The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E96-0004 - HOTEL DEVELOPMENTHOTEL DEVELOPMENT NEW HOTEL CONSTRUCTION 4006 S. 139'" ST. E96-0004 TO: FROM: Steve Lancaster ,.P U\)4 RE: i o Tukwila Department of Community Development Inter -Office Memo Project File E96-0004 Proposed Hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street SEPA Determination Evaluation DATE: January 17, 1997 As the City of Tukwila's SEPA Responsible Official, I determined on May 60996 that this proposal to demolish an existing 18 unit "tourist cabin" complex and develop a 44 unit hotel would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts if appropriately conditioned (mitigated). Therefore a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) was issued. The project has subsequently undergone a major redesign, including a reduction in the number of rooms to 38, reduction in the number of stories to two, and the addition of underground parking. I have determined that these changes do not create any environmental impacts beyond those considered in the initial determination. I also find that the nine mitigation measures originally imposed are still relevant to the redesigned project and act to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proj ect. Therefore the initial MDNS and nine mitigation measures will be retained and applied to the current design of the project. RAND L. KOLER DIRECT DIAL: (206) 621-6441 • KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. LAW OFFICES THE BRODERICK BUILDING • PENTHOUSE SUITE 615 SECOND AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2203 PHONE (206) 621-6440 • FAX (206) 587-0226 RECEIVED JUN 0 3 1996 COMMUNITY May 31, 1996 DEVELOPMENT Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re:ETIMEile°" 9.6 0004- Dear Mr. Lancaster: Thank you very much for your letter, dated May 24, 1996, . regarding the Planning Commission/BAR public hearing. With almost startling promptness and rare accommodation you responded to my letters and informed me of the status of the project. Your courtesy and consideration of the points raised in my correspondence is very much appreciated. Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. //-- `1 Rand L. Koler RLK:jk cc: Nancy Lamb c: wp51 \lamb\lan05-31.Itr\05.31.96 May 24, 1996 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Rand Koler Koler, Rosen & Fitzsimmons, P.S. 615 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-2203 SUBJECT: EPIC File #E96-0004 Dear Mr. Koler: Thank you for your correspondence dated May 21 and May 23, relating to the proposal by the owner of Econo Lodge to demolish existing tourist cabins and build a new 44 unit motel. The attached memo dated May 23 responds to the issue raised by your May 21 letter. The remainder of this letter will respond to the issues raised in your May 23 letter. In the second paragraph of your May 23 letter, you reference a statement from the DCD. staff report to the effect that no comments had been received regarding MDNS #E96-0004. The statement was true on the date the staff report was written. Subsequently received comments have been reviewed and considered, as documented by my attached May 23 memo. This memo and copies of the related comment letters were provided to the Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review prior to their public hearing on the project proposal. The third paragraph of your letter offers the opinion that no waivers of standards should be allowed in this situation. For your information, the Planning Commission/BAR has decided to not grant the applicant's request for a modification of the loading zone standard, and to require the additional 25% landscape buffer at the southeast corner of the project rather than other alternatives available to them. This will require a redesign of the project and may result in a reduction of units. For this reason, the Planning Commission/BAR has continued its consideration of design approval pending presentation of a redesign meeting these requirements. Your concern that off-site parking would be illegal is unfounded, since we agree with you that old King County standards cannot be applied to a re -striping of the Econo Lodge parking lot. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Mr. Rand Koler May 24, 1996 Page 2 of 2 Any re -striping will be required to meet the current dimensional standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code. As explained to the Planning Commission/BAR at its public hearing, TMC Section 18.52.030 (1)(b) does not require a minimum 15 feet landscaped area in this situation, but 12.5 feet Coi 10 feet with a decorative fence or solid planting screen). The clause, "with a minimum of five feet" has been interpreted to refer to the minimum total width of the landscape area. The remaining issues you raise will be resolved by the Board of Architectural Review as it continues its consideration of this proposal. A revised proposal is scheduled to go before the BAR at its June 27 meeting. A copy of your May 23 letter was submitted to the Board at its May 23 public hearing by Nancy Lamb. Thank you for your interest in this proposal. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development cc: LCase File #E96-0004_ Johnny Cheng Nancy Lamb TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO: Project File No. E96-0004 FROM: Steve Lancaster SUBJECT: Proposed hotel development at 4006 S. 139th SEPA Threshold Determination DATE: May 23, 1996 On May 6, 1996 I issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) for the above - referenced proposal. During the 15 -day comment period I received correspondence from three parties relating to the MDNS: • Letter from Johnny C. L. Cheng, AIA, dated May 14, 1996. Mr. Cheng is the applicant for the hotel design review proposal. • Letter from Nancy Lamb, dated May 16, 1996. Ms. Lamb is an interested citizen who resides in the vicinity of the proposal. • Letter from Rand L. Koler of Koler, Rosen & Fitzsimmons, P.S., dated May 21, 1996. Mr. Koler is an attorney who is apparently representing Nancy Lamb. Copies of these letters are attached. After considering these letters I have determined that it is not necessary to revise the MDNS issued on May 6, 1996, under File # E96-0004. I have concluded, based on the information available, that the mitigating conditions attached to the MDNS are both necessary and sufficient to ensure the proposal does not have a significant adverse environmental impact. This conclusion means that additional conditions are not needed to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts that would require preparation of an EIS. Letter from Johnny C. L. Cheng AIA. dated May 14. 1996 Mr. Cheng requested that MDNS condition #3 be revised to reduce the required fence height along the east property line from 8 feet to 6 feet. He has offered no evidence or argument as to why the 8 foot height is unnecessary, other than his opinion that it would be "too tall and unattractive." Letter from Nancy Lamb, dated May 16, 1996 Ms. Lamb suggested a number of additional conditions for the proposed development, including additional parking; revised pedestrian access to the proposed facility's entrance; a requirement for a planter strip separating the 139th Street sidewalk from the curb; and additional security measures, including higher fences and surveillance cameras. Even though I have determined that additional conditions are not needed to ensure that adverse impacts do not cross the threshold of significance and therefor require preparation of an EIS, it should be noted that additional conditions addressing environmental impacts may be attached to specific permits or approvals for this proposal if the requirements of 43.21C.060 RCW are met. In summary, it is required that conditions imposed under SEPA must be based on specified city policies; must mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts identified in the environmental documents related to the proposal; must be stated in writing; and must be "reasonable and capable of being accomplished." Letter from Rand L. Koler of Koler, Rosen & Fitzsimmons. P.S.. dated May 21, 1996 In issuing the MDNS for this proposal I indicated that the basic land use decisions made under the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances should not be reanalysed in making the SEPA determination on an individual project, citing ESHB 1724. Mr. Koler has taken issue with this statement, presuming it was based on Section 202 of ESHB 1724. Actually my statement was based on Section 403 of ESHB 1724, which states in pertinent part: Given the extensive investment that public agencies and a broad spectrum of the public are making and will continue to make in comprehensive plans and development regulations for their communities, it is essential that project review start from the fundamental land use planning choices made in these plans and regulations. If the applicable regulations or plans identify the type of land use, specify residential density in urban growth areas, and identify and provide for funding of public facilities needed to serve the proposed development and site, these decisions at a minimum provide the foundation for further project review unless there is a question of code interpretation. The project review process, including the environmental review process under chapter 43.21C RCW and the consideration of consistency, should start from this point and should not reanalyse these land use planning decisions in making a permit decision (emphasis added). cc: Johnny Cheng Nancy Lamb Rand Koler • KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. LAW OFFICES THE BRODERICK BUILDING • PENTHOUSE SUITE 615 SECOND AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2203 PHONE (206) 621-6440 • FAx (206) 587-0226 RAND L. KOLER DIRECT DIAL: (206) 621-6441 May 21, 1996 -VL4-FACSIMILE: - 431 -3665 - Steve Lancaster Director of Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 South Center Blvd., #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED MAY 2 2 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Project File #E96-0004; Econo Lodge Expansion Proposal Dear Mr. Lancaster: You requested comments on the proposed mitigated determination of non -significance in connection with the Econo Lodge application for expansion. Your inter -office memo, dated May 6, 1991, indicates that this determination did not take into consideration the impacts which you deemed applicable to the development of the community's comprehensive plan and development regulations. You state that these decisions cannot be reanalyzed, citing Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1724. ("ESHB 1724") I presume your reference to ESHB 1724 is intended to allude to Section 202 of that bill. Subsection 1 provides that the environmental analysis may be unnecessary if the town's "development regulations and comprehensive plans... provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action to which the requirements apply." This new section has'very_ specific requirements insubsections (2), (3); (4), (5) and (6). From the inter -office memo and your May 6th letter, it appears that the requirements of ESHB 1724 have not been .met with respect to the adverse impacts listed in my previous letter. The Legislative conditions not having been met, it is erroneous to conclude that these adverse impacts should not be considered by the City of Tukwila in connection with Iamb\Ian0521.Itr/5.21.96 Steve Lancaster May 21, 1996 Page 2 environmental review. In fact, under this legislation, I believe that the City of Tukwila is required to consider the identified adverse impacts in the absence of a determination under section 202. It is not sufficient to say that an action is authorized under zoning and building ordinances. Adams v. Dursten County, 71 Wa. App. 471, 855 P. 2d 284 (1993). The considerations listed in my previous letter are well within the SEPA parameters established by court decision. See, e.g. Victoria Tower Partnership v. City of Seattle, 59 Wa. App. 592, 800 P. 2d 380, review denied 116 Wa. 2d .1012, .807 P. 2d 884 (1990). In short, the second paragraph on page 2 of your memo, dated May 6, 1996, is incorrect. Please feel free to call me regarding this matter. Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. Rand L. Koler RLK:mo lamb\lan0521.1tr/5.21.96 • 4251 South 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168-3260 IAMB FAMILY Ron, Nancy, Braden, Kirsten Telephone: 206-243-3716 LambtownWest@msn.com May 16, 1996 To: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Official Re: File #96-0004 FLECEWEP MAY 16 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT As pertains to the application for construction of a 44 -room motel/hotel at 4006 S. 139th St., and the mitigated determination of nonsignificance dated May 6, 1996, I request that you consider the following. Although it may seem a small matter, perhaps it would be helpful if the 44 -unit mo- tel/hotel project were given a name that could be used consistently. The applicant, owner, consultants, and others too easily can put a different "spin" on this project by using names which tend to glorify it beyond its basic essence. It is apparently yet an unnamed motel, and it seems to fit the definition of a motel listed in the zoning code (a "hotel" usually pro- viding room service of food, for instance). To my knowledge, there has been no communication from the applicant, Johnny Cheng, referring to it as an EconoLodge project, yet the city's own notice of the BAR hear- ing on this project refers to it as "Econolodge Hotel". The owner of the EconoLodge, Mr. Lin, is apparently the developer, but in discussing this project with at least one neighbor, he stated that the project was not connected with the EconoLodge. Materials submitted by the applicant seem not to use a name, and the traffic study calls it "Sea -Tac Motel". I'm somewhat confused, as well, by references to this project as both "motel" and "hotel". While the applicant presents it as a "hotel", implying amenities above and beyond those customarily found in a "motel", the traffic consultant calls it a "motel". What appear to be national standards for calculating traffic volume are used in Gibson Traffic Consult- ants' submissions to the file. Pages 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the Gibson fax sent April 30, 1996, used an "ITE TGM Code 320" — identified as pertaining to motels. Trip generation data for motels has been used, and may be appropriate, given that one needs to consider the "worst case" for traffic volume. This, though, assumes that more guests would arrive and depart in private or rental cars if it's a "motel" instead of a "hotel". However, the Gibson fax on page 16 evokes an interesting question because of the following item — "Employment density: The average employment at motels is much lower than at hotels. The average employment density of the motels surveyed is 0.44 employees per room; the range is 0.14 to 0.58." If this project is a motel, we can assume 0.44 employ- ees per room, or 19.36 employees total, spread throughout the day; if it is a hotel, as the applicant purports, the number of employees would be greater. (And we cannot assume that any employees would use public transportation.) The owner would surely want to hire enough employees for proper maintenance of his facility and excellent treatment of his guests. A high room occupancy rate must also be assumed, with full or near -full use of all parking stalls on site. Yet: Where are any of the employees going to park? Already there aren't enough parking spaces on the site for the number of rooms the applicant proposes. Will employees park on the street, then? And if so, what does this do to the residential street the motel fronts on? And would tavern parking also be affected, sending more pa- trons' cars into the residential neighborhood to the east, south, and northeast? Employees who don't occupy on-site parking stalls might be able to parallel -park on the street in front of the motel/hotel (perhaps up to three would fit). But the applicant has 1 not designed a loading area. Again this begs a question: Where are delivery trucks going to station themselves for loading and unloading, when the public street is likely to be occu- pied by parked cars? With these factors considered together, the SEPA decision should address mitigation measures pertaining to the impact of non -guest parking on the neighborhood - specifically, parking for employees cars, delivery trucks, and displaced tavern patrons' vehicles. I would next call your attention to the Gibson fax on page 6 (actually page 3 of the April 29 cover letter). The Trip Distribution section states that 60% of the site traffic would turn south onto the highway, with 30% turning north. (Conversely, 30% of the site traffic would come south on the highway and turn left onto 139th to reach the motel/hotel.) With all the other local traffic and EconoLodge traffic using this intersection, and the majority presumably making left turns either onto or from the 45 MPH highway, it seems likely that this intersection will be prone to be the site of more accidents. Has the intersection been adequately studied by the appropriate city authorities? As the 1995 Comprehensive Plan states, in paragraph 2 of Purpose under the Resi- dential Neighborhoods chapter, the goals and policies "give the highest priority to achiev- ing the image of neighborhood quality". Goal 8.2 states the need to ensure an environment that "is a positive reflection of the City as a whole and of the surrounding residential and business community". This motel/hotel project, which unfortunately asserts its presence at what should be a sheltering or protective gateway of an important residential neighbor- hood, needs to be held to the highest standards possible, therefore. The highest standards must also apply to the pedestrian element and streetscape as- pects of this project, and appropriate mitigation conditions are requested below. South 139th is a residential street. That a commercial development is allowed to have its only ac- cess onto the residential street is, of course, a problem to reconcile within the Comprehen- sive Plan and its application to this site. 1 In Policy 13.2.3 it seems clear that this commercial project needs to have direct pe- destrian access to the building. Danger to pedestrians (particularly, but not limited to, handicapped pedestrians) has not been mitigated, because a person would have to cross parking stall #41, encountering two curbs in the process, when approaching the building from the street. Wheelchair access to the front door would require maneuvering into the lane of traffic in the driveway — a driveway which seems destined to be used also by deliv- ery vehicles and garbage trucks. The issue of safe pedestrian access from parking stalls to the front door is yet another matter to be considered by the BAR. The combination of these omissions by the applicant to the following: SEPA mitigation conditions regarding transportation should address the need for safe, proper pedestrian access to this facility's entrance from the resi- dential street and from the parking areas on site. Another issue: The streetscape aspects are both transportation- and aesthetics - related. As stated earlier, South 139th is a residential street. Implementation strategies un- der Policy 7.4.4 call for sidewalk and landscape planter for both sides of residential streets, and "priority for neighborhood quality design features". Figure 11 seems to call for a mini- mum landscape planting of 5 feet in association with a sidewalk in the public right-of-way. Other references call for separation of sidewalk from street (eg., 7.4.6). Since this project is, as stated previously, virtually positioned in the gateway to the residential neighborhood east of Highway 99, it needs to provide an obvious barrier between commercial and resi- dential as a vehicle travels east on 139th; (Goal 7.3 and Policy 7.3.1 reflect this need for di- vision between commercial and residential) in order to prevent non -local traffic from using this residential street beyond the motel/hotel. It seems clear that, if there is not already a specific ordinance requiring landscaped "parking strips" on residential streets, there will soon be one. Any future work on 139th will accordingly need to incorporate landscaped 2 • strips, so the current proposal should be required to install same. (I reiterate the need to hold this project to the highest standards envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.) The aesthetics of the neighborhood, would be immensely impacted by the proposed mo- tel/hotel, and the traffic impact is not to be taken lightly; so: Inkeeping with the goals, policies, and vision of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan, to enhance the character of the neighborhood (and even the project it- self), to meet the recommended higher streetscape standards on this local ac- cess street, to visually help separate commercial use from adjacent residential property, and to provide safer separation of traffic from pedestrians, there should be a mitigation requirement that a planter between sidewalk and street be built according to the standards envisioned by the Comp Plan. The safety of motel/hotel guests and the neighborhood is of great concern. The May 6 mitigation conditions partially address the need for greater security, and the applicant himself admits there would be increased risk of criminal activity associated with adding more motel rooms to the Highway 99 corridor. An 8 -foot fence would help keep trespassers off the residential property on the east side, but the 6 -foot fence surrounding the remain- der of the property wouldn't impair determined trespassers from entering the parking "garage" or other unsecure areas. Furthermore, the "garage" cannot be seen from the mo- tel/hotel lobby, and illegal activity could easily go unnoticed. Of tremendous importance is management procedures, etc., that are being incorporated into the new motel/hotel regu- lations. To eliminate any possibility that this project could be built "grandfathered in" with lower standards than these regulations, these regulations should be a SEPA requirement. Therefore, please add the following conditions: All fences should be solid -8 -foot fences, not just the one on the east side (re: Con- dition 3), to preclude criminal intrusion on the property and make it more "defensible". Security cameras should be installed for proper surveillance of the park- ing garage and western landscaped setback. All standards of the 1996 motel/ hotel regulations (and future amendments) should be adhered to and run with ownership of the property. The Tukwila Police Department should carefully review all plans rele- vant to the security of this property, both for the sake of the motel/ hotel employees and guests and for the sake of the surrounding community. The other conditions listed in the May 6 decision should not be diluted or eliminated. • One hopes that Condition 1 would be applicable if the owner decided to destroy the cur- rent "tourist cabins" and simply make it a parking lot. (The applicant apparently has not considered this an alternative to an oversized motel, however, it would be a reasonable suggestion in light of the fact that the owner claims to be losing money there because of its high crime rate and the effects on the EconoLodge business. A park -and -fly lot would in- crease his revenue, if we correctly read his previous implorations.) I could not end this correspondence without addressing the environmental impact to the community of the land -use choice itself as a motel/hotel: It, is difficult to reconcile that any exploration of the social and public safety impacts of a motel/hotel on the community would have had to happen as part of the EIS process relating to the Comprehensive Plan. Even given the pressure everyone was under to enact this important document, it seems a gross error not to study these impacts in a methodical way, especially when there had been the need for an emergency moratorium on this type of business. This just doesn't make sense. Thank you for taking these comments into consideration. I A Nancy Lamb 3 CHENG & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS May 15, 1996 Ms. Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila 6300 southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed hotel at the corner of S. 139th Street and Pacific Highway S. Dear Ms. Gierloff: Enclosed please find 7 sets of revised plans for your review and approval. We also like to request the waiver of requiring a loading dock for the project. Since there is no restaurant or cafe to be included in this project, and almost all the supplies will be purchased by the owner or his employees at local Costco store with their personal vehicles, there is no need of a loading dock for this project. Enclosed please also find a copy of easement agreement for providing 4 parking stalls at the adjacent project for the proposed hotel development. In order to do so, Mr. Lin will need to re -strip two parking areas: one in front of the building and another parking area right next to east property line. I have instructed Mr. Lin to go ahead with the re -stripping, since he had a permit to do so. The re -stripping will be only to comply with what was approved by King County. No, landscaping changes will be required or needed for this work. I also like to request to change one of the SEPA conditions to allow 6' instead of 8' high wall to be built along east property line. 8' wall is simply too tall and unattractive. I would think the next door neighbors would prefer to see trees we have proposed for the project, instead of a tall wall which will be totally out of scale with buildings in the residential area. Don, the next door neighbor, was very pleased with the design proposal at the open house. Your approval of the above described waivers will be most appreciated. Thank you again. Sincerely yours, CHENG & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS Johnny C. L. Cheng, AIA Architect Enclosures: Revised plans Parking eastment agreement MAY 1 4 1996 #E1 MfT(.;; '!TER ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE 206-441-5745 / FAX 206-441-8760 AFFIDAVIT I,' /LV IA MC/MW-i i O Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting J Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on /VW . CSmoi: ` T /\�CAc)-15 6 -E -7 -S) OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance"`►►►""""' 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action 0 Official Notice 0 Other Other Name of Project !--CONO LO I)o File Number '9110 - nor%t Signature G., Aragon -Marin Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Street Seattle, WA 98122 Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Birchcrest Apts. P.O. Box 925 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jacobson Carlton M Jr 1381337AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Woods Melody J 1380838AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Uhl William A 33239 26 Av SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Gause Sharon 13823 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin 1384438AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Hudson Tommy III 13856 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 I Fickle Dixie L "1 13868 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 ,I, Vu Thinh Tien I 24060 26 P1 S Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 { Huber Leonard E 11652 4 Av S • Seattle, WA 98168 Carter Clarence C Jr 4115 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donald L 13707 41 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 1381438AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 I Clay Ralph L iI 1382638AvS I Tukwila, WA 98168 Bussey Mired D 1.1 1383838AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 'i j ! Ballantyne Sherri Li 1385038AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Stinson Saundra L lI1386238AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 ii Feuling Michael Lawrence i 704 N 74 — Seattle, WA 98103 I Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle, WA 98109 I, Stanley Carl 13709 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M j11371641AvS . I I Tukwila, WA 98168 1i Ir ?iF I Tomaso Donna M 22315 6th.Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 I Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S I i Tukwila, WA 98168 I' Kessell Kelly I 1371741AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W. 1372841AvS• Tukwila, WA 98168 i I Resident 13742 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Palermo Frank 13715 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Kiddoo Corwin 4102 S 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 6 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 981.68 Bicknell Elizabeth H 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 . United Motors 01114 13911 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13921 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13923 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaza 13925 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13874 38th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13820 38th Ave S Tukwila WA 98168 Beemer, Tami 13719 41st Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 ~-• Tenant 13721 41st Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 LIST OF RESIDENTS Wash Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hwy 9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const 13810 Pacific Hwy 9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 /3 3 M . / //L ^��/�� ~^,` '^-� °`~ L ��e) je_m„))( /S -7/J-7 -zy/64- �z. ) ~ /��. � � ( -7;4 I/�. "~_^ _ _ _ .�,'-� :'�,''� ^ , ,Tenant 13751 41st Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 • '• iNglant Mr..20 S 140th St, 430 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant Reid, Niesha `^ � 4020 S 40th St #31 4011 S 139th St � ' TWA g8168 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tukwila, Huber, Beonard 4101 S 139th St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huntell, LeRoy 4110 S 139th St Tukwila, WA 98168 Laundromat 12 S 140th ST 66- Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 41 Tukwila, WA 98168 ` •• • Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #2 Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 43 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 432 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th Ct, 433 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 434 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #35 Tukwila, WA 98169 Tenant 4020 S 140th St'#36 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 9.140th St, 437 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant - -- 4020 9 140th St, 42.0 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #21 Tukwila, WA 98160 — Ten -ant 4020 S 140th St, #22 Tukwila, WA 98168 T enant 4020 S 140th St, #23 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 8'140th St, #25 Tukwila, WA 98168 'Tenant 4020 8 140th St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 146th St, #27 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #28 Tukwila. WA 9q1f.7.p `` ^� `/ 40 S 140th St, 46 Tuk |la, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #7 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 9 140th St, 48 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tonant 4020 S 140th #9 'Tukw�la, WA - Tenant 4020 8 140th St, #10 WA'33163- Terant 4r20 S 140th St, #11 28168 Tena/,t 4020.S 140th St, #12 4020S 140th St 1O Tukt,:ila, WA 9616_ Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #13 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #14 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 '�- CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NCIN'SIGNIFICANC.E (ML S) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF 44 ROOM HOTEL PROPONENT: JOHNNY CHENG LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS. IF ANY: ADDRESS: 4006 S 139 ST PARCEL NO: 7360E+0-0195 SL ITWN/RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E96-0004 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030( )(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA Determination 'are attached. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by 1i /�I 21 _1'IS� The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 dans from the date below. Steve Lancaster Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431-36180 6300 Sout:hcenter Boulevard Tukwila, la, WA 98188 Date Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. 1 • CITY TUKW'ILA CONDITION'S Address: 4030,6 S 139 ST Applicant: Status: ISSUED Permit No: E96--0107074 Applied: 02/23/1996 Type: P-SEPA ONSC Approved: 05/06/1996 Location: Parcel #: 7360601-0195 Zoning: C2 *•k4M•b:4•i4;i.*•k.N•f:4**•k6**•k*.4:i•*k;4**.4k•E*;i.F4kk.4•***_44.*4****•b•44k.4Nk•Ab*•4*.4•M.4•kA••4**•4•h:4•*•k 1. Demolition of existing structures shall be carried out in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 7. The proposed development shall be subject to review by the i'ukwila Board of Architectural Review under the provisions of TMC 18.60. 3. A solid eight feet (8') tall fence meeting all applicable construction 'standards shall be provided along the site's • east property line. 4. Landscaped buffer areas along the east and south property lines shall include a mix of deciduous trees of at least • 2.5" caliper at the time of planting, and evergreen trees of at least eight feet (8') in height at time of planting. lr,.r..igiation of these landscaped areas shall be provided. These and other landscaping regirement's of the. Tukwila Municipal Code shall be met prior to occupancy. 5. A bond or other financial security acceptable to the Dire ctor of Community Development, in an amount not less than 15 0 percent of the cost of landscaping materials and installat ion, shall be provided prior to occupancy: This security sh all be for the purpose of guaranteeing the health and surviv al of all required landscaping for a period of not less than two years following occupancy. 6. No illuminated sign shall be allowed on the north or east facades of the hotel structure. Indirectly illuminated, incidental directional signage may be allowed, if consistent with the Tukwila Sign Code. 7. No parking space needled to meet the requirements of TMC 13.56.050 shall be occupied, or shall be offered for occupancy, by a vehicle other than that of a registered resident, guest or employee of the motel. 8. Security lighting shall be provided along the west facade of the hotel structure; bollard or similar landscape area lighting shall be provided in the east landscape buffer area and the parking area, including the area beneath the hotel building, shall be illuminated for the purpose of enhancing security. A lighting plan and anallysis shall be prepared and submitted at the time of building permit application. and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development, in consultation with the Chief of Police. 9. ihere shall be no vending machines, or other facilities that W.71 provide a likely place of congregation for non -guests located outdoors. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: i • TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTER -OFFICE MEMO Project File No. E96-0004 Steve Lancaster Proposed hotel development at 4006 S. 139th SEPA Threshold Determination May 6, 1996 As the City of Tukwila's SEPA Responsible Official, I have determined that the proposal of Mr. Johnny Cheng, Cheng and Associates, to demolish an existing 18 -unit "tourist cabin" complex and develop a 44 -unit hotel, will not have significant adverse environmental impacts if appropriately conditioned (mitigated). Therefor, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required for this proposal if the mitigating conditions included in the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) issued this date, are implemented. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required where a proposed action will have probable significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated. Conversely, ' where a proposed action, with reasonable mitigation, will not have environmental impacts that cross the legal threshold of "significance," an EIS cannot be required. In making this determination, I have reviewed the Environmental Checklist submitted by Mr. Cheng on February 23, 1996; a memorandum evaluating the Checklist and related information prepared by Assistant Planner Nora Gierloff; and other relevant information in the possession of the City of Tukwila. I have also reviewed and considered correspondence submitted by a number of individuals having an interest in this proposal. These include: • April 7, 1996 memo from Nancy Sandine Lamb. • April 9, 1996 memo from Marilynn VanHise • April 20, 1996 letter from Bob and Janelle Scarber (with cover letter dated April 23). • April 22, 1996 letter from Rand L. Koler (attorney representing Ron and Nancy Lamb). • April 22, 1996 memo from Nancy Sandine Lamb • April 23, 1996 petition bearing eleven (11) signatures. • April 26, 1996 letter from Janelle Scarber. • May 2, 1996 memo from Nancy Lamb • • A number of legitimate concerns were raised by this correspondence and during an informal public meeting held at Foster Library on April 9, 1996 (see memo to file by Nora Gierloff, dated April 10, 1996). While some of these comments cannot be addressed through the City's SEPA authority, others have formed part of the factual basis upon which mitigating conditions were included in the MDNS. Several of the comments I have reviewed express concern about potential impacts that are inseparably linked to the use of the subject site as a motel (e.g., need for alternatives analysis, cumulative impacts of multiple motels in the area). Many of the concerns would apparently apply to any proposal for a hotel or motel. These issues are not appropriately addressed through SEPA review. State law requires that the project review process, including SEPA review, use the fundamental land use planning choices made during development of the community's comprehensive plan and development regulations as a starting point. These decisions should not be re analysed in making a decision on an individual project (ESHB 1724). The following indicates the results of my review of the probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed hotel development: EARTH No significant adverse impacts. AIR No significant adverse impacts, given appropriate handling of any asbestos that may exist in buildings to be demolished (see ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, below). WATER No significant adverse impacts. PLANTS No significant adverse impacts. ANIMALS No significant adverse impacts. Although sightings of hawks, herons, eagles, squirrels, raccoons and opossum have been reported in the vicinity, there is no evidence in the record that the development site itself provides habitat for these species or any species that may be recognized as rare, threatened or endangered. Nor is the proposal likely to significantly affect such habitat that may exist in the vicinity. E96-0004 Page 2 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES No significant adverse impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Potential impacts: Due to the age of the structures proposed to be demolished, there is a likelihood of the presence of asbestos. Demolition creates the potential for asbestos to become airborne, creating an environmental health hazard. Existing regulations established by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, if followed, are sufficient to mitigate this potential hazard. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • TMC 18.24.080. Performance standards (Compliance with standards adopted by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency). Mitigation: Demolition of existing structures shall be carried out in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. LAND AND SHORELINE USE No significant adverse impacts. The use is consistent with the land use designations of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code, and is subject to compliance with the city's adopted development standards. HOUSING No significant adverse impacts. AESTHETICS Potential impacts: The size, shape, and architectural design of a commercial structure on this site creates the potential for aesthetic incompatibility with neighboring uses, even if development standards regulating height, bulk, setbacks, parking , landscaping and other project characteristics are met. This is especially true where a proposed commercial development abuts land designated and used for single family residential development, as is the case here. Potential impacts include: incompatibility of scale; incompatibility of design and color; excessive lighting; interference with access to light and air; and reduction of privacy. Such potential impacts are recognized and addressed by Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Code provisions authorizing and requiring review of proposals such as this by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR). E96-0004 Page 3 Policy Basis for Mitigation: Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60 authorizes the imposition of conditions related to project aesthetics and design. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 also authorize such conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policy 1.7.1. • Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.1, and Policies 8.1.5, 8.1.9, and 8.1.12. • Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.2, and Policy 8.2.18. • TMC 18.24.070 (Design review required for all hotels and motels in RC zoning district). • TMC 18.60.050 (General design review guidelines). • TMC 18.60.053 (Multi -family design review guidelines). • TMC 18.60.055 (Multi -family review guidelines to be used in design review for hotels/motels). Mitigation: The proposed development shall be subject to review by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review under the provisions of TMC 18.60. LIGHT AND GLARE Potential impacts: The size and nature of the proposed hotel create the potential for spillover of light and glare impacting neighboring properties, even if development standards regulating height, setbacks, landscaping and other project characteristics are met. This is especially true due to the site's proximity to land designated and used for single family residential development. Potential impacts could be created by light emanating from hotel room windows (particularly those of the second or third floors), parking area lighting, signage and security lighting. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policies 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. • TMC 18.60.050(3)(H) and (5)(B) and 18.56.053 (4)(D) (Exterior lighting). Mitigation: A solid eight feet (8') tall fence meeting all applicable construction standards shall be provided along the site's east property line. Landscaped buffer areas along the east and south property lines shall include a mix of deciduous trees of at least 2.5 inch caliper at the time of planting, and evergreen trees of at least eight feet (8') in height at time of planting. Irrigation of these landscaped areas shall be provided. These and all other landscaping requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code shall be met prior to occupancy. E96-0004 Page 4 • • A bond or other financial security acceptable to the Director of Community Development, in an amount of not less than 150 percent of the cost of landscaping materials and installation, shall be provided prior to occupancy. This security shall be for the purpose of guaranteeing the health and survival of all required landscaping for a period of not less than two years following occupancy. No illuminated sign shall be allowed on the north or east facades of the hotel structure. Indirectly illuminated, incidental directional signage may be allowed, if consistent with the Tukwila Sign Code. RECREATION No significant adverse impacts. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION No significant adverse impacts. TRANSPORTATION Potential impacts: A Traffic'Impact Analysis has been prepared for the proposed project by Gibson Traffic Consultants (April 29, 1996). This analysis was reviewed by the City Engineer, who has reported that the analysis was performed according to appropriate methods, and demonstrates that there will be no significant adverse impacts related to traffic generated by the proposed development. I have also reviewed traffic studies prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants for the Fosterview residential subdivision, to gain an understanding of the cumulative impacts of these development proposals on traffic in the area. Based on this information, I have found no evidence that the hotel proposal will result in significant adverse traffic impacts. The proposal does, however, have the potential for adversely affecting the parking situation in the area, and if this results in inappropriate parking along substandard streets, could result in localized congestion and safety hazards. The practice of using off-street parking lots for "park and fly" purposes related to the proximity of SeaTac International Airport, reduces the availability of parking for persons actually residing within the hotel units. This in turn can force legitimate hotel parking onto adjacent streets that are not currently built to standards intended to accommodate such use. The owner of the subject property has indicated, during consideration of previous proposals for a hotel on this site, that he has allowed persons who were not residing in his facilities leave their cars parked in his lot (see, for example, verbatim transcript of hearing for EconoLodge waiver, City Council Meeting, January 17, 1995). Persons who stay one night have been allowed to park for up to a week, and people who have not stayed in his facilities at all have been allowed to park for $4.00 per day. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the E96-0004 Page 5 • • conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policy 1.7.3. • Comprehensive Plan Goal 13.1, and Policy 13.1.1. • TMC 18.56. (Off street parking). Mitigation: No parking space needed to meet the requirements of TMC 18.56 shall be occupied, or shall be offered for occupancy, by a vehicle other than that of a registered resident guest or employee of the motel. PUBLIC SERVICES Potential Impacts: Hotel/motel and some other uses in the Pacific Highway corridor of Tukwila have historically placed a disproportionately high level of demand upon police services. The proposal would increase the number of units on the site from 18 to 44, an increase of 26 rooms. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policy 1.7.3. • TMC 18.060.053(3)(C) and (4)(D). Mitigation: Security lighting shall be provided along the west facade of the hotel structure; bollard or similar landscape area lighting shall be provided in the east landscape buffer area; and the parking area, including the area beneath the hotel building, shall be illuminated for the purpose of enhancing security. A lighting plan and analysis shall be prepared and submitted at the time of building permit application, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development, in consultation with the Chief of Police. There shall be no vending machines, or other facilities that will provide a likely place of congregation for non -guests, located outdoors. UTILITIES No significant adverse impacts. E96-0004 Page 6 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 6, 1996 RE: Econolodge Expansion Proposal Dear Neighbor, The owners of the Econolodge Motel at 139th and Pacific Highway have applied to the City of Tukwila to expand directly north, across 139th from the existing motel. Under the proposal the old tourist cabins now on the site would be torn down and replaced with a new three story, 44 -unit hotel. After reviewing a variety of information, including letters and other correspondence submitted by several area residents, the City's Director of Community Development has determined that the proposal will not have a significant adverse environmental impact if specific conditions were met. These conditions are: 1. Demolition of existing structures shall be carried out in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 2. The proposed development shall be subject to review by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review under the provisions of TMC 18.60. 3. A solid eight feet (8') tall fence meeting all applicable construction standards shall be provided along the site's east property line. 4. Landscaped buffer areas along the east and south property lines shall include a mix of deciduous trees of at least 2.5 inch caliper at the time of planting, and evergreen trees of at least eight feet (8') in height at time of planting. Irrigation of these landscaped areas shall be provided. These and all other landscaping requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code shall be met prior to occupancy. 5. A bond or other financial security acceptable to the Director of Community Development, in an amount of not less than 150 percent of the cost of landscaping materials and installation, shall be provided prior to occupancy. This security shall be for the purpose of guaranteeing the health and survival of all required landscaping for a period of not less than two years following occupancy. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fay. (206) 4313665 L96-0002 Page 2 6. No illuminated sign shall be allowed on the north or east facades of the hotel structure. Indirectly illuminated, incidental directional signage may be allowed, if consistent with the Tukwila Sign Code. 7, No parking space needed to meet the requirements of TMC 18.56 shall be occupied, or shall be offered for occupancy, by a vehicle other than that of a registered resident guest or employee of the hotel. 8. Security lighting shall be provided along the west facade of the hotel structure; bollard or similar landscape area lighting shall be provided in the east landscape buffer area; and the parking area, including the area beneath the hotel building, shall be illuminated for the purpose of enhancing. security. A lighting plan and analysis shall be prepared and submitted at the time of building permit application, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development, in 4 consultation with the Chief of Police. 9. There shall be no vending machines, or other facilities that will provide a likely place of congregation for non -guests, located outdoors. If you have any comments about this environmental determination, please send them to: SEPA Official, City of Tukwila DCD, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. Comments received by 5:00 PM May 21st will be considered in deciding whether the determination of non -significance will be retained, modified or withdrawn. You may view the environmental documentsrelated to this proposed development at the same location any time during normal business hours. The design of the project will be presented to the Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing scheduled for May 23 at 7:00 PM in the Tukwila City Council Chambers. The hearing is open to the public and everyone interested in the project is invited to attend. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me or Diana Painter at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431-3670. Sincer�ly, 0 -- Nora Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 4231 South 139th Street Tukwila; WA 98168 USA LAMB FAMILY• Telephone: 206-243-3716 LambtownWest@ausn.com Date: May 2, 1996 To: Steve Lancaster and Nora Gierloff, Dept. of Community Development, Tukwila Re: EPIC File #E96-0004, Proposed Hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila I'm grateful that DCD staff has been cooperative in letting me review the above -listed files as regards SEPA and BAR,. Reading through the memos, notes, and letters, 1 saw several items to which 1 want to respond. .Nora's memo dated April 10, 1996 states that only one comment (#15) is SEPA related. I disagree. Signage, aes- thetics, building height and size in relation to the surrounding context, crime questions, and parking issues are all rel- evant to the environmental impact this project. will have on the neighborhood. I have previously referred to the many social impacts that increased numbers of transient visitors will undoubtedly have on our community as a whole. I be- lieve that these issues should be considered through the SEPA process and should require an environmental impact statement. The memo, however, minimizes the very lcgil.imale concerns presented by the people who attended the April 9 "open house". This is disappointing; I hope it will be reviewed prior to Steve's SEPA decision being issued. I suspect comment #7 relates to the amount of space set aside for. the storage of trash and recycling bins. (The drawing I saw was unclear.) If enough space hasn't been. set aside already, the addition of sane could eliminate a. parking space and therefore a room. It seems like this is a valid concern to discuss in the BAR context, because the size of the bolding (and relationship of parking to the number of rooms) in relation to its neighbors is a key question. Comment #12 refers to the existing EconoLodgc's poor landscaping quality. Separate parties (ultimately- the ownership of either or both of the two motels/hotels will change, and the older motel could even be replaced by a com• - pletely different business) will be responsible for •separate parts of what now is to be a cooperative parking facility, if two spaces arc allocated for the new building's use. TMC Section 18.56.070 requires cooperative facilities to have "al. least the sum" of the requirements for the two businesses. With reference to 18.70.090, there is a change of use, with "Park St_ Fly" (rentalsby non -guests) spaces converted permanently to stalls for guest parking for another business. The need for a permanent. casement. suggests that. BAR review of the change -of -use issue and subsequent imposition of current standards is appropriate. I believe it's necessary for the old landscaping to now conform to current require- ments. Please discuss this landscaping issue related to reassigned responsibility for property. To achieve the best im- agc for Highway 99, and in establishing a precedent. for upholding the goals of the new Comprehensive Plan, it's something the BAR should take into account. Other communications lead to more issues. The proposal shows 41 spaces for the 44 rooms, resulting in one -too - few spaces; i/'Iwo spaces can be allocated across the street al the existing motel. I expect. that. Sec. 18.52.030(1)(b) will require the landscaping in the SE corner of the property (adjacent to parking space #40) to be increased from 10 to 15 feet, because this is directly across the street from single-family zoning. It seems that the 5 -foot landscaping addition would essentially eliminate one morc parking space, so the proposal is two spaces short, or four spaces short if it. is ruled that all parking should be on-site. Also, loading space requirements should not be waived, even if this results in fewer parking stalls, because of safety concerns. [And any request for waiver(s) should originate with the developer, not be t.hc responsibility of DCD staff; it is necessary for the developer/applicant to bear the burden of proof, right?' Safety, convenience and quality of pedestrian facilities? BAR guidelines - Sec.18.60.053(3)(c) for example - call • for direct pedestrian linkages to the public street. Mr. Lin, if that is the developer, has in the past promoted his project as one that will increase pedestrian use of the public streets by his guests, so one might. hope that the guests' safely is of high priority on his own property. However, between the building entrance and the street, pedestrians would have to circumnavigate a handicapped parking.stall (#41), and most on-site parking guests are given no safe wallcways be- tween their stalls and the entry. These problems suggest human concerns arc overshadowed by financial concerns. Regarding the call for a public sidewalk west to the highway (and I believe this should be done wholly at the de- velopers' expense, given the number of guest trips he expects to generate), this will directly impact parking for the tavern. Will the neighborhood have to endure more tavern patrons' cars on the residential streets? This needs study. Therefore, even just based on the parking/loading/access questions, the total number of rooms ought to be re- duced. In regard to the number of rooms and the resulting density issues which I brought up in April, I look forward to reading your comments on applying the multi -family criteria. But as I've said before, i don't think this proposal should be presented to the BAR until appropriate changes are made. Thank you for your attention to these comments. —Nancy Lamb APR -30-1996 14:55 P.02 0 MOCK° TQQFFOC COK8UL AwV@1 8,,,, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING •TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1712 PACIFIC AVENUE • SUITE 100 • EVERETT, WA 98201 • PH: (206) 339-8266 • FAX: (206) 258-2922 April 29, 1996 Ms. Joanna J. Spencer Development Engineer City of Tukwila, Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECET4 D APR 3 01996 TUKWILA PUBLIC WOR! t3 Re: Sea -Tac Motel (26 New Rooms); Pre -Application File No. PRE96-001 Traffic Impact Analysis Requested by the City of Tukwila; GTC Project #96-030 Dear Ms. Spencer: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been retained by Johnny Cheng (applicant) to provide supplemental traffic information per the City of Tukwila's Pre -Application Conference Review Form for the Sea -Tac Motel, to be located north of S. 139th Street and east of Pacific Highway South. This memorandum letter is intended to provide the City of Tukwila with the necessary traffic generation/distribution information, so as to facilitate their review of the proposed commercial development. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT AND ACCESS The proposed commercial development site is located on the north side of S. 139th Street approximately 60 feet east of Pacific Highway South in the City of Tukwila (see Figure 1). The development would consist of a 44 -room motel to be constructed and operating in 1997. Currently on the project site, there is an existing 18 -room motel which will be removed with the project. Therefore, there will be a net increase of 26 rooms. The project's proposed access would be a full access driveway onto S. 139th Street. METHODOLOGY Trip generation for the proposed commercial development has been estimated using ITE trip generation rates for average weekday daily (AWDT) and p.m. peak traffic per WSDOT guidelines. These rates are based upon the research data for "motel" contained in ITE's Trip Generation, fifth edition (January 1991), Land Use Code 320. A trip 7 i 2 • EIS • HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS • PARKING/ COUNTSlSURVEYS •SITE IMPACTS • LOS ANALYSIS � APR -30-1996 14:56 P. 03 883 jic1O to W Z w 832 PROJECT SITE S 144TH STREET 698 N 1,118 O co Q. GIBBON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS 86 O. 297 504-78 1,435 161 0 341 N S 139T11 STREET 42ND AVENUE S TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SEA -TAC MOTEL 26 NEW ROOMS CITY OF TUKWILA LEGEND AWT EXISTING STREET TRAFFIC PM -»PEAK (DAILY/PEAK HOUR) FIGURE 1 EXISTING STREET TRAFFIC VOLUMES ; APR-30-1996 14:56 Ms. Joanna J. Spencer April 29, 1996 Page 2 a P.04 generation credit was taken for the existing 18 motel units. The Econo Lodge on Pacific Highway South near the project site has an existing occupancy rate of 67 percent. Per the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the average percent occupancy for motels/hotels in downtown Seattle is nearly 80 percent. Per Ron Cameron's request, GTC has assumed 100 percent occupancy to analyze the "worst-case" scenario for an average weekday. Trip generation was performed using the net increase of 26 motel rooms. The assumed trip distribution was based on recent traffic counts and likely destinations of motel patrons. Historic traffic count data obtained from the City of Tukwila in the • project vicinity indicate a decrease in traffic volumes; however, for estimating future baseline traffic volumes, GTC has assumed a 1 percent growth factor in background traffic to be conservative. EXISTING ROAD SYSTEM & TRAFFIC VOLUMES The existing road/highway system in the vicinity of the project site is shown on Figure 1. Pacific Highway South/SR-99 is a 5 -lane north -south primary State highway, which connects Seattle with the Sea -Tac International Airport and the Southcenter Mall via I-405. Existing pedestrian traffic volumes, average daily traffic volumes (ADT), and p.m. peak hour intersection approach volumes near the project site were obtained from the City of Tukwila's "Pacific Highway South Traffic Study" (December 1994) and from Robin Tischmak (City of Tukwila). From 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Pacific Highway South carries 50 pedestrians or less along the east sidewalk near the project site. Existing traffic volumes obtained from the City are shown on Pacific Highway South and 42nd Avenue S. in Figure 1. S. 139th Street provides local access east of Pacific Highway South and presently carries 1,435 ADT with 50 vph westbound and 78 vph eastbound during the p.m. peak hour. TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS (Future Conditions) Future Baseline Traffic Volumes GTC obtained records of month-to-month traffic volumes and their annual average for Pacific Highway South north of S. 139th Street from Robin Tischmak (City of Tukwila). The annual ADT from 1992 to 1995 has decreased from 19,156 ADT to 17,740 ADT. The traffic count data indicates decreasing traffic volumes in the site vicinity; however, GTC has conservatively applied a 1 percent growth factor to existing traffic to project future 1997 baseline volumes. Future directional p.m. peak and two-way daily traffic volumes without the project are shown on Figure 2. RAFFIC Oa@Md4Qa4g APR -30-1996 14 57 P. 05 w 1 670 0 r- 841 841 97 d O. PROJECT SITE 706 intco S 144Th STREET 300 61 1,449 153 ata Q 344 N S 139TH STREET 42ND AVENUE S GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS SEA -TAC MOTEL 26 NEW ROOMS CITY OF TUKWILA LEGEND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 2 AWDT FUTURE STREET TRAFFIC FUTURE 1997 PMS»PEAK (DAILY/PEAKHOUR) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES APR -30-1996 14:57 Ms. Joanna J. Spencer Apri129, 1996 Page 3 Trip Generation • P.06 As previously stated, traffic generation estimates are based on ITE rates for the proposed "motel" use. As noted above, a trip generation credit was taken for the existing 18 -unit motel. Thus, the proposed development consists of 26 new rooms (44 rooms - 18 existing rooms). GTC has assumed 100 percent occupancy to assess the "worst-case" scenario on an average weekday. The proposed commercial project can be expected to have trip generation characteristics as summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Traffic Generation Trip Distribution Trip distribution and assignments for the subject project are based on the proximity of employment, shopping, and tourist destinations, as well as recent traffic counts in the area. It is estimated that 30 percent of the site traffic would be destined north on Pacific Highway South towards Seattle and northbound I-5 (see Figure 3), and 60 percent of site traffic would be destined south on Pacific Highway South towards Sea -Tac International Airport, Southcenter Mall and southbound 1-5. The remaining 10 percent of site traffic would be destined east on S. 139th Street towards 42nd Avenue S. which provides an alternate route to E. Marginal Way to the north and Military Road S. to the south. Future Traffic Volumes with Project Project traffic volumes from Figure 3 have been added to the traffic volumes shown in Figure 2 to determine future daily/peak volumes with project. The two-way daily and p.m. peak directional volumes on Pacific Highway South and 42nd Avenue S. with the proposed project are shown on Figure 4. We trust that this letter report and attachments adequately address the traffic generation/distribution for the proposed Sea -Tac motel development,so that the City of OOK RAFFIC New Trips YDhc .. PM Peak Land Use Ai'Y:<x' Total Inbound Outbound 26 New Rooms (100% Occupancy) • •"'' '' �' ...... °:.>rr.R,. 16 9 7 Trip Distribution Trip distribution and assignments for the subject project are based on the proximity of employment, shopping, and tourist destinations, as well as recent traffic counts in the area. It is estimated that 30 percent of the site traffic would be destined north on Pacific Highway South towards Seattle and northbound I-5 (see Figure 3), and 60 percent of site traffic would be destined south on Pacific Highway South towards Sea -Tac International Airport, Southcenter Mall and southbound 1-5. The remaining 10 percent of site traffic would be destined east on S. 139th Street towards 42nd Avenue S. which provides an alternate route to E. Marginal Way to the north and Military Road S. to the south. Future Traffic Volumes with Project Project traffic volumes from Figure 3 have been added to the traffic volumes shown in Figure 2 to determine future daily/peak volumes with project. The two-way daily and p.m. peak directional volumes on Pacific Highway South and 42nd Avenue S. with the proposed project are shown on Figure 4. We trust that this letter report and attachments adequately address the traffic generation/distribution for the proposed Sea -Tac motel development,so that the City of OOK RAFFIC APR -30-1996 14:57 P.07 99 2 40TH AVENUE S 30 3 PROJECT SITE 4 S 138TH STREET S 144TH STREET X 0 y 0 d 42ND AVENUE S GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY SEA -TAC MOTEL 26 NEW ROOMS CITY'OF TUKWILA LEGEND AWDT NEW SITE TRAFFIC pM {—> pEAK (DAILY/PEAK HOUR) TRIP DISTRIBUTION % FIGURE 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION APR -30-1996 14 58 (t • P. 08 612 1 w 0 `$ 944 PROJECT SITE S 144114 STREET 710 1- r N 1,133 97 1 301 62 �» 80 1,475 163 Z/;03 343 N S 139T11 STREET 42ND AVENUE S ` GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS SEA -TAC MOTEL 26 NEW ROOMS CITY OF TUKWILA LEGEND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AWDT FUTURE STREET TRAFFIC PMS—>.PEAK (DAILY/PEAK HOUR) FIGURE 4 FUTURE 1997 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES APR -30-1996 14:58 Ms. Joanna J. Spencer April 29, 1996 Page 4 • • Tukwila can complete its review of the proposed development. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us at (206) 339-8266. Thanks, Joanna, for your timely coordination. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. PS. Corr/-• frz. Terry L. Gibson, P.E. President Attachments XC; Johnny Cheng, Cheng & Associates, Architects P. 09 M /29 ,.2 j O g OOKI RAFFIC OaOULTANTO APR -30-1996 14 58 01,11 i'. Emir Ze'd 1311 f 1 1 k gi f :i h it it 0 00i ZZ6ZgSZ96ZT Ol P. 10 Sald130550 1 9143HO UOVA 81:St 966I,LZ'Le .'APR -30-1996 14:58 • GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS Project: Sea -Tac Motel Project Number. 96-030 Land Use: Motel ITE TGM Code: 320 Analysis Case: Weekday PM Peak Analyst CAD Date: 4/22/96 Checked By: pate: Trip Generation Variables & Results Variable Quantity Unit of Measure • Source kt` :r. ,`a� c erfM •�`} c.•��vyjSl,T4, f.•.••7`•R�.0.1,1. wr:.Y4�'5`fi�` ae ,. = ero� - 'n` b ;', Kv 1 • - .ex.a x w ` -,,,••• ,J"4 wi''. d ^,cR � x %A e» pa —::•%:!::<.<:::.;.•", x1.Kp��ov r=1e ancy}a r Occupied Trips / Rooms ITE "Trip Generation" Manual, 5th edition ADT Trip Generation Rate 10.19 Gross ADT 265 Gross ADT ADT Rate x Site Variable x ^�Y3 Lr'ni U^•?%. J,xiih� xx^'m. A:..... . g n yy yw .-,.,),;,..-;;:v;.:-..�,> �pN�Tp' 'A T.W Wa: a i» •••.i �..&s�c<.; .YFL'i4 , 6 ‹ by i� ;e0e�� '. 'Y! '<•r.>"n� e x 4k ., ..t. -",: P» -'-3.. ? xo..�� .w...... A 51•!it z *wQewwat x>ay a ''' .A M ''' 4F% i ":,----....6 .k- -.. ..1. tee^,w •'i w.sr ? `"°"✓.'s�e"'o c• V..=.y 1}� x(n , Q'�p` » s 3+ '�i ' .eb i f w w ' aD�In rm yJ�u� p■�e�p' 3 ' T P> \I ■ !� %O4C PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate 0.60 Occupied Trips / ms ITE "Tridip Generation" Manual, • 5th edition Gross PM Peak16 Hour Trip Total xr ,-. • Gross PM Peak Hour .Trip Total xx xe 2 ,� PM Peak Hour Rate x Site Variable a Q ...n xw�,>..J.>I•:.c'aiair :...: j, w �' 4',,,,.....&:=4:',z. T�4P �.'RxMaicTipsK� P. 11 • •RPR -30-1996 14 59 • GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS Project Sea -Tac Motel Project Number: 96-030 Land Use: Motel ITE TGM Code: 320 Analysis Case: Weekday PM Peak Analyst CAD Date: 4/22/96 Checked By: Date: ADT & PM Peak Hour Trips Distributed by Trip Type Table to Check for Rounding Inaccuracies (Values rounded to the nearest hundreth of a trip) Trip Factors (%) ADT Trip Factors (%) ADT PM Peak Hour Trips Total Total ADT Peak our Total Total OK 56% In OK 44% OutTraffi OK Gross Total OK OK OK 100% 100% OK Pass -By 265 OK 16 OK 9 OK 7 Crossover Trips OK OK 0% 0% OK New 0 0 OK 0 OK 0 OK_ 0 Pass By Trips OKE OK OK 0% 0% 0 0 0 Diverted Trips 0% 0% 0 0 • 0 0 .l'.:l �... .,i li< •c 7 R w. N 1 Hca r ,,.....V* Subtotal Check 100% 100% 265 16 9 7 Subtotal vs. Gross Total OK OK OK OK OK OK Table to Check for Rounding Inaccuracies (Values rounded to the nearest hundreth of a trip) P. 12 Trip Factors (%) ADT PM Peak Hour Trips - ADT Peak• Traffic Total Total 56% In 44% Out Gross Total OK OK OK OK OK OK Crossover OK OK OK OK OK OK Pass -By OK OK OK OK OK OK Diverted OK OK OK OK OK OK New OK OK OK OK OK OK_ Subtotal Check . OK OKE OK OK OKI OK P. 12 APR -30-1996 15:00 • Ecom L004,16 Aver? RJe TRA SPARENT RECORD aaa - aMAR29 46: 9 is Y-ar 47 • ■ • 57 • .• • • • OMB re. sop DD DDDDDVDJanDrFebDDMarDDAnrDDMavDDJ'unDDJu1DDAugDDSenDDOctDDNevDDDecDDDDDDDAvg,D 90 91 96 93 P.13 • This Year/Last Year Occupancy 16: • 46 • • • ast ear 72 ... ... .•. ... •.. ... ... 66 /� •.5IP J4 54 ... . • • . . . • • • .. . .. J( 1 4 Q • • • • • . • • . . • . • . . 43 • . . ... •-• 11UP •.. ••• ••• ••• •.. ...• ••• •.• ... ••• .•• ••• ••• .•• DD DDDDDPPJanDDFebDDMarDDAarDDMayDDJunDDJu1DDAugDDSeoDDOctDDNcuvDDDecDDDDDD • APR -30-1996 15: 00 Spring • P.14 a Seattle -King County Con _ tion & Visitors Bureau 1996 S&r-41e Averaje Occ"cj R�t up Bureau Receives 7th Gold Service Award Once again, Seattle -King County Convention & Visitors Bureau has been selected as a "Gold Service" award winner. For the seventh time overall, and the fifth time in the past six years, Meetings & Conventions magazine readers have recognized the bureau's excellence in the following areas: providing essential destination information, assistance in supplier selection, providing essential services. assistance in promoting meetings, and overall professionalism. The award is earned annually by only the top 5% of con- vention and visitors bureaus serving meeting planners. -According to P Jo Byer. publisher of Meetings & Conventions, ` .wee of the accomplishment is even more impressive when you consider the fact that all Gold Award honorees are selected by the 'unassisted recall' of readers, and not by merely checking off a name on a pre- printed list of nominees." Ralph Goodman, Bureau Vice President - Marketing, ac- cepted the award at ceremonies held at New York's Marriott Marquis Hotel. Goodman acknowledged the dedication and commitment of Bureau staff which makes such an award possible, and said he was. eligheedta Sae sucbtoof that "We= satisfying our clients." Steve Morris, Bureau president, acknowledged the important contributions of members as part oldie Bureau's accomplishment: "Our members work with us on a continuing basis to enhance and support our high level of professional service to meeting planners. The Bureau IS its members, and this award is rightly shared by all of us." Ralph Goodman. SSCCVB's Vice President— Marketing, and Peterlohnsmeyer, Meetings & Conventions Publisher, at awards ceremony. APR -30-1996 15:01 1 P.15 Highlights of Bureau's 1996 Marketing Plan The best industry economic news for 1996 and beyond is that "visitor/convention demand nationally is growing faster than supply," according to analysis in the Bureau's 1996 Marketing Plan. For Seattle, this means contin- ued vigorous growth in hotel/motel sales --a nearly 12% rise in volume throughout the ma'or Kin • Count bollrdrarfers in 1995. With an ost-80% average occupancy level year- round, an more tfian 90% in the t ird quarter, Sea e is among national leaders in terms of overall hotel occupancy rates. The sole drag on this booming business market for the visitor industry in general is the current size limitation of the convention center—and even that situation is on track to resolution. Expansion of the convention center is expected to be resolved by year-end, followed by the first new bookings for the enlarged facility taking place for 2000 or 2001 and beyond. At present. the perceived weaknesses in Seattle have been exhibit capacity at the convention center (ranked number one) followed by room rates/overall costs. number of committable hotel moms, and Seattle's "remote" location. "Weather/climate" is cited by only about 2% of the decision -makers. Perceived strengths. on the other hand, do relate to weather, or at least to recreation values. Among the most important strengths are a sophisticated city image and the natural beauty of the area (this includes all of the Pacific Northwest); the quality, in both facilities and service, of the convention center. hotel quality and proximity of hotels to the convention center; downtown amenities, including shop- ping, dining and attractions; weather (specifi- cally. late spring through early fall); and the overall level of professionalism and cooperation of the visitor industry throughout the region. Where does the business go that is "lost" by Seattle in the competition of convention market- ing? Sunny San Diego is our biggest competi- tor, accounting for more than 12% of Seattle's lost business by volume of room nights. All major cities in California, in fact, account for 29% of Seattle's lost business, including San Diego, San Francisco (8.2%), Anaheim (4.5%) and Los Angeles (3.5%). continued on page 4 HOTEL MOTEL ROOMS REVENUE SEATTLE -KING COUNTY 500 450 0 400 350 Z 300 250 •'•: P. :--••a: .f-:•.. •... 1•..1.-.N •. .414':••.•;•._;,•f•I.•1.M✓ )►4444 •/.•. •... ,..: . e.••••. . 4••1•••• r....••• ♦.4....•lf•.,.•..,•.f••••••••0• .•LJi f•:•.. rl.Jfi••••4.1.416441 •4••• 4.p•. 4....4,4•••. ••7.►.44• .•ate•. .i•••'•• 4h.7•y.....J.•µs.• • .• '''010:491..4..i' * • -Y:.I err f'. . •4r i• •4 • =•,•• .r.' ...f)• 1 •1J 41 r•••„y ••4t 200 . 88 89 •90 91 92 93 94 95 96*YEInfected . it I:Df•••... 1 APR -30-1996 15 01 • Land Use: 320 Motel Description A motel is a place of lodging providing sleeping accommodations and often, a restaurant. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Peak hours of the generator. Motel traffic generally peaks at times other than when the adjacent street traffic peaks. The peak hours of the generator for the sites surveyed are too varied to draw any condusions. Employment density: The average employment at motels Is much lower than at hotels. The average employment density of the motels surveyed Is 0.44 employees per room; the range is 0.14 to 0.58. The studies were conducted In the late 1960's to late 1980's at sites throughout the United States, and ranged in size from 15 to 545 rooms. For all lodging uses, It Is best to collect data on both moms and occupied rooms, to eliminate any misunderstanding in trip generation analysis. Source Numbers 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 72, 88, 92.172, 187, 191, 193, 277, 295, 300 P. 16 TO Generation, January 1991 549 Institute of Transportation Engineers ;RPR -30-1996 15002 • Motel (320) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Weekday P.17 Number of Studies: 13 verage Number of Occupied Rooms: 123 Directional Distribution: 50% entering. 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates 10.19 4.67 - 14.64 Data Plot and Equation T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends 4.000 3,000 2.000 Standard Deviation 4.04 1,000 x X Actual Date Pointe 100 200 X = Number of Occupied Rooms Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation; Ln(T) 1.065 LI(X) 41.583 Average Rata R2 s 0.91 Trip Generation, January 1991 550 Institute of Transportation Engineers . APR -30-1996 15:02 1 Motel (320) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. P. 18 Number of Studies: 16 verage Number of Occupied Rooms: 141 Directional Distribution: 56% entering, 44% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Room AVerage Rate 0.60 Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.31 - 0.90 0.79 Data Plot and Equation 210 200 190 x 180., 170 160 150w• 140 1— 130 • 13 120 • 110 • 100 0 • so ▪ so 70 ▪ 60 50 • 40 30 20 10 x. 0 X Actual Rata Relate 100 200 X = Number of Occupied Rooms Fitted Curve . •300 Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.963 Ln(X) - 0.382 R2 = 0.76 Trip Generation, January 1991 552 Institute of Transportation Engineers • City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster Dear Steve: April 26, 199641 RECF"IFO CITY OF TUKWILA APR 2 4 1996 You said you would like to hear any comments SgRYITP %hborhood and citizens have on the proposed motel at 4006 South 139th by Cheng & Associates (Wen Fan Lin Owner). There have been too many years, meetings, letters, confronta- tions, etc plus proof from Wen Fan Lins track record. To try to condense and explain to you the ramifications and frustra- tions that we as a neighborhood, myself and husband specifically have toward any proposal by Wen Fan Lin. These go back to years before our annexation to Tukwila. Through past unfortunate experiences we have learned the hard way that what he proposes and promises are totally opposite what actually happens. We are asking you to do what you can in your position to try and insure that as few of these circumventions of zoning and city ordinances occur. We expect Wen Fan Lin will be held more accountable for his actions and deeds thanhe has been previously. The number of trees?? that have been proposed are not enough nor large enough diameter nor of a variety that will grow tall enough to mitigate any buildings, lights or noise. Why can't he be required to use larger, different varieties of trees and include conifers as well as deciduous ones? Why can't the other greenery require more density? As it is now there is no time frame for replacement of dead or damaged trees, shrubs or bushes. Why can't he be required to replace and maintain for a 577 -year time frame? It was mentioned to me when I asked this question at the meeting at the library that it was up to the citizens to police things like that and turn it over to the Code Enforcement person. This seems like a very round about way of handling something that should be taken care of in an expeditious manner by the city not left up to a form of citizen patrol. There is no form of sprinkler system proposed to maintain the plantings. Why not? How can they be expected to thrive in our climate through the dry season? The Econo Lodge doesn't have a sprinkler system either, hence why most of the plants died, but there is a fountain?? that wastes water. Seems like the prior- ities are a little wrong. We would also hope that no vending machines are allowed to be outside the buildings like the pop machine at the Econo Lodge. It attracts kids and undesirables who litter the area and hang around blocking traffic and making derogatory comments. They usually do this in groups of up to 10-15 and it is not pleasant. There are a lot more concerns that we have regarding this propo- sal. There is no one item that is more important than another, we DO NOT WANT ANOTHER MOTEL especially a three story one along the "strip" and specifically this location. APR -30-11996 15.03 el& OF TUTKWILA • Department of Community Development FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206). 431-3665 TITLE: COMPANY: DAZE: mr-1&-*Q14 TreAEFi FAX NO. CALL. ): 5=s- 2922. Roa11%) DEPARTM Tom: P.20 NUMBSR3M0FPA@?8 . IN= Tina COVER 311111T T is Cowles - PA -c, GENT Err PRR Aion You CA -14 READ ?t+E NunnQePS , CALL 1 F OPUETT/oNS 0(2 PecaLs µ5 . 433 - 01 79. CS COMMUNICATION 18 NOT LY RECEIVED. PLEASE CALL: DEPAKRMFNP OF COMMUAR'IY DEVELOPMENT 5300 Southcenter ward. Tukwt& WA 98188 Office: (2061 4313670 MAIGAS APR -30-1996 15:03 • • Et - 2 "i?SWIEI3?!� gi sEx�lt�EE iEi did -less di f] flddsat .-safR • 1 MINI I Ey3Ek -iEdf i 1 �-.7.17,-..- .LLL I$^iii�' sse3E Isd_ Zidold smuggln g 2! • =tkrrg :,1E1�L� 1 dd:dRs 2ddad 1.! Basin-mAristd 11 g@ii4ngfasE gl_JOAAJAinis naaRlti6-e..-�Edd l' Idasc:idi 1 Musician R I` ' 211211120421 i xR{��iM�eJIcR>> f. II diddA nansiR i ! !6l� g7Si !El: �' mum i sd:Em14 'g ;1 1 ddi•' -emse ; • •ICM -Ri -iiw • ig E 6E Eiji ;1 Mit!!!!>r1. EEpt451o•1 NOME! :1 51551di s 115515 1;15 E• $01gEly125 get •I�dss0S1151 11. V55.1553151 s dlullfi�o.ela�tdrr $1 ! . 11REm9E�e6ii41e o.! '31i1,1�,��E�fi?P! s�. • �it��EEdE->afd3i# ; idii>dd..-:.ss : i . idsosrle� soe�ji •111 , tp12 . afd ►5$i<ia6lsgg •s ! f11ggEaE V .�°013SEis=Eii,� s d�pp0w'O 0 = idi a., sst6 5511: -.�d!as E 1112a155 ;1 rt.Wdit' ; 9ttads ; Ei�E $3�-i er s E1�gun E• s Amu; :e oasd i 40 i1 aaiii. msd •E! ' m•sdf.d=s,lid2-2n ! 'l ��,�gadiSBE ti �[i IAS1gc3{E ti @E 1i&gf klA R �m 11 ddii II 1 PSiw'-deddbm • 4 ( i::iddm iv e • essroaeaa=mse usquiggisits idesai.iid .. • iddiddmaddidd i>i4-OICf dA 11152115.515 ••i#6161'c916 E8�g8 D.>D�=RdiC:a 1M asdsm �d edd 9 3 •• J ..I -E E . t.".idw�w:.d:! . dalila�l@,Ej�E,9� • doid>dae.11a �!i 33gg• . • �ddl63EI�EEE�� . d�Ed�d.;iie..ar 1 !d�l61%$�3Eggti< 1 ...._a_ - i i lasss.-s�isa. ,aa 1 :1E� a ii 1rE-q 11110114 � !+:pp � 2 Edi 12201 elsiligli 1 1 1.1iiiiii s 12,1iin;ffir g 141 1r1�a1 14 11 1118/110115421 s� '�ii�1f5: 1411111110 � �� E� � as 911111111P 2 P.21 N N MILITARY RD. h CITY OF TUKWILA PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH TRAFFIC STUDY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INTERSECTION APPROACH VOLUMES ;.DG END amussessocass WINEEMBEEN 3Sf4 412. S, 1.000 VCN'CLES AND BELOW 1.001-5,000 VEHICLES 5,001-15,000 VEHICLES 15,001 VFH;CLES AND ABOVE 4/ti' PACIFIC MICRWAY SO. VI PACIFIC 111C111IAY AV/p FIGURE 3 ��i NBLL•TA1JOER B IGIIQIMR9 Imo. ---� r) N MILITARY RD. yb w LIEGERR • v m in nit s. 0-'•00 VEHICLCS 101-500 VEHICLES 501-1,000 VEHICLES 1,001-1,500 VEHICLES 1,501-2,000 VEHICLES Vl • w y CITY OF PACIFIC HIGH TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH TUKWILA ". ' WAY SOUTH: 'STUDY INTERSECTION VOLUMES PACIFIC HICRIfAY S0. c'. S�• vii:;;;;;:%;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:,. PACIFIC RICIIIIAY S0. A/P nCURE 2 _:�= BYLL•xAIffiEH BMOIIW1IR1 Ino. TOTAL P.23 Z a3,(99c, , RECEIVED Ili of APR 231996 end COMMUNITY DEVELOP-MENT . 7 ca4t . ,dteve__ a:g._ae___d.‘,4 .cam Je.. 77V/i_40Vt-La____011___56_,- it.Z-g-- -6 e_)(i 7bee aao tui_ k‘iA • (Ake- � �4 �Q at de_ � t, a, ih-taA . ; arte:.41 G -e-- t onu / fo(Lc, ( 4 vete (44 , /1fott. _ 7/2> ' tv invv\o tJ /?N : Vii—p. L - - 4.)1,c_ 40714 1/2) -e--. M ei-t D QL Con_Ce� ,—vAt —W IT2L&c gi./ i A, AAOn/Lei iA oui 0M6 RECEIVED Ili of APR 231996 end COMMUNITY DEVELOP-MENT April.23,1996 City of Tukwila SEPA Determination Person Steve Lancaster 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVE® APR291996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The undersigned request an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) be required by the .owner/developer of the Econo Lodge proposed • addition of 44/45 motel units on the north side of 139th 'Street. Please reference the Environmental Checklist, dated 2/5/96. • TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION - The addition of 274 vehicle transits per day added to the transits from the proposed Fosterview Estates will greatly impact vehicle congestion on 139t1} Street. • PARKING - Always a problem at the site, especially the "park & ride" allowed over major holiday periods. • PUBLIC SERVICES - Owner has never controlled drug trafficking and prostitution. Police/emergency responses are disproportion- al due to owners apparent endorsement of the drugs and hookers. No sidewalks or safety zones for school children. Increased traffic will be a real danger. • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - Require visibility of probable asbestos and lead in old construction and how it will be addressed. • ANIMALS - No answer in Checklist regarding birds and animals in area. • AESTHETICS - No other three story construction on Hwy 99 in. Tukwila, except for existing Econo Lodge. Only a two story structure should be allowed to help preserve what little resid- ential feeling is left in the neighborhood.. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS �ti'1a I%444.4 13?og 4 -ti ' -rD Jai c(f S r 0,/ • /"L.. c'Q�b�—/.i i3 -7/G - 4/s.A() S. ,$0--Icc- .. • , -' l 3 7/C - 1/Pr Zr _ 1.., L L. GU E �, = �imigitft. / 7 3 L • CYT M-cic- s° r . J-, &c W eJ.{ L ( , 4`c%4 X i z 12 k X11 41- 4.i,-- So c.,L1V--j1 &O 6 :7Ri G,( - . ' rG(' 'I) )J 73,'aZ L-1(' . 1 Z /P l i . P(1\i & e, `: lir ;�'� ,, / ; 3.3�, /�l, 7 J - , .�'27Z� 37 W-Vk-.): -6L ..:� � r fi •T :-I.%6 n1 0 .• ��J/��,� zl�c�� , <wtJY �'( � )3T? _ yes rg v, So � li�� , .-i,"Lew,;.,y',-.1‘,„.„ _ -/1::::6:a.--,,k/ 0 , 7„7 7 - 2 -it .--S' e >,, . -S. 5e. April 23,1996 • • City of Tukwila SEPA Determination Person Steve Lancaster 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 PErtrn/FD CITY OF TU rKWILA APR 24 1996 PERMIT CENTER The undersigned request an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) be required by the owner/developer of the Econo Lodge proposed addition of 44/45 motel units on the north side of 139th Street. Please reference the Environmental Checklist, dated 2/5/96. • TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION - The addition of 274 vehicle transits. per day added to the transits from the proposed Fosterview Estates will greatly impact vehicle congestion on 139th Street. • PARKING - Always a problem at the site, especially the "park & ride" allowed over major holiday periods. • PUBLIC SERVICES - Owner has never controlled drug trafficking and prostitution. Police/emergency responses are disproportion- al due to owners apparent endorsement of the drugs and hookers. No sidewalks or safety zones for school children. Increased traffic will be a real danger. • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - Require visibility of probable asbestos and lead in old construction and how it will be addressed. / • ANIMALS - No answer in Checklist regarding birds and animals in area. • AESTHETICS - No other three story construction on Hwy 99 in Tukwila, except for existing Econo Lodge. Only a two story structure should be allowed to help preserve what little resid- ential feeling is left in the neighborhood. E. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS ,l a ,iktN, c, 13 -1 o g (41. --"So , Jail er/P sPrbE.-- - L /tel ('Cu /3-7/x.0 - Ws/ /L: gt - . ciefte--bge- 13 7/C- 1(/°- 4e. Cr 4 __ • APR -30-1996 15:02 P.19 .y DeP ent CdComm- unity tevel0 ment j -.,,, �, ° FAX TRANSMITTAL 1908 fir FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 TO: DATE: r 22- 4G TITLE: -tOMPAIVY: EDwA R D Ci t Ci sog DEPARTMNT: Zaahliawardbasiral FROM: ROW.) TiscHMak VrLE DEPARTMENT: RAX NO. CALLED: NUMBER OF PAGES ZSS— Z92Z.. TRANSMITTED, cow r: SENT BY (INITIALS): IIe UBJECT: ECojso - Le atA E T e*Fctc STUts•i bA'r4 COMMENTS/MESSAGE: Li?. k1E S tyoietg oi= S tai ST Me s 14ot►i eC 5 (114 S1 �Z)%91) u cc S c3`1 sir Pit• =69”) P,Ptc. Viol. Megan' of S i'4 S1- eA41._ t F eili Es IONS Tam.. VIA, • Bin* Ne. ( 99 31°13 4 40 11) 103 ()Joker 11, 3q 1 (j992) 992) tioarrelleadi pin Pek4 1 " t5 1 443 C,9$ Seuta .'q Pm Avk 7`17 3'4 1 932. I, i 11 , y33-0119 lF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED. PLEASE CALL: DEPARIT+IEN'T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Tukwila WA 98188 Office: ice: (206) 431-3670 asrouan RAND L. KOLER DIRECT DIAL: (206) 621-6441 • • KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. LAW OFFICES THE BRODERICK BUILDING • PENTHOUSE SUITE 615 SECOND AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2203 PHONE (206) 621-6440 • FAX (206) 587-0226 April 22, 1996 Via Facsimile (206 431-3667) and U.S. Mail Steve Lancaster Director of Community Planning City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED. ppR 2, 31996 EVCOMMUNITY DE OPME i • • Re:• ' l!Environmental Checklist; ,Epic File Noy E96-0004; .: Johnny Cherig Proposed. Hotel Development' ". Dear Mr. Lancaster: We represent Ron and Nancy Lamb, the owners of'a residence near the above- described proposed project. As you know, there is a great deal of concern among the residents in the neighborhood with respect to the effect of the proposed hotel development on their residential neighborhood. We urge you to require an Environmental Impact Statement so that the community can be assured that its concerns are beingconsidered and that appropriate mitigation procedures and alternatives have been examined. A. Overview. 1. The Project. The Applicant' owns the EconoLodge on the south side of South 139th Street. He ,proposes to remove three small buildings across'the street from the EconoLodge and construct a 45 -unit hotel facing 139th Street. The proposed hotel is too big for the lot, given the City's parking requirements. To meet these requirements, it is proposed that the new hotel be raised above the surface to maximize the parking area. Even with this 'The owner's architect has identified himself as ithe " "Applicant" on the environmental checklist::. In this' letter we intend the- reference fo be to'the'unidentified property owner. c: wp51 \lamb\Ian04-23.Itr\04.23.96 Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 2 added elevation, however, there is insufficient parking space on the lot, so four parking spaces on the other side of the street will have to be dedicated to the new hotel. 2. Community Concerns. The existing hotel (including the EconoLodge) is associated with crime, breaches of the peace and assorted other police problems. These criminal activities and police problems occur in a single-family neighborhood in which children are being raised. The proposal involves a significant expansion of the existing use, which the Applicant in Section E admits has a substantial negative impact on the area. Nonetheless, he proposes to greatly expand his hotel without any analysis of its influence on the surrounding residential' area. This proposal raises serious questions involving the health and safety of the residents and their children. This proposal should not be permitted to proceed until the Applicant has addressed these concerns. The fundamental problem with the Applicant's Environmental Checklist is that the Applicant views the "vicinity" of the project as Pacific Highway South and not the residential neighborhood which abuts it. The Applicant's checklist gives virtually no consideration to the residential community impacted by the project.2 This is the type of situation in which an environmental impact statement is most appropriate. It seems inconceivable that a project creating serious police and safety issues in a residential neighborhood could proceed without the benefit of the review required by an environmental impact statement. Additionally, there are several concerns about the cumulative impact of a second large hotel on the residential community, apart from the associated criminal activity. These concerns, regarding the impact on the single-family residential community, do not appear to have been given consideration. B. Noise. In Section 7(b), the Applicant suggests that there will be virtually no noise impact on the surrounding residential area. The neighborhood residents are very concerned about noise, not just the noise created by the guests' vehicles, but the noise created by the guests, the noise created by police activity associated with hotel use in the area, and the hotel itself. The City has received complaints relating to noise at the existing facility. How can a significantly expanded hotel be associated with reduced noise problems for the residents in the vicinity? 2For example, the checklist states that there are no birds in the area. While it is true that no birds live immediately wesst of the site on Pacific Highway South, immediately east is a rural environment which is the habitat of numerous birds. c:wp5 I \lamb\Ian04-23.Itr\04.23.96 Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 3 C. Aesthetics; Light and Glare In Section 10, the Applicant says that the building height will be 35 feet. We understand that the actual height, including the roof, will be 40-42 feet. The construction of a large hotel will obviously have a significant aesthetic impact on the residential neighborhood. The hotel will tower over neighboring homes. No serious thought is given to the aesthetic impact of a much larger hotel intruding into a residential area. The Applicant seems to give little consideration to the light and glare caused by a busy hotel in a residential area. Accordingly, the Applicant does not propose to take any mitigating measures with respect to this light and glare. Light and glare from the elevated hotel will certainly illuminate surrounding homes and be viewed from distant homes. D. Recreation. Section 12 states that the proposed project will not influence recreational opportunities. This is outrageously wrong. The Applicant proposes a use which involves a relatively large number of people coming and going and which is associated with criminal activity. This use is being proposed in a residential neighborhood in which children reside. The residential community does not agree that expanding a use that has historically been associated with prostitution, drug use and violence will have no effect on the recreational activities of the families in the neighborhood. E. Traffic. In Section 14, the Applicant indicates that the proposed use would have little traffic impact. The proposed hotel does not have direct access to Pacific Highway South. The residents in the area are concerned about the increase in traffic on South 139th Street and what impact this may have on the residential area, particularly when there will not be enough parking places on the site to accommodate the proposed use. A part of the concern regarding traffic relates to the inadequacy of parking places. Parking is already a problem with the relatively low level of use on the proposed site. A contributing factor seems to be the Applicant's practice of renting parking spaces to airport patrons. Long-term parking arrangements have caused the parking lot to be so jammed with cars that the City's parking ordinance was violated. This has also led to violations of on - street parking requirements. This problem will be compounded by adding a high density use for which there is insufficient on-site parking. c: wp5 I \lamb\Ian04-23.Itr\04.23.96 Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 4 F. Public Safety. In Section 15, the Applicant acknowledges that the proposed project would increase the need for police and fire protection. It is not sufficient, however, to acknowledge that police and fire protection needs will be increased. The problems associated with the need for increased police and fire protection are enormous concerns to the residents in the area. The need for increased police protection will have a direct impact on the families in the neighborhood. There is a school bus stop on the corner of 139th and 41st Avenue South, a short distance from the proposed project. The Applicant and the community (and probably the City) acknowledge that hotel use at this site creates a serious public safety issue. The Applicant's proposal to increase the amount of hotel use will, it concedes, increase the gravity of the public safety risks. These problems must be examined by the Applicant before inflicting them on the neighborhood. G. No Meaningful Consideration of Alternatives. The residents take sharp issue with the Applicant's discussion of alternatives to the proposal. This is set forth in Section E of the Supplemental Sheet. Here the Applicant says the alternatives are to leave three existing buildings, which are in "very poor physical condition" and which "have created a lot of security problems for both the owner and the local police department over the years" or to permit a new three-story hotel with 45 guest rooms. Obviously, these are not the only two alternatives. The Applicant has given no consideration to maintaining the existing buildings, converting the property to a use which does not create substantial police problems, or numerous other alternatives. The checklist does not reflect that the Applicant has given any thought to alternatives or to mitigating measures. The Applicant, of course, wishes to utilize the property to its maximum potential. The checklist shows that the Applicant has not attempted to factor in the concerns of the community about the proposed use. An environmental impact statement offers a vehicle through which the two interests can be melded. H. Cumulative Impacts; Future Ownership. When the project is completed, the Applicant will own two hotels, each on a separate lot. Each is entitled to be treated separately with respect to signage and other governmental c: wp51 \lamb\lan04-23.Itr\04.23.96 • • Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 5 permits and approvals. The presence of two substantial -sized hotels on a residential street will geometrically increase the problems associated with one substantial -sized hotel. The transient character of the area will be greatly increased. Inevitably at some point in time the two hotels will come under separate ownership. (It is possible that this situation has already arisen.) The residential neighborhood will then have two competing hotels, virtually side-by-side. An environmental impact statement would discuss and analyze the cumulative impact of two hotels on the single-family community and the effect of separate ownership. I. Conclusion. The community's public safety concerns about the project cannot be denied or minimized. The checklist, while verifying the legitimacy of these concerns, clearly shows that they have not been given much, if any, consideration. The other matters listed above have,. similarly, been glossed over by the Applicant. When these matters have been given serious consideration by the Applicant, he will be able to identify meaningful alternatives and mitigating measures. The environmental impact statement process offers a means for the City, and particularly the residential community, to see that its interests are protected while the Applicant is permitted to further his financial interests. Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. 46tAicA Rand L. Koler c: wp51 \lamb\lan04-23.1tr\04.23.96 • To: Steve Lancaster, Director, DCD, City of Tukwila From: Nancy Sandine Lamb, resident, 4251 S. 139th Street Date: April 22, 1996 Re: Epic File No. E96-0004 Thank you for your letter of April 15 and your neighborhood communication dated April 10. I greatly appreciate your wise choice to allow additional time for the DCD to consider the multiple issues involved in the proposed development at 4006 South 139th Street. As you know, the major issues concern the intrusion of this overly dense structure and its historically problematic type of business upon the single-family neighborhood it abuts. I must reiterate that, because of the many large questions raised by this project as it has been presented, I feel it would be in the city's best interest to have the questions answered through the EIS process. Also, I think that it would be inappropriate to send thedesign as -is to the Board of Architectural Review, because there seem to be so many inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code pertaining to the design and function of this project. An EIS would allow a forum and time for these issues and inconsistencies to be discussed and mitigated. This could potentially provide the developer an opportunity to present a better, more acceptable proposal to the community, and specifically to the community's BAR representatives. This needn't be a confrontational process. As I stated in my communication of April 7, this is a sensitive site and a sensitive time to propose a project of this sort. Thank you for giving due consideration to the community at large, and specifically the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed new hotel/motel, by weighing its potentially grave impacts. Collectively we want to be proud of Tukwila; we want our community to be safe for children and senior citizens, and a place people want to put down roots; we don't appreciate the status quo of the Highway 99 corridor; and we want redevelopment to reflect the positive vision set forth by the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. I sincerely thank you for your courtesy in helping our community achieve these goals. —Nancy Lamb April 20,1996 City of Tukwila SEPA Determination Person Steve Lancaster 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ECEIVED APR 2 3 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Lancaster: We, the concerned residents of the properties close by and/or residents who will be impacted by the proposed construction of the 44/45 unit motel addition at 4006 S. 139th St. request that an Environmental Impact Statement be required by the motel owner/developer. We make this request based on the following:(ref. checklist 2/5/96) o Traffic/Transportation - This does not address the tremendous increase in vehicular traffic from the proposed Fosterview Estates development added to the 274 vehicle transit per day to and from the proposed motel addition. Past records will show the auto accidents and injuries at the intersection of 139th and Hwy 99. This does not indicate the near misses that so many of us have observed virtually on a daily basis. It is a given that all motel traffic will not access/egress onto Hwy 99. 139th Street adjacent to, and east of the "motel" is quite narrow and has deep ditches along both sides of the roadway. Typically the overflow vehicles from the existing Econo Lodge and the old units on the north side of 139th park on 139th. Sometimes on both sides of the roadway. This makes a difficult transit through that area, especially in inclement weather. When you mix in the pedestrian traffic going to and from the motel units and the Derby Tavern, it becomes a dangerous piece of road. o Parking - The Econo Lodge promotes "park and ride" of non - guest parking over every major holiday period. This practice pushes many vehicles out onto 139th and' wherever they can find a spot to park. Once again this increases the congest- ion which will be greatly exacerbated by the Fosterview Est- ates project. o Public Services - Historically, the Airport aka Econo Lodge Motel has had an excessive number of Police and/or emergency responses. This indicates the owner/manager et al, have not made any obvious effort to maintain any semblance of area security. There has for as long as the motel has existed, been openly visible drug trafficking and prostitution allowed on the premises. Kindergarten and Elementary school children are bussed to and from 139th three times a day. They are already at high risk with the .existing traffic and activity that to a great extent evolves around the Econo Lodge and its patrons. Sheet 2, Rest for EIS by Econo Lodgell, There are no sidewalks or safety zones along 139th. It is. reasonable to expect the transient drivers will not necess- arily be acquainted with Seattle area weather. Combine this with unfamiliarity with their "rental car" and the increase in traffic exposes the children to again a higher risk of accident. o Environmental Health - The obvious age of the "old" units at the proposed construction site suggest that there is a better than average potential that asbestos and lead will be found on site. We realize that demolition contractors would review that probability but we would like to see the verification and attendant disposition spelled out in an EIS. o Animals - We quite often see Hawks, Herons, Eagles and a wide variety of songbirds in close proximity to the proposed con- struction site. Also a number of Squirrels, Racoons & Opposum frequent the general area. o Aesthetics - We do not feel that a three story addition should be allowed at the proposed site. What little view unencumbered by manmade monoliths that is left to the resi- dents to the east of Hwy.99, we feel should be left as visua- lly pleasing as is possible. That is why we purchased our property here to begin with. With a two story limit placed upon that location would intrude significantly over what we now view. A three story will alter the aesthetics of our area to a great degree. o In summary: The need for an EIS should be incumbent upon the owner/developer to allow the nearby property owners better insight into the proposed addition of 44/45 motel units. The fact that the Environmental Checklist did not have answers for most of the items that one would expect adds to our fears that a building will be constructed disregarding those Checklist item s being answered. We feel that traffic (totally) has been brushed aside as not being a problem. Previous testimony during the Fosterview Estates meetings tells us otherwise. Tukwila has yet to step up to the plate and hold proven irresponsible owners/developers accountable. The result will be a continued degrading of the quality of residential life. We will hope and expect that an EIS will be required to isolate and detail many of the non -answered questions we feel are very important. Respectfully, A'(.1_62}\6 -e Bob & Janel e Scarber 13716 41st v . So. Tukwila, WA 98168 April 15, 1996 City of Tukwila • • John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Nancy Sandine Lamb 4251 S. 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 SUBJECT: EPIC File #E96-0004 Dear Ms. Lamb: Thank you for your correspondence dated April 7, relating to the proposal by the owner of Econo Lodge to demolish existing tourist cabins and build a new 44 unit motel. I think your suggestion that additional renderings showing the proposal's relationship to existing buildings be prepared, is a good one. I have asked my staff to determine our ability to obtain such drawings. I appreciate your comments and perspective on the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposal, and your opinion regarding the level of environmental review needed. I will consider your comments together with those voiced by your neighbors at the recent open house, and any others I receive over the next two weeks, in deciding whether or not the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that an EIS be prepared in this case. I expect to decide whether an EIS is required on April 23 or 24, and will notify you of that decision. Your correspondence also raises'an "appearance of fairness" issue, apparently regarding political or campaign activities related to the recent elections. Based on my understanding of your concern, I do not believe there is an appearance of fairness problem. The state statute relating to the appearance of fairness doctrine specifically states that the doctrine is not violated by otherwise lawful campaign -related activities (such as public discussion or expression of an opinion on pending or proposed quasi-judicial matters, or acceptance of campaign contributions). If you believe I have misunderstood your comments, or believe there is additional information I should have on this issue, I would appreciate hearing from you. Again, thank you for your input. As a reminder, the Board of Architectural Review hearing originally scheduled for April 25 has been rescheduled for May 23, 1996. This will provide 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Nancy Sandine Lamb April 15, 1996 Page 2 of 2 additional time for public input prior to the hearing, and give staff ample time to consider information submitted by you and others before preparing our report to the Board. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development cc: Mayor Rants John McFarland OIC E10_#E96 ;0004 AFFIDAVIT GiTtr-t-it: O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting OBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet fl Board of Appeals Agenda Packet flPlanning Commission Agenda Packet fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: O Determination of Non- significance fJ Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action El Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project li(' A.Q I File Number L.4)6 -0C)/() *".;c******************************************* ** *********t*WW$W44.**** C CITYOFTUNIA j1 COMMEN S:11 BATCH:NUMBER: *'- CUSTOMER.NAME EQ WEN LIN,. FEB 2 3 1996 736060-'0090-07 736060'0100.05'' CITY'OF 'TUKWILA 499800' BRINTON'JAMES`F: 5N9800 6200 SOUTHCENTER.BLVO 13007 167TH AVE NE TUKWILA.WA. 98188 REDMOND`WA 98052 736060-0170-00" JOB'STANLEY CARL+LINDA:M 489999. 13709 41ST AVE S. SEATTLE:WA, 98168 736060-0182-06 SCARBER'JANELLE M+ROBERT E 209999 13716 41ST.AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 736060-0215-07- TOMASO DONNA M 22315 6TH AVE'S 2308 DES MOINES WA. 279800 98198 736060-0225-05- SE.ITZ ALFREOYB`C VIRGINIA''L562274- 13800'PACIFICHWY'S TUKWILA,WA 98168 736060-0240-06 KESSELLIKELLY, 1371741ST.AVE S: SEATTLE.WA. 759999 98168 736060=0310-01 SCARBER JANELLE M6 ROBT E'462194 13716 41ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98168 736060-0320-09 PRIEST'ROBERT W 13728 .41ST' AVE: S; SEATTLEIWA • 736060-0175-05 LEONAROO GILBERTINE, 4220•S 139TH..ST.. SEATTLE'.WA' 920046 98168 736060-0210=02 TDMA SO DONNA . M ' 22315 6TH AVE SCA308 DES MOINES WA ON3875 98198 736060-0220-00 HUGHES CLIFF-H+LEA 13739 41ST:AVE S SEATTLE:WA. 779999• 98168 736060-0230-08 SEITZ ALFRED:B'EVIRGINIA'L562275' 13800:PACIFIC:HWY:S, TUKWILA WA 98168 736060-0246-00 I PALERMO:FRANK. 1371541ST : AVE= S TUKWILA.WA 109999 98188 736060-0315-06 BICKNELL:ELIZABETH'.M ET`AL'6O9999 13722°41ST-AYE S SEATTLE WA .98168 736060-0325-04' 879999. j GUERNSEY:RON'R+DEBRA:,D, 8N9999 . .13732 41ST.'AVES' 98168 i 'SEATTLE:WA•. 736060-0330-07: CARPENTER "THOMAS= R ' 13742 41ST,AVE:::S: SEATTLE; WA' . 9.8168 ,i 736060-0340405' 439999 ,KI0DO0'CORWIWL+DEBORAH:0!'399999 :4102 S..139TH ST' 98168 .',TUKWILA Wic. .98168 736060-0341-04' SIMON'ELREY W 1900' HIGHLAND' R0: SHELTON : WA . ' -440.326 98584 736060-.0400-02. :.LIWWEN FAN+VIRGINIA 13910 PACIFIC$HWY:S SEATTLE :. WA . 961029. 98168 •73b660+0405-'07 ARA.GON-MARIN:CARLOS:HUIRRT529999 4814 EAST; FIR . ST SEATTLEWA 98122. 736060=0415-05 FIORE'NICK!T" 4021:'S•139TH.:ST.. SEATTLE1WA- 736060-0425-03' CROWELL `EARL") 4105. 139TH ST -.' 'TUKWILA WA 7N999 7N9999 '119999 98168 736060+0465=04' BIRCHCREST'APARTMENTS= '260902 P0'BOV925; EOMONDS'WA: 98020' 736060049003° JACOBSON'CARLTON ,M JR •• 13813 37TH+ AVE':: S? SEATTLE'WA 886400+0915-0 WOODS•MELODY:J: 13808 .A 38TH AVE 'S SEATTLE:`WA. 886400-0925-003 UHL !WILLIAM± A .- 33239 26TH;AVESW FEDERAL 'WAY : WA . . 886400-0935-08' CAUSE SHARON' 13832 38TH S SEATTLE WA '379999 98168 479999 98168 736060-04101 'SHARMA NNRWESHWA1UKUMAR+ 'USWDEVI 4017 ?. S 139TH t,ST TUKWILA WA '73606040420408- , '736060 -0420`08- 'HUBER`LEONARD E .11652.4TH AVES SEATTLE'WA, 009999 , ,98168- 8168 ',5N9999` 98168 736060-0430-06 " 'CARTER CLARENCE CgJR 4115 SH.: • 139T.' ' SEATTLE : WA `>;; 98168 736060-0475-02' BIRCHREST.APARTMENTS!. P0'BOX..925: EDMONDS ,WA .... - 736060-0525-02-' •T0MAS0 DONAWLI 1370741STS SEATTLE'WA.. 260902' 98020- 359999 98168 886400-0920-05; .MCMINN OAV1D°L`• 138.14 38TH AVE .S SEATTLE WA - 279999' 9816,8' r- 886400-0930-03-- 209999. 86400-0930-03209999- ;CLAY'RALPH:L6::PATRICIA F' 1382638TH•AVE.S. 98023 i SEATTLEWA 1N2342 98168 886400-0945-06' RUFFNER<MELVIN'; 13844 r38TH .S1. SEATTLE!WA 88640070955-03=' HUDSON"TOMMY`III+TRISA_LEE'099999 13856 38THAVE>S TUKWILA'.WA .. .98188 C0876' 98168 886400-0965-01x.- FICKLE'DIXIE 'L'-: 13868 "38TH ,AVE -:, SEATTLE`WA. 886400-0980-02 VU ,THINH TIEN+THU .,THI 24060.26TH.PLSi DES 'MOINEST:WA: ` 579999 98168 98168 886400-0940-01; BUSSEY : PHRED D+SANDRA L '.,• :! 709999:-' . ;1.3838 38TH AVE'SOUTH... SEATTLE'WA 886400'0950-08 BALLANTYNE SHERRI'' 13850'. 38TH . AVE'. S i . SEATTLE WA 98168 886400-0960-06;,. `;-STINSON'SAUNORA?L 13862"".38TH:AVISt SEATTLE WA'. 969999 98168 '886400-0970-04' FEULINC:MICHAEL+LAWRENCE` 319999'• 70.44N 74TH>'` SEATTLE•WA .98103? • 52A006 98168' . '886400-0985-07 . 209999 GENINCO:INSURANCETRUST .:4N9999; 1001 . WESTLAKE :AVE N.. 98198 1 SEATTLE WA 98109 RECEIVED CITY OF TUi(WILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER LIST OF RESIDENTS Wash Me':h Contractor 138(:x) Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia C:cunst 1381(.) Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA.98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific-' Hwy S Tukwila, WA -98168 United Motors 13911 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 1 319 Pacific Hwy S T6kwi l a, WA 98168 Tenant 13921 Pacific HWy S Tukwila: WA -98168 Tenant 13923 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 RECE:VED CIN OF TUKWILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER { * •13925 Pacific Hwy 8 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13874 38th 'Ave S Tukwila, WA -98168, Tenant 13920 38th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 • Deemer. Tam i 13719 41st Ave'S Tukwila' ,. WA 98168 T(.•?fiF,irlt 137:21 41st Ave;S Tukwila;' WA 98168 Tenant 13727 41st Ave . S Tukwila, WA 98'168' Tenant 13751'41st Ave S' Tukwila, WA 98168' Reid, Nie6ha 4011 S 139th St Tukwila, WA 93168 Huber, 1eonar d 4101 S 139th St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huntel 1 , LeRoy 4110 S 139th' St Tukwila, WA 98168 RECEIVED. CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER LaLtndromat 4012 8 140th ST Tukwila, T WA. 98168 Tenant , 402 i 8 14)th st, #1 Tukwila, 'WA 90168 Tenant .4020 ; 140th St, #.c: Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tenant 4020 8 140th St, •#3 Tukwila, WA'98168. '77'71;r.,"Tr., -".Rol=:R.rnion•1°!+i',prls•m:.iirrg-sri',F r: Tenant 4020 5 140th S t, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 8 140th -.8t, #5 Tukwila, WA 981.68 Tenant , 4020 9 140th. St , #6 Tukwila, WA .98168 Tenant 4020 8 140th St, #7 TukWi1a, WA '38168 Tenant 4620 S 1 40t h St , #8 Tukw:i 1 a, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 8.140tW`St, 1#'3.. Tukwila, WA 98168 RECF 1ED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER Tenant 4020-S 140th:St, #0 Tukwila, WA :.98168 M Tenant 4020 S 140thr St , #11 Tukwila, „WA.'88168 Tenant: 4020-S S 140th, St,. #12 Ta�F:wi l a, WA 98160 Tenant. 4020 ,S 140th. ' St,, #13 Tukwila, WA 981613 Tenant 4020'S 140th' St;, 1#14 Tukwila, WA '38168 Tenant ! ' 40:20 S 140th St, #h1. Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 400 S 140t h' St , #16 Tukwila, WA 58168 • Tenant 4020:8! 14Ot h : St , #17 Ti..ikwi-1'a,; WA 98108 Tenant 40210.S • 14othSt, #18: Tuk:wi l a, WA 98168 Tenant:' 4020 S' 140th St . # 1 S, Tul';wi1a; WA •98168 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA :FEB 2.1 1996'- PERMIT CENTER • A Tenant 4020 S 140th St,' #27 Tukwila, WA 98168 • . AECI"lvEB CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 231996 PERMIT CENTER City of Tukwila • • John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 10, 1996 RE: Econolodge Expansion Proposal Dear Neighbor, The owners of the Econolodge Motel at 139th and Pacific Highway have applied to the City of Tukwila to expand.directly north, across 139th from the existing motel. Under the proposal the old tourist cabins now on the site would be torn down and replaced with a new three story motel. The Planning Director expects to make a decision about the level of environmental review that will be required for the proposal around the April 23rd or 24th. If you have any information that you would like him to consider when making that decision please send in comments to SEPA Official, City of Tukwila DCD, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. The design of the project will then be presented to the Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing on May 23 at 7:00 PM in the Tukwila City Council Chambers. The hearing has been delayed one month from the April 25 date given in the last letter to ,.;allow for more public comments. The hearing is open to the public and everyone interested in the project is invited to attend. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me or Diana Painter at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431-3670. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 °. /206) 431-3670 • Fax: /206) 431-I66s WASH MECH CONTRACTOR 13800 PACIFIC HWY S TUKWILA WA 98168 • • SEITZ VIRGINIA CONST 13810 PACIFIC HWY S TUKWILA WA 98168 DERBY TAVERN 13820 PACIFIC HWY S TUKWILA WA 91868 UNITED MOTORS TENANT TENANT 13911 PACIFIC HWY S 13919 PACIFIC HWY S 13921 PACIFIC HWY S TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT INDIAN PLAZA TENANT 13923 PACIFIC HWY S 13925 PACIFIC HWY S 13874 38TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TAMI BEEMER TENANT 13980 38TH AVE S 13719 41ST AVE S 13727 41ST AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT NIESHA REID BEONARD HUBER 13751 41ST AVE S 4011 S 139TH ST 4101 S 139TH ST TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 LEROY.HUNTELL LAUNDROMAT TENANT 4110 S 139TH ST 4012 S 140TH ST 4020 S 140TH ST - #1 TUKWILA WA 91868 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT 'TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #2 4020 S 140TH ST - #3 4020 S 140TH ST - #4 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #5 4020 S 140TH ST - #6 4020 S 140TH ST - #7 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #8 4020 S 140TH ST - #9 4020 S 140TH ST - #10 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #11 4020 S 140TH ST - #12 4020 S 140TH ST - #13 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 • • TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #14 4020 S 140TH ST - #15 4020 S 140TH ST - #16 . TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #17 4020 S 140TH ST - #18 4020 S 140TH ST - #19 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #20 4020 S 140TH ST - #21 4020 S 140TH ST - #22 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #23 4020 S 140TH ST - #24 4020 S 140TH ST - #25 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #26 4020 S 140TH ST - #29 4020 S 140TH ST - #31 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT TENANT 4020 S 140TH ST - #32 4020 S 140TH ST - #33 4020 S 140TH ST - #35 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 TENANT TENANT MARILYNN VAN HISE 4020 S 140TH ST - #36 4020 S 140TH ST - #37 13708 42ST AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 91868 TUKWILA WA 98168 RITA CASEY 3445 S 144TH ST TUKWILA WA 98168 STEVE & JERI ANDERSON 13703 42ND AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 ELLEN GENGLER 13727 MACAMDAM RD S TUKWILA WA 98188 PAUL GULLY 13017 42ND AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 DIANE MYERS 13919 42ND AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 RICK SHERMAN 13715 42 AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 Aragon -Marin Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Street Seattle, WA 98122 • Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St i Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 1 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Birchcrest Apts. P.O. Box 925 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jacobson Carlton M Jr 1381337AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Woods Melody J 13808 38 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Uhl William A 33239 26 Av SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Gause Sharon 13823 38 Av S j Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin 1384438AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Fickle Dixie L 1386838AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 : ! Vu Thinh Tien 24060 26 PI S Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber Leonard E 116524AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Carter Clarence C Jr 4115 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donald L 13707 41 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 • Stinson Saundra L H 1386238AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 . 1I • Feuling Michael Lawrence 704 N 74 li Seattle, WA 98103 Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle, WA 98109 Stanley Carl i 1370941 AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M 13716 41 Av S . i Tukwila, WA 98168 )! I Tomaso Donna M 22315 6th Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 Resident 13814 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Clay Ralph L 13826 38 Av S I i Tukwila, WA 98168 ! ii ( - Bussey Phred D 1383838AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S j Tukwila, WA 98168 I Kessell Kelly !! 1371741AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Hudson Tommy III 1385638AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Ballantyne Sherri 13850 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 1374241•AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 ./ Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Palermo Frank 1371541AvS Tukwila, WA 98188 Kiddoo Corwin 4102 S 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 9, 1996 Wen -Fan Lin Econolodge Motel 13010 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Econolodge Checklist L96-0010 Dear Mr. Lin, After receiving public comments about the SEPA checklist the Planning Director has decided that he needs some additional time to make the SEPA determination. He expects to issue his decision in about two weeks. This means that the BAR hearing date will have to be postponed until May 23. We will be sending out a public notice about the delayed SEPA determination and BAR date within the next week. We will also notify the neighbors when the determination is made. Finally, we will need to send another public notice out 10 days before the BAR date. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 433-7141. Sincerely, /144 Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner cc: Diana Painter 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 April 9, 1996 • City of Tukwila Planning Department Re: Environmental Checklist, Epic File No. E96-0004 "Motel" at 4006 So 139th St, Seattle A. BACKGROUND 10. "Lot line adjustment permit" - What is meant by this? B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 2. Air b. off-site sources - some emissions from highway? c. proposed measures... A 6 foot fence on the East side of property will protect ,guests on the West side of 2nd & 3rd stories of motel from traffic on the West?!!! 4. Plants b. plants to be removed - blackberry bushes? 7. Environmental Health b. noise - fence along property lines does not cut noise from highway: 8. Land and Shoreline Use i. How many people would reside in completed project? Answer: none:!! Is it going to be different than across the street? 9. Housing b. How many units? Is it 44 or 45? 10. Aesthetics a. Exterior building material? "Stucco" - just like that shack across the street that looks like a temporary building from World War II! c. Proposed measures... "Some residential characters on its facade to compliment with adjacent resi- dential properties." NO adjacent residential properties have "characters on their facades"! Page 2 - 4-9-9611ility of Tukwila Planning Di" 14. Transportation c. # of parking spaces...I'll bet prospective guests wouldn't be too pleased to walk a block from their car to the motel: But then, there will probably be enough parking, considering how frequent "guests" change: f. Vehicular trips per day - "274 on average weekday" Just what we need: more cars, more air pollution and more noise! 15. Public Services b. Measures to reduce...impacts on public. services... But no refusal to "rent" to prostitutes! D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET 1. Increase...emissions to air...or production of noise? No measure can reduce emissions or noise except NO MOTEL:'. 4. Environmentally sensitive areas...Too bad our homes are not considered environmentally sensitive - guess we should become hawks or eagles:, 6. Increase demands on transportation & public services, etc. More people, more cars, more noise, more pollution!!! 7. Too bad our governments at all levels can't be bothered protecting us! Please have had the courtesy & professionalism to have read each line & respond to my concerns. Sincerely, Marilynn VanHise 13708 - 41st Ave So Seattle, WA ,98168 (20L9) X24 07 - wl Jam. J1Q- ,9)-r. tom_-, \O fr-;• �-tl • Page 3 - 4-9-96 ilky of Tukwila Planning De411 Re: Cheng & Associates - Compatibility of the Proposed Design with Multi -family Structures "The existing...building has caused security problem" Only one?:: .."improve sense of security for...adjacent areas" By inviting 40-90 more people? ..."character of its adjacent residences" No neighbor- hood residences are 3.stories high with or without pitched roofs "Extensive landscaping...will help to soften..., & to improve, etc" Just like the big shack across the street?! "6 feet high...fences" do not provide screening for 2nd & 3rd floors! Page 1 #1 A. Landscaping - cheap, chintzy, ill -kept like the other property of owner? C. Height & scale - Only owner's "lodge" across the street is 3 stories high. A 3 story building is not compatible with surrounding houses, most of which are one story. Page 1 #2 C. Public buildings..."Extensive landscaping" Does owner mean like what's across street? Page 2 #3 C. Landscape treatment...provide shade. Owner hasn't provided shade trees across street, why should we expect he will with new building? D. In location where plants...Very little visible care has been taken withplants across street. Page 2 #4 B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale... Only 3 buildings in the neighborhood are over one story high - 2 homes & the 3 -story shack. Welcome to the Open House! Piers_f-a— aaUL 6 0r+ ►ne,- ; l: r\ Name Address Please sign in Y/ W/ (v Ecc,,1,1 c)) -1- . E.wrt Lo 4L Phone ` ►'� V - (370g I So. ?(-01-7/57 \a ` o-vvte6'o 120-70 iits±S. 243 5 4ea l6 -u /3) /� - L(/S-(A)c_5o -7c7LE 7' 13 P. \A t Gam% w 61-1401qct:cctda-0-•A do d ('-("07 6-Le„ce._ A - n,) Z7 o 21,w( A ✓. . `P,,I IL I30 1 '7 'la vg-, . ��w;I c, ' C 1 bB ) ✓✓1 p S � l,ta 9(s)6e, / �G ✓1G LGA 7 Name QYA aab • Welcome to the Open House! Address Vcutik T6-wtcso „,2c.a.k GLeA Please sign. in 13208 12510 1s�tS. f »- 6) -4_ 13 Pty_ \-\, 4„,.‘vu A 5 0-z? Mac, G Gonv) od st_Dee/1 0 .. Phone a4i 7/57 0-9-d- -S-1 do o: SEPA Official, City of Tukwila Copy to: Mayor Rants Re: SEPA matters relating to Epic File #E96-0004 From: Nancy Sandine Lamb, 4251 S. 139th St., Tukwila, WA 98168 Date: April 7, 1996 My family and I will be out of town at the time of the project's "open house" on April 9, so we cannot comment at that time about the proposal submitted for a hotel/motel at 4006 S. 139th St., Tukwila. (For citizens' consideration, I think there should be east- and south -view elevations ren- dered of the proposed building in relation to existing buildings to the east and west.) However, I have reviewed the documents pertaining to it, and there are some major concerns which.I feel re- quire an environmental impact statement. I am stating these concerns now, in hopes that the SEPA process will include a determination of significance. f1 ECEIIVE IBJ Such a determination is, according to the attorney we have consulted (Mr. Rand Koler, fa- miliar to the city from a previous application for the project), a sensitive method of dealing with community concerns in a less confrontational way than the BAR/quasijudicial procedure creates. A determination of significance is an option which casts city government in a positive light, is well within the rights of the City of Tukwila, and is certainly practiced by other cities. No one more than we, a permanent family, wants to see the Comprehensive Plan aspirations successfully improve the residential neighborhoods and 99 corridor; that is why this decision is so critical. Yet, given that individuals associated with this project were a political force during the 1996 election, and given that whom they supported would be put in the position of hearing any appeal to decisions made with regard to the project, it would be prudent for Tukwila first to put the burden of addressing the community's concerns onto a neutral 3rd party by requiring an EIS. In other words, because of the relationship between office -holders and parties connected with this project, and be- cause so many people in the city would be affected directly and indirectly by decisions made per- taining to the project, there are enough concerns that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would .be a factor. Any additional hearing would be more difficult, which I'm sure we'd all like to avoid. As to the Environmental Checklist, the applicant/architect has dismissed major concerns of the neighborhood and community, in my opinion. (In fact, in Section E, the applicant states that the only alternative to building this 44 -unit hotel/motel is leaving the existing $1000 -value buildings on the site.) However,there are responses or omissions that show this proposal will indeed make sig- nificant impacts to the residents near the site and to Tukwila in general: (1) Section B, Item 10. Aesthetics The height is listed as "about 35 feet" (although, I believe, it is at least 40 feet at the roof's ridge). The applicant states that no views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. This cannot be true. While the east boundary setback is 30 feet, a building of this height will block to- pographical, sky and sunset views from many properties. I realize that 35 feet or 3 stories is al- lowed. The building actually would exceed this, however, because the roof itself is the equivalent height of an additional story above the 3 stories allowed. As to other aesthetics, while a sloped roof is one appropriate design feature which could help make a commercial building look compatible with adjacent low-density residential properties, the total mass of this project is completely out of scale in relation to its lot and to the surrounding proper- ties. The square footage of the building is nearly the same as the lot itself; multiply each story's square footage by the height, and you get a realistic picture of the volume or mass. The characteris- tics of a commercial project of these proportions would very much affect the neighborhood. The aesthetics, therefore, are questionable — the massive character of the building far outweighs the attempt to add "some residential" elements. Eventually, it would be incumbent upon the BAR to take the mass of this 44 -unit project into ac- count. As is stated in TMC 18.60.055, the BAR will need to apply the multi -family review guidelines. May I refer you to sections 18.60.053(1)(I) and (2)(B), where harmony is a consideration. Further- more, the BAR needs to align its decisions with the Comprehensive Plan. I estimate that an average 1 • apartment would be roughly the size of two motel units (2/44 = 1/22), and factor in a 1/22 portion of the general spaces on the first floor. This means that the project proposes a density of 22 units per half acre. However, the Comprehensive Plan defines high-density residential as "areas charac- terized by multi -family buildings: 15 - 21.8 units per net acre". The motel project is double this den- sity. It is hardly of a harmonious scale and is insensitive to the neighborhood. The community image of Tukwila is affected, as well. The density/scale issue is inconsistent with many of the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the first major objective of which is "to improve and sustain resi- dential neighborhood quality and livability". (Section F, G(2) and G(4) of the ordinance adopting the Plan offer similar direction.) In fact, I truly hope it's unnecessary to bring this kind of argument to the BAR or to a SEPA appeal — when the impacts seem so obvious and the city's stated stan- dards are so important. (Similarly, I'd like to point to TMC 18.50.085, which says that at most 50% of the surface in a multi -family development can be impervious, while _the Environmental Checklist item B.1.g notes 74.3%. It seems that the BAR process would also consider this inconsistency.) (2) Section B, Item 15. Public Services The applicant states that there would be increased need for police services. True, and — compari- son to the operations of the existing run-down motel notwithstanding — this is a real concern. The parking garage would be an attractive place to hide, or to transact drug sales or "in -car" prostitution business. Lighting isn't -the sole remedy. Closed-circuit surveillance would help: The applicant also needs to be aware of proposed Crime -Free standards for motel/hotel operation. However, the bigger, long-term impact on the neighborhood and the entire community is dreadful. With the high crime rate in the 99 corridor, it was necessary for the city to impose an emergency moratorium on permits for this type of business, and this cited that there was a need to "protect the public health, safety, morals, vision, and general welfare of the Highway 99 neighborhood". Histori- cally, the motel businesses have been an enormous drain on the city's budget — and image. There is nothing in this project's checklist to argue otherwise. There would also be an increased need for social services, attributable to the effect of imposing a large-scale commercial project on the neighborhood, which leads to reduced property values, which leads to low -rent housing, which leads to the problems of transience, etc. This cascades and results in even more impacts to the community. (3) Section E, Item 4. The applicant states there would be no conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. I strongly disagree — and there are numerous conflicts with both the Plan and its supporting Zoning Code. Community image and neighborhood revitalization are chief concerns. To cite one of the Obstacles to Plan Achievement, "Some businesses focus upon their own success while using methods which may harm the public welfare." I believe that over -building on this lot size exemplifies such an obstacle. Truly a motel/hotel project like the one proposed is bound to have a significant impact on the community and consequent repercussions. It especially deserves careful assessment when it is the first proposal coming after the arduous Comprehensive Plan process, and with all the official talk of sensitivity to citizen concerns (i.e., one of three goals listed in the Housing section is "improved neighborhood quality by reducing the transient nature of neighborhoods") and the focus on improving the Highway 99 corridor image (eg., "part of the area's poor image stems from the criminal activity seen and perceived"; "...[social and health problems] and the transient nature of the community, to an unspecified extent, are increasing the insecurity and images of the criminal character of the area"). At great expense to the developerfor legal and architectural advice, proposals for a hotel/motel at this site continue to be pushed into the DCD process without an appropriate forum to discuss impacts upon the neighborhood and city. Community concerns have not been solicited or addressed appropriately prior to submission of applications relating to the project. Unless these concerns are alleviated, there will continue to be objections from citizens. This is bad for the devel- oper and bad for the opinion people have of their local government. Therefore, I urge you to deter- mine that the proposal is significant, requiring an EIS to address the needs of the community and the impact to the residential neighborhood adjacent to this site. 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only Control No. Epic File No. 06 -- 0004 Fee $ 325 Receipt No._ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Proposed hotel development 2. Name of applicant: Johnny Cheng 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Johnny Cheng / Cheng & Associates, Architect 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98121 441-5745 4. Date checklist prepared: February 5, 1996 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The construction will start as soon as the building permit is issued by the City 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None RECEIVED JAN 0 6 '1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECEIVE© CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, , explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Building permit, mechanical permit, lot line adjustment permit, demolition permit, and electrical permit. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. 38 The proposal is to develop a three-story building to accommodate 44'hotel guestrooms and accessory uses on a 22,320 square feet site. The project will have a total of6 square feet of floor area sparking garage. lb,al&o INciup,rv4 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project will be located on a 124 feet by 180 feet site on South 139 Street, across the street from Econo Lodge, owned by the developer, facing pacific Highway South, north of Sea -Tac Airport. The address of the site is 4006 South 139 Street in Seattle, Washington. I3. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle ones: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Except the northwestern corner, the site is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 40% c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The site mostly covered by asphalt or three existing structures. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The proposed development will have minimum cut and fill during construction. The excavation will be limited to spread footing for columns and foundation walls. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Potential erosion during construction will be very minimum because of limited site excavation will be required for the project. Evaluation for Agency Use Only g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 74.3 % h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control will be provided and maintained during construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Some dust will be generated during early stage of construction. After the project is completed, emissions to the air will come mainly from hotel guests' vehicles. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Some -emissions might come from adjacent highway. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: A 6' high fence will be provided between the hotel and adjacent properties. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NA 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals.; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NA c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff will come mainly from storm water. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: On-site detention will be provided for the project 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Evaluation for Agency Use Only evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Amount of vegetation to be removed from the site will be very minimum c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native .plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See proposed landscape plan 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: None mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None • b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? De t_ ib..e whether it. will b uscd for t« ating, manufacturing, etc. The proposed development will use electrical for lighting and heating purposes. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The building will be designed to meet and exceed State Energy Code requirements. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire protection, Police and emergency medical services. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The proposed use will have none to minimum health hazard b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may effect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from Pacific Highway South 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short term or a short- term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. During early stage of construction, construction equipment could generate some noise. But after the project is done, the noise will be limited to those created by guests' vehicles. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Proper building insulation and fence along property lines will reduce noise impacts for the hotel rooms and adjacent properties. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? • Currently, there is a motel on the site. The properties to north and west of the site are commercial uses. There is a house located to the east of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe No c. Describe any structures on the site. There are three single story motel buildings on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, all three existing structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Regional commercial (RC) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NA h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. None i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal will have a combination of commercial and residential characters in its architectural design. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None. The proposal will provide 45 hotel guestrooms c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None iO. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? About 35 feet. The building will have stucco exterior. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The building will have some residential characters on its facade to compliment with adjacent residential properties. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Some glare will be created by parking lights on the proposed development. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. The light will improve safety in the parking area and provide better security for the hotel guests. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The project will be served basically by South 139th Street and Highway 99. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The project is served by public transit running on Highway 99. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? J'on site and 4 additional on adjacent property owned by the applicant. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Most of hotel guests will come from Sea -Tac Airport. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 231 X74 -trips on average weekday (6.09 trip per room because of its proximity to the airport). The peak hours will be between 7 and 9 in the morning and 4 to 6 in the afternoon. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Shuttle bus will be provided to transport guests to and from the airport. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: Yes, such as police and fire protection. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The hotel will have interior corridor and the site will have proper lighting to increase site security. 16. Utilities Evaluation for Agency Use Only, D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: • • a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: (electricity), (natural gas), (water), (refuse service), (telephone), (sanitary sewer), septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. All overhead electrical power lines will be removed and replaced with underground lines. A new water line might be needed to replace existing 6" water line along South 139th Street. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: Evaluatiox1 for Agency Use Only o2/a 3/9� AAA. c„e.at l�.z'��' - PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies' of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The Objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general "overall perspective of the proposed action in the' context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To build a new three-story hotel with 45 guestrooms. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? To keep three existing motel structures. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The existing motels are in very poor physical conditions and has created a lot of security problems for both the owner and local police department over the years. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: • .�Y C) t I I 1 > 04 1 03 AIR U v 4 L -r 971.12� rVrsir� aORM.? .0- Ant • 'r.0 a, .o- IMMO B 9DYf =I • MR I • -0 inr J 01.1.49.2 TO PDG OA Mt SOUTH ELEVATION OCA.LE. 1/0. • l'•C.• shierepah.._ Lae SSAL1e3114fr PL LP!! WEST ELEVATION OCALA. 1s7..r_o• czn.e s• r-A8PNALT ew.wle/ (1 YU I � _ •.xi' !Id LNH ;_ BerisjjAL_ 111•1119130 R. 1.111 L_ W STUCCO W' DR7M Pleb/ (T'T) EAST ELEVATION 1