. due to kl.l}h. .tempellczf.UlI.e4 ot Jamt:7I:lITU..4h. R.J...vell awu.l1ff 4U/'l/Ilell. Jmoacf. on at:i.jacent t~ to, 011. have .tAe luf.wr.e ?Q.tenii..aL f.o exi....dt. f..'tt. bot.h. ecorwmi..c lteCZ40fLd ana aJ..40 .to "lWvi.Ji.e' a rta.iJlA.al. h.a.OilJ..f. lOll 'vi....&. 't..le. ' , 51w/1.~_ . e ''!rf.. Allea"" OL,,vOIlf./1. (Ileek - "1)erJ.i.';'ru} a 4ef.a+/.ed ",,~ua;; bil US ,jIUn!l 11.,""" 0,1. (.n')- Oil /iUDJ no aeve.l.up,nenf. .~.10J.dd iJe a,liol/Jed. pell p".l<.c:J 7T' - . 5 i(e.l.occzf.i...ntf :,'ott.i.A (Ileek - accoltli.i..n.:;. f.o h-a4h.: fJepa/l..f.:neu o/. :tame i..t ",,/wu./d. be avou:led. becalLde o.l taci.uaL ev.i.dence o,l ne:;.czf.ive i..7Ipact.' on L wit. 17I1a: wi...ld. Li...Le IIlAen f.ll.i....d UJa4 done .i..n. o.t/r.ell iVl.eCZ<l. T.,J czf.f.emp'f. :Eo ,'u...f.i...[;at.e f..1.i....d ne~.at.ive iJnpact., a toO f..t.. bu,Ll.e.1l oj. ~. e ef.czf.~n ",,'h.ould. ~e 1le,.tai...ttec1 on /;ot.h. ""<.a.e4 ot I~Vit..t,1. r./l.eek ana a/l.ouna wef.'./.an ontlte olWpell,f.:;. Ii~o, .t,~e e""t.:1;billlllnenf. of. a ,oelUnaneni nrlrl; twn , llerouUte,ten..e of. llea.ll..i..n.7. I'.uui /ood. _ c,1.aUl. m/U..nf.enall.ce be mef..to ?tWf.ect. :tlt.e coil/) .~a.1.Jl/i}n fznd. lI.e""Uienf. cui i:lvr.oczf. Vwuf. .i..n. t.Ae aIlea. I (COnomi...C4 - a. wAczf. IJ./q-d c4.i...f.ell.i.a u4eci .i..n. ,olWi-ecti..n.:;, ], Sill emo~:;ee"" 17I1d. lI.eq,uUte a plW ject.wn 01- wh:a.t ?,u..i..i.on woud be .!Jwm 'Oof.lie2l..? I , o. NefjuUte a p'1l~j.ect.eri. e4f.i..'na.ie b:; !let1//. ot ariii.i.:.ti...vnaL Il~venue<l = expefLde4 f.o .tA~ P~h; ot <J:}f..1.e-';J.lcn. t.h.e pell..iJJi jAo,." .tAe commencemeu ~l. a.eve.wpmen.t urr..ti1' ~jie f.1IJJ:fect.ed. dczf.e wh.en t.u+4 occupi..ed. pk4 t.M.ee !f/I.4 lite expen4e4 4lwula .i..n.c:ldde "nd,,',' !-,','nal. {..vt.eJ po.Li..ceJ hialtic Iload. and. . ot.h.eII. c.i....t:; C04:U Cll.ea.ted. bff t.h.i....d deve.wp.nenf.. ,. !h.e (i..i.j ot !3of..~eli i....d a <lefLdili..ve a/l.ea rwf. onl.:;. becau4e vi .YOIr..d [Ileek ouf. Decl7U4e o.l i..f..d nai.ull.a~ ~eo~,1.{I, bec~4e ,il .th..i.., 4efLdi...ti...vil;; i.1u:...., deve.wpmenf. ""lwui.d. OCCuA 411 a/l.ea,d ,11011.2 ""u.J...f.ed. !Oll .Lt. ~I 7 .' - , - FII.art.~ A. 5CL~a -192- . I I I I . . I I I . I . , . , I i I , . ! . I Comment Letter from Frank Saksa Response 1: Mitigating measures are discussed in the Draft and Final EIS. Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response ;: Response 6: Response 7: Please refer to response to the State Department of Ecology and the Horton-Dennis report in the Technical Appendix. See revisions to NATURAL RESOURCES section of the Draft EIS, and additional information included in the Technical Appendix. A discussion of this policy has been added to the Draft EIS. Please see comments and responses to Department of Fisheries, Department of Game, and Timberline Reclamations. The employment estimates have been revised for the Final EIS to be more consistent with national standards. The estimates in the Draft EIS were based on a survey conducted by the City of Bellevue on comparable projects. A study conducted by economists at the Univer- sity of Puget Sound estimated that six percent of the employees would be new residents to Bothell. Another six percent would be existing Bothell or Bothell-area residents. This is discussed in the Draft EIS and in the University of Puget Sound, Department of Economics study found on page 213 of the Final EIS. -193- ""EO sr~.... oJ ''-oJ' i ^ 'i \~g "'..... ~~ ~( PR01E" U. S. EN V I RON M E NT ALP ROT E C T ION AGE N C Y REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 ~~ J? MIS 443 2 7 MAR isat Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department af Community Development 18305 - 101st NE Bothell, Washington 98011 RE: Koll Business Center DEIS 2 Dear Mr. Taylor: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) far the Kall Business Center. Although we were unable to review the tatal document, we did, at the request of a private citizen, review the noise analysis portion. We offer the following comments for your consideration: 1. It would be helpful to citizens and decision-makers if the analysis, ~hich presently includes projected 1985 naise levels at specific sites, was expanded to also include a discussion af impacts at sensitive sites, such as nearby homes. This could be accomplished by superimposing existing land uses and zoning on the noise contour maps. 2. The DEIS addresses noise impacts from traffic and canstruction activities, but it does not address impacts from the operation of the business park. Since the proposal includes light industrial uses, which might conflict with nearby residential uses, we feel that potential noise from such sources shauld be discussed. 3/ 3. The FEIS should recognize the local noise regulations 90verning conflicting land uses, specifically Snohomish Caunty Code, chapter 10.01 and King County Ordinance 3139. 4. We are pleased to see a list of noise abatement measures during canstructian included in the DEIS. We urge that 'they be included in the project contact specifications. If you have any questions about our comments, please call Kathy Davidson, af my staff, at 442-4011. ,s.l ncere ly yours, /~ \<\,\~ ~ Elizabeth Carbyn, Chief Environmental Evaluation Branch cc: L. Berry -194- I I I' I ill I I I L:t I -" . .~i . .1 . , -'Ii I ..i . ;J . d I d . .1 . I . I , . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comment Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Allencv Response I: Response 2: Response 3: The specific sites referred to were selected because they are sensitive sites - i.e., the closest to homes. By far, the greatest noise increases would come from traffic associated with the project. Light industrial uses of the type allowed are very quiet. Only interior assembly-type operations would occur and these would not generate significant noise. The City of Bothell and the sponsor acknowledge and recognize these codes. -195- - RODERICK J. McNAE INC. INCU8TR1AI. AHD COMMItRCIAI... REAL .&STATE .taNH'" .UI&,D'NG .KATT'L..&. WAlJHINGTON 8.'01 (2081 eaa.I~'7 ~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I Comment Letter from Roderick J. McNae Your comments are noted. -197- I I I A- ,.. 1l.I' 5 1~U,\';' ,,~ 5> 0_"1'\0 ~NIlo " o-.s .~ C-..~ ....0 TW' . I ?~., 0","" \Kilo: I o~~~ wtll I-P"'c::r" ,.~c A'\)~~" ~\ AJO 'T""'$o( I_p...c......-.; ..... ~\T'\cc.~,..'Q..) -.-....",,'o..{ ""rrJ~ NIlo" l3.r15"1\J I ,ll."i)i)cW"S'~.e"O /..) T'~ E 1 S ~.ST,""1";( ..,\ To!'U.!C."T ,.... ...; IC?>'ST" fr ""'0 1:- ~O'5"., AT ?....,.SJ1VT .-rAa M...~o__ e:.",I''TA..Do-Ic.rI1ol~ c6&J7S I .. '..e' OS.'TIll,"'-;C' 1>,... el, 1''' . '" ..J. Il C. -.".r I\ow- i),n,~ c- e<A",\ iJ - " ~ -. ~ ., I 0 " .....- o-r' 1"w- J~"" S.r<-T'Q.. ,... ~ .......~ Q./O .....-J....-rr ......\.Oo( \ . .. "1"'i..~+\c. ..,ll S~etC.. /li....':"at....JIl!lTc 1Z......~S.l ~..Il) <J....aIa.ST',...... ,.,J.H d OC:.c....~ 0.... ~. -r"" 'Fo1l..""".,J.i2...~O"'~S c.J,1I /$or ftrf~~~ "'~. O.H.'1. J","lL~("_ 8..:r l'J~\3.<! /ao.J1) ~.... po"...T,...) : !l~"T" "'"~S.f). 24-0'" ST, s.e) '3S"'~AoJ~S.~ ~o "U.&II!o,-1. +-STl4 ~j..t. ,,& T'~.r j2.""ow"",\ 'Tb ",,11,\_ \b ""-.1. arc.- f'" "" ^"-...ru..... I b.t.~~(.. ~o ?_.J,o.r p-.-.<~ ~ o.J"Qol-J<J\Il".'€~. -r....\.r .! ~ '5'_......0 ~& Ia.oOM'"TS~. . ~j I ~-, I ;;j I ;A; . ~1 .:, I ,..I . ! I ~ 7)/1; III '"7;1 wiC. e7'f .. J. 8 o1"~ If 18'03- /1)/sW, C. l3.rwll, sI'~~ 't'lJlI S",~.:s~ur: Vd.....J.T E I '5 , K 0 \ \ B k s...~U' (!4'''''''ln<,. 'DIM. Me. -r; 't loa. : / ..2 1"M,( 10_._0....... ..;. 2.oo/Qoot:)' (?O,APQ,.coJ Q& 'It.4"T"'.,-3~f'P\.J~ ~ ,,\;)";),~ ,.....,) T"o ~""",..J_~.... ~c."oJo_.c:.. l-Y'~ 0-.1 ~ Cn"T...c\\ ~...SI~oC"U Q.__......., ~ c..a, l\ ~.. ~~ $<a_.r ~c..'T"" .a.J tA.T. 'ITlon "^",\c,,M ~\b IO.c MP(Lr'JJ<"Q. ""'\W" A_.....J'" ....& ~~ N~ 'i'b ~e.......- ~ 'F, tL4' '.oJ"llofC" t-It-",,- Wll"'-,-O~.!' Iwc..~C'O tt.,Jo ?o1 S~I ~\.1 ./ ~OI""'G. OwN ~ t;p.r <l S a~! ~n.r"" c.. oS s~""'1 OJ;;...r (3-'\\,,0,-:) /). ~"'i"1l "-,. c...c T ~ "'- I...J \ \ \ t!.~ 42..r e...... I AorQ. .3 -)'""" ~ 1~'TI..Jtc.. ~~I~_,"\ s~<I'\..' I~ 0.... -;),.......J... a-JO L-.dj p~AJ.L~l -n>> "Tl4.E" I!'~T B-"IL o-G IJo","14 Q....",K,j S~.......() ....... ~\OC.~I..-' o~"Tlotl.r <!..W'l!~ ,.....(..(1 "K..-c..r- J~,... 1oJ.1\ ~PPCI\J""Ill I'Ikr S''''o.JoI"'1e-~ -198- t I I I , I I I I I I I I I c.c.. 4 .5 7 I I I I I I I I .. .. ~ ~..I4 "3..."'_-....., I..J... ,,-9~..r~ 'T\W'" Z..........J c;. ....) T.....r lA..,JI.lC-Q<t..~ 0'- ~ ~.J,", Q..Jn ~..l._<4 H o~ ~.... ~ ~ O~ C--...li" '1, ~ C) l="'N~O"'-'\..~l' t'1&~C"..~... "t...s e....'ST ,-, c.. t:Jo ~,..,,~ c.LU.) TIW"CA"'tl.'1 L.. ~ OS." \..!) ..... 0 OS --..... .. 0 '" C )o.nP_ S\,CO . Sc.....I, ,~'T~ ~4l!l ,,~, J...sr COo..':- "\~~"'-6'" .".. ~...-rcu_ "'.. t>'~T4..,~ '..vca ~ \oJ ~ ....~'t ...hlL '-\tG !!looo D't..~O 'E_plo.,~ A-.lO "T~. -r;-.,.....~ ~r ..... S.._oLs ~ ~ -r.., S'~....._c 7.....0 "'-I, \\ :\: QooSS~ ~ol'" Ill. 'S PI> \-'1)\"')'.J0. ?.....o ~tt.. ~"11>_ ."J......-wl.. n.,)O \)''\~''NC.G!" \b ""'" Q c...N:l<.. W~ M.,"'(a~ ..,J, H (301' <2....Dt....C.."t\Io? Th ..J$",-"-,, ~tIA \ ~-- ~'1 P.....o ",-c..'l"3 ~ - 17 _ ,lOtOC' 1->-"'1>1'- c...s fWL.c 1'-1 Qo'T"' V. ~~~e!"I:) ..,.,. ,loW' Q.AJ'clC... -r",o! ~ \oJ ?4.'---''-1. '.oJ~ ~" \~ ,"oF P.r'l'tr \"" 7-n-.......l'i)J ~.\lorO ow<"\,. o..l""'r: L.,~...T"",fI"~ M..........--,~... ~o OL V~-.J IP.od'lo'\.,<!"Q 1oJ~ ~~ 0, \\ T_S ~c...... ~~....... N ":>tl.Al'\" e.~ ~" ~ \4..'13....~ _,~" "? Q,............ S' -.cL...J \ ooJ S'N;)__,-S14 eo......~ 1=L Q...N . ... ~ . -rll~,,\ J,v.,. L.. 4-IC:OCD - z...~ "1:'" ST. S--E'. ~O.h'<\\,,,.),,,, '" ~Y<l" + ~ G.- b to) 'l , -199- Comment Letter from Tony Vivolo Response I: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: As stated in the Draft EIS, traffic will divert to these local streets if adequate improvements to NE 19.5th are not made providing easy access to 1-40.5. The improvements required are also discussed in the Draft EIS. They include widening of 19.5th and the freeway overpass,. and widening, channelization and signalization of major intersections and will be paid for by the sponsor on a -"fair share" basis. If these improvements are made, and access to 1-40.5 is easier (faster) via 19.5th, there will be no reason for traffic to divert to other local streets since these alternatives would increase travel time. Utilities are addressed in the EIS and have been included in site planning and engineering studies. As stated in the Draft EIS, improve- ments to the water supply will be required including additional storage capacity. The sponsor will pay for its fair share of the utility improvements including water storage required to serve the project. The Alderwood sewer line is west of North Creek through the site and would not be affected by, the proposed stream relocation. This is acknowledged in the DEIS. However, the present draft of the King County Northshore Revised Community Plan calls for manufactur- ing park in areas to the south of the site. Landowners south and southwest of the site have announced plans to develop their land with mixed-uses similar to the KolI proposal. landowners west of the site have approached the City of Bothell and held a community meeting to discuss development of the hillside in multiple family residences. Snohomish County has approved extensive residential and industrial development in nearby areas. The entire area is rapidly developing. Much of this development has already occurred and will continue with or without the KolI project. (See response to Snohomish County Planning Department) -200- I I ~ I I 1~ I I .:9 I ,~ I A I ,,2 I _~J I .,J I 1.J I iJ I <,i I )i ~ I j I , , I ..1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response 5: . Approximately twelve percent of the employees would be Bothell residents. Half of these or approximately six percent would be new Bothell residents. The remainder would live outside the immediate area; the increase in demand for local schools would be minor while the increase in school district revenue would be significant, as shown in the Draft EIS and the Technical Appendix. Response 6: As stated in the Draft EIS, oil/water separators will be incorporated in the storm sewer system and the storm sewer system will discharge into the Sammamish River. Response 7: The surcharging will have no significant effect on North Creek since the creek is presently contained in dikes, is above the water table in summer, and is not significantly recharged by on-site groundwater. The proposed relocation may improve this by routing the stream more naturallly through the peat areas. -201- ,- I I t~ I I UI I iL~ I ;J I ~;a I d I d - . I ,t~ I ,,~ J J I iJ . "' " , . I iL O~.v k.Jo. "7'..1 /, /~3, ~ if ~~~-1 f;u+~u-L . Ai.~~ Eo,I7~ ;roLl~?~.v~6",L~ hE I ~ 9(/1 ..i'~ Za a.ddl<&.o~ "7 ?.:c-n~~nJ.., _.Z; -<!-L dv:~~~ ," , . //;~y /h/.n-za.X c'?"??ct.-5;.rj jeL..J <~r",l Z1.i-: . ti,wz.~v.....-~ caJ.&."tZ~ <t' ~~r--" ,:JJ4<~""//:' =/ Iu?::d. ~( .~2/3 d:~./r..1~Z ~ ..~~--z~./ ..L a~/ ....-au d.- ~ud: n.L ..fc-' aL/ ~ v ~ ~ :;;f,,";, tA'" /.r~lC~ k.d.~~ ~. Lk,~~..zat.k ~.ULd./. z1.: ~ k.H.i I dt. .9'.-(; z:.zr-j( ~4a. ;~~ 0u / ~,UI .vJ.- .;.L2U ..2-n..:/ c~u..d' U-'t.c:-',.{ L..:..c""{?~rd./':'d r-~7 4~d./<>.!i.~~r~F'l.. '~?.:'-- a"u:~/~.L ,)..c:..?11 a(~cI/ZQu)c'a?v Z7t.:- ao.p...J2'i.,AU-7~...;t/.>>?.!,d'.; ,~ /~ ~r~/~./cnd.:e-~~r#C'U' aiLl zi....:.- t?~ ~~~~~~ d?;!d'-9r~k.?4.?'~ ~ .~4ud ~~ruld~ .uk/ p.t~hc.. //-aL a~q<l-7 ~ .u-d..a?:-r..d;.~ v/ ''/~, &a'" :~ay ...~-,- a-~/G. .o~ /~~.~ .'/'.4.,Jdd ~ /,1 ~; -'7u~ ~/ . .;;'au ;:&;;,f d,:'/ ~~ a't'//~'/'-t~'t.,ae i-?c'd ~..z&, <- , -202- , . , I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I , I I '. ~. . r.a~.-e:~t.Z .i~' '/.~:N:!jje.y .'-/~ c"u:rA-z.:'- ;.. / '? ~~./W'~d :' . ._.1f..u:l.~~udt..:X~ .z'}~ r-Ua,it...d /.Jii...Z ~/ :X:,;,. j . n ~. /~ , .' .,./ . ~t'U~ d~ ... F U':..'"r... -U':L. a't'-c'~;f/ .t:' '- ~~ Zu. ~""'.4;.,~ /~7 ~.'t /.J(!/Zb.:,..:'.d.; d..vr-' ~i:-r..?/ ./V.;.H./r~,?'L &<!t.'/,(/~., ~/.~~. ~~ ML cd r~?! f-~/'~ ~.~<!? -24~.""~~J, t:t-'c.'u/d' &.;! ~~,"z..u. t.. ..a.ru.,>;!',,;;.:d / ~ .L / - (: . / / . .'.-.. ;I ~._~(..'74!) ~(~:az...l.. .L/U. :L-az.a1.',,::,' .,;'-!-' /'~f/;.'~jt ,.-c-.',/.:.:.,...~~ . /,/ ... /,/c// """"., ..... __~ _",,:..;,J, dt;..;;,~.:....~I. /<.2t2yt.? ,.,.',;;::v .~au.' v-::l... / ,. . ~. . ,z.,.,ad' kj1O~~~~T;J), /.:l!:~~:.l...I: ;:j.;.n.;l;,PGo.U:Z k:..' /'~a'~.v t"f. u,-e.// /2.t: ./iiY:Y~~l:.!~"~ ~<i?d.ud _.t;~ # cc44 PU''-C~9'-/?c M~(..~ j~' 2..t~.:l- ~_u:C. Q /;.~' ~97'-f..24<.Z:y.c,:? c~~.':!.:u.~dL. ..z::u. I:d/ ?;r1d ":/'Z/~'/~' 0l?,-.v 9/:a.:~. ~:~fu../.H~" >/,G1U;~ ,i:.,,';,u~"~ ,(,':.!I.//<,-~ eJ/1- ~ t/t2.:J)rA";;~uw!.'.i:eL -?'4X':t:i:.W.J. C'7!.L..J, jd_k t'~..J!.-" . / )~;t.L ,,~Ct!i<. t).:y'l.~t.v /' .' ...,..,...., ... "" ://ku/d.. ll." /(&YJ /7 tJ' /3 - /~~ '.l.~~ /.t ~'t;,...tf.r..dL' .tt,/.;t.. 91'(;"/"<' -203- Comment Letter from Maria A. Walsh Response I: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response .5: Response 6: You are correct in stating that the project would irreversibly foreclose the option of farming on the site in the future. You are also correct in stating that if the KolI project is approved it may be difficult for the City to deny other projects if they comply with the City's North Creek Valley Plan; however, it is discretionary (see EIS for North Creek Valley Plan). The stormwater detention pond is open space but is not designed for recreational activity. All trails and public use areas are proposed to be constructed and maintained by the sponsor or subsequent tenants' association. The main boulevard will be dedicated to the City and will be maintained by the City. The sponsor will pay the cost of stream construction and monitoring (see letters from Department of Fisheries, Department of Game, and Timberline Reclamations). The surrounding area is developing rapidly already. The proposed project will generate relatively little additional demand for schools but will generate substantial revenue for the local school system as shown in the Draft EIS. As stated in the Draft EIS, the sponsor will pay a pro-rata share of the costs of the overpass and all roads and utilities required to serve the project. The city-wide transportation study has already been funded by the City. - 2 04 - 'I <t1l I u 'I :tii ,I -SJj I i:I I &b I ~ I d I, d I .1 I ~ i I ,.i I d I ~ '. .~~~ I ..t I ..,1 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I King County, State of Washington Ron Dunlap, County Executive Department of Budget and Program Development Room 400 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 John M. Rose. Director (2ll6) 3H 3434 April 2, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Dept. of Community Development 18305 101st Avenue N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: This office has received one additional comment on the Koll Business Park. OUr Department of Public Works indicates the proposed develop- ment will have transportation and circulation impacts on county facilities upon full development. On page 80, a statement was made concerning a transportation study to include the North Creek Valley area. It is recommended that the sponsor should be required to participate in the study. - Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this E.I.S. Sincerely, J n M. Rose, Chairman ~~vironmenta1 Impact Committee JMR/pt -205- Comment Letter from KinR County Department of BudRet and ProlUam Development Response: The transportation study has already been initiated. It will cover the entire City but will also consider the KolI project and other proposed developments in the valley. -206- I ~ I I :ii:ii I ~':.'2 I , -io'''' ". I t, I "" ~. .. :1 I ~."~ I d I u I ""j '. .f,.i I ;,' I c. I . j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10404 N. E. 168 Bothell, WA 98011 TO: Oaniel W. Taylor Oepartment of Community Oevelopment City of Bothell 18305 - 10lst Avenue N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 FR: Jackson o. and Norma R. Nickols DA: April 3, 1981 Thank you for this opportunity of extended time to express our concerns regarding the proposed Koll Business Center. Because of the following questions and concerns we strongly favor a 'no action' alternative at this time. 1) IRREPLACEABLE LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. Commercial/retail, office and light industrial complexes ~ be built on other available land. These 140 acres of prime agricultural soil In the North Creek Valley will be irretrievably lost and covered with approximately 45 acres I of asphalt. (NOTE: see DEIS response from the Department of Game.) Is our true need for a business park greater than the ability to produce food? (ref. DEIS p. 47 "agricultural trends"). Present trends would indicate a need for nearby sources of food. 2) MUCH DOUBT ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOTHELL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN reo North Creek Vally...~regulated to preserve and improve the quality of 1 i fe in Bothe 11." CONSIDERATION FOR SURROUNDING LAND. The DEIS does not take into true consideration the surrounding land in King County which is presently being proposed for development. The TOTAL impact must be considered. z 3) 3 4) SPECIAL SERVICES DEMANDED BY DEVELOPMENT. We feel the actual cost to Bothell residents is much greater than anticipated. i.e. fire (see DEIS response from thief Duncan, Bothell Fire Dept.)/ police protection, schools, roads, (see DEIS response from Department of Transportation and Police Chief McMahon) ,sewers. How much should residents be taxed to provide the special services demanded by this development? 4 r-I 5) FACTS ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE DEIS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO TRULY ~ EVALUATE WHAT THE KOLL CO. ACTUALLY PLANS TO DO ON THESE 140 ACRES. Until these significant questions and concerns are responded to favorably, we urge the 'no action' alternative. Thank you for your consideration.-207_ - Comment Letter from Jackson D. and Norma R. Nickols Response I: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response 5: As stated in the Draft EIS, there are no other areas outside of the North Creek Valley in Bothell with suitable size, access and comprehen- sive plan designations for a similar mixed-use, planned business park. Other available sites in King and Snohomish Counties are being devel- oped. See the expanded discussion of alternate sites in the Final EIS. The project would foreclose future options for agriculture on the site (see NATURAL RESOURCES section). The discussion of compliance with the North Creek Comprehensive Plan has been expanded in the Final EIS. Development impacts to surrounding land were considered in the Draft EIS as well as in previous EIS's prepared by the City for the Comprehen- sive Plan for the valley. An estimate of overall traffic volumes generated by other development proposals in the valley has been incorporated into the TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION section of the Final EIS. A detailed fiscal impacts study in the Draft EIS, using coefficients developed by Rutgers University, clearly showed that Bothell revenues generated by the project would exceed the costs of services provided to the project by Bothell (also see study on page 213 of the Final EIS). The pro ject will partially pay for services required for residential areas. The project is described in the Draft EIS. Additional details are available at the Bothell Department of Community Development or from the KollCompany. - 208- I I I a I :~II I ;:.;t I ,,8 I ,.~ " ~.il' I, ..:.:1 'I b' I ,.~ I ;LB I ci.J 1 ,j I l.i' I ..J I ,1 I , l .1 ..J I I. I ,I , I I I I I I I I I I I .2 I , I I I ! I I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Natlanal Oceanic and Atmaspheric Adminlstratian NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Environmental & Technical Services Division P.O. Box 4332. Portland. OR 97208 April 8. 1981 F/NWR5:JRL Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development 18305 101 st N. E. Bothell, Washington.98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: Thank you for providing us a copy of your Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Koll Business Center near Bothell prepared under State Environmental Policy Act guidelines. We reviewed the DEIS and have the following comments for your consideration. The comments deal specifically with the proposed deve 1 opment and its. :potentia 1 impacts upon anadromous fi sh resources and thei r habitat. J Our general concerns with developments such as the Koll Business Center are with water quality impacts and habitat modifications during project construction and after project completion. Such impacts include reduction of water quality and habitat productivity by sedimentation, an increase in impervious surfaces, compaction of soil, and storm water runoff with concentrations of heavy metals, nutrients. and oil and 9rease. We note, however. that the DEIS indicates that during .and after construction. the proposed project would utilize on-site retention pondS and an oil/water separator, with storm sewers to dispose of on-site runoff. In a related vein, the DEIS should also discuss the potential impacts of future development. e.9.. residential, which would be encouraged by construction of the business center. This would likely occur if sewer and water facilities are expanded in the North Creek area. Concurrent with such development would be loss of natural vegetation. additional increases in impervious surfaces. compaction of peat soils, and a general reduction in water quality in North Creek. The discussion of the proposal to relocate a section of North Creek, beginnin9 on page 28. deals with the most direct impact of the proposed project on anadromous fish habitat. Although the proposal could benefit that particular section of North Creek which is now channelized with little riparian vegetation, National Marine Fisheries Service does not view the development of a 140 acre business park as a preferred means to improve anadromous fish habitat. In this respect, the DEIS should discuss in more detail the feaSibility of improvin9 the North Creek habitat as a single-purpose alternative. Aside from this fundamental difference, however, it appears that the relocation proposal has been well thought out. Proper design construction and construction monitoring of a project of this type is critical to its success in improving _:i.~ (':"'7~'."~"'\ , ~~;.s '-.:: .'. -: ~ .."..... ...~, .." 10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1880 Natianal Oceanic and Atmaspherir: Administratian A young agency with a histone tredltlon of service to the Nation - 2.09- 2 habitat. This requires close coordination with Washington Departments of Fisheries and Game. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and our agency would appreciate the opportunity to review any proposals in this regard. Although the DEIS indicates that fishery agency review of plans and monitoring will occur, these important factors cannot be overemphasized. We appreciate the opportunity to review the DEIS. If you have any questions or comments, please contact us. Sincerely yours, 7J,e~~ Dale R. Evans Division Chief - 2,10- '. 1l2I I tJj I I "I I iaI I tJj I I ~~ I i.f - "'..tI 'I ,i-J I .;.b I a I lJl I d I ict ',I d I I ,I I I I .J I I I I I I I I 'I I I I , I I I Comment Letter from U.S. Department of Commerce - National Oceanic and A tmospher ic Administration Response I: Response 2: The Draft EIS discusses future development under LAND USE. The area is rapidly developing, however, and development plans for several adjacent parcels have already been announced. Each of these will be controlled by appropriate Comprehensive Plan guidelines and environ- mental regulations. The overall impacts of developing the area were addressed in the City of Bothell's EIS for the North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan. While "improving the North Creek habitat as a single-purpose alterna- tive" might be advantageous from a wildlife standpoint, there are no apparent sources of funding for either the land acquisition or physical improvements "as a single-purpose alternative." Thus, this would not be a feasible alternative. Additionally, the City's Plan for the valley does not designate the site as a park .or wildlife refuge. -211- rl .M '. ,,~ I u I' ".8 '. l:j t I .;...& ,I Ji. , I ~b I - : ,~... I \:0.4 The U. N. Agency on Food and Agriculture reports that 28 African I countries report food shortages, while in this country over three _ million acres of farmland are covered by asphalt, concrete or d it's equivalent every year with a million of it being prime farmland"I' This proposal, while leaving open space for wildlife and recreation, I would not leave the land suitable for continued agricultural uses. ~j LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LAKE WASHINGTON EAST 10815 S.E, 23AD ST.. BEU.EVUE. WASHINGTON 98004' 483-2912 April 8, 1981 Daniel W. Taylor Department of Community 18305 lolst N.E. Bothell, Wa. 98011 Development Re: Koll Center Draft Environmental Impact Statemnet The League of Women Voters of Lake Washington East has reviewed the Draft Environmental ~pact Statement for the Koll Business Center. The project shows very special care of all aspects of the envir- onment. The enhance:Dent and protection of ~Torth Creek and the creation of areas for wildlife are very commendable. The League feels, however, that any land with prime or productive agricul- tural soils should be preserved. As stated in the Draft EIS, the North Creek Valley contains this type of soil. It is class III (King County has no class I) and it: is currently being used for food production (grazing). We question the statement that it is no longer feasible to use this piece of property for agriculture because land to the north and to the south in the SAmmAmish Valley is being used for that purpose. We also feel that this project would have an adverse effect on those lands and encoura5e the owners to use th~ for other than agricultural purposes. We ask you to deny this proposal and do everything possible to encourage farming of some kind on this property. S~ncerely yours, (;/. (Z d.. -..... 7/ / o! Ie ,.. .l..:_:....... Charlene McKenzie, President SERVING THE FlESlOENTS OF . . . BEAUX ARTS. BELLEVUE. SOTl-lELL. CARNATION. CLYDE HILL. OUVALL. ISSAQUAH. HUNTS POINT. KIFlKLANO. MEOINA. NORTH BENO. FlEOMONO. SNOOUALMIE. WOOOINVIU.E. YAFlFIQW POINT ANO EAST KING COUNTY. -2.12- I d I ".1 ~ I . . I .J I .. I D D II I I I I I I I I " II I I I I I Comment Letter from Leal!:ue of Women Voters of Lake Washinl!:ton East Response: Please refer to the revised section on NATURAL RESOURCES in the Final EIS for additional discussion of the agricultural issue. -213- KOLL :,: ::_-.i_':: CONTRACTOR April 8, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development l830S-l0lst N.E. Bothe1l, WA 98011 SUBJECT: Draft EIS for Koll Business Center - Bothell Dear Mr. Taylor: The Koll Company would like to take this opportunity to present its comments on the Draft EIS prepared for Koll Business Center - Bothel1. The Draft EIS contained a com- prehensive and detailed assessment of the environmental impacts that will result from development of Koll Business Center - Bothell. There are, however, sections or state- ments within sections of the Draft EIS that should be clarified in the Final EIS. The section of the Draft EIS that needs to be clarified most is the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Section. The State Environmental Policy Act requires that this section be included in all environmental impact statements for the purpose of listing adverse impacts which cannot be miti- ~~te~ or avoided as a result of the proposed development. e navoidable Adverse Impacts Section of the Draft EIS for Koll Business Center - Bothell. however, lists certain impacts that can and will be mitigated or avoided. As a result, those impacts should not be listed in the Unavoida- ble Adverse Impacts Section. The following parts of the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Section list impacts that can and will be mitigated: Water: This part states that there will be long-te~ impacts to water quality due to increased runoff and reduced infiltration of storm water. Although. Koll Business Cen- ter - Bothell will involve increased impervious surface coverage with a resultant increase in runoff and decrease 2021 152nd Avenue N.E. . Redmond. Washlnll.lon 98052. (206) 643-1n8 -ZH- . I I il:1I I I ,:. 'I ,,;. I ;eM I "I '. ;.I; -I ~,ji I ,',)' I .~ i1 I i.u , 'I di I d I d I d I j I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Daniel W. Taylor April 8. 1981 Page - 2 - in infiltration of storm water. the impact will be miti- gated through the provision of a storm water detention system that will collect all storm water runoff and will prevent such runoff from entering North.Creek and ad- versely affecting the water quality of the creek. It should further be pointed out that storm runoff from Interstate 405 presently goes directly into North Creek. This will be elim- inated as another mitigating measure of the proposed project. I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated March 26. 1981 from Horton Dennis and Associates, which covers the steps that will be taken to mitigate the impact on the water quality of the S~mm~mmish River as a result of the change in use of the property. Vefetation: This part states that the proposed develop- ment w 11 result in the removal of existing site vegetation by site grading. The existing vegetation will be removed. but the removal of the vegetation will be mitigated by the extensive natural landscaping that will occur as part of the development process within the stream corridor, greenbelt, and storm water detention area. Wildlife: This category states that the wildlife habi- tat will be essentially eliminated as a result of the con- struction. although such habitat will be replaced by a more natural riparian corridor habitat. Again, this is an impact that will occur due to the development. The Draft EIS also stated. however, that the more natural riparian corridor habitat that will replace the existing wildlife habitat will be an improvement over the existing habitat and will encour- age the existence of wildlife within the development. Noise: This part states that due to the development increased noise levels will result on an adjacent to the site and along the Interstate 405 corridor. As the Draft EIS points out. however. noise levels in the area will in- crease regardless of whether or not the proposed development occurs because the major source of noise, the traffic on Interstate 405 will increase regardless of whether or not the proposed development is built. Light and Glare: This category states ,that additional on-site sources of light and glare will result .from building. parking. and roadway lighting. There will be additional sources of light on the proposed development site, but the impacts of those additional sources will be mitigated through the requirements imposed by the Design Guidelines which will -215- Mr. Daniel W. Taylor April 8, 1981 Page - 3 - be recorded with the final plat. Those guidelines will re- quire that a11.1ight sources be shielded so that the light source will not be visible from adjacent properties. Trans ortation and Circulation: This category states that 0 us~ness enter - ot e 1 will cause a significant increase in traffic along N.E. 195th Street and the inter- section of N.E. 195th Street with Interstate 405. The Draft EIS also states, however, that the impacts associated with the traffic increase would be mitigated by a widening of N.E. 195th Street and improvement of the intersection with Inter- state 405. Public Services - Fire, Police: This part states that the Koll Business Center - Bothel1 will substantially in- crease the demands on fire protection and law enforcement personnel. While such increase in demand will occur, the Draft EIS notes that the City of Bothe11 will receive a sub- stantial sum of money early in the development process in the form of permit fees and sales tax on construction-rela- ted items. Therefore, to the extent there is any time lag between the demand for these additional public services and the production of revenue that will pay for such services, the City of Bothe11 can utilize the money obtained in con- junction with the permit fees to pay for any additional personnel or equipment needed to provide the requisite po- lice and fire protection. Aesthetics: This part states that the existing pastoral setting will be replaced by a 140 acre mixed-use development. This change will not necessarily result in an adverse impact to the aesthetics of the site. Although the land will no longer be undeveloped, Ko11 Business Center - Bothe11 will be a very attractive business-industrial park. This will be assured through the provision of greenbelt areas, a more natural stream corridor, a well landscaped boulevard, and the recording of Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines, in con- junction with applicable City of Bothe11 o~dinances, will con- trol all development in Ko11 Business Center - Bothe11. Any building or other improvement constructed on the site must be designed in conformance with the standards contained in the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines contain specifica- tions regarding architecture, site planning, landscaping, ma- terials, colors, signing, lighting, and energy. To insure that the standards are complied with, all plans and construc- - 2.16- :1 '<-0 I I .... I ~u J I ~~. I J<~ii I ,.;; I ;Jj I ~~ I ci II ~LlI I ,I .I.M I ..."J I :.' I "..1 I . I I I I I I I I I I I I D a I I I I , I I '. Mr. Daniel W. Taylor April 8, 1981 Page - 4 - tion documents will be reviewed by a design review committee and the City of Bothell prior to any construction. The De- sign Guidelines will thus insure that Koll Business Center - Bothell will be an aesthetically pleasing development. Another section of the Draft EIS that should be clarified is the Short-Term Environmental Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity Section. The first paragraph of this section, states that there would be long-term foreclosure of future use options and alternatives regarding the proposed development site. The Draft EIS goes on to state that this long-term foreclosure of options would be offset by short-term gains in the form of additional tax revenues, additional employment opportunities, the availability of retail goods and services, and the preser- vation/enhancement of the quality of North Creek as a fisher- ies resource. This statement is somewhat misleading in that the benefits characterized as short-term gains are not merely short<erm gains. These benefits will accrue not only in the immediate future, but also in the long-term. There are several aspects of the proposed development that should be clarified at this time to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding in the DraftEIS. First of all, the de- velopment site will be seeded immediately after completion of grading and prior to development to prevent any erosion of the soil and to make the development site aesthetically more at- tractive. In addition, detailed planting designs for the greenbelt and the stream cooridor will be prepared and submit- ted for review and approval by the City of Bothell prior to the issuance of permits for grading or construction. Also, in conjunction with the stream corridor, it has been deter- mined that there will be an IS-foot setback from the stream corridor on certain designated lots to insure the integrity of North Creek. Finally, it should be clarified that the commercial/retail uses planned for Ko11 Business Center - Bothe11 will be in the form of a neighborhood shopping center. This is not a mall configuration, and should therefore result in fewer adverse impacts. Again, The Koll Company feels that the Draft EIS contained a thorough and accurate assessment of the environmental impacts that will be associated with the development of Kol1 Business Center - Bothe11. The foregoing comments are in- tended to be a clarification of the proposed development and -217- Mr. Daniel W. Taylor April 8, 1981 Page - 5 - -2~8- I ~ t I t I :oll I i.!>> , di I a I MI I ,.~ I d I i.M I ~li I I -iJi I I ,.I I ,\ I ..t to assist decisionmakers in assessing the environmental impacts of Koll Business Center - Bothell. Very truly yours, /? / THEASOLL COMPANY. / /' ,.f /' . . . .t..,J'-' /:t{'- ~~r; i/ Rodger Fa~rholm PJ:esident i RF: j ab v' cc: Don Marcy I ' -..".--...- .._d_"___-'--.=-""-~~~.-.----~.>--'---------..----- . I I , I I I I .. I I I I I I I I I I I Horton Dannis & Associates, Inc, l JH[O) 1 Consulting Engineers March 26, 1981 Mr. Rodger Fagerholm President . THE KOLL COMPANY 2021 - 152nd N.E. Redmond, Washington 98052 SUBJECT: BOTHELL.KOLL CENTER ~ar Mr. Fagerholm: We are in receipt of your March 19, 1981 letter concerning water quality of storm drainage from the subject site and the economical feasibility of directing this run-off to METRO. This question is, in part, a very simple question to answer, and. yet a very difficult one. The proposal to divert the storm run-off to METRO is easy as METRO will not accept it. METRO's system is sized and designed to handle only sanitary sewage. The METRO treatment plants are also de- signed to treat waste water containing the normal sanitary contaminants of Biological Oxygen Oemand (B.O.D.), Suspended Solids (5.5.) and some nitrogen and phosphrous removal. The problems 'involved in treating storm water include; removing grit (solid), nutrients, oils and heavy metals and other substances. These treatment requirements are comp- letely different from those of sanitary sewage. Adding storm run-off to the METRO system would only overload it and cause overflowing of that system and health hazards. Our proposed design includes some treatment provisions for the storm water run-off. These provisions are: . 1. Settling basins would remove most of the solids such as silt and heavy metals; 2. An oil/water separation would skim the petroleum and floatables; 3. The vegetation along the banks of the retension pond also acts to break down petroleum products; 6133 S;xt/l Ave. Soutll, Seattle, Wasll;ngton 98108 . pllonc 767-3450 -219- - - Mr. Rodger Fagerho1m President THE KOLL COMPANY Re: Bothe11 Ko11 Center March 26, 1981 Page Two 4. Nutrients.are the major components that would escape the system. It must be noted, however, the nutrient level from a commercial industrial area such as proposed is far less than pasture land or agricultural uses. We hope this answers your inquiries regarding storm water run-off. Should you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~.JJ4 Martin L. Penha11egon, P.E. Associate MLP:aec Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc. . Consulting Engineers . Seattle, Washington -220- I ,,," I I %"~ I I ""' I ~dl I :,~ I i,l I d, , ",-Il' I ",-~ I '" I :\..li I H I A ~ _I I _J I I I I I I g , I I I I I I I I ,: 11 I ! I , , I I ~- I Comment Letter from KOLL Contractor Response: The City recognizes that the Koll Company has proposed substantial mitigating measures for nearly every element of the environment. Not withstanding this, there are impacts under the headings of many elements that cannot or will not be entirely mitigated. Although the major impacts under most elements would be mitigated, certain un- avoidable impacts would remain. It has been the City's experience that standard practice is to list such elements here. Beyond that, we basically concur with your letter. -221- - Univers!!!J .!F!get Sound Bl mo...~_.~. _.. , . Department of Eco"omics April 8, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development City of Bothell 18205 101 N.E. Bothe11, WA 98011 Re: Draft EIS--Koll Business Center--Bothell Dear Mr. Taylor: In my capacity as a consulting economist I was retained by the Kol1 Company to prepare an economic impact study for Ko11 Center proposed development in Bothell. A copy of this report is enclosed. I would like this letter and the enclosed report to be received by your office as comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and for both to be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. As you will note, the economic impact report includes an analysis for the proposed development as well as analyses for the five alternatives. The report considers the impact on the operating budget of the City of Bothe11 (fiscal impact statement), the impact on the local area economy (private sector), and impacts which could not be quantified. Thank you for your cooperation. .' BDM:ro / -222- I II a I I H ,:1 "-G , I ..& I u, I ':!..:}' I ..R I ..P I ..1 , " I i.1 I LD I i:j I r...& I .1 I .1 I , . I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I AN ECONOMIC H1PACT ANALYSIS OF THE KOLL CENTER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND FIVE . ALTERNATIVES, BOTHELL, WASHINGTON Prepared by: Bruce D. Mann, Ph.D Ernest F. Combs, Ph.D Douglas E. Goodman, Ph.D , Department of Economics University of puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 March, 1981 -223- - INTRODUCTION . 1 This report presents an economic impact analysis for the pro- posed Koll-Center development in Bothell"Washington and five alternative configurations. Each of the six potential development plans was considered independently using the same set of data and assumptions. Hence, the results are comparable. This report is divided into four parts. The first part iden- tifies the six alternative configurations. Part two presents a fiscal (cost-revenue) analysis of the public sector impacts for each proposal. The th;rd part presents for each proposal the private sector impacts. The last part provides some considerations of non- quantifiable effects for each proposal. It is important to note that a number of assumptions had to be made for the analysis in this report. Each assumption is ex- plicitly identified in the text. In all cases, subject to reason, these assumptions have been made so as to understate benefits and overstate costs. Therefore, the conclusions in this report are most likely conservative. -224- I ~ I ~ I' I' d I I I dt I ~~ '11 I ~ I ~E I I 1 I .1 I I .J I J I .A I ..! I .1 I J I J I I' I I r I , I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. I '- 1 I. ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSALS This report considers the total set of economic impacts for \ six alternative development plans for a ~ite located in Bothell, Washington. The development plans will be designated as: Pro- posal',Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, Alternative 4, and Alternative 5. This is the taxonomy used 1 Proposal. in the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement for the The alternatives differ in terms of their economic uses. The Proposal and Alternatives 1 and 2 are mixtures of commercial (re- tail), office and industrial uses. Alternative 3, 4 and 5 are single use proposals. Table 1 summarizes the proposed uses for the Proposal and Alternatives. Table 1: Economic Uses, in Square Feet, of Proposal and Alternatives Economic Use Commercial Of fice Industrial Total Proposal 200,000 350,000 990,000 1,540,000 Alternative 1 108,910 186,298 484,561 779,769 Alternative 2 159,273 278,610 717,255 1,155,137 Alternative 3 0 0 1,B84,406 1,884,406 Alternative 4 564,773 0 0 564,773 Alternative 5 1,044,830 0 0 1,044,830 Source: DEIS lCity of Bothell, Department of Community Development, "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Ko1l Center," 1981. Hereafter referred to as DEIS. -225- 2 Because the alternatives differ both in terms of use config- uration and total size, the construction costs of the alternatives differ. Table 2 presents the construction costs, non-construction costs and total value of each alternativ~. ! Table 2: Construction Costs, Non-Construction Costs, and Total Costs (Value) for Proposal and Alternatives (Millions of Dollars) Construction Non-Construction Total Cost Cost* Cost (Value) Proposal. 61.200 25.800 87.000 Alternative 1 31.390 20.796 52.186 Alternative 2 46.595 23.381 69.976 Alternative 3 56.532 25.071 81.603 Alternative 4 19.767 18.820 38.587 Alternative 5 36.569 21.677 58.246 Source: Koll Company and DEIS *inc1udes site preparation, indirect expenses, overhead, profit and land acquisition. Finally, each alternative will yield a different total amount and mix of employment. Table 3 presents this data for each alter- native. Table 3: Employment Estimates for Proposal and Alternatives (Annual Level) Commercial Office Industrial Total Employment Employment Employment Employment Proposal 500 1400 1650 3550 Alternative 1 272 745 808 1825 Alternative 2 398 1114 1195 2707 Alternative 3 0 0 3140 3140 Alternative 4 1400 0 0 1400 Alternative 5 2612 0 0 2612 Source: DEIS -226- , I ;, :, .. "l I it I d I d I "t I ,J I . t I .1 I ..! I ~-i , ~ ," , d I ,.1 I I I j I I, . I , J I , I j I I I I , - i I I I . ! I ! I i I . , I I I . I . I I 3 All the analyses contained in parts II, III and IV of this report are based on the data presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. When- ever additional assumptions are required\for the analyses they are explicitly specified in the text. -227- - 6 value3 to the total value of each alternative. The total values are found in Table 2. that To estimate the city share of sales tax receipts we assumed I and office uses would generate taxable re- only commercial 4 sales. tail To calculate the total amount of taxable sales we first estimated the average sales per commercial and office employ- ee. Based on the 1972 U.S. Department of Commerce's Census of Re- tail Trade the average sales per retail employee in Bothell was $53,885. We increased this figure by 8% per year (to reflect the differential in growth between sales and employment in retail trades5) to obtain our estimate of $67,480 per employee. This fig- ure was multiplied by the level of commercial employment (see Table 3) for each alternative to determine total retail sales. Based on Washington State, Department of Employment Security data6 the ratio of office sales per employee to retail sales per employee is .41. We used this factor to calculate sales per office employee as $27,660. This figure times the number of office employ- ees for each alternative produced our estimates of total office sales. We assumed that only 25% of all office sales would actually be subject to the retail sales tax. 3This is the 1981 city rate which is lower than the 1980 levy. However, most revenue forecasts suggest that future levies will be higher than the 1981 rate. Thus, using the 1981 rate for revenue projections will produce a'conservative estimate. 4TO the extent that industrial uses generate taxable sales, our estimates will understate this source of revenue. 5see: Economic Report of the President (for sales) and Employ- ment and Trainin Re ort of the President, Department of Labor (for emp oyment, oth U.S. Government Pr1nting Office, Washington, D.C. 6Employment and Payrolls in Washington State by County and by Industry, Third Quarter 1979, Employment Security Department, Re- search and Statistics Section. -230- I I I ;!;l\ I I I ill I ~~j,I I ."JI J I :d I d, I oj, I ~I I i.l I I tj, I ,.1 I ,.1 I I I I 1'111 . I II , I r I" I: I I , 'III I ID Q I D 0_- H : a I I I 7 Total taxable sales were estimated by combining total retail sales and 25% of total office sales. This figure was then multi- plied by .p05 to determine the sales taxJrevenue for the, city. I Since,some of this tax revenue will come from a diversion of sales from other establishments in Bothell, we multiplied sales tax reven- ue by a local adjustment factor to account for this diversion im- pact.7 Hence, the sales tax revenue estimates are new revenue, dol- 1ars for the city. The third source of revenue to the city is related to the residential impact of a new development. Some of the employees who will work at the new development will choose to live in Bothell. These new residents will participate in the economic life of the area and generate new revenue for the city. To determine this source of revenue we first estimated the number of employees who would live in the Bothell area. Three pieces of data were used to estimate resident employment impact. In 1970. 8 percent of the employees in Bothell resided in the city. A special Census tabulation in 1976 revealed that more than 30 per- cent of the Seattle-Everett SMSA work force lived less than four miles from work. The Puget Sound Council of Governments' 1977 ori- gin-destination study for the sub-area of King County which includes Bothel1 indicated that 17 percent of work/COllege trips which ori- 7These factors were calculated from the data in Bill Munday & Associates, Inc., "A Market Impact Analysis of the Proposed North Creek Neighborhood Center for the Roll Company", Seattle, Wa., November, 1980. -231- 8 ginated in the area also terminated within the area.8 Based on the preceeding data and on current trends in journey- to-work choices due to increasing gasoli~e costs, we assumed that ; twelve percent of the estimated employment (for each alternative) would be local area residents. This twelve percent would be the combination of: 1) existing Bothell residents who will be employed at the project site, 2) employees who will move near the site but not live in Bothell, and 3) new residents to Bothell who will work at the site. It is our estimate that only one-half of these new employees would actually be new residents to the City of Bothell (type 3 above). The other half will be either non-city residents or current residents who become employed at the site. New residents to the City of Bothe1l, then, will be only six percent of the estimated total employment, given in Table 3. To determine the population impact we multiplied this six percent em- ployment increase by 2.3 - our estimate of the average household size. Our analysis of revenue sources for the City of Bothell indi- cated that three items were directly related to the city's popula- tion: Licenses and Permits, Charges and Fines, and Forfitures. We calculated the per capita revenue relation for these three items. based on 1980 data. Finally, for each alternative we multiplied these per capita figures by the new residents to determine the res- idential non-tax revenue impacts. The final source of new revenue is the city 8 percent tax on utility sales. Five utility uses were identified. For each use 8 I . 1970 data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Popu at~on and Housing: 1970, Census Tracts, Final Report, PHC (1)-195. 1976 data from u.s. Bureau of the Census, Current Housing Reports, Seat- tle-Everett, Washington. SMSA, H-170-76-60. Puget Sound Council of Government data obtained from Labh Sachdevt, transportation planner. -232- I li~ I }.:'~ I ~, I o. I f,B I 1.J: I "I I .~ I " , " I iJ I :d I ,,-' I :.J] ~ I ..I I ,I I I 9 a total cost was estimated9, and then the 8 percent tax ratio was used to determine city revenues. In terms of revenue generation the two most important uses were power (electricity) and telephone. \ In addition, we included water, sanitary sewer, and refuse uses. Table 5 presents for each alternative our estimates of reven- ues which will be generated from existing'sources. We have not included any revenues which will flow to governmental units out- side of the city, even though they may return to the city as an intergovernmental transfer. Property Sales Residential Utility Tax Tax Non:-Tax Tax Total Proposal $199,752 $155,013 $9,383 $414,436 $ 778,584 Alternative 1 119,819 49,598 4,826 209,912 384,156 Alternative 2 160,665 104,545 7,162 311,827 584,199 Alternative 3 187,360 -0- 8,292 507,021 702,673 Alternative 4 88,597 419,928 3,696 152,056 664,277 Alternative 5 133,732 828,411 6,894 281,236 1,250,273 Table 5: Revenues, by Source Cost Estimates We estimated the additional costs (associated with each alter- native) using two different methods. Each method assumes that additional costs arising from new non-residential developments are related to a specific parameter of the city. The employment anti- cipation method relates costs to increases in local employment. The proportional valuation method identifies costs with the size of the, non-residential sector of the economy relative to the total area economy. Since the methods differ in terms of their assump- tions, we estimated costs both ways to determine if the net revenue 9These estimates were obtained from Wilsey and Ham Consultants. -233- impact is se~sitive to either set of assumptions.lO The basic data for our cost estimate came from the City of Bothell 1980 budget. Seven basic servic~ catagories were identi- fied. For each category we calculated the 1980 operating expen- diture level. To do this we reduced the budget total expenditures for any capital outlays. Capital outlays 'were excluded because it is inappropriate to charge the entire cost of an asset in the year of purchase. Rather, the appropriate accounting method is to charge a yearly amount for depreciation during each year of the asset's useful life. Since most capital purchases are financed through bond financing, we did include an annual amount for bond redemption (interest and principal). After adjusting for capital expenditures, the seven cost catagories included the following (fund account numbers are in par- enthesis) : 1. General Government (510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 514.21, 514.22, 514.30, 515, 516, 517, 519, 519.50, 519.80, 519.90) $ 393,523 2. Security of Persons and Property (520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 526) 972,703 3. Physical Environment (531.70, 540, 112) 183,860 11;,780 4. Health and Welfare (562, 567, 113) 5. Parks (104) 117,344 71,611 500,000 6. Library (105) 7. Bond Redemption (205) Total $2,257,821 10For a complete discussion of these methods, see: Burchell and Listokin, The Fiscal Impact Handbook, op. cit. -234- 10 I i.it 'I ..i I i:j I "i I ,i J ,I , a I .~ I . I .1 I ,I '. ,j I ~.J I d I , ,> I ,-I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I o I o g I I . . 11 Estimating additional costs by the employment anticipation method depends upon utilizing a set of impact coefficients. These coefficients have been determined by the\Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers university.ll For each cost category the impact coefficient'is multiplied by total 'cost to determine the employment multiplier. The employment multiplier times the anti- cipated new employment yields the estimated, increase in annual costs. This procedure is used for both commercial employment (re- tail and office) and industrial employment. Table 6 presents the employment anticipation estimates of additional costs for each alternative. Table 6: Additional Annual Costs - Employment Anticipation Method Additional Cost Due to: Commercial Industrial Total Employment Employment Cost Proposal $275,888 $ 94,735 $370,623 Alternative 1 146,067 43,392 192,459 Alternative 2 217,162 79,611 296,773 Alternative 3 0.0 180,285 180,285 Alternative 4 201,075 0.0 201,075 Alternative 5 375,149 0.0 375,149 11 See, Burchell and Listokin, Fiscal Impact Handbook, op. cit, Cnapters 6 and 7. -235- 12 The proportional valuation method estimates additional costs by assigning current costs into residential and non-residential parts. The non-residential costs are th~n allocated over the current non-residential tax parcels on the basis of assessed valua- . tion. The new development is then assigned a value relative to its impact'on ~ncreasing non-residential assessed values. An increase in total operating costs is then estimated. This method does not disaggregate the cost increases into budget catagories. In 1980 there were about 2,500 tax parcels with a total assessed value in excess of $114 million located in Bothell.12 We estimated that there are about 100 non-residential tax parcels in the city.13 The standard approach when applying the proportional valuation method assumes a condition of decreasing costs. This assumption means that the costs of providing city services to new developments will be less than the current costs for existing users. This ap- proach is reasonable when the assessed value of the new development is small relative to the size of the current non-residential asss- sed value. However, this is not the case for the proposal or any alternative. Therefore, we used an assumption of constant costs. This assumes that the cost of services to new users will be equal to the costs for existing users. Based on our assumption of constant cost and our estimates for non-residential parcels and assessed valuation, we allocated l2These figures were obtained from the City of Bothell and the King County Assessor's Office. l3This estimate was provided by a windshield survey and are consistant with the Munday study cited above. -236- .. ~ I I I t a t ~ I I ~ I ~ I ,~ I ~~ II ~l I U I ~ I ,j I ;j I ". , I D U I m E I I I I I I I , I I I I , I I I 13 $750,000 (out of the $2,257,821 total) for the non-residential share of the budget. Then, for the proposal and each alternative we used the proportional valuation metho~ to estimate increased costs. Our results are presented in Table 7. Table 7: Additional Annual Costs - Employment Anticipation Method Total Cost Proposal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 $228,476 291,817 264,644 268,354 266,031 271,162 Net Revenue The annual net revenue to the city is calculated by subtrac- ting the annual additional cost from the annual additional revenue. In all cases the net revenue to the city is positive. The pro- posa1 and each alternative will provide the City of Bothel1 with an annual fiscal surplus. This means that each development proposal will pay for itself (based on operating costs) and contribute ad- ditional revenues for the city's use. -'1.37- - III. ANALYSIS OF PRIVATE SECTOR ECONOMIC IMPACTS sununary\ The impact on the local economy is considered in two parts. First" we consider the direct benefits to the local economy gener- ated by the development. The direct private benefits occur during the initial construction phase of the development and each year thereafter for the useful life of the development. Second, we consider the indirect employment and income benefits generated by the development. The private sector benefits of this development accrue to several different groups of people during the construction phase of this project: 1. To the construction workers who build the development and earn income; 2. To the local suppliers who provide lumber, building materials, appliances, furniture and other supplies. 3. To local institutions that provide the necessary finan- cing, insurance services and related activities; and 4. To workers who improve and beautify the land prior to building. The indirect benefits to the private sector are generated by the direct beneficiaries. Income flowing to the direct benefi- ciaries will be respent within the community creating the indirect benefits. Table 8 presents our estimates of the total value of the pri- vate sector benefits. Table 9 expresses these dollar values in terms of employment effects. -238- 14 J I 4. t ,ie J I I 1dI I HI I , i I !.K I . I "K I ~jJ I I ;..;i I d J I ,I I I I I . , I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 Table 8: Value of Private Sector Benefits (Millions of Dollars) \ Construction Phase Operations Phase Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Proposal 2.007 1. 334 3.351 6.556 2.562 9.118 Alternative 1 1.142 0.765 1. 907 3.340 1. 306 4.646 Alternative 2 1. 583 1. 061 2.644 4.954 1.936 6.890 Alternative 3 1.871 1. 254 3.125 6.971 2.724 9.695 Alternative 4 0.805 0.540 1.345 1. 602 0.626 2.228 Alternative 5 1. 293 0.866 2.159 2.988 1.168 4.156 Table 9: Private Sector Employment Effects (Number of New Jobs in Man-Years) Construction Phase Operations Phase Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Proposal 100 67 167 426 167 593 Alternative 1 57 38 95 219 86 305 Alternative 2 78 53 131 325 127 452 Alternative 3 93 62 155 377 147 524 Alternative 4 40 27 67 168 66 234 Alternative 5 64 43 107 313 122 435 Direct Benefits Direct benefits are measured by the income which will flow to the residents of the City of Bothe1l. For each alternative this depended upon the total cost of construction and site preparation. Construction costs are presented in Table 2. Site preparation costs were estimated to be $8,000,000 for each alternative.14 14S' ., d b ~te preparat~on est~mates were prepare y the Koll Company. -239- 16 These two figures then represent the total cost of construction. This total cost is distributed somewhat unevenly between labor and material expense. On site labor accOunts for forty percent,of the total.lS This amount, then, accrues as income to workers. We estimated that only five percent of this total labor income will go 'to workers who reside in the City of Bothell. This labor income amount is entered in Table 8 as Direct, Construction Phase. Sixty percent of the total construction budget is for material. Based on earlier studies, it is estilnated that thirty percent of these expenditures will generate income for local area residents16__ the local area being the Seattle-Everett SMSA. Again, we estimated that only five percent of this local income will accrue to Bothell residents. This material generated income is part of the Direct, Construction Phase income in Table 8. The total direct, construction phase income for each alterna- tive is the sum of the labor and materials components. These fig- ures should be regarded as conservative since they do not include any local income benefits which will accrue to real estate sales- people, financial intermediaries or insurance agents. Moreover, there is no estimate for tenant's start-up costs, e.g., furniture, fixtures or equipment. While these expenses may be large (with a majority of the total captured by Bothell merchants), there is no lSThis figure was estilnated by the Koll Company. cord with other estimates, see: Federal Home Loan Bank cisco, Proceedinqs of the Third Annual Conference: The Housinq, December, 1977. 16 See, Charles M. Tiebout, The Community Economic Base Study, Committee for Economic Development, New York, N.Y., 1962. It is in ac- of San Fran- Cost of -240- I ... I I :)i-~ I "'. J I '"" I i"i! I ;~ , I .., I ~ .-b I ,_I I i~ii I ,'~ I ~& , I ',1 I . I I I I I E I I I I I I E I I I I I I I 17 way to avoid speculation in calculating these magnitudes, The direct benefits due to the construction phase can also be expressed in terms of employment impa~ts. This is done in Ta- I ble 9. Employment was calculated by dividing the direct income by the annual wage paid in King County for general construction 17 workers. While direct benefits will accrue to Bothell during the con- struction phase, Bothell city residents will also experience bene- fits during the economic life of the development (operations phase). The businesses located in the development will generate income and create employment opportunities. Unlike construction phase bene- fits which terminate upon completion, these benefits will continue to flow annually for a number of years into the future. The private sector benefits accrue to several different groups of people during the operations phases of this project: 1. Local area merchants who provide goods and services; 2. Financial institutions which provide services to those people with new savings and loan needs; 3. Construction and contracting firms who respond to new needs; and 4. Local area suppliers to the merchants. To estimate the direct benefit during each operating year we first estimated total annual sales for each alternative. This was done by multiplying each type of total employment from Table 3 by l7The annual wage was derived from Washington State Employment Security Department, Employment and Payrolls in Washington State by County and by Industry, Th~rd Quarter, 1979. -241- 18 the annual wage in King County for that type of employment.18 This provided an estimate of the total income generated. Only twelve percent of the total income was allocate~ to Bothell residents, based on our resident employment estimate. This figure for each. alternative is presented in Table 8 as Operation Phase, Direct benefi t. This income benefit can also be expressed in terms of employ- ment. While Table 3 presents the total employment for each alter- native, not all employees will reside in the city. By dividing the direct, operations phase income by the appropriate weighted average annual wage, we obtained the estimated number of employ- ees who would live in Bothell. This figure is given in Table 9 as Operations Phase, Direct Employment. Indirect Benefits Indirect or secondary benefits accrue to the local economy because income recipients spend part of their income in the local economy which generates a second round of new income. This pro- cess continues a third, fourth, fifth, etc., time. The sum of these additional rounds of income generation provides an estimate of secondary income benefits to the economy. To quantify these secondary benefits, it is necessary to estimate what proportion of an individual's extra income will be spent in the local economy. It has been estimated that twenty percent of an individual's income will go for tax payments--sales, 18 Annual wage figures were from Employment and Payrolls..., op. cit. -242- I i;1l" I ~j.\ I ii 'I .;,~ J I :riB I d I .,!, I . ~,~ I .~ I ~Ji I oj I LA I H I .Ji I ,j I ,.I I .1 I .. -I I I D D a I I I I I I I I I I I I I 19 income, etc. Of the remaining 80 percent it is assumed that one- half will be spent on locally produced goods and services. (This assumption ~epresents a lower bound estimate based on a Chamber- of Commerce Studyl9 of the employment multiplier for a local com- munity.) These assumptions result in an income multiplier of 1.67.. This means that every Sl generated in new (direct) income generates an additional 67~ in income (indirect). During the construction phase each SlOO of direct income will generate an additional S67 of indirect income. Indirect income is presented in Table B and the indirect employment effect is presented in Table 9 for each alternative. As with the direct ef- fects for the construction phase, these estimates represent five percent of the total - the other ninety-five percent flowing to non-city_ residents. To calculate the indirect income from the operations phase we calculated first the totaliindirect effect by multiplying total sales by .67. We assume that only seven percent of this indirect income will remain in the local city economy. This is less than the twelve percent capture ratio used for estimating the direct operations phase benefits, since some of the spending which gener- ates this indirect income will take place outside the City of Both- ell. Total Effect The total private sector impact for each alternative is the sum of the direct and indirect effects. These totals are expressed 19What New Jobs Mean to a Community, Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1973. -243- - in income terms in Table 8 and resident employment terms in Table 9. The benefits from the construction phase end when construction is complete. However, the operations phase'\benefits continue as long as the development is economically viable. -244- 20 t <II I ~~,. I I I I I ,.U I ,;:.. I ,.~ I ... I -.~!. I :.8 I .,;.)J I ,.. I .....; I ,..cll I .1 I .J I -_.! I I I , D I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I L 21 IV. OTHER IMPACTS The previous two sections of th~report identified the meas- . urable public and private sector impacts. In addition to those impacts, there will be other'effects which either do not accrue to the City of Bothell or its residents or are effects which are not measurable. This section discusses briefly eleven such impacts. Other Public Sector Revenue The public sector revenue analysis in Part II indentified only those revenues flowing to the City of Bothell for current operations purposes. In addition, each alternative will generate -- property tax revenues based on specific purpose levies. These re- 20 Tables lO, II and l2 . venues for each alternative are given in Table lO: Municipal Revenues for Specific Funds Emergency . Services Library Total Proposal Sl1,223 S2,00l Sl3,224 Alternative 1 6,732 l,200 7,932 Alternative 2 9,027 l,609 10,636 Alternative 3 lO,527 l,B77 12,404 Alternative 4 4,97B B8B 5,B66 Alternative 5 7,514 l,340 8,854 20 'd Tax rates were prov~ ed by the King County Assessor's Office. -245- Table 13: Fee and Permit Revenue Building Plan Plan Review & Permit Check Application Sales Fee Charges Fees Tax Total Proposal $217,683 $l4l,494 $3Q,075 $435,000 $824,252 Alternative 1 l30,647 84,921 30,075 260,930 506,573 Alternative 2 l75,l23 113,830 30,075 349,880 668,908 Alternative 3 204,l90 l32,723 30,075 408,Ol5 775,003 Alternative 4 96,652 62,824 30,075 192,935 382,486 Al te rna ti ve 5 145,798 94,769 30,075 29l,230 56l,872 Consumer Convenience To the extent that the development brings new retail shopping facilities to the Bothell area, all consumers will benefit. This will occur for two reasons. First, additional shopping sites can only increase the variety, choice and location of items for con- sumers. With more choices consumers can be no worse off than be- fore.' If they patronize the new outlets they will be doing so by choice, and hence be better off. If they continue to patronize their old outlets, they are no worse off. The second benefit will arise from increased competition for shoppers. This may lead to quality improvements, the introduction of new items, or price com- petition. All of these retailing strategies leave consumers better off than in their absence. To the extent that office users in the development provide ser- vices to local area merchants and households, the same arguments (as in the retail case) apply. Local merchants and households can be no worse off than before. -246- 23 I I I I l:5 I. ~. I >0) I }.j I d I ;.~ I _\.-fl I ;,~ I ~I , I i."cJ 'I j,,J " -I :J I .i I -. m I D I D D o U .1 I a I I 1 'I I . I D I I 22 Table ll: Revenues for Schools State Local Funds Bonds Total Proposal $257,607 $243,252 $500,859 Alternative 1 l54,522 145,911 300,433 Alternative 2 207,20l 195,655 402,856 Alternative 3 24l,625 228,l6l 489,786 Alternative 4 114,257 l07,89l 222,148 Alternative 5 l72,466 l62,855 335,32l Table II provides estimates of two types of new school reven- ues. State Funds flow to the State of Washington in support of education financing. Local Bonds funds flow to the local school district for repayment of past bond levy indebtedness. Table l2: Port, Hospital, County Revenues Port Hospital County Proposal $29,232 $29,928 $l25,54l Alternative 1 l7,534 l7,952 75,304 Alternative 2 23,5l2 24,072 lOO,976 Alternative 3 27,4l8 28,071 117,753 J\lternative 4 l2,965 l3,274 55,682 Alternative 5 19,57l 20,037 84,049 Construction Related Income Prior to the completion of a development certain charges and fees must be paid. These revenues will accrue to the city for services performed. To the extent that the fees paid exceed the cost of providing the services, these revenues will provide ad- ditional operating revenue for the city. These revenues are de- tailed in Table l3.2l 2lThe rates and charges for the services were taken from the 'DEIS. -247- Coordinated Development Whenever a large development can be constructed in a unified fashion ,rather than being the sum of a s$ries of smaller, inde- pendent developments, benefits from coordination will be genera- ted. A number of construction economies can be realized by plan- ning the development to occur in a timely manner. Bottlenecks in materials and labor markets are less likely to develop. Constraints may be placed on the entire development, rather than having to develop strategies for many sites individually. The provision of public services often can be accomplished by realizing some econom- ies of size. Finally, the development can be marketed in a timely fashion'to minimize the market distortion, which could be created otherwise. Location The site for this development is essentially free of existing economic activity. Therefore, there will be no need for demoli- tion, conversion or removal of,existing enterprises. Hence, there is no need to calculate the economic costs for for this purpose. Integrated Area Effects Our analysis of the private sector benefits included only the benefits which would identifiably accrue to the Bothell residents. We allowed for a flow of spending and employment out of the Bothell area. This outflow was excluded from our estimates of private sector benefits. These. outflows will, of course, generate new in- come for the recipients. Bothell is part of an integrated economic area - the Seattle- Everett Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). Some of the - 248- 24 I I ~dl '. sa I t& .~ ! I ~Jj I ;;1 I ,.~ ' I .~i . di~ I :i.4 I d I .u I ~~ ,I '. a " I d I ..-' I- E I I I I I I D I 1 I I I I I . I I 25 outflow will go to people living in the SMSA but outside of Bothell. These SMSA residents, due to their higher incomes, will purchase some goods and services from establishmepts located in Bothell. , . This will generate additional private sector benefits for the city. This type of "return flow" effect means that our private sector benefits should be viewed as a minimum estimate.. Related Residential Development In our analysis of the private sector, benefit we estimated that twelve percent of the total employment would be local resi- dents. Some of this local resident employment will come from cur- rent Bothell residents. The other part will come from new residents moving into the area. It is not possible to calculate how many new residents (and, hence, households) will be attracted to the city. However, to the extent that new households do enter the city, they will be responsible for generating additional revenues and costs for the City of Bothell. Without undertaking a specific analysis of this residential development we cannot estimate the net revenue effects of these new households. Sales Diversion The construction of new shopping and office space will divert some, current activity from existing establishments in the City of Bothell. The impact and magnitude of this diversion has been anal- yzed by Bill Munday and Associates.22 In our estimates we have reduced benefits'to account for this diversion effect. However, Alternatives 4 and 5 are substantially larger than the development 22Bill Munday and Associates, "A Market Impact....", op. , cit. -249- 26 analyzed by Munday and Associates. Thus, the diversion effects for these two alternatives may be greater than estimated. However, in the absence of a detailed study we cannot estimate how much greater . this diversion effect might be. Local Area Purchases During the operations phase of the development the new estab- lishments will need to purchase supplies and materials. Some of these purchases will come from local merchants. This will add economic activity to the City of Bothell. The magnitude of this local area purchasing effect will depend on the precise type of stores located at the development, thus specific estimates are not possible. However, based on a smallest effect and largest effect set of calculations (excluding Alterna- tive 3, non-commercial), this impact may range between $200,000 and $800,000 annually in additional sales.22 Risk Since this is a private sector development, the risk for mar- ket failure falls principally on the individuals, corporations, and/or partnerships involved. However, the City of Bothell is not without risk totally. There is always the,probability, however small, that the de- velopment may not succeed. The cost to the city in this event will be the value of any fixed-place services.provided 'in anticipation 22Data from: Cash Register Co., Marketing and Education Publication, National Expenses in Retail Business, Dayton, Ohio, 1973. -25Q- lJ ill l' , I t "" I ::::JI I \"~ I ~ 0- J ....;t I .,;.~ I ....~ I I i:...s I ,",~.D I I ~ ~ I ,j I. I I I I I I I E I I I I I I I i E I I 27 23 of future revenue. This development has been researched in great depth. While we have not extensively reviewed the analyses of others relative to this development, we have used some of their I . about their techniques and research, and we feel quite comfortable results. Thus, we believe that the probability of failure is extremely small. Moreover, to the extent that the developer pays all (or shares in) fixed-place infrastructure costs, the risk exposure for the city is virtually non-existant. Timing All estimates in this report were calculated for completed alternatives. This was done so that comparisons between alterna- tives would be commensurate. To do otherwise, would have made comparison of alternatives much more difficult, if not distorted. In fact, any of the alternatives considered will take a number of years to complete. Thus, the full set of benefits, revenues and costs will not materialize immediately. For the private sector this lag in development presents no problem. The result will be that the total benefits, both direct and indirect, will build up over a period of years. This may be beneficial. It will give the local area economy time to adjust and absorb this new development in an orderly fashion. 23In this case the losses may only be short-term ones. To the extent that growth in King County continues, even a partially com- pleted development would be marketable to another group. Eventually, then, the services would be needed, and the loss would terminate upon completion of the new development. -2Sl- 28 I ;:,II I I iIJI I I u I I i-IJ I .8 . ~j I ~~ I ..8 I ;.1 'I il '. U ., J J . .J I ,.I For the public sector the issue is whether costs will be incur- red before revenues are received during the initial development stage. It is impossible to project the answer to this question . without specific construction plans and a public sector capital im- provements program. Moreover, the speed with which revenues accrue to the city depends, in part, upon how fast tax assessment is done and collections credited to the city. . To minimize any potential problem, then, it is important for the developer and the city to coordinate their plans, and for the city to make every effort to see that assessment is done in a timely fashion. Even if some costs do preceed revenues, this adverse effect can be minimized, if not completely offset. First, the development will generate substantial amounts of construction related income (see Table l3). Second, since each alternative will ultimately provide a positive net revenue to the city, the city can borrow short term funds to be repaid from this surplus. This would not impose any additional debt burden for the existing community. A third altern- ative would be to recognize that as the project is completed the total assessed valuation for the city will rise. This will increase the city's long term borrowing capacity. This would allow the city to borrow short term (perhaps internally) and repay long term with~ out increasing the city's current debt to assessed value ratio. This alternative has the advantage of charging the debt repayment over the life of the project, so that beneficiaries pay proportiqn- ally over time. Thus, we do not believe that the timing issue is a significant -252- I. I I I - E I I I I I I I . . , I ! I I I 29 economic problem. There may be some short term cash flow consider- ations, but solutions exist. since the long term benefits, both public and private, are positive, we bel+eve any short term prob- . ! lems can be solved. -253- Comment Letter from University of PUlliet Sound. Department of Economics Response: This study reaches the same general conclusion regarding fiscal impacts to the City of Bothell as the studies presented in the DraftEIS. Note that the fiscal impacts section has been revised slightly in the Draft EIS to make the employment estimates for light industrial activities consistent with the estimates used in the TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULA TION section. Although this change would also affect the results of the Employment Anticipation method slightly, the overall conclusions would not be affected and would be balanced by the reduction in cost of electrical power (see letter from Puget Power). The City of Bothell has reviewed the study and found that it is generally accurate with the following clarifications: (0 Not enough information is available to verify the existing "general government" costs listed on page 10 of the study; and (2) there is an apparent addition error in Table 6 - the total cost of Alternative 1 should be $189,4.59. -254- I I I I I I j,J R I d I j," I "j ~ I u I d I .k ~ I >.1 I d I d I -': SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNlY AOMINISTRATION BUILDING. EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201 . (206) 259-9311 George F. Sh.win, Jr" Direeror April 9, 1981 Mr. Dan Taylor, Director Department of Community Development l830S lOlst Street Northeast Bothell, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: We have reviewed the Statement (DEIS) and planning's response. topics: Xoll Business Center Draft Environmental Impact offer this letter as the Office of Community Our comments are categorized into the following Land Use Transportation/Circulation Population Water Resources and Quality Utilities Alternatives f.and Use As mentioned in our previous response to the North Creek Valley Comprehensive Plan DEIS (letter dated 9/19/79), the land uses north of the county line are governed by our North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan. This plan was adopted in 1977, and represents a long citizen involvement process. As.the Xoll DEIS correctly states, the county's North Creek Plan encourages agricultural land preservation. However, the DEIS on page 56 also states that the North Creek Plan establishes agricultural land conversion policies when farming is no longer financially viable. This statement is incorrect. The North Creek Plan establishes the need to preserve prime agricultural lands as a limited resource, as evidenced in the following Plan excerpt: Aariculture GOAL: Prime agricultural land should be preserved as a renewable resource for the use and benefit of current and future generations. POLICIES: l. Promote the retention in agricultural use of upland farming areaS occurring on Class II and III rated soils which remain in acreage large enough to be farmed economically. (Soil Conservation Service classification.) "Z55- , J Bothell's North Creek Valley Plan mentions agricultural choices: .An impervious surface coverage allotment . . . helps maintain open space and leaves agricultural and development choices open for future generations. . .. (page 53 Koll DEIS). The ability of such a policy to preserve viable parcels of agricultural land seems, however, severely impaired due to other development pOlicies for the valley floor. I \lJi I I ~ I i.lI 3. Urban and other types of preemptive development should be I directed away from price or other highly productive agricultural lands. Ii 4. ,No public or private action should be taken which would II substantially impair or diminish the present uses, values,' or enjoyments of agricultural land in the North Creek' Planning Area. ." DISCUSSION: " ....The recommendation of this plan is not just to preserve the I farming enterprises, as they may change depending on market ,& conditions, but it is one of protecting, if possible, a limited I resource... which cannot be replaced in upland areas without great cost to society. Since most of the areas now intensively farmed are lOCated in the North Creek drainageway and also in the ,li Thomas Lake area, they are designated Watershed-Site Sensitive I areas, which is a rural kind of environment that will allow ' agricultural activity to occur without an immediate threat of land ,t use conversion.. (North Creek Area Comprehensive Plan, p. 26)1 These pOlicies are derived from the resource value of the land, a ,,& topic which is not addressed in the DEIS. Since the DEIS does not discuss potential soil productivity, one cannot assess the value that ,I would be lost to current and future generations. Whereas the resource value of the land remains relatively stable over a period of years, ~ the economics of agricultural usage may change conSiderably. An " economic decision to irreversibly commit prime agricultural lands to uses that totally remove agricultural potential when other lands are J available would indeed be myopic. If other suitable lands are not available, then the short-term profit/long-term resource value trade- ',.1 off must be reconsidered. Although the North Creek Plan does provide ~j for limited development in rural and watershed-site sensitive land use designations, it is incorrect to characterize the agricultural , preservation policies contained in the North Creek Plan as being exclusively subject to considerations of economic viability.' I ,J I "I I ,1 I 2. Encourage the continuance of agricultural pursuits in areas where each activity has traditionally taken place. I -256- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The North Creek Plan (county) designates most valley floor agricultural lands Wwatershed-site sensitiveW which precludes cOJ:llllercial or industrial uses, but allows limited residential uses. Th~ North Creek Valley Plan (Bothell) does not allow single family residental uses in the valley floor, but encourages cOJ:llllercial, certain types of manufacturing, and business/professional/educational uses. These features exemplify discrepancies between the two plans where they meet at the county line. The land immediately north of the proposed business center is currently used,as a dairy farm. A major portion of this 80+ acre site contains prime agricultural soils with capability Classes II and III. The development of a business center would impact the use of this parcel and others in the immediate area. The DEIS does not consider the use of buffers to mitigate impacts between these incompatible uses. In summary, we find that: 1) the North Creek Plan (county) is not represented accurately in the Roll DEIS, 2) the DEIS does not discuss agricultural lands as a natural resource, 3) adverse impacts to adjacent agricultural uses are not adequately represented, and 4) the North Creek and North Creek Valley Land Use Plans are not Wgenerally consistent" as specified on page 57 of the Roll DEIS. TranSDortation/Circulation 'The transportation and circulation section shows in figure 17 (page 79) that only 48 north-bound and 30 south-bound trips during the p.m. peak hour would be generated on 120th Avenue northeast upon full development of the business center. In contrast, the economic analysis on page 101 states that WIt is highly likely that the freeway will also form a western boundary for the proposed center, with the primary trade area 'extending into a northeasterly direction-. A major access 2 road from this trade area to the business center will be l20th Avenue Northeast. Impacts on roads in Snohomish County may therefore be more severe than described. The DEIS acknowledges potentially serious impacts if road improvements are not coopleted to oitigate traffic impacts. Widening of Northeast 195th Street and the freeway overpass, and signal improvements along Northeast 195th Street are listed as ,necessary mitigating measures. In the apparent absence of a commitment by the developer, it must be assumed that the 'City of Bothell and possibly the state will find it necessary to finance these improvements. The DEIS does not state the cost of the road improvements, however, the appendix describing the -3 fiscal impacts contains a cooputation of costs induced by this development. The annual cost figure for streets is estimated to be $25,747 (page 146). This cost figure appears to be underestimated, while the revenues from this development appear overestimated. The time lag for tax revenues and the annual decline of the levy rate (due -257- I , t ~~ to the l06' property tax lid) will reduce the apparent revenue discussed on page 147. surplus I ,,~ 3 I f~ ~ J I -l:J Another example of inconsistent impact description occurs on pages 82 I and 85. The school impact section (page 82) states that -the proposed' si te development is not expected to have a signif icant impact' on,l schools in the area since the proposal is not expected to cause a substantial shift in population. . .the employees will be distributed .t over rather wide area and would not significantly impact one school or district-. The energy section, however, contains the following ~~ statement -the concentration of potentially 3,550 workers upon full development would provide substantial opportunities for car pooling and could lead to expansion of transit service to the area. These factors, along with the opportunity of living within close proximity to the site, could tend to reduce fuel expenditures by site employees and other employees in the vicinity.- (page 85) The lack OL a developer's commitment to necessary road improvements and the lack of tax revenues for road construction is of concern to Snohomish County because the County would experience unmitigated traffic impacts. Even with construction of the reco~ended improvements, the traffic impacts on Snohomish County roads will be greater than that which is disclosed in the draft EIS. PODulation 4 ., I -l.'" 5 On page 59, -a few of the 3,550 employees could change their residence I locations as a result of the project, al~hough signi~icant r7locations.' are not anticipated. Clientele for poss~ble commerc~al/reta~l i business would be drawn from existing neighborhoods.- On the same page, however, the DElS discusses accelerated demand for mUlti-family housing and increased pressure to amend Snohomish County's comprehensive land use plan to acco~odate more intensive uses. These descriptions of impacts are somewhat ambiguous1 in one instance it appears that residential densities would increase in areas near the center but read a different way, such increased densities would be dispersed. I ",.1 :, I ~l -, I "j I i I Water Resources and Oualitv Our comments concerning water resources and quality can be to specific pages. Some are comments, some are questions, identify n~eded clarification. referenced and some 01 71 Page 3 - Would the erosion control plan include temporary erosion control measures to be implemented Drior to initiation of earthwork? Page 19 and 31 - Our recent experience as a member of the Department of Ecology's Urban Runoff Technical Committee indicates that the types -258- . I II' I' I ; I I 7 8 I Page 27 - On lines 4 and 13, there is a conflict concerning reseeding I of bare soil, i.e., "will" vs. "should". I 9 I I /0 I I I I Ell I I I I I of oil separators generally used are not effective. For the DEIS should elaborate on the design to be employed. that the American Petroleum Institute is considering new improved effectiveness. this reason, t'1e understand designs with Page 29 - The relocation of North Creek is a critical component of the Roll development concept. Yet the response at the top of page 29 is very indefinite. A detailed commitment of the developer's role in construction and insuring the minimization of impact should be made a part of the DEIS, either as a developer proposal, or as a potential mitigating measure. Page 33 - Settling basins do not have the capability of removing heavy metals in solution unless the water body's pH factor is very high or very low. North Creek is typically a neutral pH water body, therefore settling basins would have little effect in removing heavy metals. Another water resources factor is the floodplain itself. North Creek Valley Plan advocates: Bothell ' s protection of potential North Creek floodplains to eliminate the necessity of further channelization7 . a moritorium on any development of lands under jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act until the floodplain is defined7 the use of floodplain zoning and flood proofing to protect the flood fringe areas within the floodplain. A flood insurance study has been underway for the lower North Creek area and preliminary floodplain and stream profile mapping is available. The maps indicate that approximately 20-25% of the instant site is within the preliminary 100 year floodplain, and that the floodplain in the northwest quadrant of the site is up to 900 feet wide. These circumstances raise the question of how the Roll proposal complies with Bothell's land use plan: * If the shoreline management zone is the potential 100 year floodplain, then the proposal must conflict with the plan. the shoreline zone is 200 feet on each side, and the "relocated" stream corridor is less than 400 feet, (which it is in all instances except in the southeast quadrant), a conflict must also exist. If * If the preliminary floodplain map is accurate, and if the stream corridor is designed to pass the one-hundred year -259- Alternatives I t . ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~; '1, ~ J J ~~ cl ~) "I ;i -I ,J ~I ~j J I ~ I ,j I . I I flood, significant channelization must occur in the northwest quadrant, either by fill which encroaches on the stream corridor, or by creating levees at the edge of the corridor as implied by the stream cross sectio~ in Figure 6. Such appears contrary to the plan's goal of eliminating further channelization. Ii * The proposal requests Dmixed useD zoning for the instant 140 acre parcel. We did not find any suggestion for floodplain zoning as advocated by the land use plan, nor mention of floodproofing. Because of the extensive regrading which is proposed and Figure 6, we suspect floodproofing is a moot issue. The preliminary flood insurance study was referenced on page 21, but we suspect additional information has become available since release of the DEIS. We suggest that the FEIS provide a thorough discussion of the flood study, clarification of the lOO year floodplain vs. the floodway, and how the proposal relates to Bothell's land use plan in view of the flood study. ~ Utilities Utilities are discussed at page 8 and 88. Page 8 discloses that sewer lines .would be oversized in accordance with city requirements to serve potential additional development in the areaD. The site would be served by a 2760 foot extension from the METRO trunk which parellels l85th Street. Because the natural drainage in the area is southerly, and because this extension is in proximity to Snohomish County, the extension would seem to be subject to METRO resolution number 2933 which requires a certification of land use consistency from Snohomish County. It would be difficult for us to support such a certification until a rationale for line sizing, and the proposed geographic service area is delineated. The particulars of this certification may not be needed in the DEIS, however, we strongly encourage an elaboration of the Dover sizingD comment which appears on page 8. The DEIS contains no meaningful discussion of alternative sites. The DEIS only concludes that there are other sites, and since the existing conditions at those sites are substantially similar, the impacts would be similar. Meaningful alternatives are limited to varying the type, mix, and density of developing the instant parcel. o The advent of the Barrie II vs. Kitsao Countv case has added new meaning to NAC 197.10.440 and the need to consider alternative sites in impact statements. We suggest that prior to issuance of the FE IS that Bothell obtain legal advice concerning the adequacy of the -260~ . . . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 'alternatives discussion in the DEIS in light of the decision. Barrie II Sincerely, 'Thank you for the opportunity to comment. OFFICE OF COrmUNITY PLANNING "5k}L 16-e.- 'Ste~en Rice, Section Resource Planning SR:cs Bead -26l- I ,ti 'I ' ~ SNOHOMISH COUNTY"' PLANNI~G CEPARTMENTI C:OtlNI'Y .'IIM''''I'.!':..., II)N 1'. 'I, It'-.I.. I \'1 III 1: W.\".I.I~!I;: 11~1 'I:' '11' . (."11., ,","'nll G!ID""' ,. Sh...wIIl. Jr,. II,,,,.,,," I .d I d I is I cl '. , I ,/ I I I " ..,ll I :;J I " lk,1 I ,i I. :.,,~ I "t I I I I I " ....... " - o!': .' '., ~' . S"I'I,'mhrr 19, 1979 I ., .. . Mr. Daaial Taylor Community Development Olrrctor Departmeat of Community Development City of Bothell 18305 - 101.t Avenue Bothell, Washington 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: In respon.e to the DEIS on wish to make the following L the North pr~ek V~lley Comprehensive Plan, we cOlllllents. We find it quite difficult to provld.'.anv constructlvt' crHldAm or recOllllllendation. because of the l\enrra~ lullllrc' "I' thr Ilvl' IIltrnlllllv('A. lie aho believe that ther.. are fnll'\'n~1 'n....nAI"I..nl.I..H In 1111' 01"''''''11'_ tian. af the alternatives which shunl<< h.. n.rn'clt'd. I'or example, alternative II is limited to a teo pejrc"nt mllxfmUID surface ,'ovt'rlll\c on any parcel (p. II-8), A subsequent pltra!;raph on paRI! 1 V-36 sn!;gests. however, that the ten percent Ilmltat.on onlv applies to th(' V~llry floor alld nsubsequential heavy developllll'nt for slope areas" (p. IV-27) is apparently expected in alternative; II. 'I'h('re Is even ~ discussion (I'. IV-36) of multi-famtly units (~4),acrr.), ,'ommerc!1\1 .1nd industrial actiVities even though on paRe 111-18~ a typfc~l 10 to 20 percent impervtau. surface coverage Is eqUAte? with forests, pastures, farms and low density relidentlal areas. : This lack of definition of alternatlviA Is "Vt'n moreo prononncrd In thr alternative. III,' IV and v. It Is stat.." ,,,, ,"":" II-H, rill' ,'xlIlI1pl,.. that altarnativl!A III and IV will I"'''I/fol,. Ill" IIl:rlnJltnrlll 'u",,,, II .hould ba recollnl zed, howrvl,.. I hill II':' n, 1>1' "V,'n '.Ir... ""1'1 :,,'c' "lIv"ra'~f' lIIeanl the end of agricultural act IVI t~... ""I'III1S.. of rrslIltln!; p~rl'l'1 .ize and .uburban/urban en,'roachment prllb Il',"s. \/hUe the description of the alternatlvrs r"lIIIllnA very ~en..r"l In Section II, it becomel quite s!'..cf ffc In ct",p~..r IV with tlrt~Ih'cl rnfnnnntfon \1n each expected land usr mix Incl''''lnl~ .l'....II'~f. rll:ure. for r:u'" 1:11111 """. No infotlll8tion appears to be Incllldr<J ('''nl'l'rnln'l the mcthOdolullY used to arrive at thoee figures. Since very ~1ttlc Information about the spatial distribution is provided, It Is allaln;dl fflclllt to make any r..commrndatlnns. i I -26t- Ii:: .., . I: I: "I,: l . I I I I 1 :1 I I I I 1 I I, Mr. Daniel Taylor I: ,:~ ..~Iovt.. on _"" '" 'P""'~ ",," '" "". .."", p~, II-15, line 5: Revise this sl'nt""~t tll r('tlel: """, '1,.ltbv AI''''' Plnn h currently betng revised Whll"llh., Alell'l"Woo<1 I'lnn w,~s neloptf'd In 1973." ,I p.' II-l5, line 7: Delete: "A sll....'~c,r.. (hl'l'nllse nIl I~Ilnls fill' thl' North Creek Planning Aren arc f ": "dedI. , p. II-19, line 4 and 5: Rl'word to: ' he fa 110wl nR nre thl' IlOD 15 thnt the alope policy was destgne<1 to al'hil'vc':". 1 p. II-25, line 3: The creek's name i Fl'nnv Crl'l'k. p. III-12: The dhcuuion of hydrolo Is very Ilenernl and cootnlns little lite Ipecific informatIon I No m"lItllln Is ..n," , h.'r.' or the Ribco or the WASil-USE I AtUlI ~" whid. hllth r.','o.nllt'n,1 fI"lld plain zoning along North Cre,'k, :; o! p. 111-26: The zoninR map for Snohom h C''IIntv's part of th,' "tUlly araa h generally incorrel't. M" t zllnlnll hl'twl"'1I 1-5, ~Il "~7 nnd SR-522, for ellample, Is either R III C..n.,'rvnllllll U.;! II.,..., ,lIIintlllllll lot 11&e) or SlIburhan Alo: ,',dtllr,' - I a,'rl', p. ,III-27: Reword line 2 to: "Till'S'" unl's Inl'hllll': Hllral Cnn.ervntlon (RC), Suburban ARrtculturf' - In" (~;.\-I), nn<1 Hllrnl Ill'.id,'ntinl 9,600 (RR 9,600) in Snohomish Co tv..... p. IV-6, linel 7-11: These two sl'ntl' I'S do not adequatl'ly descrlhe thl' affectl of development on the wa r ho Id i nl: ""pRl'i tv n f tht, sill I "; in fact, they are cant radt ctory.' In allllllllllry, the Snohomish County Pin nil Il"pnrtment wOllld sllpport nn alternative that would be consistent J.~lh ~nlll"'lIIi.h C"nntv'. 1'I'lIIprl'ht'nslvl! ,plan for tbe'North Creek Area. ThIs nn ,1,'sl~n:ltt'S Ih,' vnllt,v flonr north of the County line al "Watershed/Sit" ""Hlllv.'" rl'.t.'lt'llnl: ,1,'v,'lllplllf'nl tn agricultural or rural residentIal IISI' '. '11.1' "plnnd "r<'fIS t" thl' "".t IIn' designated Rural (1 to 2.2 ncre rl'Sld.ijstl"l 1111.\ "nd to th" west ~;lIhurh"n or Residential Estates (residential Iqt. or 4,bllll to 211,000 5'1unr~ fl'l't). It appears that alternative 11 would i' m"st sIIftt'd for the valll'v rloor and eastern upland area while altern" 'v,, 111 ,'ould he "1'(>111'<1 to'tlot. upland areas west of North Creek. These des~ natinns (without the mllltl-f".lily or commercial option) for the IRO acres .n Snohomish County wOllld be I'nn5istent with the County's comprehensive plnn.'iiS,,"th ." thl' Countv Ilni>, the !'Illnnlnl: Department would support en alternRtl1/t whirh "Iso iR compntlhll' with 1\", County's land use plan, does not I'xl'r#! 1'...'".11...' for prl'matllre l'OnVl'rston to higher intensity land uses, and protl'~~' th., intl'l:rit\' of tl", N"rth Crl'ek- drainage baa in. ;~ Thank you for the opportunl ty to l'nmln~\l on I hI' MTS. Sincorely, I , ! ~9JI~lSH W~ING flF.PARTMENT I _.f" I :, .,' ~-- { 'J(:, laus SchildI' -263- Sl'nlnr Planner KS:mst :.:n.:~~.,.. '. I :. OFFICE OF rHE COMMISSIONE RS SNOHOMIS... COUNTY 301!>> Wpt..,.,... AlI'""I,.. E"'~ln W....l".,.;l....'. ')~.'Ol 12001 2~!:H).~'W DONALD K, MDA Co.nlhlS111lIlo:f OiStrlC1 41 J, B, HAINlS COmmlUlOllfH n'..UU.1 :.2 DONALD BRITTON Comn,iuloner District -3 S. M, RUST Ad.nlnlSUJIW" OlreclDi ClIi...nd To... A,h'ltl'UIl I"",,' Oil-flne.tI." Ed"",nd. E"....'. G"",.19., Or.1""! F,Us If...,... l.." -;:".",",,' ,....,n;wo..! MoJ.,.., ',Of ~..... .. Mot~n'I.'..e r....'h... ~1.lk'''1!'U Sn"""'J.n~" 51.._."" ;...,.... _Wt'lJII....ly , I ~ I ~ti DcccmhtH' :;n, 1070 I a:i I , ",~ Mr. JI"raJd L. Osterm:1D, City Manager City lOf BlOth,,) I 13~05 - lOlst N, E. Bothell, WA 9~O)1 I I 1.1 I 011 bt'half of th,' Board oC Snohornj>lh County ClO"Ullis,;i'.'I1"I'S d I am r"'!;pondinl( tll YOUI' It'ttl:!r t>xprl'ssll1g the Ci t.y 101 BothI'll's illtereHt in ~stabllshin~ formal proct>dur~s 101' coordinated planning in our area~ of mutual intprp!;~, Dear Mr, Osterman: I ~.j I .. i Ollr Board would be vHry interH!;tet1 in pursuinr, t.llis mattei' with all of the involved jurisdictions, W" ....ould suggest that :1 meeting bringing tug..,thnr el.",:t"d '..lfi,'iaJs from .-a,:h of thn jurisdictiuns, i.e. Buth..ll, Kin~ County, I Snohol!lish Coun q' and p" .'haps lIw Pu"..'l Sonnd Coun" i lor Go",. ernml'nls would UI.' In ol'dl'r, We wuuld hupe thaL your .!ntity d would take th.. 11':111 in arran"in~ l.hi;; or ROllle oth",' flll'1lm to di"<:u:<s th,' matl,"l., Sinc.'rely yours, I ,! BOARD OF COUNTY COM:.trSSIONERS SNOU<Etr SII COm;T\', \\' .\511 I NGTON I "I ,..; i,' 1/' ...../1 BY_~{.<M (dtc _~,- /7/_ .l"()!':ALD K. MOA Chairman I ;j I OKM:.,:; <:t'; Pl3nnin~ .j: ;:_'11 I ,! I ..,E -264- I i I - , I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I i I i I I Comment Letter from Snohomish CountY Planninl!: Department Response I: Response 2: While we concur with the quotations selected for use in the Planning Department's comment, there are several other quotations from the County plan that more closely conform to BotheH's, including the foHowing: "12) Overall viability of agricultural pursuits in the planning area is presumed to be fragile and limited, based on ,the following factors: a. lack of large land ownerships, i.e., acreages of 100 to 200 b. lack of adjoining ownerships of similar size or greater Co close proximity to processing plants d. lack of competitive local labor supply e. a short supply of good versatile soil which is not subject to Wlusually long periods of high moisture content and adverse cli- mate conditions such as excessive fog and frost. f. high land pr ices g. high taxes h. need for substantial capital investment with little or no promise of a viable economic return. 13) Agricultural type activity does occur in the area, but is more oriented toward animal husbandry than crop production. 14) The long term maintenance of agricultural type pursuits found to be the most prevalent in the planning area would require a rural environment wherein the overall average density of residential develop- ment does not exceed one dwelling Wlit per five acres." .The COWlty'S North Creek plan calls for I to 4 dwelling units per acre on a major portion of the farm adjacent to the Koll site. The remainder is "watershed-site sensitive" which allows one dwelling Wlit per 2.2 acres. Thus the lowest use category proposed in the County's plan is incompatible with agricultural use according to the COWlty'S plan. , Because of the above findings, the COWlty'S plan goes on to state: "No land use allocation has been made for agricultural uses." We have modified the discussion of land use and agriculture in the Final EIS to recognize the potential for varying interpretations and the Snohomish County Planning Department's concerns for po!ential con- flicts with existing use. Much of the retail traffic would result from "intercepting" local commuters and would not result in increased traffic levels on area streets. Snohomish County has approved substantial residential growth in the area that will result in increased trafflc levels. Many of these residents will use the retail services provided in the Koll project. -265- Response 3: The sponsor will be required to pay a "fair-share" of the costs of improvements needed to adequately handle traffic generated by the proposed project. The State Department of Transportation has indi- cated that no state funding is available for improvements to the overpass or intersections. The costs of the mitigating measure have not been determined. The costs referred to in the Fiscal Impacts appendix address annual mainte- - nance costs, not capital improvements. For further discussion, see the , comment and response for the Snohomish County Public Works Depart- ment letter. Response 4: The statements are not inconsistent. Existing patterns indicate that the employees will be distributed over a wide area. The ENERGY section states that there will be an opportunity for living within close proximity to the site. Response .5: The employees will be dispersed over a wide area. If the KolI Center is developed, adjacent property owners may be prompted to accelerate their plans to develop their property in accordance with the County's or the City's comprehensive plan. Many of the adjacent landowners have already announced their plans to do so independently of and prior to the Koll proposal. The genera! area is rapidly growing and will continue to do so with or without the KolI project. This overall growth is addressed in the EIS's for the County's North Creek Plan and BothI'll's Plan for the North Creek Valley. Many people may wish to locate near the KolI Center to take advantage of the services, open space and recreational opportunities offered. Thus, there may be an increased demand for residences in the area even though the new residents are not employed at the KolI site. Response 6: The erosion control plan will include temporary erosion control mea- sures to be implemented prior to initiation of earthwork. Response 7: Oil/water separators have generally not been effective because they have not been maintained. It would be the responsibility of the City (on public rights-of-way) and the tenants' association to maintain the oil/water separators. The CC&R's specify maintenance responsibility and will be recorded with the PUD application. -266- I ,~.;:; I H I 4J I , f I :i~~ I "1 I ..'-~ I , t I "f I ...1\ I d I ") I iJi I .i,a I :il I ,I I ~J I ,J I I '. I ' I I I . I . I I I I I I I I , I I The designs have not yet been prepared. Standard designs are being reviewed for effectiveness and appropriate application. Response 8: Individual parcels will be seeded if there is a delay between grading and development. Response 9: The concept of the relocation is still being discussed and the design is being developed in cooperation with the Departments of Fisheries and Game. See comments from these departments and from Timberline Reclamations. The details of design will be required to be specified prior to issuance of a Hydraulic Permit by these agencies. Response 10: This is correct. Heavy metals in solid form (as stated in the Draft EIS) would be removed. Response II: As stated in the Draft EIS, the 100-year floodway is presently contained within the existing channel of the creek, according to the HUD report. The preliminary floodplain study designates portions of the site as lying within the 10o-year floodplain. The proposal would significantly increase the existing 100-year f100dway through the site but would require diking along the northern border of the site. Additional discussion of the floodplain study and the question of compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding floodplains has been added to the Final EIS and in the Technical Appendix. Response 12: The Alderwood Water District has requested a larger line to serve the rapidly increasing residential uses in this area. Negotiations between King County, METRO, BothI'll, Snohomish County, and the Alderwood Water District are continuing. If agreement can be reached on costs and land use certification, a METRO trunk line would be built as a regional solution. If agreement cannot be reached, the City would build the line (at developer expense) to the southern boundary of the site and it would be sized to serve the City's service area only. -267- We hope that serious consideration will be given to this problem. alternative routing should be considered. We would appreciate it problems this development will inflict upon our neighborhood will addressed. Some if the be I ti I 1& I d I < , . I ; ~l t_~ I "j; I ,-i I 'i; I . ~: I I :f I " ~ I ~-Q I t~ ~ I 0.11 10 April 1981 BothI'll Planning Commission Attention: Mr. Dan Taylor Gentlemen: We are writing this letter in reference to the development of North Creek Valley. (Koll Company) We do not feel that the problems of traffic circulation, specifically effecting Ross Road have been adequately addressed. Considering Ross Road is a logical traffic route leading from and to the valley and the Beardslee exit from highway 405, it is logical that traffic on this street will greatly increase. Considering that Ross Road is extremely narrow with poor visibility, the danger factor for cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists will increase greatly. Ross Road being a street of family residences with many small children can not 'safely handle the impact of traffic from this development. Sincerely, ,~. . ') "- i ....', . . '--"\...~. ,\. 11.- .....0.,..1..1.... :.. ~ ';P .J~Afj,,", Susan M. Sparli~~-~ Robert B. Sparling 19l07 Ross Road Bothell, WA 98011 485-6384 -268- I "I I :.J. I t I D . . , I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , I I Comment Letter from Robert B. and Susan M. Sparlin~ Response: The traffic origin and destination survey conducted for the project indicated that the vast majority of the traffic related to the project would arrive and depart via 1-405. This was backed up by the market study, which concluded that 1-405 would essentially form the western barrier of the trade area for a neighborhood shopping area on the site. (See the revised TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION section) The City is considering requiring a reconstruction of the intersection of Ross Road and Beardslee Boulevard to make Beardslee Boulevard clearly the more direct route from NE 195th Street to downtown BothI'll. -269- Washington Environmental Council 107 South Main Slreet Seattle, Washington 98104 206,623-1483 AAUW - I.~k. Wurm'QtOn Brancn AAUW - Wasnlngton Slale C)VlSlon .o\om,'.lIy AvCluoon Soclely A" Ovall1v Coahllon AIOI~ ROIImer$ AID,,... I.a"., PrQIKllQn Soc'.'y Aller".l,.,.S For S.n Juan Blae.. H,tlS AuauDOrl Soc....,. Blue Mouflla,n AUOuDOn SocJ4t'Y C.1scaae W,lo.rne5s Club C.l,zens lor a.ner GOve-rnm.nl C,lIle"S lor lne Improveme"t 01 ~urSln~ Homes C.:laMlan AQam11 Oil PolluTion COI,,"'- .....,'.y e.,.,lfonmenlal Counell ~Qa' lall," W'IOI!f"ft.AU,ance EnvIronmental EOveahon Forum '" Wasn'''QIon Ever.1I GOIfo.n CluD EverQrNnlSlanoslnc F3.' Eleclnc Rales Now Floating Homes ASSOCiation FroenaSOI O,sco...ery Park GfHf'lDeaCe - Sealf~ 1-1000 Coln.. Env"onm~lill CounCil ISlat\dAct'onCoallhon Ilaa.. WillIon Leaql,le 01 Amet'.c.a Kelll. RanQ8 COl'1SerYillIon Grouo 1(,lUCl Auouoon SOCII~lV La.OUQton Salmon CnaDler Nonnwest Sll!ell\eaa ana Salmon CounCIl Of T'Out Unllm,ted La". SI,c..n.., Garelen CluD LOwe' COh,lm!)la BaSil' AueluDon Soc,elv ~.rc.r lSlano En",ronmental Counc,l \tonlla... Communll., CluD ~ISoU."" Cella Assoclallon 'lie Qt'OOl't ~onn Cascaoes AuCluDon Soctely Norm Cascaoes Conser..allon CounCil ~orrn C.nTral Wasnll'lgton AuCluoon 5oc:telV Nortn Unl".'SI!V Ga.oe,.. CluD Jolortnwest FIV AnQle.S Nont'lweSI SCHlneaO 5al""on Counc,. 01 Trou. Unllm"e<:l Oa.....aroo,G.,oe"'Ouo OI.....OIC Pa,.. AssIX..tes ul.....O'C Pen,nSula AuOuoo" Soc,.ty P"l'OClle 'or Fall fa_es In Wasn,ngto,.. 1l"C!"UC" AuduDOn Soc,ety ;l0l"! NO PO'", T'ealy CouroCU CI'Olect !ne PenInSula s Full"r. :I..gel Souna Beac'" P'ese"".'lIJn .counCil JuMflAnne Garoen C;uD Recreational E;:u,omenl lnc Sa... A Valuao.. En.."on",.,..t Sa... e.,oress Is'a"'o Comm.tt.. Se.lIl. AuOuoon Soc,e'", Sean.. GoIroen C,uo 50erra CluD - C.scade Ct'laot., SIlaC;'I.'o,n. CluD SIlaQ'l En..,ronme""al COune,1 SIl3C;l1lon'ans Concerneo .DOuI ~uclearPla",s 5nonO"'''sn 5oo.,sman s .SlOC . ,nc 5coo.ane Moul'lla,"Ml's. In( SC)ClIlane AuauDOn Soc,e'v 5,,,,P'Ie'aCl fro..., CI...O 01 Wasn'nc;!ton ;3CCPPIa MOulllalneet's 'ralloma .uO...OOIl Soc..ty ,n.IolOUnla,""rs ;~eP:"rm'9anS .~. TOw'" Forum In( Vafl.Couver ....ouoon Soc..rv Wast'llnotoro FIV F,snl"Q CI...o ""asll,n;'oll I(a",a.. CluD 'Nasnu''9ton Rcaos.oe Councrt Wasn'"'Q:on Socle'''' 01 P'olessoOnal SoI5clenhSlS W,llilea "''''s .lI(l...oon Society Yakima ..al"" ~uO...tlO'" Soclelv ~a"Ow Bay Con'!",anc..,. C~ncll _!'.O:- CI,:,:,.,.~'."A .,._..'_ _ ~.~.... I !.Ii CITY OF BOTHE:LL 18305 - 101st N.E. Bothell. WA 98011 April 10, 1981 'I ,,' I' " I iJ Dear Mr. Taylor, J ",J! Thank you for the opportun1 ty to comment on the Kell Center Dra.1't Environmental Impact Statement. I i;~ Washington State residents are fortunate in being informed about and able to comment upon decisions pending before local decision makers. I The Kell Center is proposed for construction on land with a history of farm activity and of a parcel size sui table for many types of farming. Development of the Kell Center at this location would result in the loss. for all time. of this land for agricultural purposes. Construction of this project likely would be followed by steady conversion of all valley land to urban uses. So this project would result in a com- plete change of the valley :from rural to asphalt urban. The Koll Center development is the place to stop such change. 1 ~ I .;.j ~ I ~ ! Nature's production of agricultural soil is slow. Our rapidly growing Puget Sound area needs to protect good farm s011 which can produce a high yield of :fresh food. We can expect a time when energy costs will push the cost of truck- ing food here :from CaJ.1forma beyond most of our pocketbooks. Acreage near the Puget Sound urban area with prime farmland should be protected :from development so it will be available to produce food in the future for our people. Members of the Washington Environmental Council recognize the need to protect agricultural land for agricultural purposes. We urge Bethell decision makers to prevent development of the Koll Center at this location. I L~ I d I ;-6 I ,-i Please keep this site for agricultural purposes. are the highest and best uses for this particular Farm uses land. I S1nCe~lY. 'l 0/ /7/~cr~' Margaret Johnson Growth ~ement Chairperson. . ~, I ,.1 I I I -270- DEDICATED TO THE PROMOTION OF CITIZEN. LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TOWARD PROVIDING A BETTER ENVIRONMENT I I I I E I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I Comment Letter from Washinltton Environmental Council Response: The City of Bothell Comprehensive Plan for the valley and the proposed King County Northshore Revised Community Plan both call, for develop- ment of the valley. The Draft EIS recognizes the trade-offs and the foreclosure of the option of future agricultural production on the site. See the expanded discussion of agricultural use in the NArtJRAL RESOURCES section. -271- JOHN SPELlMAN Governor STATE Of WASHINGTON PLANNING & COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AGENCY 400 Capitol Cl'fIter 9Jilding . Olympia, Washinston 98504 April 10, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of COIlIlIUl1ity Development 18305 101st N. E. Bothell, I~ashington 98011 DRAFT ENVIRONMENI'AL n,1PAcr STATINENT: KOll Business Center - Bothell Commercial Office and light industrial complex on 140 acres - N 1/2, Section 4 and 5, T26N, R5E, King County Dear Mr. Taylor: PCM has reviewed the Koll Business Center draft EIS and has the following comments. The comments stem from potential regional effects of the proposed project due to its location within the City of Bethell and King County, and its nearness to Snohomish County. 1) The regional effects of t.!J.e proposed project on King County and Snohomish County have not been fully discussed. The character of the surrounding area, and the Northshore Plan (King County) and the North Creek Plan (Snohomish County) indicate low intensity uses, such as watershed/site sensitive, agricultural, or rural. The affects of the proposed proj ect may adversely affect the ability of those jurisdicti.ons to carry out the intent of those plans. / ..2 2) The proposed project lies within the 100 year flood plain, but its affect on the floodway has not been fully discussed, particularly as it affects the surrounding areas. Also the downstream effects of construction activities and the mitigation measures for North Creek are not clear. 3 3) The effects of the project on traffic in King County and Snohomish County should be more fully addressed. This is particularly true in Snohomish County where roads are a major concern and where development is required to pay a share of the burden for traffic improvements. -272- -~:I ~ ! KAREN RAt Oitect \ <, I tJ I 1.1 I f.:8 I ..i I ;.'~ I , '~A I ,;:.~ I ..~ I :Ji I di I i.t I i.i I ';'1 I d I ,j I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I 4 5 Ml~/t Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director April 10, 1981 Page Two 4) 'The fiscal impacts of the proposed project on King and Snohomish Counties have not been addressed. 5) Also, the proposed project should consider the state's policy on capital improvements where agricultural lands are concerned (Executive Order 80-01). State system transportation improvements needed for the project, such as the 1-405 northbotmd ramp, may be affected either because of Executive Order ,80-01 or o~'e~~se. Cordially, "'W'\" L - \:) .,..- d- Hike Wong Local Gove=ent Services -273- .' EO 81-01 I ililI I u I I I {,ti I I I ,.. I -Ul. I :J~ I dl I ;.J I. <, I *8 I .~ tl """. I .,. I I I . J I STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR I.egiaIItiwo Suld"., 0Ivm0.. w.......... _ Dilly L.. Ray a-- !!!~~!l!! .2.!E.!! Community Investment WHEREAS, there is an increasing need for Washington to strengthen the ability of its communities in protecting the public and private investments in them and to better plan for and manage growth or decline and economic changes in the best interests of conlervation and development; and WHEREAS, this administration recognizel thst there is a necelsary partnership between state and local governments, which is relponsible for prelerving and revitalizing the quality of our ellisting communities through fuller use and enhencement of the ellisting public and private investments in them, to minimize the economic costs of population growth to local governments and to individuel residents of the state, to protect our valuable agriculture end natural resources, and to maintain and renew the important environmental assets that are the mainstay of both the state's economy and its quality of life; and WHEREAS, the nature of the state's communities vsriel according to the density of the population, the basis of the economy, and the character of the environment. NOW, THEREfORE, I, DillY Lee Ray, Governor of the state of Walhington, do hereby order that every state department, comm1.sion, boerd, or other agency of Itate government making decisions affecting the conlervation or the development of communities and affecting their policis. for guiding growth, Ihall promote the following: A. Urban Areas: In areas with dense population and identifiable centera of commerce, industry, and other activities that support an urban existence, the highe.t priority Ihould be 1) to encourege rehabilitation and further development to revitalize the economic, social, and physical environment; and 2) to maintain basically Itable, identifiable neighborhoodl and communities as well a. to encourage development sO long II it does not dilrupt that stability or overtax aVlilable urban lervice. . ~1'4 '. . , I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I Ellecutive Order 81-01 Page 2 B. Urban Perimeters: In areas adjacent to urban centers having moderate development, with ellisting or planned utilities and other public services, but with vacant land capable of being developed, the highest priority should be 1) to encourage the new growth that normally occurs on the perimeters of urban centerl to take place in locally specified areas capable of supporting large-scale milled uses and densities in close relationship with urban areas; and 2) to discourage premature, scattered new urban development restricting its exceeding the carrying capacity of the site or so it does not require necessary public investments into new or expanded facilities, utilities, and services. C. Rural Areas: In areas beyond urban perimeters and with a preponderance of vacant land capable of intensive development, the highest priority should be 1) to en~ourage the clustering in locally specified centers of relatively high density land uses that occur in rural communities,' such as residential, shopping, employment, and public services; and 2) to discourage forms and intensities of structural development if they exceed on-site carrying capacity for water supply and sewage disposal, or if they are inconsistent with open rural character or conservation values of adjacent areas, and are more appropriately located in rural communities. D. Natural Resource Bases: In areas primarily comprised of sgricultural, recreational, and other open lands capable of providing natural resources, the highest priority should be to discourage structural development if aite planning and secondary effects are incompatible with the existence of adequate open space for the production of food, fiber, and forest crops, and with the use and enjoyment of natural resources and acenic beauty. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto aet my hand and cauaed the aeal of the state of Washington to ~ affixed at Olympia this ~~~ day of January, A.D., nineteen' hundred and eighty-one. -275- JOHN SPELlMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON PLANNING & COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AGENCY 400 Qpito/ Centl'r 8likfirrB . OIympid, WaJhington 98504 May 21, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor, Director ColllllUl1ity Development City of Bothell . 18305 - 101st Northeast Bothell, Washington 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: I am responding to your letter of May 11, 1981, regarding the 1\011 Business Center draft EIS. You have requested clarification on paragraphs (1) and (5) of my initial response on the Koll Business Center draft EIS, dated April 10, 1981. With reference to paragraph (1), it has come to my attention that King County will soon be revising the Northshore Plan to allow for mixed uses within the vicinity of the proposed 1\011 Business Center project. This effort shows some consideration of regional concerns regarding this project. Paragraph (1) should then be revised to state that the discussion of the regional effects of the proposed project on King and Snohomish Counties should be expanded. Paragraph (5) should be revised to state the fOllowing. n.u Executive Orders, which apply only to state agencies, may have a bearing on the project. EO 80-01 addresses farmland preservation and EO 81-01 addresses coll1ll1mity investment. EO 80-01 directs state agencies to consider farmland preservation when making decisions and, in addition, to give due regard to local government planning, zoning, or other local government agricultural land protection programs. EO-8l-01 directs state agencies making decisions affecting the conservation or development of colllll1lllities to promte the following in the urban periphery: a) growth located in locally specified areas capable of supporting large scale mixed uses and densities in close relationship with urban areas; and b) to discourage premature growth where it cannot be served with appro- priate facilities. (Section B). State agencies are required to consider these Executive Orders as they relate to agency decisions on providing improvements. Cordially, _ _" \_.t'! \-. f" '.........~ .~ ~,._ Attachment Mike Wong Local Government Services -276- ~3 I ~ea]l "'lI I 'liS I d; I iO;lI I :Ui I i;J I d I " i,J5 I I 1.,j I ;.11 I Ul I U ~ ~ I o...J I ,-i I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR UgtsJ.IM eu"II"11. ()IympwI. """'unglnn 9&'J04 _}NIN~ a c)u;';UNrrt !l\:Ah'~ AGEP'lCY STATE OF WASHINGTON JAN 10 j')ljlj o..y Lu Ray Gouernor EO 80-01 ~ E,X E C.U T I V E 0 ROE R --------- ----- FARMLAND PRESERVATION WHEREAS, it is the policy of this administration to develop and promote agricultural activities; and WHEREAS, in order to develop and promote agricultural activities, agricultural lands must be preserved; and WHEREAS, agricultural land is being lost to other uses; and WHEREAS, state and local governments operate under various laws, regulations, policies and programs that affect decisions on agricultural land and growth management; and WHEREAS, local government is in the best position to make the primary decisions affecting the preservation of farmlands; and WHEREAS, the continuing loss of agricultural land requires closer attention by state agencies; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of this administration that much can be accomplished under the framework of existing laws and regulations to protect farmlands without the neceasity of creating a new bureaucracy, NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Dixy Lee Ray, Governor of the state of Washington, do hereby direct as follows: Every state department, commission, board or other agency of state government making decisions affecting the siting of energy facilit~es, disposal facilities, transportRtion systems or utility corrIdors, and agencies making decisions on environmental and/or land use permits, .. -277- I I I I EO 80-01 Page 2 shall consider farmland preservation when making decisions and, tn addition, give due regard to local government planning, zoning, or other local government agricultural land protection programa. .._j,;:'~~':.':":'l:':" _ "" _ :,--J:.J-"";"~; . '........ .....', .:, "1::- l';o.... '~.' - ......-... ,., : . - ." , '''''.0 ... ,. .' '" _', ...~ vA., ..r.".-, ':"1/"'.,: .J':......... /'\.~l' "~:~.. _~~'~.,_...~: .;v~~~-\.~..r~ ~--. ,41 ,.:~ :~"I: .... ..._,l., ,....' ' ,~:';1\~;; :;i;~H~j~~:;)\;;:;\ ,. . ',- ' ""'1"'" -~ ,'-' ..., ' -::.:. '-': .':.~.. .~~, ~..': ,:'.~ : - ~. ,"ll~.., J-' '. ll'~ ,~ . ....;J... ,. ......;,..", "..:::- tJ'. 4 ,>:.' ....\;., ~ :"""1 _!:~..' t': ,. .....,.\~ :~.-:;;-- . .....' ."7; ,':'1'" ,.r -, -:o.l."},:"f' 'iJ ._<>'~'~' '..-q I . ~.;A.". . fJ.\ "'~,~. I; ','" ~ . ':...I"'l,~';;'_l- ,.:.....c...:.- ~ .- .... . ,~.-. . ~"" l".:~.. ':r'~,~,~~~:~~ ~'" ....,-=-,CI..,; .......0'........ ,.. .;.: . ~GOVERNOR: ,/ . , ;;?;;:'/',;/, /-:J ,',' ,.......:-', ,. _____ Assistant Secretary of State IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the state of Washington to be affixed at Olympia this ~,day of January, A.D. nineteeO'llun an ghty. ,- . n -278- t ~ , t tli . i::i t J I 'r.~ '. it I ,Jl . ,j I ,cl I ~,:a I :}:.a I ~.i , I ;cl I .1 I i I E E E : E I I I I I I I I I I I I j I , I I Comment Letter from State of Washinltton Planninlt & Community Affairs Altency Response 1: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response 5: Revisions to King County's Northshore Plan are scheduled to be considered by the King County' Council within a month. The latest drafts of the revised plan prepared by County staff call for industrial development in the North Creek Valley comparable to, or more intense than, the Koll proposal. The discussion of compatibility with Snohomish County's Plan has been revised in the Final EIS (see also the letter and response from the Snohomish County Planning Department for a discussion of the "low intensity watershed-site sensitive" uses). Additional discussion of the floodplain has been added to the Final EIS. The 100-year floodway would be increased through the project. The IOO-year floodway would be contained within the stream corridor, and the capacity of the floodway increased; thus, there would be no downstream effects eliminating the need for appropriate mitigating measures. The impacts of traffic on Snohomish County roads were discussed in the Draft EIS. Additional discussion has been added to the Final EIS. See also the letter and response for the Snohomish County Public Works Department. If traffic impacts are adequately mitigated within the City of Bothell, ,there would be no significant adverse impacts to King or Snohomish counties. The project would generate revenue for King County through property taxes as stated in the Draft EIS. Services must be provided by the City. Thank you for the information. The proposal is consistent with the executive orders to the extent that it follows locally adopted compre- hensive plans which considered farmland preservation. -279- King County Cooperative Extension 3U SIllith Tower, ~06 Secaad A_. Sallie. \lVuhin..... 91104, ,44-2686 I I H I .u I :._~ I is I Ui I ~.~ I ,~ I ~.~ I :~ I ,8 I .,1 I J I , ~ ...JJ I d I ,I I , i I I I Earl'ft.lion wurlc In Iltticuhurr ~nd home' nunomlU In ,uuF"t'r:uwn "..trh W'lIhinSlon Starr Unh'rnit,. and U.S. D~urmC'nl ..I A,:Iu,uilurt' April 10, 1981 Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of Community Development City of Bothell 18305 101st. St Bothell, WA 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor: We have received the Koll Center Draft Envirnomental Impact Statement and would like to share several observations with you. A major deficiency of the report is its incomplete review of the agricultural potential of the proposed development site and the effects that the development would have on surroundin~ farms. This deficiency is particularly significant as the parcel is zoned agricultural and is part of a large contiguous area of farmland. At present, the report attempts to sum up the agricultural considerations relating to the property in a single sentence on page 47. This sentence states that "agricultural use of the site is no longer feasible" and as reasons lists three factors all of which appear spurious. The first is property taxes. The report does not make mention of the fact that under the Open Space Taxation Act a qualified farm is eligible for a reduced tax rate. We believe that the report should state whether or not the owners of this farmland availed themselves of this opportunity. The other two factors are 1 isted in parentheses as "agricultural trends". The first factor listed is "larger farms:n Presumably this is meant to imply that the,parcel is too small to be an economically viable farm. Yet this is not the case. At 140 acres the parcel is three times the size of the average King County f~rm (45 acres according to the 1978 Census of Agriculture) and typical of other dairy farms in the area. The other factor mentioned is "cooperative systems". This is particularly confusing in light of the fact that cooperative systems are used specific- ally to enhance the viability of small scale family farms. Examples of cooperatives in the local area that benefit family farmers include the Northwest Dafrymen's Association, a milk marketing cooperative, Western Farmer's Association, a farm supply cooperative, and Production Credit Association, a financing cooperative. We do not understand how cooperative systems can be offered as evidence of reduced agricultural feasibility. As for the overall question of feasibility, farming has always been and continues to be feasible in King County. The loss of farmland over the years has not resulted from a lack of profitability in farming. Ellftllioa jnformation and pm,tam. In .niJ.ble to .11 (iri.m. of Kin,. Count. _.rhou. re"ard 10 ,acl', (olor. UClo1U1 orl"n. 01 .. -280- ' ..J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Daniel W. Taylor April 10, 1981 page 2 Rather it has been the relative smallness of farm profits when compared with the "super profits" often associated with land sold for development. In summary we feel that in order to adequately address the impacts on agriculture of the Koll Center Development, the Environmental Impact State- ment should be expanded to include consideration of the following: 1. The effect on this farmland of the Open Space Taxation Act. 2. A more developed analysis of the feasibility of using the land for farming. Such an analysis should include data on local agricultural trends and farm budget information. 3. An explanation of the meaning of "cooperative systems". 4. An analysis of the effects of water lines. sewer lines, roads, etc. on the surrounding area which is currently being farmed. We would also like to note the fact that this land was originally zoned agricultural for the very purpose of preventing this kind of development on prime agricultural land. The fact that the land's market value may be greater than its value as farmland merely reflects the view of potential buyers that agricultural zoning does not represent a serious impediment to development. Rezoning and developing this parcel of land reinforces this view and runs counter to King County's Objective of preserving the county's dwindling farm land resources. Sincerely. ~~ Steven Kraten County Extension Agent Limited Resource Farming ;.1.~~..(J Christopher Feise, Ph.D. County Extension Agent Agricultural Development SK: CF:ss -281- - Comment Letter from Kin!!: County Cooperative Extension Response: As a result of a follow-up telephone conversation with Mr. Kraten, he was able to, provide a copy of a study addressing the profitability of dairy farming in the area and several publications describing the problems associated with farming in suburban areas and government programs to assist farmers. This additional information has been added and the NATURAL RESOURCES section 'has been rewritten in the Final EIS. -282- I I d -I < I Lt I d I ,.J I ,.~ I .Z I , a ~ I d I ..d I &iI I ~.i I oJ ~ I I I I I . . I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I i I I I ,~pril 12,_',1981 Daniel ~. Taylor, Director Department of Cocmw1ity Development 18305 - 101st :1. E. Bothell, ~'jashington ,98011 Bear ~. Taylor: There are various aspects of the Koll Business Center plan in their Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Creek Valley which are very disquieti.'lg, but looking at it fram the business point of view alone it does not bode well for Bothell to put retail business out there. Bothell's residents are served by "main street" type shops and professional services. The city had a' new, carefully p3lanned addition in 30thell Landing. This kind of enterprise needs time to t3ke hold and will be seriousl:r handi- capped by further nearby competition. This also applie, to '~in Street. / There is already new canpetition elsewhere for the patronage of =y people who have been coming to Bothell merchants from surrounding areas: the expansion of Totem Lake and r1oodinville, and the new center at Canyon Park. ~he business people who are loudest in support mf the Valley scheme are those who stand to ca..!:e money on fat electrical, inst:rance and building contracts. l~ither they nor their banl:ers represent the tmvn. The Statement does not se~ to take the previously-mentioned c~petition into account. The plans in the Statement are so vague ~hat the costs to all of us in roads, sewers, water, attempts to avoid or repair enviro:unental da::laze, etc. do not appear Clearly. .2 Another aspect of the D. E.I.S. that "~ cannot ignore concerns the stream and its fish spawning function. Judgin~ b,l' some of the co.7.'!lent from the ~nvironmental ?rotection ~gency and the Department of Fisheries, the ~.I.S. does not begin to satify the requirements for protecting the stream. In fact, one must conclude fr~'!l these statements that the stream must not be t3l:lpered with. ~~UP Jlichar:! Gordon l!cCloskey Sincerely yours, '~.4~tf/~ Ruth ~. ~cCloskey ~ -283- , " As stated in the Draft EIS, a market study of the downtown retail area concluded that the ~owntown retail businesses would not be adversely impacted by the proposed retail in the Koll project, if the downtown businesses remain competitive in terms of convenience, selection and price. To the extent that competition encourages better prices, selection and convenience, the BothI'll consumer wouJd be better served. The City planning staff will continue to consider potential impacts of retaiJ competition on downtown in review of the proposed development. I ~ 1 .ra I 1 i~ I 1 d I "J I ..a I '"i. 1 .1! "-" I ,... I ;,i Comment Letter from Richard G. and Ruth H. McCloskey Response I: Response 2: A Hydraulic Permit is required from the Department of Game and the Department of Fisheries prior to any construction work in the streams. These agencies must be satisfied that the reJocation wouJd improve fish habitat in order to issue the permit. Discussions with these agencies are continuing. -284- I :A I .~j I " I d ~ I I I: ,.,1 I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7/ 8/ ~I /01 JV.di th F Fisher 23205 35 AVE> SE Bothell, W~ 98011 April 12, 1981 I I 2/ ..3/ 4/ 51 Daniel ~. Taylor Dep~rtment of Commtmity Development Bothell, ~ashington 98011 :rear :ir. Taylor: The North Creek VE.lle;r I s complex ;nix of pasture la..111 I rich f~rm land and un1~ue rural beauty are fl~her complic&ted because the valley floor i~ overlapped by the jurisdictiono of Zing and Snohomish Co',.nties and the city of Bothell. The valley is in my backyard so I was pe-.rticulai'ly interestec:i. in the Y-oll proposal for a business park on t~e Eothell Farms property in the valley. ~he' proposed 6i te is particuhtrly complex \.~th its heavy peat soil and with the ~orth Cree~ truveli!'-5 throueh it. ;:y interef-::; in reac1in5 the ;~oll Busine:o;s :::enter 'Jraft Enviornmental Impact State!:lent we.s in reGSO!l~ for the site choice, conformi t~r with hotll the :7orth :::ree~ 0o!!lprehe~1sive ?lan anc the Snohomish J01.Ult~, ?l9.n, an" the secondary impacts of the ~eve~o)~ent. I would like to submi t the following que~tio!1s €'.na coments. ?a=:e 3 71tat are the specific p1€'.ne for eroe-ion control? =-Iow r.mcn eroeion if! exnectef'1 anr: wh~t arno'mt will be cO:ltro1led? :a;e 3 Is ::\'01lre1yinc pole1y on fe')era~ reb"',llationf' to r;Jitig"lte air )O:'hlt,-'nts? ';',bat ",re the )roJected pollut,;;..;.t levels? ?a.;"e 4 ','lith c6.tch baeint:- eruotyi-:lc!" into the reten;l:ion 20::1n, how c1,ee';i -,.,il1 it be? '''.bat wi,l-the :iT;\ensionc of the storlJ () i tcll be? Faie 4 Where are t:,e aCknow1e:,'gec; wet/me,rshlanrls i:oing to be? Eow extensive will they be? ?a:!;e <5 ':ihy 1s ROF-l? Roa,; le:'t out of the consider~t ion? Fa:;;e <5 Tl:e ;~orthshore 2cho<)1 Dil'"trict io', alre,~'~' over- cro'N'led. 3ven if the projected employees were to live sC?ttered over a wi.:e area, t:le acknowledged )ressure to ';:eve10p the hillsi:iee> will sienific<intly impact the schools. ':,~,,,t commitmsnt does the ,"eveloper have to the scho')l tiistrict? ::-a&'e <5 That is t:Je I)rojecte,' oro',ertv t€',x, and hO'N r,~'..:ch will ~';e - spent for ';';aintenance? vn wh€'.t sllecifically wi 11 the ron1es be snent? ?age 7- \',bat is the ~,;:k1ihor)(1 t",at Pvget rower cal s,;o,;ly t:Je Center when their de'nan"; alrea,'iy exceef'1s their ability-to supply it? "ave an~' me'itingF- been hel.l to -51RCUS8 it? ?a~e 7 :~lat ie the reservoi~ facility to serve? ~il1 1 t be on the :::enter site? ....'hat €.3sil?tence wOl'le} r:oll l)rovitie? ?fl.e;e 19 ~ow efficient art:! catch basi>1s for elhli;lA.tin:.r hl?eavy me~;a1s ete? Coil se]e:':"'?torF are notoriOlt~ly i:1efficI",nt. -285- 6 - -286- I 16 I I ita I d I ! I ij I d I ,g I .} I ,.I I 1Il ~ .~ I d I .1 ~ I .I I .i ~ow will t:ley o!,~rate to control runo:.f? ,,'::.."'t commitmerlt "oes the deve10ner hAve for th~i.r m~";.!lte!lance? ?a,,'e i9 '.That Aoeoif1oal1y ,10es Y.oll "ropoHe to ,~o to ;,tti1ize - the :nar~h/wetlanr.l F for Qoth !,'J.blic o!,en E .9ace ~n,1 €I, II natural wildlife habi t:'lt? The two .io,uc1, be inoompatib.le, eSTleoia11y witllin Ii bllsiness center. . Page 28 ;7hy is ther'. nothing more concrete than "stream h,..bi tr-;t may be im-oroved"? ':,bat an! the (letailf-' to ensure that /~ the stream habitat will be improved by t~e ohange'? ',',bat reasons I,&.. are there to meander the stream if it l,s 'lot improved? Page 29 Is rrol1 committed to i;ol",roving the i>orth Greek waters by meandering it? If so, will Koll take the expense of ar1"litional staff time ann experts to ensure proper con"tuc- ~ tion? The develop~r Nant" to wean~er ~he stream and sho,u~ be~r the cost. Pap'e 50 J.anr'l 'Jse ;,owhere 00111,; I fin.:1 a !'eference to tile North Creek Com"rehensive Plan's polioy to promote the retention of RQ'I'ioultllrai-lan;;s as a VA.l1l8ble resoLlrcei like;'iise, t,,~re 11 '..as :::0 niRC'I.l: sion of this proreI1;y' s val.<e as agricul t\tral lam! versus business orienten lanlj,"use. ':.11l:lre ,-oee the :ro~'osa.l conform to the ~orth Creek Comprehensive Plan speoifically? I Pa~e 57 On what point!" are :othell'!'i policies r~e,"rliing t5 the s1.lbject site "generally cO:1sistent" with those of Snohomil3h GOQ~ty? Rural Conservation is not sonsistent with ~;~ti ~se. I Page 58 ~fuat will the Activity Center designatioD mean to I~ the 'OrOTlosal? 7/ -Page 6l-62 Were the 1980 Census Charts not available? / ~ill they be included in the Final EIS? Page 63 Shottl~n't the lifestyles of adjaoent residents be adaressed more speCifically? The change "pE<yohologically" is ~ too brief and ignores the nay to Gay phy,-ical chang~F of increased traffic, noise an'" poll"ltion C. ~H..ltifiab1e'; changes): "'age 65 ';';11;' is the 195th extensioll excluc1e(~? Shoul,"n't it 1:e included along with informe,tion about itA l)resent 'mfin- /.'~ ished state? The ~eveoper aoknowle~ge~ that traffio will flow ;7 from tile east. Can it be utilized in its orefe'lt con-1ition? If not, will the aeveloper a,~ume the costs of up€r~oing it? "'0 I Page 66 "hy weren It the Bothel1 merohflnts inoludeo in the "" survey? -?/I ?age 78 Why are only King Co.mty roads ar,dressed when ~ Snohomish COttnty roads will a1~0 be im~acted? I Page 80 'Vfuen if! the ~ra~ter traffio stuny to be comnleted? 2Z ','.'lat is Koll's conce!lt of its fair share of fttnding the e.t1ldy? ?age 88 ':.hy '....aen't the s"rchargil1:j; and co:npres2ing taken into acoottnt in light of the existing Alderwoori "':ater 'DiRt L'ict sewer tr'~ line? Can the sewer line withetan~ the s~rchargiO€? Is the (~eveloper a'."lare of tl",e Alrierwood-~.:etro ~ewer .:"greemeat 23 in which plans to develop/construct a ~,orth Creek Trunk nortb '+'0 the Snoho~:lish County line l;!.r.~ outline"'? :row many trunk sewer lines \v1ll the business center have ,an the site? "f1.1 ?age 39 How will the pond be tested ':-or il!lpi;ritiee'? How ~ often will it be tested? . ~ Page 95 Sinoe the layo'it ann size of the buildinge is not st::;ted, how oan the olaim thAt "no signifioant views woul:'l be or.structed and no offensive views would be cre&.t",d" be R1,ostantiated? I Page 95 How is a seasonal ice rink ~o be achieved and Fintain.ed? Does the developer commit himself to the entire Irst of building and maintaining the rink, trails and community lenter? '.That is meant by consideration of "non-motor vehicle (affiC network"? ?age 97 How noes the developer define the proposed mmunitv club? ',Th.at Inll its uses be? '.Th.o or what grollI' "rill 6e res~onsible for it? . Fage 100 Why haven't the shopping patterns of the resioents ~ the east and north been consiclered before aSfluming "JIP.ny local _'esidents must travel past the site to reach shopping <'lestina- tons in Bothell"? Page l09 In the Sepa gu1~elines, WAC 197-440-(l2e), a , veloper is re~uired to give careful consideratio~ to alternative sites for its proI'os~l. The details given for compariflon in Ie DZIS are so sketchy that it is still tlnc1ear why this site s chosen over the alternatives. Will there be a detailed ana1- ,)"sis in the Final EIS? ,.by is there no mention here of the Issent site's agriculttlral reSOtlrce value? "by were the briefly ntioned alternatives'limitea to the property arljacent to the .,.ro!losal site? 'I fotlnd the Koll BEIS disappointing i~ its vagueness. ~here re many instp..nces of ;lnc1ear mea,nings with "it is not anticipated," is expected", "...should", and a real lack of details in I' Rt arees. The DEIS does not aridreFF it&e1f neanin,;ful1y to tte con;;ary impacts nor prove compliance with the ;iorth 8reek mprehansive Plan or the Snoho~sh County Plan. I I I I I I I I I I ~incerely , , . .' ''''''' -.. . \ \, -, : :_"\ -r'~ \)'\' : .~..........\ __ _\.... \..0_ \ o.!11riith F. Fisher -2jl7- Specific plans for erosion control have not yet been developed. Erosion potential is relatively low due to the, flat topography. However, due to the close proximity to North Creek this is a sensitive issue, although the creek ,is contained in dikes and most rWloff from the site cannot reach the creek directly. I I I I I I I I I tl I , ..'~. I ;1 I d I i:J I c.t I I I ,j I , ; I Comment Letter from Judith Fisher Response 1: Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response 5: Response 6: Response 7: Other than more restrictive Federal standards, the most effective air pollution mitigating measures will be street improvements to be con- structed by the applicant to improve the flow of traffic. As stated in the Draft EIS, short-term dust control during construction will also be required. The projected air pollutant levels are discussed in the Draft EIS and presented in Table V. The final designs of storm sewer facilities have not been completed. They will be based on e~gineering calculations of storm water volumes. The wetlands were a suggested mitigating measure of the Draft EIS. The sponsor has not yet commited to creating additional wetlands. Ross Road is included and discussed,in the traffic analysis, and volumes are illustrated on the traffic figures. The Northshore School District is a rapidly growing district with new schools currently under construction. However, it is responding to the growth and is not generally overcrowded. As stated in the Draft EIS, the developer and subsequent purchasers of parcels are committed to paying property taxes, which will result in additional school district revenue of approximately $243,840 annually. In addition, any develop- ment along the hillsides will also generate tax revenue to the school district. As stated in the Draft EIS, the development is expected to generate approximately $200,141 annually to the City in property taxes and -~88- .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $443,108 annually to the State, County, Port and Hospital District from property taxes. A breakdown of the City's annual budget is also presented in Appendix C. Response 8: Puget Power was contacted by telephone on several occasions during preparation of the Draft EIS; the company's response to the Draft EIS is included here. Private utilities are required by law to provide electri- cal power to properties within their service areas. Response 9: The reservoir will be built on the hillside east of the site. The sponsor will pay the equivalent cost of constructing a facility adequate to serve the site. Negotiations are proceeding regarding the possibility of a joint facility to serve adjacent areas. Response 10: Catch basins are effective only in removing suspended heavy metals. Dissolved heavy metals are not removed. Oil separators have been inefficient primarily because they are generally not maintained. As stated in the Draft EIS, they are effective if maintained regularly. The responsibility for maintenance of these facilities is outlined in the Draft EIS under WATER. At present the City has no regular program for cleaning or inspecting catch basins on private property. Response II: We concur that public recreational use would reduce the value to wildlife of the greenbelt and stream buffer; however, the City of Bothell Comprehensive Plan recommends the development of recrea- tional facilities available to the public. Response 12: The stream and associated habitat can be improved in concept; however, such improvements are totally dependent on careful design and construction. See responses from the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Game, and Timberline Reclamations for _a range 'of opinions on this subject. The details of design must be approved by the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Game for issuance of a Hydraulic Permit. -289- Response 13: The sponsor, committed to improving North Creek, has hired a specialist, Timberline Reclamations, to assist in the design, and will pay the entire cost of construction. Response 14: The goals, objectives, and policies of the Bothell plan are listed in the Draft ElS. The plan encourages retention of agricultural uses with equal emphasis on other open space uses such as reaeation, natural open space, and formally landscaped areas. Objective 4 of the plan encourages "certain agricultural, recreational and open space uses without locking the valley into mandatory agricultural use," (See response to Ann Aagaard.) All of the uses proposed are encouraged in the plan, as are the planning process (PUD) and off-site improvements to streets. Response 15: See letter from and response to Snohomish County Planning Depart- ment. Response 16: We assume this comment refer's to the PSCOG planning designation of Bothell as an "Activity Center." The proposal is consistent with PSCOG policies since it is located in an area designated by Bothell as an activity center. Response 17: The 1980 census data is not available in final form. The City's annual estimates and PSCOG's projections are included in the Draft EIS. Response I8: Increased traffic, noise and pollution are addressed under the appro- priate sections. The lifestyle section points out that there are impacts over and above the physical impacts covered'in the S.E.P.A. "elements of the environment" sections. Response 19: This is explained on page 65 of the Draft EIS. The traffic volumes have been adjusted in the Final EIS to incorporate the effect of the extension of NE 195th Street. Response 20: When the traffic ongln and clestination survey was designed, it was believed that the businesses surveyed were more representative of the -290- I ~1~ I I I ;1 I i:8 I "j I 'OJ I kJ I ;-~ I ;,J I ~.~ I :J I i,~ .~ I ,~ I J I , I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I types of businesses that might locate in the proposed KolI Center. The . businesses are close enough to be applicable to the Koll site. Downtown Bothell shoppers were surveyed in the Bill Mundy economic study. Response 21: Snohomish County roads are discussed in the Draft EIS. Basically, the Draft EIS states that there would. be unacceptable impacts to local arterials 'if major improvements are not made, but if adequate improve- ments are made adjacent to the site, nearly all traffic will move directly to and from 1-40.5. As stated, these improvements include widening NE 19.5th Street and the 1-40.5 overpass, and signalization and channelization of the intersection adjacent to 1-40.5 and the site. Response 22: A fair share of the cost will be determined based on the percentage of total future traffic in the valley generated by the KolI project. The city-wide traffic study will be completed by the end of 1981. Response 23: The effect of surcharging on the Alderwood sewer line was considered during planning and engineering studies for the site. There is adequate foundation for the pipe to withstand the proposed surcharging. The pipe is in a location along the proposed roadway, stream corridor and property boundary where surcharging will be minimal. The sponsor has been negotiating with METRO for approximately a year for a joint sewer trunk. If agreement between the City of Bothell, the Alderwood Water District and METRO cannot be reached regarding a combined sewer trunk line, the sponsor will construct a new sewer main to the site (see response to Snohomish County Pli!lnning Department). Response 24: At present, the pond is designed to drain entirely between storms. No testing is proposed. Response 2.5: The sketches in the Draft EIS were drawn to scale from photographs using buildings of the type proposed. If the buildings are changed slightly or moved, the appearance of the site would change but the overall visual impact would not change significantly. Extensive and very restrictive design covenants are part of the proposal as discussed. -291- Response 26: The seasonal ice rink wilJ be a shallow grass-lined depression that wilJ be filled with water by the sponsor during cold weather. All of the recreational facilities would be constructed and maintained by the sponsor. The "non-motor vehicle traffic network" refers to the potential for other developments in the valley to develop connecting links along North Creek to the Sammamish River Trail. Response 27: _ As stated, the community club will be maintained by the sponsor or a tenants' association, and wilJ be available for use by the public. Response 28: This sentence has been deleted from the Final EIS. Response 29: The only locations in Bothell that have adequate size and vehicular access routes for a development of the type proposed are in the North Creek Valley. Thus, although other sites outside of the Bothell area were considered, discussion in the EIS was limited to the North Creek Valley. - Z9Z- I -d I :_~ I il . . .~ I ,i I ,~.~ ~ ...", I .Y " I ~.;j I ~ i. I . I ,\ I " -..~~ I -,J I ~j I ,j I j I , , I I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GERALD E. WEED, P,E., Director FIFTH FLOOR. COUNTY AOMINISTRATlON eUILOING EVER En. WASHINGTON 98201 12061 259-9488 . Scon: 649-9488 . Toll F...: 1.800-562.4367 WilliS TUCKER County Executive April 13, 1981 Mr. Daniel W. Taylor. Director Department of Community Development 18305 101st N.E. 'Bothell, WA 98011 Re: Koll Business Center - Bothell Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much for sending our department a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Koll Business Center in northeast Bothell. We have reviewed the information'contained in the report and focused our attention primarily on road system related questions. We understand that the Snohomish County Office of Community Planning is addressing those issues which are concerned with the project's impact on land use and hydrology in the vicinity. Even though the project site is located within the City limits of Bothell, King County, its northern property boundary follows the Snohomish County line and because of this proximity, the impact of the project on land use, roads, hydrology, and other components of the natural, human, and physical environment will be equally strong in Snohomish County as it is in the City of Bothell and King County. Nowhere in this report are these effects .on Snohomish County even mentioned or referred to and, consequently, no measures are offered to mitigate these effects. Also, the traffic analysis in this report grossly understates the project's vehicular trip generation and expected peak hour volumes. Assumptions concerning trip distribtuion are based on a marginally relevant Origin and Destination Survey and, therefore, the traffic impact on ~he Snohomish County road system has been significantly underestimated. For these reasons alone, we have to conclude that the subject DEIS is inadequate and does not meet the provisions of State environmental legislation. In addition to this general statement, we would like to offer the following specific comments: I. In the summary of the report, on page 6, it is stated that the proposed development would cause a severe deterioration of the level of service at the I-405/Northeast 195th Street interchange. The southbound off-ramp of this interchange will operate at level of service F in order to accommodate 1985 traffic volumes generated by the project. Improvements to mitigate this impact are mentioned in general terms only. There is no statement which would identify the developer's - 2,93- ~ Mr. Daniel W. Taylor Page 2 April 13, 1981 responsibility to make these improvements and there is no documentation to support the assertion that the level of service would improve to "B" once improvements are made. In short. a clear description of the type of improvements, required to mitigate the road system impact of the development, should be provided by the project sponsor. This statement should contain technical details such as widening of Northeast 195th Street from 2 to 4 lanes, left-turn and intersection channelization, curb, gutter, and sidewalks, a 4-phase traffic signal at intersection X, and street lighting. It should also contain a cost es1mate and identify the timing of the public road improvements in relationship to site develop- ment staging and the issuance of building permits. II. :3 In Snohomish County, in the area immediately to the north of the project site, there is lack of such a collector road system and, therefore, the developer should consult with the Snohomish County Department of Public WorkS in order to determine the access needs which will be generated by his project. If the project would be located in Snohomish County, Title 26B of the Snohom1sh County Code would apply and a traffic analysis, more substantial than the one included in this DEIS, would be required in order to determine road system improvements to be provided by the developer in concert with his project. III. In the traffic analysis, the Snohomish County road system in general and the proposed project's traffic impact on it was completely ignored. The trip distribution which was used is highly questionable. It was based on one other project which has locations! characteristics which are rather different from the subject site. Consequently, the traffic impact on Snohomish County is grossly understated. <I The trip generation rates used for the office and industrial park portion of the development are by far too low. Since at this point in time, individual companies which would locate in the park cannot be identified, it would be appropriate to use trip generation rates per 1,000 square feet of office and industrial park gross floor area. This approach was applied correctly to the commercial/retail portion of the park. Enclosed is a -Z94- I '. ,. I I ,. I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Daniel W. Taylor Page 3 5 4- G April 13, 1981 especially since there is no evidence given concerning the procedure used to collect the information, the relevance of the sample and the accuracy in obtaining the required measurements. For comparison, on page 101 in the third paragraph, it is mentioned that a growth of 33,000 office jobs projected for King County between 1980 and 1990 would "indicate a need for approximately 8.25 million square feet of office space." This is indicative of an employee rate of 4 per 1,000 square feet of space. The peak hour generation trip factors used, in, Table XV are significantly lower than those recommended in relevant technical literature. For a mix of uses, an initial assessment uaing 10 percent of the average daily traffic would represent a reasonable approach. The values in the table on page 73 range from 4.8 percent (Alternate 4) to 11.8 percent (Alternate Since the, expected daily traffic volumes for the proposal and for Alternates I, 2, and 3 are already understated by approximately 25 percent, it has to be concluded that the given peak hour volumes are unrealistically low and consequently, that Figures 16 and 17 do not describe the expected impact of the project's traffic on the public road system to the south and west of the site. Total PM peak hour traffic for the proposed development is more likely to amount to 2,433 vehicle trips rather than the 1,512 which are listed in Table XV. 3) . IV. Severe peak hour congestion can be expected at the ramp terminals to and from 1-405 and on Northeast 195th Street (see page 78, paragraph 3). The author of the traffic analysis assumed that due to increasing delays, part of the traffic will seek other routes, some of them located in Snohomish County. Thus, the problem would not be resolved but shifted to another location, an unacceptable solution since it would reroute traffic through residential areas, a major freeway interchange. and already heavily travelled County roads, the latter ones in Snohomish County. V. In the chapter on Mitigating Measures, no clear definition is given of the improvements which would mitigate the adverse road system effects of the proposed development. Likewise, it is not discussed that it is the developer's responsibility to make necessary off-site improvements to the public road system. Reference is made to a recently funded transportation study by the City of Bothell. The subject development is a major traffic generator which, through a complete traffic analysis, should provide important input into this city-wide study. For comparison, we would like to refer to the traffic analysis which recently was prepared for a Hewlett-Packard production facility which is expected to locate in Snohomish County. The traffic generated by the first phase of this project is expected to amount to 4,050 daily vehicle trips by 1985, which is approximately 17 percent of the traffic to be expected from the Koll Multi-Use Development. The Hewlett-Packard traffic analysis defined clearly a number of road improvement projects and the responsibility of the developer for these improvements. -295- Mr. Daniel W. Taylor Page 4 April 13, 1981 I i-j I 'j ',':;.1 I ;.~ I 1. I j ~ I .' " " ~ :7 I , , , 1 , I ,I I , d I j, I , . I I i I , I VI. The traffic analysis offers no documentation that the road improvements which are referred to in a general manner, will effectively mitigate the adverse impact of the proposed project. Missing also is a timetable which would tie the road improvements to certain phases of the development. 7 8/ VII. The traffic and road impact analyses of the alternatives which are discussed on pages 111 to 124 are totally inadequate. VIII. In general, the report fails to list correctly the sources of information and data which were used to back up some of the assumptions. Also, little technical documentation (e.g., calculations for level of service, et al.) is provided to support statements made in the report. 9 Because the proposed development will have a significant impact on land use, roads, other natural and man-made systems, and the economy in Snohomish County, we have carefully examined the subject DEIS and offer the aforementioned c01lllDents. The Snohomish County Department of Public Works is ready and willing to discuss with you, other officials of the City of Bothell and King County, and the developer. our concerns and the questions raised in this letter. Sincerely yours, A. c fI}u () GERALD E. WEED, P.E. Director of Public Works GEW:JWK:JT Attach. -296- I .- I ,I I I. .. V> ..... :E :::l ..J I 0 > u - ... f ... < 0: ~ - > ..J I ..... - ..J <' CD Q < ~ Q % < I % 0 - ~ ~ I ..... % ..... <:l ... I - 0: ~ I I I I I I 0 Co> . II) I I II) .... . . V> ..J N N Q < .... .... z: a) z: ..... a) 0 .... II) II) - ... .... .... ~ - . . I . 0: .... ,'" '" - .... .... ..J - 0:: < 0 ..... a.. ..J II) II) VI U .... z: - lD lD ~ :r: . I I II) II) ..... .... . . > ..J '.... .... .... < - - ... > - 0 ..J - N .... W < .... - N N .... 0 . 0 lD lD II) .... lD .... - . :::l .W ..J en Il'I Il'I 0 .... c:J < N - .... ~ VI z: ..... - - > .... - N .... < . a) .... en - . .... Il'I a) .... en .... ... ..J lD .... .... . 0 < .... 0:: - 0 0:: a.. W W ..J 0:: CD ,< :E ,V> 0 a) a) lD ..J :::l ,0 a) N N .... z: ,'" '" N - .... < I~ en .... .... . z: .... 0 Ia.. N - .... 0 ~ .... .0... ~ ~ ~ %0 - N W~s:. z: ~- Il'I - a..""'~ lD N .. . . z: - ..... 0 .... , < 0: .... N . ~ :::l 0 % 0: 0 - ~ II) Il'I Il'I ~ .... I I .... < .... 0 0 ... W ..J - - c:J z: < W 0 <:l .... 0 0 a.. '.... .... - - . lD I I lD 0:: .... Il'I Il'I 0:: r- ei! W .... a.. ..... :E ..... 0 ... .... ..J 0:: '" Cb .... - .... .... W 0 I , a) ~ en 0:: ,.... a) a) - - - z: - :3 ..J - - W ..... ..... ..... W < 0:: en .... Il'I - 0 0 "" z: o:::r ..... . . . . Il'I .... < 0 V> ..J '" 0 .... - .... - .... - N < .... lD .... .... .... 0 '" en .... Il'I - VI - 0 . II) .... - Il'I U W ..... W Q 0 .... - N .... - 0: 0 Q .... W - ..J - ..... 0 0 ~ < ~ U U 0 z: z: - 0 W W z: 0 - U VI VI o u LE '" lD Il'I 0 :::l :::l -'W . 0 a) a) a) .... VI <.:> .... - - .... .... en 0 0 ~ ..J '" '" '" .... z: ~ . < z: en '" '" N < W VI ..... N - '" - ..J ..J z: 0:: <:l W W ..J , I I I W ..... c:J ..... < a.. .... .... z: VI 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - - a.. - 0 0 Il'I en ~. 0:: 0 0 0 0 - <.:> ... N .... en .... N - II) 0 0:: z: 0 - - '" N .... W 0:: .. ... . ..... "" ..J 0:: ..J "" .. <..J < <0:: V> > -- a.. -< W 0:: U< 0:: a.. ..J .... .....0 0:.... W .... < o , V> c:J .......... U VI .... z: -297- :::lW ~o: - :::l 0 .... ~ .... 0 .... 0 0 .... z: 0 LJ LJ 0 - ... Comment Letter from Snohomish County Public Works General Response: Two meetings with Snohomish County Public Works staff have been held since the comment letter was written. The transporta- tion section has been rewritten to emphasize Snohomish County's concerns. Communications will continue during preparation of the BotheH City-wide Transportation Study. Response I: The points raised in this general comment are. further detailed in later paragraphs of the letter regarding the impacts to Snohomish County roads, specificaHy of mitigating measures, and the valid- ityof travel surveys. See responses below. Response 2: The revised TRAFFIC AND CIRCULA nON section provides the detailed information not included in the Draft EIS regarding mitigating measures. It is not the place of an EIS to assign responsibility and conditions for mitigating measures; this is properly done by the officials of the sponsoring agency when issuing permits. The peak-hour volumes for both initial and fuH development are shown along with street improvement details. The before-and-after capacity analysis is based on "Transporta- tion Research Circular 212" methods for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. There is no need to reproduce working papers. The analysis clearly states that mitigating measures are needed after the initial development phase is completed, and prior to further development which satisfies the question regarding timing. Regarding the need for cost estimates see Response 3 below. Response 3: There is a clear statement expressing City of Bothell policy that regards providing an adequate road system to support develop- ment. This policy will be executed by the City when a decision regarding this project is reached, but these decisions cannot be made in an EIS which is basically a disclosure document for - - decision-making. -298- I , I I ,..~ I :i! I , , I ~ ~ I' "i I , I ...t } t, I I , I .) ,: ", I > I I, ; I, , I: I I ,I I ,I I -I I ,I 'I t I I ,I I I I I I , I I Response 4: The lack of an arterial and collector system in south Snohomish County is one fo the most important reasons that travel to and from the site will not use the Snohomish County road system assuming the mitigating measures or their equivalent are carried out for this project. The City is preparing a transportation plan which includes the objectives of (1) detailing an adequate arterial and access sytem for the North Creek Valley, (2) identifying needed capital im- provements, (3) setting conditions on development in the Valley beyond the initial phase of the KolI project, and (4) development of explicit implementation measures including close coordination with Snohomish County. As stated in Response 2, the EIS process is not an appropriate method for updating comprehensive plans; rather, the more normal planning process is needed and provided for in responding to these issues. The planning process will include additional coordination with Snohomish County. The origin-destination data was based exclusively upon a survey of similar facilities in Woodinville and Bothell, and not the KolI Business Center in Redmond. The KolI Business Center was surveyed merely for tr ip generation character istics on the assumption that the Bothell proposal would attract similar kinds of companies, and therefore, would lend additional precision to the trip generation estimates. We believe that the data in Table XV are valid, but have calculated trip generation both ways: (I) using survey results, and (2) using ITE data. The traffic assign- ments are based upon ITE trip generation rates, and the conclu- sions regarding mitigating measures do not change whether local data or ITE data are used. Travel-time studies conducted on all area roads within a four-mile radius of the site confirm our trip distribution evaluation. Even though many trips are oriented to the north and east as suggested in the ELEMENTS OF THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT section, . the best routes to these areas are 1-40.5, SR-.527, and SR-.522 rather than the incomplete collector and arter ial system of -299- Snohoniish County. Therefore, most traffic to the north and east will go ~ on NE 195th to the 1-40.5 interchange, and then proceed by freeway to SR-.527 and north to SR-.522 and SR-9 to Turner Corner, Maltby and beyond to Monroe. Only a few trips will go north on local roads from the site to destinations generally south of SE 228th between 1-40.5 and SR-9. Traffic on local roads will increase due to the residential growth that is already occurring in Bothell and Snohomish County, but little if any impact is foreseen from the Koll project on the Snohomish County road system given adequate mitigating measures. "Correct" trip generation numbers are quite elusive, and are unlikely to be found by strict reference to lTE data. For instance, the correct numbers attached to the letter show 20.6.5 trips per 1000 square feet of gross floor area in an office park with the suggestion to apply this trip rate to the Koll proposal. The Koll proposal details the breakdown of uses in the Business Center to light industry, commercial and office. The explanatory notes in the ITE Trip Generation reference read: "Category 7.50- Office Park; Office parks are generally subdivisions or planned unit develop- ments containing general office buildings and support services such as banks, savings and loan institutions, restaurants and service stations arranged in a park or campus-like atmosphere." Continuing, under Data Limitations we find: "The same general limitations of data concerning general office buildings apply to office parks" (i.e., that both contain data only from studies of suburban buildings, and not from CBD's in central cities)... '''However, because only three studies contained average weekday volumes, these rates and equations require further updating with more data as the rate per 1000 square feet of gross floor area is nearly double that of general office buildings, while the rate per employee is slightly lower." Our conclusion is that the ITE office park rates are inappropriate for the entire Koll Business Center because these rates include commercial uses in unknown proportions. They are obviously great enough to double the rate for general office which is for exclusive office uses. In that we know the breakdown for the Koll proposal, the general office rates reported by ITE were used. The standard rate of one employee per 2.50 square feet was used to -300- ~ I I I .:' 1. I I I , ~ I ~ ~ I ,,,, t , I , I , I , J I d I , I , I , -~ I . I , I I I C ,I . I I ! .' I I I' I I I I I' I I I I eliminate questions of survey adequacy even though there is strong statistical support for the one employee per 490 square feet ratio found in KolI's Redmond facility. Peak-hour factors were also derived from the traffic surveys. We have used standard ITE data in the revised TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION section rather than use the rates from our sur- veys. Response S: The discussion referred to on page 78 Is the description of impacts if no mitigating measures were taken. At no time does the discussion imply or state that creating congestion at one inter- change to shift traffic loads to some other jur isidction is a "solution." Generally a discussion of impacts is related to the ability of existing facilities to accommodate impacts. If they are not able to, and the KolI proposal analysis indicates this, then mitigating measures are discussed after the description of problems. "Mitigating Measures" begins on page 78 just below the paragraph in question. Response 6: See Response 2. Response 7: See Response 2. . Response 8: Revisions have been made in these sections to adjust for the changes in trip generation in the revised TRAFFIC AND CIRCU- LATION section. However, it is difficult to respond to general statement without knowing the writer's basis for defining the discussion of alternatives as "totally inadequate." Response 9: All sources of information and data are listed. We quote from WAC 197-10-40~: "(3) The purpose of an EIS is better served by short, concise documents containing summaries of, or reference to, technical data and avoiding unnecessarily detailed informa- tion. The volume of an EIS does not bear on its adequacy. Larger documents may even hinder the decision-making process." -301- April 13, 1981 Daniel Taylor Dept. of Community Development 18305 lOlst N.E. Bothell, Wash. 98011 From: Ann Aagaard SUBJECT: KOLL COMPANY BUSINESS CENTER--RESPONSE TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Mr. Taylor, The draft statement provides little detailed information on this proposal which is certain to have profound impacts upon development in Snohomish and unincorporated King County, as well as the City of Bothell. The statement does not adequately discuss the secondary impacts of the bu~iness center on the regional and local economy, on adjacent land use(and proposed land uses), on the fisheries resource of North Creek and the Sammamish ~ver, on the regional transportation network, air pollution in the Valley, and on the governmental finances in the City of Bothell and on the adjoining areas. The impact statemeat essentially treats the development as if it exists in a vacuum. Virtually nothing is said about the proposed impacts on Snohomish Co and on the cumulative , impacts of development proposed within the adjacent lands of King Co. despite the fact that the North Creek Comprehensive Plan covers all these adjacent areas in the North Creek Valley. I The importance of considering the welfare of the entire affected community, when an environmental action may have serious environmental impacts in such areas wasFhe basis of the SAVE VS CITY OF BOTHELL suit which invalidated the rezone passed on this property earlier. The Washington Supreme Court also spote to the need to substantially mitigate the negative impacts. This document has no proposals for mitigating the impacts to the community at large. In another recent Washington Supreme Court decision BARRIE VS KITSAP COUNT~ the court emphasized that the purpose of the state env1ronmental policy , act was to ensure that the detailed environmental information disclosed in the environmental impact statement is considered during decision making. Many details about the proposed project are lacking in this DEIS. Lack of details include cost of transportation improvements, total costs to the City of Bothell, a cost benefit analysisr cumulative impacts and costs from other proposed developments adjacent to and affected by this Roll business center, phasing of this development, planned subdivision plans for the development, total site coverage cal- culations, construction plans that require importation of some fill material, impacts on Metro andbther regional concerns such as further , pressure for conversion of prime agricultural lands in the area. Because of the lack of adequate information on this proposal and its failure to meet the basic SEPA requirements as outlined in WAQ97-10-440 sections 5 (b), (d) and (f), I AM REQUESTING THAT YOU REQUIRE AN AMENDED AND OR NEW DRAFT EIS according to WAC 197-10-495 ; The following comments will discuss areas where the draft is inadequate, inaccurate or deficient. I also have numerous questions. -302- I , ~ '. , a I ;j I , , I ,j ,'i ! ,J ., I i t ( I . I I ,! I ~.$ I I ~ ~ I ,I I I I . , I I I i. I I ; } ,I, , , 12 I , I i' ,f :'3 I. ,i I .1 I .1 - .~ I ,[ I I I " I l 2. 1. SITE PLAN: What is the total percentage of the land to be developed? The draft discusses only a 60' impervious surface coverage. For calculation of coverage under the North Creek Comp Plan, the impervious surface coverage does not include roads, sidewalks overhangs, etc. But in the POD required by the same plan, the total coverage must be spelled ou The POD should be discussed in detail in this DEIS. The site plan on page 32 does not accurately depict set backs from the creek, size of lots, landscaping and other details necessary to evaluate the project. What is the toaal number and size of the lots? Where will the buildings and access areas be 'located? Where will there be access to North Creek? Where is the boulevard located relative to I-405 interchanges? How will the boulevard integrate with the transportation circulation plans on the Quadrant development propesals? Is there only one 5 story office building? Given the lack of height restrictions, will there be other tall office building? Will the commercial development be confined to a particular area?' Where will the sewer lines go relative to North Creek? How far is the proposed boulevard from the high water mark on North Creek? On page 76 of the DEIS, phasing is implied. Will this phasing be in 10 acre sections as required? How will clustering be encouraged? ~~at will be the view on the development from the hill areas? 2. MITIGATING MEASURES BASED ON NORTH CREEK VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINAL EIS DECEMBER 1979-Jim Thebaut and Assoc. It is apparent that the employment projections and total percentage of development for this proposal commit the Valley area here described to levels of impacts outlined in Alternative V of Thebaut and Assoc. In Alt. V employment is for 3,163. This current proposal is for 3,550 and exceeds that amount by almost 400 employees. Since 105 acres of the land is developable(75'l, the coverage must fall between 78-85'. In addition, cumulative impacts induced by this development on the upland areas, and stimulating development on the adjacent King County lands proposed for multi-family, commercial, and manufacturing park will add easily a population increase of 7,225 and possibly over that amount since the county projects 4,453 population on the multi-family zoned land adjacent to the City of Bothell. Few of the mitigating measures outlined 0 pages 41-49 of the adopted Plan for the Valley have been followed. 3. Traffic:~The discussion on'traffic shoulaassume full development of the planning area in accordance with the comprehensiv~ plan as well as total projected regional development by the year 2000 ~age 67) of the adopted Bothell Plan for the Valley. This requirement has ,not been followed. The traffic figures do not agree with the traffic data presented by Thebaut and Assoc. in either Alt. IV OR V. Some areas of obvious low discrepancies are the low peak hour traffic data on Ross Road and 120th. thebaut and Assoc. show traffic volume differences being ~to 5 time~ as great as those indicated in this DEIS. "Major differences 1n conclus10nsbetween a project E.I.S. and any previous -E.I.S. including the ,plan E.I.S. should be noted and explained." page 67. Traffic projections are not given for SR 522, Canyon Road, and other surrounding streets and highways as required. "ADT counts should be assigned to all of the surrounding highways and streets with alternate scenarios or worst case predictions in any areas where probably accuracy of predictions becomes marginal" page 67. ~he discussion on traffic must include the costs of the necessary traff1c improvements(public and private). An "anticipated sequence of developmentP is ~ a mitigating measure. If a transportation study is completed at a later date, it will not meet the SEPA Guidelines for Development Proposals in the North Creek Valley Planning Area. -303- Sewer lines will generally follow the boulevard and will not be con- structed along North Creek. The IOO-year flood wi1l be confined to the proposed stream corridor and greenbelt, which provides greater floodwater carrying capacity than the existing channel. Phasing is not proposed. The development will proceed in a sequence - based on the surcharging needed and on the market demand. Clustering would be partially created by the 28 acres of proposed greenbelt. Beyond this, no clustering is proposed. Conceptual views of the project from the base of adjacent hillside areas are included in the Draft EIS. The site is not presently visible from the undeveloped hi1lsides due to dense forest cover. Generally, the visual impacts would be less since the hillsides are higher and have distant views over the site. Response 3: The Thebaut EIS addressed conceptual developments at various intensi- ties of impervious surface coverage but did not specify types of uses (e.g., retail vs. industrial). Furthermore, the method of calculating employment levels was not specified. Thus, the numbers cannot be readily compared. F or the present EIS, specific building square footages by use types are proposed. Employment levels by square foot of use type in this EIS are based on national averages (ITE) and a survey of retail uses by the City of Bellevue. Site coverage calculations are explained in the Draft EIS. Population increases will follow as other sites are developed in compliance with the City's, King County's and Snohomish County's comprehensive plans. The area is rapidly growing and the growth wi1l continue with or without the KolI project. Cumula- tive impacts to population resulting from the KolI project are addressed in the Draft EIS. In addition, the UPS Department of Economics' study in the Final EIS estimated that only six percent of the KolI employees would be new residents to the Bothell area. The total employment estimate has been revised in the Final EIS. -310- , , I Jl" .1" , , I. , ,1 t J ~1,}. ,I :.i.l.i: I I ill' I I .Jil , I '"" I ;:"~i: I ';'1.. I I I I I I I, I' I I I I ....j I I I I I I I Response 4: Response 5: The City's EIS for the plan for the valley addressed cumulative impacts. The traffic volumes, trip generations and directional assignments used in the Koll project EIS were based on a more thorough and detailed study including a survey of comparable nearby businesses. As stated in the Draft EIS, the proposed mitigating measures can adequately handle the traffic from the KolI project and avoid significant impacts to other local roads including those in Snohomish or King County. As stated in the City's plan for the valley and the EIS for the plan, major new transportation improvements, including arterial system expansion, are needed to support the overall growth of the valley. The pending city-wide transportation study will address this cumulative need. In the interim, the proposed mitigating measures can adequately serve the project traffic. The costs of the improvements required to serve the project have not yet been determined, but as stated in the Draft EIS must be borne by the sponsor. An estimate of overall traffic volumes generated by development of the remainder of the valley has been added to the Final EIS. As stated in the Draft EIS, approximately $415,000 was estimated in revenue from utility taxes. With the existing tax structure, if this tax is eliminated, the net fiscal benefit to the City would be reversed, according to the study methods used. Retail sales for the KolI site would come primarily from areas outside of downtown Bothell's present market area. Thus, it would not significantly affect existing businesses as long as the existing businesses remain competitive. Much of the market will come from the rapidly growing areas north and east of the site. However, some competition should be expected, and is generally considered to be healthy in our economic system. The complete market study by Bill Mundy has been added to the Technical Appendix to the Final EIS. A study by the Realesearch Corporation, referenced in the Draft EIS thoroughly investigated other industrial lands. Much of the industrial land considered by the King County study included land that is not -311- Response 6: Response 7: available for development or is not feasible for industrial development. Studies conducted for this project and referenced in the Draft EIS indicate a strong market for industrial land in the area supported by sales records. A follow-up report providing an evaluation of the methods used in the King County industrial land supply study has been published by the author of the King County study (see REFERENCES, Susan Allen, 1980). As stated in the Draft EIS, impacts to school enrollment would be minimal in this rapidly growing district. An independent study con- ducted for this project (see letter in Final EIS from Bruce Mann, Ph.D., of the UPS Department of Economics) concluded that only six percent of the total employees would be new residents in the Bothell area. This is supported by the traffic survey that discovered that the average commuting distance for employees at similar businesses is from six to ten miles. Any new residents will pay property taxes to support the. school district. Although handling charges are deducted the property tax revenues are returned directly to the school district. The community clubhouse, trail, seasonal ice-skating rink and exercise courses are intended for active recreation. The remainder of the open space will be available for passive recreation, but it is not specifically planned for such use. Recreation conflicts with wildlife for the use of open space. Exact design specifications for the trail have not been developed. Since new residents will also pay local taxes to support local parks, and new residential developments in the City must also fund park development or donate park land, there will be a net gain in available recreational facilities. Maintenance schedules have not yet been developed. As stated in the Draft EIS, maintenance of the recreational facilities will be financed by the sponsor. Parking for the open space use is shown on the site plan. Public access is also available wherever the trail intersects a public right-of-way. As stated, the open space and recreational facilities will be available for public use. -312- I ; ~ ~ I , ~ I ~ J.I ,I ',I ,J :. ~ I I I " " I ,-:'; I ,,~ I "I I ,_:I I ,; I ,\ I I I I I i I I I J I , I , I ,; I I I ,I I I I ) I , I I, I I I I I Response 8: Impacts to wildlife and water quality are discussed in the Draft EIS. The intent of the stream relocation is to improve the fish habitat. Relocation also reduces the need for surcharging since it would be in the area of deepest peat. The Draft EIS states that runoff from developed portions of the site would not enter North Creek. As stated in the Draft EIS water quality data is available from METRO, but it also has been added to the Final EIS (see Technical Appendix). The results are discussed on page 30 of the Draft EIS. If properly constructed, the stream relocation should begin to result in improved fish production within a year. Water quality should stabilize within one to four weeks and fish food organisms should stabilize within a year. A stream corridor 130 feet wide is proposed. This will allow adequate space to provide a 100-year floodway, landscaping to create shading, adequate visual definition of the stream corridor and separation of human activity from the stream in most locations. As stated, the preliminary floodplain studies have been completed. The administrative review process, public hearings and final approval are expected to require another year. Very few streams in highly urbanized environments have had the protection proposed by the Koll project. Most salmon streams in highly urbanized areas have been severely impacted in terms of fisheries production. King County, METRO, and Snohomish County all now have regulations , and programs to protect and improve streams for fisher ies production. The Koll project would increase the temperature of runoff flowing to the Sammamish River (see letter and response to METRO), This may be mitigated by making the detention pond permanent and by shading the drainage ditch. The drainage ditch is beyond the Kolt Company's control. The feasiblity of a permanent pond is still being considered. The Quadrant Corporation will have the opportunity to shade the drainage ditch as it develops its site plans. The City may require this. -313- Comment Letter from Lesley V. Berry Response I: Response 2: Utilities are addressed in the Draft EIS. Utilities systems will be brought to the site at developer expense. Utility charges are based on the cost of providing service; thus, the project will pay for the utility service it requires. The cumulative impacts of developing the valley were addressed in the EIS prepared by the City for the City's plan for the valley. However, traffic projections for development of the major remaining valley parcels have been added to the Final EIS. -318- I I 'iil I m I -3; I ill 'I \JJ I dl I :!J I ..'1 'J;C,t( I ~dJ 'I ..Y J "U I ~ Ii <',jl I Ul I dI I dl I ....;: I .;..1. I I I I I I I I I I I I . I ..~ I I I I I I I Response 4: Response 5: The City's EIS for the plan for the valley addressed cumulative impacts. The traffic volumes, trip generations and directional assignments used in the KolI project EIS were based on a more thorough and detailed study including a survey of comparable nearby businesses. As stated in the Draft EIS, the proposed mitigating measures can adequately handle the traffic from the KolI project and avoid significant impacts to other local roads including those in Snohomish or King County. As stated in the City's plan for the valley and the EIS for the plan, major new transportation improvements, including arterial system expansion, are needed to support the overall growth of the valley. The pending city-wide transportation study will address this cumulative need. In the interim, the proposed mitigating measures can adequately serve the project traffic. The costs of the improvements required to serve the project have not yet been determined, but as stated in the Draft EIS must be borne by the sponsor. An estimate of overall traffic volumes generated by development of the remainder of the valley has been added to the Final EIS. As stated in the Draft EIS, approximately $415,000 was estimated in revenue from utility taxes. With the existing tax structure, if this tax is eliminated, the net fiscal benefit to the City would be reversed, according to the study methods used. Retail sales for the KolI site would come primarily from areas outside of downtown Bothell's present market area. Thus, it would not significantly affect existing businesses as long as the existing businesses remain competitive. Much of the market will come from the rapidly growing areas north and east of the site. However, some competition should be expected, and is generally considered to be healthy in our economic system. The complete market study by Bill Mundy has been added to the Technical Appendix to the Final EIS. A study by the Realesearch Corporation, referenced in the Draft EIS thoroughly investigated other industrial lands. Much of the industrial land considered by the King County study included land that is not -311- Response 6: Response 7: - available for development or is not feasible for industrial development. Studies conducted for this project and referenced in the Draft EIS indicate a strong market for industrial land in the area supported by sales records. A foUow-up report providing an evaluation of the methods used in the King County industrial land supply study. has been published by the author of the King County study (see REFERENCES, Susan AUen, 1980). As stated in the Draft EIS, impacts to school enrollment would be minimal in this rapidly growing district. An independent study con- ducted for this project (see letter in Final EIS from Bruce Mann, Ph.D., of the UPS Department of Economics) concluded that only six percent of the total employees would be new residents in the Bothell area. This is supported by the traffic survey that discovered that the average commuting distance for employees at similar businesses is from six to ten miles. Any new residents will pay property taxes to support the school district. Although handling charges are deducted the property tax revenues are returned directly to the school district. The community clubhouse, trail, seasonal ice-skating rink and exercise courses are intended for active recreation. The remainder of the open space will be available for passive recreation, but it is not specifically planned for such use. Recreation conflicts with wildlife for the use of open space. Exact design specifications for the trail have not been developed. Since new residents will also pay local taxes to support local parks, and new residential developments in the City must also fund park development or donate park land, there will be a net gain in available recreational facilities. Maintenance schedules have not yet been developed. As stated in the Draft EIS, maintenance of the recreational facilities will be financed by the sponsor. Parking for the open space use is shown on the site plan. Public access is also available wherever the trail intersects a public right-of-way. As stated, the open space and recreational facilities will be available for public use. -312- I _s I l I t I . , I I , I I " I I I I I , ~ I I ,-, I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Response 8: Impacts to wildlife and water quality are discussed in the Draft EIS. The intent of the stream relocation is to improve the fish habitat. Relocation also reduces the need for surcharging since it would be in the area of deepest peat. The Draft EIS states that. runoff from developed portions of the site would not enter North Creek. As stated in the Draft EIS water quality data is available from METRO, but it also has been added to the Final EIS (see Technical Appendix). The results are discussed on page 30 of the Draft EIS. If properly constructed, the stream relocation should begin to result in improved fish production within a year. Water quality should stabilize within one to four weeks and fish food organisms should stabilize within a year. A stream corridor 130 feet wide is proposed. This will allow adequate space to provide a 100-year floodway, landscaping to create shading, adequate visual definition of the stream corridor and separation of human activity from the stream in most locations. As stated, the preliminary floodplain studies have been completed. The administrative review process, public hearings and final approval are expected to require another year. Very few streams in highly urbanized environments have had the protection proposed by the KolI project. Most salmon streams in highly urbanized areas have been severely impacted in terms of fisheries production. King County, METRO, and Snohomish County all now have regulations . and programs to protect and improve streams for fisheries production. The KolI project would increase the temperature of runoff flowing to the Sammamish River (see letter and response to METRO). This may be mitigated by making the detention pond permanent and by shading the drainage ditch. The drainage ditch is beyond the KolL Company's control. The feasiblity of a permanent pond is still being considered. The Quadrant Corporation will have the opportunity to shade the drainage ditch as it develops its site plans. The City may require this. -313- The project includes detention facilities for a 100-year storm. The floodwater carrying capacity of North Creek through the site would be increased one and one-half feet above the 100-year flood level. Response 9: Detailed soils tests and engineering studies conducted for this project have indicated that the proposed surcharging will provide suitable building locations without importing fill. As stated in the Draft EIS, all runoff from developed portions (imper- vious surfaces) of the site will be collected by a storm sewer system and will not enter North Creek or the open space area. The potential seismic hazards are discussed in the Draft EIS on page 211. Response 10: The air quality study used accepted EPA standards and procedures to predict "worst case" impacts. It is ackowledged that inversions occur; the modeling parameters account for this. Response II: The noise impacts are primarly created by existing and future freeway traffic and are beyond the potential of this project to reasonably mitigate. Response 12: The discussion of agricultural feasibility has been revised in the Final EIS. Contacts with other property owners in the valley indicate that none are realizing a profit from agricultural uses. Bothell has con- sidered farmland preservation in development of the comprehensive plan for the valley. See comment and response for the State Planning and Community Affairs Agency. Response 13: See the revised discussion of comprehensive plan compliance in the Final EIS. The site is not eligibile for the King County farmlands preservation program. The discussion of farmlands has been expanded in the Final EIS. Response 14: See response to Snohomish County Planning Department regarding alternatives. -314- I .; e I ;j 'I ci." I . ~ I -i. I , '.' I ..! I I; I I , I I .,';\ , '~.1 I ,:1 I .; I .j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I M,". Dan TayLor Director Department of ComMunity DeveLopment BotheLL WA 96011 ApI" i L 13. 1961 Re Draft E.I.S. on Koll Business Center Dea," Hr. Taylor; I wish to express my concern for the North Creek Valley, as it wouLd be severely impacted by this proposed ~evelopment. I Of prime concern is the effect of the great impervious surface J coverage that wou Ld reduce the natura l benef its of wet Land so i Ls. and its subsequent reduction in the quality of North Creek itself. It seems that the entire proposaL confLicts with one of our North C'"eek Po l icy Sta tements, in tha t "Pend i ng a deta i led st udy by the 2 u.s. ArMY Corps of Engineers or H.U.D., no deveLopment shouLd be aLLowed within the shoreLine management areas of North Creek. ~ -' In addition a deveLopment of this nature wi LL eventuaLLy cause the enti'"e valLey to develop with a similar density. Our North Creek VaLLey PoLicy Statements. I beLieve envisions a lessor degree of deveLopment. We shouLd not give it all away the first time around. but strive to uphoLd the spirit of the North Creek Policy Statement. ;;~~1t Bothe l L D,' i ve -315- Comment Letter from Jerry L. Pyle Response I: Response 2: Response 3: North Creek is presently contained in a narrow, diked channel. Its flow comes from upstream tributaries and is not significantly affected by on-site soils. Due to the existing dikes and drainage system, most of the site drains to the Sammamish River or off-site and back to North _Creek near its mouth. Runoff from developed areas of the site would be collected in a storm sewer system and kept entirely separate from North Creek. Thus, there would be no significant impact to the water quality of North Creek. As stated in the Draft EIS, the preliminary study has been completed. Additional discussion has been added to the Final EIS. The remainder of the valley is proposed for similar density under both the City's comprehensive plan and King County's latest draft of the Northshore Revised Community Plan. Comparable development plans for the remaining parcels have been announced and are independent of the KolI proposal. -316- .1 iUl I "ji I ':'~ II .; I I d I "j I , ~ \' ~' I .~ I I I . !' I ,.h I II ",-.i I ~.JI I .di I "_"h I .,j I .} I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3610 233rd S E Bothell WA 98011 April 13, 1981 Mr. Dan Taylor, Director Dept. of Community Development City Hall Bothell WA 98011 / Dear Mr. Taylor: Having studied the D.E.I.S on the proposed Koll business center, and also some of the letters that have been mailed to you in response to it, I feel concerned that not only will the business center itself be over-taxing the capabilities of the local. utilities to provide service, but the inevitable subsequent development of the surrounding area will be a further burden on these utilities. The D.E.I.S refers rather vaguely to the transformation of the area from a rural to an urban environment, without offering any possible mitigation measures for the secondary impact of the Rolli center. Although studies have been made on the effect of increased traffic on local streets from the center itself, which will be creating a traffic load in excess of capacity at certain points, there is little mention made of the effects of the possible devel- opment of a similar center to the south of 195th, and the probable future residential development in the area. These factors must surely be taken into consideration. It seems that with the probable additional development in this area, there will be some very serious problems with regard to traffic and the supply of adequate services. Sincerely " .~ L~-~ - ,l-', .,~- ~- . .-:--... Lesley'V. Berry 2 -317- Utilities are addressed in the Draft EIS. Utilities systems will be brought to the site at developer expense. Utility charges are based on the cost of providing service; thus, the project will pay for the utility service it requires. I , I J I ,; I i I ! I .t ~ I , I I I I :.;.r.. I I . > I I I I 1 I i I Comment Letter from Lesley V. Berry Response 1: Response 2: The cumulative impacts of developing the valley were addressed in the EIS prepared by the City for the City's plan for the valley. However, traffic projections for development of the major remaining valley parcels have been added to the Final EIS. -318- I I I I I '1' .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JOHN SPEllMAN Governor ROllAND A. SCHWTnN Olrector STATE OF WASHINGTON DE? ARTMENT OF ASHERIES 17SGeneRlM..;.,;,r,arionBuilditw . Olympia. WdShingron9/lS04 . (Z06)7SH16ro . (5CAN)DH.6OO April 13, 1981 Department of Community Development 18305 - 101st NE Bothell, Washington 98011 Attention Daniel W. Taylor, Director Gentlemen: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Koll Business Center-Bothell involving North Creek tributary to Sammamish River in Section 4, Township 26 North, Range 5 East. W.'1., in Kinll County WRIA B-08.0070 Our Department has reviewed the above mentioned Draft EIS and would like to offer ~~e following comments: 1. ExistinQ Conditions for Wildlife In addition to functioning as an important transportation corridor, this portion of the creek also provides spawning area and some rearing. Limited information available makes it difficult to evaluate the spawning potential. A stream survey in 1967 identified cl1inook salmon redds in the location of this proposal (between one mile and one and a quarter miles above the mouth of North Creek). The condition of North Creek (straight and uniform), at that time, was very similar to its present condition. Additional evaluations by our department show that we do not consider this portion of the creek to be prime spawning area. 2. Environmental Impact for Wildlife Since it is impossible to duplicate nature..and attain the same results, potential and imminent impacts occurring from a channel change can not be taken lightly. A channel change 'accomplished with the utmost care and forethought can result in short term water quality impacts and a short term loss of shade and cover (1-5 years) as well as a set back in productivity. Part of this can be mitigated by planting trees of sufficient size to provide immediate shading of the stream. A poorly planned and constructed channel realignment can cause devastating long term impacts to the stream and the fishery resource. We definitely feel that an on-site consultant, as suggested in the EIS, would help to prevent unnecessary impacts caused during construction. Since, in this case, a properly designed channel realignment would more closely approach the original condition than what presently exists, it is likely that rearing area would increase and questionab.le spa~tning area would decrease. -319- -e-3 Department of Community Development -2- April 13, 1981 We emphasize the need for any stream corridor to provide more than adequate flood flow capacity so that the natural accumulation of instream debris will not conflict with adequate channel capacity. Additionally, we prefer that the open space be kept as a natural area, potentially used as wildlife habitat and natural retention/ detention. If the open space were used as a grass area for sports, etc., it would need to be maintained (fertilized, graded, etc.). This would result in a water quality impact on the stream and possibly cause a loss of streamside vegetation due to the nature of the area (public use). All revegetation of stream corridors and open space areas would be with native plants. 3. Water - Environmental Impact It is highly important that the quality of the discharge from the de- tention pond be carefully considered. Although the water will not be entering North Creek, it will eventually reach the Sammamish River with its potential water quality impacts. The Sammamish River already has a serious summer water quality problem which must not be worsened. During the summer increased high temperatures, turbidity and chemicals from the outfall could be very detrimental. The condition and size of the drainage channel could positively affect (shade - reducing temper-- ature) or negatively affect (no shade, eroding banks) these conditions. A multi-stage orifice on the retention pond outfall could help lessen the potential turbidity and erosion prOblems in the drainage channel and turbidity in the Sammamish River. 4. MitiQatinQ Measures Any public access to the stream corridor should be controlled and limited. A few foot bridges would be acceptable. Along the majority of the bank the fishery resource would be best served if vegetation prohibited accessibility. Thank you for the opportunity to review your document. It appears to be well though out and researched. We hope our comments will assist you in completing it. Sincerely, , /.ro~-vJ~ /1!-\ Rolland A. Schmitten, '7/ Di rector -320- I d.: I J - ';.<l I I dl I, " ) I ; I , ., I I , I .-_, I ,..1 I d I "".N I _~'1 I f I .1 I .1< I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I Comment Letter from State of Washinl!;ton Department of Fisheries Response: The City and the sponsor will work closely with the Department of Fisheries to .address their concerns prior to issuance of the required Hydraulic Permit. Several meetings were held prior to issuance of the Draft EIS and since, and wi1l continue. As suggested, a multi-stage orifice will be used on the retention pond outfall. Also, the potential advantages of' incorporating a permanent pond with the retention pond are still being evaluated. With adequate depth (4 to 6 feet), such a pond could reduce turbidity, temperatures and nutrients in the stormwater. Potential shading of the drainage ditch between the site and the Sammamish River is beyond control of the project sponsor, but may be feasible for the Quadrant project which is presently in the planning stages and could be required by the City during site plan review. The present proposal provides access to the creek at the two pedestrian bridges. (See also letters and responses to the Department of Game and the Muckleshoot Indians.) -321- ~ .e.IS/,:.-..:uJ~~.~~"4h~ l:I.d ob~~ ..~~Z ~a.-AJdt ~ ~ ~ ~'Ie?C '7 ~AAU'u~~,J~!t.< ;.J ~~~/~""?U.rZ' 7~~~~ ~A~~..,?,,:.A'/~. ~. . d'~uf'(/~ d/,/u," ~ ?7-'~-/~ ~rZ. ~~ aZ~~~nD~~~ . ~.It"~1 a.u . ~.AI.~~'.-./ ~ r~"/'.,,~J .kL~' ~&u'UV~ ~~.-ri.e.~~~ ~a ~~ .t2.'Id'~ ~o/ ~~-e<e~..e~ u-,lL k fa ~-~ A~. aa.7ay~~~~ ~ k/,h~(/ 'Y'~ '7.7ZU:I;; ~~ Lk". ~ ~~ A~~ .U",-r/. tda ~ ~ 9~fk - oV'~~-a.kcl r-ui /' , I .;A. I , I , . I , I I I ; I i' I , I . I > I .- I . I . ~ Ji I .1 ~ I .~ I .1 I , I ~./~/9'JI A: tf;'&::=~~a;;~S. ~d a/'dJ; /7J'/3-/~'" ~~ .w~.~.:u.,;~c - 322.:.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I ; I I Comment Letter from Maria A. Walsh Response: , ,." 'r: The Northshore area and the Northshore School District are growing rapidly. This growth will continue with or without the proposed KolI project as indicated by the new schools already under construction in the district. A survey of employees in similar developments was. conducted for this EIS; it was found that they live an average of six to ten miles from their place of employment. 'Thus, the growth generated by the KolI project will be spread out over a large area rather than intensively impacting one school. . As stated in the Draft EIS, the KolI project wiU generate substantial tax revenue to the Northshore School District. In addition, any new employees moving into the area will also pay property taxes on their homes, much of which will go to the school district. -323- ~ . aoTHELL CHAMSER OF COMMERCE 10009 MAIN STREET BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 486.1245 April 14, J98l Daniel W. Taylor, Director Department of COlDlllUnity Development 18305 101st N.E. Bothell, WA .98011 RE: COllUllents on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Koll Business Center Dear Mr. Taylor: The Bothell Chamber of COllUllerce, through its business development cOllUllission has reviewed the Draft EIS for the Koll Business Center. We feel that all of the important issues and concerns have been addressed in this document, and that it is adequate. The Board of Directors of the Bothell Chamber of COllUllerce recom- mends that you accept this Draft EIS for the Koll Busines Center. Sincerely, /~ ~;/' / ~ ,,(f1l.'Uili.l-/.. 'U:''''i' Norman K. ~n8" Business Development Chairman -'-;7 c--- ~~ ~ 4...--<>-- Ray Schwab President cc: Rodger Fagerholm, President The Koll Company -324- I , " .. I i.i I .b I , I ;i I , ~ '~.' I I , I I I , . I ; I : I I .~ I; I :; I ,I I .1 I . I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I Comment to Letter from Bothell Chamber of Commerce Your comments are noted. No response. -325- 3 4 .5 PUBLIC INPUT FROM THE KOLL DRAFT E.I.S. PUBLIC BEARING HELD ON APRIL 14, 1981 I Knut Aagaard, 16524 104th N.E., Bethell - The draft environmental impact statement is deficient in a nUlllber of respects. l\monq these are first the area of economic anaJ.ysis. First, the projected retail space exceeds that presently in Bothell. Yet, the projected sales tax incOllle is less than one third the present receipts. This is an example of flawed projections. Another area is that nearly 60' of the projected revenues to the City are utility taxes and this makes the City more dependent on the 8' utility tax which in Bethell is widely considered to be a r"91'essive or an unfair tax. This factor, therefore, has a long te= and major impact on the cOllllllUnity and on its tax structure and this requires a clear discussion and econc:mic analysis. The third item in the economic anal.ysis is that the draft environ- mental. impact statement admits that local service costs might initially exceed revenues. Now how is this deficit to be funded, approximately how large will it be, how many years will it persist? Next, no where is there a demonstra- tion that area residents will benefit economically frail the development. In fact, quite the contrary, and this is contrary to objectives 1 and 3 of the North Creek Valley COmprehensive Plan. 2 the second area of deficiency is in the section on air pollution. The air pollution predictions are based on a line source model whereas the actual source distributions will be two diJDensional and inhomogeneous. Furthe=ore, the predictions are based on unrealistic emission factors and the traffic efficiency. Onder realistic modeling conditions and periJDeterization, what will the pollutant levels be? The third area regards North Creek. First, the issue of reali9Tllllent. The draft environmental. impact statement states that the repositioning of the stream will result in repositioning of the gravel, for example, or it should stabilize wi thin a year and so forth. But, there is no evidence in the draft EIS of any hydraulic model having been applied to the problel!l and the hydraulic calculations. For example, under the proposed hydraulic head, which is about one in six hundred in geometry, what water velocity profiles are anticipated for mean and extreme flows? What are the bedload characteristics under these conditions? pnder what flow conditions will suspended loads be carried through rather than cloe; the gravel beds, etc.? A project of this kind re- quires careful hydraulic analysis and until such is done it's impossible to assess the impact. Another item regarding North Creek is oil pollution. Now, oU, water separators are highly inefficient. What efficiency is projected? What type of separators are anticipated? What will be the impact of the past oil that is released? Again, these are necessary to prior assessment of likely impact. The third item regarding North Creek is the heavy metal removal and the draft environmental' impact statement is simply wrong. Dissolved heavy metals will not be removed in a settlinq basin in the natural PH range that's present. The fourth area that I felt needed quite a bit of work was the question of mitigating measures. In a nUlllber of instances, for example if yOu' look on page 78, a recommendation to wait and see what happens is presented as a -326- I :li I " 1 I :3 I .1 I ;. H , .~ I .-i I i ~ I I -, I ~_b - :..:" I ~J - ,.., I .J I ,J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mitigating measure and that is just nonsense. What is required instead are constructive statements of actions that may be taken to soften undesireable impacts and I feel this is a serious failing in the present draft EIS. Ann Aagaard, 16524 104th N.E., Bothell - I'm going to direct my. cOllllllents pri- marily to the SEPA reCruirements and to the requirements in the guidelines of the North Creek Plan and I left one of my papers. First of all I was one of the persons who signed the petition requesting this public hearing on the DEIS. After carefully reviewing this draft environmental impact statement, reading many of the responses that have cOllIe into the City, I am requesting that you, Dan Taylor, as the responsible SEPA official require that either a new draft environmental statement be written with co=ect detail, adequate environmental information as required W1der the State SEPA requirements and that specific mitigating measures for Bothell and for the surrounding areas be included in this draft. If you do not feel that a total draft enviromDental impact state- ment is required then a second acceptable possibility that I would suggest to you is that you require that they write detailed supplements on the following areas. First of all, a supplement on transportation circulation plan. secondly, a supplement on the hydrology which includes the North Creek channelization and relocation and in that the storm detention system. Thirdly, a cOlllplete study on the agricultural land potential, its value under intensive use as agricultural land, and its effect of taking this out of agricultural use on the other agricultural lands in the area. An economic benefit-cost analysis and finally, a detailed soils study. These supplements, I feel, should be circulated for public review and canment as would a draft environmental impact statement. The reason for this is because of all of the cOllllDents so far to the City, they all show significant errors in calculations in traffic and in these other areas which I will review in more detail. I do not feel that the final EIS should be put towards the Councilor for the Planning COlIIIDission without comments from these agencies on these detailed supplements. I spoke to the fact that the...I feel that the SEPA ordinance has not been fulfilled. Specifically, I would point under the WAC Ordinance 197-10-440. These areas specifically have not been ful- filled in this draft environmental. impact statement. The direct and indirect impacts upon the environment, which may result frOlll the proposal - that's 5b. Under 6d, if the proposal involves phased construction the timing of each phase should be identified. If later phases of the proposal are expected to require future environmental analysis, these should be identified. I would like to emphasize this area of phasing. In the draft environmental impact statement there is an inference that there will be phasing but this is never spelled out, there is no times, no dates, no amount of square footage that will be covered, no details as to how much land will be done in the first phase or the second phase, and no answers as to whether or not any of the later construction projects will require environmental impact statements. This is particularly important because of the North Creek Plan 'for the Valley requires that this be done in 10 acres phases and we have no idea of what's involved. Onder 6f, it requests that a brief description of existing compre- hensive land use plans and zoning regulations applicable to the proposal and how the proposal is consistent and inconsistent with these. Of course the comprehensive plan which you are primarily concerned with is the North Creek one that you have developed in the City of Bothell and I have pointed out in my written cOllllDents many areas in which it is inconsistent with this plan but -2- -327- of course this also involves the adjacent areas and I feel that the dOCUlllent has totally misrepresented the COIIlpatibility with SnohOlllish County in particu- lar. While King County is undergoing a revision process at the same time, even this revision has not been adequately discussed in the dOCUlllent. And finally, under Section 11, excuse me 12.1, there is a request under the SEPA ordinance that reasonable alternatives shall include any action which might approximate the proposal' s objective but at a lOWer environmental cost or de=eased level of environmental degradation. And the recent Berry vs. Kitsap Co. lawsuit emphasized the need for reasonable detailed analysis and I feel that the analysis that has been given in this dOCUlllent is. so superficial that it defies des=iption. I would like to spend just a few minutes now discussing the areas in your awn SEPA additialal requirements under your SEPA guidelines and the recently adopted North Creek Plan where the DElS is also deficient. I would point out that in the SEPA guidelines for development proposals in the North Creek Valley Planning area, the statement is that the fOllowing guidelines must be considered. So I would gather that this is a definite requirement. It also states that these are guidelines that are meant to supplement the =ent SEPA guidelines so they should be included in this dOCUlllent at this time. It also points out that this should... these SEPA requirements should be met by pro- ject and site specific analysis and not in general terms. We have very few details in this draft environmental impact statement about the specific site or about the specific project itself. How many buildings are going to be out there? How many lots is it going to be divided into? How is it going to be phased? What is the subdivision plans? What is the details on the roads? The only drawing that is in the draft is one that is drawn to scale but is extremely rough' and is not detailed at all. Onder Earth in your SEPA guide- lines, page 62, there is a discussion of what is required regarding the Valley floor, regarding potential removement and replacement of peaty soils and/or preloading and filling with info%lllation on quantity, suitable areas for dis- posal and source of any flll or preload material. With a full discussion of the secondary impacts which may be created. This has not been done in this document. The statement is simply that they simply are going to preload the peat soils. I cannot believe after all of the info%lllation that has been gathered in 1973 and 1974 on the previous proposal for the shopping center and the amount of flll that was going to be necessary for that development that there is not going to be any fill imported into this area at all. If nothing else, they are going to have to bring in gravel to fill the bottOlll of North Creek. Even that has not been discussed in any kind of details as required. Another section under Earth requires that they talk about the relation to the probably seismic activity in the area. This has not been discussed in the document despite the fact that this is a class 3 seismic hazard soils. Onder Air, the SEPA guidelines by the City of Bothell you are required to dis- cuss different wind directions, inversion layers including height, relation to local topography and probabilitY of inversions. This has not been done... simply taken a line source IIIOdel and applied it. Onder Water on page 64, to just emphasize a few of the areas. You are supposed to talk about stream qual- ity, status of flood plain studies. level of development in the drainage basin, and interjurisdictional agreements. The statement on stream quality in the dOCUlllent was that this was available frOlll Metro although that I understand -3- -328- I ::o-.ft. I ..M I ,.., I ,J:! I ;.1 I ,.f I ~. ;; I . ~ I ".-.;: I I . I ,,i I ;. I :. ~ I ~j I ,J I 1 I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I from talking with the person who was responsible for collectinq this for Metro, that the students who did the study were not even allowed on the property to take stream quality samples, water quality samples. Accordinq to the letter frc:m Snohomish County there is a preliminary flood plain studies cc:mpleted on the area with a significant flood plain already analyzed. This should be spelled out completed in this document. The level of developDent in the drain- aqe basin obviously would include developDent that is beinq proposed by ICinq County at this time. And to my knowledqe there are no interjurisdictional aqreements reqardinq North creek. Onder the section on Land Ose, you are suppose to ad4ress internal compatibility as well as compatibility with the surroundinq areas. As I mentioned before, it is my'understandinq that this development is not cc:mpatible with the land use in Snobomish County and yet the document 1JDplies that it is and I feel that this is not co=ect. Under your requirements for Transportation Circulation, it states that you should assUllle full development of the planning area in accordance with. the Cc:mprehensive Plan as well as the total projected reqional developDent by the year 2000. This has not been done, we only qo to the year 1985. It requires that you talk about alternate scenarios or worst case predictions in any areas where probable accuracy of predictions becomes marginal. There have been three analysis of traffic on this area. One done by Thebaut and Associates for your North creek Valley Comprehensive Plan. One cominq in frCDll ICinq County and one ccminq in frOlD Snohomish County. All three of these tot:aJ.ly in a major con- tradiction point out the total inaccuracy of the traffic data for this development. To point out specifically, Thebaut and Associates have an employment of almost 400 people less than what is beinq proposed for this developDent and yet in cases like on Ross Road and 120th they have four to five times the traffic volume. ICing County has talked about the inadequacy of the traffic data and Snohomish County has talked about the inadequacy and the incorrect figuring of the traffic volumes. And it states in the last sentence of the paragraph, major differences in conclusions between a project EIS and any previous EIS includinq the plan EIS, which was done by Thebaut and Associates should be noted and explained. This has not been done. You also require that you do traffic counts on the secondary areasaround such as l20th, Canyon Park Road, 520 not 520 excuse me 527. Those have not been done. And I feel that there should be at this time sOlDe kind of cost analysis includ- inq in the document. And finally, I would just point out that since the traf- fic data is so flawed, therefore one must also question seriously the economic data which. is using sOlDe of the same fiqures that they used for the traffic data in terms of employment and activity that is goinq out in this proposal. And finally, knowinq my interest in aqricultural land preservation I do have to put in a pluq for the Kinq County Aqricultural Task Force Report on local aqriculture. After spendinq almost a year with experts allover King County in the field of aqricultural land preservation includinq farmers, I find the statements that were in a mere sentence statinq why this land was going out of aqricultural production into an under asphalt as basically totally ludicrous given the impact and the interest in preservinq aqricultural land in the ICinq County area. The Aqricultural Task Foree as developed as number of suqqes- tions many of which are already being tried and carried out in the ICinq County area reqarding marketing techniques, land use requl.ations, financinq techniques, all of which are designed to promote and encouraqe the retention of aqricultural lands in Kinq County. I feel that this doemnent should, at the minimum, discuss SaDe of these proposals and how what would be the cost and benefit to the City for the lonq term if it was used under intensive aqricultural use. Thank you. :t29- - Martin Paup, 2306 No. 77, Seatt1.e - I and my wife own a couple of business pro- perties here in downtown Bothell at 10020 Main St. and 100~5 N.E. lB3rd. I have to apologize, my wife and I live in Seattle and we haven't kept abreast of this development as much as we should and we were not aware that the draft environmental mpact statement has already been written. I can't cOllllllent on that because through my own fault I wasn't aware. But could I make maybe just one minutes worth of comments about the proposal. I'll cut out nine tenths... thank you very IllUCh. I speak in opposition to the granting of this proposal because. . . for frankly self serving reasons regarding the impact on the pro- posal if it does go through on my wife and myself. We fear an 1.mmecUate loss of custOlllers- in the downtown Bothell area and consequent detrimental. mpact as a result of the proposecl satellite. We fear it will blight the existing business district which will adversely not only affect the property owners but also the people who rent the space for us and do business in the area. Many of these people won't have the wherewi thall to move to the newer area because of the higher rents. Consequently, we ask that the downtown area be enhancecl and savecl. Mike Bunney, 19103 Ross Rd. - I am here tonight representing the concerned residents on Ross Road. As IDOst of us here know, traveling down Ross Road is a very narrow street and sOllIe spots along Ross Road hardly two vehicles can pass along siele each other. I have livecl on that street now for three years and have seen three winters go by with many accidents. Therefore, my question is short tonight. I would like to know what is the in=eased traf- fic flow that we can expect traveling down Ross Road into the North Creek development. Number 1, what studies has the City of Bothell done to predict increase of traffic and future increases of traffic? What impact will this North Creek development have on Ross Road? And what proposals or changes does the City have concerning Ross Road with this in=ease in traffic? Judy Fisher, 23205 35th Ave. S.E. - I would like to address myself to the in- adequacies in the draft environmental impact statement on Snohomish County. I live in SnohOlllish and this development will be in my backyard. I feel we have been total.ly ignored by the OEIS. The traffic seems to be ignored, the roads are ignored. As far as the sewers, that is not considered. There is a sewer on the property right now which the draft EIS says cannot be utilized which is true but it is on pilings which the draft EIS did not address itself to and with all the surcharging and movement of land I'm wondering what they are going.to do about that. The connection they want to make with Metro, that the development wants to make with Metro, would be I'm assuming temporary. If there were any investigations into this Metro has an agreement, I do not recall the name, with Snohcmish County with a link up with a trunk on the county Une which I asSUllle woul.d have to be put in after the development was in. I was wondering how many Unes we are 'Joing to have on that property? l20th, 22Sth - these have all been mentioned and 240th Bloomberg Rill Road. The impacts on these roads are not covered at all and I'm sure traffic; it is mentioned in the DEIS is going to be northeasterly they say. Now thats all cOllling to SnohOlllish County and east into WOodinville. I was particularly interested in the choice of this site so I was looking in the DEIS for the... to the end in the doC\Dllent where they have alternative sites considereci and I feel that it is a very sketchy handling. I would like to know details on the alternate sites. I know there is SEPA requirements on this - I don't think they have been followed. Population - I was very confused about. -5- -330- I .:,.~ I (5- I ;.:~ I .J I ~,-~ I -.:J I ,-' I I - I . , "' I .j I , ",. I ." I ~,5 I .1 I i I . I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I There are parts of the DEIS that say there will not be a shift in population and yet they say there is going to be a great deal of pressure for developnent on the hillsides. That seems to be contradictory. There are also places in the DEIS that say yes there will be a shift of population, there will be people living close to the site for carpooling. So, there are contradictions all through this and I find it confusing. There is a lack of detail. There is ca:lsistently cOllllDents such as something should be done, something is not anticipated, something is anticipated. I find the DEIS generally unacceptable and I was very disappointed in it. Thank you. . Frank Saksa, 18221 l08th Ave. N.E. - I was pleased to hear all the cOllllDents concerning traffic because in my opinion the Achille's heel of Bothell and adjacent area is traffic. Both east and west and . north and south and I would like to take a few moments to talk about it. The impact statement says very little about the. traffic impacts of the proposal on the adjacent unincorporated areas in King and Snohomish Counties. Approval of the proposal would accel- erate as we all know, the conversion of agricultural land in western King County and adjacent Snohomish County but they don't seem to address themselves to what will be there. The lack of adequate info:mation on the road use impact needs _ Let's identify the developer's responsibility to make these improvements and also the public finance impact on King and Snohomish County for the remainder and keep in mind that there will be a remainder. So, we should look at the whole of the traffic impact financially to us. The need to identify the transportation impact is the conversion of adjacent land, best exemplified by, for example, right now I think we have a corporation called Quadrant Corpora- tion, that proposes to develop property to the south and that's already asked before this present proposal is in effect and we should demand that we have a full impact and what is going to happen the next 15 to 20 years and what will be the traffic impact and the cost and is it reasonable. I heard Ms. Fisher mention, are there any alternate sites. If you could visualize a bottleneck _ the best way to avoid a bottleneck is .not to prevent it to happen, and if we are a bottleneck in this area we should be very careful about permitting some- thing to jam up that bottleneck. We want a slow trickle through the bottle- neck instead of a big jam. So we should be seriously thinking of alternate sites. Trip generation rates is the philosophy that I seem to sense through- out this impact statement. They seem to refer to the national average data but then they say let's consider supplemental information and they incorporated Bothell's OND survey. I am sure the OND survey complimented their reasoning or they wouldn't refer to it. I think we should take a definite stand on the other side that unless the supplemental data actually makes it more conserva- tive compared to the national average you should never use it. Only if it is going to make it more restrictive should you then refer to the supplemental data and say it is even worse than the national average hut never say well here's some supplemental data that will better our cause and therefore let us use it and in a sense what it appears we are doing down to the whole prevailing philos- ophy here is that we are watering down the whole impact - where -we are supposed to be lOOking out for our needs instead we are lOOking for loop holes to say well now we could waiver this and we could waiver that. I feel alerted to this deficiency in the impact statement throughout the impact statement this watering down concept where there is a lack of facts. I would feel that the Community Development should be both charged with ~~e responsibility to identify these deficiencies and also secondly be held accountable for costs suffered by the City and the County to failing to adequately identify these areas. There is always an after effect and I think we should be holding our development -6- -331- staff here responsible to make sure that we are doinq a qood job in these areas. In closinq I would like to say because of qeoqraphy the City of Bothell and the adjacent areas of Kinq and Snohcmish Counties form a natural bottleneclc of traffic - both east and west and north and south and it can becalle our Achille's heel if we don't protect ourselves stringently in this sensitive area. Ann Matheson, 12606 H.E. 192nd Pl. - I am a resident of Bollyhills. I'm not up on all your EIS and everythinq but as a resident I think we are all con- cerned up there. Every time we turn around we have got a qarbage dump we're fighting to qet rid of because of the odor and the noise. How the City wants us to live with a umpteen a=es of industrial,. smau or large _ we do not know how IllUch. and we are goinq to have to put up with all the traffic and noise and I think it is kind of unfair. We pay taxes just as well as anyone else and we are getting dumped for it. Thank you. Norma J. KUhn, 19413 Bollyhills Dr. N.E. - I Would like to...I have not read the EIS but I would like to speak to the traffic that's goinq to be cominq into Bollyhills but I would like to say that I am not against the development of this property. I do not own it and I presume there are a lot of owners here toniqh.t because I believe the people who own tha property have the right to sell it if they don't want to farm it. But I am concerned with our new interim road that where our driveways baclc out that we will have such a heavy volume of traffic that it will be unsafe and I would like to see somethinq done about having this developer make changes to the road qoinq around the side of the hill or something not to direct this full flow of traffic upon 'Us. I do hope that the valley will be developed. I believe it is the right of the owners to sell and develop. JUdy Fisher (2nd time) - Not beinq used to speaking sorry I did mean to speak to the Snohomish County - their plan... their North creak plan... if you want to call it Snohomish County plan - I think it is mentioned in the !:lEIS that generally is consistent... the two plans are consistent and it is not and I would like the DEIS to address itself to that. The North creek Plan.. . Bothell, s plan...the two names are confusing...is not consistent with Snohomish county's North creek Plan. In Snohcmish County in 1977 we had a plan which had a lot of input from the people frail the residents and it is a preservation plan for it's the rural nature and the rural. zoninq that we do have and no way can you put in a multi-use center qenerally consistent with rural conservation land. I question whether there was any meetings held which is what the DEIS says there were. I know there has been a letter calle in frail Snohomish County and I suppose you can refer yourselves to that. George Fries, 2011 112th H.E. - I sit back and listen to people to discuss and I feel like old man (1) or something. I've been around here since 1916. I helped clear the property that we are discussinq. I saw it develop into the Bothell area. Durinq the later 20s before our biq depression that fam went broke. They put a qolf course on it - I worked in'the qolf course. It went broke. Vitulli came, I worked for them. They had marqinal success and I don't really know but I do know that if it wasn't for the second world war they wouldn't of lasted as lonq as they did. Now you tallc about valuable agricultural land - that's fine but you show me one bit of agriculture that is not a small family affair this day and age that can make a qo of it. I happen to manaqe a farm to the north of this. I know exactly how IllUch it is -7- -332- I >:.II , I '4] , ,p I ..& I ;.1 I .i I i I ;1 I i I ..< I , ~ I .d I d , I , j I J ., ;.1 II 1 I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I costing that man to keep that fazm looking beautiful for you people to look at. The gentleman here talking about Ross Road. I've lived out there. I've seen the number of tu.s people including my parents tried to get Ross Road widened. The City of Bethell always poor - they couldn't do anything. The people wouldn't give them the right of way therefore the road is still a 40 foot road. Further IIIOre when we got saddled with 405 big hue and cry they put an interchange up here on 527. The City merchants wanted this inter- change at Beardslee Blvd. In exchange for that, whether it is written or not I do know becauSe I went to meetings, 190th supposed to go straight through. Ross Road was supposed to be widened - the traffic down 104th and .100th up here was supposed to go on to 190th - thAt has never been done. -8- -333- Responses to Comments made at Public Hearinl!: Knut Aal!:aard Response 1: As stated, the sales tax is an estimate based on national averages for similar centers. Only new business to Bothell (71.11%) was counted. The City also receives sales tax revenues from sources other than retail - outlets. Response 2: Response 3: Response 4: Response .5: See letter and study by Bruce Mann of the UPS, Department of Economics in this document. Air pollution models projected a "worst case" situation using standard- ized and widely accepted EPA procedures and assumptions. A two- dimensional model, as suggested by Mr. Aagaard, would project lower pollutant levels due to dispersal over a wider area. Hydraulic engineering calculations for the stream have been prepared by the project engineer (Horton-Dennis) and will be reviewed by the Departments of Game and Fisheries. These have been incorporated in the Technical Appendix to the Final EIS. The questions related to stream flows and gradient are appreciated for their significance and are being addressed by the project engineer and the Department of Fisher- ies. Oil/water separators are efficient if they are maintained. In most cases, they have not been maintained. You are correct that heavy metals in solution are not removed by silt traps. The Draft EIS referred only to solids. The impacts and mitigating measures for the KolI project are identified in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS recognizes, however, that further development in the valley will require even .substantially greater improvements. The city';'wide traffic study will identify ultimate improvements required. -334- I iJl: ~ I ~-t: I ~.~ I (,i - " ~ I - I I ., I , M I d I , I, i I I I .:ii I ! . ~ I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I Ann Aa~aard Response: Martin Paup Response: Mike Bunney Response: Judy Fisher Response: Frank Saksa Response: Ann Matheson Mrs. Aagaard's comments are generally representative of her written comments. (See response to letter from Ann Aagaard.) See study by Bill Muildy of the potential impacts to the downtown Bothell retail market. The study is published in the Technical Appendix to the Final EIS. The projected impacts to traffic on Ross Road are described in the Draft and Final EIS under TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION. See response to letter from Judy Fisher. See response to letter from Frank Saksa and revised TRANSPORTA- TION AND CIRCULATION section in Final EIS. Your comments are noted. Norma J. Kuhn . Response: See revised TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION section for pro- jection of impacts to this road. Judy Fisher (second comment) Response: Geor~e Fries See revised discussion of Snohomish County plan in the Final EIS. Your-comments are noted. -335- I ~~ I d I .;,ji I ,:j.' MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRlaE,~ FISHERIES DEPARTMENT I., 38015 17eNO AVENUE S.E. - AUBURN, WASHINGTON 8Booe - [e06) 838-3311" 15 April 1981 I ,0 I , ~ I ;;: I l I ..i I .,)) I ,I I ~J: I '.' I .S I j I ! I Tlomi..l Taylor, Dl%ectar Ilepartment of I"nmo1nity IlewJ.qm!al: 18305 lOIst N.E. Bothell, Wa. 98011 Dear Mr. Taylor, In reviewing your Draft EhvircnDenta1 T'T"ct: StatBll!Ot a1 the Ko11 Business Calter-Bothell, I ~ like to suiml.t the fol.1.awing c.......-ts. North Creek which is a tr:l.butary to the ~..o_..or "h R1ver. is also a part of the M.Ick1eshoot T"M an Trlbes usual and accustaDed fisb:lng area. Fisb:Ing is the most silV'irlcant of tribal resources :In which its "_01....... rI"'f"""'rI upcn. Develop- IlB1l: :In the North Creek Valley fmn agricultural to light industrial and/or CCIIJI!- ercial caqll.exes will dt:.aL......,7 the aestheticaJ. value of the au:e chamellzed stream and the wetland habitat. Prier ,......",..H....ri,.., of North Creek has mdcubtedly caused scme daIIage to the fishery resource, p..HS"'""'".. or alterada1 of the stream bed may be detri..-.....1 to the r<'""'i~ resources. Although the :Int-,.., is to ~ prove stream habitat and water ty :In North Creek au:e development of the Ko11 Business Calter is ~lete, other developllE!D.ts of the same nature will dimiIIi.sh / the agricultural lands :In the valley, and 1IlCI:e ~tland and stream habitat will be affected. Phhan____t of the stresm habitat will not be ber>..r1,.i" 1 to the fishery if the fish will net nriH"e the systBII !....."'_ of bu:nan intrusia1, isolatia1 of the stream fmn pli)1ic recreat:lm will no lalger exist. I If the project is apprcved, ed>an----.. of the stream for fishery purposes should be taken ale step further. A plan for amua1 s..1""'""d fry plants should be Z placced for insuring survival of the fishery :In North Creek. I FUrther s..nM.... should be dale to assess the impacts of the stream n!aligrDlent, ..3 salm:n and st_n....arl prodw:tia1 dal:a should be irI,.1nrIM :In the fUIa1 EIS, so the . ass- ._.r of sp-i.... affected ccul.d be addressed. . I ~ like to thank you for the .....1""'..L.x1ity to ~.t en this project, and for your c:oopera1:ia1 regardUlg this issue. I look fotwartl to revi.ewJng the final EIS ~ it is published. ~f"<:">rel.y , '. 'j' ): . ~ . ...: ^ -,. ",.. 336wa1 0, :_\. \.'- I ' '-' t,,, " . - ter Pacheco Jr., Asst.vB1.ologLSt . 1:_- ----- - I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Comment letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department Response 1: Response 2: Response 3: Substantial setbacks from the creek are included in the site plan in the Draft EIS. We concur that since increased human activity will conflict with use of the stream corridor and open space by wildlife, including salmon, subsequent planning and design of these areas should separate human activity from the creek as much as possible. At present, two pedestrian crossings of the creek are proposed. These are the only designated points of human access to the stream. The annual salmonid fry plants would be acceptable to the sponsor, but are not recommended by the Department of Fisheries. If the spawning and rearing environments are improved as proposed by the stream realignment, the fry plants may not be justified or beneficial. The sponsor and their consulting engineers are working closely with the Departments of Fisheries and Game, and additional studies are being completed. Some of these have been added to the Final EIS. Data on salmon and steelhead production in other areas of North Creek are available from the Department of Fisher ies. -337- I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I References The references listed here are incorporated by reference. p: Allen, Susan, "land Supply ~d Demand Monitoring: King County, Washington," ~ land, Washington, D.C., Apnl, 1980. Beaton J.l., A.J. Ranzieri, E.C. Shirley and J.B.Skog, Mathematical Approach to Esti- matm'~ Hi~hway Impact on Air Quality, CA-HWY-MR6570825(4)-72-08, State of Cali- fornia - Division of Highways., 1972. BilI Mundy &. Associates, A Market Analysis of the Proposed North Creek Nei~hborhood Center for the Koll Company, Seattle, Washington, 1980. Burchel1, Robert W. and David listokin, The Fiscal Impact Handbook, Center of Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, N.J., 1978. Census Bureau, Characteristics of the Population - 1970 Census of Population, Wash- ington, D.C., 1973. City of Bothel1, Final EIS, North Creek Vallev Comprehensive Plan, Bothel1, Washington, 1979. City of Bothel1, Plan for the Valley; An Amendment to the Bothel1 Comprehensive Plan for the North Creek Valley Plannin~ Area, Bothel1, Washington, 1980. City of Bothel1, Comprehensive Zonin~ Ordinance, Bothel1, Washington, _' City.of Bothel1, Ordinance No. 971, Bothel1, Washington, 1980. City of Bothel1, Ordinance No. 972, Bothel1, Washington, 1980. City of Bothel1, Ordinance No. 973, Bothel1, Washington, 1980. City of Bothel1, SEPA Guidelines for Develo ment Pro osals in the North Creek Val1e Special Distr ict, Bot e I, Washington, 1980. City of Bothell, Shoreline Master Pro~ram for the City of Bothel1, Bothel1, Washington, 1975. y. Cooperative Extension Service, 1979 Dairy Enterprise Bud~ets For A BO-Cow Western Washin~ton Dairy Herd, Col1ege of Agriculture, Washington State University, Pul1man, 1979. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Flood Insurance Study for the City of Bothel1 (Preliminary), Washington, D.C., 1980. Environmental Protection Agency, A Manual for the Review of Hi~hway Noise Impact, 55/9-77-356, Washington, D,C., 1977. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pol1utant Emission Factors, AP-42 (with revisions), Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1973. ' Environmental Protection Agency, Information on levels of Environmental Noise ReQui- site to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Mar~in of Safety, 55019- 74- 004, Washington, D.C;, 1974. Juelson, Thomas C., Su~~estions for Reve~etation of Streambanks in Western Washington, Environmental Management Division, Washington State Department of Game, 1976. Kol1 Company, The Kol1 Business Center - Bothel1, Desi~n Guidelines and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Redmond, Washington, 1981. - 33g- - -340- I I l:R I J;;'; I :,~ I ,J I ;3 I .' ~ I " . I " I 1: I I -j I '): ~~ , I ~ I . I ~ I , . I ; I Mathematical Sciences Northwest, Inc., Estimatin~ Ener~y Impacts of Residential and Commercial Buildin~ Development for U.S. Department of Energy Region X, 22 February 1~7~. Metro, Proposed Areawide Water Quality Plan, Pursuant to Section 208 of P.l.92-500, King County, Washington, Cedar-Green River Basins, 1977. Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc., "An Evaluation of Economic Implications of land Use Controls for the North Creek Valley, Phase n Report, Bothell, Washington," February, 1979. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Climatolo~ical Handbook - Columbia Basin States, Vancouver, Washington, 1968. " Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Data Summary, 1975-1976, Technical Services Division, Seattle, Washington, Published Annually. Puget Sound Council of Governments, Comparison of IRDP, METRO 201/208 RIBCO and RDPI AAM Population Forecasts, Seattle, Washington, 1977. Soil Conservation Service, Snohomish County Area, Preliminary Soils Survey (draft copy subject to revision), USDA, lake Stevens, Washington, 1976. Washington State Department of Ecology, Ambient Air Quality Standards, Olympia, W ashin gton, 1971. Washington State Department of Ecology, Maximum Environmental Noise levels, (WAC 173-60), Olympia, Washington, 1975. Washin~on State Department of Ecology, Motor Vehicle Noise Performance Standards, (WAC 173-62), Olympia, Washington, 1975. ORGANIZATIONS CONSUL TED: State of Washington: Department of Fisheries Department of Transportation City of Bothel1: Fire Department Planning Department Public Works Police Department Alderwood Water District Northwest Garbage Company Washington Natural Gas Company General Telephone Company Sno-King Garbage Company Puget Sound Power Ilc light I I Ust of Elements of the Environment ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT PAGE I ~ Geology 29 I Soils 29 Topography 29 Unique physical features. n/a I Erosion 33 Accretion/avulsion . 39 I Air Air quality 43 Odor 43 Climate 42 I Water 1 Surface water movement. 39 Runoff/ absorption. 39 Floods. 39 Surface water quantity 39 I Surface water quality . 39 Ground water movement 41 Ground water quantity. 41 I Ground water quality 41 Public water supplies 100 Flora I Numbers or diversity of species 33 Unique species . n/a I Barr iers and/or corridors. 33 Agricultural crops. 33 Fauna I Numbers or diversity of species 36 Unique species n/a Barriers and/or corridors. 36 I Fish or wildlife habitat' 36 Noise 49 I . li~ht and Glare. 57 land Use 59 I Natural Resources 1 Rate of use 55 Nonrenewable resources 55 Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions 59 I I -341- I a 'I " ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT PAGE I - Population . 67 I Housin~ . . . 67 , ~ Employment .' 11S '. Transportation/Circulation d Vehicular transportation generated t 80 . Parking facilities . 18 , Transportation systems 73 ,. Movement/circulation of people or goods. 71 I Waterborne, rail and air traffic n/a Traffic hazards 73 ." . " Public Services I Fire. . 93 ,t Police 94 I Schools 95 Parks or other recreational facilities 96 'I Maintenance . 97 Other governmental services 97 I Ener~y , Amount required 98 I Source/ availabili ty 97 ", ~ Utili ties I Energy 99 d Communications . 100 Water . . . 100 I Sewer . . . 101 Storm water . . 101 "-I Solid waste. . 102 I Human Health (including mental health) 102 . . U Aesthetics . I 102 ~~ Recreation. 106 . . .' Archaeolo~ical/Historical . . 106 I ;.f Additional Population Characteristics .' . . 111 I ..I I -342- I