HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-26-89 - DIMITRI DEMOPULOS ARCHITECT - HOMEWOOD SUITESHOMEWOOD SUITES
HOTEL CONSTRUCTION
GREEN RIVER,
SOUTHCENTER &
INTERURBAN
EPIC -26 -89
cull OF TUKWILA
FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833
1'OJa N Afa-- 0 5
DATE: 5L I I7O
TITLE:
FROM:
:
COMPANY:
ON 6.- 113161,J1UA
TITLE:
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT:
FAX NO.
- 3c
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED.
INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET:
k•:wc�"ro.:m+xoco o'aa+..n:z«o�w.o. ax}xa aa+ oaxca+ c•+» xac .•,...•...n..e?wms« <voa'•rx.»xx :. .xoaor•rvoocvoeo�xoaowoo..w.v xcotta• ...... ...wooxe?uooan:�ar ma"�!•:ic:x:ox.•+:
SENT BY
(INITIALS)
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS /MESSAGE:
j (� Tor2- Ks i& T3 y o o
Cv C4-33 -) Gov
ksk.)/ cozsiloN,‘s
:1
. s}:.( �+ Z.•{. s4M4<^: ?• s} C::.? C} 99P[• 4VN'• YM? M+} vgimi+ G. lvvK: 5y2Ndx •5:i::1Lf {•i;E�M':v0.'2�v? }xsti �:? Mi!:. l?' �R.�:.v.;v'^SED1hK2$CLDSS.UMiF: ?„?WiD:{bFRO'R/A.P�it.'78Yn . v; p[• n•' F. A.+J"• Y/ r^)' ls'{ ?�:/ AV? 6! Y.•' d: F. �iY' FX 4: JnS5' ii: 4:}? iiyisvvl •:.v.i \ +'M'.vsb'.<:h + "M:: +.
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT
CLEARLY RECEIVED. PLEASE CALL: uy€oy 433 - 1 861
•
1UKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800
03/24/8
CONDITIONS
RECEIVED
APR 2 41990
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
EPIC -26 -89 Homewood Suites
Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant
shall submit a surety device in the amount of $50,000, which
may include a bond, letter of credit or other device
acceptable to the City of Tukwila which shall be used by the
City to perform a preliminary en neering study. The Study
would analyze and determine 'he increased safety and
capacity improvements which may a appropriate between the
present time and the time in whic the estimated $11 million
Southcenter /Interurban Project is,completed. The Study will
determine capacity improvements f the interim time which
may include bridge widening, si ewalk improvements, dual
loft turn lanes and signalizatio` . If the Steady is nnr,
initiated by the City within o c ycar of tho date of
issuance of the building permit, t, a surety device shall be
terminated and released in full to the applicant.
4 =0003
1b3 -6 -90
..r
411 411
(:).6.71.0f2)et)
5, CONDITIONS " H r
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
EPIC -26 -89 - HOMEWOOD SUITES
The applicant will prepare a traffic study for the Public
Works Department. It will determine increased safety and
capacity improvements for the "interim" and work with the
future $11,000,000 project. The study is estimated to cost
$50,000 and determine capacity improvements such as widening
the bridge, sidewalks, dual left turn lanes, signalization,
and similar items. They would need to be designed and
evaluated for current geometrics and the future realignment
with current and future volume assignments. This study
shall be completed before submittal for a building permit.
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF TUKWILA
APPLICATION FOR
LAND USE ACTION
PROJECT: 89- 12 =DR: HOMEWOOD SUITES
REQUEST:- Approval of design review
application and cooperative
parking agreement for a 114 -unit
extended stay hotel.
LOCATION: Lots 31 and 32 of Interurban Addi-
tion to Seattle, on the Green River
north of Southcenter and east of
Interurban
APPLICANT: Dimitri Demopulos Architects, Inc.
THIS REQUESTED LAND USE ACTION WILL
BE DISCUSSED AT A PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: February 22, 1990
TIME: 8:00 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(206) 433 -1849
..y
CITI JF TUKWILA •
FAX TRANSMITTAL
FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833
C,(F. II 00 S-0?
TO:
J I3 rd<<OESN
DATE:
Z -- c( -?6 ; 1 2 PK.
TITLE:
FROM:
1
COMPANY:
TITLE:
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT:
FAX NO.
6$ --5(61
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMII"1'ED,
INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET:
SENT BY
(INITIALS):
e . >::JCi:L<vi:<iWi.<.:v:: X:..,.n........... xiS: T:: ee veneWe i:< -01, len :3 "Lw•h}i>iWi °.c
SUBJECT:
M-. Osso SC3 c S
COMMENTS /MESSAGE:
(S - 1 JUST CST cte,S CL(. ok.)
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: x-33 --1 U 41434
<•:LV4Cw`?:vX•\ %<•%tiss?}} "C•:, e. i:: •`�4< >:•'f.•:v >ieX>As7.W .. ..-0hhVYn'•:-0•7+}
vOM`I•i4
TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800
03/24/89
M E M O R A N D U M • •
To: Jack Pace
From: Ron Cameron AN
Date: January 8, 1990
Subject: Homewood Suites
supplemented Feb 9
This memo identifies traffic and sewer SEPA issues and
mitigations. It's intended to clarify the earlier descriptions of
these needs.
TRAFFIC
The Homewood traffic study shows LOS E and F existing and the 50
peak hour Homewood trips having a small measurable effect on the
adjacent intersections. A normal mitigation would be to request a
fair share of the needed improvements based on peak volumes or to
only allow development approval if the deficiencies are corrected.
In this case, a large $11,000,000 project is being designed and
expected to be built in 3 to 6 years time. Homewood's "fair
share" would be about $110,000 (1% peak hour volume) of this
project. A more appropriate SEPA mitigation would be to provide
traffic capacity and safety mitigation for the "interim" period
between and the future project that will work with the future
project. The Homewood Traffic Study suggested a that type of
improvement - signal controllers, coordination, master control.
We are working with the State on that and it will provide minimal
traffic capacity increases.
A better approach to improving conditions for the existing
problems that will be further degraded by Homewood's traffic is to
conduct a Preliminary Engineering study. It would determine
increased safety and capacity improvements for the "interim" and
work with the future $11,000,000 project. The study is estimated
to cost $50,000 and determine capacity improvements such as
widening the bridge, sidewalks, dual left turn lanes,
signalization, and similar items. They would need to be designed
and evaluated for current geometrics and the future realignment
with current and future volume assignments.
The purpose of the lengthy traffic description is to provide
background on the complications of this vicinity. The CH2M and
other work has not been included in this memo.
The traffic mitigation study will evaluate whether Interurban can
be widened to provide increased capacity on Interurban, the
intersections of Interurban /Scouthcenter Blvd & Interurban /Grady,
and provide ped safety. The improvement would serve until the
Southcenter extension project is built and must work with the
completed project. This will include the bridge, can it be
widened, what costs, permits, etc. This is a complex study for
existing and "future" conditions where the future conditions
include additional widening, bridges, and ramp changes.
CITY OF T UKWILA
6200 SOUTHCF_NTER ROULEVARU, TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 9188
February 7, 1990
PHONE # (206) 433-1800 Cane L. NanDusen, Mayor
Bruce T. Smith
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program
Department of Ecology
RE: Homewood Suites Application
City of Tukwila
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your comments regarding the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit application for Homewood suites Hotel project
in Tukwila, WA. I am responding for Rick Beeler.
In your letter you stated that the project may require a
shoreline variance permit based on your concern that it may be
exceeding the height'limit in the low impact zone. The applicant
has revised the buildings to meet the shoreline regulation using
the state's definition of height.
Your comment regarding parking located in the 40' zone is being
researched with the City and Project engineer. If it is
determined that the situation does exist we will inform applicant
of the requirement for a variance or revise the site plan to
eliminate the situation. The public access trail will be built as
a part of the project.
The City has similar concerns in regard to the potential impact
of this project on the shoreline environment and will be
addressing them in the staff report and presentation to the Board
of Architectural review. This project is scheduled for February
22, 1990. Please be aware that this project has not been approved
yet and that we will notify you of the terms of approval, if any,
in addition to a revised set of plans.
We do appreciate your comments. Thank you again. Please call if
you have questions.
Sincerely,
vri
Moll Headley
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop "PV - -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000.
January 31, 1990
FEB 21990
Rick Beeler, Planning Director
Tukwila Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determina-
tion of Non - Significance and Shoreline Substantial Develop-
ment Permit for the Homewood Suites Hotel project proposed
by Dimitri Demopulos Architect, Inc. We have reviewed the
materials submitted and have the following comments:
From the information provided it appears that the proposed
project will also require a shoreline variance permit. This
is because it includes at least one building within the low
impact environment that exceeds 35' from existing grade
beneath the structure. It also appears that some parking is
proposed within 40' of the mean high water mark that exists
or would occur as a result of what appears to be some river
bank modifications. For each of these reasons the project
will have to meet all of the criteria for variance approval
specified in both WAC 173 -14 -150 and the local shoreline
master program.
The proposed project must also be consistent with all of the
applicable policies and other provisions of the Shoreline
Management Act, its rules, and the Tukwila Shoreline Master
Program. This includes but is not limited to those master
program provisions pertaining to commercial development,
roads, parking, utilities, landfill (if applicable), public
access, the general shoreline regulations, and the river,
low impact, and high impact environments.
In this regard we note that only small scale hotel facilit-
ies are classified as low impact structures, and we believe
that the proposed parking areas located within the low im-
pact environment will adversely affect public access along
the river. We would therefore recommend that the parking be
located upland of the proposed buildings or be separated
from the public access trail by an adequate buffer of native
Rick Beeler
January 31, 1990
Page Two
vegetation to screen the parking. We also believe that the
public access trail should be built as part of the project.
If you have any questions on these comments please give me a
call at (206) 459 -6762.
Sincerely,
2;74f,e6 RdiP77
Bruce T. Smith
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
cc: Don Bales
� 9710 , i STATE OF WASHINGTON � L4 ' ;N 2 3 1
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
DEPA
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 - 600.0,
....�..:r't ip' i%Ei' r
January 22, 1990
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
We received the determination of nonsignificance for the con-
struction of a 114 unit hotel by Dimitri Demopulos Architect,
Inc. ( #EPIC- 26 -89). Although there is no comment period on
the DNS, we would like to note the following concerns.
1. Proper disposal of construction debris should be on land
in such a manner that debris cannot enter the stream channel
or cause water quality degradation of state waters.
2. Proper erosion and sediment control practices should be
used on the construction site and adjacent areas to prevent
upland sediments from entering the stream channel or water
body. All areas disturbed or newly created by construction
activities should be seeded, riprapped with clean, durable
riprap, or given some other equivalent type of protection
against erosion.
3. The Washington State Clean Air Act requires the use of
all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air
pollution, including dust. Dust generated during construc-
tion activities can be controlled by wetting those dust
sources such as areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels
before they leave the site, and installing and maintaining
gravel construction entrances. Construction vehicle
track -out is also a major dust source. Any evidence of
track -out can trigger violations and fines from Ecology or
the local air agency.
Letter to Mr. Beeler
January 22, 1990
Page 2
If you have any questions on Comments 1 or 2, please call
Mr. Richard Moore of the Northest Regional Office at (206)
867 -7128. Questions on Comment 3 should be directed to
Mr. Jay Willenberg of the Northwest Regional Office at
867 -7117.
Sincerely,
•
Barbara J. Ritchie
Environmental Review Section
BJR:
cc: Richard Moore, NWRO
Jay Willenberg, NWRO
•
PROBLEMS WITH S.E.P.A. DOCUMENTS OR PROCEDURES
In order to assist you in avoiding errors with SEPA, WAC 197 -11,
we are noting the following problem areas for your information.
Date: January 11, 1990
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila
Project: EPIC -26 -89 Homewood Suites
Responsible Official: Rick Beeler
Applicable boxes are checked.
[ *] Threshold determination issued with incorrect comment due
date. See WAC 197 -11- 340(2) or WAC 197- 11- 408(2)(a).
[ ] DNS, DS /SCOPING NOTICE, or Environmental Checklist does not
contain required information. See WAC 197 -11- 906(4).
[ ] Checklist was not included. See WAC 197 -11 -340 (2)(b)..
[ ] Checklist is missing pages:
[ ] Checklist does not contain a site plan, vicinity map, or
topographic map to assist in project review.
[ ] Environmental Checklist information is not legible.
[ ] Adoption Notice was not accompanied by a threshold
determination. Refer to enclosed forms for combined
DNS /Adoption Notice and DS /Adoption Notice.
[ ] Adoption Notice does not list title of document being
adopted.
[ ] Notice of Action Taken does not list any activity meeting the
definition of "Action ". See WAC 197 -11 -704.
[ ] Incorrectly addressed. Please send all SEPA documents to
the address listed below.
[ *] Other: All mitigated DNS's must have a 15 day comment
period. See WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(a)(iv)
If you have any questions about SEPA procedures, please contact:
Don Bales 206/459 -6020
Environmental Review Section
Washington State Department of Ecology
Campus Mail Stop PV -11
Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711
'
•
NUMBER:
DATE: Jan. 8, 1990
City of Tukwila
ISSUES AND OPTIONS
HOMEWOOD SUITES SEPA MITIGATION
PROPOSAL To not require Homewood Suites to perform the
necessary repair of the existing sewer system to raise
the capacity to the normal level. Instead, this
repair (estimated at $10,000 to 15,000) should be done
by the City as normal maintenance that Public Works
has schedule for a couple of years but not performed.
ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTS
1. Homewood Suites is an 115 unit residence motel to be
located on Southcenter Boulevard at Fort Dent. BAR
and Shoreline Permit approval are required, thereby
triggering SEPA review. Construction is in April.
2. Public Works about two years ago found the sewer
system in this section of the street to need repair,
but work was never done. Three office projects have
been approved in this vicinity in the past two years
without the repair issue being surfaced. The sewer
system was installed via LID.
3. RCW 82.02.020 stipulates that conditions placed upon
development must be scaled to the impacts directly
attributed to the impacts of the development. In this
case the repair problem exists now without Homewood
Suites.
4. Public Works wants the developer to pay for the
repair. The SEPA Responsible Official feels the City
must perform the repair.
ALTERNATIVES Developer or City pays for the repair.
FUNDING Public Works has some repair budgeted but this
repair is not identified on the CIP.
DISCUSSION This repair must be done to accommodate the
development. The City can only require the development to
pay for its impacts on the sewer system, not for repairs
that currently are required to make the sewer fully
functional. Some cities require developers to pay for
such repairs or not develop. Tukwila has not adopted the
latter "green- mail" approach. Once the repair is done the
sewer system may accommodate the development without
anything being required of the developer.
RECOMMENDATION City perform the repair by April.
To Jack Pace
From: Ron Cameron Ar■
Date: January 8, 1990
Subject: Homewood Suites
This memo identifies traffic and sewer SEPA issues and
mitigations. It's intended to clarify the earlier desc
these needs.
TRAFFIC
JA!! -8 1990
The Homewood traffic study shows LOS E and F existing and the 50
peak hour Homewood trips having a small measurable effect on the
adjacent intersections. A normal mitigation would be to request a
fair share of the needed improvements based on peak volumes or to
only allow development approval if the deficiencies are corrected.
In this case, a large $11,000,000 project is being designed and
expected to be built in 3 to 6 years time. Homewood's "fair
share" would be about $110,000 (17. peak hour volume) of this
projects A more appropriate SEPA mitigation would be to provide
traffic capacity and safety mitigation for the "interim" period
between and the future project that will work with the future
project. The Homewood Traffic Study suggested a that type of
improvement - signal controllers, coordination, master control.
We are working with the State on that and it will provide minimal
traffic capacity increases.
A better approach to improving conditions for the existing
problems that will be further degraded by Homewood's traffic is to
conduct a Preliminary Engineering study. It would determine
increased safety and capacity improvements for the "interim" and
work with the future $11,000,000 project. The study is estimated
to cost $50,000 and determine capacity improvements such as
widening the bridge, sidewalks, dual left turn lanes,
signalization, and similar items. They would need to be designed
and evaluated for current geometrics and the future realignment
with current and future volume assignments.
The purpose of the lengthy traffic description is to provide
background on the complications of this vicinity. The CH2M and
other work has not been included in this memos
Sewer
The existing sewer between Southcenter Boulevard and the site has
a broken pipe allowing groundwater to infiltrate and decrease
capacity of the pump. It is not programmed for repair in 1990.
The permit for sewer hookup could not be issued until this pipe is
lined. The lining is estimated to cost up to $15,000. Therefore,
it is recommended to allow approval of the site with correction of
the pipe - either by the developer or deny approval until the
pipe is corrected.
)C(. Flo+. -Q cr.000cl 0-e, -C i
WAC 197 -11 -970
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal HOTEL WITH APPROXIMATELY 114 UNITS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES
Proponent DIMITRI DEMOPULOS ARCHITECT, INC.
7277 REGENCY SQUARE BLVD #100
HOUSTON, TX 77036
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any LOTS 31 & 32 OF INTERURBAN
ADDITION TO SEATTLE; NORTH OF SOUTHCENTER AND WEST OF THE GREEN RIVER; IN THE
VICINITY OF FORT DENT PARK.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -26 -89
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.
X There is no comment period for this DNS
0 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director
Address
Date
Phone 433 -1846
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukw /4A -j8188
6 Signature
Yo 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.
FM.DNS PUBLISHED IN THE THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1990 OF THE VALLEY DAILY NEWS.
CC: MAYOR, CITY ADMIN, CITY CLERK, APPLICANT, FILE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
r
CONDITIONS
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
EPIC -26 -89 - HOMEWOOD SUITES
The applicant will prepare a traffic study for the Public
Works Department. It will determine increased safety and
capacity improvements for the "interim" and work with the
future $11,000,000 project. The study is estimated to cost
$50,000 and determine capacity improvements such as widening
the bridge, sidewalks, dual left turn lanes, signalization,
and similar items. They would need to be designed and
evaluated for current geometrics and the future realignment
with current and future volume assignments. This study
shall be completed before submittal for a building permit.
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -0179
Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner
FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer Alk^-
DATE: January 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Homewood Suites Traffic Mitigation
r (J5;99Q]
6
iCI:i.\-:
The. December 16 Homewood Suites Traffic Analysis identifies a ;small amount; of
peak hour traffic to be generated by the development - 1% or less of the
intersection approach volumes. The various proposed signal timing mitigations
are in process by WSDOT.
� 1
The intersections are currently operating at LOS E and at LOS F. The increased
traffic will degrade the LOS by some amount. The proposed, signal timing
mitigations . are not expected to provide a significant or ;measurable LOS
increase.
A preliminary engineering study is planned to determine widen-61g improvements
for capacity and safety as well as walkway for pedestrian safety improvements.
These improvements.are intended to serve "immediately" as well as compliment
the $11,000,000 Southcenter Boulevard /I -405 ramp project. I
One mitigation approach would be to request 1% of known $11,000,000 capacity
and safety project. -It`is recommended, in this case considering the small peak
hour volumes, to request participation in the interim improvement design.
I
The 1% cost of $110,000 would be about $20,000 /trip. Peak hour mitigation fees
are ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 per trip depending on the corridor. Fifty
(50) trips times $1,000 per trip equals $50,000 cost for the preliminary
engineering and design of capacity and safety improvements on Interurban from
Southcenter Boulevard through South 156th Street be contributed as traffic
mitigation.
RC /kjr
1'T'e 5O D0� �i/40At. ._� Q i P� ems:. ` y�q ,5 . �� .
._ 6pra ew�e0 y 11� i . i ^ ■ ,rv..,�...e..AS �- a 61
L. : it,.,,�e fC- �' , 1+a, 1i4d1i�i•a,v e.tngj erc ri4- !r
wJ�1 w- J
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
TO:
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE:
t 1
JAN- 51990
PHONE # (206) 433.1800;
M E M O R A N D U M
Rick Beeler /Jack Pace
January 5, 1990
SUBJECT: Additional SEPA Comment - Homewood Suites
'.r, Gary L. •VanDusen, Mayor
Per Public Works Staff meeting 1/5/90, an additional comment
is hereby transmitted to the Planning Official relative to the
subject development.
The public sanitary sewer system in Southcenter Boulevard is
experiencing Infiltration and Inflow (I and I) problems. (Refer
to City's Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan). The City has
not budgeted funds for the correction of this I & I pipe /pump
wet well rehabilitation project in 1990, although design of
this project is on the shelf. The capacity of the line
intended to serve the proposed development has been impaired
due to this I & I deficiency.
A sewer permit cannot be issued without correcting the damaged
sewer pipe that allows ground water to enter. The development
can be provided a permit if it repairs the pipe or waits for
the City's repair.
The City is currently updating the Comprehensive Plan and will
continue to evaluate this portion of the City's sewer system.
PF /amc
xc: Ron Cameron
Ted Freemire, John Howat
Ross Heller
Development File: Homewood Suites
• •
Traffic Analysis
HOMEWOOD SUITES
Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington
EPIC File No.: 26-89
Prepared by: Timothy Miller, Associate Member, TTE
December 16, 1989
• •
Introduction
This traffic analysis has been prepared at the request of the City of Tukwila Department of
Community Development as part of the SEPA environmental review process to assess
traffic impacts the proposed development may have on the transportation system in the
project vicinity.
Specifically, the Department of Community Planning review process requested evaluation
of the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard. Subsequent
discussions with the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer led to the inclusion of the two
adjacent I -405 ramp terminal intersections with Interurban Avenue South/SR -181 as part of
this study. In addition, the PM peak hour of the roadways adjacent to the site was identified
as the critical time period for analysis purposes.
I. Project Identification
The proposed Homewood Suites is located on a 3.12 acre site at the east end of Southcenter
Boulevard in the City of Tukwila, Washington as shown in Figure 1. The proposal is for the
construction of a 115 unit all suites hotel comprised of four buildings grouped around a
central office /pool building. The project is proposed for construction m the spring of 1990.
Access to Southcenter Boulevard is via a single driveway on the east side of the existing cul-
de -sac on Southcenter Boulevard. This driveway will be a shared access with the future Fort
Dent II office development proposed directly north of the site. Other developments
accessing this end of Southcenter Boulevard include the existing King County operated Fort
Dent Park, Fort Dent I office complex, and a proposed State Farm Insurance Office
Building.
II. Trip Generation
Trip generation for the site is estimated using data from the 4th edition of the report: ITE
Trip Generation. Since the proposed development is an all suites hotel, ITE land use 311
was used for the trip generation.
ITE data indicates for all 'suites hotels, the weekday PM Peak Hour trip rates per suite is
0.432 trips /suite. In addition, ITE gives the site directional distribution in the PM peak to be
43% entering and 57% exiting. This equates to 21 entering and 29 exiting trips in the PM
peak hour.
III. Traffic Assignment
A PM peak hour turning movement count of the westbound Southcenter Boulevard
approach to the intersection of Interurban Avenue South was performed on Wednesday,
December 13th to determine the directional distribution of existing trips leaving the site
vicinity. This study yielded a 55 %/29 %/16% directional split for the left /through/right
movements, respectively. The presence of both I -405 ramp terminals to the south of the site
and the commercial areas accessed via Southcenter Boulevard account for the biases to the
south and west. Accordingly, site generated trip distribution at this intersection is estimated
to be 55% oriented to /from the south, 29% to /from the west, and 16% to /from the north.
Parallel observation of the left turning traffic exiting the site showed that very few of these
vehicles entered the left turn lane onto SW Grady Way. These vehicles bypassed the heavy
2
• •
SB left turn queue and showed a fairly even distribution between right turns and through
movements at this intersection. Site generated trip distribution at the SB I -405 ram p/SW
Grady Way intersection is estimated to be 10% oriented to /from the east, and 45% to /from
the south and 45% to /from I -405. At the NB I- 405/South 156th Street intersection, site
generated trips were assumed to split evenly between freeway and southerly orientation.
This directional distribution is illustrated in Figure 2, and PM peak hour site generated trips
are shown in Figure 3.
IV. Background Traffic Volumes
Turning movement counts taken in July of 1988 were available for the intersections of
Interurban Avenue South with Southcenter Boulevard and with SB I -405 Ramp/SW Grady
Way. This data is summarized in Figure 4. Since the Homewood Suites development is not
planned to be occupied until mid -1990, a growth factor of 2% per year was used to project
additional increases in traffic volumes due to background growth. This projected data is
summarized in Figure 5. By adding the trip assignments to the projected 1990 traffic
volumes, the effect this project will have on area traffic volumes can be seen. Figure 6
shows the traffic volumes which result when this is done.
V. Site Services Inventory
In the project vicinity, Interurban Avenue South/West Valley Highway is a paved five lane
arterial street operating with two lanes of travel in each direction with a center two -way left
turn lane which becomes a dedicated left turn lane at intersections.
East of Interurban Avenue, Southcenter Boulevard is a paved collector street marked with
one lane in each direction, with a center two -way left turn lane which becomes a dedicated
left turn pocket at the intersection with Interurban Avenue. West of Interurban Avenue,
Southcenter Boulevard is a two lane paved roadway which widens to include a center left
turn pocket at its intersection with Interurban Avenue.
The SB ramp terminal from I -405 has one on -ramp lane and two off -ramp lanes, designated
L/SR. A wide radius, however, allows many right turning off -ramp vehicles to bypass the
stopped through queue. The east leg of this intersection is SW Grady Way which is a five
lane arterial having two lanes in each direction with a center two -way left turn lane which
becomes a dedicated left turn pocket at intersections. At this intersection, the WB curb lane
on Grady way becomes a dedicated right turn pocket with a signal bypass island allowing
high volumes of traffic to turn onto Interurban Avenue under Yield sign control. In
a dition, SB Interurban Avenue has a right turn signal bypass island which has a tapered
approach instead of a dedicated lane, while NB right turning traffic has a separate right turn
ramp which connects to SW Grady Way which allows traffic to bypass about 250 feet of
stopped NB queues.
The NB ramp terminal from I -405 has one on -ramp lane and two off -ramp lanes which will
be designated as L/SR when the new South 156th Street is in operation. The right turning
off ramp traffic will have a signal bypass island which joins the West Valley Highway as a
added lane giving very high capacity for this movement.
The three intersections evaluated in this study are all controlled by traffic signals. These
three signals are traffic actuated, and previously were operated as a coordinated system to
improve traffic progression. According to WSDOT sources, the control equipment was of a
brand which proved to be unable to retain proper coordination data due to program loss
3
• •
after power failures. The manufacturer subsequently ceased production of traffic control
equipment, so no further operational support was available to overcome this deficiency.
Due to this problem, the system has been disabled, leaving all three intersections operating
independently. This results in less than optimum traffic progression. Some facets of the
coordinated system are still visible, notably the lead/lag phasing of the Interurban Avenue
approaches to the Southcenter Boulevard intersection which was undoubtedly a technique
used to compensate for the unequal spacing of these three intersections. WSDOT sources
indicate microcomputer class control equipment with master coordination capability is
slated to be installed at the intersection of the NB I -405 ramp terminal with West Valley
Highway. The existing interconnect cable linking these intersections is aged, and in need of
replacement, especially if the telemetry method of interconnection common to
microcomputer signal systems is to be used in the future.
At the Southcenter Boulevard intersection, in addition to the lead/lag phasing for the NB
and SB approaches noted above, the EB and WB approaches are split phase operated.
The developer of a proposed hotel called Hampton Inn is constructing a new street (South
156th Street) from his development west to intersect West Valley Highway at the 1 -405
ramp terminal, making it a four legged intersection. Construction of the new street is
underway, and the necessary modifications to this signal will be done at the expense of that
development.
VI. Level of Service Analysis
Level of service computations for the intersections of Interurban Avenue South with
Southcenter Boulevard and with SB I -405 Ramp /SW Grady Way were performed using the
Highway Capacity Software based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The intersection
of Interurban Avenue South with NB I -405 Ramp /South 156th Street was not done since the
small number of site generated PM peak hour taps (13) at this intersection would have
resulted in an insignificant change in average vehicle delay. In addition, the new changes
being constructed at this intersection by other developers will change the operation of this
signal significantly.
The summary reports for both intersections with and without the project are included in the
technical appendix. The results of this analysis are as follows:
Without With
Project Project
Southcenter Boulevard LOS E LOS E
(45.3 sec/veh) (45.2 sec/veh)
SB I- 405/SW Grady Way LOS F LOS F
(70.3 sec/veh) (71.6 sec/veh)
VI. Mitigation
To eliminate the potential for site generated traffic to go the wrong way around the cul -de-
sac on Southcenter Boulevard, the developer should install signs (i.e. KEEP RIGHT,
RIGHT TURN ONLY) and pavement markings in the vicinity of the site driveway as
directed by the City of Tukwila.
4
To increase traffic progression in this section of Interurban Avenue/West Valley Highway,
the microcomputer controlled coordinated traffic signal system being installed at the NB I-
405 Ramp/South 156th Street intersection should be extended north to include both the SB
I -405 Ramp/SW Grady Way and the Southcenter Boulevard intersections. This will allow
good progression to be implemented which will help overall traffic operations in the area.
The major traffic flow deficiency noted in the area, was the need to increase the southbound
left turn capacity onto SW Grady Way. This movement is very heavy. A normal solution to
this problem would be to widen Interurban Avenue to allow a double left turn.
Unfortunately, the presence of the Green River bride makes widening the roadway an
expensive proposition. As an alternative, consideration should be given to modifying the
southbound approach lane markings and the signal operation to provide a IJL,S/SRR lane
assignment. However, this would require the signal to be operated in a split phase manner
for the Interurban Avenue approaches. This may have negative implications when
coordination plans are developed for the overall signal system, so additional time /space and
intersection capacity analysis should be done before this alternative is implemented.
In light of the minor impact this development has on these intersections, it is recommended
that the developer be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Tukwila to
participate in a proportional share of the cost of extending the microcomputer controlled
coordinated traffic signal system to the Southcenter Boulevard and the SB I -405 Ramp/SW
Grady Way intersections. This would include costs associated with the replacing of control
equipment, interconnect cable, and modifications to the SB I -405 Ramp/SW Grady Way
intersection and signal to allow southbound LJLS/SR lane assignments. The developer's
proportional share should be based upon the number of site generated PM peak hour trips
entering the intersection divided by the existing intersection entering volumes.
5
•
•
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map
I -4o5
• •
292<
I6%
100 %v
55%
2496
v
252
v
>62
Figure 2 - Directional Distribution
SITE
SouT}►C ENTER. 8 Lvp,
• •
8-
vi 3
I
Q
5
8
6 —►
6
16
J
57
i
,JI
- 1--.29
r12 21 ---
16 SITE
r
3
SW GRADy WAS(
( UNDER CAN 37 UCT1014)
�q.
A
Figure 3 - PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment
5. 154 111 ST.
50UTHCENTER BLVD.
/- 405
•
1,124
6o2
522
1 1,oso 1
701
349
o a.
m
14-1 n
21 >
360 V
1-
o�N
trwM
tn
U1‘si
<V>
67 A
21 >
261 V
,J
A 9
< 10
V %7
<A >
M N
m
•
1 93 1
A 83S
• 377
V 253
<A>
%A N
N
36
57
Figure 4 - July 1988 PM Peak Hour Turning Movements
4
S%TE
SW GRJ •WAY
S. ► 56 TH ST.
500 - NCENTcR BLVD.
I -4o5
11070
1,24
544
(1,093
729
364
— co
<V>
147 A
22>
375 V
r•
J
M r ti
to
<V>
7o A
22 >
292 V
co
A 9
< ID
V 18
<A >
a N
sr
37
A 869
392.
V 263
<A>
r
t?‘I
T
(00
4
S►TE
5 W GRAD■ WAY
Figure 5 - 1990 Projected PM Peak Hour Turning Movements
5. 156 TH 5T.
SOUT►ACENTR BLVD.
I -405
• •
634
55o
1,00
736
364
<V>
147 A
25 >
375 V
ztfl
MN�
<V>
75A
zz>
292 V
A 14-
< 18
V 31-
<A >
-8
tv')
147
66
n sio
i< 392
V 263
<A>
tad- -' .>Y
r
T 4
81 SITE
SW G2kt ' WAY
'� — — 5. ►S(TN ST.
Figure 6 - 1990 Projected Turning Movnents With Project
• •
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
• •
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTIONSouthcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue South
AREA TYPE OTHER
ANALYST T Miller
DATE 12/17/89
TIME 7/1990 PM Peak Hour
COMMENT Without Homewood Suites
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 147 18 450 14 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 22 10 1007 826 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 0 9 24 166 : TR 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 144.0
PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH X X
RT X RT X X
PD PD
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X X
RT X RT X X
PD PD
GREEN 31.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 35.0 38.0 5.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.421 0.229 36.4 D 35.3 D
TR 0.031 0.229 27.8 D
WB L 0.142 0.083 46.6 E 43.0 E
TR 0.153 0.083 39.6 D
NB L 1.149 0.257 135.2 F 49.7 E
TR 0.610 0.556 14.2 B
SB L 0.189 0.049 50.1 E 40.6 E
TR 0.959 0.347 40.4 E
INTERSECTION: Delay = 45.3 (sec /veh) V/C = 0.931 LOS = E
• •
•1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTIONSouthcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue South
AREA TYPE OTHER
ANALYST T Miller
DATE 12/17/89
TIME 7/1990 PM Peak Hour
COMMENT With Homewood Suites
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 147 34 450 17 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 28 18 1007 826 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 0 14 36 166 : TR 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
( %) ( %) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 144.0
PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH X X
RT X RT X X
PD PD
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH X X
RT X RT X X
PD PD
GREEN 31.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 35.0 38.0 5.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.421 0.229 36.4 D 35.0 D
TR 0.040 0.229 27.9 D
WB L 0.268 0.083 47.3 E 43.8 E
TR 0.256 0.083 40.1 E
NB L 1.149 0.257 135.2 F 49.5 E
TR 0.618 0.556 14.4 B
SB L 0.230 0.049 50.3 E 40.6 E
TR 0.959 0.347 40.4 E
INTERSECTION: Delay = 45.2 (sec /veh) V/C = 0.942 LOS = E
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED tTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTIONI -405 SB Ramps /SW Grady Way /Interurban Avenue South
AREA TYPE OTHER
ANALYST T Miller.
DATE 12/17/89
TIME 7/1990 PM Peak Hour
COMMENT Without Homewood Suites
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 70 263 307 679 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 22 392 418 574 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 292 0 1 30 : R 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
RR 60 0 0 30 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
. 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
• 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) ( %) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 151.0
PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH
RT X RT
PD PD
WB LT X X SB LT X X
TH X X TH X
RT X RT X
PD PD
GREEN 7.0 14.0 25.0 0.0 GREEN 28.0 22.0 25.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0
X
X
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.771 0.060 72.6 F 64.6 F
T 0.077 0.179 33.3 D
R 0.951 0.179 65.2 F
WB L 0.931 0.185 69.9 F 49.7
T 0.802 0.305 36.2 D
NB L 1.014 0.199 87.8 F 60.5
TR 0.767 0.179 41.4 E
SB L 1.181 0.377 143.8 F 87.9
TR 0.526 0.358 25.1 D
E
F
INTERSECTION: Delay = 70.3 (sec /veh) V /C,= 0.949 LOS = F
• •
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
INTERSECTIONI -405 SB Ramps /SW Grady Way /Interurban Avenue South
AREA TYPE OTHER
ANALYST T Miller
DATE 12/17/89
TIME 7/1990 PM Peak Hour
COMMENT With Homewood Suites
EB
LT 75
TH 22
RT 292
RR 60
VOLUMES
WB NB
263 307
392 424
0 1
0 0
SB : EB
681 : L 12.0
581 : T 12.0
37 : R 12.0
30 : 12.0
12.0
•
12.0
GEOMETRY
WB NB
L 12.0 L 12.0 L
T 12.0 T 12.0 T
12.0 TR 12.0 TR
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
SB
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
GRADE
(%)
EB 0.00
WB 0.00
NB 0.00
SB 0.00
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
( %) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0
2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0
2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0
2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0
3
3
3
3
EB LT
TH
RT
PD
WB LT
TH
RT
PD
GREEN
YELLOW
PH -1 PH -2
X
X X
X
7.0 14.0
5.0 5.0
SIGNAL SETTINGS
PH -3 PH -4
NB LT
X TH
X RT
PD
SB LT
X TH
X RT
PD
29.0 0.0 GREEN
5.0 0.0 YELLOW
CYCLE LENGTH = 160.0
PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4
X
X
X
28.0 27.0 25.0
5.0 5.0 5.0
0.0
0.0
EB
LANE GRP. V/C
L 0.875
T
R
WB L
T
NB L
TR
SB L
TR
0.071
0.877
0.986
0.782
1.075
0.824
1.153
0.523
LEVEL OF SERVICE
G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY
0.056
0.194
0.194
0.175
0.313
0.188
0.169
0.387
0.369
93.8 F
34.1 D
55.0
86.6 F
36.5 D
114.0 F
46.9 E
128.9 F
25.8
62.4
56.6
74.2
79.9
APP. LOS
F
F
F
INTERSECTION: Delay = 71.6 (sec /veh) V/C = 0.951 LOS = F
0000
STOW DFA I NAGE REPORT
FOR
IUD SUITES SITE
In discussing the storage requirements for the proposed property,
it was ascertained that the storage can be a_ccarcdated by
increasing the River cress- section • adjacent to the subject Site.
This method was discussed with Mr. Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila,
Department of FUblic.W:rks and previous discussion with Andy
LeVeque of King County Surface Water Management.
The widening of the River was performed above the Mean High Water
Elevation of 18.30 (t VD Datum) which represents a flow of' SCKxj
CF S. The bench width is dependent on the present bank slopes, and
the location of the City's property which was set aside for
construction of the River Trail.
Determining River F1 cWs;
12000 cfs Elevation = 21.9)
9(x0 cfs Elevation = 18.'30
Vertical Difference = 3.60 feet
Average bench width = 15.00 feet
Average River Velocity = 5.00 fps ( Determine of KC SWM.)
Increase in River's Flow = 15.0 x 3.6 x 5.0
= 270 CFS
Anticipated flows from the Site for.10, 25 and 100 years are as
f of l ots;
0 = 3.72 cfs ( 10 -year )
0 = 4.74 cfs ( 25-year )
0 = 6.24 cfs ( 100 -year )
We note that the highest anticipated flows from the Site is far
less than the increased flaw capacity of the River. •
Determining the capacity of the existing storm system in
Sctithcenter Blvd and the its cutfal1 northerly to the River.
Site Area = 3.12 Acres
- Scuthcenter Blvd= 0.89 Acres
State Farm • • = 0 (flow from this Site is directed to
the River and not the existing •=ut fal l )
Fort Dent I = 1.72 Acres
Fort Dent II = 5.52 Acres
Total Area =11.25 Ares
The following calculations analyze the pipe capacity of the
existing cutfal1 pipe frcm the cul-de-sac at the end of
Scuthcenter Blvd to the River cutfal1. The capacity calculations
are analyzed for the 10, 25 and 1(0 year storm.
Tc A C: CA I 0 PIF£ CAF' STOFI'l
12.83 5.73 .80 4.584 1.42 6.51 24" 18.18 10
12.83 " .80 " 1.78 8.16 24" 18.18 25
12.83 " .80 2.36 10.82 24" 18.18 100
0
13.73 11.25 .80 9.032 1.36 12.28 27" 24.88 10
13.73 " .80 " 1.72 15.54 27" 24.88 '5
13.73 " .80 2.213 20.59 27" 24.88 100
14.00 11.25 .80 9.032 1.34 12.10 3(" 35.82 10
14.0x) .EC) 1.70 15. 30" 35.82 25
14.00 .80 2.26 20.41 30" 35.82 100
Please refer to o Pipe Sizing table for Pipe's slcpes and rcughness
coefficient. It appears that the developed flaws tributary to the
cutfal1 storm system will pass through the existing pipes' system
without problem.
STREET
� �, , S 4f
Iv
•
` d
4.
! p i
,~
O •'
`O f
TIME (MIN)
49
• ! J
!
s0 Y
4
t �4
A.
� � ! l :Qy.!J�
� v
• 40
Y f
P .
`
t
DE SIGN FLOW
us
ite
4
t O •
° !:
.if, ft
O
1
`S%�
CIA..
I fRaM
I TO
�• %
REMARKS
9
4i- g •
.4S
•80
.360
.366
4:42
.
I Rh.
• 766
I ,o/1b
1? C.
12"
I.9 3 -
2.4(o
T= s+ 1 -70 /(z ) -. 6CIz
•
7t st Voy4t) _ 6.6.-1
7. 214,1)(60) -3 1
11 .)0174-6C(.4,0 ''''
7- 4s' %3.sr4414
.
A-Y loin( 40. •
F
•(03
.$v
•oD4
164.1.11.
I. i2-
1,5-1
I.tit,
2,13
II'
1.93
2.4i,
,0
bl)lcorl
0/3 ,
'�°
4464
•614
t
I R4
1.29
1.010
160
I�.
1.51
2 4�
•
6u /roll
Tv ° A
b. S2
,c(o
•416
1.08
611`1
I ?t
\,11.
t --( c 4
`
I•11
.6.
-r'
eed 1
(1 19
-14'
1 ' 1'
1,71
Q1,73
50
17i'
lO , D2,
i. W,.
Vk1
kit,
,3b
, %o
.i
1.32,E
..Sv
\160
1H
I.61,
75
15`1
3.5D
22'5
41°.
'''
.35
•$D
'2\Z
Z1A0
0.3S
•2)
I.SB
M9
1.Q°it.
Z-b
13''
5.4?
3.21
3
2.414
!N I&
:13
1,5/
211
I.b.
I4()
t'
5•4,y
'.321
44 '5 ,
. Z
,b3
lo
,02f,2,491
IIA9
•1q
1,5)
3114 ,
(.o
9:1
V1''
S,G?
3.2.►
,
4"2
AA 1
'b3
.90
,o21
2.516
1143
la ii.
3.1s
\.D
(b1,6.
I$''
5,68
3.2.1
cis .icB
.41
WI
3.15
11°.
31.5
Ig.1
S" G,g
3 :z1
1✓ fr C6
1"Y 0
• 64
. p
'S11,
3.b54
I1, i
_I
.Z2,
1,q4
Likir
(,
4)
2►"
114
I-1%4
b .4 f
1,2`6
.`6D
5 i"
c6 •°Ili
1Z..(;) .
'IL
1',4
12.1
,s--5-
3b
24'
Ict .fl
,
..fig
.90
ot.03.7
h_
.qo
142.
,5S
(12-
24
1g.)1
`i
1 . 1l _1,1_
,
(.3t '
.
'6t
41-
27"
?1•bs -
-
-
RETURN
FREQUENCY
I. D.F. CURVE
it)
•
__
• STORM SEWER COMPUTATION
FOR
/t10/7f16 C?D SU /7
_
�jc�
L'i TOUMA ENGINEERS
twee w «t v.nn 100 • swn... wm2031 e..etas
�' (2061 2SS�t00 Fax 120et ZSSO9�S
I
BY OAT[
DESIO'R /244. $9
E0O'R
SHEET
/ OF /
I
T
�CY9T GE
JOS N0. �
00/ 06 09 Ol 09 05 O• 0£ 0? 0/ 0
■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■M■rminv:• ■■:p i .:•, wwm O■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■M■■■■■ummo■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!•■■■■■■■■■■■■■■•M■ O■EOM M\■ EM■ A■■■ Mumm■ MMEME■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■UM■■■■■■■■ ■■■■
■OmM■OMOOO ■■■ p li m■ OM OOMMEE■■■■ OEOE■■■ Y■■■ gimumO O■■ OOM ME■ EM■■■■ M■ OOM■ l■OO■■OO■■OMEEEIII�OEEOMO■ ■ ■ ■O■
��� ∎• ∎mEEEEE■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ : ■ ■■EO■EO■ ■■■ ■O■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■OOOM■E■■ ■ ■■ ■■■O■■■OOMOEE■11mmom■ ■ ■■■■■■
= = = = = ......... = = = = =s�� - a- ���\■■■■■ IMMENMOE■ E■ MO■ ■■■■■M■E■O■OEOE■OMME■ ■ ■■O ■O ■EM■
inimm ■ ■ ■■■mwm..m�� - - - - -- ■ ■ ■_ ■:,TiGa mmalliimE ' Cmiilli ■ ■\ftr�!\E ■a- T_!\�■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■111■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■mEO■M■■. - mm\■■ p■ Sa -`!!\\ ■C.�n\M■e■■g: =JtiviaTim ■ ■■■ ■ ■ummili■EE■ ■OO■■
■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ M■■■ M■ i■ il■■■ m.��_■■■\ ��! ��■.►!\= 1 /■��! \ ■ ■��� ■ ■ ■ ■1�1� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■\ign\\u'■ �! \ ■'r,�!\ ■■'Iii!■ ■aim\ ■ ■I� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■OMM■■■ ■MM■ ■IMMOMM ■EMMMMEmM ∎MEE \ ■\ZMUM ■ \0\E11g9MOM ■EEE ■ ■ ■M■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■OE ■M■■OMMOM■■MO■E■OMMM■■EMMEE■ ■■■■■■MEMO■■■` g== 1KO■i2\MM:AIMMM��EMgMI■M ■■OM■■E■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■O■■■ ■ ■■M■ ■ ■0■O ■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ O■■ OE000■ EOMMMEEEmEMi. .nM�//:z\■►� ■■■Eisms.m■■■M■M■■■
■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■■■EOO ■O■ MOO■ ■■■� ■ ■E■E■E ■ ■ ■OOOOM EOM■■ EMOO■■ I /EEE■p,!\O\rAmba ■■ ■nir \E\nEO■ ■ ■■E■
■■ M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■EEO ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ /M ■E ■ ■WMGA AIWR ■CMMU WIMMOOMME ■ ■■
■M■■■■■EM■■E■O■■■■■■■■■■ ■■
■■■MO ■O■■■O■■■M■ MME■■■■ M■■■ EM MEME■■■ M■■■U MOMM /■ ■ ■ ■IORMO NMOUMEMO ■ ■OOMME ■■
■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ C■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■VINI■■■A■■■■A■■ ALMM■I:INEMOMMOM■ ■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MOMEEMEEME■ EEMOE■ EE■ MEEEE■ EM EE■ ■E■OE■■ ■■OEEEE mEEEE►IEEEE / /MM mmul► Wi\EEMommoEM■
■ E■■■■■ ME■■■■■ O■■■■■■■■■ M■■■■■■ M■■■■■ O■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ OMOMO9ME■■ OI.■■■■ MA■■■ //■■■PA■►`MEWISMMEMOO■■■■■
■ MME■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■ CLLAAWAI== 1■ M■■/ ■■■■UMMENUMEMC\111►M\M ■ ■W7 ■ ■ ■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■MO■ ■■M■■■ MOO■■■ ■OprOOOumri ■■OI,M000/M■O ■t ∎V■►\om mikimMM■
■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■■■■■■■ M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M' WAWI■' SAE= A ■ ■ ■WA■■■ ■WM■ ■ ■U■1NOWO\\ ■O■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■ O■■■ EM■■■ EMEM INI ■M ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ME■■ ■MOM■■■M■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■MEMO ■■■E90■M ■ ■■ AMMIA MM ■I ■■111\\ ■OMWOMME■■■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■M■■O■M MOO■■ E■ OM■■ O■ O■■ O■■ OME■ M■ OOMM■■ EM■ EOO■ EE■ E■ OM CL'' LAAPY 4C== %M■■EI■MEE /EEMMKMMOMOMEEME■
■ M■■■■■ E■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MM■■■■■■■■■■■ M■■■■■■ E■■■■■■■ M■■■ EM■■■ E■■ EEmIEEE ■M ■ / ■ ■O■Ii ■■ ■ in■►: ■ ■\al ■■■■■
■ N■■■■M■■ MO■M OO■■■■■ O■■■■■■■■ OO■■■■■■ M■■ ■■O■M■M ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■'.I',: air A 7Cmmm■M ■m■ ■■■mnsommomm ■ ■■
■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■■ ■■ EOM■■■■■■ O■■■■■■■■■■ O■■■■ OO■■■ MM■■■ E■■■ OO■■ m■ E■■ 7EE■ ME■ EE7 ■m■E■O/I■E■■OIiMO■\■►\■■ ■ME■
■■ MME■■■EME■ ■■M ■O■■■■ ■E ■E■■M■■EO■ MOO■■ E■■■■ O■ E■■■■ ■■M■MMEM4CL'CGL1AUUMMUCAdI ■SWIG AM■■■ ■MM ■M►\A\EMEE■
■■■■■■ EM■■■ MM■ MMEM■■ M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■! t■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■OMOMM■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■MMM■■■■■■■■■\\S
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■ M■ O■■■■■ O■■■■■ OMM■■■■■■■ O■■ O■ M ■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■►`E■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M M■ E■ EE■■ OOME■ OO■M MO■■■■■■ O ■ ■M ■E■OO■■■■■■■■E■M ■■■■■ ■MIMMUM
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MO■■■ M■■■ OOM■■■■■■■ MO ■■ ■■ ■O■■ ■■ME■■ ■■O ■M■■■■EWMM ■■■
■■■ ■■■■ EMINIM■ M■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■OM■■■■■■■ ■E■■■■■EEM■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■ EEMM■■■MM■■E EME■ OM■■■■ M■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■M■M■■■■■ ■■■■ME
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■■■ ■■■■■ ■■O ■M■■■■■■■■ ■O■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■ MME■ ■ ■■■■ ■O■■■■■ ■MOO■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ EOMEM■■■■■ M MEMMEM■....MO■■ ■M =■■O ■M■■MMM■■■ MME■■ ■MEMO■=■
■■■■■M■■ M■■ MMMMM■ M■ ■■■MM■M■M■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■MINNU ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MO■ ■■■■■■■ ■M■ ■M■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■M■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ O■■■■■ O■■■■ M■■■■■■ O ■■ ■■■O■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ p
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M■■■ O■■ M■■■ O ■ ■ME■■OO■■■■■■MOO ■ ■MOO ■■■■ ■■ ■E■ ■EEO ■EE■ ■EOM■O■MMMM ■ ■■■■■■■■■.■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■E■ ■O■■ ■■■O■■■■ ■■■M■■■■A■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ O■■■■■■■■ MO■■ OO■■■ O■■■■■ M■■■■■■■■ ■OM■M■■■■ ■O■ ■O■■■■ME000M■ ■O ■O►■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EO■EOOO■■■■■■OO■■OEO■■■■ O■ O■ ■ ■M ■ ■EM ■ ■E■ ■ ■ ■M ■ ■M ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■EM ■ ■7■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■MEMEM■EO ■O ■O■■■ OEM■■■■■ E■ ME ■E■ ■■MEE■■EMMEEEM ■■ ■O ■EM■■■■MN■
■■■ ■■■■■ MOM■■■■■■M O■ M■■ EMM■■■■■■■OO■OO■■ O■■■■ OM■■■ M■■ ■0■ ■MMOO ■M ■ ■EE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■EOEO ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■MOM■ ■ ■EE ■ ■OIal
■■■■■■■ O■■ OOE■■ M■■■ OM■■■ O■■■ O■■■ EM O■■ OO■■■ OOOEM■■■M O■■ OOM■ MOOMO■■■■■■ ■O■OO■O■■■ ■OM ■ ■ ■MEO■OO■OO■■■Oi■
MM OO■ M■■■■■■M■ O■■ M■■■ OM■ ■■■ ■E■■■ ■■O■■ ■■E ■■■■■E ■M■■■■■■E ■MEMO■■■ ■O■■M■OEMEOEOE■E■O■■ ■MEMO■■■■■■■■■■►'■
■■■■■■■■■ O■■■■■■■■ O■■ E■ ■■ ■ ■M■ ■■■ ■EEMM■■■M■■■■■■E■O ■O■■ MOM■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■OMM■ ■E■EMO ■■ ■■■■■MOO\■
■■ M■ ■ ■ ■ ■MEMOMOO ■■E■ ■O■■ ■■O■ ■M■MEMEM ■■■■■■ O■ E■■■ EM EO■ OM■■ M■■■ M■■ OM■ MM ■■■■ ■OE■■ ■EOM■■E■ ■MM ■■O ■M■ ■ME\■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■E■ ■OOOMEM■ ■■MO■OMO■ ■OOMOMOMM MOO■ EMMEE■■ M■ ■OMMMMMEMMMMM■EM ■M■■ ■O ■E■■EOEE■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ O■ MU ME■ OM O■ M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ O■■ ■O■■■MMMO■■OOOOOEOO■OO■■■■ ■■■E■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ EM EMEM■OM ■O■■■■■EO■■OMO■■■E■OOM■■ MOM■■= O■M OO■ MM■ EEMM■■ ■MOMOO■■■OMOEMO■EO■0000EO ■O■rIggi
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■E■■OE ■■■OOO■M■ ■■OM■EO■MEMM000■ MMINHU M■■■■■ OE■ ■EOOMO■OEEEMO ■E■MMM ■E■OE■ ■■OM`■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEMMEM■■ O■■■ ■■■■■OM■ ■O■ ■O■■OO■■OOO■O■OOMMUU ■OM■■ ■■ ■M■OOE■■■■■■■M■O■■■■■■■EAM
■■■■■■■■■■■■■EE■■■MMEM■ ■ME■■ EEO■■ O■ M ■■E ■MOEEE ■EEEEEOEEE ■EMEEMEEMMIN EOMMEEEE EEO■E■MM■ ■EMMINUM r' ■
■■■■■■■■ OOM■ EEOMM■■■ O■■ OOOM ■■M■■EOMO■■ ■■ ■ ■O■E■■■■■■E■■E■ EEO■ NIMUNI ■E■■UNIUMNUM ■OO ■ ■O■OM■■■OOO ■ ■JE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ N■■■■■■■■■■■■ s■ M■ m!E■■■ M■ O■ E■■■■■■■■■■■■!! 7■ m■ O■■■■ M■•■ ��■ ■ O■■■
■■■■O■■■■ ■■M■■■ ■■■■■■■U■
IMMOMEMEMEMEMOMMEEMMEEMEINUMNIMINIMAIUMEMMEMEMEMMINUOMMENUMMUMMEMEMEMEMEMMEMOMMEMEMIO
■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MO■ ■E■■■■ ■ ■ ■O■OO ■M ■■■■ME■■■ ■M■MMO■ EOM■ EOM■■■■■■■■■■■■■ EME■ ■■EOOE■■O■O■■■ ■O ■E■ ■OM■ ■EEEM411
■■E■■ ■■O■ ■M■ ■■M■■■■ O■■■■■■■■■ M■■ ■MEMEMEMEE■■EE ■OEMOMEMMMEEEM MOM■ E■■■ ■E■EEMOOEEOMEOO■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ME ■E ■M■PLE
1MINNI MEMOSIiiiiiiii OMMEMEROMMEMENUMMINUMMERMIMMiiiiii UMMEMINU EMEMEMEME EMEMEMEMEMENIUMii
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■O■M■■■■ EE■ OM■ iMgE E■ E�■ M■■ ■OO■OO■■■■EO■ ■MOMOM■■■■EEMEOO■■
■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■ ■M■OO■■ ■O■■■ ■OM■■■EE■M AWITAE .!'I.�MCEI! ,.' .1'/ -, ; AMMO ■O■ ■MOO ■M ■EM■ ■O■■OME■■ ■O■■■■■■■
MEEMMEMENMENEEMMUMi EMMOMOMEMEMEMMUNIMMENOMEMMOMMEMEMEM mimmE� NEMMEMMEMMEMM ■EMEMEMEMMMM ■MEMO ■EEME
/01 )4,u, 441 a?.zza- ■See._ ?a-14,Z /f del/a4
,9 ' Aze,06 otezed.d-,_A-exxoe 4.2e-ee ,e2e,
y) eee44 Lair w.&d /Z e2 ndeeeout,
�) &: , d_ah 5. A. nut 74 4.
Avile,,,A cvice ,tozi ,e.G4/Ri4�- t de-ee44,� .,a-e -p G[/J...i
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONIVIONTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
EPIC: 2 -8c
TO:
Building I... Planning
Pub Wks i l Fire
Police l Parks /Rec.
PROJECT 640A4�I, OOP (5t- 02E(A IN) E PERM1TJ DE51614 r-viEu1)
ADDRESS 1,01-5 31 a1 id, 32. 1 LYIE ..0 R.BAIJ ADDMOKI 1 5 7T1,C-
DATE TRANSMITTED Nov. �1 J `cl Scj RESPONSE REQUESTED BY root/
STAFF COORDINATOR l46 l,t.Lf �EAD�`� DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
t'9"Sr'
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 Department through the above staff
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM
COMMENT
71 -Vr'9 4 4 /t r of W "64-
ie"'0 ,Y7f,d1-■ <4. ,e-Rp_d2J2ee /4),e
Date: /i _SO q7 Comments prepared by: ,
09/14/89
ENVIffiONl11IONTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EPIC: 26 -8�J
TO: n Building
Planning 1 .1 Pub Wks 1 1 Fire ❑ Police
PROJECT l-ioME Wcp C51-IDRELtNE PERMIT) p_E_5 G
ADDRESS I,OTC 3 i a,v► 32 11JTGg.0 APDITnN TD '3 iTL &
DATE TRANSMITTED wOV 21 19 89 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY o-v , c98ci
STAFF COORDINATOR $401,L,y I4EApl,EY
DATE 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 Department through the above staff.
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM
COMMENT
rp \J FS C MN) 111: 15 cl u--r i t ov Ube/
ID E 1Ml)n(,TS ►O :so Lci-W.ErN7EN. ItaitiLitleMN Al&NU Sour -
t Rav\>n7' 1)I k
Chu I�� S'r (;5__ U L1 CAI (
urttUTU S
1 Dtcrs1 I FN e-em INN WI'A-CG C-_-C S �1— C To P J I C Lev r
((I , N� ec 'j S -C SoLtTtl •' [L k
F• Lo oo C L 01vx. ?ELM iT j?Ji(u (' rYv1 E \)1 Tz) ifit'. NEr
D -Tt Fq i l4\.12) EYW ( V - e
w( S Qnor/3 . (f1bCJ `3 C. 1N G --(‘C,, ZiVx'12.
I ci °op Qf
-4fk -1R cr -5 (f 9s �r� I� ►� ;y��r
H"(1)(11°<1.16 C S t;6 '
c
USA_ P Cr
.rc I s T i'N cA- c11
D FQ,Vv\
1Ml sTRECF
Ptkov ( D LY) PU) N lLSv 1 L-14.,.:
U( 0\1 JF 1 riX V
11.61
TUIw�`A
LIC ; 0- -1 L (3LL 1T`/ `7G �( _v iS
cPPb s_ C. lV/1 -cN t 0l C-ael) WiTi l\, I t\i)l. S is-ro p F C
b cKLA,1 l 1v\- A . � ("D DT I F`/ s I D /-uc_ 1=u ►'L ? aa-1
na To sourn►ct=nrrt-. 3LUD / TAT r4-
Date:
Comments prepared by: ,
09/10 /89
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONM• \TAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
EPIC: 26 -8�J
TO: E Building
Planning
Pub Wks
Fire 11 Police Parks /Rec
PROJECT 1-fom WcYp 5u1•1 'S (5t4o2El,w i ui)
ADDRESS Lars 31 a tict 32. I IJTEe.0 2A-1∎I APJIMOKI TD S
DATE TRANSMITTED 21 J 9 S� •
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (N6V , 30 t9Sq
STAFF COORDINATOR ` O I.LY 4EADI.E DATE 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 Department through the above staff
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM COMMENT
/
C O
L -L., e--1‹ 3- ( ,.,.. 2-- 7--
Date: 1��� i
Comments prepared by: ,
09114/89
ENVIRONIVIONTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO Building " Planning
11
Pub Wks
1
EPIC: 26-8
Fire Li Police 1 Parks /Rec
PROJECT 6i0MEi( oop SUITS [!5�02E(6NE PE M ITJ 12E5L N
ADDRESS Lo-r5 31 °mot 32 I uTE ..v �B,kN AQ ifIOK1
DATE TRANSMITTED NOV. J 9 S 6)
STAFF COORDINATOR NCO(.LY I�EADi.EY
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY No v, 3O t90C)
DATE 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 Department through the above staff
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM
Rrche e Efregi;a05
0
COMMENT
cle_liAt_MaN •
(i P a ai eL
22 Shoo) Tik % 000 (7, F s vu /a S s,
_ -a:,! 41
u.IC6:b&a4� 1&61,
Date:
Comments prepared by: ,
09/14189
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EIVVIRONNIOVTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORiV!
EPIC:
TO:
PROJECT
Building fl Planning Pub Wks fl Fire 1 1 Police 7 ParksfAec
ADDRESS
Ho n&wocd Stales (Shmr &) n�. Derr i j %e5/
Review)
�'ba MM ark Hof o '%t&e,
DATE TRANSMITTED 5ep1- 2(v � V 8 % RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
STAFF COORDINATOR ittoutp DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
Cct,S)IiS�)
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 Department through the above staff
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM COMMENT
1 DIZY.T1F 0 -r O g. of Lt l /Uk. w( i S Lop L
I rrl" \s1tCrm 4- -S'77)N/)rt PAQ (--c' R_ TIFA I
Z` -Fft XIAJ -F �u 1 1ZlV c-t� A. � In ` ' L
1- 18Ls1`lt�r ° a -T 4+(s 'Rk- U(ice lit 6S P 2 b 1989
_67-(1"---4 PUBLIC WORKS
z O LkvL. rss t) t m i)Lz ttpit ..s
1b ns_cu(1, ) $ is A /P Ito pOU,
tti YarAf<T NAYNt-i I -� I\'l kt u P 1,1 T1 kJZC-
Date: Comments prepared by: ,
09/14/99
4
n 6- VO P/gTar),--
ge-T //Z/y) m
374 iry gal) PnAu L-q"
f o Nr2 FL-ot,r
-TP s
,-Lps
TZ--1■)tk(319-N)IL
INA44)
5"T Y
't Fr ri
70E. DF 1?..\\)-Ert_
10(t
IDL (AI S
/ 4,
\
T,
1\3ov .TF Mr, (
EL
SP F a
1.(1e-E ARCA
kq4La_e
CM-1 ST1
4. f-ok. -Fcouo Lt G.L-0,_IN.) L ?1-311\A (7-
---0-0D U c
A-4-194..,c_t_H3 0.4 v ot_v Or — Liq
o'\6r.ciNT /11)-
L't 0 - C rp4 4d.) 0\5/-
Pki1 LitiC _s PlA,b4 IT s TX1ri
t-t-311-S
b7)‘-,C (1/ ( LtItt-S
APM6W)-(--
,est / oil, (-1- FL 913 1kTJ .
ICI-41,4 77fr - 4-C1_45074A-
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRO64NONTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
EPIC:
TO: Building n Planning U Pub Wks ❑ Fire 1 1 Police
ParksfRec
PROJECT Homewood sad-e,5 (5kx relin,. .. n J De51 f ewjew)
ADDRESS /ifs 3) cw,d 3z Ini-or .roan a icli fi
DATE TRANSMITTED 5ep - 2(v) 19 S G)
STAFF COORDINATOR itto
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY O Ci 6 ) 17s C)
DATE 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 Department through the above staff.
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM
COMMENT
2-o
-
Date: 7/
Comments prepared by: ,
09/14/89
ENVIRONnaNTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EPIC:
TO
E Building
Planning
Pub Wks
Fire
IT Police
1 1 ParksfRec
PROJECT Horn&cvocd 5ucfes (skreJint, Permit) De5/a -1 Review)
ADDRESS L +s 3) 04,4 3Z /n fly-ma-bon add/ f /c-, f0 .ea2
DATE TRANSMITTED Sept '26,) 19” RESPONSE REQUESTED BY O G'i", 5 ) I %S c)
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED '
STAFF COORDINATOR %Li0
.c 1
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 Department through the above staff
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM
COMMENT
- 5 cLrea, med,wem ta4 d5 taa, u6e. fwie LL e. 044e4-
'
(1L4 u,6e. auil 46. - &wk. )
- Provide. Irk' amd cauexale, catcu a.kupc .5 -Few a) Icugibeaft cue -Q.)
b) pazA axea l �) bldg . �vof r1s) . Prov led co Of 1 o+ cc t4 .
Pv& i 46LIA:4a) ertA I
uticPAAdiJ a,) &I JL tkca. 4eua £&t',) b)
OCr i4( ` - P% ux u w 300
- 611 plk u.. U-c:.r c) Lai-611C vwx/At.- uatef- Inr itk kcx,r vue t -
VMAA± ttr O rw a. AL uk
x .
- Pi YI( Mh i a� b 5 ma m vAA, `) l tioe,rincLud -
OL A4 e e dUw - 644 alt oteutt,60.6
R� [bail. ,
a:)5 bow piaNt, al wri t it, vvla4-w4;uukeL road . yt4;r'c4-:
V-16-to Ceiutt C j / 64.a& &444, oked Y.4
Date: Comments prepared by: ,
09/14/89
b� -ir�3d�oc. 10(,-nj �u� Pv`,�"'°e"�- � 5hn- ro"e`(`' au.c2
e,) vetx:-6ei ekg 14- to9,a,onetzt. -446-tt, i6 ktio ‘q6cc
4,1)-(44j, io 6ptr-e-
tAxte,u, pQa.u. far ct l.(. a.rea.G
pe-a44-t
.L r/ ,.m.:,w du.el�- � -fo ,,,..,.�Le; 9a, !�� 0/4t, 38 °.
5
g) .a
cQ/ZZUCIQ agi
�e
vuw atcd'afiai°"aQ' '"6d' a` /.tJer, , 6/trit las4cCd-aaaC�
Ct,tch:,YGf
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EIS ONNW/9dTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
EPIC:
TO: n Building E Planning LJ Pub Wks
PROJECT
ADDRESS
Fire 1 1 Police fl ParksfRec
/lot- wocCd Stoles (5kxpredinj
review)
Lafs 3) aid 32 /r,feru rixv4 add flan fo e!1i,
DATE TRANSMITTED Sept 2(01 195 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
STAFF COORDINATOR /t u , tteafil
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
Cct,5)I�89
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 Department through the above staff
Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM COMMENT
.6t,d e/A4,*Ci4e dii aid ue_ /sas) ,
Date: /OA" Comments prepared by: ,
09/14/89
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ETIViRONnVON TAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
EPIC:
TO: ❑ Building
Planning Pub Wks
Fire Police
ParksfRec
PROJECT Hornewocd SuLte3 (5kx re./ inc.. Perri j Ve51�YhJ Review)
ADDRESS LO -is 31 6,4,4 32. ini-exurba,4 adds b.„71 -/p g
DATE TRANSMITTED 5e - 26„ 19 S RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 0 Gt Gj IS c)
STAFF COORDINATOR tar„
DATE 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 Department through the above staff
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission,
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below
ITEM ill La I o COMMENT
Date: Comments prepared by: ,
09/14/80
A. BACKGROUND
Cont Contrui No.
Epic File" Nd:1 ' 6� -99"
Fee $100.00 Receipt' No'.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST S EP 5 1989
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Homewood Suites, Tukwila, Washington
2. Name of applicant: Dimitri Demopulos Architect, Inc.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 7277 Regency Square
Blvd., # 100; Houston, TX 77036; Robert Nesbett
4. Date checklist prepared: August 14, 1989
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Submit for Building Permit October 14, 1989
Begin Construction December 7, 1989
Complete Construction April 1990
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or 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.
chorelive Substantial nevelopment Permit
Board of Architectural RPVipw
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.
Homewood Suites is an extended stay hotel
Four Buildings one to three stories
are grouped around a central pool and recreational area. The Site area
is 3.12 acres.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic 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.
The project is located on the Green River, north of South Center and east of
Interurban.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
No
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, o er
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? /% 2 /o
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.
Sandy clay
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. No substantial fill anticipated.
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%
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or.control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
�7'nSio- /.S'oG✓i�Gaj /.a.l�o� /Ate /iL /ao 430i/%�
p7.416-7 •er C._i 01 /2, c. i -s •r► o. J
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.
None
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:
N/A
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
41! 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.Site plan is enclosed.
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. No
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. No
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. N/A
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.Collect ihc.surface
storm water system and directed to the Green River
through an approved system.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. No
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
It is anticipated that the dike will be w ne3 a —nd this
would help the flow caracteristics of fhe Green River
and thereby help this project..
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
x 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? grass
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. None
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: Our landscape architect has consulted ';:_�".
with local nursery and has selected plans accordingly.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle,
, 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. None
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
•
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.
lectric, Natural gas, for heating and cooling.
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 insulation, thermal
windows energy efficient mechanical systems.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. No
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: N/A
•
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) ?__gang_______
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.
Construction 8am - 5pm.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: N/A
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? Vacant
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None
11 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? C2
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Not known
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Not known
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? 100
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 com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: No conflict existing.
• •
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? N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: N/A
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?
Metal roof, plaster walls 44'
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: N/A
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?
None
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:
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Swimming pool and sports court are on the site.
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: N/A
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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. No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed/A measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any:
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.
Interurban
b. Is the 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?
The project wouihdd.provide 120 spaces and would not
eliminate any.
•
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 describe
(indicate whether public or private). No
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. Peak volume would occur
in the morning and afternoon.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: N/A
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. Minor increase in fire and
police protection.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. None required.
1
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
utiliti- currently available at the site:
refuse service
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.
Electric: Puget Power Co.
Natural Gas: Washington Natural Gas
Sanitary Sewer Water: City of Tukwila
Telehone
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.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAIII
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? No effect
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life? No effect
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources? no effect
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:
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? no effect
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, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans? There should be little or no change
in the public use of this due to this protect.
•
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? No parking or buildings are shown within
the Shoreline easement.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
There would be a minor increase in utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment. This project should not
conflict .witlh any of the above agencies.
III III
' 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? No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
T:j 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 obtain a building permit.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
•
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23-