Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-32 - DOUBLETREE INN - MOTELS AND RESTAURANTDOUBLETREE LODGE EPIC -FD -32 - -Ci - of Tukwila Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1853 Office of Comrnunity Development 3 December 1979 King County Hydraulics Division 976 King County Admin. Bldg. Seattle, WA. 98104 Attn: Jeff Crawford Per your telephone request of 30 November 1979, we enclose a copy of the final Declaration of Non - Significance for the Doubletree Lodge complex. Mark Caughey Assistant Planner Enclosure CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4Po3t D/F I NAL DECLARATION OF ititIFICANCC/NON- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Two multi -story motels and one restaurant Proponent Doubletree Inn Location of Proposal Lead Agency S.E. Intersection of Strander Blvd. & Southcenter Pkwv. City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -FD -32 This proposal has been determined to (hews /not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (TS/'is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Position /Title Director, O.C.D., Kjell Stoknes Date COMMENTS: 7 October 1977 Signature Per Findings and Conclusions of Memo from Fred Satterstrom dated 6 October 1977. do MEMORANDUM MTV ©f T KW L OFFICE of COMMUNITY C= V_LCP='.i:ENT 6 October 1977 TO Kjell Stoknes, Responsible Official FROM: Fred Satterstrom SUBJECT: Environmental Checklist: Doubletree Lodge The following is a short chronology of the progress of the environmental review on the proposed Doubletree Lodge: 1.. Application for Conditional Use Permit was made by Doubletree Inn, Inc. on 1 September 1977. The environmental checklist was submitted at this time. 2. The environmental checklist was distributed to and comments were received back from the Engineering Department (8 September 1977), Fire Department (19 September 1977), Police Department (14 September 1977), and Building Department (6 September 1977). 3. Additional . information was requested from the applicant on 19 September 1977. 4. Applicant responded to the request for more information on 21 September 1977 and again on 30 September 1977. 5. A public hearing before the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit is scheduled for 13 October 1977. FINDINGS: 1. A draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed for this site in 1973 for the proposed Trillium project. This draft EIS was submitted as an attachment to the environmental questionnaire for the Doubletree Lodge. 2. Some filling will occur on the site -, approximately 3,200 cubic yards will be required. 3. Storm drainage will be contained on the site following construction and channeled into the public storm drain system. 4. Additional traffic which is expected to be generated by the proposed project will continue to add to the downward trend in ambient air quality. 5. It is anticipated that this project alone will not create a need for additional police or fire personnel. However, cumulatively, a need for such personnel will develop as a result of further expansion of commercial and industrial use in this area. 0 Kjell Stoknes Page 2 Memorandum 6 October 1977 6. The topography of the subject site was previously altered when the site was filled and graded, in part. 7. Increased impervious surfaces will increau storm water runoff rates, contri- buting to the overall drainage problem associated with the Green River system. 8. The site does not contain any identified rare or endangered species of flora or fauna, and does not serve as a significant habitat for any species of wildlife. 9. The ambient noise levels of the surrounding commercial community will be increased both during the construction phases and when the proposed complex is fully operational. 10. The proposed project itself will probably not necessitate the upgrading of street signalization but may create a need for channelization on Southcentr Parkway. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Even though completed in 1973, the draft EIS for the Trillium project sub - stantially describes the impacts which might occur today if a project such as the Doubletree Lodge were to be built on the site. With some minor addi- tions, the Trillium EIS is generally still valid. 2. Additional information was requested concerning those factors which have changed since 1973 (traffic, utilities, etc.) and they were found to be only insignificantly impacted by the proposed project. 3. The adverse effects to the natural environment on the subject site appear to be insignificant. 4. The adverse effects to the human environment from development of the proposed project on this site appear to be insignificant. 5. The procedural requirements of SEPA seem to be substantially complied with by virtue of the draft EIS having been done in 1973. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the abovementioned Findings and Conclusions, I recommend that an EIS not be required on the Doubletree Lodge proposal. FNS /ch MEMORANDUM CITY of TUKW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY CEVELOPMENT 3 October 1977 T0: Dick Wil *ams, Acting Public Works Director FROM: Fred tterstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: Double ree Lodge: Projected Traffic Volumes Peter A. Lendrum Associates, architects for the proposed Doubletree Lodge, have submitted additional traffic information for their envir- onmental questionnaire review. This traffic analysis is attached. I draw your attention to the projected number of vehicle trips that the proposed Doubletree Lodge will generate (SEE, Table 7). Do you see any possible traffic problems with these projected volumes? Do you have any other comments based on this information? I would like your comments as a traffic engineer before recommending whether an EIS should be done or not. Also, since Allied. Stores will be filing a short plat on this piece of property, and you area member of the Short Subdivision Committee, this information may have some bearing on the subdivision of the land as well. FS /ch Attachment Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 5 TABLE 5 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) PPM DUWAlMISH VALLEY Standard = 9 PPM Number of 8 -Hour violations = 0 Number of violation days.= 0 Average Maximum Minimum 1975 October ' 2 10 0 November 2 12 0 December 2 13 0 1976 January 2 11 0 February 1.6 14 0 March 1.5 8 0 April 0.8 6 0 May 0.8 3 0 June 1.3 5 ,0 July 0.7 3 0 August 1.2 5 0 September 1.6 7 0 October 2.4 9 0 Discontinued 4 November 1976. Checklist Question 13(c) The following discussion is based on the most current (1974) _traf- fic level measurements available from the State Highway Department'. The daily traffic levels on Southcenter Parkway averages around 14,000 vehicles per day with peak days exceeding 25,000 vehicles per day. See Table 6 for existing flow on adjacent streets.. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 5,324 vehicle trips per day (See Table 7). Projecting the anticipated percentage of vehicle arrivals. and de- partures by direction (Table 7), we can expect added traffic levels as indicated in.Table 8. Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -25 -77 Page 6 Traffic capabilities have increased on adjacent streets because of the following recent improvements: 1. Creation of a 5 -lane roadway on Southcenter Parkway with the center lane being a two -way left -turn lane. 2. Improved signalization on Southcenter Parkway. 3. Widening of the Klickatat Avenue Bridge over the I -5 Freeway. 4. Relocation of the I -5 Northbound Off -ramp north of Klickatat Avenue. Consequently, traffic capabilities have been. increased. Due to these increased capabilities, it is estimated that the existing streets can adequately handle the increased traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project. 1 k:. (72) (ioo) <------7—',.7. �mxa. - 4470 (3-73) 10 *11 px-cuy • EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC LEGEND 5020 DAILY AVERAGE (440) PM PEAK 6 "P<•� fir:! • ..azo,o;:a - -,- .-^•r - . r.c -. -+ter -.-r.n. .., --...x ,,^-nc ;:.y '+.: i° �+ uiL•, J...; vfa,.,:- A1. r ..t^'�Tr^.✓:•._s:v4.cno.+.:C... n:, �a5 .,..:...A,frw:.�.S..:ru:8:.>. a7. .•t:. •..:.1::�... ..c1.,:±ix:.+i k�.a:'�!A..:, iewa:ii.,•;1 r.!;t:c sn �a (24,) A ( ) U ,4) - •.••? "" wok (') `` 44Z4') P%'t1%+JY TRIP GENERATING FACTOR PER 1000 SP. AREA GEN. FAC. TRIPS HOTEL 236,000 21.6 5,098 M 4 RESTAURANT 10,000 22.6 226 5,324 :. 420 CARS PERCENTAGE OF DAILY 'I F AFFIC GENERATED ONLY BY PROPOSED PROJECT PI -LASES 1 f, 2 LEGEND 8 PERCENT OF DAILY AVERAGE (426) NU BER OF VEHICLES PER DAY • <- tr+Gl:estie..�m..•.�rfti` {•- 3....siS<._:.'a.,�,�r ✓�-,i - - ._:a:�a:t+.�= c:..ras, =,.;� ; ls�. a�i�.' a.M 9�: tvia.. i�,✓-: wsawx-cd.'..Y.6�csi.a- 'si:vs3A_ (*31) €q 0!0'57 e072 w... '.a:...a- •.> • � �d;. timn:.: �::.:.: 6:. �- �b:1��'°s- .�- b?rrM;m.,'.�''' -.. ,w;r�T. — 1714:1jJ4fffEi '107 - OM) )tea: _e • C4) • (74:› ' Cie) PROJECTED TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT PHASES 1 E 2 LE 8 LEGEND 8072 DAILY AVERAGE (852) PM PEAK • Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 10 Checklist Question 18 A perspective sketch of the proposed site is being prepared as requested and will be delivered to the Planning Department on or before 30 September 1977. If there are any questions regarding the enclosed information, please give us a call. Respectfully, PETER A. LENDRUM ASSOCIATES - ARCHITECTS, INC. Robe t D. Smith, Project Manager RDS:bal 9 -28 -77 cc: Peter Bidstrup Tim Dubois CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE . , of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 19 September 1977 Tim Dubois, Manager c/o Doubletree Inn 205 Strander Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR DOUBLETREE LODGE Dear Tim: Lea. PEED k 1[? ?RUM ASSfini S Pursuant to our conversation in your office on 16 September 1977, I am sending this letter with regard to the Doubletree Lodge proposal at Stran- der Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway.. (At this time, however, I still do not have the Fire Department's comments on the questionnaire. There- fore, I will forward another letter to you later this week if that Depart- ment has any major concerns.) After reviewing the environmental checklist submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application, it is apparent that additional information is necessary before a threshold determination can be made. Therefore, pur- suant to WAC 197 -10 -330 of the State Environmental Policy Act, I am request- ing that additional information be submitted by you concerning the following points: Checklist... Question 1(c) 2(a) - How much fill will be required, if any. Please attempt to identify sources of this fill and the number of truck movements required to sufficiently fill the site. - What precautions will be taken to ensure that erosion of soils on the Doubletree Lodge site does not cause sedi- mentation or siltation in the "City Light Pond" located on the property to the east? - Air quality measurements were taken at the time of the Trillium EIS and were compared with the air quality standards existing at that time. It was projected in said EIS that air quality in the area would gradually worsen. How do present atmospheric conditions relate to existing air quality standards. (You may want to 6230 Southcenter Boulevard n Tukwila, 6✓e:sh.i.ngton 93183 8 (206) 242 -2177 Tim Dubois Manager Checklist Question 2(a) Cont. 3(d) Page 2 19 September 1977 - consult the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for air quality measurements in the Tukwila area. The PSAPCA maintains a monitoring station in the Andover area.) I assume that no surface runoff will be channeled onto the City Light property to the east. What steps is Doubletree taking to prevent this from happening? If surface drainage on the Doubletree site is channeled into the public storm water system, will this have any measureable effect on the water level of the pond to the east? It was established in the City Light Pond EIS completed last summer that the Allied Stores property drained onto the City Light property and helped to con- tribute to the level of surface water there. 13(c) - The environmental questionnaire estimates that proposed project will add 8% to the existing daily traffic flow, 6% at peak periods. What are the current daily traffic levels on Southcenter Parkway at this site? Strander Boulevard volumes? What are the peak flows ?. What are the capacities of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boule- vard. Please address in map or diagram form the manner in which traffic will ingress /egress to this site. 14(a), (b) . - In the Trillium EIS it is stated that the proposed pro- ject will entail additional expenses to the City in terms of police and fire protection (SEE, Section c.2.a.). In the environmental checklist for the Doubletree Lodge, it is.stated that no new fire or police protection ser- vices will be generated as a result of this project. Please re- examine this part of the checklist and quantify the impacts, if any. (Our police chief has submitted comments that additional personnel may be required as a result of the proposed project. You might contact him for more specific information.) 18 - Please provide this office with a sketch (drawn to scale) of what the proposed project will look like in relation to surrounding development. •Try to include the I -5 freeway to the west and Southcenter to the north. A good place to obtain this perspective drawing is from Southcenter Boule- vard at the toe of the Tukwila Hill. In addition, what signing scheme do you have intended for the complex. With building face signs at the top of the tower, how will the complex be identified for the pedestrian? Tim Dubois Manager Page 3 19 September 1977 Please submit the above information to our office so that we may reach a threshold determination. As mentioned earlier in this letter, I will be writing you again if the Fire Department has any major concerns. ed N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch Pafter Sao Lendm September 21, 1977 Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 J _ • Peter A. Lendrum, A.I.A. James T. Lendrum, F.A.I.A. Carl Buchanan, Jr., A.I.A. Henry G. Metzger, Jr., A.I.A. Arch E. Maddock, Jr. A3Megfteg Bernard Deutsch, A.I.A. Clarence H. Campbell, P.E. E. Venable Micou Joseph W. Peace, A.I.A. Robert D. Smith, A.I.A. Robert E. Teegardin, A.I.A. ECEIVE SEP 2 3 1977 :ATV OF TUKWILA Re: Environmental Checklist for Doubletree Lodge PALA 7541 Dear Fred: This letter has been prepared to. provide additional information and to respond to questions raised in your letter dated September 19, 1977, regarding the environmental checklist for Doubletree Lodge. The following responses occur in the same order as they appear in your letter: Checklist Question 1(c): At this point in the project design, it is anticipated that approximately 3,200 cu. yd. of fill will be required around the site. This amount will balance the cut and fill operation to bring the site to appropriate finish grade. It is expected that the free- standing restaurant foundation system will bear on a 10' thick bed of structural fill (3,700 cy. yd.). A major portion of this excavated soil will be used a"s "site fill. The remaining 500 cy. yd. of soil would be removed from the site while approxi- mately 3,700 cu. yd. of structural fill must be imported. Assuming a 12 yd. capacity per truck load, it is expected that approximately 360 round trips (4,300 s 12) would be required. The structural fill will be obtained from a single source. That source is expected to be the Stuck River Pit owned by Miles Concrete Co., located near Pacific City. Checklist Question 1(e): Approximately 75% of the site will be covered by either structures, paved walking surfaces or paved walking areas. The remaining 25% Peter A. Lendrum Associates — Architects Incorporated, 3820 North Third Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 264 -9541 • Environmental Checklist PALA 7541 Sept. 21, 1977 Page Two will be maintained as landscaped areas. Within these landscaped areas, no soil erosion would occur. Therefore, sedimentation or siltation in the "City Light Pond" to the east would not be con- tributed to by the Doubletree site. Checklist Question 2(a): Updated atmospheric conditions are presently being obtained. Once obtained, they will be compared to existing air quality standards. Checklist Question 3(d): The existing site in its undeveloped state contributes to the level of surface water in the "City Light Pond" mainly by surface run -off. When the site is developed, all surface run -off will be eliminated. Consequently, any storm water will be channeled into the existing 36" storm sewer in Southcenter Parkway. This system has no effect on the water level of the pond. City Light is in agreement with this proposal. It is their desire that no storm water or surface run- off;be channeled into the pond. Checklist Question 13(c): Current daily traffic levels and flow characteristics for streets adjacent to the Doubletree project are presently being obtained. Once all this information is obtained, an appropriate response can be made to traffic related questions. Checklist Question 14(a): The proposed project will create a need for new fire protection services. The proposed project being multi -story will require new training for specific capabilities in fire fighting techniques and equipment use for high -rise buildings. This plus the cumula- tive effect of expanding urban development in the vicinity of the proposed project will require incremental increases in fire pro- tection equipment as development progresses. Future up- grading of equipment can be anticipated to handle high -rise buildings. Checklist Question 14(b): As stated previously, the proposed project will employ security personnel for normal on -site security to be controlled by a security manager responsible for both Doubletree facilities. Police pro- tection would be required for criminal offences such as burglary, larceny, parking lot grand larceny, assults and traffic related matters. Additional law enforcement man -hours would be required to • Environmental Checklist PALA 7541 Sept. 21, 1977 Page Three provide needed service. The Police Chief feels that this service would not require a full additional officer in itself. However, continued community development would require incremental staff increases. Checklist Question 18: A perspective sketch of the proposed site is being prepared and will be available on September 30. We anticipate that all remaining questions can be responded to by September 30, 1977. Respectfully, PETER A. LENDRUM ASSOCIATES - CTS, INC. Project Manager RDS /tvd 9/2.1/77 • Pew Ao Lancicirican Assoeffiles 28 September 1977 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor Peter A. Lendrum, A.I.A. James T. Lendrum, F.A.I.A. Carl Buchanan, Jr., A.I.A. Henry G. Metzger, Jr., A.I.A. Arch E. Maddock, Jr. Bernard Deutsch, A.I.A. Clarence H Campbell, P.E E. Venable Micou Joseph W. Peace, A.I.A. Robert D. Smith, A.I.A. Robert E. Teegardin, A.I.A. ��pEIVED SEP 3 01977 CITY OF TUKM1A Re: Environmental Checklist for PALA 7541 Doubletree Lodge Dear Fred: This letter has been prepared to supplement our letter. dated 21 September 1977. . Now that additional updated information has been gathered, we can respond to the remaining questions raised in your letter dated 19 September. 1977. Checklist Question 2(a) The following discussion is based on air quality measurements from nearby monitoring stations maintained by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Ecology. Measurements for suspended particulates and sulfer dioxide (S02) are given in tables 1, 2, $ 3. Sulfer dioxide levels are within established standards and do not present any known problems at this point in time. The concentration of suspended particulates was 163 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ugm /m3) measured on 6 February 1976 at Southcenter. The ambient air quality standards as adopted by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for suspended particulates are 60 ugm /m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) annual geometric mean and 160 ugm /m3 24 -hour average never to be exceeded. For implemen- tation purposes, the standard value for suspended particulates Peter A. Lendrum Associates — Architects Incorporated, 3820 North Third Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, (602) 264 -9541 • • Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 2 can be exceeded 15% of the time in a given month without violating the ambient air quality standard for the year. Thus the measure- ment at Southcenter of 163 ugm /m3 probably does not alone consti- tute a violation. Table 2 also indicates that the concentrations of suspended parti- culates have increased in the area in the last 3 years. This trend will probably continue to increase in the future but will remain within accepted standards. Particle fallout (Table 4) is within established standards. This means that soiling of buildings, cars or clothes does not appear to be a problem in the area. A summary of motor vehicle related air contaminants is presented in Table 5. Of the summarized pollutants, carbon monoxide is the most problematical. There is a continuing downward trend in the number of days the 8 -hour carbon monoxide standard (9 parts per million) is exceeded. Duwamish Seattle (James) 1972 1976 3 days 0 days 112 days 56 days The maximum 8-hour concentration in 1976 monitored in the Duwamish Valley Area was 8 ppm. This is below established standards. Two other pollutants from motor vehicles are hydrocarbons and photo - chemical oxidants. Monitoring of hydrocarbons was suspended in 1973 while present photochemical oxidants periodically exceed recommended levels. Efforts are underway to continue reducing emissions from both indus- trial and automotive sources. Even though the air quality at the site is basically within existing standards and is continuing to improve, it can be expected to reverse somewhat due to the number of new sources in proximity to the site including the proposed pro- ject. • • Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 3 TABLE 1 SULPHER DIOXIDE (PPM) McMicken Duwamish Kent Tukwila Standard Annual Avg. .01 .01 .00 .00 .02 Daily Max. .04 .05 .02 .03 .1 Hourly Max. .29 .16 .28 .36 .4 TABLE 2 SUSPENDED PARTICULATES (ug /m3) Standard Annual Avg. 1976 1975 1974 1973 Value (McMicken Heights) 42 30 35 35 60 ug /m3 (Duwamish) 49 37 48 (Kent) 49 32 33* (Tukwila) S.C. 45 34 36* Concentrations Standard 24 -Hour Max. 1976 Value (McMicken Heights), 136 (Duwamish) 205 (Kent) 171 (Tukwila) 163 60 ug /m3 * Partial year Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 4 TABLE 3 OXIDANT (PPM) Ambient air quality standards not to be exceeded more than once per year: 1 -Hour Avg. 160 ugm /m3 .08 PPM Kent McMicken Ht. Duwamish AVG MAX MIN. AVG MAX MIN AVG MAX MIN 1976 April 1 4 0 2 5 0 1 3 0 May 2 5 0 2 7 0 2 4 0 June 1 5 0 2 7 0 1 4 0 July 1_ 8 0 2 7 0 1 5 0 August 1 5 0 1- 6 0 1 4 0 September - 0 1 6 0 1 4 0 October 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 November 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 December 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 6 0 1977 January 0 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 February 1 3 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 March 2 4 0 2 5 0 Discontinued April 2 8 0 3 8 0 28 Feb. 1977 TABLE 4 SOILING INDEX (COH /1000 Lin. Ft.) Daily Max. Hourly Max. Standard 1976 McMicken Heights 2.3 3.4 5.0 Duwamish 1.8 3.4 5.0 Kent 2.0 3.4 5.0 Tukwila 2.2 3.1 5.0 • • Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 5 TABLE 5 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) PPM DUWAMISH VALLEY Standard = 9 PPM Number of 8 -Hour violations = 0 Number of violation days= 0 Average Maximum Minimum 1975 October 2 10 0 November 2 12 0 December 2 13 0 1976 January 2 11 0 February 1.6 14 0 March 1.5 8 0 April 0.8 6 0 May 0.8 3 0 June 1.3 5 0 July 0.7 3 0 August 1.2 5 0 September 1.6 7 0 October 2.4 9 0 Discontinued 4 November 1976. Checklist Question 13(c) The following discussion is based on the most current (1974) traf- fic level measurements available from the State Highway Department. The daily traffic levels on Southcenter Parkway averages around 14,000 vehicles per day with peak days exceeding 25,000 vehicles per day. See Table 6 for existing flow on adjacent streets. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 5,324 vehicle trips per day (See Table. 7). Projecting the anticipated percentage of vehicle arrivals and de- partures by direction (Table 7), we can expect added traffic levels as indicated in Table 8. • • Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 6 Traffic capabilities have increased on adjacent streets because of the following recent improvements: 1. Creation of a 5 -lane roadway on Southcenter Parkway with the center lane being a two -way left -turn lane. 2. Improved signalization on Southcenter Parkway. 3. Widening of the Klickatat Avenue Bridge over the I -5 Freeway. 4. Relocation of the I -5 Northbound Off -ramp north of Klickatat Avenue. Consequently, traffic capabilities have been increased. Due to these increased capabilities, it is estimated that the existing streets can adequately handle the increased traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project. EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC LEGEND 5020 DAILY AVERAGE (440) PM PEAK 40$ TLIOCIIVIL i Nr.11••• 149'', 14% (74-) (745) TRIP GENERATING FACTOR PER 1000 S.A. AREA GEN. FAC. TRIPS HOTEL 236,000 21.6 5,098 RESTAURANT 10,000 22.6. :. 420 CARS PERCENTAGE OF DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED ONLY BY PROPOSED PROJECT PHASES 1 $ 2 LEGEND 8% PERCENT OF DAILY AVERAGE (426) NUMBER OF VEHICLES PER DAY • PROJECTED TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT PHASES 1 $ 2 LEGEND 8072 DAILY AVERAGE (8k) PM PEAK . • • Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom PALA 7541 9 -28 -77 Page 10 Checklist Question 18 A perspective sketch of the proposed site is being prepared as requested and will be delivered to the Planning Department on or before 30 September 1977. If there are any questions regarding the enclosed information, please give us a call. Respectfully, PETER A. LENDRUM ASSOCIATES - ARCHITECTS, INC. Robe t D. Smith, Project Manager RDS:bal 9 -28 -77 cc: Peter Bidstrup Tim Dubois CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 19 September 1977 Tim Dubois, Manager c/o Doubletree Inn 205 Strander Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR DOUBLETREE LODGE Dear Tim: Pursuant to our conversation in your office on 16 September 1977, I am sending this letter with regard to the Doubletree Lodge proposal at Stran- der Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway. (At this time, however, I still do not have the Fire Department's comments on the questionnaire. There - fore, I will forward another letter to you later this week if that Depart - ment has any major concerns.) After reviewing the environmental checklist submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application, it is apparent that additional information is necessary before a threshold determination can be made. Therefore, pur- suant to WAC 197 -10 -330 of the State Environmental Policy Act, I am request- ing that additional information be submitted by you concerning the following points: Checklist Question 1(c) - How much fill will be required, if any. Please attempt to identify sources of this fill and the number of truck movements required to sufficiently fill the site. 1(e) - What precautions will be taken to ensure that erosion of soils on the Doubletree Lodge site does not cause sedi- mentation or siltation in the "City Light Pond" located on the property to the east? 2(a) - Air quality measurements were taken at the time of the Trillium EIS and were compared with the air quality standards existing; at that time. It was projected in said EIS that air quality in the area would gradually worsen. How do present atmospheric conditions relate to existing air quality standards. (You may want to 6230 Southcenter Boulevard ® Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 242 -2177 Tim Dubois Manager Checklist Question 2(a) Cont. 3(d) 13(c) 14(a), (b) Page 2 19 September 1977 - consult the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency for air quality measurements in the Tukwila area. The PSAPCA maintains a monitoring station in the Andover area.) I assume that no surface runoff will be channeled onto the City Light property to the east. What steps is Doubletree taking to prevent this from happening? If surface drainage on the Doubletree site is channeled into the public storm water system, will this have any measureable effect on the water level of the pond to the east? It was established in the City Light Pond EIS completed last summer that the Allied Stores property. drained onto the City Light property and helped to con- tribute to the level of surface water there. - The environmental questionnaire estimates that proposed project will add 8% to the existing daily traffic flow, 6% at peak periods.. What are the current daily traffic levels on Southcenter Parkway at this site? Strander Boulevard volumes? What are the peak flows? What are the capacities of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boule- vard. Please address in map or diagram form the manner in which traffic will ingress /egress to this site. - In the Trillium EIS it is stated that the proposed pro- ject will entail additional expenses to the, City in terms of police and fire protection (SEE, Section c.2.a.). In the environmental checklist for the Doubletree Lodge, it is stated that no new fire or police protection ser- vices will be generated as a result of this project. Please re- examine this part of the checklist and quantify the impacts, if any. (Our police chief has submitted comments that additional personnel may be required as a result of the proposed project. You might contact him for more specific information.) 18 - Please .provide this office with a sketch (drawn to scale) of what the proposed project will look like in relation to surrounding development. Try to include the I -5 freeway to the west and Southcenter to the north. A good place to obtain this perspective drawing is from Southcenter Boule- vard at the toe of the Tukwila Hill. In addition, what signing scheme do you have intended for the complex. With building face signs at the top of the tower, how will the complex be identified for the pedestrian? . Tim Dubois Manager Page 3 19 September 1977 Please submit the above information to our office so that we may reach a threshold determination. As mentioned earlier in this letter, I will be writing you again if the Fire Department has any major concerns. ed N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch Septem• 12, 1977 FRED SATTER'STROM City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: Thank you for the, opportunity to review the environmental questionaire for the Doubletree Inn on September 8t. One major point arises from the Doubletree and Trillium reports: The only body of water referred to is the Green River, even though a much closer body of water exists, the pond east of the site. This pond is of major concern to me because'of its uniqueness. The only other body of water,in the Kent valley that provides a stopping point for waterbirds is the sewage lagoon in Kent. During the winter months (Dec. - March) between 700 -1000 ducks can be found on the pond at Southcenter. Some of these birds will remain and breed in the spring. While construction will not actually be on the pond shore, the,possibility of disturbance from ground run -off and construction activities does exist. Certain avifauna are more tolerant of human activities than others. After construction some of the avifauna that frequent the area may leave, i.e., virginia rails, american bitterns, green herons. I might add that I have seen approximately 80 species of birds in the area of the pond, including the Doubletree site. I have walked this area observed .birds, mammals and just plain enjoyed my- self for 2 years. I feel that this is a very unique environment that should be maintained as it is and able to progress in its natural way. I am sure that my bias has shown through in this letter, and while I am not against the construction project, I would like to see it proceed with care. I would be please to offer any services I could to the City of Tukwila to assist in your evaluation. , Very truly yours, Scott Salzer St? 151977 CZ Of IUIONILA RECRsATION • MEMO RANDUM O T ¥ of T UKVV LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 14 September 1977 TO: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor FROM: Gary Crutchfi el a L ' si stant -Pl anner SUBJECT: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF CHECKLIST: Doubletree Inn I have reviewed the referenced checklist and supporting data. With respect to the Trillium EIS used for supporting data, the Natural Envir- onment information remains essentially valid. However, due to assumed increases in traffic volume, street /highway improvements, additional development in immediate vicinity, all of which have taken place since that EIS was written, most of . these categories (save housing & popula- tion) are no longer accurate in a technical sense. They all do, however, provide both a generally accurate description of existing factors and identification of mitigating measures. ASSESSMENT OF CHECKLIST AND SUPPORTING DATA:, I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. EARTH a. Driving of piles, while not significantly detrimental to the Natural Environment, may be significant in terms of noise_impact to neighboring uses. b. Negligible. c. Negligible. However, should the project include importation of fill, the origin of such should be identified now. e. Due to displacement of soils during construction as well as poten- tial fill actions, soils will be vulnerable to erosion. While normal construction practices should mitigate the possible effect to adja- cent streets, the potential for erosion of -soils into the adjacent pond seems too great to ignore and should be mitigated. Memorandum Page 2 Fred Satterstrom 14 September 1977 2. AIR a. Data accurately indicates less than desirable ambient level of air quality primarily due to existing factors (Southcenter and Inter - states 5 and 405). Increased vehicular movements, as a result of this project alone, will certainly increase the current level of carbon monoxide particulates to a measurable degree. However, in terms of effect to ambient air quality, the proposed project by itself will have a neglibible adverse impact. The cumulative effect of total ultimate development of the entire vicinity will certainly have a measurable and potentially significant adverse impact to ambient air quality. b. Negligible. c. Negligible. 3. WATER b. Negligible impact; however, the 75% figure should, more accurately, be revised to 85 - 90 %. d. Negligible in terms of the project alone; however, cumulative impact to Green River as result of total development of entire vicinity may be significant and far more reaching than would initially appear. (Such as increased building elevations, protection measures, main- tenance costs, etc.) e. Negligible; again, however, cumulative impact could be significantly deleterious to water quality of Green River and, in turn, to aquatic life. g. Negligible. h. Negligible. i. Effect to ability of all vacant lands in vicinity to be fully developed in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan remains unidentified. Inability to provide sufficient water to all development promoted under Comprehensive Plan would be significant adverse impact. 4. FLORA a. Will eliminate feeding and nesting ( ?) environment for associated wildlife. c. New species (in form of the project's landscape) will not replace the natural feeding and protection characteristics of the existing flora. Memorandum Page 3 Fred Satterstrom 14 September 1977 5. FAUNA a. Insignificant. c. Fauna will be displaced, probably to already overcrowded vacant lands in immediate vicinity. d. Ditto the cumulative effect to fish life in Green River described in Section 3e. 6. NOISE Negligible. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Lighting apparatus must, itself, mitigate potential adverse impact to residential communities to the north and west. 8. LAND USE Proposed project reinforces "Commercial" development concept pro- moted in the new Comprehensive Plan rather than industrial development promoted under current zoning. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. Effect on ability to serve full development promoted under Comprehen- sive Plan must be identified. 11. POPULATION Insignificant. 12. HOUSING Insignificant. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION a. Believe the estimate of vehicle trips to be high - may more accurately be 2500 - 3000 daily. b. Variance granted by Board of Adjustment insures sufficient parking. c. A 6 - 8% increase in current daily and peak traffic volumes seems significant for one project. • • Memorandum Page 4 Fred Satterstrom 14 September 1977 f. What about people walking (or attempting to) from the proposed pro- ject to Southcenter? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Potential increase to City's Fire Department budget should be identified. b. This project:shoUld not be used as future justification for additional personnel or equipment -.ifl t is to be used, costs should be identified now (or forever hold their peace!) e. Ditto 14b. f. Ditto 14b. 15. ENERGY a. Only the private utilities can accurately assess this factor. In consideration of local and regional policies regarding economic growth with respect to energy conservation, the impact is insignificant. b. Again, the effect on ability to fully develop in accordance with Comprehensive Plan should be identified. 16. UTILITIES This entire category of impacts is insignificant in direct effects; cumulative effects of total development may however cause changes like LID #27. 18. AESTHETICS Due to topography, residential communities atop the plataeus will not be seriously impacted. The surrounding business community will be insignificantly affected. SUMMARY Although the Checklist and supporting data thoroughly address impacts of the proposed project, several mitigating measures should be identified and insti- tuted to diminish the respective adverse impacts. In light of SEPA Guidelines and Ordinance #986, this can only be accomplished through distribution of an EIS or through the applicant's voluntary revision of the proposed project to include mitigating measures sufficient to allow the City's withdrawal of affirma- tive threshold determination. Therefore, I recommend an Affirmative threshold determination based on the identified and potential impacts outlined hereinabove. GC /ch TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: OFFE MEMO CITY of TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT ENVIROMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW /DOUBLETREE LODGE SEPTEMBER 19, 1977 FOLLOWING COMMENTS; 2. AIR: FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MAY BE EFFECTED BY ANY STRUCTURES OF THIS HEIGHT CAUSING ALTERED AIR MOVEMENT. 11. POPULATION: NUMBER OF PEOPLE OCCUPING THIS BUILDING WILL EFFECT FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS. 14.(A) FIRE PROTECTION: AT THE PRESENT TIME THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT ADEQUATE TO HANDLE HIGH RISE BUILDINGS. LOGISTIC AND STAFFING PROBLEMS CAN BE WORKED OUT. 14.(F) FIRST AID: BUILDING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW FREE MOVEMENT OF INJURIED PERSONS' FROM ALL FLOORS. 15. ENERGY: THERMAL BALANCE OF INSIDE AIR SHOULD BE STUDIED, THIS NOT ONLY EFFECTS HEATING ABILITY, BUT FIRE SPREAD AND SMOKE DISTRIBUTION IN THE BUILDING. 16. UTILITIES: (C) WATER: DESIGN OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM WILL DETER- MINE NATURE OF WATER SYSTEM. SOME PROJECTS HAVE PROVEN THAT INADEQUATE WATER IS PRESENT AT THAT LOCATION, BASED UPON PROPOSED BUILDINGS OF THE PAST. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHANGE OR ALTER THE ABOVE INFORMATION WITH TOTAL BUILDING PLANS ARE RECIEVED FOR REVIEW. HUBERT H. CRAWLEY FIRE CHIEF C:FILE FIRE PREVENTION FILE CITY OF KWILA ENVIRO.NTAL DUES IOS1 AIRS REVIE•ORM PROJECT NAME: Doubletree Lodge PROJECT ADDRESS: Southcenter Parkway & Strander Blvd. DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 2 September 1977 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) ® Building: Y-6- i2 by: e2, ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: (reviewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: Cvavtz (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 3. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 4. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, Phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986. CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRAftUTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEOPORM PROJECT NAME: Doubletree Lodge PROJECT ADDRESS: Southcenter Parkway & Strander Blvd. DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 2 September 1977 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) ❑ Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ® Police: g • $ 4 by: (reviewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: Project will require full time security office staffed by the hotel personnel,, Project if sucessful will require additional pplice personnel. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 3. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 4. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, Phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986. CITY OF TUvA ENIVIR•ENTAL OUESTIA/\IRE REVISFORM PROJECT NAME: Doubletree Lodge PROJECT ADDRESS: Southcenter Parkway & Strander Blvd. DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 2 September 1977 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) ❑ Building: by: ® Engineering: '� eP /977 by: 4t ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: 2. ANY PPERTINENT COMMENTS: C� % / / a'Av/i/1 C7/ ?gs: STi9g G . -A l/ /�IJG l!> ez4 r1,1/45. /v.v ? A-GW /c/c GZee eS S 7-- f-dT7l.�'E 4J47/ 7Wrki 7`X -e .fib 7 ‘.Jvvi.�.Zr ygaZ5 QGee s S 7t fv7t�.�E jP/ •-re tSA /e/ A O1s- ®,fr2 fief c= e- 6/015" 4 , e Aard*40 / / alkA i C5-7.44,/ Q J.'d. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 4. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, Phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986. Ai CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRO'1'LNTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW ORM PROJECT NAME: Doubletree Lodge PROJECT ADDRESS: Southcenter Parkway & Strander Blvd. DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 2 September 1977 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) ❑ Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: ® Fire: �e /`%J / 9 97 by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: (reviewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 3. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is'exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 4. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, Phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986. RECEIPT'. Received From Adaress� r'U) u ACCOUNT AMT. OF ACC.CU':T AMT. PA■D 8ALAi :CE DUE exaoe R'difirm CHECK ORDER' CITY OF TUKWILA Correspondent's Address: PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION TIMETABLE CHECKLIST PROJECT APPLICANT TYPE OF APPLICATION GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPERTY FEE: RECEIPT NO. FILE NO. 1. APPLICATION INFORMATION: Submitted for Review: By: Additional Information Requested: " Submitted: Requested: Submitted: 2. APPLICATION ACCEPTED FOR FILING: a 141] By: (/tartot alfici4 3. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REVIEW: Additional Information Requested: 19 tcvubcr 1477 " Submitted: yI 1 kv t'u t4riI30 ✓cricm4bcr 1477 Requested: Submitted: Requested: " Submitted: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ACCEPTED: Wp . +1'77-7 By: ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION: By: A. PUBLISHED: .MAILED: POSTED: B. DATE ADVISORY REPORT COMPLETED By: 5. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Hearing Date Assigned Results of Hearing: 6. PLANNING COMMISSION Hearing Date Assigned OCT13lT Results of Hearing: 7. CITY COUNCIL Hearing Date Assigned • Results of Hearing: 8. ORDINANCE OR RESULUTION NO. ASSIGNED DESIGN ,\\ \ `.\.‘ .‘•• • , 'N° "`• • .‘;k, ‘, • \ \*.,\ \‘\' A.‘v•\• \\\ PETER A LENDRUM ASSOCIATE ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING •• LANDSCAPE ARH! 1 cn