HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 76-06-SMP - THE CHAMELEON CONVENTION CENTER - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTmf 76-06-smp
interurban avenue south
dr-06-76
convention center
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CHAMELON CONVENTION CENTER SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTApril 28, 1976
City of Tukwila
14475 - 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Gentlemen:
Sincerely,
cam,
ROBERT K. McCORMICK
Regional Manager
Northwest Regional Office
RKM:11
cc: William S. Tsao & Company
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
SUBJECT: KING COUNTY
APPLICANT: WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO. for
RSR DEVELOPMENT INC.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT #N1099-17-A
(CONSTRUCTION OF A CONVENTION CENTER)
=SMP),
The 45-day review period by the Department of Ecology and Attorney
General's Office for the above Shoreline Management Permit will
terminate on May 16, 1976.
If no notice of appeal is received by the above date, construction
pursuant to the permit may then commence provided, however, all
other local, state, and federal laws regulating such construction
have been complied with.
4350•150th Avanw N. E.
Northwest Regional Office, Redmond, Washington 98052
Telephone: (206) 885 -1900
n x; l•'
CITY OF TU ' T 1
4f 1 1 11
CITY C1 S
MAY 3 1916
Staled
tale of
\ 1 1Shing1on
I)('i M ul l I1('i t
of 11'()f()$- '
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
PERMIT FOR
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following
terms and conditions:
1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Manage-
ment Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from
compliance with federal, state, and other permit require-
ments.
2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7)
of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the
permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof.
3. A construction permit shall not be issued until forty -
five (45) days after approval by the City of Tukwila
Planning Department or until any review proceedings
initiated within this 45 day review period have been
completed.
4. Pursuant to Section 14, Chapter 286, Laws of 1971 Extra
Session, the City of Tukwila has taken the following
actions:
APPROVED
5. Special Conditions:
1. River Zone shall be a minimum depth of 40 feet as measured
landward on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark.
2. Such River Zone shall be landscaped in accordance with the Tukwila
Shoreline Master Program.
3. Precautions deemed appropriate by the Tukwila Department of Public
Works shall be implemented by the applicant to mitigate adverse
effects related to increased surface runoff.
6. Project Name, Description and Application Number:
CHAMELEON Convention Facility, M/F #76 -6 -SMP
Kjell Stoknes
Planning Direct
31 March 1976
Date
City of Tukwila
Planning Dept.
5 -74 Revised It
MEMORANDUM
CITY of TUKWI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Kjell j - 72reilkz=3 7 62
FROM: Gary
SUBJECT: Chameleon Convention Center
GC /cw
I have reviewed the three parking schemes provided by Bill Tsao for the
above- referenced project and have arrived at the following conclusions:
1. The typical seating capacity for the main ball room totals
1,404 persons.
2. The typical seating capacity for all conference rooms totals
1,088 persons.
3. The combined dining capacity totals 2,492. .
4. The TMC parking requirement of 1 space per 5 persons results
in a parking requiremnt of 499 spaces.
5. Total net office floor space equals 2,550 square feet.
6. The TMC parking requirement of 3.1 spaces per 1000 square
feet of net office floor space results in a parking requirement
of 9 spaces.
7. The total parking requirement for the Chameleon Convention Center
is 508 spaces.
8. Scheme "C" provides 198 spaces beyond the TMC requirement of 508,
or a total of 706.
10. Recommend a "Foundation Permit" not be issued until such time as
confirmation of the Shoreline Permit concurrence is received from
the Department of Ecology sometime around 10 June 1976.
DATE: 4 May 1976
9. Recommend the parking scheme be modified in a minor way to provide
more open space along the river as this action will not result in
a significant loss of parking spaces.
■
• 4i,)
ot
April 28, 1976
Gentlemen:
RKM:11
City of Tukwila
14475 - 59th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington 98067
SUBJECT: KING COUNTY
APPLICANT: WILLIAM S. TSAO & CO. for
RSR DEVELOPMENT INC.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT #N1099 -17 -A (76-6 -SMP).
(CONSTRUCTION OF A CONVENTION CENTER)
The 45-day review period by the Department of Ecology and Attorney
General's Office for the above Shoreline Management Permit will
terminate on May 16, 1976.
If no notice of appeal is received by the above date, construction
pursuant to the permit may then commence provided, however, all
other local, state, and federal laws regulating such construction
have been complied with.
Sincerely,
ROBERT K. McCORMICK
Regional Manager
Northwest Regional Office
cc: William S. Tsao & Company
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
4350.150th Avenue N. E.
Northwest Regional Office, t Redmond,
Telephone: (206) 835-1900
R ECEIVE
MAY 5 1976
MY OF TINCVVIIA
44 \ MN .
r•, f'1 ". 7 "I' .. ..
CIT" OF TU ....... �.
Uri Cl r C. r
MAY 3 1976
� \ is hitl41()11
1 )(1)c11"Il ll('1 11
1 April 1976
CITY of TUKWILA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON 98067
William S. Tsao & Co.
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
ATTN: Mr. Lyle Kussman
Dear Mr. Kussman:
This office has reviewed the Environmental Questionnaire and additional
information submitted in relation to the Chameleon Convention Center and
as required by Chapter 18.98 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC).
The project has received a Proposed Declaration of Non - significance pur-
suant to Chapter 18.98 (TMC) and the recent SEPA Guidelines promulgated by
the Washington State Council on Environmental Policy. Should no substan-
tial objection be received by this office to the proposed declaration,. such
Declaration of Non - significance will become effective 15 April 1976 and you
will receive no further correspondence on this matter.
•
y utch
Assistant
GC /cw
cc: Mayor Bauch
Ear D. Bauch, Mayor
31 March 1976
William S. Tsao & Co.
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
ATTN: Mr. Lyle Kussman
Dear Mr. Kussman:
Please find enclosed a copy of City of Tukwila Shoreline Management Permit
#76 -6 -SMP and the correspondence forwarding said permit and related appli-
cation to the appropriate State agencies.
The forty-five day review period should expire on or about 14 May 1976
and you should receive proper notification of State approval approximately
the same date.
Sincerely,
Gary Crutc field
Assistant Planner
GC /cw
Encl: as
cc: Mayor Bauch
f
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
CITY or TU KWI LA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
/TU KW I LA, WASHINGTON 98067
31 March 1976
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
ATTN: Shoreline Permits
15345 - 36th Street N.E.
Redmond, Washington 98052
Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed a copy of City of Tukwila Shoreline Management Permit
#76 -6 -SMP and its related application and supportive materials.
This Shoreline Permit application was processed in accordance with the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the permit granted in accordance with
the Shoreline Management Master Program developed and adopted by this
municipality.
Sincerely,
CITY of TUKWILA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON 98067
Gary.Crutchf
Assistant P anner
GC /cw
Encl: as
cc: SAG
Applicant
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
31 March 1976
CITY of TUKWILA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON 98067
State Attorney General
ATTN: Shoreline Permits
Temple of Justice
Olympia, Washington 98504
Gentlemen:
Please find enclosed a copy of City of Tukwila Shoreline Management Permit
#76 -6 -SMP and its related application and supportive materials.
This Shoreline Permit application was processed in accordance with the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the permit granted in accordance with
the Shoreline Management Master Program developed and adopted by this
municipality.
Sincerely,
Gary Crutchfield
Assistant Planner
GC /cw
Encl: as
cc: DOE
Applicant
IC gar D. Bauch, Mayor
Mr. William S. Tsao
Architects & Engineers
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
2. Air:
3. Water:
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON 98067
RE: Chameleon Convention Center
11 March 1976
Dear Mr. Tsao:
This office has reviewed the Environmental Questionnaire completed by your
firm for the proposed Chameleon Convention Center in accordance with the
State Environmental Policy Act as promulgated by the State of Washington
Council on Environmental Policy.
The initial review has led to the need for additional information prior to a
Threshold Determination being made by the responsible official. Such addi-
tional information must include at least the following:
1. Transportation /Circulation:
a. Projected number of motorized vehicles; related parking
facilities; peak and low periods.
b. Address the impact of projected peak vehicle periods on the
current use levels of existing transportation /circulation
systems in the vicinity; include relationship to other
vehicle- generating uses in vicinity — especially with respect
to peak traffic flows.
c. Potential alterations to existing transportation /circulation
systems to mitigate impacts.
a. Address current ambient air quality levels and effect of projected
vehicular activity.
a. Address amount of storm water runoff as a result of increase
of impervious surfaces.
b. Address the effect on current levels of water quality in Green
River at point of discharge.
c. Potential alternatives to mitigate water quality impacts.
Mr. William S. Tsao
RE: Chameleon Convention Center
Provision of the described additional information as requested may lead to a
Negative Declaration by the responsible official. The lack of the informa-
tion, however, will necessitate the requirement of an Environmental Impact
Statement.
Should you desire to discuss the matter please do not hesitate to contact
this office at.242 -2177.
Sincerely,
s
11 Stoknes
Planning Director
KS /GC /cw
Page 2
11 March 1976
MEMORANDUM
CITY of TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: File
FROM: Fred N. Satterstro
SUBJECT: Chameleon Convention Center Environmental Questionnaire DATE: 1 March 1976
Following are my comments on environmental questionnaire submitted with sub-
stantial development permit for Chameleon Convention Center:
Flora (a): There will be a change in the number of flora species. All species
of grass will be removed to make room for construction, except for
river bank areas.
Fauna (d): Definitely yes. Removal of groundcover on site will deteriorate
wildlife habitat. I have personally observed several Chinese
pheasauts on this site. These birds will be permanently displaced
by this action.
Transportation /Circulation (c): The questionnaire admits that there will be
additional traffic generated by this development but states that
there will be no impact upon existing transportation systems. I
don't understand this contradiction in terms. I would estimate
that there will be an impact on the existing transportation system
and that this impact will tend to be adverse, inhibiting movement
during peak periods. I do not see how scheduling will relieve the
congestion which will occur.
Local Services (a) (b) (e) (f): I don't see how the questionnaire filler -outer
could have been responding honestly when he checked no to these
questions. If this development has no need for police protection,
then the whole city doesn't. If it has no need for fire protection
either, then this city is dumping a lot of money down the drain on
unneeded public services.
Utilities (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f): Apparently this development will be lit
by kerosene lanterns, have outdoor toilet facilities, have no
telephones, no electricity, and will generate zero garbage.
FS /cw
cc: Gary Crutchfield
r�.
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
ss.
Berb.a re. ..0ampa.gn being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and says that ..sh.e. is the ....Cal of
THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4)
times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred
to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news-
paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington,
and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained
at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton
Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County,
Washington. That the annexed is a ..Shc reline..Applice.tl.on
as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
of ty}.p consecutive issues, commencing on the
Z,..... day of Feb. , 19 . ?6...., and ending the
20.... day of Feb.. ,19.7.6.., both dates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub-
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent
insertion. i
Feb-6 ,1 9.76..
V.P.C. Form No. 87
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20 day of
Notary Public in and for the.State of Washington,
residing at Kent, King County.
Pas by t Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
:'• 9th, 1955.
Western,Unipn:Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
;vny.vr r E�
v Y K.4: oy �tfcNity t
01'r1Ml�;twlfg!. • •
1r4 ,
{t o�icI,4F.brua�S,13 'ind':2
t9 :'TOS_'7 =.I k:`i:tti r+ kt
TRAFFIC
On -Site Traffic
•Type of Activity
Max. Conditions
Banquets &
Performances
Exhibitions 2000 300
Existing Traffic
Daily traffic loads carried by streets and highways in the vicinity of
the site shown on figure no. 1 are based on current counts available
at the City of Tukwila and the District 1, State Highway Department.
Peak traffic hourly loads are from measurements, or when not avail-
able, are calculated on the basis f 9% of the daily volume. Morning
and evening peak loads are expecte o be the same.
vIL
660 parking stalls will be provided on -site for the convention center
activities. Actual vehicular volumes resulting from the operation Of
• the proposed facility are difficult to predict due to the variety of activity
which may occur the center. For instance, banquets or performances
at the facility (generally occuring on. evenings and weekends) will generate
higher peaks but lower daily traffic volumes than exhibitions with less
defined starting and ending times. It is possible that a large banquet or
performance, or several smaller banquets commencing simultaneously
would generate a 500 -600 vehicle per hour peak load both before and
after these events. A particulars) day may occassionally have two cycles
of this level of use occuring in the afternoon and evening and could paten-
tially involve 1200 -1500 vehicles per day in 3000 vehicle trips to and from
the site,
Table 1 (Vehicle Trips)
Exhibition activities running throughout the day would generate a different
traffic loading pattern both in terms of volume and timing.. Lower peaks
might be expected due to events not having definite or restricted beginning/
arrival, ending /departure times. _Peak periods might be expected near
•
opening and closing times, but these are difficult to predict and in many cases
would be only slightly higher than hourly averages. High turn -over rates
at these events could potentially generate 4000 or more vehicle trips Per
day, peaks however, may not exceed 400 vehicles per hour.
The above figures represent rough estimates at maximum usage of the •
parking facility at large, successful events. Normal daily average usage
of the facility is expected to be lower and may generate 40 % -50% of 'these
figures, averaging smaller events occuring at the facility with occassional
maximum usage. Table 1 below summarizes these estimates.
Average Day
Daily Avg : Avg. Daily Avg. Hourly Avg.
Heavy Use Day .
1200 350 3000 550
4000 400
2000 350 4600 550..
U =:_ t1
• J. ,•, %L ' e r /i! \‘.:. • �,i
1
Other Vehicles Generating Uses In The Area-
Figure 2 indicates the estimated average daily traffic loading in the
vicinity of the site following completion of the proposed project. In
assigning traffic to the roadway network, the basic assumptions are
that travel time will be the dominant consideration and consequently,
°,eighty percent (80 %) of users will be freeway oriented. Of that 80 %,
65% are_assumed to hn wp.qthnund and 35% assumed to be eastbound,
Of the non - freeway users, eighty percent (80 %) are expected to be
oriented to local regions lying south and southwest in the vicinity of
Kent, Auburn, and Southcenter;
Actions To Mitigate Impacts
Other vehicles generating uses in the area include Southcenter . corn -:;;.
mercial shopping area, local industrial areas,. and the King County ,. .
Park which is currently being developed adjacent to the. site: Peak traffic .
loads in moring and evenings to. commercial and. industrial'areas •
are not expected to correspond with peak traffic generated on the'site. .
Operation of the park may correspond with some events at the convention
center, particularly in the case of exhibitions on weekends. However,
these occurances are not expected to correspond to peak rush
traffic. Furthermore, park oriented traffic is not expected to correspond
to convention center traffic and its peak loads orflirection of travel'.
(A,.,� acve5 ea� �r� -�tc pact )
l:-
2 �l by 1 t)J
V - , 1r �. 1
The major factor, in the m' ation of traffic impacts on the vicinity'of
the site will be the sc ling of events at the Center. Successful operation
of this Center will depend greatly on easy access to the site's parking
facility. For this reason, every effort will be made to .schedule peak
Center uses to correspond with off -peak traffic periods on I =405 • and
arterials.
(01-11_,\t. C rn. ti 1,40,,=
Modification of traffic signaling device at the inters c of Interu
Avenue, Southcenter Blvd. , and the site access road could further
to regulate peak periods of discharge from the traffic area.
a,n1101,3 Lis
local
R V )
rban
serve
The combination of the two suggested actions 'above is expected to maintain
the overall impact of the traffic associated with the proposed facility at a
minimum.
No significant problems are expected due to vehicular traffic generated by
the project. •
?zo3u . is flt_L oy. : _e -g—icAL av!c �o- j- r1 1U ;' •
020NC. ft -pauS IN) A sut3: kJ04RO post L
C1_0til - A i �' S t2. 181. /s ue A N‘? cL P t m i 14
:,Z4n Az_i 6 i .
S 1�8 C SS10' Low �AciZ >
•
•
. . •
1 A t
fr./
.• I
!.) Apr
• 0 • ....•
• 0 .; •'
• vsfy--s. • ' .. t.'S .
• . 0 — ' .
61 '-• ', . +..• • • •
. :".•:. '-'''. ' . •- • ,,
;,:;•...."‘. ilLe. • \"..::‘'' C: '' . . .. . .
, .....
\
... `• i ;•.,y1c. - 1.. . , . .
• • . • .• \ c,1 \ . )../.) v.1 , • - . .
• . . \ .•,:-,/,/- 1 .1 •
' .. . . : ... •)'';'•''..\
.r. ii.,.///./ • \ ..,,••••'-'-' ' ' 11 .
• ,..1
rj it i q.,„•
'J . i i •
• . 0 is i
, •
0 f 0
Qt r .
P /•;/■‘ •
•
. .
, I I,
i.•••• i• , t I— (VI ‘'
c
c.1*
\ , •
•
c..t •
•
. .
. 1 2 fr
•
•
r t
•
1..!
• V L•••
:7••
511-Y . 9 ) A- 1010-')vi•ifi'
t..• it/ 't
•
!.•
' •
• . (4) `••
t 1 , z ql;)•••:
.•••-• • •
L•—• • 6,-ei
• .-‘ r .;...
4 •..
HYDROLOGY AND WA71 ,:
Natural Setting
The subject site is situated inside a meander loop on a mature river
flood plain, topographically expressed as a broad flat- floored valley
delimited by Tukwila and Riverton Heights Uplands on the north and
west as well as the Renton Highlands on the east. In general, the valley's
natural topography has been altered by construction of flood control
levees, stream channelization, highway cut and fill, railroad embank-
ments, as well as extensive and on -going filling for land development.'
Relief on the flood plain is generally less than 5 feet. Regional relief
is 400 to 600 feet. The project area has a mean elevation of approximately
25 feet.
Surface water that runs off the site flows directly into the Green River... :.
River Flow Conditions
the drier months.
•
The U.S. Geological Survey has maintained a•'gauging station on,the
Green River near Tukwila since October 1960..From that date "through
the 1971 water year, the average discharge was . 1 ,491 c.f. s. (cubic feet
per second) . Typical maximum flood flows presently reach 9,000• to' •
12,000 c.f.s. at the subject site. During these flows,.. the water surface
elevation of the Green River. reaches an elevation of 24.3 at the, upstream • . .
property line and an elevation of 22.8 at the downstream property line.
The average recorded minimum flows are often less than 300c .f. s. adjacen
to the subject site. The water surface of the Green River during these,
extreme low flow periods varies between four and six feet above •mean
sea level.
Flow has been regulated'since 1962 by Howard A. Hansen Reservoir for •.
flood control during the wet season and for possible augmentation during
At the Tukwila station, the drainage area of the Green River is 440 square
riles.
Subject Site Surface Water Run-Off
Water entering the Green River undergoes a complex hydrological cycle'
involving oceans, land, atmosphere, energy input from solar radiation,
topography, soil and geological conditions, vegetation and man made
features. The interaction of transportation from plants, evaporation,.'soil
infiltration, and duration and intensity of rainfall regulate the surface water.:••
runoff portion of . this cycle.
Duration /'
Recurrence
Interval
Duration/
Recurrence
:Interval
12 hours 2.0
24 hours 2.5'
48 hours 3.0
'96 hours 4.0
2 yr.
5 yr. 10 yr.
4.5 5.5
-t ►3-
25 "yr. 50 yr:
30 min. .4 .5 .6 .6 .7
: •1 '.hour .5 .6 .7 .8 • :9.
2 • ho.ur . .7 .8 1.0 1 .2 . . 1:'5
3 hour '.9 • 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0.
.6 hour ';. 1:5 ' 1.8 • 2.0 2.5•. 2.8
2 yr. 5 yr. 10 yr. 25 yr. :50 yr.
2.5 3.0 3 : 2 3.5..
3.0 3.5 4:0 4:2
4.0 4:5 5.0 5.5
Table 1 : Amounts of rain falling in a
given time period for various
recurrence intervals..
6.0 7.0
Subject Site Surface Water Run -Off •(cont'd)
Evaporation and transpiration from plants and plant surfaces can be
accountable for up to 70% of the recycling of water back into the atmos-
phere in mature native vegetative cover. The subject site, however,
falls far short of such a mature ecosystem.
The subject site was covered years ago with artificial fill derived from
land cuts resulting from area freeway construction. The natural bot-
anical population on the site was destroyed due to this action. Trees
and shrubs are absent and a moderately dense growth of wild grasses
and clover covers a fair percentage of the site : Some areas are devoid
of vegetation. Preliminary soils investigations indicate a substantial.
thickness of fill covers the site, generally 8 -12 inches thick. Fill consists
primarily of silt and sandy silt. Native soils underlying the fill are almost
exclusively grandular sands.
•
Storm water run -off calculations are at best, estimations, however studies
conducted in the subject site area by RIBCO and research by various
governmental bodies is of assistance in estimating the impacts of the
proposed development.
Runoff quantity calculations for the subject site were based on the em- o`c Jai.
pirical method in this instance, McMath's Formula was used: 1)G,f"
Aci 7� �O �� fS :1:
where Q = runoff in cubic feet per second
A -=! drainage area in acres
c = infiltration coefficient •
=. rainfall intensity in inches /hour
S = slope in feet per 1000 feet
corvccrA-
The total site area i 10.97 acres. The existinl area ,is
taken as 5%. Proposed development would cove 6.88 cres of the site
— 1 a with impervious building and paved surfaces yielding approximately
65% impervious surface on the developed site. Selection of proper in-
ration coefficient values is critical to the accuracy of run -off values
determined by this method. For the existing site conditions, a coefficient
of 0.15 was selected, based on soil conditions mentioned above, and a value
of 0.62 was given to the developed site. These figures correspond well
to the findings of both by both zone methods for rectangular areas and •es
tirn:ted values presented by Merriman and Wiggin for various soil types.
The slope of the site was considered to be 1% in the existing condition and
2% following development. Rainfall was taken from Table 1 and is based on
ar storm.
1. Metcalf & Eddy: "Sewerage sand Sewerage Disposal"
2. Merriman & Wiggin: "American Civil Engineering Handbook"
Viewridge (VR 1)
Viewridge (VR 2)
South Seattle (SS 3)
Southcenter. (SC
Hills (LH 5)
H ighlands"Y(H L 6) -
Central District :(CBD 7) "
Table
'Mean Percentage Run-off._
13.6
33.8
Subject Site Surface Water Run-Off (cont'd)
Existing site:
Developed site:
Q = 10.973 (.62) ( .
Q 4.53c.f.s:
.These figures indicate 15% and 68 %s.
during a`five y r storm over . a -one
of storm wa er run -off over a lo_ nge
results.
Nio
Q= 10.973(.15)(.6)
10.73.
_ .97 c.f.s.
hou
r
•
Green and Duwamish' River Watew'
discharges treated effluent at that point.
tormwater run -off respectively
period. Mean percentages:
eriod would yield •muh lower
In 1973, RIBCO conducted a water: quantity.and quality monitoring . ',
• program in the Green River Basin. Over a period of 6: months, from '' •
. to September. Their results are indicated in Table 2 Seven
storms occured during the testing period. The main percentage storm
run -off of these storms at the Southcenter testing: station; CScd)
was 53.9 % .•••"Using the 2 year storm figures presented in Table "1, the
' developed subject site percentage of run -off is'57 %'which compare fay-,
orably•to the Southcenter figures taken over a shor period..
The Green River.'•originates on the west slope of the Cascade Range;
and flows•north and east about 60 miles t� a point•at the subject site at
Which the upper limit of tidal influence is noted. Downstream. of..this•.
point, the river is known as the Duwamish River. Therefore, an analysis .
of both the Duwamish River and the Green pertain to the subject.
site.
Raw and partially treated wastes entering the Duwamish and Lower•.Green
Rivers :as well as wastes from manufacturing and food proce plants
are being decreased as the network of. sewer .trunklines and treatment
plants is completed in accordance with Metro's Comprehensive: Plan. The
Renton treatment plant is located directly across from .the 'subject site and
The Duwamish River estuary, is an important industrial waterway.,ar
has been recieving industrial, municipal, and storm water wastes since ..,`
the early 1900's'.: In the 1940's fisheries- resource agencies. and commercial
interests became concerned about' the impact of degraded water quality on
the rich aquatic life of the estuary. :, .
•
Green and Duwamish River Water Quality (cont'd)
Since June 1965, the Renton treatment plant (RTP) has been discharging
increasing amounts of treated effluent to the Duwamish River as new .
trunklines have been constructed and the treatment plant's services area
has been enlarged. The design capacity of the present Renton secondary
treatment process is 36 milliongallons per day, although the actual volume
of effluent varies, •
From 1963 to 1967, Metro and the .U. S. Geological Survey conducted
a cooperative study of water quality in the Lower Duwamish River in
order to determine the chemical, physical, and ecological changes that
take place in the estuary when raw or partially treated wastes are re
placed by treated effluent from the Renton treatment plant. This study:
was primarily concerned with the hydraulics of the estuary, the physical:
and chemical characteristics of the water (temperature, : dissolved oxygen;
and biochemical; oxygen demand), and 'Certain aspects of the ecology..
relating to the plankton communities. The findings of this early study have
been substantiated by later studies performed by Dr. Eugene Welch at
the University of Washington in• ;1967 and 1969, ,and by the RIBCO (the
River Basin Coordinating Committee, .a technical advisory committee to..
Metro:). Water Quality Management Study Interim Report of October 1973.
,Prior to the 'introduction of the RTP effluent, conditions Of low-dissolved
oxygen were recorded in the lower estuary in the.'late Summer. :The Green-
Duwamish still experiences such low- dissolved oxygen conditions during
the summer months. The initial study. performed by the U.S.G. S. did not
conclusively determine the impact of the RTP on dissolved oxygen levels
at the point of discharge.. The RIBCO analysis indicates•low- dissolved
oxygen levels are still a problem:
Lo- dissolved oxygen in the Duwamish River is attributable: oxygen con-
sumption by benthns (bottom organisms) and algae as well as high temperatures
due to shaliow'depths; low flows; and inadequate shading. However,: It appears
to be highly unlikely that the present anadromous fish. runs or annual aquatic
ecosystem of the Duwamish will be affected by dissolved oxygen depressions
according to RIE3CO biologists.
Dissolved oxygen is a key parameter in the Green- Duwamish River and in
similar streams that have commercially and recreationally important fish
populations. The respiratory processes of fish, shellfish,.benthos, etc.
are affected by changes in dissolved oxygen content.
The dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation . (degradation) of natural
as well as man -made materials and is replaced naturally by aeration at the
air -water surface or by mixing with water having. greater dissolved. oxygen .
and /or by photosynthesis of aquatic plants. Since the'degradation.of the more
common wastes requires their oxidation, the variation in dissolved oxygen .
is a. significant indicator of the general amount of the general amount and,
persistence of pollutants.
Green and Duwamish River Water Quality (cont'd) ',
The capacity of water to retain dissolved oxygen is also reduced with
increasing temperatures.
Upstream from the project site, the river may loaded slightly "beyond
its natural B.O.D. (biological oxygen demand) as' indicated by the fact that
both the average:dissolved oxygen values and the average B.O. D.- values
at the Renton•station are lower the Kent station. The RTP is. designed ;••
for a B.O. D, treatment efficience of 96/0, and average treatment efficiencies
typically approach this figure.' Thus the B `.O. D'; .contribution of the RTP to the
Duwamish River. can be expected to be relatively small, and it is possible
that the effluent has only a small direct effect on dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the estuary
Temperatures for the river from: the `monitoring ; station 315 at Kent to just
upstreamof. the RTP are lower.•than those which would indicate thermal
pollution levels river responds to inputs of warmer water from the RTP
• as shown by several stations downstream. :At station 3077,,'a :small decrease
occurs as a result of the Rainier :;Vista Treatment' Plant effluent, then the
influence of Elliot Bay seawater is registred., ..:,;::':' •
Ammonia and phosphate concentrations in the Duwarish• River Estuary
increased significantly downstream from the Renton Treatment Plant out=-
fall after introduction of the effluent in June -1965.:The Renton .Treatment
Plant is only 16 %•efficient: for ammonia and 3% efficient for phosphates. The '
concentrations, these nutrients are at least doubled as a result, of ;the pre-
sent input of treated effluent from the. plant. According to Metro data, the
Renton Treatment Plant is a 'quite .significant source of nitrites. and'riitrates.
The impact on ' aquatic life in the'.estuary attributable to this ',input ornutrients'
is, however, unknown at this time.. Maximum concentrations"'of all nutrients-'.':
in the Duwamish:' Estuary occur';at low tide, partly because at•this..time there
is a minimum of seawater' dilution of the Renton Treatment Plant effluent
and of other fresh water nutrient sources.. High levels of nutrients •are also.::
recorded in the fall and winter; ‘ however, when light condi tions' are. minimum;
a severe algal bloom cannot be sustained..
Nuisance blooms and eutrophication are well known problems'; that develop •
from increases in phytoplankton production frequently caused by nutrients
in domestic waste water. However, the U.S.G. S: ; study indicates that in the
case of the Duwamish River, nutrient concentrations do not control :the occur
ance of the blooms inr as much as nitrogen and. phosphorous compounds always
are present in sufficient quantities for a bloom to exist.
For example, previous data indicates that a bloom occured. prior to the
installation of the Renton Treatment Plant. The chief factors controlling •
whether or not a phytoplankton bloom will occur are favorable hydrological'
and climatic .conditions..
Green and Duwamish River Water Quality (coned)
Nutrients from the Renton Treatment Plant may increase the biomass
produced by the phytoplankton blooms, once the other favorable conditions
are established. The dissolved oxygen of surface waters is increased by •
the photosynthetic process of the bloom, but the dissolved oxygen of the
subsurface waters is decreased 'as the plants die and oxygen is consumed
in decomposition processes.
• Coliform concentrations in the Duwamish River exceed the median count.
established by the water quality standards, according to the last six- month
Metro report. Although a good relationship between total and fecal coliform
: -is not evident; the same general of increasing` contamination in •
: 'downstream locations is apparent in the fecal coliform count'as well. The
•. low counts recorded in the RTP effluent indicates little if any influence from .
the plant on this 'trend. See Table 3 for additional;. water 'quality data. •.
• •
Soluble trace metal concentrations for copper and.lead (Table •4) are•frac
tions of a. part per billion in the, estuary water., These data: were obtained
frpm the trace metal laboratory,. University of Washington,: Department
.Oceanography,; core sampling within the estuary.:The fate of metals borne
by the river is transferral to the sediments. .: •
•
•
•
The concentrations of lead and zinc at the surface of the cores and.one:meter* '
deep in the cores (Table' 4) are extremely high and demonstrate how ' effec -
tively the transfer. proceeds. The cores were obtained in June', 1973•, and
were analyzed by the Region Ten Environmental Protection Agency. Labor-7:
atory. Since nearshore ocean sediments contain an. average of : 60,000 pph
lead and 150,000 pph zinc, it • appears that the Duwarriish Estuary sediments •
have been greatly enriched by inputs from the river and from industrial sites
around the estuary. :Therefore; any contamination from the: proposed site •
such as auto exhaust borne lead, which is introduced into the river, would
be transferred downstream to the surface sediments and would comprise
an undetectable increase in the already heavily loaded Sediments.;
9' q < •
Green River Water Quality at Subject Site
• The stretch of, the river contiguous `to the subject site : is classified;, as Class
A (excellent) waters by the ' Washington Department of :Ecology (DOE). Whether'
or not the river meets .this classification however, is ,dependant orb an an • •
alysis of individual' parameters' occuring within the river and comparing n.
them to DOE water quality standards See Table • 3'for recent. water; quality
obtained by Metro. •
Water quality for'Class A waters shall meet or exceed the following
Total fecal organisms shall not exceed median value of 240'(fresh water)
with less than, 20% of samples exceeding 1,000 :when associated with any
fecal source: •However, this stretch of the Green River.is subje to a
. special condition allowing a variation from t:he'usual coliform criter
.WATE_R
..24
15.7
15.5.
. COL1FORM COUNTS /100 ML
MEDIAN DISSOLVED
-'ETRO PRESENT LAST - _LAST • FECAL. AMMONIA .
•AUGUST:�1973:
13J
METRO MEDIAN -
t RESEN i
sTATI0N MQNTH.
301
306 10.000 ' . .16,000 6,600
307
CCLIF R:" /100 ML
LAST.
MONTH
3077 440 33;:• . 110 28.35
mg /1 ... C .
.29 .:
8.10
-15.0
12.8 •
20.0
- 01 SS0L`; EJ
OXYGEN r ND CT! V
METRO
• STATION
t E D IAN
P RESE NT
COLIFORM COUNTS /100 ML
LAST LAST . : FECAL :: AMM0N I A.:
MONTH YEAR COUNT ma/1
301
306 6; Lnn 3 300 2,900
307 9. 4,600 2,3
3D77 3, 400 6,700
3106 1,400. 2.500 790 . 42
3107 200 983
351 010.
3108 700
3131 320
PHOSPHOROUS
'DISSOLVED
TEMPERATURE OXYC::_:d CinN UrT I V I t V
C _ ,
Date • .
9/13/72 •
Sediments
o're'No.`
Soluble Metals
•
i4E RLS CONCENTRATIONS Ili bUWi I4I SII ESTUARY :(ppb)
::Location •
• West Waterway
'West Waterway .:
East Waterway •
as tWaterway
Total Acid Solublc).
Location
DuWarni sh 14outh
'Uuwamish 1.1outh
Mouth,
East Waterway.
Green River Water Quality at Subject Site (cont'd)
At this location, total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 1,000 with less than 20% of the samples exceeding 2,000 when :: .
associated with any fecal source.
Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mg /i for freshwater:
Temperature shall not exceed 65° F (18.3 ° C).
ph shall be within the range of 6:5 to 8.5.
RunOff Water Quality at Subject Site
'The •net; effect of this particular project will be small. As previously
mentioned, the primary water, quality problems associated with the. Green
River are; . .1) low; dissolved oxygen in the lower reaches from July through
Septmber due to variations; 21. high coliform counts in the lower
reaches throughout the year, and 3) high nutrient inflows, especially in '
.the lower reahces and in the Duwamish Waterway: Urban debelopmPn nd
conse.uent run -off is one of the..robable causes of the exist'n. w-
quality. problems.
Table 5 indicates probable waste loadings of the subject site in its current
and developed states. : •Table 6 •is' reprinted from the 1974 RIBCO Urban ....•
Drainage Study (Appendix C) mentioned earlier.which indicates their find- ,
ings of urban run -off quality characteristics during the 6 month study period:
Particularly interesting in this project are the findings for the
Southcenter (commercial) test 'sae The data from this test site is presented
in greater detail',in "Table 7.
Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts:
Summary and Mitigating Measures.
•
As mentioned above; the net impacts of this particular project will be small.
Total increase in storm water run- off•during a 5 year storm can be' expected
to be approximately 3:6 c. f.s: a flood stage flow adjacent to the
site of approximately 9,000 to 12,000 c . f.. s. As slight as this .impact appears,
admittedly it is a part of a continuing deleterious trend in accomodation
of increased storm 'water flows by direct discharge into existing natural...-
systems. Increased impervious surfaces will inhibit groundwater 'recharge ,
and will result in a small but probably measurable drop in the local water '
table.
The proposed action will further, contribute to water quality problems due
to increased run -off. Suspended solids; hydrocarbons,: and heat in surface •
run -off will also increase. The make -up of this run -off will probably be
similar to that indicated in Table 7 impacting water quality' as indicated•jin.
Table 3. The net effect will probably be minimal.
0 hl li 3
Imp.
Per.
Sub.
NO3
Imp.
Per.
Sub:
..B.iological Oxygen.
Demand (GOD)
fmp. -1b /ac /day:;
Per. lb /ac /day.;
Sub: mg /.1;'..• .. •
Conductivity •rrihos•
mhos/ac/'day:
Per, mhos /ac /day.
Sub. mhos /cm3
Organic Nitrogen,,:
'Imp . , l.b /ac /day.:.
. Per :Ylb /ac /day.
Sub;. nig/ 1
:lb /ac /day
.l,b /ac /d.•ay...
:mg /
.1b /ac /day
lb /ac /day
mg /i . •
P01
• .Imp.... l b /ac /day.
Per.' /ac /day
.Sub. mg /1
otal Col i forrn Organ i snis
Imp. :10. /ac /day.
Per :;10 /ac /day
;, Sub .' n gi l 00rn 1 ..
ecal•Coliform Organisms
Imp.:. l0G /ac /day "ac
.Per.. .10E /ac: /day
Sub..ng/ 100 rnl
WASTE LOADINGS PER ACRE
TABLE • 5 •
%:Impervious Area. 5.0%
Impervious area rate accumulation. •
2 'Pervious area rate accumulation.
• 3: Subsurface ace concent r•a t•i on.
•
Existing. Developed. •
Site Conditions , Site Conditions
.;001000
Soo -l000
100 -1000 . •
003 : 00 +7
.003-.00
•.01
.002G =.025
.0026 -.025
.005 -0.1
.001 014
.0015 -0.2
.15-1.0
Adapted from R I DCO Streams
:Temp d •
., Cond..umho /cm
Turbidity; JTU .
DO, mg /I • •
BOD, ms /I
COD, mg /1
Hexane Ext,, mg /I•
Chloride, mg /I
Sulfate, mg /I.
`•'.Organic N; mg /I
" Ammonia, N mg /I'•
Nitrate N, mg/I
Nitrate N, mg /I
''Hydrolyzable P, rirg . /1
Ortho P, mg /I `.
!:' /1
i ;' Lead; mg /I •
Iron, trig /
• Mercury, mg /I
Chromium, mg /I
Cadmium, mg /I •
Zinc, 7rrg /I
' Sett. Solids, mg /I
• • Soso. Solids, mg /I
• TDS, mg /1
'iota! Coliform Org. /100 mIs
' Fecal Coliform Ory. /100 mIs
URBAN RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
Table '6
Mean Concentrations in Urban Runoff
View ' • South
. Ridge 2 Seattle
13.1 12.9
•125 • 136._
30 ' 37•..•1:
8.6 •8.9
30 ' 30.
95' .. 97
• 12
7.7. ... ..12 • . 12.2
17 •
2.6 3.5 `• • • 1.7-
0.32 , ' 0.48: 0.32
•'• 0.12. 0.06 .
0.67 t .. 0.72
'0.45' ' . 0.40
0.12.' ' 0.12
'0.040 • 0.056 •:"
0.44 • 0.32.
2.4 • 2.0
0.0003 • -0.0004 ..
.0.025 0.009
0.005 • ,••. 0.004.
.0.18 0.12
51 '84
85 112
134 125. 170
28000 26000 4200
South
Center
Secondary'
Effluent from'
Lake . ,High- ..'., .Municipal
Hills .., Lands • ,`'Sewage Treatment.
14.8 :. .13.3. `., . :..146... 10.7.
134 ' ' .. 99 Y':: • 51 '.::' .132
,' 47 18.7 15 .: ' , :22 •
8.5 9.5
19 15
96 70 , . 68.....; 57.''
;7.3'-': 8.5
6.6 " 5.3 • 7.5
18. ' 7 . .:.1
1.4 1.4
0.32•.';, .0.19, •"• 0 .09. '•'
•! 0.03 0.02
0.83 • • 0.64 , 0.51 ' : 0.76'
0.24 .• •• • ' • 0.17 :' 0.24 •' . 0.35;'' •
0.03 •• . • 0.05 • •'• 0.12 .0.10 •
0.10 •" 0.081 • 0. 076" 0.12.' '';''.' 0.07 -
0.25' 0.40. 0.27 ' 0.08 .0 - 0.30
2.1 0.75 • : 0.39 0.44 0.10 . 0.40 •
0,0004 0.0008 0.0003 0.0008 ` :. 0.01 :' •'::::; :•
0.010 0.074 0.010 0.010 :• 0.02 =0.15
0,005 0.004 • 0,0011 0.004 .••4 0.15. .•;`: =
0.43 0.24. 0,082 0.063 • 0.20 - 0.40
60 40 40 68 - - • • '
80 • 73 • 54 ` .:i8 . • 25
89 72.',, ...101 •
1600 37000 1600
3600 1200 30 • 370 • ',1100 370 200'
•
•
a - See Appendix C .
•
. b - Based on effluent concentrations normally expected from Secondary Treatment, modified to reflect higher
concentrations measured at Benton STP for 1971.
c - Median • •
79
6.2
3.5
.: 16
1.3
0;21
0.03
'0.54
0.19
0.07
0.032
0.30
0.05
0.0006
0.092
0.004
0.20
64
:'1600
•• 370'
C
pH
Cohd. umb'o /cm 148
Turbidity, J'!'U ''15
DO,.tnq %1 10.7 .
DOD, mg /1'
COD, r.g /1 . , 78
} +crane Ext. ; n:g /1 17
..`Chloride, mg /1 7,2
:Sulfate;, mg/i • 33
rganic_!1, mg /1 0.1$
Ammonia 11, mg /1, • 0.34
tiitrite 11, mg /1 0.05
:'tlitratc.U, .n:g /1 '0.40
:Hydrolyzable :1 mg /1
Ortl�o 'P, mg /1:
::Coi�l;er.,, mg /1' '•: 0:016
Lead, mg /1 . 0 :05
'Iron, mg /1 0.30
Mercury, mg /1 . - O400i
Chromium, mg/1 ` . 0.015
0.000•
Cadmium, mg /1.
•• Zinc, mg /1
Sett. Solids, mg /1
Sucp. Solids, mg /1
TDS, mg /1
Total Coliform
t
. Org /1 CO talc
a
Moan Concentration
Parameter !•'r•I, 14 Isar 10 Mar l6 ,Tune 6 ' Auy'16 Sort 19 ' Moan'
Fecal Coliform
Org /100 mlu •
k
14odi:.ne •
G,2
6.4
Table 7
•
URBAN !?l :uC.: F cu;.!ACTERISTICS •
0.6
6.9 7.6
9.4 127
21 8.6
11.2 10.2
4.4 11.6
40 59
14 . 7:9
1.3 1 13.7
3.8 24
0.06 1.1
0.09
0.02 . •
0.31 0.58
0.13 0.09
0.03 0.01
0.015 0.005
0.12 0.61
0.00 ' 1.14
0.0019
0.010 0.010
0.004 0.005
0.042 0.37
40 10
70 ' 33
12 170
1200 490
9.9 10.4 10.3 .18.2
110
-81- '
• 7.0
6.3 6.2
110 42
33.5 16
36
107
13.3
•
Hydrological and Water Quality Impacts .
Summary and Mitigating Measures . (cont'd)
A number of solutions to the water quality problems experienced in the
Green River have been suggested in the RIBCO Water Quality Manage-
ment Study, Part II, Urban Drainage Technical Report, December 1974.
One approach sus . ested to reduce
is the off stream holding -pond or tank approach.
Another suggestion was to provide shading to the river in order to reduce
the amount of solar radiation recieved over a given area and thus to reduce
, problematical high temperatures..Surface run -off heat input to the river as
a result of the pro•osed .aved surfeces . . - - . • •-
igated b undertakin• a •lantin• scheme for
action is .aritici•ated as .a t of the tan
n in for this .ro'ect.
In ord to "mini mize hydracarbons and suspended solids from enterin .,
the storm sewers stem sear_ • .'.... ". d be .laced at the. •
connection oin
•
Lowering the water table, as a. result of directing drainage int the sewer
• system could be minimized by the implementation of various des and •
engineering techniques. For example, drainage from impervious surfaces,
could be accomplished by use of roof retention ponds to collect and store
drainage tobe released gradually into the water table through such systems
as french drains,;`'However, to'effectively reverse the trend of lowering the:..
water table, such • measures would:'have to be widely Utilized in developments
throughout the entire Green River Valley.
•
AIR QUALITY
Existing Air Quality
Sulfur dioxide measurements were made in an area southwest of the
project site on August 2 and 3, 1973. The 24 hour average was .038
ppm SO This result is in general agreement with the values obtained
by the Puget .Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) at Andover .
Park (Table 8) . Data obtained from these nearby areas suggest that
sulfur dioxide levels'at the project site are likely to be well within .;
standard allowable values given by PSAPCA (see Table 8).
Suspended particulates values are - given, in Table • 9.:
A summary of motor vehicle related contaminants' recorded at the' nearest
Department of Ecology Monitoring Station is presented in Table 10;
Although such .data`is too remote for a precise analysis of impact,. it '- .
does give some indication of conditions within the airshed. The air.':.....
,quality standards for the other pollutants reulting from motor vehicles
(hydocarbons and: photochemical oxidants) were not projected to be
exceeded in 1975; the Congressional deadline for meeting the ambient
air quality standards. 1975 data is not yet available.
The number of days the 8 hour carbon monoxide standard would be exceeded
was projected' to drop in Seattle from 107 days in 1972 to 88 days; in 1975.
The maximum 8 hour concentration will be between 16 and 17 parts :per.
million on, these days. 0
•
The subject site . influenced by both stationary sources of pollutants, the
Seattle : Industrial area; and auto related sources such as the nearby free --.
• ways.•Particularly, peak hour traffic at the junction of Interstates 5 and
405, and at the Southcenter:Mall to the west of the subject site, ,a well
as Longacres'Racetrack to the east of the site, constitute continued sources•'
of vehicular pollutants..
Sulfur Dioxide
(PPm)
• • Monthly mean " .004 .002: .002
Daily maximum :' .04' .01; `•.01
Hourly maxirrium• .24 • .08 ;,.08
: '.006 . .003
.02 .02 '..02
.11 .11 .17:
Dec. : Jan. -:Feb. '.'Mar.;: 1974 • Standard ••.
1972 1972 '1973 1973 1973 year' Value
Table 8: Sulfur dioxide data obtained by the' •
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency at the Andover .Park
Monitoring Station.
.02 annual mean
.10 daily average.
.40 hourly average
ti;Impacts on Atmospheric Conditions.:
Table . 9
Suspended Particulate
Annual Geometric Mean: 49/m
1974 i 1973 1972 .1971 Standard . •
• Seattle Center 45 . 36 45 • 44 • : ; ; •
Renton . 43
McMicken' Heights 35 ' ! 35
The concentration of suspended particulates can expected, to tempor—
arily increase' during`the construction phase : the; proposed project.
All temporary . construction phases are' subject to a degree of control
by the contractors, in terms of dust and noise:
,The greatest contribution to the existing level of air contaminants will
'result from .vehicular pollutants associated with mobile sources in and,
around the subject site
•
Although mitigating measures are not feasible within the scope of the
proposed project,: automobile ,pollutant' concentrations are expected �
•decrease as emission control :regulations become'. effective, .even With the
projected increase intraffice .volume associated with the proposed project.
•
A`detailed'analysis of automobile pollutant concentrations resulting from
traffic on and around the site py. °evaluation of indirect sources was not
undertaken at this time EPA parking management permit regulations
requiring this evaluation. were.. rescinded in 1974:
1972 June
July
Sept.
. Oct.
Nov.
.Amblent a Tr' •
qua1i ty;: •
Standards •
not• to .be:
- - exceeded
more than
.
DUWAMISH
LOCATED ON EAST MARGIWAL.WAY - -.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) PPM
Ave -age Maximum:. :Minimum Average ,.• Maximum
•
1-Hour::
:Average
Dec. 2 23. 0 . • 2
7
2
Hydrocarbons PPM Oxidant Parts Per Hundred-Million.
Average Maximum Minimum
0
13
4
1 5 0
1 1 0
1 4 0
3 0
1 2
ugm /m ' PPM
160
4 O
4 0
3 0
2 0.
5 o�
No.
C
This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit
from the city of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official
that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other
forms have been developed for single - family home applications and legislation
proposals.
BACKGROUND DATA: 3 EAs - tat e
1. Name of appiicant:RSR Development Inc. c1 4 ..41/And // L4 /AM
2. Address and phone of Applicant:
3. Project name: The Chameleon Convention and Banquet Facility
4. Project location: Interurban Avenue near F-405
5. Nature and brief description of proposal: 70,000 sq. ft. convention tenter
with 638 parking stalls.
6. Estimated completion date: December 1976
7. Do you any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain:
8." What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this
project?
(a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. YES ' NO X
(b) King County Hydrolics Permit YES. x. NO
(c) Building permit YES x NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO
(f) Sign permit YES x. NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES x NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES x NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES x NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO
(1) Other Shorel ine Mana•ement Substantial Development Permit
•
9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by ,,
your proposal? If yes, explain: No.
10. Agency requiring checklist: City of Tukwila, Department - �} �v
11. Accepted by agency on: ).-1 7 (o by: 6 Cr uc eAg
(to be filled in by city upon receipt of checklist)
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENT/1L QUESTIONNAIRE
/A
E . ft TTY wKJ
- 3 .1l -g7sO
y•• . • •V s SA% . ; 2 4_ .. _.$
Explanation:
See Attachment.
C
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.)
Yes Maybe
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in
any changes in geologic sub -
structures:
(b) Disruptions, displacements
or overcovering of the soils:
(c) Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
(d) The destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
(e) Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
(f). Changes in deposition or
erosion of beach sands, or
in changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which
may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake?
Explanation:
Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable
odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or
in any change in climate, •
either locally or regionally?
x •
Explanation:
C
Water. Will the proposal result in':
(a) Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water
movements, in either marine
or fresh waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the
amount of surface water run-
off?
(c) Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface
water in any watercourse?
(e) Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of sur-
face.'water quality, including
temperature or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters? .
•
(g) Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
acquifer by cuts or excavations?
(h) Deterioration in ground water
quality, either through direct
injection, or through the seep-
age of leachate, phosphates,
detergents, waterborne virus
or bacteria, or other substances
into the ground waters ?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
• See Attachment.
.es Maybe
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) .Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, micro -flora and aquatic
plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a bar-
rier, to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Explanation:
Fauna.* Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects, or micro - fauna) ?.
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna
into an area, or result in a
to the migration or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
See Attachment
See Attachment
Noise. Will the proposal increase exist-
ing noise levels?
Explanation:.
See Attachment
c c
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation:
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Explanation: '
See Attachment
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of the present or planned land'
use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal re-
sult in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable nat-
ural resource?
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area? .
Yes Maybe
X
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing availability, or create a demand for
additional housing?
Explanation:
Transportation/Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne or air
traffic?
Explanation:
Local Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new
services in any of the following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
(f) Other' governmental services?
Explanation:
See Attachment
See Attachment
-5-
Explanation:
Explanation:
Explanation:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or alterations to the follow-
ing utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water ?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks ?,
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation;
Human Health. Will the proposal result in the
creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the .
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or w i l l the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
Yes Maybe
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of ex -.
isting recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site?
Explanation:
Explanation:
G
See Attachment
Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi-
cant increase in city revenues?
Explanation:
Employment. Will the proposal create a
significant amount of new jobs?
;heck one •
( +)
( +) or (_j
( +) or 44
.( +) o r. ( _ )
( +) or (--)
C
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
I hereby certify that the information furnished in this environmental checklist
sheet is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
S gnature and T
Project Name: G /- /,f Aire- i,c
Project Address: .S�,.rkl c c-,,q- &kip Y 4v764- it "
BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY
CITY OF TUKWILPI �, >
ACTION BY OTHER'DEPARTMENTS:
1. Date of Review: Building by:
Planning by:
Engineering Io f mR� !l b by : • •)
Police by:
June 24, 1975
Fire by :
Agency review of environmental checklist determined that:
': project is exempt by definition.
The project has no significant environmental impact and application
should be processed without further consideration of environmental affects..
The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ -,:
mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit.
More specific information is needed to determine impact.''!
Signature and. Title of Responsible Official
Applicant was notified of decision on:
by
Date Staff .Person
In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila
Ordinance No, 759.
( +) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be'done.'
(--) , Means recommend a full environmental impact statement 'not 'be done:
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
for
The Chameleon Convention Center and Banque It Facility
by
RSR Development Inc.
Explanations and Supplemental Information:
Flora:
Earth:
.Impacts to topography, geology and soils are expected to be minimal
in as much as the subject site was covered years ago with artificial;
fill derived from land cuts resulting from freeway construction.
Retention of existing vegetation and anticipated supplemental plantings
along the river levee will help prevent surface water erosion and minor
landsliding.
Air:
Although some contribution to the existing level of air contaminants, will
result from vehicular pollutants associated with increased traffic to the
site, their impact is expected to be neglegible in relation, to current traffic
pollutant levels generated by major arterials adjacent to and in the vicinity
of the site.,
Water :.
Paved surfaces associated with the proposed project will unavoidably
inhibit ground water recharge and will result. in a small but probably ,.,
measurable drop in the local water table.. Surface run -off from paved areas
be diverted into the existing storm drainage system recently constructed
on the site under the City of Tukwila, Public Works Project L.I.'D..No. 25.
Run -off from paved areas over levee embankments and landscaped areas'
will be avoided. 30% of the site area will be left in a natural state, or new
landscaping and plantingsein on effort tp minimize overall run -off impacts.
•
The natural botanical populatioh on the. site was destroyed, some time ago
though a few small remnants exist at the eastern end near the steep. river .
embankment. Trees and shrubs are absent.. Landscaping re-introduced to .
the site in conjunction with the proposed action will be of species 'naturally
occuring in the undisturbed areas along the Green River shoreline.
Noise:
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
Explanations and Supplemental Information
Page 2
Fauna:
Although construction of the proposed complex is a part of a continuing
trend or development along the Green River, the cumalative adverse effects
to biological systems are expected to be minimal. Herbaceous ground
cover was removed from the site some time ago and subsequently its value
as a bird foraging habitat was lost.• , Existing vegetation on river banks
will continue to provide food and shelter for many of the animal species
presently using them.
Although noise generated on the site will increase during construction
activities, it shall be of a temporary nature, short in duration; the long
range noise impact of the proposed action is not expected to be significant.
Light and Glare:
Exterior accent lighting on the building and parking lot lighting will' increase
night lighting in the immediate vicinity of the building. Lighting will be
kept to the minimum necessary for security and safety. Significant impact
to the surrounding activities due to glare is not expected.
Transportation /Circulation:
The current traffic loads on area streets and arterials ip not expected to
be significantly effected by increased traffic due to activities associated
with the proposed `project. No traffic problems are anticipated and adjacent
arterials should function adequately. Traffic impacts should be furthen
reduced by the probable scheduling of the majority of vehicular loading and
unloading at the site to correspond with off peak traffic hours.
Local Services:
The proposed projOct.is not expected to place a significant demand upon
any local services.
Employment: '
The proposed project is expected to create as many as 25 tp 30 employment,
opportunities.
SEC.- TWP. -R.
DATE DENIED
Name
and address
See attachment #1.
APPLICATION NO. 7I .. �o - 2
- 3 - V
DATE RECEIVED F 7.6
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
APPLICATION
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
4. of owner, if other
RSR Development Inc.
1319 2nd Avenue, Suite 4109, Seattle, Wn.
PUBLICATION DATES
/ o / ;4 •7 6
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPROVED 5/ `fLj 76 ZONING c i.s ivy
WATER BODY 4 r..ce.t
Owner
Lessee
Contract purchaser
Other (specify) Owner's Accent
nearest street and intersection)
wetlands (Green River North District, Interurban Unit) '
APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 14 BELOW:
•
1. Name of applicant William S. Tsao & Co., P.S.
2. , Mailing address 2367 Eastlake Avenue East. Seattle, Washington 98102
Telephone (206) 324 -8780
3. Applicant is:
than applicant:
Telephone (206)682
5. General location of prop p roject (give street address, if any, or
Proposed project location is north and east of
the intersection of West Valley Highway and Interstate 405, within Sec.• 24, Twnshp.
23N. Range 4E, W.M. City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, on a 10_c7 a nrP
site which is bounded on three sides by the Green River.
6. Legal description (if lengthy, attach as separate , sheet)
7. Name of adjacent water area or wetlands: Green River and its associated
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
3 -75
8. Intended use of property: The proposed project will consist of a 70.000
so. ft. convention center and associated parking for 6,) cars and will be used
for convention, banquet, and exhibition activities.
9. Generally describe the property and existing improvements:Th site is
located within a meander loop of the Green River. Artificial fill from 1 -5 and I -405
construction covers the site. The river as well as river banks have been altered
from their natural state by previous development activity in the area. The existing
vegetation on the site consists of natural _antdjpj-rnSlliceci weed varieties_ No trees
or site improvements occur on the site.
10. A. Total construction cost and fair market value of proposed pro -
ject including additional developments contemplated but not
included in this application:
B. Construction dates (month and year) for which permit is requested:
no •ermits have been filed for to = date
End December 1976
11. Does this project require a shoreline location? Explain.
12. List any other permits for this project from state, federal, local
governmental agencies or the City of Tukwila for which you have
applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency,
whether the permit has been applied for, and if so, the date of the
application, whether the application was approved or denied and the
date of same, and the number of the application or permit:
Permits: Building Permit - by City of Tukwila Bldg. Deot.
Sewer and Water Permit:- by City of Tukwila Dept. of Sewers_
Reviews: Environmental Questionnaire by City of Tukwila,
13. Site and vicinity maps (Refer to application instructions):
No
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
3 -75
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
CITY OF TUKWILA )ss
14. Additional information:
4 M S / 5A-c) , being duly
sworn, certify that I am the above -named applicant for a permit to
construct a substantial development pursuant to the Shoreline Management
Act of 1971, and that the foregoing statements, answers, and information
are . in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and be-
lief.
Subscribed and sworn to me this day of
!( t/"/ --- //A- -o
(Signature)
Z4 /9 7-6
//
j
otary Pu
Stat
a i
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
3 -75
I3
. .i •
• . . i
•■‘ i. _A_ -, : ‘ :;--k.-;,;,,'N , --F
..!
...A : i \I• ' )4 4,._ --- w,; ....;:ik•%
%"•"'• ; i C' . ; k.) , .
1 , , •
t" ! •, : i',
i
' I' !I 1 v, ' S'N '• - . ' '
■1 . s '`I ' .....—■ : ' '..1 :
1.14 , r ; • ' ■• I
......■•■••■••■•••
•
•
— *I 1 ;-.'• •••—•
L t-•"' 7' -.-- r• 1`,„..1 k, , 1 i ! 171 1- ,, , ,. , r 1 v
I .4 ) : $ "4 ' , 1- . v - .. e ''......
ri ....„ ....., ,. I ., i i x i .i i i I 1,.. ,-1... \ I
--- --- v -.• • v
.._..—.................,-;„4: , _ •• ____....................
• . 3 • .
rf I
•
\ip; r""r;-:' (■;1
„ 4 ry
P )-2
wmh.i.o.iro
••'('' •
4046. ' • •
•
\'`■3 :
• ;•
, •
et3 c";\H 3 z) -
■aso..: • ' • - a.—
I • .
1
• •
, ys:
; I
-5- -- f'•
t : •
, •
__ .4 • •,_, • =
I
\
! • 1
•
4 ; • •••■•••■•
•
• I • •
.
— --
.N. •
\'\
: • -- • — ;
•
CP. /5" F
rtv F
Fp?
3
6 3
aairammemissamommessoolarnatas2STAIMWOMCWOUNICA=1112111==g==..,
i-e:y AR
• Us Ft) •
.04-rorz Ib •
1 160 1 s
A •
FT) _
- ^Z., •
1 e"419 F47711 (:0,(.4440
1 r;*
N kg ,AP, 94.1ir/41
1
• It •V
2,10
11 4 . .1 tcev
x 1. .
- 11 2 I .1><V • .
r7P\
2.. 2 e:1 1
".?-) •
p '14 7J
Lt.; : •
4
tot
Cif
NFERENCE 1
000 sq.ft.
•
ENCE 2
sq.ft.
1
t.
r
t331 - .1, li . : , :ies7 • 1 - - ''..,, i
1
II t ,r1
..
L.L.. . - .1- - 7:0 vr,--) • •I, - • 'i,",/•› - il,-
---,
1 - . .h. .-: - :' i. e:9■X x .<4 . 1.f ' 1
. t 7
11
6 3 4 Ca X 0 ! c-
... .... .
;
4
t " 1 7.. ..,._ _....... ... .. .... , ..
63 i 1.-f .1 irpx•;::::-,--e.
1-..&K"Z-zi-
/3" j .-f-- r ' 1 ! '
i
} ez,-,At....
3
.1
53 : 1 1 . 1 12,1s5; 1
_. ‘ . _... ..
0-5 i ......_ _ ......”......L
4 1/4><Ii 1,
IL ;
ti
/3 1 0 c, Pi->(j7
'---
1
II ~7 1•2.:. 17 , .
i a i2-Ki7 !
? 13 r
. r:1
‚3 13
11 1 1-->41
9x7
9 ? 0
114F1-to-sfur
■
---4
----
•
.111■IMIll • 1110•11•1.••
0/1 1" " r
s
Pe:igA:cTI
-; •
▪ k 1 1 /4 c
• 7 "
1->
•
c s - • z : . " r -,
-.....
c ------=---
-Z(
1 \ , sy s
......_ ',
\
,,,...1.
• 1—
—
t53 ; G •
\,A »
- rt,
l'-/
'''''''.--41.-.'"'"-- _.._,,..;:..:•.,_,..u...:'. ... I:1 .. ,
, 1
, . _ . , .....
i !
, , , 1
1:
-.>.
\-- ; , ,
: - N - - - .1- • :
, , .
.
, i
& ARCHITECTS
2367 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST '
SEATTLE; WASHINGTON 98102 U.S;A (206) 324-8780
Jl
fi
•
)11FERENCE 1
sq.ft.
— —
.1 •
•ERENCE 2
sq.ft..
1 1 I I I i i I ifiTITITIII:1.11111P II I ItrITP11111 lirirr
0 le Till INCH 1 2 3
•
9 7/
4194 Fares, _tylmt.
3 /57 (7) ivik,n4 f2407.4
'°(1 53 .e-'0NPv..4 I
• 1 (
wJI F
Fp2
B3
63
.53
)
3 1 1
1331
133
- .13'3
5 3
• 133
I It 01 • CL fyl • el
..
•
11
illt(WorpriotirryniffiTiTroirrip
5 6 7
FLEXIBLE RULER-302 AWFIXX
El
4
1.1. flu
Al25•-A
•••••• •••■ ••••■...1.=
Ar2,r0A
• • (is Fr) :
• 1: 40.5er-w-i •
.
• Co )4C,
•
19')0?)C.
x:1 •
-
2 '4X4".
.
• .•
e-Ifte/% 01.
)1 • _2 .VX . •
Paor7t=gyie...e. I • 1.0X0v "
••••••••■•••i1=••..C=L=.••Yti.
13 • 3 II 12>< 12,0
ao4
53 ' . 1
3 6 -7 •
.
L
co •
,coa
• * . * •Cii • : -
1 1.00 7
7 . Z0.4 . •
zoe)
/05
24
.1
•
. . t-2.44.1 •
----- 53 4 • 12)4
. . • •sl •
. 9 x1 . ••
• ;
I
• . . • • .
II t '‘
%
• •'' • • • • .
• : Ticik)
° 114F -40-swir •
L
--L
4- /
• 0• . l Il .:---- . .
,
----- ' . C...
...,..4L.— -
v.,. \
—
: • . C'7. . ..,, . ;;_ --' ...:‘
- - -1 :...... ', ..
-
"P
,.. i --z--
..
.............. ,..;
.:T ( • • i, •
. ,
• .
,;•• • .• • • •
1 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
1
, ;...' eLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT ISPUE....T.0_
' QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT