HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-254-84 - CITY OF TUKWILA - CHRISTENSEN ROADCHRISTE \SEN ROAD
PROJECT / PW
I:PIG254 -84.
CYTY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO; [] BLDG rn PLNG P.W. n FIRE n POLICE & R
PROJECT . Cl///1/ leOtLeL is th
LOCATION1'rnite-AJ&V FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 42-70-W RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /4,2./744
STAFF COORDINATOR A.-6 RESPONSE RECEIVED
® CN. //
EPIC .7sy4e.
FILE
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMMEENT
• �, c v�C_ l [L 6,
e-c, _; y r cal /dc' szT.`c-
/i+ f 7 Zez-v
1
1/17 -r74- w,. /l ,4
b - i /i .0 rte •__ 'Zs< .` / d o-^472.dL._
DATE /�, /��/ COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA CN '
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC 2Sy 16
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO; BLDG [ PLNG n P.W. r IRE n POLICE [ P & R
PROJECT C 7/1/, ./i ,,,g) //2/)
LOCATION (J/12Jit SAO '
DATE TRANSMITTED l.2-i0-5
STAFF COORDINATOR )&oib OULU)
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /92-/744
RESPONSE RECEIVED k2-11 L G
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
4
O • e �l
V ` (/ s �fY /L4
DATE /,2° 1/- Yr COMMENTS PREPARED BY
. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO; (-] BLDG n PLNG
PROJECT ..
P.W.
/0e2,46 4
LOCATION emiii xiQo1
DATE TRANSMITTED 0/,,tiU -E5(11
STAFF COORDINATOR ,/2'c6' eteitt)
® CN ��
EPIC 25-6/46/
FILE
FIRE 145 POLICE n P & R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /,2717_2j11
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
14G The addition of 14 parking stalls for use by persons utilizing the Tukwila
•
Recreation Trail will be a welcome addition to available parking. It may become
a problem if the local business and /or track attendees use them for daily pArking.
To avoid this situation 2 Hour parking restrictions might be a solution.
In viewing the proposed'improvement one concern does'come to mind. First. a
question, Is it the intent of the City to continue the present traffic movement
configuration with the south bound traffic channeled to the right at the south
end of the bridge or will the present configuration-be removed and traffic permitted
to flncu straight Across and into Christensen Road. If traffic should be permitted
to flow directly south into the new aligned Ch n en oad it is my judgement it
will rrpate prnhlamc further down the line at c and Andover East. rresently
the light flow of traffic at the intersection'is adequately - handled by the STOP sign.
1 . 1
. • • . . .
foresee the need for signalization
of that intersection'in' the very near futur.
DATE 12 -11 -84
COMMENTS PREPARED BY PJL
C.P.S. Form 11
CROCE MEMO
MTV OF ` I HM O
LA
TO: FILE #EPIC - 254 -84
F Rona: Becky Kent, Counter Technician
DATE: January 21, 1985
SUBJECT: Response to comment review period of DNS
•
No comments were received by January 19, 1985, for the Determination
of Nonsignicance issued on this project.
WAC 197 -11 -970
0
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal improve 900 feet of James Christensen Road through
realignment, raising of elevation, improving drainage, repairing and constructing a
sidewalk.
Proponent City of Tukwila
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any between T -Line Bridge over
I -405 to 500 feet north of Baker Boulevard.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 254-84
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it 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.
[l There is no comment period for this DNS
[i This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted
by / - /7 -�$
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Date I — 4-15 Signature )r • «-o
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 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
Planning Department.
cc: Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Mercer Island
King County Department of Budget & Program Development, EIS. Review
Washington State Dept. of Ecology
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO;
LDG
1
PLNG
PROJECT.ofr//1/3_te/eA0
P.W.
• CN
EPIC Z5-1/4V
FILE
FIRE n POLICE
lead ,/L 49 4t
L 0 CAT 10 N I itfXi- ll
DATE TRANSMITTED ` )-10-5`7
STAFF COORDINATOR /04
P & R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 42-/7-34
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE - / a COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO; 1 ( BLDG j PLNG ,, P.W. FFIIRE
PROJECT C teOQ - /,
LOCATIONerni tbz,i ,E
DATE TRANSMITTED /)-10-15'q
STAFF COORDINATOR /e ei tfuth)
• CN
EPIC 075 II
FILE
POLICE
P &R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4217-54
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMME T
L" !i7i71115i' •
DATE ( �'
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO; BLDG PLNG ,,gi P.W. FIRE
PROJECT /� �OQ th
LOCATION f 64-e
• CN
EPIC 254g6/
FILE
POLICE 1 P & R
FILE NO.
DATE _TRANSMITTED 42-10 -l`7 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /47-/744
STAFF COORDINATOR Al:6 6.det)
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
N C O4 DoN-3 C IC T - too co (IA K
DATE 1 101 89
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO;
1
PROJECT.ef
BLDG 1 PLNG
P.W.
IRE
iPaacG y,fat��t
LO CAT I0N e e4 2bU
DATE TRANSMITTED A)--i0 --54-
• CN
EPIC 25-411V .
FILE
POLICE
P & R
STAFF COORDINATOR
/0\66 dedw
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 42W-34
RESPONSE RECEIVED p.- 1 alet
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF ,COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
• /
C
W i�,'�C .�� tidl►�
ITEM COMMENT
/.1-0 / I)_6.�� �� GJ ,i' • ��r/ ! ` l fIr' iJ_ (�� '
� � � I 1
//S.LLP,;:_ _ Cl'z.L. t Y t l he ,�±
I �/ 4 ) , y / +may
/
i Illl /� � � sl '� .. i � ��e���..� 4I /% � K- �/I -c_ a •
DATE ,,2° j� A5 COMMENTS PREPARED BY
. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
® CN
EPIC 251/4j'
•
• FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: 0 BLDG n PLNG n P.W. n FIRE POLICE n P & R
PROJECT. N ) , 2 i.ees-
LOCATION J/yf/ FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED `��U -� RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 421744
STAFF COORDINATOR /4,42Gb elejtV RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
14G The addition of 14 parking stalls for use by persons utilizing the Tukwila
Recreation Trail will be a welcome addition to available parking. It may become
a problem if the local business and /or track attendees use them for daily pArking.
To avoid this situation 2 Hour parking. restrictions might be a solution.
In viewing the proposed improvement one concern does-come to mind. First. a
question, Is it the intent of the City to continue the present traffic movement
configuration with 'the south bound traffic channeled to the right at the south
end of the bridge or will the present configuration-be removed and traffic permitted
rn fln,., Qtra4 ,g aa4 int.eChrieteaqeen Read. If Should be perwiLLed
to flow directly south into the new aligned Ch n v e oad it is my-judgement it
w317 rreatp prnh1Pma further down the line at c and Andover East. 3're.sentl
the light flow of traffic at the intersection "is adequately handled by the STOP sign
W'
foresee the need for signalization of thatintersection in the very near futur.
DATE 12 -11 -84
COMMENTS PREPARED BY • PJL
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO;
BLDG
PLNG 1 P.W.
FIRE
PROJECT M/Lat' A0�1
.L 0 CAT I 0 N eAol :, ug/t/
DATE TRANSMITTED 42- -& -p q RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /0.2-/744
STAFF COORDINATOR •
• CN
EPIC 05-ygq
FILE
POLICE
P &R
FILE NO.
gc Oulu)
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
A4
�. 1(L -s3 . 02 �-,
` /L.k -w
O cZ GO ws�?� �.. 7� e -® G--� eS /1
//-de- /h J / cam- /
/`7L7 j st4c.C���F e-aszT/
LJ � -�T
h/X-C•- 44',-//// t,'- e erg-- s'Y CZE 7-1A_;//
-1A.; l
jr.c ;pct e �� - w� /7 ,, rte. �--
- M'4,{74- r,(,`7/ 71
7
�d•: / mow' �,•- ���- ��` / %. �rLSS�1� -�,
/.3_,."--,c-c„,(_,..t."5?(.1.r.r)-,rie ,.,"17
4.1/1, �" COMMENTS PREPARED BY
DATE �
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
�CN
EPIC 25L/46/
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: [7'1 BLDG PLNG [ / P.W. (-'zi FIRE [i POLICE r"rirg, R
PROJECT. AC2- 6 )1471.--
LOCATION6 -6 .51.4„1 FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED L..//0-547 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 42lJ34
STAFF COORDINATOR
dediw
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS .REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
VAC. 197 -11 -960 Environmental checklist.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider
the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of
this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce
or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen-
cies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring
preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best de-
scription you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should
be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you
really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not ap-
ply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental
effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in-
formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN AD-
DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL. SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site"
should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Christensen Road Improvement
2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Byron Sneva, Public Works Director
6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188
4. Date checklist prepared:
10/19/84
5. Agency requesting checklist: ern/ OF 1ZXv...11t1,
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
1986
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal?
If yes, explain. rio
1.
8: List any environmental informal Tbn you know about that has been prepared, will be prepared, directly related to
this proposal.
NONE
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.
NO
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Shoreline Management Permit
Flood Control Permit
Corps of Engineers 404 Permit (If needed)
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal,
There are several questions later in this checklist that
need to repeat those answers on this page. SeCtlen
o6jecf i ∎tcs q,nc¢ ci rmiti.te , of your propose(
including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site.
ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
. respires a Con.PIe- c.pe.sCri pTion off `t1.
4414 skocetc haf-6< Sc,w,.+larite4 fieve
(See First Page of Attached Design Report)
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro-
posed 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 applications related to this checklist.
(See First Page of Attached Design Report)
Qeves pmpese( ti e_ corkkrut cp►+ 4 .& A- esiykei +e.cl of C+ s 6:4Iprel,ea51. e_ (.'4 US
Polio PtaK (Map as •e,.tiroKe,ea:r6 ity seKSi4 ._?
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. Gen l. description pf.the site (circle one
other Mdjacent. to River Dike
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
1:3
2.
•
, TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
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 Sands, Dike Fill, etc.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
Other than relative to normal river flow scouring, No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro-
posed. Indicate source of fill.
Fill quantity to be approximately 3,000 c.y. of structural fill/
Subbase material for roadway and Gabian structure.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
NO
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or. buildings)?
-80%
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
During construction: Desiltation Ponds;
After construction: There will be no erosion.
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.
During construction dust control measures. There will be some dust.
b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
NO
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Watering will be provided through construction phase to control
dust. There will be some vehicle emissions from construction
vehicles.
3.
• •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
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.
Green River
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.
YES. (See Attached Design Report)
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in er-- remeared.
nd indicate the area of the site that would be affected. In-
dicate the source of fill material.
500 cubic yards to 750 cubic yards of King County approved Dike
structural materials for f "eeboard on - existing dike. - '-
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de-
scription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 —year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
Yes, See flood map on file with Public Works Department.
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
b. Ground:
I) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
NO
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of
such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or
humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
• •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
I) 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.
The only run. off is from storm water which will be collected by
new underground storm drains and connector into existing storm
river /out -falls into Green River.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
. YES, Per Above 1)
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if
any:
Catch Basins are provided throughout street improvement and will be
siphened out periodically to minimize discharge seattible solids.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
,evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
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?
Some.shurbs removed. Replanted with grass and requirements of
Shoreline master program (Shade Trees)
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
NONE
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
See (b)
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known
to be on or near the site: None known
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
• •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Not Known
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manu-
facturing, etc.
Street Lights - Electrical
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:
Curbs /Gutters allow more efficient pick up of street sweepings.
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.
Normal construction equipment operations/Disruption of exisiting
utilities is always a potential
. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
- Typical Fire and Police emergency Response
- Utility Emergency Response
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
No environmental Health Hazards.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Construction Traffic /Operations Short term
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short —term or a long —term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi-
cate what hours noise would come from the site.
Construction operations, short term; Long term: Normal traffic usage
plus recreational traffic to dead end road.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
• •
• 'TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
A.P.W.A. Specifications following V.S.H.A. /WISHA Requirements for
noise control
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
South
�esth Ior grci al ; East Green River
or
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
NO
c. Describe any structures on the site.
NONE - Existing street.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
NO
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
CM
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Light Industrial
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Urban
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
Yes Shoreline
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
None
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/ A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
No Effect on Exisiting Use.
7,
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
•
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid-
dle, or low— income housing.
NONE
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? 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?
N/A
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
NONE
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
N/A
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
NO
c. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
NONE
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
NONE
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Recreational Parking and trail system is part of this proposal.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
NO.
8
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
• •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op-
portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
2 trails and on street (14 stalls)
Recreational Parking developed as part of this proposal.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser-
vation 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.
No significant excavations by development.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A - See Above
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Christensen Road/ Baker Blvd/ A.P.E.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
NO
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
14 New - Adjacent developments required to have ssueffi ernt.offf
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to exis ing roads or
streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
Yes, the Proposal is the Street Improvement
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transporta-
tion? 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.
No gene:•ation of new traffic, service, existing traffic. Only
minor additional traffic will be gener'bted for new recreational
trail facilities.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
•
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
14 Stalls for Recreation Parking.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro-
tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Added utilities maintenance and park trail maintenance
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Reduce Street Maintenance
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities cu available at the site natural gas'' efuse serv-
ice, ephon eptic system, other. (Surface)storm
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.
See Attached Design Report
In addition, PSPL for street lighting
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers re true and comp to toe best of my knowledge. I understand that
the lead agency is r ing on em to ke its decision.
Signature: .
. Date Submitted:
/d
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
• •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
(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 implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
ti
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish,
ne life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or ar-
eas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wil-
derness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural
sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
1/.
•
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
¢low cuts e ,roposa( acrrfr,rw. {b 'rive- Tukwila 51.m.el■ae. Metsier �aM?
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public ser-
vices and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with
or requirements for the protection of the environment.
1, state, or federal laws
e. floes -(t, - proposes( conf(ic+ wti{, po(icl -s ff rt'oisxitla
Cow,prtG aasi∎t .e. (-cm,/ Os.- policy Pico ? t+ so, wkcrf- poltc.i es
aF live- p(Ga?
proposeo( moiasvake.5 $o 4.401 or hccic)LE'`yam coa-P4 ic1(s) q'e_%
/2,
•
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL NaNl'l —T F}eWPOSALS
The objectives
and alternative means of reaching -tic obi -Nt(s)-f.4- upropcs41
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 information provided and
the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc.
1. What is the *ft.i vt(s)of the proposal?
(See Attached Design Report)
2.
What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
NONE
4. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the prefered course of
action:
No
DESIGN REPORT
CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENT
The intent of the project is to improve the existing 900 feet of James
Christensen Road between the T -Line Bridge over I -405 to approximately 500
feet north of Baker Boulevard in the City of Tukwila (Exhibit 1 shows the
vicinity map and location of the project) . The street presently is class-
ified as a minor collector and generally traverses a flat terrain. The
proposal also includes the design of a recreational trail just west of the
roadway along the Green River and improvements to the dyke near the south
end of the project. Typical section for the proposed roadway and trail are
shown on Exhibit 2.
The proposed improvements include:
1. Realignment of James Christensen Road to conform to the new construc-
tion of the T -line as proposed by the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
2. Raising the elevation of James Christensen Road above the 100 -year-
flood elevation.
3. Improving the existing drainage along James Christensen Road by con-
structing a closed drainage system.
4. Providing signing and striping on the new improved James Christensen
Road.
• •
5. Providing 14 stalls for off - street parking to be utilized in conjunc-
tion with the proposed recreation trail.
6. Providing 8- foot -wide recreation tract along the west bank of the
Green River.
The following permits and environmental documentation are required for this
Project.
o Shoreline Management Permit
o Flood Control Permit
o • _Corps of Engineers 404 Permit
J 'N V l vl vw.7l (, . C 1( L
This project is 100% City funded. The project cost estimate is $190,600
(September, 1984, dollars) which includes 7.0% sales tax and 20% engineer-
ing and contir encies. This figure does not reflect any right -of -way
acquisition costs. The estimated cost breakdown for specific items of work
is attached and is shown as Exhibit 3.
IW) STA. t-t'V s zf U L-
C;Q n fl n c-( i_s ( t1 U Aq .
, c_ 0 1 t,Pu-∎ w/ Pets . PNtiE .
O .
1Tr-b -- IL C . S w fly .
Q GREEK
RIVER
JAMES CNRISTENSEN
es4CER W
iVp '
)
1 �
a a
PROJECT
LOCATION
9IpT
L_,
OTT
LIMITS
2
2
SOUTNCENTEA
CITY
OF
TUKWILA
8 8
x6
05
gtt
CITY OF RENTON
S OF.. PROPOSED PROJECT
•
CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENT
VICINITY MAP.
EXHIBIT
ALPHA ENGINEERS
Sa33NIDN3 VHd1V
33
0
v
,-c
33
r.
co
m
0
z
v
m
r
0
Z
--i
m
m
z
0=
OE
m
m
z
8'
t‘ 2%
. I. 2° ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT
3" CRUSHED SURFACE TOP COURSE
TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION
20'
16'
6"
8'
2'
2%
20/0
GRAVEL BACKFILL
FOR DRAIN
840 PERFORATED DRAIN
PIPE
1,'
2" ASPHALT
CONC. PAVEMENT
4" ASPHALT TREATED.
BASE
2" CRUSHED SURFACE
TOP COURSE
4" BALLAST
6 " CEMENT CONCRETE
SIDEWALK.
TOP OF EXISTING
ROADWAY
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
I. CONSTRUCTION
1. Grading /Draining
Clear & Grub. Demolition: $ 7,100
Roadway Ex /Emb.: $ 13,800
Drainage: $ 10,000
Borrow: $ 20,800
2. Surfacing/Paving
Surface Type: Crushed : $ 10,300
Pave Type: ACP Class 'B': $ 21,000
Pave Type: ATB : $ 21,900
3. Roadway Development
Temporary Water Pollution
Control: $ 3,000
4. Traffic Services & Safety
Concrete Sidewalk:
Signing:
Striping:
Lane Markers:
Curb and Gutter:
$10,000
$ 000
$ 1 000
$000
$14,000
$ 51,700
$ 53,200
$ 3,000
$ 27,000
5. Construction Subtotal - Lines 1 Through 4 . . . . $ 134,900
6. Mcil-ization - 10% of Line 5 $ 13,500
7. Subtotal - Lines 5 and 6 $ 148,400
8. Sales Tax - 7% of Line 7 $ 10,400
$ 158,800
9. Subtotal - Lines 7 and 8
10. Engineering and Contingencies 20% of Line 9 . . . $ 31,800
II. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 190,600
CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENT
COST ESTIMATE
EXHIBIT
3
ALPHA ENGINEERS
O10ICE MEMO
'CITY of TUKWILA
To:Byron Sneva, Public Works Director
FROM Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer
DATE: 10/31/84
sUBJECT:Christensen Road, Planning Department fee to process Checklist
Brad Collins reqiires, per State WAC, $100.00 application fee to process
Public Workts checklist for Christensen Road Project. Requested is your
authorization' for this expenditure.
aphis expenditure is appropriate against Budget Line Item #103/02.441.101.41.77
Per the attatWed Budget Transfer (B.T.M.N. 84 -08) thes line itmm has $24,500
with an encumberance (Alpf'a PS & E Contract 84 -043) of $23,679.00---leaving
.$821.00 unencumbered atIthis .time.
It PURCHASE ORDER
• c-,,a)cit.5.-Y-& 017594
CITY of TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. • TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, 98188 • 433 -1836
P
Tukwila Planning Department
City of Tukwila
L
Ti
THIS NUMBER MUST APPEAR
ON ALL PACKAGES, PAPERS
AND CORRESPONDENCE.
11 -01 -84
. DATE
CONFIRM ORDER - ONLY
ORDER
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
SHIP TO DEPT. TUKWILA, WASH.
STREET ADDRESS
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
BUDGET
CLEARANCE
CODE
PRICE
TOTAL
$1 00.00
Project too. 84- 81144 -6 Per tUAC requirement
Planning Department Fee for Enviror ental
Checklist Review
Budget
Line It el
6103/02.541.101.41.77
3
.
ALPHABETICAL COPY
•
4/
Pu >lic 4orks ENCUMBRANCE NOTIlipated 10/31/84
84- RW44- 6
PROJECT NUMBER
BUDGET LINE ITEMS # 103/02.541.101.41.77
DATE SUBMITTED TO
FINANCE DEARTMENT
VENDOR NAME Planning Department
CONTRACT'
NUMBER
Attached Memo
AMOUNT
$ 100.00
CHANGE ORDER n/a
PURCHASE ORDER n/a
CHECKED BY
Engineer
APPROVED BY
" Public
10/31/84
Public Works CONTRACT VOUCHER Dated
Planning Department
VENDOP.
84- RW44 -6
CONTRACT NUMBER. Attached Memo
THRU CHANGE ORDER NUMBER
BUDGET LINE ITEM #
INVOICE DATE
PROJECT NUMBER
n/a
103/02.541.101.41.77
10/31/84
INVOICE NUMBER
THIS PAYMENT AMOUNT
CHECKED BY
,Engine
(Finance Dept Voucher No.)
$109100
,f t /.0
P►joject Manager
APRIVED BY
DATE SUBMITTED TO
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
04100E MEMO •
C -TY CIF TU CW0
TO: Byron Sneva, Public Works Director
FROM: Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer
DATE: 10/31/84
s U:.JE CT:Christensen Road, Planning Department fee to process Checklist
LA
Brad Collins requires, per State WAC, $100.00 application fee to process
Public Work's checklist for Christensen Road Project. Requested is your
authorization for this expenditure.
:This expenditure is appropriate against Budget Line Item #103/02.541.101.41.77
Per the attached Budget Transfer (B.T.M.N. 84 -08) this line item has $24,500
with an encumberance (Alpha PS & E Contract 84 -043) of $23,679.00 - -- leaving
$821.00 unencumbered at this time.
�
DEPARTMENT:
BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION NUMBER Ay-
AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
Public Works
DATE: 6/20/84
' Under the provisions of Ordinance No. 117.7, the following transfer of funds within
• the budget class is requested:
FROM: 103102.541.101.41.08 - Southcenter Blvd. $ 7,500
Phase II
103/02.541.101.41.72 - Minkler Blvd. - Prelim. $ 7,000
Design
TO: 1.03/02.541.101.41.77 - Christensen Rd. - $ 14,500
Final PS & E
•
DETAILED JUSTIFICATION FOP, .TRANSFER: Per negotiated consultant services contracts
with Alpha. Engineers, reallocate funds to carry.out•Minkler Blvd. - Preliminary
•
Design Report and- Christensen Rd - .:Final PS & E
Approved:
M a / Date
Approved by the City Council of the City of Tukviila, this
Posted: By
D
Council President
• Date
9rlh
u
day of