HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-8 - CHRISTENSEN MACDONALD INC - RIVERSIDE RESTAURANT AND MOTELRIVERSIDE RESTAURANT
AND MOTEL
EPIGFD -08
•
ME !ti ,ORANDUM
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
C ITY o r T!LJ '$,` 8 L
14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
December 27, 1976
TO: Steve Hall, Public Works Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor
SUBJECT: Proposed Riverside Development
Christensen - McDonald has recently submitted some more information on their
"Riverside" proposal which addresses the concerns outlined by yourself in
your review of the proposed drawings on 1 December 1976. A'copy of their
letter is attached.
Unfortunately, much of this new information is vague, and rather than answer
any questions it leads only to more questions.
According to their letter, the projected traffic volume is expected to be
about 580 cars daily. I consider this to be a conservative estimate. A
more realistic estimate might be closer to 800 -1000 cars daily, considering
the proposed restaurant use of the three pads.
In your _opinion, is the difference between these two projections sufficient
reason to require a different access point than the one proposed? If so,
would this, alternative point of ingress- egress be opposite South 158th Street?
Also, the developer contemplates hook -up with the existing 6" water line on west
side of West Valley Highway . at the property line. Is the 6" line adequate to
serve this scale of project? And, in addition, are there any problems with
storm water discharging directly into the Green River?
I consider your comments to these questions vital to any final decision on
the environmental' significance of the project.
FS:nb
Enclosure: Christensen - McDonald ltr dtd 12 -16 -76
•
PUBLIC WORKS OEPARTME
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
telephone [ 806 ) 242 - 2177
January 3, 1977
m
Z To: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor
5 From: Steven Hall, Public Works Director .VU VV
N
J
Subject: Proposed Riverside Development
Christensen - McDonald
m 15808 West Valley Highway
m
Y In reference to item 1. of the letter dated 16 December 1976 from Mr.
Q McDonald, I have the following comments:
Q
CL The traffic flow seems reasonable, although, as you stated, slightly
it conservative. However, I am not concerned with the overall average
daily traffic as I am with the peak hourly traffic during maximum
W
W movement times and their possible conflicts with the other major traffic
ill flows on this segment of West Valley Highway. These would include the
W Kent Boeing Facility, Longacres Racetrack and the South Area Regional Park
m located north of I -405. These in conjunction with the normal peak traffic
and the future signal installation at Strander Blvd. and West Valley Highway
Q all provide to the rather horrendous traffic problem during certain periods
W of time each day. At such time as this project is brought into reality,
k• I would request that the proposal be accompanied with a detailed traffic
3 study by a professional engineer with expertise in this field.
As minor and preliminary comments, I am enclosing a drawing which is an
i as -built of West Valley Highway in the vicinity of the proposed develop -
Fm ment. Indicated in cross - hatched red marking is a request for future
W widening and a proposed driveway location. It is felt by this Department
W that the existing two -way left -turn lane as indicated on the map be
Q extended northerly to the end of the existing 158th left -turn southbound
P. island transition located on West Valley Highway. An alternative proposal
(A would be to locate a common access point at 158th Street to the west and
• signalization of this intersection with the participation of all affected
m property owners. This could eliminate some of the current problems and
Z eliminate the compounding of them by future developments in the area between
iE Strander Blvd. and I -405.
W The existing 6" water line on West Valley Highway is not sufficient to meet
W minimum standards for the City of Tukwila. The minimum standard is an 8"
Z cast iron or ductile iron main and this would have to be extended as noted
ain paragraph 2. of the Christensen - McDonald letter. As stated, sanitary
Z sewer is available near the intersection of So. 158th and Nelson Place.
W The storm drainage could flow into the Green River, but must be approved
by and cleared through King County Division of Hydraulics.
This answers the general points which I see within the proposal and each item
will have to be addressed in detail at such time as a more specific proposal
is made to the City of Tukwila.
u
1
}
F
v
SMH /dp EXHIBIT "C"
Conditional Use - Riverside Motel
cc: Richard K. Williams
CITY OF TUKWILA
CER:CIPICATION BY APPLICANT:
I hereby certify that the information furnished in this environmental checklist
sheet is true and accurate to the best. of my knowledge.
CHRIi; ENSEN • MACDONALD • INC.
Signature and Title
Tom MacDonald, Vice President
Project Name: Riverside
Project Address: 1508 West Valley Highway
BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY
10 -26 -76
Date
ACTION BY OTHER"DEPARTMENTS:
1. Date of Review: Building by:
Planning • �3/16P by:
Engineering T14N 7b by: ii'\
Police by:
Fire
2. Agency review of environmental checklist
':The project is exempt by definition.
Check one
CO or (-)
( +) or 0
( +) or la.
( +) or ( -)
( +) or (_)
by::.
determined that:
The project has no significant environmental impact and application
should be processed without further consideration of environmental affects.
The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ
mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit.
More specific information is needed to determine impact.
1 J
atur and. Titl - .o Responsible Official
3. Applicant was notified of decision on:
by
Date
by
Staff Person Letter, phone
In accordance with Washington State Environmental. Policy Act and City of Tukwila
Ordinance No. 759.
(+) Means recommend a full environmental .impact statement be done.
( -). Means recommend a full environmental impact statement not he done.
1 c,-kw- p4 a v€ -k f fi'G i M.p actg. wt
a.c11 oh aua.d Ct4 wwla fi vt � wt.11u
(�u off .wd t'ka%r' a t u. a 4. it . ff c.
N4U+1.oKa1 us& puvwt 4 pAoctss (possi HU.j
--Ufa-vies Director br -+o I i Idi bite - dfirm; t
r £0 ' 46/ec.*
r A' of s u rro u vtA*.
ciotmA4 w i atd
tss van •) *ivtvi Itrr►',IA
w1
fem 'fiat's
4as.
600 Central Building
•
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
December 22, 1976
Richard Vincent
Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 624 -1900
Mr. Gary Crutchfield
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila •
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
-Tukwila, WA. 98188
Dear 'Mr. Crutchfield:
Please send to me any information that is available on
the Christensen- MacDonald, Inc. application for a
motel /restaurant complex at 15501 West Valley Highway.
Also, please advise me of any meetings and /or decisions
made in regard to the application.
Thank you for your assistance.
R. L. Vincent
Project Manager.
RLV:cr
•
MEMO RANDUM
CITY of TUKW LA
• OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
November 30, 1976
TO:. Kjell Stoknes, Respq,nsible Official
FROM: Fred Satterstrom
SUBJECT: Riverside Motel /Restaurant Proposal
The proposed Riverside motel and restaurant complex by Christensen - MacDonald,
Inc. is located on a 5 -acre site southwest of the intersection of West Valley
Highway and South 158th Street. This is the same site for which an EIS was
prepared by. Wilsey & Ham, Inc. in 1973 for an office - restaurant complex pro-
posal of BMA -Mape Industries.
There appears to be several similarities between the present proposal and the
Mape Industries proposal of 1973. To mention a few, proposed parking areas
are roughly equivalent, building coverage of the site is similar, and open
space or "uncovered" areas are approximately the same.
The primary difference between the two proposals, as I see it, is the potential
traffic impact of the uses in the present proposal, which are more commercial in
nature than the original 1973 proposal. If traffic to and from the site should
be greater, the ingress- egress point indicated on the site plan may be indis-
cretely located.
As far as I'm concerned, the 1973 EIS for the BMA -Mape Industries proposal
addresses most of the anticipated impacts of the current Riverside proposal.
"Having been done in September 1973, much of the information and data is still
valid. Therefore, if we can get some additional information from Christensen -
MacDonald concerning potential traffic generation and other minor issues, and
depending upon what this information reveals, we should not have to require
an EIS.
Before a final Threshold Determination is made, I would recommend that we
request the following additional information from the applicant:
1. Traffic: Anticipated traffic volumes to and from the site and its
impact on current traffic volumes on West Valley Highway. Alternative
access points should be analyzed.
2. Vegetation: What will be done with existing trees on the site?
3. Drainage: If drainage is directly into Green River, what, if any,
quality control measures are to be taken at the point of discharge?
4. Additional Information About Proposal Itself: The proposed site plan
indicates three (3) pads with no use identified. These uses need to be
clarified so their impacts can be ascertained. In addition, perspective
drawings of proposed buildings should be submitted as well. I expect
that the motel building could be as high as 6 to 8 floors.
FS/rw
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit
from the city of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official
that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other
forms have been developed for single - family home applications and legislation
proposals.
BACKGROUND DATA:
1. Name of applicant: Christensen • MacDonald • Inc.
2. Address and phone of Applicant: P . O .sox 2218, vancouver , wa . 98661
(206) 696 -0381
3. Project name: Riverside
4. Project location: South 158th West Valley Highway, .TIL wi a, ash.
5. Nature and brief description of proposal:
Motel anti restaurant complex
6. Estimated completion date: June 1, 1977
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain:
No
8. What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this
project?
(a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. YES X N0 d'
.
(b) King County Hydrolics Permit � YES_x NO
(c) Building permit YES x NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO
(f) Sign permit
(g) Water hook up permit
(h) Storm water system permit
(i) Curb cut permit
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington)
(k) P umbing permit (King County)
(1) Other aw 4110%tdd t4 .'4,441, b (dO1,&4110tn '4vi A,,vr dUrrmot4,40Ui' 140Mota,
mutt rettivuk
9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain: No
10. Agency requiring checklist- City of Tukwila, Dep rt tent -
11 Accepted by agency V ICU by:
H. Accep y enc g Y on:
(to be filled in by city upon receipt of check]ist)
YES x.
YES x
YES x
YES x
YES X
YES x
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
NO
• •
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.)
Yes Maybe No
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in
any changes in geologic sub-
structures: x
(b) Disruptions, displacements
or overcovering of the soils: x
(c) Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? x
(d) The destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? X
(e) Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on
or off the site? —
(f) Changes in deposition or
erosion of beach sands, or
in changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which
may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake? X
Explanation:
Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable
odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or
in any change in climate, •
either locally or regionally?
Explanation:
x
Water. Will the pr osal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water
movements, in either marine
or fresh waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the
amount of surface water run-
off?
(c) Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface
water in any watercourse?
(e) Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of sur-
face.water quality, including
temperature or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
acquifer by cuts or excavations?
(h) Deterioration in ground water
quality, either through direct
injection, or through the seep-
age Of leachate, phosphates,
detergents, waterborne virus
or bacteria, or other substances
into the ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
(f)
(g)
Explanation:
fr. Fk iu ± No
x
x
x
x
•
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, micro -flora and aquatic
plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a bar-
rier . to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Explanation:
Fauna.. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects, or micro - fauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna
into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
Noise. Will the proposal increase exist-
ing noise levels?
Explanation:
Its Maybe No
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
•
Yes Maybe No
Light and Glare. .Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? x
Explanation:
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of the present or planned land
use of an area?
Explanation:
Site to be developed with restaurants
Natural Resources. Will the proposal re-
sult in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable nat-
ural resource?
Explanation:
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area? .
Explanation:
X
111 Iles Maybe No
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing availability, or create a demand for
additional housing? X
Explanation:
Transportation /Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular
movement? X
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? x
(c) Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and /or goods? X
(e) Alterations to waterborne or air
traffic? X
x
Explanation:
Local Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new
services in any of the following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c: Schools?
(c) Parks?
(e) Maintenance of public facilit'es,
including roads?
(f) Other governmental services?
Expl; ation:
x
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Explanation:
11,s Maybe
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or alterations to the follow-
ing utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
no more than normal for a developing site.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in the
creation of any health hazard or potential .
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
Explanation:
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
•
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of ex-
isting recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site?
Explanation:
Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi-
cant increase in city revenues ?.
Yes Maybe
Explanation:
potential gross sales of eight million per year.
Employment. Will the proposal create a
significant amount of new jobs?
Explanation:.
Creation of at least 250 new employees.
x
21. do' :PA:,
DATE • .
II,430■Te• .
.,
DRAWN By
- .-...
.... . .
CHE-C.JC4D BY
PROJET:NO. ' • ,'
.:••••• .•'..
LANG540.pgp
C.F.*P44 eel;
MAN 1.1161.1 KAM* 24. lif-7"
w sot .
PgoPc),S-0
DRAWING NUMBER
4tDTOR ail=
PROJECT NO. .
SOUTH CEf4 TE
BEaTTLE, WA'<
Prop ^-::,"-. SITE
5 R�� I 4.0 ..r,:
c2' ` srrE %RING h4 1