HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0055 - FOODMAKER INC - JACK IN THE BOX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)l92-0055 13050 interurban avenue south
JACK IN THE BOX ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
DEVELOP NEW 1 STORY 2668 SQ FT FAST FOOD REST
PROPONENT: FOODMAKER, INC.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS: 13050 INTERURBAN AV S
PARCEL NO: 000300 -0112
SEC /TWN /RNG: 15 -23 -4
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L92 -0055
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under.RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This
decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist
and other information on file with the lead agency. This information
is available to the public on request. The Conditions to this SEPA
Determination are attached.
Tt D , is/ ssued under 197 -11- 340(2): Comments must be submitted by
_ i . /4/2:,2— . The lead agency will not act on this.
15 days from the date below.
L. •ick reeler, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
You may appeal this determination to. the .City Clerk at City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. no later than 10 days from the
above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal
for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of
the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Address: 13050 INTERURBAN AV S Permit No: L92 -0055
Tenant: Status: PENDING
Type: P -SEPA Applied: 07/16/1992
Parcel #: 000300 -0112 Issued:
*•******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Permit Conditions:
1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, A TRIP- GENERA-
TION /TRAFFIC STUDY MUST BE SUBMITTED. RESULTS OF THE STUDY
WILL DETERMINE THE PRO -RATA SHARE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE AMOUNT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE
CITY ENGINEER.
2. THE PROJECT SHALL:: INCLUDE OIL /WATER :SEPARATORS(S)..AND BE
SHOWN ON DRAWINGS SUBMITTED; WITH THE:,BUILDING PERMIT.
APPLICATION... ";
Pace
for Planner
City of Tukwila
2600 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
December 17, 1992
RE: JACK IN THE BOX 18481
13028 Interurban Ave. So., Tukwila, WA
Dear Jack:
A Division of
Foodmaker, Inc.
Real Estate
18161 Segale Park Drive B
Tukwila, WA 98188
206/575.1895
The JACK IN THE BOX building elevations approved by the City of
Tukwila Planning Department discretionary review provided for
aluminum composite panels to surround the dining room entries and
three roof dormers (see attached elevations). This metal treatment
was to include surrounding the dormers three sides and roof cap
metal.
The construction contract bidding process revealed a substantial
increase in cost, from the budgeted amount, for the aluminum
composite material. Because of building cost restraints
associated with this project, it may be delayed if some cost
savings cannot be realized.
JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANTS therefore proposes the City of Tukwila
approve revised building elevations eliminating the metal
treatments on the sides of the dormers and the roof cap metal.
The attached colored elevations will provide you the opportunity to
see that the replacing of the metal treatment with stucco to match
the dominant building texture and color will still provide the
entry enhancement originally intended by its addition.
Please review this request as soon as possible so that the quantity
of the aluminum composite materials can be finalized and evaluated.
If you have any questions or are in need of further information on
this matter, feel free to contact me at the JACK IN THE BOX
Regional Office in Tukwila (206) 575 -1895. Thank you.
1)(r
ChJL o / 7 "orev229,-- car-Iva-0 do
/49 42X12,042g 710- v B0032
/Z0z.
Sincere]4' ,
JACK "%I''N 'THE BOX /2
( 1 • /
Chris M. Smith
Construction Site Engineer
cc: Joe LoBianco
David Hills
&DEWED 1 7 1992
Dn ELOPMENT
TO: Ron Cameron
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: 9/2/92
SUBJECT: JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT ON INTERURBAN AVE N -
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
M E M O R A N D U M
Denni has reviewed Public Works input to. the Jack in the Box
Environmental Checklist and has two questions regarding traffic:
1. Was the original Tuk Inn trip generation factored in prior traffic
analyses (i.e.: BECU Traffic Study) on which development mitigations
based?
2. Are "Original development" traffic conditions based on Tuk Inn
Restaurant operation?
Also, I have made a copy of similar developer's agreement that
outlines mitigations developments have agreed to in recent past so
Denni an idea as to what the Jack In The Box Development traffic
mitigations may be.
Denni would like us to get back to her with these answers tomorrow.
Attachment (1)
ENTRANCO
April 11, 1991
Mr. Robert A. Hart
Project Manager
Bedford Properties
12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107
Seattle, WA 98168
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
10900 NE 8TH STREET, SUITE 300
SELLEVUE, WA 98004
(206) 454.5600
FAX: (206) 454.0220
RECEIVED
APR 2 41991
TUKWiLA
PUBLIC WORKS
Re: Traffic Impact and Proportionate Share Analysis for the Proposed Gateway
Corporate Center Buildings No. 8 and 9 Located in Tukwila, Washington
Entranco Project No. 91809 -05
Dear Mr. Hart:
This letter report outlines the traffic impact and proportionate share analysis con-
ducted for the proposed Gateway Corporate Center Buildings No. 8 and 9 in Tukwila,
Washington. The proposed site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interur-
ban Avenue /Gateway Drive intersection. The site currently is occupied by the Sea -
first Office Building (22,901 square feet) and Bowers Machinery Shop (20 employ-
ees).
The proposed development will consist of a 17,315 square foot retail center (Building
No. 8) and a combined 40,500 square foot office and 27,000 square foot warehouse
use facility (Building No. 9). Access to the project site will be provided by the exist-
ing driveways on Interurban Avenue and Gateway Drive.
Trip Generation
The trip generation values used in the impact analysis for the existing and proposed
facilities were based on the trip generation equations published in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, fourth edition, September 1987. The ex-
isting land use trip generation was determined by the gross square feet of office floor
space in the Seafirst Office Building and the number of employees occupying the
Bowers Machinery Shop. The trip generation values for the Bowers Machinery Shop
were based on a conservative daily trip rate of three trips /day per employee be-
cause the primary function of the facility is to service buses rather than personal
passenger vehicles.
The projected trip generation of the proposed Buildings No. 8 and 9 was determined
using the gross square footage of the planned retail, office, and warehouse floor
space. All trip generation calculations used in this analysis are attached at the end
of this report. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation used in this analysis for the
existing and proposed land uses.
WASHINGTON • ARIZONA • CALIFORNIA
Mr. Robert A. Hart
April 11, 1991
Page 2
Table 1
Trip Generation Summary for
Existing and Proposed Uses
Averaae Weekday Daily Traffic
Existing Use
Seafirst Office Building 454
Building No. 8— Retail
Bowers Machinery Shop
Building No. 9 —Office
— Warehouse
60
Proposed Use Net Increase
467* 13
696
442
1,138
1,078
Totals 514 1,605 1,091
Assumes a 25 percent reduction for on- street passby traffic .volumes.
Projected driveway volumes are 623 trips daily.
Proportionate Share Analysis
The proportionate share analysis was based on the methodology used to determine
the "Fair Share" identified in the July 7, 1989 Memo to Moira Carr - Bradshaw from
Ron Cameron regarding the Gateway Bedford /BECU (Boeing Employees Credit
Union) Expansion. The Carr - Bradshaw /Cameron memo identifies four transportation
improvement projects that would be impacted by the referenced expansion: coordi-
nated signal and intersection improvements at three intersections —South 133rd
Street/SR 599 southbound off-ramp, Interurban Avenue /I -5 northbound on -ramp, In-
terurban Avenue /SR 599 northbound off -ramp; and roadway safety and capacity im-
provements at South 133rd Street (Interurban southbound off- ramp).
The fair share percentages of Buildings No. 8 and 9 were then determined by pro-
portioning the net increase in trip generation (1,091 daily trips) to the "increased
BECU" traffic volumes shown in the memo for the improvement projects identified
above. The calculations used to determine the proportionate volumes and fair share
percentages for Buildings No. 8 and 9 and a copy of the July 7, 1989 Carr -
Bradshaw /Cameron memo are attached at the end of this report. The fair share per-
centages for the identified improvement projects are shown in Table 2.
Mr. Robert A. H : rt { ,
April 11, 1991
Page 3
Table 2
Fair Share Allocations for
Buildings No. 8 and 9
Improvement Pro'ect
S. 133rd Stre
Interurban Av
Interurban Av
S. 133rd Stre
Ramp)
t/SR 599 SB Off-Ramp
nue /I -5 NB On -Ramp
nue /SR 599 NB Off -Ramp
t (Interurban Ave. SB Off-
Totals
Fair Share Co t Allocation
The costs as
Carr- Bradsha
for Buildings
ble 2 to the
shows the fai
each identifie
Therefore, b
Cameron me
proposed d
Properties) f
Conclusion
The propos
will generate
to determin
study area,
determined
findings of t
should be a
Bldgs. 8/9
Fair Share
3%
Improvement Fair Share
Cost Allocation
$124,106 $3,723
2% 94,946 1,899
113,361 1,134
4% 336,545 13.462
$668,958 $20,218
ociated with the identified improvement projects are also shown in the
/Cameron memo. The fair share portion of these improvement costs
o. 8 and 9 was determined by applying the percentages shown in ta-
corresponding improvement costs (see attachment). Table 2 also
share cost allocation for the proposed development associated with
improvement.
sed on the improvement costs as provided in the Carr - Bradshaw/
o (shown in table 2) and the fair share cost allocation analysis of the
velopment as documented in this report, the developer (Bedford
it share contribution for transportation improvements is $20,218.
d development of the Gateway Corporate Center Buildings No. 8 and 9
a net total of 1,091 average daily vehicle trips. Using the methodology
the cost allocation for the prior development (BECU /Bedford) of the
he fair share contribution for transportation improvement projects was
or the additional traffic created by the proposed project. Based on the
e cost allocation analysis, the fair share contribution by the developer
total of $20,218.
•
Mr. Robert A. Hart
April 11, 1991
Page 4
We trust that this trip generation and proportionate share analysis will assist you and
the City of Tukwila in gaining approval for the proposed development of Buildings
No. 8 and 9 in the Gateway Corporate Center. If you have any questions or con-
cerns regarding the information in this document, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ENTRANCO
■
Sherman G
Project Manager
SDG:ckm
Attachments: Calculations (three pages)
Carr - Bradshaw /Cameron memo (nine pages)
ENTRANC( ENGINEERS, INC.
PROJECT r- R= rz--r
SHEET NO 1 OF
JOB NO '1(5,---9
CALCULATIONS FOR —1"—Pz i- tr.t�)
MADE BY S DATE `1/-7 Mt CHECKED BY
A• C=AF F. lc: Ir��
DATE
r r (.l1 E- C c`E "I IC)
fiwt: i = L.4-1 ! >
L N C�`� = x .75 Lt.! 7
LN C r = 6. t 1 o T= -; - ):�ir -S
'* A "S6LiM E 3.0 'iRI G�
3, r..P
Day
r��t
> c;L .cIAL& / �'c-TA I!_. N - ) 1c
KITE. L.'l. %'cc .e; V-Y>
few p-i- - Lr1 /-I-> _ 1. l7 Lt.) (r. 4 3
�A
, 4- A- T= Co-Z 3 -; tPs — t (z.5 °70> PAs '
` P- 4PS /tY
-L3v 1L "NG� C-tcN - '\L__ aF F1 -a - 60 %
(67, 550 .sue:, PT ToT) (l T l-. ;t . C.crDE 710>
vvD To L-N.) (r _ 0,-/S" ►-N �A') -t- .77
c7R":".).
= 0 .-7s LN (40, • '7 7
!-tv (T _ (o , SS t = 6,61(.e, -Fa./ s /t /
t,j i-t 470 ) Zi,c.cC .=T.
(VT‘C-- LW'.. Gcc)E 15x7
= 3 . s (z.-7) d - 54 Z . ccS
T = 447_ _ - 4-t -T►� -tPs /sue`/
"; t_ A'. 1 DT !a w\sa r r,a G , - 1 t 3 rJ Te t PS /it-/
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
PROJECT P_ -r
SHEET NO .2—OF
JOB NO
CALCULATIONS FOR — P' �t�r -��� ro■ r t cr.)
/ Piz apoR"i't ory A-T e .'Cr-
MADE BY s DATE 4/25/clk CHECKED BY
E = rX1STt N P Pg-oj't CtE C�
DATE
•• -F- c C
= 5 k -rw t
TC3 i L- t g- F' - i�t_ c�C , S -�- t� � .
= !o% -4- ( -4 4-6r-z_
)
- , - S (c05 - - � x°) 1
RcFV. hMZf -p(%,) 1\e∎ I‘A- b l U1--7' —71 Iii Sct
mot.,\ cve'' T t)irGU % oe= 3t_4::= ,&r9 F A•-izM
t==2c-3'Cci S '"Tr ,4F F. t C.1 ETA L-_ -T AFF l C—
�. PC RaE1 r
(G2l!a,TcTAL_(NR�'. � • • �C:~i C NGt.}- Tocs, \
1NLREP1/4--:::C
Sq9
513 GFt=
100 `fet P$)
/ T- S
g
(is, coo PS
�, N
t,13 ;OFF=
(z-OF10 TR t
=N Rt!R8 N • > F•;
( -7 13 c2) t PS,
ToTA L- 5 13 50
c%24P5 /PP 0-11
re0 70-R\ L)
21-7 c15- 37
o
(It ,301S")
fib, ta5-
Z �1 31 Co
(mot, �► ��
Z-7 2ci -1- 70
(7,StS..
.I00 1o�ct+ z '7D
(�a) 361 a���at.�..
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
( JOB NO tbc -0C-4C-r)
PROJ ECT E c t "sES.
CALCUL ATIONS FOR 7-124e /GoS-r-
MADE BY t' .4,Z2L3/..1 CHECKED BY DATE
CCT
=INA PP-cwa- EN3
Pac-z-e-
.4K ..Lve-iv\ts-ST FA( c t•4
( c LL.
11 . C.-r /z c1 -"tz,
2, -15-i-e-viefVTN) / I-- 5-- c p.14(- 2_,-7, 1) h9
t.l. Ch4
3. Its-re-g4)1Z.Ff.f+ 0 / S (2-.59 1 t 3, 3co 1 4 7e,
N313 cr-T-'
4, S 1.-- (zit. •-r- / -.B-3 (o) Sdt-S- 4% 1 3) 4 6 Z_
_77,-re Rugstb,si c*--c--
4k. FP-t--#■
7.7-1uLY (4'141
b .
--t-cfrA LoN--rei rflc- ?\ - 2-1t
To: Moira Carr -Brad
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedtord /BECU expansion
Date: July 7, 1989
This memo explains the Fair Share and mitigations to serve the
INCREASED Bedford /BECU traffic. The 1984 traffic analysis
projected 2,696 vehicle trips per day (VF'D) with the build out of
493,850 GSF; TDA reports that the 249,112 GSF constructed is
generating 2,748 VF'D. TDA projects the new build out traffic
generation to be 12,601 in the year 2000 and 9,763 in 1990.
That's an increase of 9,905 VF'D in the year 2000 and about 7,000
in 1990. The City's approval of the project was for 2,696 VF'D, not
12,601. The Fair Share and mitigations described in this memo are
for the increased traffic, the difference between the 2,696 and
12,601 VF'D.
The Fair Share was determined by:
measuring existing traffic (Figure 1)
developing a trip distribution (Figure 2)
distributing increased BECU /Bedford traffic ( Fioure 3)
determining future traffic (Figure 4)
and calculating the per cent that the increased BECU /Bedford
traffic is of the total increase (future traffic - existing). The
existing street system and control is essentially operating safely
and efficiently. The increase in traffic will require widening,
signal control, pedestrian improvements, lighting, and similar
safety and capacity needs. The Fair Share is the fraction
calculated by dividing the increased development traffic by the
total traffic increase.
EXISTING TRAFFIC
The current daily traffic totals are shown on Figure 1. Additional
counts have been made to supplement the TDA information. Further.
counts are being made to complete the analysis.
TDA reports LOS for existing conditions in Table 3. . The SR599 NB Off
left turn at Interurban and the SR599 SB Off at S 133rd Street have LO'_
E. The report explains that signa),.s are warranted for these two
locations. It is important to remember that warrant volumes are
threshold numbers - meeting warrants does not require a signal but
allows signal installation.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
To: Moira Carr - Bradshaw
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
A trip distribution was developed. The 1984 Wilsey Hamm distribution
was the basis and it was modified to reflect the extensive Boeing
development in the Ri verton area; that a substantial amount of the
increased traffic is projected to be generated by the Boeing Credit
Union and considering proximity of Boeing employees; the TDA
information, and F'SCOG GRVTAF' information. Figure 2 shows the
distribution and Figure 3 shows the increased BECU /Bedford traffic
distribution.
FUTURE TRAFFIC
CH2M is currently completing Tukwila's Transportation Flan by
generating Year 2010 volumes and identifying capacity deficiencies.
Additional work is to be performed in the Gateway area. Future volume
have been identified using the CH2M work, growth factors determined
using the CH2M findings, F'SCOG projections, TDA projections, and
existing count data. These were reviewed, discussed with CH2M, and
revised where additional work: was needed. The Future volumes are =how
on Figure 4.
INCREASED TRAFFIC
The 1990 increased traffic generated by Bedford /BECU will be about
7,000 VF'D (9,763 less 2,696) as shown in Figure 6 of TDA's
report. TDA projected the increased traffic using credit union
transaction data and the existing rates for the Bedford expansion.
The existing rates were determined from TDA counts and existing
GFA. Calculating trip generation using ITE rates shows a higher
amount.
TDA also calculated trip generation for the year 2000. That
projection is for 12,601 VF'D - an increase of 9,905 VF'D. (12,601 -
2,696).
The current 7,000 increase is about 4 times the original
projection. The year 2000 increase of 9,905 is about 5 times the
original projection. The original study assumed a warehouse -
light industrial use; actually, it is developing with office and
retail. The ITE trip generation difference between office park:
and warehouse /light induqrial is about 4 times as much. For
example, office parks generate trips at 196 per acre compared to
warehouses at 56 per acre.
r
In all likelihood, the use will continue to evolve. This is what
is occuring throughout the area. Gateway has excellent access
with I5, I405, and SR599 freeways as well as E Marginal Way,
Pacific Highway, and Interurban /W Valley Road. The excellent
access will probably accelerate the evolution to "higher" use.
The fact that one -half of the originally proposed development is
To: Moira Carr- Bradshaw
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
generating more traffic than the original projection substantiates
the change.
The fair share traffic amount being used in this analysis is the
rounded difference between the current 9,763 projection and the
original 2,696 projection. It is rounded to 7,1100 VPD
recoginizing that the projection can't be precise to the unit. It
is conservative from the development perspective by using the
current 7,000 increase instead of year 2000 increase of 9. 900
trips.
FAIR SHARE
The Future volumes show definite need for signal control and
roadway capacity and safety improvements (vehicles and
pedestrian). The existing conditions analysis by TDA reports
signal warrants are met but no significant LOS deficiencies are
occuring
Volume increases from existing to future create the safety and
capacity needs for vehicles and pedestrians including the signals,
widening, sidewalks, lighting and so on.
The Fair Share is calculated by the proportion that the
development traffic increase is of the total increase. Following
is a tabulation of the Fair Share calculations for the:
S 133rd St /SF: 599 SB Off
Interurban Ave /I5 NB On
Interurban Ave /SR 599 NB On
Interurban /SR599 NB Off
S 133 St (Interurban - SR599 SB Off)
Intersection
Approach
S 133 /SR599 SB Off
SB Off
Westbound
Eastbound
Northbound
Total
Fai rshare
INCREASED
BECU TOTAL
TRAFFIC FUTURE
5111:) 8,i)i1i1
1,050 11,0011
700 . 4,000
0 1,200
251) 24,7'00
intersection
intersection
intersection
intersection
segment
TOTAL
- EXISTING
6,000
2,800
800
13,100
r
Increased BECU
Total Increase
2,250
11,100
TOTAL
INCF :EASE
4,500
5,1)00
1,200
400
)
11,10
20%
■
To: Moira Carr- Bradshaw
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
Intersection
Approach INCREASED
BECU
Interurban /I -5 NB On TRFFC
Northbound 700
Southbound 700
Total 1,400
Fairshare
FUTURE
15,000
15,000
31),000
Increased BECU
Interurban /SR599 NB On
Northbound
Southbound
Total
Fairshare
750
450
1,650
EXISTING
11,000
11,000
22 , 0t:)0
1,400
ot-a-1- increase -__._ __ 8,000
FUTURE
16,600
9,500
35,600
Increased BECU
Total Increase
EXISTING
9,200
5,300
19,800,
• 1,650
15,800
INCREASE
4,000
4,1,00
8,000
18%
INCREASE
7,400
4 , 200
15,800
10% s/
Interurban /SR599 NB Off
NB Off
Northbound
Southbound
Total
S 133 St
Fairshare
350
1,050
1,050
0
2,450
FUTURE
9,000
'7'0,000
13,000
i)
4'.),000
Increased BECU
Total Increase
(Interurban - SR599 SB Off)
FUTURE
Westbound
Eastbound
Total
Fairshare
1,050
1,200
2,250
9,500
9,50' :)
19,000
r
Increased BECU
Total Increase
EXISTING
4,400
10,000
6,700
t:)
21,100
2,450
20,990
EXISTING
6,200
5,500
11,700
7,7.00
= INCREASE
4,600
11,),000
i)
127..
INCREASE
4,000)
31%
To: Moira Carr - Bradshaw
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
MITIGATIDNS AND FAIRSHARE
The improvements to provide for the increased traffic include widening
Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated signals.
lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvements. The City is currerltl•,
working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant tc
provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have beer
identified for thr- other improvements. The Fair Share portion of
improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects:
D4T S la 20%
G , YS c718%
70, /6o 12%
3a,i9c, 31
S 133 St /SR599 SB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /I5 NB On coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /SR599 NB On coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /SR599 NB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /S 133rd St coordinate signal
S 133rd St (Interurban -SB off) roadway safety /capacity.
The mitigation costs will include design, construction, and
construction administration. WSDOT coordination will be required.
Cost estimates have not been made, even "planning level" estimates as
they have not been anticipated as being needed this soon.
A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for 5- �•i'.
Bedford /BECU funding the Fairshare improvement cost prior to
construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level
cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or similar
measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is
required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award
agreement is provided if the low bid is substantially more than the
estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The
agreement has an expiration date.
0,7'` �� -• �S %�
. — �C7
(l Is. / c.:: z
r
1',
1301.6 / 5 -63G
'71 E 7177
//3,;61
,
„1
E7- /7 —1.-
/ 0
33
.31
1 &j, 3 a 1
•
To: Moira Carr - Bradshaw
From: Rory Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
MITIGATIONS AND FAIRSHARE
The improvements to provide for the increased traffic include widenin.
Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated signals
lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvements. The City is currentl
working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant t.
provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have bee!
identified for the other improvements. The Fair Share portion o
improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects:
071 5-7e, 207.
65,YSo187.
•7 /e0 127.
23D,/ac,317.
S 133 St /SR599 SB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /I5 NB On coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /SR599 NB On coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /SR599 NB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /S 133rd St coordinate signal
S 133rd St (Interurban -BB off) roadway safety /capacity.
The mitigation costs will include design, construction, and
construction administration. WSDOT coordination will be required.
Cost estimates have not been made, even "planning level" estimates as
they have not been anticipated as being needed this soon.
A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for
Bedford /BECU funding the Fairshare improvement cost prior to
construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level
cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or simila.
measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is
required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award
agreement is provided if the low bid is substantially more than the
estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The
agreement has an expiration date.
1
(�t.S:I . Cit .� 't`
o
1 .2L/ /a6
1 7-!' n
O'<
7'_ /mac
J ,
VG, 9:247
j /0
3 J / r• •
`.•3 t
10L/ 3�1
To: Moira Carr - Bradshaw
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
MITIGATIONS AND FAIRSHARE
The improvements to provide for the increased traffic include wi deni nc
Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated signals.
lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvements. The City is currentl•,
working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant tc
provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have been
identified for thf other improvements. The Fair Share portion of
improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects:
S 133 St / SR599 SB Of f
Interurban /I5 NB On
Interurban /SR599 NB On
Interurban /SR599 NB Off
Interurban /S 133rd St
S 133rd St (Interurban -SB
coordinated signal, intersection
coordinated signal, intersection
coordinated signal, intersection
coordinated signal, intersection
coordinate signal
off) roadway safety /capacity.
The mitigation costs will include design, construction, and
construction administration. WSDOT coordination will be required.
Cost estimates have not been made, even "planning level" estimates as
they have not been anticipated as being needed this soon.
A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for 5 j'i'.
Bedford /BECU funding the Fairshare improvement cost prior to
construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level
cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or similar
measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is
required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award
agreement is provided if the low bid is substantially more than the
estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The
agreement has an expiration date.
(Pt
/ S 7.
C�C!�•.�•� �� --- 9.07r
-• �- `ti,
��
v' i
.2L1 /O6
•
1'c-.1
130 °.E
/ 5" r i.
c
yr' ,•=v
33 G c L
To: Moira Carr- Bradshaw
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
MITIGATIONS AND FAIRSHARE
The improvements to provide for the increased traffic include widenin
Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated signals
lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvements. The City is currentl
working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant t
provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have bee
identified for the other improvements. The Fair Share portion c
improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects:
2u/.
Si yE3c, 18/.
7 /gc 1?%
23a,/ "o3.1/.
5 133 St /SR599 SB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /I5 NB On coordinated signal, interect ,ion
Interurban /SR599 NB On coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /SR599 NB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /S 133rd St coordinate signal
5 133rd St (Interurban -SB off) roadway safety /capacity.
The mitigation costs will include design, construction, and
construction administration. WSDOT coordination will be required.
Cost estimates have not been made, even "planning level" estimates as
they have not beery" anticipated as being needed this soon.
A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for c V .
Bedford /BECU funding the Fairshare improvement cost prior to
construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level
cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or simila
measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is
required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award
agreement is provided if the low bid is substantially more than the
estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The
agreement has an expiration date.
1. /62%
rr =n
•
//t
C-
J
4'G , 9247
/0
�._.3t
1 9/ 3:1
To: Moira Carr - Bradshaw
From: Ron Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
MITIGATIONS AND FAIRSHARE
The improvements to provide for the increased traffic include wideninc
Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated Signals
lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvements. The City is currentl-
working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant tc
provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have beer
identified for the other improvements. The Fair Share portion o-
improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects:
S57 S gb 20%
65/ ySc718/.
%0, /6c) 12%
2 30, /oc) 31 %
S 133 St /SR599 SB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /I5 NB On coordinated signal, intersect .ion
Interurban /SR599 NB On coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /SR599 NB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /S 133rd St coordinate signal
S 133rd St (Interurban -SB off) roadway safety /capacity.
The mitigation costs will include design, construction, and
construction administration. WSDOT coordination will be required.
Cost estimates have not been made, even "planning level" estimates as
they have not been anticipated as being needed this soon.
A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for
Bedford /BECU funding the Fairshare improvement cost prior to
construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level
cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or similar -
measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is
required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award
agreement is provided if the low bid is substantially more than the
estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The
agreement has an expiration date.
0�7'j /S 7�
� r
r/i,'�'��'�' - - /C7Z
'4;7
7
l i 11
)301.c I
g . ; i 6 <y8 %
� 2 10E 4J iVF l / 3,;G 1
r
. • — �- -'
C14, - 4 1 7- :{ .-
? : r�C
J ,
/0
zJ
•
3t
1 9, 3D 1
•
• To: Moira Carr - Bradshaw
From: Rory Cameron
Subject: Gateway Bedford /BECU
Date: July 1989
MITIGATIONS AND FAIRSHARE
The improvements to provide for the increased traffic include widenir
Interurban and S 133rd Street, interconnected and coordinated signals
lighting, signing, and pedestrian improvements. The City is currentl
working with WSDOT on a grant to improve Interurban with the grant t
provide about half of the funding. No other funding sources have bee
identified for the other improvements. The Fair Share portion c
improvement costs and improvements for the unfunded projects:
07� S a 20 %
S 2 18/..
70 ,6c, 127.
�
30,/°c)3.17.
S 133 St /SR599 SB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /I5 NB On coordinated signal, intersect ,ion
Interurban /SR599 NB Dn coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /SR599 NB Off coordinated signal, intersection
Interurban /S 133rd St coordinate signal
S 133rd St (Interurban -SB off) roadway safety /capacity.
The mitigation costs will include design, construction, and
construction administration. WSDOT coordination will be required.
Cost estimates have not been made, even "planning level" estimates as
they have not been anticipated as being needed this soon.
A developer's agreement should be entered that provides for 4;' /f.
Bedford /BECU funding the Fairshare improvement cost prior to
construction award. The agreement should be based on planning level
cost estimates, the developers agree to their shares, a bond or simila
measure is provided for the fair share, escrow deposit of the funds is
• required of the funds prior to construction award, and further award
agreement is provided if the low bid is substantially more than the
estimate. Lower or higher bids would be proportionately shared. The
agreement has an expiration date.
D ti7j ►. _. /S 7.
•
s _ `
c 9
n
, r
r -, 7 ry•
C r :i
tc), 'V7
u
yG 924'
•3
1c 9,331
S N#1-1 0° 5 (D4
'5A
4
FIG
' t 1:1,1 E 4 C\ our V O L U mes
'11�A ( r.n... • T C.)A RsenR1>
FIG f-
Tp 0151 R)SUTION)
(.. )) i.) 1-(:)Pti -1000 VPD VoLvmES
T RIP (SY. 111: RA-110" coo
- Rt9 *rim, t 5 q 0 _
F-Ic. 4
PROECHON,
TO: Ron Cameron
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: 9/2/92
SUBJECT: JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT ON INTERURBAN AVE N -
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
M E M O R A N D U M
Denni has reviewed Public Works input to the Jack in the Box
Environmental Checklist and has two questions regarding traffic:
1. Was the original Tuk Inn trip generation factored in prior traffic
analyses (i.e.: BECU Traffic Study) on which development mitigations
based?
2. Are "Original development" traffic conditions based on Tuk Inn
Restaurant operation?
Also, I have made a copy of similar developer's agreement that
outlines mitigations developments have agreed to in recent past so
Denni an idea as to what the Jack In The Box Development traffic
mitigations may be.
Denni would like us to get back to her with these answers tomorrow.
Attachment (1
/ (—s\.
..:;,-.., \
H
\ /"y
® T
b)v) 0
��Z �2 6e*zw\��
Ii) -7 jp &i7btY1
,1 l0�
°)442-°
• \\5\%.,
Ecem 02.04k
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
John Pierog and 'Phil Fraser
Denni
August 31, 1992
Jack in the Box
In response to comments dated 8/7/92 pertaining to this project, I
have the following questions and comments:
The following issues can be addressed as part of the building
permit process:
1. Stormwater measures
2. Traffic circulation depending upon City's concerns onto
adjacent properties. Concerns should be identified.
Provide clarification for comments related to:
1. trip generation /volumes,
driveways.
signal warrants, and LOS 's for shared
2. Define mitigation measures referenced for BECU project.
Specific identification of impacts must occur in order to
require mitigation measures.
I am available 1 Sept p.m. to meet. I would like to have SEPA
determination made by, Sept.
3
TO: Mark Cross
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: 8/7/92
M E M O R A N D U M
SUBJECT: Jack in the Box Fast • Food Restaurant - 13050 Interurban Ave.
Public Works provides the following comments responding to the
enviornmental for Jack in the Box:
Page 8, Item No. 3.d - Stormwater measures ,to• include oil /water
separation and possibly biofiltration.
Page 15, Item No. 14. a - Traffic circulation needs to be defined
since project may introduce additional impacts on adjacent properties.
PIge•16, Item No. 14. f - Trip generation study should identify
changed traffic from existing conditions to post - development. The
study needs to identify existing and proposed traffic volumes for 24
hr. w/3 peaks for morning, noon and evening. Identify trip generation
of previous restrant. Evaluate signal warrants and LOS's for shared
driveways.
• Page 16, Item No. 14. g - Mitigation measures will be required for
Interurban Ave S and S 133 St similar to those for Boeing Employment
Credit Union and Gateway - Buildings 8 & 9.
Also, non - enviornmental comments Public Works requests be relayed to
the developer for his refrence:
1. Refer to the Fire Department for fire access requirements.
2. All utility and access easements and maintenance agreements to be
provided for intended use as part of site plan submittal.
3. Page 3, Item No. 10 - Applicant response to Question #10 should
have included the following: Land Altering, Water Meter Turn -On,
Hauling, Landscape Irrigation, Fire Loop /Hydrant and Storm Drainage
permits will be required by Public Works.
Attachment (1)
xc. Read File
Development File: Jack in the Box - Enviornmental
t//RTE PLAN NOTES
p MELTON DISPLAY
p INTDILOM STATION 9, 4
p SFA'OARD 0012 616N
(LO•CY6T AND MRINO BY ELEC. CONTRACTOR. 5454 INSTALLATION NO NOOK•V
BY SION CONTRACTOR/.
0 PAY lTIZAO/! PER 50. ES-I.
pi TRASH CNLLOSURL. SEE DETAIL 16605
pi KRIN. 1.40405. (STTOGL NEB )
0 LOr6RETE ORJVC Alp OLTOREYC GAD
5• PORTLA.I0 CEMENT CONORE114 W 614 M 41461 4 WP
5. 00-000 0O••KTED. S /0• MINA LWYI•D LEVELING. LOURS!
5• GOOSE ...ACTED. 1 I/J• MNA LR 6ICD DAY O AASE
'ROAM CONTRACTION El1A16101 JOINTS. NO LOAD 11 .1ja ER D0.65
24 SOILS REPORT. PREPARE 51460ASE PER 5011.5 REPORT
O 6. 0014'.44!44 Luca G)
O 6• *0444.040 Lu12.6
0' PRECAST 00044!115 *05.1.51044. PLAGE W 641.0 4 DOVO..
0.157110 049. TO REMAIN
01415711.6 0004501E 44044*4.1.4.
ONCI 4. 0O0CRL'14 SIDENALK K' CONTROL JOINTS • 5'0.04. 0*0041 PINnN W HARD ',WOO. FEATURE STRIPS
O 145444141.11 PAVEMENT.
5• COURSE COPALTED. 5 /6' MOM C.IONC0 LEVRIN. 00.443E
S• CQA400 LO PALTED.I eel. 0,40 05JirC.0 DALE 00.040
PREPARE SVD60*00 PER SOUS REPORT.
STLOLIEC SOIL 1461 Htm 010.5.44
OLENTERLIIC P 4. 610E 611112 PAINTED LAOS USC 0044107 PAINT.
OPAINTED ARROM RATE VON N15.51AY !WRY.
pERISTIN6 DAMNS. PAVING. 1 STRJCTWtS TO DE REMOVED.
O 00/6546 0-10.440 10 445.41.0/5.
OHM4 OLECTRILAL 5 440400ARD.
• 6.51555.44.
O OIREGYIONAL SON
O REMOVE ALL Ex1STI46 Ld10RETE 01.00010 ROCKS. ETC.
O!0151146 06 P TO DE STRRTC0 AND TI00AVt0 RR .4075 4414.
ON PROVIDE SON AO PVC SLEEVI 46 AT IRRIOATIOH LI1C CRO551465 Of ALL PAVED AREAS TO % P.PE NEE1.
SEC IRRUATION PLAN SO-1 Pat 0AACT LOCAT10*
PROJECT DATA
.1AR15O /011ON. CITY OF 14.4WLA
E01.0166 0004. 11461 V00
WILD N6 ARCA 2400 SP.
SEATING. 440 SCATS
4OYI66. 41.1 I1.16N61110161RAL1
0CLLPAKY, 4.5
046750,0441,715 '7.N (40.•SPRINKLOC1
SITE AREA
ReOIRE10
AERIAL.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NAM,.
r0.vl Are 6040ro7161004ArcR66I 0 So w ecru.
TARO a rO16.446a • Mtn. e w Wert. N6R6rq 06064
u161.06
*44106 AT • own Nolo OURS lam ROMA
50 AMER
M
0006a1D 0Cm 1.0.106 O an..n. PLIN
IMO rev ur MO]0 Kr WV a re MARIA Abet
Anml 55.056 N No a u6 T6.e.. a
: 1Da 0I OiI '418:°MO Oa NC40 756rea l0 two Davai..uTIA.17011*
Moo 4.144..on V44D• wT. NT R tar fRoN ne
roNiko T0.OAS rN ne CAULK P MD 4.45•16•* 666 w 440.0
Kft7 CI AK "1re,e" e6. 60 7 /40000614 PM A O l4 NO "O Tm NAT
Or no!an.4af.m Ien Co m ro TK 1641eAVVRY Now.TIE
ron fact 6110.60LN.T
noel otINAP6. OK MOO 60 4.6.60..6.ei>. RET 70 ne
Al POW nefeE Porn 4007. DAL 601sT.
67142P w04 ITO
not 1a.,aer'W/Wei SO RV
Mee •v'1.44A ref 1.14214 NV Ore 'Kenya P EARN
GENERAL CONDITIONS
W604 AN IORw c 44.04 w. &i0 (AM An.
un�4IIMe Q 1.0/40 C i e TpiIR4*a014. 644/4411
.rD
644 a IIIOPOR RTR rot4 414164 *6001
0:MK Or WAR,
REVISIONS
DATE.
745455 5P 406506)
LSO • 55 57*1.1.5
41 STANDARD
O 004444 6.115.
b LpPALT
S5
Parcel "B"
BY.
IVA .16
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/W A 1'14•
wcr
A
Interurban Avenue South
eSITE PLAN NOTES
0
O
0
0 TRAS. C•4L05.11E SCE DOTAL 4/SOS 0 A*RIAL U.503. (VOWS .M 1
pT C.CNOI! POVC A10 COHORT[ 4113
5. •4I11.40 *4111551 *0.411411! Al A. 40 •. A 1..
5' *0,11514 LO•TAGTCO, 5,6• MMJS 065550 LCVRth6 COARSE
5' *043514 00*A6l[0. t 642• MK5 *3:15550 DAY COMM
4140VIOC LOMTIACTIO\ !IVAMSJOM .011*TS HO LOAD Tt1A16RR 004.5,3
RR SOILS •1[031. r104050 51.0.0A35 R1 !OILS R4POIT
p• V CONCOCTS CVOS 9
0
S4L4LTOM DISPLAY
I.RCKOH STATION
51■0530 POLE NOW `•cC�i
(*0•4601 440 »IU11D 0' CL2*. LOw1RA47016 5164 116TALLATOM AND ICOKUP
er 31011 LOMTRACTOV.
PAY TCLIPI0 5 RR 6.T. 4134
1' 41
SVIICOOD 4 41410/113
•' P1CLA5T 444R0T2 MCl15TOI, RAG[ W owe • 00151.6
C.■T1A6 ALP. TO RCHAIM
C•I5TIM0 LO•C5ETC $l041H*1.C.
O 15H A• LO..• 301[ S 1464• *4.4. W COMTIOL .61MT5 • 3' -0'0*. CR0OH PINS. W NAND TR015L 'CAMS STEPS
O AS01ALT 4AV[KMT.
!' *041541 LPTKTCD, 3 /6'MACS 03.5550 LCV60M6 *04114.41
5• 1[MSC 0011541[44, I h' 111115 **455!0 BA CC COMM
IREA•R41 4553A7C 4111 521.5 u4O5T.
5555.1:! SOIL ..•T1 HC41D KILLC3
O *CMIC3LI15 a' •• MOC WITS PA1MT[0 4155 ADC W6WMY 4AIMT.
® PAIATCO 555030 MVTC HI, M6+nAT 44:MT
O CS15T1-0 64118116, 4AVib, L 511641 415 10 eE 0414.101410.
OCHSTUd 64118116 TO 3044504 .
pHAI•• RECTO-CAL 5.4T400•y.
O 6A3 `51416
O DI341*TD*At 5:ar
O 51HOV5 ALL C..6146 COKRCR 4.0403. 304416. CTL.
O C.lSTIV ALP. TO Se 31*14R0 AW 341415520 RR NOR H• .
IOi MV V10C %. 40 N* 5.L^A1d AT IRIUGATOM LING 0R05S,M5 OP ALL IAVID MCAS (14 1t •:R 51:21.
See U1316AT:OM 251153.1 PO5 *[ALT LOCATIONS
PROJECT DATA
.31u500TO1 C.T. 00 4510LA
NLO.M1 C CO. I• i UDC.
MLDI116 AROA. 3.0 341.
6445114.6 44 SCATS
41•t1.rd• H•I O.6.R- 110.5i14NJ
0064•A1CT, A -!
*0160Rxt01 TTR. V -11 O.0M- SP*i•41.e0(
SIT* AR0A 21)405 Sr. (06.A*1
RCOORCD, 1.50 • 15 STALLS
ACTUAL, 41 STANDARD
2 DA10R.CR-PR0!
10 LO•IACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TIAA ras LN.O•vSTRI.A S.ANNI RYLMS
ONS ]�f 3 sM •wet • w•. Pn w w 4w'T IrYwlra MAWS
o GYM (.00130..t DIM
p•. .? W. NO IWO VRow.
_ ISM SW W QS b R.fa» Cr M O.PAR• C0e01
AT.KIw•p� I. 40 . 16.00.6. P AtlC lsw}D b •10 b
UVi a.1 T6••v1P St{0•'3•141 M400I Si L.P.
fwo SANS 11.45' w.,.•0 •t[4.IILA.M
STS eV • LIST n •11LM.! O 40 T•«•f•4•0A J•c■ W.
sco 4.W.P LJM SOO•••4..1151210 Mrs.» Ad Wel rpl
Or Se •4v3" OW IV 40 VIMIIIrorMMMPM
147.11004 42,110, covOcor 0 AC AOO 1006ILt"C •••1..
SR w4. ••.•040 SA.... P S•Ri 10Se
"
T6•. R1» K•I••T, as •t..
IWT.A W.f., 432.110.
1 qn • •Y "'4011 6010..
ntwe..» «•I• HST,VIT T TO AL 4.0 Kan or 6r•w
GENERAL CONDITIONS
000u1 Ta•.A:•T I.wl We MST SOS 10.1.0 .
4 ••STDO. Sas
Loae..L6.4.. M.Tw K OM *50!•1n
0* 6 ,
O 41200111 M WPM. At• 50{•11 SS. `
AV SO.
REVISIONS
33
Parcel "B"
O
•r
Zt 2'
Parcel "A"
Dv
i0
i Q 6
s a
arcel "B"
•
:
Si
I wo roof m11
'4" e�'I6MR
Parcel "
IIVA..USf0• N" 11.K (.•>eMS'atlR<"
'635 O Q.7 . R.A.%
Q Q YNOP ;".. Q
C" 6 O. re Hu• 1.41 Dal I
Seattle City Light R.O.W.
51'0
.Y•II
•.O0 COT•. •1.I.
trollste
•
sAro
.T.
SITE PLAN
SCALE: VIE . T.O.
•
Tr
Interurban Avenue South
0.
LELIS• "1414
• n
A [ N
Z as
d
W
lum A
rum . V
0
o
1
10III1
•
r
0
Control No.
Epic File No.
Fee -$. OTOO Receipt No.
422-6.vo
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Name of applicant: FOODMAKER INC.
3 . Address and phone number of applicant and contact person : c o F R E I H E I T 8 HO ARCHITECTS
10940 NE 33RD PL.,SRE.M,BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (206)827 -2100 CONT.:DAVID HILLS
JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT
4. Date checklist prepared: JULY 7, 1992
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) :Construction of
project is anticipated to begin when all approvals and permits are received.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
NONE AT THIS TIME.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be• prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Geo technical report will be prepared.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.'
Agreement to develop and use portion of Seattle City Light Right of Way.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
City of Tukwila building, mechanical and plumbing permits .
KING CMU'NTr HEALTH:DEPT. permit.
METRO $PWPr permi+
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
Develop vacant lot for new single— stor/fastfood restaurant of approximate)
2.668 s.f. on a site of 0.63 Ac.
IIcP will inrIiidP hnth si+down and drive thrn rPatauran+ sPru ice
12. Location of th.e proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise .location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
13050 Interurban Ave. South. Tukwila. WA
- -SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DE$CRIPTION --
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
No based on information provi_ led by City of Tukwilals pre— app lir.„,+ion
conference.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rol1in o, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
FLKT
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 2 -5%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
SILTY SAND
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
None known
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.Fi 11 ing and /or grading wi I I be
done to provide site drainage and proper building
finish floor.Anticipated to be less than 1,000c.y.
of material. Imported fills will be obtained locally
as necessary.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Erosion may occur during construction process as a
result of site grading, excavation or filling.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious. surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately
80 -90 % of site will be impervious.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h.. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard temporary
erosion and sedimentation control measures will be
provided during construction phase as required.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Emmissions associated with construction such as dust and
automobile odors will occur during construction.
Upon completion emission's from automobiles and
restaurant cooking equipment are anticipated.
Quantities are unknown.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
None known.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: S t a n d a r d m e a s u r e s to
control emissions from construction will be provided as
required. Emissions from cooking will be controlled
by filtered exhaust fans.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into. The Duwam i sh River
is located approximately 1200ft. from the site.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to. (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. NO
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would' be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material. NONE
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. NO
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. Property lies within zone "X"
(outside of 500 yr. flood plain) according to survey
by Barghausen Inc.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge. NO
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only •
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. Water may be discharged to
ground as part of storm water infiltration system.
'Quantity unknown at this time.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
None known.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe. Storm d r a i n a g e
runnoff from building roofs and paved areas well be
collected", Treated,stored and discharged to a public
facility. Storm drainage system wits be designed as
requires by currenT city of iff wiia standards.
Downstream outlet and quantities are unknown at this
time.'
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
Runnoff from building roofs and paved areas
may Z;onTaln materials associated with their
uses.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Storm water treatment will be provided as reAuired
by the City of Tukwila Standards.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other°
x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, gine:, other
x shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? A l i vegatat i on except that to be incorporated
in new development will be removed.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. None known.
d.
w
ut i
5. Ani
a.
b.
NON
c.
d.
Proposed landscaping,
measures
site, if any:
I be incorporated.Some
use of native plants, or other
to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
New landscaping uti I izing native
existing plants may be
lized.
lal s
Circle any
observed
or near th-
birds:
mammals:
fish:
other:
List any
be on or
E known.
birds and animals which have been
on or near the site or are known to be on
site:
hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
None known.
bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
None known
hreatened or endangered species known to
ear the site.
Is the s to part of a migration route? If so,
explain. Unknown.
Proposed
if any:
measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
None
•
-9-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
plants
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electricity for lighting, cooking and cooling.
Gas for heating and cooking.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any: Building envelope and mechanical
systems will be designed to meet or exceed all
applicable code required energy conservation
measures.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. Cleaning materials associated with a
restaurant Win be used.
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. None known.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any :Storage and use of
cleaning materials will be as required by Health
Department.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
None known.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise associated with construction will occur
during allowed construction periods. Upon completion
noise from automobiles will occur during normal
business hours.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None.
8. Land and ShorE.l ine Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? Site is vacant. Sites to north
and south are used as gas steYions. Site to east
is truck repair shop.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. Not _ecentfv. Previnus 11CP WAC AS A
restaurant.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No above ground structures exist. Below ground
utilities may be demolished.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? M -1 (light industrial)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Unknown.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
None known.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? 1 0 - 1 5 e m p i o y e e s w l
work in the completed project.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? None. Site is vacant.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: None
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:Proposed project is compatible
with surrounding industrial, service and office
uses.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? None.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Approximately 22ft.
J'P iTpn+ n 1 a•:tar_ cnnrrete roof tiles. g l ass.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? None k n o w n.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: Bu i l d i ng design will incorporate
design features ana materials appropriate toys
use and location.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Site lighting will be provided. Interior and exterior
building lighting will be visible. Illuminated
signage will be used. Such light sources will be
used during business hours.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? on site
lighting may cast light beyond site boundries to
adjacent properties or street.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
None known.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: On site lighting wi I l
be designed to control light and glare impacts
as required.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
FOSTER GOLF COURSE
J. FOSTER PARK
EARLINGTON PARK
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
NO
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None
'
•
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe. None known
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site
None known,
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: None
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.s i to
feonts on and is accessed from Interurban Ave.
Interstate 5 is to west of site.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Yes, location of nearest transit stop
is unknown.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate? s i to
is currently vacant with no striped stalls.
Completed project ',ifI contain approximately
53 stalls.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally a le describe
(indicate whether public or private).
street appears adequate.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur. Approximately 600
vehicle trips per day will be generated. A trip
generation study will be prepared as directed by
the City of Tukwila.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: Project may contribute
fair share of assessed street improvement costs.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe. Project ii-.not. anticipated
to increase need for public services.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Electricity, Seattle City Light; Gas, WA. Natural Gas;
Telephone, US West; Water, City of Tukwila;
Sanitary sewer, City of Tukwila; Storm Water,
City of Tukwila; Refuse, Private contract.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
FREIHEIT 8 HO ARCHITECTS, INC.,P.S.
Signature: 101 g• 441?
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? N/A
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
N/A
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
N/A
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
NIA
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
N/A
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:
N/A
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
N /A
Proposed measures to . protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
N/A
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
N/A
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
N/A
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
N/A
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
N/A
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:
N/A
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
N/A
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
N/A
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: N/A
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To construct
a building and associated site development to be
utilized as a fastfood restaurant.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing g these
objectives? The proposal's objectives can be accomplished
within the current zoning ordinance and comprehensive
plan policies.
Should areas of mitigation be identified the propop�n }g
gill addrPaa them as necessary
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: SEE ITEM #2.
•
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan ?. If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? The proposal does not appear to
conflict with any policy plans.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: SEE ITEM # 4
-23-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
MINRINIM 01.11110 .11*
mssft. C1) - -- -•
•••
••0010 '....V. u> --
W E S T E L E V A T I O N
••
• •
N
• M ♦
- * •)efaso *we.
•
•.I
S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
N O R T H E L E V A T I O N
cat. naal11.-
•!•o
or �
-n ,•vco .o... URI> -
..,,�..uct.o.....
...VFW .arm c1,
••• +m.•av
•
•w
•
...,.m.u.VVo, cam. •
EAST E L E V A T I O N
,C •.!
N
DLCq.n rt rfe., I
• 4971. (Mt •
4,.. -,- .nc4C (1a„' f -. • __.
-c.NO1,u. (Pt, •
RECEIVED
GEC 17 ffe
..e titTMirt
• • 4,C0•■ • .04
44'
LEFT ELEVATION : _ • .c
FRONT ELEVATION ....c •
I_qZ -0355
Doo4 10.
. LIK.•..NT.
RECEIVED
en 17 Se
imago
• ( 44 )...r44• Av. (h444.(
- CILI)n 43v nL
- (W)....4 .4", Arno
lad )4LK.•.l 44,410.•4
r ,f-•
1
a
ilt '
gi
a (e) i
1 ®1
1
n a901
r cdd 1
i
Ei
(I
re I
11I
45
(1Y)
••• r•.„p30.h rtYL..rT •i0i •0 .4•L
( 4444 ..._ ... --
M I. 97• dr• .LC 44..3 r.LO,
• •L...• ;••.0..C..T• 0,7.[146 •'Yy .. _.
•a Gw.n .... c,Gw »..0 i..4.,
1 earn» •c •..•..4••.., Ace •c.wae . �.. _ _
m •.rC . •4L .••• . R 3P.I11 .90 10Pit•
( Iq1. •
1 .CAW,,.'
nt1o0 MrP K.i1.•K'
C 101: ", .,::: ••roor.• we ..: c•.4 L. ; T`
a . .O 4... Own • •...e. •... n“.• ewe+ • • •�.<..T�r• u � •.I 4304•00 44
GOL(4*,* ,•1
1. l
I•TI1 •..yf ALI
e_Th
N
4