HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-132-80 - TSAO & COMPANY - FIORITO / FERULLO HOTELFIORITO MOTEL
SOUTHCENTER BLVD EAST
OF INTF,RURBAN
EPIG132 -80
CITY OF/TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED /FINAL
DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE /'JON SIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal Multi -Story Hotel
Proponent
Wm. S. Tsao Co, Agent for Fiorito /Ferullo
Location of Proposal Southcenter Blvd., Easterly Terminus
Lead Agency City of Tukwila
File No EPIC - 132 -80
This proposal has been determined to (havernat —lave) a significant adverse im-
pact upon the environment. An EIS (is /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
Date 11/30/80
COMMENTS:
Mark Caughey
Acting Director
Signature
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST -- EPIC - 132 -80
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
I) PROJECT. DESCRIPTION
The proposed development is a 12 -story hotel /convention center located at
the easterly terminus of Southcenter Boulevard. The proposed building height
requires a grant of variance from Section. 18.40.030 of the TMC by the Tukwila
Board of Adjustment.
The project is located in a designated area of special development consideration
on the Comprehensive Plan Environmental base map, thus necessitating this
threshold determination.
II) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Information supplied in the checklist seems at points to understate the relative
magnitude of this proposal's environmental consequences. Information on file
with the Tukwila Planning Division from consulted departments of city government
and outside agencies indicate potentially adverse aspects of the project proposal
which must be analyzed in the spirit of "full- disclosure" before proceding with
Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Management Permit approvals.
On advice of the City Attorney, the applicants may seek height variance review
from the Board of Adjustment prior to completion of a D.E.I.S. in order for
the City to determine the extent of hardship or adverse circumstances beyond
the applicant's control which might justify the height proposed in excess of
that permitted by underlying zoning.
III) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
In accordance with WAC- 197 -10 -350 of the State Environmental Policy Act guidelines,
the project is determined to have a significant impact on the environment.
Preparation by this agency of an Environment Impact Statement shall be undertaken
in observance of procedures outlined in WAC 197 -10 -400 through WAC 197 -10 -695.
IV) FINDINGS
(Section references keyed-to environmental checklist form)
SECTION I, ITEMS 1 -12
A) Adequate disclosure - further study not required
* *CAVEAT ** Permit list in Section 1 -9 is not necessarily exhaustive;
it is the applicant's responsibility to obtain all permits
required from agencies outside the city government of Tukwila.
SECTION II, ITEM 1 - EARTH
A) Question lb - Response should be changed to "yes "; almost all open
soils on the site will be overcovered by impervious paving.
SECTION II, ITEM 2 - AIR
A) Question 2a:the project represents an intensity of usage which was
generally not anticipated in this part of the Tukwila community.
TMC Section 18.60.035 confines excessively -tall buildings south of
I -405. This project seems to be an intense generator of vehicle
traffic which may contribute to the cumulative decline in air quality
of the Green River Valley. Quantification of project- related airborne
emissions should be provided in concert with a trip- generation study.
SECTION II, ITEM 3 - WATER
A) The applicants indicate that a "measurable" drop in local aquifer
levels may result from paving of the site. Also, the parking area
run -off collected by the city's storm drain system will be discharged
to the river, thus contributing undesirable chemical and particulate
material to the present fish and wild -fowl habitat.
Policy 4,. Objective 4 of the "natural environment" section of the
Comprehensive Plan encourages balanced usage of the Green River as
a natural, life - supporting amenity, and as a major drainage mechanism
for the valley community. Quantification of the project's anticipated
water pollution products, and detailed study of feasible control
measures should preceed development approval. Discussion of the
probable impact of this project on local ground water resources should
also be provided.
SECTION II, ITEMS 4 AND 5 - FLORA /FAUNA
A) The applicant's disclosure on these items is .generally adequate;
detailed analysis of the shoreline habitat potential of this site,
and specific landscape solutions to encourage re- vegetation of
previously- disturbed fill areas, and to intensify nesting of birds
and small mammals should be explored.
SECTION II, ITEM 6 - NOISE
A) Since the project site is vacant itself, and is surrounded by vacant
lands and a low- intensify public-park, ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity will undoubtedly increase with construction and
occupancy of this project. Comments received from King County Parks
Department anticipate no significant influence of this project on
adjacent Fort Dent Park.
Primary noise potential associated with this project will be from
guest and service vehicles. Quantifications of these noise impacts
should be provided in concert with a formal traffic study.
SECTION II, ITEM 7 - LIGHT AND GLARE
A) Further study requested by the Police Department to enhance public
safety.
• •
SECTION II, ITEM 8 - LAND USE
A) Current zoning provisions of the City attempt to confine intensive
urbanization south of Interstate. 405. The proposed project is
north of that boundary and has the potential to introduce more complex
urban architectural forms and land -use patterns into the Interurban
Avenue Corridor.
SECTION II, ITEMS 9 -11 - NAT. RESOURCES, RISK OF UPSET, POPULATION
A) Adequate disclosure provided.
SECTION II, ITEM 12 - HOUSING
A) Response should be changed from "no" to "maybe ". Applicants indicate
that 150 -200 job opportunities will be created by development of this
project. Due to the extremely limited availability of rental housing
in Tukwila, some employees wishing to live in proximity to their work
at the hotel may be excluded from this community. A detailed analysis
of housing opportunity /commuter distance impacts associated with the
project's employment potential should be provided.
SECTION II, ITEM 13 - TRANSPORTATION
A) Public Works Department has indicated the need for a traffic study
of this facility. Content of the study should include, but not be
limited to intersection capacity analysis,•peak hour volume identi-
fication and demand levels, freeway ramp capacity impacts, delivery
vehicle activity levels, noise and air quality aspects of project -
related traffic., provisions for pedestrian and transit service to the
site, and on- site_ci.rculation.
SECTION II, ITEM 14 - PUBLIC SERVICES
A) Comments received from the Police and Fire Departments indicate a
major adverse demand potential on public safety service capabilities
associated with this project.
SECTION II,•ITEMS 15 AND 16 - ENERGY /UTILITIES
A) Recent media discussion of limited power service extension capability
of Puget Sound Power and Light Co. necessitates further study of possible
alternative power sources, conservation solutions to be incorporated
into the building's design, and emergency power sources necessary to
operate crucial life - safety devices in the project.
SECTION II, ITEMS 17 - HUMAN HEALTH
A) Adequate disclosure provided.
SECTION II, ITEM 18 - AESTHETICS
A) The proposed project will be the tallest building in the city, if
approved as designed. The 120' -130' height may provide a widely
visible landmark from the valley floor and adjoining foothills. It
is conceivable that the project can enhance and inhibit significant
viewsheds in the Tukwila community and immediate region; these view
corridors should be identified and analyzed to insure that the project
is planned in scale to the valley's existing development form..
SECTION II, ITEM 20- ARCHEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL
A) In the course of preparing a threshold determination for a riverfront
development south of the subject site, information received from the
University of .Washington Department of Public Archeology indicates
the potential for discovering significant cultural artifacts on sites
adjacent to the Green River. Accordingly, an archeological resources
investigation should be conducted on this site prior to beginning
construction.
Cia of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
Wm. S. Tsao & Co.
2367 Eastlake Ave...
Seattle, WA. 98102
Re: Environmental Determination, Firito /Ferullo Hotel
EPIC- 132 -80
Enclosed is a copy of a Declaration -Of- Significance and Threshold .Deter-
mination Study prepared in conjunction with the proposed-hotel complex.
As indicated, an Environmental Impact Statement is required to be prepared
and finalized before processing of a Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline
Management. Permit can go forward.
The City Attorney has determined, however, that the City may process your
application for height variance (80 -8 -V) prior to completion of the Draft.
Environmental. Impact Statement. The variance: matter will be discussed by
the Board of Adjustment on.8 May 1980; a separate staff analysis of this
matter will be mailed to you under separate cover.
At your convenience, please meet with me so that we may begin preparation
of. the DEIS..:.....
MC /mkb
Enclosure
TUKWILA NNING DEPARTMENT
Marx Caughey
Acting Director
King County
State of Washington
John D. Spellman, County Executive
Department of Planning and Community Development
John P. Lynch, Director
April 18, 1980
Mr. Mark Caughey, Acting Director
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa 98188
DIVISION OF PARKS & RECREATION
James E. Webster, Director
709 Smith Tower
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 344 -423
tiy: a
O.C.D.
CITY OF TUKt4WIlA
APR 1 1980
Dear Mr. Caughey,
King County Parks has reviewed Variance Application 80 -8 -V -
Wm. Tsao and has no objections.
BJ:db
Sincerely,
Bob Jaco
Manager, CIP Section
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
alro NoT�L
ESTL -( -m-r MIN JS - So C1Tz . sL■/C7
Police:
£Pl eP4S� 0-G-TUeX GoHM TS r`t 2. , M.4`( >
EfvT- OIJV IG AP2
1.. DEPA,R�TMEAL REVIEW: (date) ' (reviewer) -
L�'Building:
by:
/ y
Engineering: by:
Fire: by:
by :
Police: by:
c[327Trrtrg--
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
• CITY OF TUKWILA *!
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME: o rU N OTL
PROJECT ADDRESS: ESTL —( • T1SrLMINUS - so Glz • S�■/p
6FLeAS GOMMrNm js`t ZsJ M.�i
1.. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer)
❑ I9ilding: by:
BEngineering: Li / fel ft by:
❑ Fire: by:
❑ Planning: by:
❑ Police: by:
necEEVED
PUeuc WORKS :1E14.
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: CITY OFTUKWIL1
.4=■ tp- 61-0 M ONT lac u CA,44?) m i n rtm'2 t 6 sivoq
_h6 wr ► w -ry St. ISAt _s C APR] j e 2280
X kA-,4 p % M I:J. c Ifiwl l ‘..c • CU otif) / \L l 1(.) (1 V t z 1 C Mk.' • _
•
City of Tukwila
Fire Department
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Hubert H. Crawley
Fire Chief
OFFICE MEMO
•
Planning Department
Fire Department
Environmental Questionnaire Review Form for Fiorito Hotel
April 25, 1980
The Tukwila Fire Department, with the limited manpower we operate with,
is totally inadequate to handle this structure, in event of an emergency
requiring total evacuation of the patrons and employees. Even with the
builtin protection required by this department, a situation involving
smoke condtitions would probably result in a high loss of life.
This is not the builders problem, but rather the City's. We have allowed
at least three other structures presently being occupied which would fall
in the same classification. Without additional personnel in the department
we cannot, in clear conscience say we can provide thebasic services re-
quired to that structure and its occupants.
This building represents a major impact upon the fire department.
Hubert H. Crawley
Fire Chief
City of Tukwila
Fire Department, 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 575 -4404
• :•
CITY "oF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
r-
1 L • •,•
1.. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW:
❑ Building:
❑ Engineering:.
❑ Fire:
❑ Planning:
9ice:
Qiro NoTtt-- •
E.STL-( f /00)40S - So cflz . C�L1/p
tpLep v,.. GoHM 15,`i A -1
(date)
4-1 -�O
2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS:
'°� + "'r: .... ... _..._..:.. "w,..... _, _. ... -...ter :_+...:..�:.. .,..< .._ - ......... ._
.f •
f SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST — FIORITO HOTEL
(reviewer)
by:
by:
by:
by:
by: P. Low
7
•
DATE 4 /16 /80
MESSAGE 14B — the innumberable and varied problems arising out of a facility
of this magnitude cannot be listed in a checklist memo but require a more formal
1
• •• • -• •w • . _ w • • • • •
r. •
Traffic — vehicle and ped&strian, personal safety — hotel guests and Fort Dent users,
retail tenants, undesirable businesses operating therein, etc. etc. etc.
Suggest the Developer schedule a meeting with this Department.
SIGNED
REPLY
(aEocFORrvj. 45 472
SIGNED DATE
SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT -
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
POLY PAK (SO SETT; 0•72
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST -FORM
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for
permit. 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 the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible.
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
Fiorito and Ferullo -
1. Name of Proponent: c/o William S. Tsao & Company,: P.S.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2367 Eastlake Avenue East,
Seattle, Washington 98102 (206) 324 -8780
3. Date Checklist Submitted: April 4, 1980
City of Tukwila
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Department of Environmental Services
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that . will give."
an accurate understanding of..,its scope and nature): hs
A 12 -story hotel and accessory use.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal,
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under -:`;.
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal)::
Southcenter Boulevard east of Interurban Avenue
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 1983
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YESX N
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit .YESX NO
(c) Building permit YESX • NO
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit
Sewer hook up permit
Sign permit
Water hook up permit
Storm water system permit
Curb cut permit
Electrical permit (State of Washington)
Plumbing permit (King County)
Other:
YES x NO'
YES •X NO
YES X NO
YES X` • NO
YES X NO
YES X' NO
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal ? If yes, explain:,,
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered -by
your proposal? If yes, explain: >;
No
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro -.
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
Variance application filed April 2, 1980
Future (Conditional Use, Building Permit, Shoreline Permit)
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
-2-
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
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?
Explanation:
See attachment.
2. 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 any change in climate, either_
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
See attachment.
3. Water. Will the proposal 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 rate and amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water^`
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) 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 aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(g)
-3
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, . detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
Explanation:
See attachment.
(
4. 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, microflora 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 barrier to the_normal replenishment of
existing species?
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
x
Explanation:
See attachment.
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(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 fish or wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
See attachment.
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
Explanation:
See attachment.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
Explanation:
See attachment.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate bf use of any natural
resources?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation:
10. 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 radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
11. Population.
Explanation:
Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
-riot.oteic kousn -)
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result,in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement ?:.
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or,
demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Explanation:
See attachment.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) ' Schools?
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including:;
roads?
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
15. 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:
Demand upon existing sources of energy is insignificant:."
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
new systems, or alterations to the
following 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:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea
tion of any health hazard or potential'
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
18 Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic yi to or yi.w a n to
_the_publici, or will the proposal result '
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE ': NO
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result,in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his -
torical site, structure,
..object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:.
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency ,'
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful; misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Signature and Title
City of Tukwila
Environmental Questionnaire
for
The Proposed Hotel
by
Fiorito and Ferullo
Explanations and Supplemental Information:
Earth:
Impacts to topography, geology and soils are expected to be minimal.:
in as much as the subject site was covered years'ago with., artificial;, fill ::
derived from land cuts resulting from freeway construction`.':Retenti0r\
of existing vegetation and anticipated supplemental plantings-along the
river levee will help prevent surface water erosion and minor landslidin
•
Although some contribution to the existing level of air contaminants .
result from vehicular pollutants associated with increased traffic to the
Site,. their impact is expected to be negligible in relation to. current; traffic.
pollutant levels generated by major arterials adjacent to and in the vicinity.
of the site.
Water:
Paved surfaces associated with the proposed project; will ;unavoidably:::
inhibit ground water recharge and will result in a small but probably;.-_
measurable drop in the local water table. Surface run- off .from paved
areas will be diverted into the existing storm drainage' system recently;;
constructed on the site under the City of. Tukwila,` Public.Works Project`
No. 25. Run -off from paved areas over levee embankments and
.landscaped areas will be avoided.: As much site area as, practical will be;
maintained in landscaping and plantings in an effort to minimize imize overal'
run -off impacts.
Flora:
The natural botanical population on the site was destroyed'some time ago
though a few small remnants exist at the eastern end near; the. steep 'rive
embankment. Trees and shrubs are absent. Landscaping 're- introduced
City of Tukwila •
Environmental Questionnaire
Explanations and Supplemental Information
Page 2
Flora (cont'd):
the site in conjunction with the proposed action will be of species naturally
occuring in the undisturbed areas along the Green River shoreline.;
Fauna:
Although construction of the proposed complex is a part of a continuing
trend of development along the Green River, the cumalative adverse
effects to biological systems are expected to be minimal. Herbaceous
ground cover - - ■•ved fr.m the site some time ago and subsequentl'
its value as .. bird foraging habitat was lost Existin vegetation on rive
banks will continue to provide foo• and shelter o of the animal,
species presently using them.
Noise:
Although noise generated on the site will increase during construction!
activities, it shall be of a temporary nature, . short in duration;.theaong,
range noise impact of the proposed action is not expected:to be significant:
Light and Glare:
Exterior accent lighting on the building and parking lot lighting will increase:.
night lighting in the immediate vicinity of the building. Lighting will be. kept..
to the minimum necessary for security and safety. Significant impact to. the
•
surrounding activities due to glare is not expected.
Transportation /Circulation
The current traffic capacities on area streets and arterials are not expected
to be exceeded by increased traffic due to activities associated with the pro -
posed project. Traffic associated with the proposed 300,unit facility will ;;
consist primarily of visitor traffic by private automobile., rent- a- car,;or
airport limousine, and employee traffic by automobile or bus services.
Peak load periods are difficult to predict but can be expected to cor.respon
to air flight and tour or convention group arrival and departure times (by;''
limousine and bus), and transient arrival peaks in the early evening and
departure peaks at checkout times in the late morning., Generally these pea
loads are expected to be small and would not normally correspond to peak :i
load periods on surrounding arterials. No traffic problems' are' anticipated'•
due to the functioning of this proposed facility.
Local Services:
The proposed project is not expected to place a significant: demand upon any
local services.
,
City of Tukwila -
Environmental Questionnaire
Explanations and Supplemental Information
Page 3
Employment:
The proposed project is expected to create as many as 150
opportunities.
o 200. employmen
-- -
EGG. DESCRIPTION OF PROPER. •
The nustseseterly scree of ob• Polio... described iscopcvyi.
All thst certsin re. propetty.elteete in the CleY
DI T..143 CO.. Of Sing. Bt... of Washington.
e nd being mote particvlarty de•criked
t '
highway map of rrrrrrr State highway No. 1 ISA 4051
Green elver ttttt change. Ole. 2 of 4 sheets,
established b., Pesolutien Ho. It..
thence. marchsesterit
engles te .12.10 line 0 70•27... 2. fnet.
thence tan to gent the ...ding •lo the
aro Cif • cur. to the left having • radius
700.00 feet and • central angle of 00317'.., en
ere length of 43.54 fee. thence tangent to she
preceding curse N 2240.00. t .7.41 fee. thence
• • 4430.2. - 40.00 feet to • point on the north-
t tttttt y of So./. ttttt Boulevard
to the City of Tukwila, by Deed recorded October
21. 1.4. under AudItteris rile Vo. 1410290105 end
the TIAt POINT 04 DEGIONING of the parcel te be
deecribed h tttttt thence !roc .014 00110 Pol. OE
DEGIONING 4337.4. t 440.40 feet to the hank Of
the Green ttttt . thence along the beni. of the
Green River the following courses and distances,
2445.02. 0 35.20 feet. E ... feet.
• 24•12. t feet. 0 3010.35- t 102..
feet, E 17•0'05. t 42.0 feet. S 0092'00 0
Ie.. feet, S W 72.2e feet, 7240.52
▪ M.. feet. S 7.1.444 w 52.4. feet. B GIs
W 111.47 feet. 11 5.26.4. V 115.30 feet,
end *47405I11471 .21 feet, to • point there's.
thence, leaving said bank of the Green Piver
5.32•5. IS 152.45 Nat to the easterly
said Southcenter Doulevardi thence glens said
easterly ling C 106.52 fee. thence
tangent to Om preceding course along the •re of •
cerve to the left having a radius of 730.00 feet
end • central angle of 00•1.0•. en ere length of
42.51 fee. thence tangent to the p0003109 curve
0 2230.0V E 223.47 fee. thence tangent to the
preceding course along the •re of a curve to tn.
right hissing • radius of 50.00 feet end a central
engle of 24.2.413 arc disgnce 0: 23.14„fset!
GT17.tA:ngrt:471Vto "
17.71Ne.n.
✓ icia POI. or BEGINNING, a. containing 7.335
ace. of Ie. no•• or le..
Less the, dedication or toe northeasterly and
eouthe•sterty 20 feet thereof te the City ef
Eck.. for • river trail system.
- }tem, )
-Eri- /
-
ele.72.• Iieshal , tS■E'
-31(
7(.1
2
Boo- eye. Ighart
vvAkitrr mAr
Pion ri.Gieke-
SI T
Aort.t:
1 PT- ft-gAte, AS; -
0 If
iT
001 NO 00i5
SWEET
R
ti
Q SS.'fl on6
-
. rap.
P�ORITO Ft"uLLo
TiAL'NILk Y:u11Ki11
WILLIAM S. TSAO et C ^„ P.S.
ENGINEERS & ARCHTEZTS
2361 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAE1
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98102_U.S.A. • (206) 324-8180
?Na>. ic46
/h'
LT IT-
4.141 4�n.
•
woe LAW(
1-r p.es•VR FEA14,1%
1,7-Cr r. rwFt1
Cur
rcrcr
-�f
_Fl`! e•O ne.c
. N tYl.iv
ay.t4
tr T41.� I
Fel. �(
L
i r
—T I.
rYt
se =d
MGnc{ if}IZ
16 c-11 EI. - VATIl2ii
sAlr. .,I n.
Tot, P.9