HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E95-0032 - UNCLE STUART'S GOLF - GOLF AND BASEBALL FACILITYUNCLE STUART'S GOLF
SRO GOLF &
BASEBALL FACILITY
SR 158 & S. 158T" ST.
E95-0032
r�•
City of Tukwila
40-7
John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster; Director
September 12, 1996
Jim Roberts
Uncle Stuarts Golf Inc.
9010 NE 41st
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Uncle Stuarts Golf Driving Range/Batting Cages
L95-0061 (Conditional Use Permit)
L95-0062 (Design Review)
E95-0032 (Environmental Review)
B95-0412 (Building Permit)
Dear Jim:
This is to follow up on my letter of July 18,1996. At that time we indicated you must pay the
$1,000 EIS fee or else the above referenced applications will expire. You paid by check on
August 2, 1996, however, on August 12, 1996, the City received notice that the check was
returned due to non -sufficient funds.
This is to inform you that because the EIS fee was not paid by the August 2, 1996 deadline, those
applications have now expired. If you wish to proceed with the project, you will be required to
submit new applications, fees and comply with current regulations.
This expiration is a Type 1 decision and is "not subject to administrative appeal and may be
appealed only to Superior Court pursuant to RCW ch. 36.70(C)" (see Section 18.108.010(B)
TMC). If you have any questions on this action, you can contact John Jimerson at 431-3663.
Steve Lancaster
DCD Director
SL:JJ
C:\sepa\stuex2.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
epartment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
August 29, 1996
Nadine Zackrisson, AICP
Huckell/Weinman Associates
205 Lake Street South #202
Kirkland, WA 98033
RE: Request for Proposal
EIS for Golf Driving Range
Dear Ms. Zackrisson
The City of Tukwila is looking to hire a consultant to prepare an EIS for a private
development project. We have reviewed the list of consultants provided by the
applicant and selected Huckell/Weinmann Associates as our choice to prepare
the EIS.
The purpose of this letter is to request that you submit a proposal, by September
9, 1996, for preparation of the EIS. At a minimum, the proposal should include a
description and scope of the work product, project schedule and budget, and key
personnel. As we discussed, your proposal should be delivered to me by
September 13, 1996.
Enclosed is background ;information to assist in your development of a proposal.
Don't hesitate to call me at 431-3663 if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
John Ji%erson
Associate Planner
enclosures: SEPA Checklist
DS and Scoping Notice
Staff Review
Comments from public & agencies
Project Plans
CUP and BAR Applications
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 ° Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665
•
Memorandum (DRAFT)�c,� l�
TO: Jack Pace CCS
���
FROM: John Jimerson ;�,
RE: Consultant Selection - Uncle Stuarts Golf EIS
DATE: August 13, 1996
I have reviewed the qualifications of the three consultants specified by Jim Roberts for
preparation of the EIS.
Adams and Clark (Spokane): Their qualifications indicate golf course development
provides a large proportion of their clients and work. I am concerned that they are
linked too closely to the golf course industry and may not provide the level of impartiality
that we seek. Further, they have not demonstrated that they have successfully
prepared any EIS's. I talked with a key member of the firm several months ago and
expressed these concerns. I gave him the opportunity to provide additional information,
to date he has not responded. Finally, their location in Spokane is not convenient and
may result in logistical problems. Based on, these facfors, I do not think they are the
appropriate firm for the job.
The other two firms, R.W. Thorpe and Huckell/Weinman both have extensive
experience. I recommend we choose Huckell/Weinman base on the following
considerations:
The scope of the EIS includes fisheries/water quality issues. H -W has a biologist on
staff and they have a working relationship with a firm (Pentec) experienced in wildlife
and fisheries issues. Thorpe indicated no such technical expertise on their team.
Although R.W. Thorpe has shown they have a broader range of experience than does
Adams and Clark, I am concerned with the fact that a large proportion of their clients
are developers, and have regularly represented developers in the permit process.
In contrast, H -W has what I consider a healthier mix between public and private clients.
They have extensive experience in EIS preparation, including EIS's for golf course
development. I believe they can provide the objectivity and the technical expertise we
desire for this project.
Please review and comment on this recommendation and on the process I've outlined
on the attached sheet.
• •
EIS CONSULTANT PROCUREMENT PROCESS (DRAFT)
Step 1: Provide H -W with scoping notice, SEPA checklist and project plans. Arrange
meeting to discuss project and scope.
.1
Step 2: Have meeting with H -W, Public Works, Planning and applicant to discuss
scope of project. H -W provides proposal, schedule and budget.
Step 3: Planning reviews H -Ws proposal, schedule and budget and prepares contract.
Step 4: Contract is approved by whomever in the City needs to approve.
Step 5: Contract is presented to H -W for acceptance. Negations on contract occur.
Step 6: Obtain funds for preparation of EIS from applicant.
Step 7: City and H -W signs contract, work commences.
July 18, 1996
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Jim Roberts
Uncle Stuarts Golf Inc.
9010 NE 41st
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Uncle Stuarts Golf Driving Range/Batting Cages
L95-0061 (Conditional Use Permit)
L95-0062 (Design Review)
E95-0032 (Environmental Review)
B95-0412 (Building Permit)
Dear Mr. Roberts:
As you know, for the above referenced projects to proceed you must first complete the
environmental review process, including preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
We sent you a letter last January explaining the process for preparing the EIS, including the fact
that the process would not begin until you submit the $1,000 administrative processing fee.
It has been almost six months since the SEPA determination was made and we still have not
received the $1,000 fee. The purpose of this letter is to inform you ,that if we do not receive the
fee by August 2, 1996, all of the above, referenced applications will become void and any vested
rights you may, have had with them will be lost.
If you wish to keep the process moving, then you need to submit the fee by August 2nd. In
addition, you need to submit the qualifications •of one additional consulting firm, or the addendum
to the qualifications of Adams and Clark as you discussed previously with John Jimerson.
Don't hesitate to call me at 431-3670 if you have any questions.
Lr,l`
Steve Lancaster
DCD Director
SL:JJ
C:lsepa\stuexp.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
.t•L. rO
TTTTTTiON 01
Rtzgulator.y Branch
7/l/tLL-
9'to i
-y/57
x"( y eon
`�... .� w1`11 1 1/4.)1- t 1'1t.;: -ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF GINEERS
P.O. BOX 37.55
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124.2253
FEB 12 1996 •
Reference: ,.5 -RQ ,t
Cj,.
/ _We r en ly/rreceiv d a copy of the following information from
/ !U concerning your proposed project.
( v1 Determination of Nonsignificance
( ), Shoreline Permit
(4 En7ironmenta' Checklist
(
Other:
Your project may require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under the following regulations.
( ) Section 10 'of the Rivers and Harbors Act
(✓- Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
A Section 10 permit is required:for construction in or over any navigable
waters of the United States. 'A Section 404 permit is required for the
discharge of dredge or fill material in waters of the United States, including
wetlands.
The term "discharge of dredged material" means the addition, including
redeposition, of dredged material or excavated soils. These activities can
include grading, mechanized landclearing, ditching; channelization, and other
excavation activities that destroy or degrade waters ¢Af the United States,
c udi .g wetlands. The term "discharge of fill ma
t_orial means
.�, the addition
of any material used for the primary purpose of creating dry land or of
changing the elevation of water of the Unit_..
placement of riling �^ States, including wetlands. The
iconstitutes a d' scharge o"ill 11 matPr'ia1 ' When such
placement has _ would‘‘‘.,r-'.-- - -
have the cf a w •fill discharge c: _il� material.
Wetlands mean those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
around water at a frequency and duratic- suffnormalicient circumstances do,. .. s`'--=c-e..� tc support, and that under
or life instances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
saturated soil conditions.
Please contact Cil/Yt,/. , telephone (Z06e2
• concerning specific pe mit requirements. Enclosed for your use is our permit
pamphlet and necessary application materials.
Enclosures
1+-t••••••
Sincerely,
(;/cm,t_ �(4/ 1C,/
Ann R. Uhrich
Chief, Process:.^.v and -
Environmertal S"ecticRECE V D
FEB 14 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
City of Tukwila
John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
February 8, 1996
Jim Roberts
Uncle Stuarts Golf Inc.
9010 NE 41st
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Uncle Stuarts Golf Driving Range/Batting Cages
E95-0032
Dear Jim:
We received your submittal of qualifications for three consultants.
Please be advised that we will not begin reviewing the
qualifications or begin the selection process until we receive the
$1,000 administrative fee.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call me at 431-
3663.
Sincerely,
AP AiOr
�.ohn imerson
Asso ,Late Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Uncle Stuartkolf, Inc.
9010 N.[.. 4tr. Street • eeIIevue, VA. 98004
(206) 462-8060
January. 31,1996
Steve Lancaster
DCD Director
City Of Tukwilla
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
.Tukwilla, Wash. 98188
(206) 431-3670
RE:' Uncle Stuart''s Golf
E9$-0032'.
Dear Steve:
Enclosed please find
:I will be in; Arizona
Range
three consultant.,qualification,packages.
thru 2/10/96, -and will call you from -there.
rsonal regards.,
s Robe, fires:
RS,CEIVEP
FEB '071996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
• •
RECEIVED
JAN 2 6 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
January 25, 1996
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
City of Tukwila
Community Development Department
6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Ref: File #PRE95-024 - Comments for Determination of Significance
re SRO Golf Driving Range Facility
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
With regard to, and prior to the City's final determination on the scope
of the EIS for the proposed driving range, we request that a decision be
made regarding our January 4, 1996 appeal to the City for denial of the
applicant's building permit application for the steel girder/netting
structure. We are of the opinion that denial of the application is
fully justified, and if the City should concur with us, the decision
needs to be made prior to requiring the EIS work.
In the event the City should accept the permit, the Homeowners of Laurel
Estates would like to reiterate their major concerns and request that
the following be addressed and discussed in the EIS for the proposal.
1. The effect of lights and glare from the proposed project needs to
be fully analyzed in view of the numerous residential developments
surrounding the site (on all sides except for the Highway 99
side). The analysis needs to take into account existent and
significant lighting patterns in the area due to Highway 99, its
commercial enterprises and Highway 518.
The analysis should provide not only technical and theoretical
information on the proposed "low -impact" lighting system, but
identify existent sites (if these exist) in the Puget Sound area
where such lighting is in current use. Light measurement studies
should also be performed at existent sites at different hours and
in various atmospheric conditions to fully understand the impacts
and to determine whether it is possible to devise a system that
would result in an acceptable level for the neighborhood.
2. The noise impact needs to be fully analyzed since the area already
experiences high noise levels due to the 518 freeway traffic and
from airplane arrival and departures from both Seatac and Boeing
fields.
• •
January 25, 1996
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
Tukwila Community Development Department
Page 2 of 3
Noise from the operation would include not only human voices, but
also the sound of both golf balls and baseballs being struck,
ball retrieval and lawn mowing equipment, and pitching machines.
It is conceivable that the batting cages would attract heavy and
regular usage from neighborhood softball teams (of all ages).
Driving ranges also regularly promote "tournaments" to increase
usage and generate income; would a loud speaker system be used
regularly? The noise impact should also be analyzed in relation
to differing atmospheric conditions in the area.
3. The possible impact on our property values is of MAJOR concern to
the homeowners. If the EIS can address this concern in any shape
or form, we would appreciate it (although we recognize that it may
not be within the scope). However, if the development were to
fall into disrepair or neglect for any reason, or if there were
ongoing problems related to ball containment, lighting or noise,
it is clear that there would be a definite negative impact on our
property values.
4. The probability of increased traffic and decreased parking on
South 158th is also of primary concern. A thorough traffic study
needs to be performed. See our November 27, 1995 "Response" to
the Applicant's Environmental Checklist for descriptions of the
existent traffic problems and road hazards on South 158th.
5. Aesthetically, the impact of a 115 -foot steel girder and netting
structure within 25 feet of our homes would be extremely negative.
It would be towering over us everytime we walked out our doors or
looked out our windows. The structure, together with tree
coverage designed to "hide" the unsightliness of the netting
would obliterate most of our afternoon sun, and completely and
irrevocably change the quality of life in our condo development.
The impact of the changed conditions could also adversely affect
the value and marketability of our properties.
6. The existent water course (defined as a "sensitive area") on the
property and probable impacts on it need to be fully analyzed.
The project could have significant negative impacts on the water
course and surrounding vegetation. Storm water runoff, increased
pollutants, and possible erosion need thorough analysis.
January 25, 1996
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
Tukwila Community Development Department
Page 3 of 3
7. Ball containment is another primary concern. We are very
concerned for the safety of both our persons and our property.
Golf experts indicate that drivings ranges should have a minimum
depth of 275 to 300 feet (so that golfers can practice their full
drives). Due to the small dimensions of this site, the maximum
distance on this range appears to be no more than 200-220 feet.
Consequently, the possiblity that balls will escape the netting
perimeters is compounded --- even in larger ranges, golf experts
state that 100% ball containment is not possible.
The ball containment issue also brings up the issue of insurance
liability; the homeowners should not have to risk the possiblity
of increased insurance costs in the event we have numerous
claims. The City would also need to be concerned with liability,
considering the nearness of South 158th and Highway 518 to the
site.
8. Per discussion with the Applicant, an independent market/economic
analysis has not been performed. In view of the single -purpose
nature of the operation and the close proximity of existent and
new facilities of the same type, it seem incongruous that the land
owner and the applicant's investors have not insisted upon such a
study. It has also come to our attention that cities have the
ability to require that an economic evaluation be performed in
conjunction with the overall environmental impact statement (see
copy attached of a December 15, 1995 article from the Journal
American regarding a proposed project in Woodinville). We are
of the opinion that such a study should be required, unless there
is a valid (and/or yet undisclosed) reason for it not to be done.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If we can
provide any additional information in the event the decision is made to
go ahead with the EIS, please call me at (206) 232-3510.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Ifuber, Committee Chairperson, Representing
Homeowners & Residents of Laurel Estates Association
3810 S. 158th, #C-5
Tukwila, WA 98188
0 1
By'Herbert At.en a said the,decrsion came.as no sur Road to t)te north ti: g ,
Joumal American Staff Wraer % '
i.
•
•
.:, , _ � y prise to the city s,busme5s commum Once -completed, the centerrpould;
WOODINVILLE =Developers ty�r { s y .offer parking- for 2,300 cars and at
of the 43-acre.Woodtnville'Retaiil (The decision) is riot at all:sur Ieast40,00 square feetofcotnmer,
Center hrve dropped a home'` ,. prtsmg;.;giyen' the fact -.that we have 1.eial space for1tetjants to include• a groo-•
lriiprovement business from theme ,excellent and very aggressle retail 7cery, general -a14
and_
planniedahopprng mall w 1iiers in Woodinville he said r �a 10 screen movie theater ,,..1 '
; The decision was a response toan.,..:, An Eagle' Hardware` out let: was An economic Impact aztaly"sis con
econom19 stud) predicting a fierce ; eportedly;considered for the center ducted by„Seattle based wro,pperty
competitron`between such'a business Goodwin said j Counselors Inc. predicted the.S'60 rtul-
and similar established businessesin Z ` ' on project would brin ffi'i}.lmost
the area 1 ��,. s� U g, l r
tis Market is saturated i , y : ,,., S. million a .year;,irh1 q iles i+;.
r&`.The market< rs, saturated a ,lif noted that established home But'the study also' suggested; that
Inteiestlica'c's'th`eonly:fieldwhere `improve,ment busi ii 6;4 % ;while the'retaiI •center ;'*i] l_increase .
the..market;rs saturated: There's a :McLendon s, Molbak'-stand anew ;the city's'customer_base i will. _fight
great demand for 111 others ";said ” lI-Iome'Base outlet that isbeing:built ••for the -sin -le customers"ofestablished -
`Robert Parks; president of TRF •off State Route 522, would pose thusin esses specwfically homer;
Pacific Inc:; the retail center s devel strong competition to a newcomer - tmprovement; grocery and clothing
.opens .. r ".` ,_ ,,;TRFPacific.]nc_�plan""sa43:44acret.stores;
`'' He said'a still unnamed national project that` would take up almost a The economic:study. was part of an :;
retailer will take"the place of. the fourth of Woodinville's7,dowritown overall environmental impact state
'dropped business ';'' '` ` r :.e core boijnded by N.E.:17Sth Street to merit• required:by the city from the '.
Ken Good in prtsiderit of the fthe south; 140th,AvenueWN,E toLLth'e- .de eloper before construction can -,-
,Woodinville Cha tuber of Commerce `east and Woodinville S'riohomish begin;"-= 4 — { fi
• •
January 25, 1996
Mr. John Jimerson
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste. #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Proposed Golf Driving Range at S. 158th St. and Military Road S.
Dear Mr. Jimerson,
RECEIVED
CIT' OF ithogll-A
JAN 2 6 1995
PERMIT CENTER
The Hollycrest Owners Association represents the 22 property owners in the Hollycrest
complex at 4021 S. 158th St., east of the proposed project. All but one of the owners live
in the complex. The project was discussed at length at the annual Owners Association
meeting, January 16, 1996. Opposition to the project was unanimous for the following
reasons:
1. Increased Traffic/Congestion - Only two narrow streets provide access to the
proposed project, S. 158th and Military Road. S. 158th is bordered by five houses and
six apartment, condominium and townhouse complexes. It is common for cars, trucks,
motor homes and occasional 40 foot tractor/trailer rigs to park on one or both sides of the
street effectively reducing traffic to one lane. The popularity of a golf driving range and
batting cage will certainly increase traffic on these streets at all hours of the day and into
the night exacerbating an already troubling situation.
2. Traffic/Pedestrian Hazard - A walking path and sidewalk run along the north
side of S. 158th St. This is the only path where the residents can walk with pets or
children without crossing a busy arterial. It is also the route many walk to access the
theater, other businesses and a Metro bus stop. The south side of the street has a
sidewalk only in front of Hollycrest and one of the apartment buildings. Military Road S.
makes no provision for pedestrian traffic. These streets are serviced by the South Central
School District busses, picking up numerous elementary age children. The increased
traffic on these narrow, congested streets will make walking to/from the movie theater
and other business on Pacific Highway even more hazardous.
3. Lowered Property Values - Realtors have advised that the construction of the
project with its fences that can be as high as 120 ft., flood lights illuminating the area
well into the night, and the attraction of increased traffic and possible undesirable
elements, will have an adverse affect on the property values of Hollycrest and the
condominium complexes of S. 158th St. Recent reports indicate property values in
Tukwila average $96,000. Townhouses in Hollycrest range in value from $125,000 to
$160,000. The development of this property as proposed will have a serious negative
effect on our property values.
• •
4. Questionable Zoning - Our Association was extremely surprised to find this
area and the property across the street to the south to be zoned commercial. With the
exception of the church on the corner of Military Road S. and S. 160th St., the two streets
are entirely residential. It would seem inconsistent with the makeup of these streets to
allow commercial development of any kind in this/these areas. While many may think a
street with multi -family complexes would be a good sight for commercial zoning, the
reality is this is a residential neighborhood. We would recommend the property in
question be rezoned residential.
A project of this nature is totally inappropriate and unwelcomed in this neighborhood.
We would appreciate any opportunity to discuss this issue further. Kindly keep us
advised of any public meetings or hearings.
Sincerely,
Hollycrest Owners Association
Les Co an, President
4034 S. 158th Ln.
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 243-2832
Judy Matsudaira, Treasurer
4048 S. 159th Ln.
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 246-9247
• January 24, 1996 •
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd. - Stc. #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
I would like to comment on the "Jim Roberts, Uncle Stuarts Golf, Inc." proposal. I am a homeowner in Laurel
Estates Association which will border the proposed golf range. I would officially like to object to the project
going in on that property for the following reasons:
1. The light and glare from the project would definitely interfere with my quality of living as my
bedroom is on the second story and I would have light and glare in my bedroom window from
dark until the proposed closing at midnight. His proposal for lights that would not interfere with
my quality of living has not been proven and I am not convinced it could be done.
2. Another problem would be the nets (120 ft. high ) would also interfere with my quality of living as
it would be in my back yard. Another concern connected with the poles would be the guy wires
that would be holding them up. I don't think anyone has really looked into how they would affect
the neighboring residents.
3. In my unit (A-6) I have three cathedral windows that are on the second story of my townhouse.
One of these windows faces the proposed range and would be in danger of a ball hitting it. Who
is responsible for fixing this window (even if insurance is carried by Jim Fields). The window
would have to be fixed immediately as it is in my living room. Our Condominium insurance has a
$1,000 deductible and I am sure the window would cost in the range of $500-$600 to fix. What
would happen if it were broken a number of times?? This may not sound like much of a problem
but as a homeowner I wouldn't be able to bear an expense like that. If it happened on a regular
basis it could turn into a big expense.
4. Market Analysis? Has one been done. There are two golf ranges in the area now. Is another one
needed?
5. The size of the property should be investigated. I would question whether it is large enough for
the proposed project.
6. The streets around that area might not be able to handle all the traffic proposed with this new
project.
7. Another big concern is the impact on the property values of the bordering condominiums. I just
can not believe they would increase in value.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasis my concerns for this project. I know eventually something will be built
on this site but because of the environmental impact the city should be very cautious about what is built on this
site. I would be happy to serve on a committee, if one is formed, to investige what would be suitable for that
site/property.
Sincerely,
'C?C3t
Pat Paynton
Laurel Estates
3810 So. 158th St. -- A-6
Seattle, WA 98188
RLS'CEIIV D
JAN 24 1996
CO1F t' UN6 r
DEVELOPMENT
r
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
January 23, 1996
Jim Roberts
Uncle Stuarts Golf Inc.
9010 NE 41st
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Uncle Stuarts Golf Driving Range/Batting Cages
E95-0032
Dear Mr. Roberts:
This letter is to follow up with our meeting of January 16, 1996 to
advise you of the process for preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the above referenced project.
The primary steps of preparation of an EIS are as follows:
1. Scoping of the EIS. This is currently in progress. A scoping
notice has been published in the Seattle Times, posted on the
site, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site
and to parties of record.
2. Hiring of a consultant. We have determined that the EIS shall
be prepared by an independent consultant to be hired and
supervised by the City.
We ask that you provide to us a list of at least three
qualified consultants that are satisfactory to you. From
that list, the City will review qualifications, select and
negotiate a contract with the most appropriate consultant.
The applicant will be fully responsible for the payment of all
consultant costs for preparation of the EIS. You will be
responsible for paying into a City fund the estimated cost of
consultant work prior to finalizing the consultant contract
and commencement of work. Any money unspent from this fund
will be returned to you. The applicant is responsible for any
City costs exceeding the deposit.
Further, there is a $1,000 fee to be paid to the City for
administering the SEPA review, payable at the time you submit
the list of consultants.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
3. The consultant will meet with the applicant and staff to
develop the project description. The impacts of this project
will be based on that description.
4. The consultant will prepare the Draft EIS (DEIS) under my
supervision. Typically a DEIS can take several months to
prepare. In order to ensure the EIS is as accurate as
possible, we will ask you to review the document at key
junctures during its preparation. Your comments and
suggestions regarding description of specific aspects of the
proposal, and the feasibility of mitigation suggestions will
be considered, but content of the documents is solely the
responsibility of the consultant and the City.
5. Once the DEIS is prepared to my satisfaction as the City's
SEPA Responsible Official, a DEIS will be published, notice
given and comments from the public and interested parties
requested. Comments are due on the DEIS 30 days from the date
of issue. Upon request, the comment period may be expanded to
45 days.
6. The purpose of the final EIS (FEIS) is to respond to the
issues and comments provided during the above referenced
comment period. The consultant will review the continents and
prepare written responses. The FEIS can be issued once this
is completed to the satisfaction of the SEPA Responsible
Official. The City cannot take any action on the project
until 7 days after the FEIS is issued.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call John Jimerson
at 431-3663. John will be serving as the contact person for this
EIS.
Sincerely,
Steve Lancaster
DCD Director
SL:JJ
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
JRECL DVE
JAN 2 3 1996
111
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard • Mill Creek, Washington 98012 • (206) 775-1311 FAX (206) 338-1066) miviuNny
January 22, 1996
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Steve Lancaster
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd.- Sstc. #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: COMMENTS FOR DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GOLF
DRIVING RANGE ADJACENT TO SR 518 AND S. 158TH STREET.
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
The following should be. addressed and discussed in the EIS for this
proposal:
1. Stormwater discharge should meet the requirements of Department of
Ecology Stormwater Manual for the Puget Sound Basin.
2. More information on the nature of the water course that flows through
this property. This stream may be the headwaters of Gilliam Creek which
is a tributary to the Green River. The lower portion of this creek
support salmon and trout.
3. Alternatives to tightlining (culverting) this headwater stream should
be discussed. Perhaps a small bridge for maintenance equipment access is
all that is needed. The stream in this area can be landscaped with
plants beneficial to wildlife.
4. Discussion of stormwater problems related to the severe channel and
bank erosion just downstream from this proposal and how the extension of
the storm pipe may cause more erosion to downstream areas.
5. A Hydraulic Project Approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife
for the stormwater culvert extension.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
If you have any questions please call me at (206) 775-1311 ex. 107.
Sincerely,
Philip Schnieder
Habitat Biologist
cc: Jane Banyard, Olympia
Carol Huber
EDWARD A. RAUSCHER
LAWYER
NINE LAKE BELLEVUE DRIVE, SUITE 114
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005
(206) 453-2623
January 22, 1996
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
Dept. of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
JAN 2
DEVE
Re: Determination of Significance and Scope of EIS
Proposed Golf Driving Range; Jim Roberts, Uncle Stuarts Golf, Inc.
Adjacent to SR 518, S. 158th Street and a vacated portion of old Military
Road South
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
We are the developers, owners and property managers of Sunnydale
Apartments, a 72 -unit multi -family community located at 15805 - 40th Pl. S.
The proposed golf driving range would be just across the street from our west
entrance. Needless to say, we strongly oppose the proposed project being
located so close to our residential property for the following reasons.
We have always advertised our community as being on a quiet,
residential street and that is one of the things which attracts our residents to
living at Sunnydale. All of the other properties on S. 158th Street are
residential, either multi -family, condominium or single-family. The only
recreational property in the vicinity is the Lewis & Clark theaters and bowling
alley. Those two activities are in -door entertainment and do not disturb the
neighborhood except for the vehicular traffic they generate, which is
considerable at times.
The introduction of an outdoor golf driving range and batting cagcs at
the proposed location would create nothing but significant adverse impacts on
the residential properties on S. 158th Street. At all hours of operation, it would
generate extreme amounts of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, noise from
cars, people, and golf clubs and bats hitting balls, light and glare from the
high-intensity lights used at a driving range, and hazardous impacts from golf
balls flying out of the driving range. This type of use is also not appealing
aesthetically to the residential neighborhood.
One of our other concerns is security. We have experienced incidents of
occasional car vandalism in our parking lot and trespassing in our parking lot
by groups of people drinking. We have worked closely with security person-
nel and the Tukwila police and have taken costly measures to keep our
community secure and safe. The enormous additional amount of traffic and
people who would be using our street would only increase the potential for
vandalism and trespassing on adjacent properties.
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
January 22, 1996
Page Two
We think any competent appraiser not employed by the proponent
would take the position that our and other adjoining properties would be
damaged by this proposed project.
We strongly oppose the proposed golf driving range being located in
our residential neighborhood and will take whatever legal measures are
available to us to prevent it from being built.
Very truly yours,
Edward A. Rauscher
Developer and Owner
Kathy Soelter
Property Manager
KS:st
• •
January 19, 1996
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wash. 98188
Attn: Mr. Steve Langcaster, Director, Dept. of Community Development
Subject: Proposed Golf Driving Range
Reference: Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS
Dear sir.
In accordance with the reference request, and as a resident of Chalet South Condominiums located at
4008 South 158th., I would like to protest the proposed establishment of the subject golf facility adjacent to
SR 518, South 158th Street and a portion of old Military Road South, in Tukwila. This area at present is a
saturated residential area with heavy traffic on 158th. and a narrow road with no sidewalks. Since the
addition of three new apartment projects in the immediate area of the proposed golf facility, traffic, parking
and noise have already reached an almost intolerable level.
The addition of the proposed golf facility can only exacerbate the local situation and negatively affect the
quality of life that is already threatened by the growth noted above. This proposed facility will no doubt
operate well into the night with all of the attendant problems such as glaring lights, batting noise, vehicle and
foot traffic on an already overburdened road, and an increased potential for vandalism.
It is my opinion that this property should be preserved for park usage or developed into a neighbor friendly
business that is a quiet, non -obtrusive and operates only during traditional business hours. Please include
my name with those that are strongly opposed to this proposal.
Sincerely,
// 44;/_e
Richard L. McEachron
4008-A South 158th.
Tukwila, Wash. 98188
(206) 248-0467
RECE VED
JAN 19 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, 5\11-0 A McMu41
Notice of
E Notice of
Board of
Packet
Board of
Packet
OPlanning
Packet
Public Hearing
Public Meeting
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
Commission Agenda
fl Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
flShoreline Management Permit
OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
Determination of Non-
significance
fl Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
' Determination of Significance
nd Scoping Notice ci-N\iiiz .004��i'
CAW -DST.
Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other
Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on T \ . \ ly � GiCe
M-Do1c--�E,
7LMi 1 0€51 `D t ODrz
Ci1/4¶r-
Sf-PKC, kA1A .6\S -x{23(0
Q)iN or- r, G
(GA -AA E A>6
Name of Projectt)NOLflJ Signature G..
File Number t9 5 - 00%52_
January 15th, 1996
Jane Cantu
Tukwila City Hall.
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Jane,
I am responding to the letter that went out the neighbors of the property adjacent to SR 518 and South
158th street.
I wish to make my concerns known to you on this issue. I am extremely concerned with the amount of
traffic that will come into this area as we are having extremely difficulties with vehicles being parked on
South 158th Street for storage and illegal parking as well as my concern for noise and safety related
issues.
While I regard myself as one to be interested in progress and new and innovative ideas for activities, as a
homeowner, I do not feel that putting this driving range in this location is in the best interest of the
homeowner's in this area. I do think there are other areas that should be considered for this type of
business.
I would appreciate being kept informed of the progress or elimination of this proposal.
Thank you,
Luc}/Pagliaro
Chalet South Condominiums
4022 B South 158th Street
Tukwila, WA 98188-2617
RECEIVED
JAN 16 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
AFF I DAV I T
_.'yp McpAItu.J
ONotice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Meeting
Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
IlPlanning Commission Agenda
Packet
fl Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
LIShoreline Management Permit
OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
Determination of Non-
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
IPetermination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
was atertSffd to each of the following
LtNbA Qua -RI
SM F TN\
Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other
Other
addresses on \P , 0 ,
Name of Project u IVB ( . 3T,1A-K-vGj Gbh Pignature - * Cni__
File Number F_CtG o Q32—
C F TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FAX TRANSMITTAL
FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665
TO:
Lfto
( -R1N
DATE:
-g-ciLo
TITLE:
FROM:
6y1 --V IA
M
COMPANY:
GA-TTLC,_
1 ME -S
TITLE:
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT:
cb
FAX NO.
NUMBER OF PAGES
TRANSMITTED, INCL.
THIS COVER SHEET:
SENT BY n
(INITIALS):pv
(L
4U•ii�4:tnvh4NJNi fhrv" vslxrnJi e.wri:tiv:i.i ee. o u.viANN.4"wiiir/rrrv.imi•:vr irrie.w.. irsrii./rx:vffki 4.vrr/h%v:iv:ie,/rii:iii/Ni:K44.4.4w .voiw.4viiiiNi:4l4,Kviv rrxrirx/N/.... ir/H?i%..1...iNr..v.
1.
i7L( 5k c%0N Pc5
PD -GS\ p,LF . tSANK �lo� !.
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 3 - ��
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: y
Unw wi.rw/i:.. .. r. r. i:nr rwn...v.. r ��+.:�nwv. r�unvrrn .iiii rrr. iir�vi Nrmriin..wN wnn�. i::i .n•r:iwi�v+ r r..r.�./iri rrwriiri:r rrr r..-rrrr:J /iNK/in.v�N rrrr/irr-rlNrwn.•J.i�%%/hr//hrrrviv:. uw �fi,vh. �»'W.):
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office: (206) 431-3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 06/15/90
•
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sylvia Schnug
Li Notice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
fl Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
flPlanning Commission Agenda
Packet
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
flShoreline Management Permit
OF•
DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
Determination of Non-
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
ODetermination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Notice of Action
Official Notice
(Other
Other
•
was mailed to each of the following addresses on 1/5/9
The following people were mailed the Determination of Significance,
the Environmental Checklist and the staff evaluation dated 1/2/9 :
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Army Corps of Engineers
The following people were mailed the letter from Steve Lancaster dated
1/5/96 and the Determination of Significance:
Jim. Roberts
Cheryl Brown Richard Haines
Carol Hubor ff /�
Name of Project,( hOjlQ Srt-jAi w4S 60).1- Signature
File Number c -g S- OO2
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
January 5, 1996
Jim Roberts
Uncle Stuart's Golf, Inc.
9010 NE 41st Street
Bellevue, WA 98004
SUBJECT: SEPA Threshold Determination for proposed SRO golf and baseball facility
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Enclosed is a copy of our Determination of Significance for the proposed SRO golf and baseball facility.
I have concluded that there is a reasonable probability the proposed development would have more than a
moderate adverse effect on the quality of the environment. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requires under these circumstances that an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared before
the City can take action on your proposal.
I have made this determination after reviewing the environmental checklist and related materials
submitted by you, and after reviewing an analysis of your checklist prepared by my staff (Memo to
Project File No. E95-0032, dated 01-02-96). I have also visited the project site, as well as other golf
driving range facilities in south King County that are similar to the proposed project, as you have
described it.
Issuance of the Determination of Significance initiates a twenty-one day comment period on the scope of
the required EIS. During this comment period, we would be happy to discuss with you the procedures for
preparing and issuing the required EIS. Please contact John Jimerson at 431-3670 for additional
information or to schedule a meeting.
Sincerely,
L.✓ Y
Steve Lancaster; Director
Department of.Community Development
cc: Cheryl Brown, SRO
Carol Huber, Committee Chairperson, Residents of Laurel Estates Association
Richard B. Haines
John Jimerson
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
.,_
• •
Memorandum
TO: Project File No. E95-0032
FROM: John Jimerson
RE: SEPA - Uncle Stuarts Golf- Staff evaluation of
Environmental Checklist received October 25, 1995.
DATE: January 2, 1996
Project File No. E95-0032
Project Description:
The site is located between State Highway 518, S. 158th Street and
a vacated portion of Old Military Road. The proposal is to
construct and operate a golf driving range with 62 hitting
stations, a pro shop, food service and batting cages.
Agencies With Jurisdiction:
Department of Fisheries, Department of Ecology and Army Corp. of
Engineers.
Comments to SEPA Checklist:
Page 3, No. 10: Other approvals required includes Board of
Architectural Review approval, stormwater plan approval, tree
permit and a land altering permit from the City of Tukwila; State
Hydraulic Project Approval from the Department of Fisheries; Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit (#7 Outfall Structures); and Ecology
Water Quality Certification may also be required.
Page 3, No. 11: Proposal also includes baseball batting cages and
29 parking spaces.
Page 4, No. 1(a): There are areas of steep slope on the site,
adjacent to the watercourse.
Page 4, No. 1(f): Because of the slope of the site and the extent
of grading, erosion is likely to occur. Erosion impacts can be
mitigated through implementation of necessary practices through the
land altering permit process.
Page 5, No. 3(a)(1): The referenced storm drain is an open
watercourse which is a tributary to Gilliam Creek. It would likely
be categorized as a Class 3 watercourse under the Sensitive Areas
Overlay regulations of the Tukwila Zoning Code; however, no formal
assessment has been undertaken (See Checklist item A.13 on Page 3).
Page 6, No. 3(c)(3): No estimate of fill quantities are provided.
Page 6, No. 3(a)(4): The plans indicate it is proposed that the
existing watercourse be piped. Chapter 18.45 of the Tukwila Zoning
1 •
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 2
Code (Sensitive Areas Overlay) discusses piping of watercourses.
Piping of Type 3 watercourses may be allowed under certain
specified circumstances. Additional analysis is needed to
determine or confirm the proper classification of this watercourse
and to determine whether and how the requirement of Chapter 18.45
can be met.
Page 6, No. 3(a)(6): Lawns of golfing facilities are typically
maintained using fertilizers and herbicides, which will likely
enter the surface water system (whether piped or left open).
Applicant has not identified extent to which fertilizers and
herbicides would be used, and the manner in which they will be
used.
Page 7, No. (b)(2): Lawns on golfing facilities are typically
maintained using fertilizers and herbicides, which could enter
ground water. Applicant has not identified extent to which
fertilizers and herbicides would be used, or the manner in which
they would be used and managed.
Page 7, No. (c)1: Plans do not show biofiltration swale or
retention structure as indicated on the checklist.
Page 8, No. 3(d): Previous page indicates bioswale will be provided
for mitigation.
Page 8, No. 4(a): Based on site visit and aerials, there appears to
be a number of trees clustered on the southeast quarter of the
site. A number of cottonwoods are also located along the north
property line. It appears these cottonwoods are located in the
Highway 518 right-of-way.
Page 8, No. 4(b): Aforementioned trees are shown to be removed.
Page 10, No. 7(a): Use of herbicides and fertilizers could result
in increased exposure to toxic chemicals. The ball containment
system could be a safety hazard in the even of extreme high winds.
Structural analysis as part of building permit will address this.
This should include an appropriate soils/geotechnical analysis.
Additional analysis of the effectiveness of the proposed
containment system is protecting adjacent roadway and properties
and persons from flying golf balls is also warranted, especially in
light of the relatively small driving area.
Page 11, No. 11(b): Noise from operation includes human voice, golf
balls being struck, ball retrieval equipment, lawnmowers, pitching
machines and baseballs being struck.
Page 12, No. 8(d): This is inconsistent with the site plan which
shows the two billboard structures currently on the site as
• •
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 3
removed.
Page 12, Nos. 8(e&f): The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning ordinance designate the site as Regional Commercial.
Page 14, No. 11(b).: The site is immediately adjacent to SR 518.
Improperly installed or maintained lighting could create a safety
hazard for vehicles.
Page 15, No. 14(a): South 158th Street also serves the site.
Page 15, No. 14(b): The nearest public transit route is located on
S. 160th Street, about 500 feet south of the site.
Page 15,
Planning
to meet
there is
No. 14(c): Required parking is to be determined by the
Commission. In order to use theater/bowling alley parking
driving range requirements, applicant must demonstrate
an excess of spaces on that property.
Page 16, No. 14(d): South 158th Street is a narrow street serving
the adjacent multi -family residential area. It is heavily used for
parking, which further restricts its effective width. Impacts of
the proposal on this situation are not clear, and should be
addressed.
Page 16, No. 14(f): There is inadequate information/analysis to
determine appropriate mitigation, if any.
Summary of Primary Impacts:
1. Earth -- The site contains steep slopes and fill material.
Through recontouring the site, potential impacts include erosion
during construction, decreased infiltration of runoff, and
stability of structures. Erosion would be mitigated through an
erosion control plan at the time of land altering permit, increased
runoff would be addressed through a drainage plan and structural
stability would be addressed through the building permit process.
2. Air -- The proposal will result in increased vehicular trips and
associated air pollution. During construction, dust could affect
adjacent properties. These impacts should be mitigated with a SEPA
mitigation measure requiring regular sprinkling of the site to keep
dust to a minimum.
3. Water -- The project could result in increased volume of runoff,
increased pollutants introduced into the stormwater from vehicles
and lawn care chemicals, and elimination of vegetation that
"treats" the water that reaches the site in a polluted state. These
impacts can be mitigated by requiring post development runoff rates
and volumes not to exceed pre -development and by requiring that
•
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 4
treatment of the water be provided before being released. Because
the stream is identified as a sensitive area, a watercourse
assessment mustbe completed. This assessment will serve as a
baseline for determining impacts of piping the watercourse and will
identify any wetlands that may be present, and evaluate mitigation
needs and options.
4. Plants -- No endangered or candidate species are known to be
on the site. Most of the site will remain vegetated, although with
fewer species and varieties.
5. Animals -- The site provides habitat for small mammals and
birds. The project will eliminate most of this habitat, and will
provide some habitat in the form of urban landscaping. There are no
endangered or candidate species known on or near the site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources -- The project will require energy
for construction and operation, and for vehicles coming to the
site.
7. Environmental Health -- The project has the potential for
discharge of toxic chemicals into the watercourse. The primary
source of this would be from fertilizers and/or herbicides. This
impact may be mitigated through operational and/or site design
adjustments.
The project will result in increases of noise in close proximity of
residential uses. The noise impacts are unknown, an analysis would
be appropriate.
8. Land and Shoreline Use -- The project may create impacts on
adjacent residential land uses. See Nos. 10 and 11 below.
9. Housing -- The proposal will not result in a change to the
housing supply.
10. Aesthetics -- The proposal will is subject to BAR design
review and standards. The ball containment system includes a
proposal for a 90 to 115 feet high fence near the east property
line. The proposed fence is proposed to be located 10 feet from
the adjacent property to the east. The Kroll map shows the
adjacent condominium building to be only 10 to 15 feet from the
property line.
11. Light and Glare -- The proposal will generate light and glare
beyond that normally found in a residential area. A lighting
analysis will need to be conducted. Based on the City's experience
with achieving lighting standards for a golf driving range located
in a non-residential area, it can be expected to be very difficult
meet standards so as not to be detrimental to the adjacent
•
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 5
residential areas.
12. Recreation -- The proposal will not adversely affect recreation
facilities.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation -- The site is not known has
having any historical or cultural significance.
14. Transportation -- Vehicular access to the site is problematic.
Coming from or going to Pacific Highway South, customers will
either use S. 160th Street, or "cut through" the theater parking
lot. Coming from the east, traffic is likely to increase on S.
158th Street, a residential access street between 42nd Avenue South
and Military Road South. S. 158th is developed with high density
residential units and has a substandard width and lack of
pedestrian walkways along stretches. A traffic analysis with
recommendations will need to be submitted to fully assess the
impacts and suggest mitigation.
15. Public Services -- Project is not likely to generate
substantial increase in demand for public services.
16. Utilities -- Project is not likely to significantly increase
demand on the utility systems.
Recommended Threshold Determination:
The project is likely to have impacts that can be mitigated, but
which require additional analysis to determine the extent of the
impact and the appropriate means of mitigation. These include ball
containment, traffic impacts, water quality treatment and runoff
rate impacts.
The project is also likely to have probable significant adverse
impacts for which mitigation to non-significant levels may not be
possible. Additional detailed environmental analysis needs to be
conducted to better understand the impacts and to determine the
extent to which they may be mitigated.
1. Lighting analysis needs to be conducted. With our experience
with Southcenter Golf, we are finding it difficult to keep the
lighting to an appropriate level so as not to adversely affect
adjacent properties. Adjacent residential uses are more
sensitive to the lighting impacts than the commercial uses in
the Southcenter Golf case.
2. Noise impacts are likely. A noise analysis should be
conducted to determine the degree of the impact. Given the
outdoor use and the late hour operations of the proposal, it
may be difficult to mitigate the noise impacts.
• •
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 6
3. The aesthetic impact of the 90 to 115 foot high fence located
ten feet from the Laurel Estates condominium property and as
little as 20-25 feet from the condominium building will be
significantly adverse. The scale of the fence is not in scale
with the adjacent development, which is subject to a maximum
height of 45 feet. Given the small dimension of the driving
range, moving the fence to the west, further away from the
condominium will reduce the effectiveness of the ball
containment.
Because there are three areas of probable significant adverse
impacts and because there are four additional areas of adverse
impacts that are likely to be mitigatable, but which also require
additional analysis, I recommend we issue a Determination of
Significance, thus requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.
•
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS
Description of proposal:_ Construct a golf driving range with 62 hitting stations, pro shop and food
service. Project also includes batting cages.
Proponent: Jim Roberts, Uncle Stuarts Golf, Inc.
Location of proposal: Adjacent to SR 518, S. 158th Street and a vacated portion of old Military
Road South, Tukwila, WA
Lead agency: City of Tukwila, Washington
EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact
on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c)
and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental
impacts can be reviewed at our offices.
The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: Light and glare, noise,
aesthetic, traffic, water quality, storm Water, run-off rates and golf ball hazard impacts.
Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the
EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and
licenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us you comment is
Written comments shall be submitted to the address below by 5:00 p.m. on January 26, 1996.
Responsible official: Steve Lancaster.
Position/title: Director, Department of Community Development. Phone (206) 431-3670.
Address: 6300 Southccntcr Blvd. - Ste. #100, Tukwila, WA 98188
Date: January 5, 1996 Signature
X You may appeal this determination of significance In Writting
To: Jane Cantu
At: Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southccntcr Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188
No later than: 5:00 p.m. January 15, 1996
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections.
Contact: John Jimerson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals.
There is no agency appeal.
TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT (JAN 08 '96 09:05AM)
• TL•LA DCD/PW
(AUTO)
THE FOLLOWING FILE(S) ERASED
FILE FILE TYPE OPTION TEL NO. PAGE RESULT
087 TRANSMISSION 9* -4642582 02 OK
ERRORS
1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) BUSY
3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION
I,
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
fJ Notice of Public Hearing
fl Notice of Public Meeting
OBoard of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
O Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
hereby declare that:
Determination of Non-
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
nd Scoping Notice
Notice of Action
Official Notice
LI Short Subdivision Agenda ❑Other
Packet
O Notice of Application for l Other
Shoreline Management Permit
flShoreline Management Permit
M
was mailed to each of the following addresses on
Name of Project[Al �4o„ �, k &)c) I Signature
File Number E, 9 S b J Z
Virginia Schrock 0
2415 34th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199-3203
Douglas Jon .Marr
2828 Colby Ave
Everett, WA 98201-3537.
Barbara Munson & Connie Meyer
5214 S Lk Cassidy Rd
Lake Stevens, WA. 98258-0002
Dennis O'Connor
10229. 62nd P1 W
Mukil"teo,,WA 98275-4633
Family Trust D'Ambrosio
4509 Foxglove Dr NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332-9044
William & Marion Markham
5202 184th St E
Tacoma, WA 98446-3742
Ileen Schumaker
PO Box 303.
Olympia, WA 98507-0303
Family Commercial Dunning
1716 304th St E
Roy, WA- 98580-9522
Records Processed = 242
Dups screened = 25
CRs Screened = 0
Bad addressess = 0
Labels produced = 217
Gordon Cruttenden
15854 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2660
Michael Patrick Seifert
5671 S 150th P1
Seattle, WA 98188-2424
Harvey Lee
15420 35th Ave 5
Seattle, WA 98188-2201
Kenneth & Ione Vesper
3481 S 152nd St
Seattle, WA 98188-2176
STATE OF WASHINGTON
15441 35th Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2202
Grace M Graves
4024 S 154th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2242
Thomas Stimson
15404 40th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2207
Gary Arthur Orahood & Jean Nitta
19720 Pacific Hwy S *112h
Seattle, WA 98188-5410
George & Esther( Stakston
4345 S 177th St
Seattle, WA 98188-4132
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 Southcenter Blvd
Seattle, WA 98188-2544
Douglas Murray
20817 9th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98198-3251
Gerrie Kawabata
2035 S 232nd St
Seattle, WA . 98198-7072
Mic4111 Moriguchi
3810OP 158th St *C-6
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Jan & Linda Fischer
3810 5 158th St *C7
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Diane Landsinger
4018 S 158th St *58
Tukwila, WA 98188-2615,
Thomas Hope
15603 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2602
Robert Smith
4052 S 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Geo Klein
15460 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2215'
S & G Fay Pazooki
15458 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2215
Don & Devonna Schubert
4035 S 158th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2607
Roy Smalley
4039 S 158th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2607
Linda Elaine Bennett
3767 S 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2605
Edward Rogers
15837 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2644
David Baker
15857 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2644
Sue Boyle
3810 S 158th St #C-1411
.Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Robert Farrell
3810 S 158th St #C-2
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Eugenia Genta
3810 S 158th St #C-3
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Linda Lodge
4024 S 158th St #D
Tukwila, WA 98188-2618
Mary Kleinsasser
3810 S 158th St #C-4
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Nancy Sharpe
4032 S 159th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2600
Timothy &'Swear Barba Mulheim
4028 S 159th Ln #7
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
Randall Gunderson
4006 S 158th St #D
Tukwila, WA 98188-2610
Shareen Riskedahl
4030 S 158th Ln.
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Leslie & Marydee Countryman
4034 S 158th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Carol Ann Huber
3810 S 158th St #5
Seattle, WA •98188-2670
Charles Sanders
4004 S 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2609
DoloAW Stewart
4014111, 158th St #0
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Debra Thesenvitz
15625 42nd Ave S #8
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Hedy West
4220 S 154th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2347
Dennis Lee & Molly Sumption
15625 42nd Ave.S #7
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
Trudi Kortum
3810 S 158th St #B-9
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Kenneth Mullen
15625 42nd Ave S #5
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
Janet Sullivan
15625 42nd Ave S #3a
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Carolyn Hayes
15625 42nd Ave S #A-2
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Marlene Goodman
4004 S 158th St #4004-0
Tukwila, WA 98188-2609
Kim Shearer
15625 42nd Ave S #A-1
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Sandra Moore
3810 S 158th St #8-10
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Mary Ann Rankin
3810 S 158th St #8-11
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Patricia Wiegard
3810 S 158th St #B-3
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Roger & Tricia Caldwell
15650 42nd Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2601
Susan Spahr
3810 S 158th St 1B-4
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Claudianne Williams
3810 S 158th St #B-5
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Dale Greenwald
3810 S 158th St 1B-6
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Teresa Leyde
4004 S 158th St 136
Seattle, WA 98188-2609
Kathleen Bowman
4022 S 158th St #A
Tukwila, WA 98188-2617
William & Christina McHugh
4210 S 154th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2310
Donna Noland
15625 42nd Ave S #13
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
James Fjetland
4024 S 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2618
Joann Lawrence
3810 S 158th St #B-7
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Patricia Taylor
15625 42nd Ave S.#9
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
• Terry Julie Williams
3810 9.158th St #A-5
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Paul & Joanne Hurd
4036 S 159th Ln #9
Seattle, WA. 98188-2600
Patricia Paynton
3810 S 158th St #A-6
Seattle, WA 9.8188-2670
Rodger Siler
4010 S 158th St *4—
Seattle, WA 98188-2612
James Smith
4010 S 158th St #A
Seattle, WA 98188-2612
Patrick Dealey
15625 42nd Ave S #19
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
Steven & Rose Marie Hoiland
4022 S 158th St #65
Seattle, WA 98188-2617
Tina Decoster
4010 S 158th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2612
Chong Roberson
15625 42nd Ave S #17
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
John & Hagness Tamara Legault
15625 42nd Ave S #15
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Susan Brown
3810 S 1.58th St #B-1
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Richard Haines
3810 S 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Roberto Berrojo
3810 S 158th St 4A1
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Lauren Arnaud—Mayberry
4020 S 158th St *0
Seattle, WA 98188-2616
Marsha Mize
15625 42nd Ave S 426
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Terrance & Teresa Wilson
15625 42nd Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Joanne Flemings
15625 42nd Ave S *24
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Joyce Walters
4014 S 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Sally Anne Shaffer
3810 S 158th St #A-2
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Terence Lee
15615 42nd Ave S 423
Tukwila, WA 98188-2602
Masae Kono
4040 S 159th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
David Saito
15625 42nd Ave S *22
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
Thomas Alben Bailey
4014 S 158th St #C
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Ann McGrath
15625 42nd Ave S *20
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
M.ela Hudson
4012 158th St #H
Seattle, WA 98188-2614
Grzegorz & Malgorz Wierzbicki
4044 S 159th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2690
Thelma Woods
4012 S 158th St #329
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
William Allan McLean
4016 S 158th St #A
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Linda Walker
4024G S 158th St #74
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Bonnie Berry
15625 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
Margaret Newgent
15625 42nd Ave S #30
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
Flenis Spears Jr.
4046 S 158th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2687
Brenda Lead
15625 42nd Ave S #29
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Nicholas Castrow
15625 42nd Ave S #28e
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Donna Norris
4020 S 158th St #A
Seattle, WA 98188-2616
Jacqueline Carroll
4020B S 158th St #76
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Jeanne Ross
4012 S 158th St #C
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Chun Leung To
4002 S 158th St #F
Seattle, WA 98188-2608
William Cooper
4012 S 158th St #S21
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Jun & Florence M_( Tomita
15818 40th Ln S
Seattle, WA 98188-268.4
Bruce Miller
4012 S 158th St #E
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Linda Schroeder
4012 S 158th St #F
Tukwila, WA 98188-2613
DM & C E Christenson
4012 S 158th St #G
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Gordon Wavle
15814 40th Ln S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2684
Susan Anderson
4038 S 158th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Dennis Matsudaira
4048 S 159th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2690
Paul & Mae Koffler
4002 S 158th St #G
Seattle, WA 98188-2616
Glenn Smith
4002 S 158th St #H
Seattle, WA 98188-2616
Tholl, Bentley
4002 158th St #842
Seattle, WA 98188-2608
Elda Harada
4012— S 158th St #3
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
James Glover
4008 S 158th St #J
Seattle, WA 98188-2612
William & Pat•ricia Gray
4037 S 159th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
John & Lynne Skidmore
4033 S 159th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
Kenneth & Robin Totten
4055 S 159th Ln #19
Seattle, WA 98188-2690
Waveta Taylor
15838 40th Ln S
Seattle, WA 98188-2684
Keiko Hart
15834 40th Ln S #17
Seattle, WA 98188-2684
Juinior Merrell
4008 S 158th St #K
Seattle, WA 98188-2612
Mary Alice Holt
15822 40th Ln. S
Seattle, WA 98188-2684
Norma Camille Beaumont
4002 S 158th St #D
Seattle, WA 98188-2608
C Esping
40126 S 158th St #19
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Manabu Shimoji.
4006 S 158th St #F
Tukwila, WA 98188-2610
Richard Lee.McEachron
4008A S 158th St #7
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Catheible Melchior
4004 IIMPI58th #C
Seattle, WA 9818'8
Phillip & Helene Konopka
4010 S 158th #C.
Seattle, WA. 98188
Paula Rushmeier Alvin Dimmitt
4008 S 158th St #8 4014—A S 158th #k53
Tukwila, WA 98188-2611 Seattle, WA 98188
Mary Ann Vernarelli
4018 S 158th St #59
Seattle, WA 98188-2615
Donald Curtis Lee The
4008 S 158th St #D
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
William Johnston
4018 S 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2615
Sheila Willard
4008 S 158th St #F
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
Barbara Hjelmaa
4018 S 158th St #A
Tukwila, WA 98188-2615
Diane Demeerleer
4024 S 158th St #F
Seattle, WA 98188-2618
Carolee Elsey
4008 S 158th St #G
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
Frank Dennis
4008 S 158th St #H14
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
Roberta Hensrud
4022 S 158th St #D
Seattle, WA 98188-2617
Laura Maxwell
4024 A S 158th
Seattle, WA 98188
M Pagliaro Lucy
4022 S 158th #B
Seattle, WA 98188
Richard Fink
4020 —C South 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188
Melaine Shaner
4006 S 158th #C
Seattle, WA 98188
Lamb Sammie Monroe
4008 C S 158th
Seattle, WA 98188
Kevin Rogers
3810 S 158th St #C-8
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Daniel Brooks
3810 S 158th St #C-9
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Garry Johnson
3810 S 158th St #C-10
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Gomez Armando
4006 S 158th St. #E
Seattle, WA 98188-2610
.Douglas SnowIII E Want
PO Box 68130 5451 th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98168-0130 Seattle, WA 98126-2821
Malcolm Porter
PO Box 68786
Seattle, WA 98168-0786
Feng Mao & Yant Shu—Chen Lee
PO Box 68925
Seattle, WA 98168-0925
Feng Mao & Yang Shu—Chen Lee
PO Box 68925
Seattle, WA 98168-0925
Feng Mao Lee
PO Box 68925
Seattle, WA 98168-0925
Christi Egloff
4012 —J So 158th St Bldg 3 #27
Tukwila, WA 98168
Dianne Ashley
4042 S 158th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Ralph Lewis
4016 S 15.8th #'51 #C
Seattle, WA 98188
Thomas Wickert
4002 E South 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188
Kimberly Ross
4002 —A So 158th #41
Seattle, WA 98188
Jeannie Marnach
4004 —A So 158th St
Tukwila, WA 98188
Kurt McLaren
4024 S 158th #E
Tukwila, WA 98188
Carol & James Guettler
7812 Fauntleroy Way SW
Seattle, WA. 98136-2231
E Song & Eleanor Lin
PO Box 58012
Seattle, WA 98138-1012
James Greig
PO Box 58950
Seattle, WA 98138-1950
Cary Fujioka
PO Box 88181
Seattle, WA 98138-2181
Nicholas & Potter Amantea
25=30 SW 119th P1
Seattle, WA 98146-2513
Thomas & Janet Dunstan Jr.
6436 NE 192nd P1
Seattle, WA 98155-3322
John Englund
1564111th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98166-2113
Richard Franks III
15705 14th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98166-2122
K C FIRE DIST NO 2
15100 8th Ave SW
Seattle,,WA 98166-2244
Phil & Judy Licastro
19617 4th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98166-4021
W Wyman & Diane Andrus
18155Marine View Dr. SW
Seattle, WA 98166-3839
FOX & ASSOCIATES INC 111
701 5th Ave
Seattle, WA 98104-7016
June Remillard
1107 NE 45th St #330
Seattle, WA 98105-4631
Marvin Anderson
9851 24th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98106-2631
Anne Gi.11isp•ie
2007 S Alaska St
Seattle, WA 98108-1515
Frank Mataya
6403 Beacon Ave S
Seattle, WA 98108-3616
Frank Lamar
2704 Nob Hill Ave N
Seattle, WA 98109-1746
Margie Hohnstein
P0 Box 584
Seattle, WA 98111-0584
Arthur & Sally Kawaguchi
918 SW 128th
Seattle, WA 98114
Clifford Alex
4208 37th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118-1316
C J Spencer
7319 Bowlyn P1 S
Seattle, WA 98118-4207
Clifford & Cathy Rei Godwin
7319 Bowlyn P1 S
Seattle, WA 98118-4207.
SUPERSTAR CORPORATION
2515 4th Ave #608
Seattle, WA 98121-1461
Josie ataja
23501 2th Ave SE 0C101
Kent, WA 98031-3423
Harley & June Hybridge
2424 S 260th St #1
Kent, WA 98032-5577
Lori Jones
PO Box 1025
Kent, WA 98035-1025
Robert Baldridge
PO Box 6186
Lynnwood, WA 98036-0186
Nancy Siccardi
11122 SE 183rd P1
Renton, WA 98055-7153
William Humphrey
1812 Kennewick Cir SE
Renton, WA 98055-3712
Anne & Skura Armstrong.lea
1934 Shattuck Ave S
Renton, WA 98055-4248
Ronald & Victori Easterling
12610 SE 73rd P1
Renton, WA 98056-1314
Marian Julum—Shaw
63 Monterey Dr NE
Renton, WA 98056-4038
Geraldine Packard
2006 Glennwood Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056-2307
Parmele Jean
PO Box 833
Seahurst, WA 98062-0833
George Marble
6810. Dayton Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103-5220
PARTNERS PREFERRED /MILD IN
PO Box 25025
Glendale, CA 91221-5025
Peter & Grace Wang
PO Box 234
Pebble Beach, CA 93953-0234
Eugene & Dennis Masao Miyoshi
MIYOSHI CHILDREN'S
2125 Damon St
Honolulu, HI 96822-2140
Richard & Janine Duncan
5418 S 292nd P1
Auburn, WA 98001-2101
S Michael Rodgers
3 Lake Bellevue Dr
Bellevue, WA 98005-2440
Edward & Vicki Rauscher
9 Lake Bellevue Dr #114
Bellevue, WA 98005-2454
COTTAGE WOODS ASSOCIATES
3801 150th Ave SE #300
Bellevue, WA 98006-1668
COTTAGE WOODS APARTMENTS
3801 150th Ave SE #300
Bellevue:WA 98006-1668
CHALET SOUTH GROUP
16301 NE 8th St
Bellevue, WA 98008-3915
STERLING RECREATION
PO Box 91723
Bellevue, WA 98009-1723
STERLING REALTY ORGANIZATIO
PO Box 91723
Bellevue, WA 98009-1723
Rand & Wendy Settlage
21129 50th Dr SE
Bothell, WA 98021-7981
"t6)72-5- 7)1A -Z/ ae;IGZ .
METROSCAN LABELS
Date: 08/28/95
Repor •els
Sort: Mail CRRT
* * *
Count: 21
For: JIM ROBERTS
Of: STUART'S GOLF, INC.
By: SHERRIE
9010-1/2 N.E. 41ST
BELLEVUE WA 98004
Family Trst Fung & J C C Chan
6700 W North Ave
Chicago, IL 60635-3937
Michele Merfeld
Aarp 1901 W 47th P1 #1047
Westwood, KS 66205
Ann Lynette Jones
10639 S Wilton P1
Los Angeles, CA' 90047-4353
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
PO Box 2485
Los Angeles, CA 90051-0485
HUTTON REAL AMERICAN PROP
9090 Wilshire Blvd #201
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-1848
Leslie & Marydee Collryman
4034 S 158th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Susan Anderson
4038 S 158th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Dianne Ashley
4042 S 158th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Flenis Spears Jr.
4046 S 158th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2687
Linda Elaine Bennett
3767 S 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2605
Sally Anne Shaffer
3810 S 158th St #A-2
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Terry & Julie Williams
3810 S 158th St #A-5
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Patricia Paynton
3810 S 158th St #A-6
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Susan Brown
3810..S 158th St #8-1
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Sandra Moore
3810 S.158th St #B-10
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Mary Ann Rankin
3810 S 158th St #B-11
Seattle, WA 981.88-2670
Patricia Wiegard
3810 S 158th St #8-3
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
•
*** METROSCAN LABELS
Date: 08/28/95
Report: c
Sor Site Address
Count: 66
d
For: JIM ROBERTS
Of: STUART'S GOLF, INC.
By: SHERRIE
9010-1/2 N.E. 41ST
BELLEVUE WA 98004
Grace M Graves
4024 S 154th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2242
William & Christina McHugh
4210 S 154th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2310
Hedy West
4220 5 154th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2347
Shareen Riskedahl
4030 S 158th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2687
Susan SpahrIII Th�s Stimson
3810 S 158th St #8-4 1544 40th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2670 Seattle, WA 98188-2207
Claudianne Williams
3810 S 158th St #8-5
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Dale Greenwald
3810 S 158th St #B-6
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Joann Lawrence
3810 S 158th St #8-7
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Trudi Kortum
3810 S 158th St #B-9
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Sue Boyle
3810 S 158th St #C-1
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Garry Johnson
3810 S 158th St #C-10
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Robert Farrell
3810 S 158th St #C-2
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Eugenia.,Genta
3810 S 158th St #C-3
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Mary Kleinsasser
3810 S 158th St #C-4
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Michael Moriguchi
3810 S 158th St #C-6
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Kevin Rogers
3810 S 158th St #C-8
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Gordon Wavle
15814 40th Ln S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2684
Jun & Florence M_( Tornita
15818 40th Ln S
Seattle, WA 98188-2684
Mary Alice Holt
15822 40th Ln S
Seattle, WA 98188-2684,;
Waveta Taylor
15838 40th Ln S
Seattle, WA 98188-2684
S & G Fay Pazooki
15458 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2215
Geo Klein
15460 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA .98188-2215
Thomas Hope
15603 42nd Ave S
S•attle, WA 98188-2602
Donna Noland
15625 42nd Ave S #13
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
John &"Hagness Tamara Legault
15625 42nd Ave S'#15
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Chong Roberson
15625 42nd Ave S #17
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
Patrick Dealey
15625 42nd Ave S #19
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
Ann. McGrath411
15625 42nd Ave S *20
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
David Saito
15625 42nd Ave S #22
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
Joanne Flemings
15625 42nd Ave S #24
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Marsha Mize
15625 42nd Ave S #26
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Brenda Lead
15625 42nd Ave S #29
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Margaret Newgent
15625 42nd Ave S *30
Tukwila, WA 98188-2679
Kenneth Mullen
15625 42nd Ave S #5
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
Dennis Lee & Molly Sumption
15625 42nd Ave S #7
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
Debra Thesenvitz
15625 42nd Ave S *8
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Patricia Taylor
15625 42nd Ave S #9
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
Roger .& Tricia Caldwell
15650 42nd Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2601
Edward Rogers
15837 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2644
Dan•. Brooks
3810 S 158th St #C-9
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Don & Devonna Schubert
4035 S 158th St,
Tukwila, WA 98188-2607
Roy Smalley
4039 S 158th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2607
J
Robert Smith
4052 5 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Nancy Sharpe
4032 5 159th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2600
John & Lynne Skidmore
4033 S 159th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
William & Patricia Gray
4037 Sr' 159th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
Masae Kono
4040 S 159th Ln
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
Grzegorz & Malgorz Wierzbicki
4044 S 159th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2690
Dennis Matsudaira
4048 S 159th Ln
Tukwila, WA 98188-2690
Harvey Lee
15420 35th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2201
STATE OF WASHINGTON
15441 35th Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2202
Gordon Cruttenden
15838 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2660
David Baker
15857 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2644
Records Processed = 68
Dups screened = 2
CRs Screened = 0
Bad addressess = 0
Labels produced = 66
Carolyn Hayes411
15625 42nd Ave S #A-2
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Richard Franks III
15705 14th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98166-2122
Terence Lee
15615 42nd Ave S 123
Tukwila, WA 98188-2602
Terrance & Teresa Wilson
15625 42nd Ave S
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Harley & June Hybridge
2424 S 260th.St 11
Kent, WA 98032-5577
Nicholas Castrow
15625 42nd Ave S 128e
Seattle, WA 98188-2679
Janet Sullivan
15625 42nd Ave S 4$3a
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Bonnie Berry
15625 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2652
Virginia Schrock
2415 34th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199-3203
Ileen Schumaker
PO Box 303
Olympia, WA 98507-0303
June Remillard
1107 NE 45th St *330
Seattle, WA 98105-4631
Anne Gillispie
2007 S Alaska St
Seattle, WA 98108-1515
C J illncer
7319 owlyn P1 S
Seattle, WA 98118-4207
Barbara Munson & Connie Meyer
5214 S Lk Cassidy Rd
Lake Stevens, WA 98258-0002
Clifford & Cathy Rei Godwin
7319 Bowlyn P1 S
Seattle, WA '98118-4207
PARTNERS PREFERRED YIELD IN
PO Box 25025
Glendale, CA 91221-5025
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
PO Box 2485
Los Angeles, CA 90051-0485
S Michael Rodgers
3 Lake Bellevue Dr
Bellevue, WA 98005-2440
Records Processed = 174
Dups screened = 21
CRs Screened
Bad addressess
Labels produced
0
= 0
= 153
Michael Patrick SeillIt
5671 S 150th P1
Seattle, WA 98188-2424
Keiko Hart
15834 40th Ln S #17
Seattle, WA 98188-2684
William Humphrey
1812 Kennewick Cir SE
Renton, WA 98055-3712
Parmele Jean
PO Box 833
Seahurst, WA 98062-0833
William & Marion Markham
5202 184th St E
Tacoma, WA 98446-3742
Kim Shearer
15625 42nd Ave S #A-1
Tukwila, WA 98188-2652
Douglas Jon Marr
2828 Colby Ave
Everett, WA 98201-3537
Geraldine Packard
2006 Glennwood Ave NE
Renton, WA 98056-2307
George Marble
6810 Dayton Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103-5220
Eugene & Dennis Masao Miyoshi
MIYOSHI CHILDREN'S
2125 Damon St
Honolulu, HI 96822-2140
Lori Jones
PO Box 1025
Kent, WA 98035-1025
Gary Arthur Orahood & Jean Nitta
19720 Pacific Hwy S #112h
Seattle, WA 98188-5410
Kerighth & Robin Totten
40511WS 159th Ln #19
Seattle, WA 98188-2690
Richard & Janine Duncan
5418 S 292nd P1
Auburn, WA 98001-2101
Feng Mao Lee
PO Box 68925
Seattle, WA 98168-0925
Feng Mao & Yant Shu—Chen Lee
PO Box 68925
Seattle, WA 98168-0925
SUPERSTAR CORPORATION
320 Andover Park.E
Seattle, WA 98188-7621
Carol & James Guettler
7812 Fauntleroy Way SW
Seattle, WA 98136-2231
Thomas & Janet Dunstan Jr.
6436 NE 192nd P1
Seattle, WA 98155-3322
Arthur & Sally Kawaguchi
918 SW 128th
Seattle, WA 98114
Family Trust D'Ambrosio
4509 Foxglove Dr NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98332-9044
Peter & Grace Wang
PO Box 234
Pebble Beach, CA 93953-0234
Marian Julum—Shaw
63 Monterey Dr NE
Renton, WA 98056-4038
Marvin Anderson
9851 24th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98106-2631
Diane Demeerleer
4024 S 158th St #F 111
Seattle, WA 98188-2618
Linda Walker
4024G S 158th St #74
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Donna Norris
4020 S 158th St #A
Seattle, WA 98188-2616
Jacqueline Carroll
40206 S 158th St 476
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Richard Fink
4020 —C South 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188
Lauren Arnaud—Mayberry
4020 S 158th St #D
Seattle, WA 98188-2616
Paula Rushmeier
4008 S 158th St #8
• Tukwila, WA 98188-2611
Lamb Sammie Monroe
4008 C S 158th
Seattle, WA '98188'
Robert Baldridge
PO Box 6186
Lynnwood, WA 98036-0186
Robert Smith
4052 S 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Timothy & Swear Barba Mulheim
4028 S 159th Ln #7
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
Paul & Joanne Hurd
4036 S 159th Ln 49
Seattle, WA 98188-2600
Barbag&Hjelmaa
4018 glik58th St #A
Tukwila, WA 98188-2615
Josipa Mataja
23501 112th Ave SE #C101
Kent,_ WA 98031-3423
Roberta Hensrud
4022 S 158th St #D
Seattle, WA 98188-2617
Steven & Rose Marie Hoiland
4022 S 158th St #65
Seattle, WA 98188-2617
M Pagliaro_lucy
4022 S 158th #B
Seattle, WA 98188
Kathleen Bowman
4022 S 158th St #A
Tukwila, WA 98188-2617
Laura Maxwell
4024 A S 158th
Seattle, WA 98188
James Fjetland
4024 S 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2618
Richard Lee'McEachron
4008A S 158th St #7
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Ann Lynette Jones
10639 S Wilton P1
Los Angeles, CA 90047-4353
Linda Lodge
4024 S 158th St #0
Tukwila, WA 98188-2618
Kurt McLaren
4024 S 158th #E
Tukwila, WA 98188
Ralph Lewis •
4016 S 158th * 51 #C
Seattle, WA 98188
Ronald & Victori Easterling
12610 SE 73rd P1
Renton, WA 98056-1314
Alvin Dimmitt
4014—A S 158th ##53
Seattle, WA 98188
Joyce Walters
4014 S 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Thomas Alben Bailey
4014 S 158th St #C
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Dolores Stewart
4014 S 158th St #D
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Nicholas & Potter Amantea
2530 SW 119th P1
Seattle, WA 98146-2513
Diane Landsinger
4018 S 158th St #58
Tukwila, WA 98188-2615
Mary Ann Vernarelli
4018 S 158th St #59
Seattle, WA 98188-2615
Manabu Shimoji
4006 S 158th St #F
Tukwila, WA 98188-2610
Frank Mataya
6403 Beacon Ave S
Seattle, WA 98108-3616
William Johnston
4018 S 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2615
Jeanniaparnach
4004 3RIFS0 158th St
Tukwila, WA 98188
Kimberly Ross
4002 —A So 158th #41
Seattle, WA 98188
Thomas Bentley
4002 S 158th St #642
Seattle, WA 98188-2608
George & Esther( Stakston
4345 S 177th St
Seattle, WA 98188-4132
Norma Camille Beaumont
4002 S158th St #0
Seattle, WA 98188-2608
Thomas Wickert
4002 E South 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188
Chun Leung To
4002 S 158th St #F
Seattle, WA 98188-2608
Paul & Mae Koffler
4002 S 158th St #G
Seattle, WA98188-2616
Glenn.Smith
4002 S 158th St #H
Seattle, WA 98188-2616
William Allan McLean
4016 S 158th St #A
Seattle, WA 98188-2661
Gomez Armando
4006 S 158th St #E
Seattle, WA 98188-2610
CHALET SOUTH GROUP
16301 NE 8th St
Bellevue, WA 98008-3915
Helaine Shaner
4006 S 158th #C
Seattle, WA 98188
Anne & Skura Armstrong.lea
1934 Shattuck Ave S
Renton, WA 98055-42.48.
Tina Decoster
4010 S 158th St
Tukwila, WA 98188-2612
Rand & Wendy Settlage
21129 50th Dr SE
Bothell, WA 98021-7981
Phillip & Helene Konopka
4010 S 158th #C
Seattle, WA 98188
Rodger Siler
4010 S 158th St #4—
Seattle, WA 98188-2612
James Smith
4010 S 158th St #A
Seattle, WA 9818,8-2612
Teresa Leyde
4004 S 158th St #36
Seattle, WA 98188-2609
Marlene Goodman
4004 S 158th St #4004-0
Tukwila, WA 98188-2609
Catherine Melchior
4004 S 158th #C
Seattle, WA 98188
Charles Sanders
4004 5 158th St #B
Seattle, WA 98188-2609
Randall Gunderson
4006 S 158th St #D
Tukwila, WA 98188-2610
C Esg
4012 158th St #19
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Nancy Siccardi
11122 SE 183rd P1
Renton, WA 98055-7153
Jeanne Ross
4012 S 158th St #C
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
William Cooper
4012 5.158th St #S21
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Bruce Miller
4012 S 158th St #E.
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Linda Schroeder
4012 S 158th St #F
Tukwila, WA 98188-2613
D M & C E Christenson
4012 S 158th St #G
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Melanie Hudson
4012 S 158th St #H
Seattle,. WA 98188-2614
Phil & Judy Licastro
19617 4th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98166-4021
Christi Egloff
4012 —3 So 158th St Bldg 3 #27
Tukwila, WA 98168
Elda Harada
4012— S 158th St #3
Seattle, WA 98188-2606
Thelma Woods
4012 S 158th St #329
Seattle, WA 98188-2613
Carol Ann Huber
3810 S 158th St 45
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Jan & Linda Fischer
3810 S 158th St 4C7
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Margie Hohnstein
PO Box 584
Seattle, WA 98111-0584
Donald Curtis Lee The
4008 S 158th St 4D
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
Dennis O'Connor
10229 62nd P1 W
• Mukilteo, WA 98275-4633
Sheila Willard
4008 S 158th St 4F
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
Carolee Elsey
4008 S 158th St 4G
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
Frank Dennis
4008 S 158th St 4H14
Seattle, WA 98188-2611
E Song & Eleanor Lin
PO Box 58012
Seattle, WA 98138-1012
James Glover
4008 S 158th St 4J
Seattle, WA 98188-2612
Juinior Merrell
4008 S 158th »St 4K
Seattle, WA 98188-2612
Cary Fujioka
PO Box 88181
Seattle, WA 98138-2181
COTT100 WOODS ASSOCIATES
3801 0th Ave SE 4300
Bellevue, WA 98006-1668
Douglas Murray
20817 9th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98198-3251
COTTAGE WOODS. APARTMENTS
3801 15@th Ave SE 4300
Bellevue, WA 98006-1668
James Greig
PO Box 58950
Seattle, WA 98138-1950
FOX & ASSOCIATES INC
701 5th Ave
Seattle, WA 98104-7016
Edward _& Vicki Rauscher
9 Lake Bellevue Dr 4114
Bellevue, WA 98005-2454.
Roberto Berrojo
3810 5 158th St 4A1
Tukwila, WA 98188-2670
Michele Merfeld
Aarp 1901 W 47th P1 41047
Westwood, KS 66205
W Wyman & Diane Andrus
18155 Marine View Dr SW
Seattle, WA 98166-3839
Gerrie Kawabata
2035 S 232nd St
Seattle, WA 98198-7072
Richard Haines
3810 S 158th St
Seattle, WA 98188-2670
Malcolm Porter
PO Box 68786
Seattle, WA 98168-0786
K C FIRE DIST NO 2
15100 8th Ave SW
•
Seattle, WA 98166-2244
STERLING RECREATION
PO Box 91723
Bellevue, WA 98009-1723
STERLING REALTY ORGANIZATIO
PO Box 91723
Bellevue, WA 98009-1723
David Baker
15857 42nd Ave S
Seattle, WA 98188-2644
Kenneth & Ione Vesper
3481 S 152nd St
Seattle, WA 98188-2176
HUTTON REAL AMERICAN PROP
9090 Wilshire Blvd #201
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-1848
Family Commercial Dunning
1716 304th St E
Roy, WA 98580-9522
Feng Mao & Yang Shu—Chen Lee
PO Box 68925
Seattle, WA 98168-0925
Frank Lamar
2704 Nob Hill Ave N
Seattle, WA98109-1746
Douglas Snow
PO Box 68130
Seattle, WA 98168-0130
John Englund
15641 11th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98166-2113
Family Trst Fung & J C C Chan
6700 W North Ave
Chicago, IL 60635-3937
*** METROSCAN LABELS ***
Date: 08/28/95
Report: 1 Across Labels
Sort: Site Address
Count: 153
For: JIM ROBERTS
Of: STUART'S GOLF, INC.
By: SHERRIE
9010-1/2 N.E. 41ST
BELLEVUE WA 98004
Clifford Alex
4208 37th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118-1316
E W Comant
5451 35th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98126-2821
CITY OF TUKWILA
5200 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188-2383
Memorandum
TO: Project File No. E95-0032
FROM: John Jimerson
RE: SEPA - Uncle Stuarts Golf- Staff evaluation of
Environmental Checklist received October 25, 1995.
DATE: January 2, 1996
Project File No. E95-0032
Project Description:
The site is located between State Highway 518, S. 158th Street and
a vacated portion of Old Military Road. The proposal is to
construct and operate a golf driving range with 62 hitting
stations, a pro shop, food service and batting cages.
Agencies With Jurisdiction:
Department of Fisheries, Department of Ecology and Army Corp. of
Engineers.
Comments to SEPA Checklist:
Page 3, No. 10: Other approvals required includes Board of
Architectural Review approval, stormwater plan approval, tree
permit and a land altering permit from the City of Tukwila; State
Hydraulic Project Approval from the Department of Fisheries; Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit (#7 Outfall Structures); and Ecology
Water Quality Certification may also be required.
Page 3, No. 11: Proposal also includes baseball batting cages and
29 parking spaces.
Page 4, No. 1(a): There are areas of steep slope on the site,
adjacent to the watercourse.
Page 4, No. 1(f): Because of the slope of the site and the extent
of grading, erosion is likely to occur. Erosion impacts can be
mitigated through implementation of necessary practices through the
land altering permit process.
Page 5, No. 3(a)(1): The referenced storm drain is an open
watercourse which is a tributary to Gilliam Creek. It would likely
be categorized as a Class 3 watercourse under the Sensitive Areas
Overlay regulations of the Tukwila•Zoning Code; however, no formal
assessment has been undertaken (See Checklist item A.13 on Page 3) .
Page 6, No. 3(c)(3): No estimate of fill quantities are provided.
Page 6, No. 3(a)(4): The plans indicate it is proposed that the
existing watercourse be piped. Chapter 18.45 of the Tukwila Zoning
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 2
Code (Sensitive Areas Overlay) discusses piping of watercourses.
Piping of Type 3 watercourses may be allowed under certain
specified circumstances. Additional analysis is needed to
determine or confirm the proper classification of this watercourse
and to determine whether and how the requirement of Chapter 18.45
can be met.
Page 6, No. 3(a)(6): Lawns of golfing facilities are typically
maintained using fertilizers and herbicides, which will likely
enter the surface water system (whether piped or left open).
Applicant has not identified extent to which fertilizers and
herbicides would be used, and the manner in which they will be
used.
Page 7, No. (b)(2): Lawns on golfing facilities are typically
maintained using fertilizers and herbicides, which could enter
ground water. Applicant has not identified extent to which
fertilizers and herbicides would be used, or the manner in which
they would be used and managed.
Page 7, No. (c)1: Plans do not show biofiltration swale or
retention structure as indicated on the checklist.
Page 8, No. 3(d): Previous page indicates bioswale will be provided
for mitigation.
Page 8, No. 4(a): Based on site visit and aerials, there appears to
be a number of trees clustered on the southeast quarter of the
site. A number of cottonwoods are also located along the north
property line. It appears these cottonwoods are located in the
Highway 518 right-of-way.
Page 8, No. 4(b): Aforementioned trees are shown to be removed.
Page 10, No. 7(a): Use of herbicides and fertilizers could result
in increased exposure to toxic chemicals. The ball containment
system could be a safety hazard in the even of extreme high winds.
Structural analysis as part of•building permit will address this.
•This should include an appropriate soils/geotechnical analysis.
Additional analysis of the effectiveness of the proposed
containment system is protecting adjacent roadway and properties
and persons from flying golf balls is also warranted, especially in
light of the relatively small driving area.
Page 11, No. 11(b): Noise from operation includes human voice, golf
balls being struck, ball retrieval equipment, lawn mowers, pitching
machines and baseballs being struck.
Page 12, No. 8(d): This is inconsistent with the site plan which
shows the two billboard structures currently on the site as
SEPA Review
Uncle.Stuarts Golf
Page 3
removed.
Page 12, Nos. 8(e&f): The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning ordinance designate the site as Regional Commercial.
Page 14, No. 11(b) : The site is immediately adjacent to SR 518.
Improperly installed or maintained lighting could create a safety
hazard for vehicles.
Page 15, No. 14(a): South 158th Street also serves the site.
Page 15,
S. 160th
Page 15,
Planning
to meet
there is
No. 14(b): The nearest public transit route is located on
Street, about 500 feet south of the site.
No. 14(c): Required parking is to be determined by the
Commission. In order to use theater/bowling alley parking
driving range requirements, applicant must demonstrate
an excess of spaces on that property.
Page 16, No. 14(d): South 158th Street is a narrow street serving
the adjacent multi -family residential area. It is heavily used for
parking, which further restricts its effective width. Impacts of
the proposal on this situation are not clear, and should be
addressed.
Page 16, No. 14(f): There is inadequate information/analysis to
determine appropriate mitigation, if any.
Summary of Primary Impacts:
1. Earth -- The site contains steep slopes and fill material.
Through recontouring the site, potential impacts include erosion
during construction, decreased infiltration of runoff, and
stability of structures. Erosion would be mitigated through an
erosion control plan at the time of land altering permit, increased
runoff would be addressed through a drainage plan and structural
stability would be addressed through the building permit process.
2. Air -- The proposal will result in increased vehicular trips and
associated air pollution. During construction, dust could affect
adjacent properties. These impacts should be mitigated with a SEPA
mitigation measure requiring regular sprinkling of the site to keep
dust to a minimum.
3. Water -- The project could result in increased volume of runoff,
increased pollutants introduced into the stormwater from vehicles
and lawn care chemicals, and elimination of vegetation that
"treats" the water that reaches the site in a polluted state. These
impacts can be mitigated by requiring post development runoff rates
and volumes not to exceed pre -development and by requiring that
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 4
treatmentof the water be provided before being released. Because
the stream is identified as a sensitive area, a watercourse
assessment must be completed. This assessment will serve as a
baseline for determining impacts of piping the watercourse and will
identify any wetlands that may be present, and evaluate mitigation
needs and options.
4. Plants -- No endangered or candidate species are known to be
on the site. Most of the site will remain vegetated, although with
fewer species and varieties.
5. Animals -- The site provides habitat for small mammals and
birds. The project will eliminate most of this habitat, and will
provide some habitat in the form of urban landscaping. There are no
endangered or candidate species known on or near the site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources -- The project will require energy
for construction and operation, and for vehicles coming to the
site.
7. Environmental Health -- The project has the potential for
discharge of toxic chemicals into the watercourse. The primary
source of this would be from fertilizers and/or herbicides. This
impact may be mitigated through operational and/or site design
adjustments.
The project will result in increases of noise in close proximity of
residential uses. The noise impacts are unknown, an analysis would
be appropriate.
8. Land and Shoreline Use -- The project may create impacts on
adjacent residential land uses. See Nos. 10 and 11 below.
9. Housing -- The proposal will not result in a change to the
housing supply.
10. Aesthetics -- The proposal will is subject to BAR design
review and standards. The ball containment system includes a
proposal for a 90 to 115 feet high fence near the east property
line. The proposed fence is proposed to be located 10 feet from
the adjacent property to the east. The Kroll map shows the
adjacent condominium building to be only 10 to 15 feet from the
property line.
11. Light and Glare -- The proposal will generate light and glare
beyond that normally found in a residential area. A lighting
analysis will need to be conducted. Based on the City's experience
with achieving lighting standards for a golf driving range located
in a non-residential area, it can be expected to be very difficult
meet standards so as not to be detrimental to the adjacent
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 5
residential areas.
12. Recreation -- The proposal will not adversely affect recreation
facilities.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation -- The site is not known has
having any historical or cultural significance.
14. Transportation -- Vehicular access to the site is problematic.
Comingfrom or going to Pacific Highway South, customers will
either use S. 160th Street, or "cut through" the theater parking
lot. .Coming from the east, traffic is likely to increase on S.
158th Street, a residential access street between 42nd Avenue South
and Military Road South. S. 158th is developed with high density
residential units and has a substandard width and lack of
pedestrian walkways along stretches. A traffic analysis with
recommendations will need to be submitted to fully assess the
impacts and suggest mitigation.
15. Public Services -- Project is not likely to generate
substantial increase in demand for public services.
16. Utilities -- Project is not likely to significantly increase
demand on the utility systems.
Recommended Threshold Determination:
The project is likely to have impacts that can be mitigated, but
which require additional analysis to determine the extent of the
impact and the appropriate means of mitigation. These include ball
containment, traffic impacts, water quality treatment and runoff
rate impacts.
The project is also likely to have probable significant adverse
impacts for which mitigation to non-significant levels may not be
possible. Additional detailed environmental analysis needs to be
conducted to better understand the impacts and to determine the
extent to which they may be mitigated.
1. Lighting analysis needs to be conducted. With our experience
with Southcenter Golf, we are finding it difficult to keep the
lighting to an appropriate level so as not to adversely affect
adjacent properties. Adjacent residential uses are more
sensitive to the lighting impacts than the commercial uses in
the Southcenter Golf case.
2. Noise impacts are likely. A noise analysis should be
conducted to determine the degree of the impact. Given the
outdoor use and the late hour operations of the proposal, it
may be difficult to mitigate the noise impacts.
SEPA Review
Uncle Stuarts Golf
Page 6
3. The aesthetic impact of the 90 to 115 foot high fence located
ten feet from the Laurel Estates condominium property and as
little as 20-25 feet from the condominium building will be
significantly adverse. The scale of the fence is not in scale
with the adjacent development, which is subject to a maximum
height of 45 feet. Given the small dimension of the driving
range, moving the fence to the west, further away from the
condominium will reduce the effectiveness of the ball
containment.
Because there are three areas of probable significant adverse
impacts and because there are four additional areas of adverse
impacts that are likely to be mitigatable, but which also require
additional analysis, I recommend we issue a Determination of
Significance,. thus requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.
1
City of Tukwila
Department of Community !' evelopment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development
John Jimmerson, Associate Planner - DCD
c
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist - DCD
DATE: 12/12/95
RE: Environmental Review for Uncle Stuart's Golf, E95-0032 and L95-0061/2.
John W. Rants, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
My comments and recommendations for SEPA and design/use.aspects of this proposal are listed below. The
subject property has a regulated watercourse #22-3. Please let me know if you have questions.
L95-0061/62
General site plan comments include the following:
1) Is shared parking allowed for this site?
2) Was topographic information derived from survey, either land or aerial?
3) According to Conditional Use and Design Review applications, all existing trees at least 6" in diameter
need to be surveyed or identified. Existing trees along east property boundary may be affected by site
grading.
4) More detail is needed for the landscape plan. Screening should be effective in winter and summer.
Project plans only show deciduous trees for screening.
E95-0032 SEPA
BACKGROUND
1) Additional permits needed but not identified include Land Altering, Stormwater Plan approval, Tree
Permit, and State Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). A Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit (#7
Outfall Structures) and State Dept. of Ecology 401 Water Quality Certification may also be required.
EARTH
1) Because the site was previously filled and graded, a geotechnical study exemption may apply (TMC
18.45.080 e.2). Also, the Director may waive the study per TMC 18.45.020 f.2.
2) Regrading of fill material could be considered to increase runoff. Depending on the work schedule
and weather conditions, erosion could occur. Due to the location of the site and proposed grading,
erosion control measures will be necessary.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 431-3670 0 Far (206) 431-3665
Uncle Stu's Golf Memo
December 12, 1995
Page 2
WATER
a.Surface
1) Per the standards of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45), a current assessment is needed for
the on-site Watercourse, #22-3. This watercourse is a significant tributary for flows into the Gilliam
Creek drainage corridor. The assessment should be conducted by a qualified consultant and focus on
identifying the watercourse's functions. The watercourse assessment should be at least a
reconnaissance -level study to describe watercourse/drainage characteristics. If there is associated
wetland habitat present, it will need to be identified and delineated.
Mapping the watercourse will be conducted by delineating the Ordinary High Water mark as defined
by TMC 18.06.585. Because the watercourse is within a well-defined channel and dense blackberry
cover, mapping by flagging its boundary, can be delayed until more details are identified.
It appears that about 400 feet of this watercourse segment is being proposed for piping. This drainage
affects downstream WSDOT ROW and Gilliam Creek properties. The applicant needs to
demonstrate that piping, other than for the purpose of access, is necessary for the proposed project.
The standards of TMC 18.45.080 (d) (6) apply to any piping proposal. This impact, if permitted, will
need to have a mitigation plan prepared that meets SAO requirements.
b. Ground
1) Is irrigation planned for the site?
2) Will herbicides or fertilizers be applied to the new turf? This would need to be mitigated by
providing a turf management plan including water runoff treatment.
• cc: Ron Cameron, City Engineer
Joanna Spencer, Associate Engineer
November 27, 1995
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
City of Tukwila
Community Development Department
6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Ref: File #PRE95-024
Project: SRO Golf Facility
Dear Steve:
1vIcAAAAes Orh,4"-No 05
ECEIIVED
NOV 2 8 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Pat Paynton, Kevin Rogers and I would like to sincerely thank you and
John Jimerson for meeting with us last week to discuss Laurel Estates
concerns regarding the proposed driving range project.
Your input regarding the application process and how it works was
extremely helpful to us. Your explanation has reassured us (1) that
this proposal has a "long ways to go" before it can be approved, and
(2) that the City is very receptive to the concerns and 'input_of___. ryw
adjacent homeowners and citizens.
We also want to thank you for your letter of November 17, 1995,
responding;to our written request for an additional Public Hearing.
We understand why a second hearing is not required by law at this time.
Additionally, we understand that we will be able to present our
concerns and bring in experts to testify on the SEPA issues at the
scheduled January 25, 1996 Public Hearing.
To follow-up our discussion with you and John Jimerson, we are
enclosing our "response" to the Applicant's Environmental Checklist.
As you will notice, it is fairly lengthy. However, we have attempted
to be as thorough as possible in identifying all of the probable and
possible concerns and issues that the proposal raises. We have also
included photographs to assist in illustrating certain points.
Our intent is not to criticize the Applicant, but rather to analyze the
merits of the proposal. If Mr. Roberts should wish to meet with us
again to seriously work toward addressing our concerns, we would welcome
the opportunity.
If you or John should have any questions with regard to the enclosed,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
November 27, 1995
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
Tukwila Community Development Department
Page 2
Again, thank you for your prompt and helpful response, Steve! We at
Laurel Estates look forward to working with you and your staff to
try to ensure a positive resolution for all parties involved.
Sincerely,
Carol`. Hut,er, Co 'ittee Chairperson, Representing
Homeowners & Residents of Laurel Estates Association
3810 S. 158th, #C-5
Seattle, WA 98188
cc: John W. Rants, Mayor
John McFarland, City Administrator
Linda Cohen, City Attorney
Jack Pace, Senior Planner
John Jimerson, Associate Planner
Phil Frasier, Senior Engineer
Phil Snyder, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
A. BACKGROUND (Pages 2 & 3)
8. Applicant's response to items A.B. suggests he has minimal knowledge of
the property and that he has done little research to ascertain whether
or not there exists any environmental information relative to the
property which he is proposing to develop. Such a response appears to
be totally inadequate for purposes of this Checklist.
Applicant further notes that "Class 2 slopes and a Class 3 waterway may
exist on the property." They not only "may" exist, but apparently "do"
exist according to informed sources who are familiar with the area and
with City and County topographical maps.
The overall comments in this section suggest that the Applicant is
depending on the various City agencies to do necessary research, and to
provide him with the answers he needs --- shouldn't the Applicant be
significantly responsible for the required research and analysis? Or
is our assumption/conclusion incorrect in this matter?
In view of the above, and considering the enormous and varied impacts
such a development would have on the surrounding environments, we would
like to request that the City require the Applicant to provide a
detailed and fully substantiated Environmental Impact Study. This study
should include geologic and subsurface investigations to determine
whether the property can support the proposed structure (which includes
massive poles/girders that would need to be placed deep in the earth).
The overall property slopes downward to the north (toward the stream -
bed), and there are Class 2 slopes (percent slopes may reach 65X-75%) on
the property, including a not insignificant gully/ravine on the west
side and the slope on the north leading down to the streambed. (See
Exhibits 3 & 4).
Since the property includes an "environmentally sensitive" area, the
Study would also need to include a complete analysis of the impact on
the streambed --- we understand that the stream feeds into the Green
River. Probable erosion and stream pollution needs to be thoroughly
analyzed. (See Exhibits 1,2 and 3). The impact on wildlife habitats
and plants/vegetation in the area needs to be examined.
The impact on neighboring HDR areas needs to be analysed, in terms of
lighting, noise, traffic, public safety and general compatibility. Such
a development impacts not only the Highway 99 Corridor, but also
neighboring residential areas on 160th, on 158th, and to the north
across the freeway, as well as 42nd Avenue South (which intersects S.
158th).
10. In addition to the "primary" permits indicated, the Applicant would
presumably also need to obtain permits for tree cutting, mechanical,
electrical, grading, landscaping, food service, and possible others. We
understand also that the property lies within the boundaries of the Port
Page 1
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
of Seattle; individuals familiar with the process inform us that the
Port would require a complete Environmental Impact Study, particularly
in view of the proximity to the Airport --- is this the case?
11. The applicant has indicated to Laurel Estates Homeowners that he intends
to construct both "batting cages" and a "putting green" within the
development --- these should be included in the Item #11 description.
Regarding the batting cages, Applicant has not provided any information
on these in the Checklist. How many cages will there be? What will be
the dimensions? What will they be constructed of? Assuming mechanical
ball throwers, aren't there noise and emissions issues that need to be
addressed? Who will be targeted clientale? Hours of operation? Etc.,
etc.
With regard to the Food Service, it is not clear as to whether there
will be cafeteria seating or not (food preparation on site suggests a
seating/dining area); will operator be applying to serve alcoholic
beverages? What types of permits are required?
12. Proposal location should include the fact that the property directly
borders a HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL area to the East --- Laurel Estates
Condominiums are in the direct "line of fire".
13. Again, Applicant's response to this question suggests minimal
familiarity with available topographical maps of the area.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS (Pages 4-17)
1. EARTH (Pages 4-5)
a. The Applicant's response to this question appears to contradict
other responses within the Checklist (see Page 12, item 8.h., for
example). The general description of the site is more
appropriately "hilly, with some steep slopes" -- additionally, it
should be noted that the entire property slopes downward to the
north, directly to the streambed. (See Exhibit 3)
b. Applicant indicates that the steepest slope on the site is 40%. We
are of the opinion (although we are not experts) that there are
slopes closer to 65%-75X, particularly on the west side of the
property where the Applicant proposes to construct the building.
The existent parking lot curb on the west side of the property is
ONLY 3-4 feet from a significant downward slope into the gully/
ravine where the current storm drain lies --- heavy and thick
undergrowth make it difficult to determine the slope, but it is
appears to be steeper than 40%. (See Exhibits 3,4 and 6)
It should also be noted that unless Applicant is proposing to build
Page 2
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
on the existent parking lot (would SRO allow this?), he would have
to fill the adjacent gully/ravine in order to build. Then again,
he may be intending to construct the lower level of the building in
the ravine/gully... which then raises numerous environmental
concerns, which don't appear to be addressed in this Checklist.
c. Soils -- we request that a full Soil Study be performed to
ascertain the ability of the soils to support the huge girders
that would be buried deep (applicant needs to confirm the depth)
in the earth. Some of these poles/girders would be adjacent to
Laurel Estates Condos, and if they fell due to earth movement or
high wind activity, could conceivably damage our buildings and
possibly our persons.
Applicant refers to a U.S. Conservation Study and indicates that
site is "fill material". But what exactly is the consistency and
nature of the "fill"?? And has it been confirmed that there is no
hazardous waste on the site?
d. We request proof of the applicant's assertion that there is no
history of unstable soils in the vicinity; the earthquake that
occurred a few months back resulted in cracks in our condominiums
that had not previously been there.
e. Applicant stated to the homeowners of Laurel Estates that there
would be no fill required; is that really the case? --- even to
us "lay" persons, it appears that recontouring alone would not do
the trick --- unless the applicant intends to drop the overall
elevation of the property (including building & range) by several
feet. (See also our comments in 8.1.b. above.)
f. Applicant states that erosion would not be likely --- this
statement seems to be at odds with applicant's response to Item
B.1.h. ---again, we would differ with his conclusion, considering
the overall downward slope of the property to the riverbed. We
request that applicant specify the type and extent of erosion
controls he proposes to use, both short-term and long-term.
2. AIR (Page 5)
a. Applicant states that construction activities will produce dust
and exhaust emissions. He further states that "impact should be
minimal" --- what facts are available to support this conclusion?
With regard to the dust element --- this could have a significant
monetary impact on Laurel Estates Condominiums. Laurel Estates
Homeowners, as responsible citizens and residents of Tukwila, have
spent a great deal of our own time and money to enhance and
maintain the attractiveness and value of our property, including
buildings, roofs and plants. If the project is approved, the
Page 3
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
construction work will undoubtedly "degrade" our property --- we
are of the opinion that the applicant should be required to commit
to reimburse Laurel Estates for any and all clean-up, repairs
and/or replacements required as the result of his project.
With regard to emissions --- the applicant has stated elsewhere in
the Checklist that the facility would attract up to 750 cars per
day. This represents more than "minimal" impact to our
neighborhood -- both in terms of emissions and traffic flow (see
also comments regarding the latter under Item #15).
What will be the extent of emissions produced by lawn maintenance
equipment, ball pick-up equipment, and batting machines? Will
these be diesel -driven, gas -driven, or electrical -driven?
b. The property in question is situated close to Seatac airport; will
the issue of increased emissions need to be reviewed with Seatac
and the Port of Seattle?
c. Applicant states that "contractors will be required to control
dust during construction" ---.we request specifics on how this
will be done --- and again (see our remarks under 2.a. above), we
would request that the Applicant take responsibility for a
professional clean-up of our property.
3. WATER (Pages 5-8)
a.l. Surface: Applicant states "there is an existing storm drain on
the property." What happened to the Class 3 Waterway on the north
side of the property? It is our understanding that the stream
(name unknown) flows into the Green River. (See Exhibits 1,2 and 3)
a.2. We request to see a copy of the applicant's plans which describe
the "work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the
stream. According to current zoning codes, and assuming a Class 3
Waterway, it appears that a 15 -foot buffer plus a 10 -foot setback
are required. Bear in mind that there is heavy flow through the
stream during rainy season (visible flow can be seen from our
condos on the north end-). Do applicant's plans reflect current
zoning requirements?
Additionally, how specifically will the Applicant deal with, and
maintain, the integrity of the existent storm drain/culvert that
drains surrounding properties to the south of 158th? (See
Exhibit 4)
a.3. It is not made clear on this Checklist or on the Plan copies
a.4. provided to homeowners as tothe type of drainage system to be
installed, and how it will impact the streambed. We assume this
would be determined by the City --- we would like additional
Page 4
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
details on this as they become available.
a.6. Applicant indicates there would be no "discharges of waste
materials to surface waters". Can this be verified, please.
Applicant proposes to use turf on the range; presumably. this would
require fertilizers & pesticides, some of which are nitrate -based.
We request that applicant disclose products and chemicals to be
used by his operation to maintain the turf.
Regardless of the type of drainage system used, chemicals would
presumably work their way into the plants, animals and waterlife
over a period of time (especially with a large open turf area).
Entrance of contaminants into the streambed would be detrimental
to the health of the immediate waterway and any waters into which
it subsequently flows. Consequently, it would be be helpful to
confirm the nature of the products that Applicant proposes to use.
b.2. GROUND - Please refer to our concerns/questions/comments in 3.a.6.
above.
c.l. WATER RUNOFF - Applicant does not refer to surface water run --off
from driving range or storm water runoff from neighboring
properties served by the existent storm culvert -- again refer to
our concerns/questions/comments in 3.a.6. above.
d. Applicant's response to this question appears incomplete and
unclear. Regarding the "oil/silt system" that he plans --- is
this a type of runoff system, or are these elements that are
expected to be part of the surface and ground runoff? We need
clarification and detailed descriptions of proposed control
systems.
4. PLANTS (Pages 8-9)
a. Note that vegetation includes not only shrubs and grass, but also
various deciduous trees, including cottonwoods and fruit trees
(unknown varieties).
There are also various wet soil and water plants adjacent to and
in the streambed (again, unknown varieties).
b. Note that there are several trees scattered throughout the
property that would have to be removed from the driving range
area, in addition to the vegetation indicated by the applicant.
c. Applicant does not appear to have sufficient information regarding
the plant life on the property to be able to conclude that
threatened or endangered species on or near the site amount to
"None".
Page 5
FILE: ENVCKLST 21 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
d. Plans that we have seen to date are insufficient regarding
proposed landscape. The major portion of the existent plantlife
(including trees, shrubs, undergrowth) would be eliminated; the
plans indicate only turf and placement of intermittent trees.
ANIMALS (Page 9)
a. Birds: Property is a habitat for numerous birds including hawks,
owls and various types of songbirds, including finches, bluejays
and robins.
Mammals: Property is a habitat for numerous mammals, including
raccoons, rabbits, coyotes, opossums, squirrels, rats and field
mice.
Fish: It is not known if any fish life exists in the streambed.
This would need to be confirmed.
Note that the existence of both birds and mammals adjacent to our
condos have always been a source of enjoyment for the Laurel
Estates homeowners. And it's been a mutually beneficial
association on occasion; we've tried to look after their welfare
when needed.
Additionally, even though applicant would be required to plant
trees within the landscape buffers, existent bird and mammal
habitats would be significantly reduced. Where will these animals
go? Mice and rats could be problematic for neighboring
residents. Additionally, recent newspaper articles have brought
attention to killings of domestic animals by coyotes impacted by
shrinking habitats --- several Laurel Estates residents are
domestic pet owners, and would be devastated by the loss of
cherished pets in such a fashion. In the event this project is
approved, applicant should be required to trap and relocate any
predatory animals.
c. Again, Applicant does not appear to have sufficient information
regarding the animal life on the property to be able to conclude
that threatened or endangered species on or near the site amount
to "None".
d. We would request that Applicant explain HOW "trees to be planted
within the landscape buffer" will either preserve or enhance
wildlife.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Applicant states that "golf balls may fly out of property onto
adjacent property". This is not only an Environmental Health
issue, but a MAJOR PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE!! And IT IS A VERY REAL
Page 6
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
FEAR AND CONCERN OF ALL THE RESIDENTS OF LAUREL ESTATES,
considering the proximity of the proposed driving range, the
shortness of the field, and the fact that the balls would be hit
directly toward our condos.
Our preliminary research suggests that'8 acres (actually 7.65
acres per the Site Date on Page 1 of the Plans) is insufficient for
a facility of this sort. The actual turf area is indicated to be
only 6.93 acres (this appears to be approximately 1/2 the size of
the turf area currently under construction at the Tukwila/
Southcenter location). Experts in the industry to whom we have
spoken have consistently confirmed that 100% ball containment
cannot be guaranteed even in much larger facilities --- the
shorter range to be built here would presumably make ball
containment even more questionable.
It should also be noted here that the primary reason golf
enthusiasts use driving ranges is to improve their driving range
and distance --- they're attempting to hit as hard and far as
possible.
The Homeowners of Laurel Estates are of the opinion that City
approval of this project would subject all of us to a dangerous
living environment. It would only be a matter of time before a
ball comes over and damages our property and/or a resident.
(Note: there are children who live on the premises.)
A portion of the Laurel Estates condos have master bedrooms and
living rooms, both with large windows, facing directly toward the
proposed driving range. Residents and their pets regularly use
their yards.
This next comment may sound somewhat "emotional", but it is not
inconceivable that some homeowners of Laurel Estates could also
experience emotional and psychological stress on a daily basis as
the result of being forced to live in a sort of "combat zone".
The visual impact of the high netting towering above our condos
could also reinforce the feeling of a hostile environment. Do
current zoning codes allow such constant endangerment to residents?
If so, we would certainly be willing to work with the City on
further amending the codes.
Public safety issues also come into play when considering that
balls may escape the nets and hit cars on the freeway to the
north, or hit cars or pedestrians on S. 158th.
In view of the above, and in the event the project is approved,
both the Homeowners and the City of Tukwila need to be assured of
the extent, the adequacy and the continuance of the Applicant/
Operator's insurance coverage; specific bonding and insurance
Page 7
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
guarantees need to be negotiated to protect both Homeowners and
the City to the extent possible.
a.2. Applicant states that "netting and other containment elements
shall mitigate ball hazard" --- but the reality is that BALL
HAZARD CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE 100% ELIMINATED. And what
specifically are the "other containment elements" to which the
applicant refers??
b 1. It should be pointed out here that significant noise factors
already exist in this area. These are: (1) the constant traffic
noise from the freeway; and (2) the noise of planes taking off and
landing at both Seatac and Boeing fields. Prior to increased use
of the Boeing field by large air freight companies over the last
6-8 months, air traffic noise in this area was fairly minimal; the
noise level has increased significantly in recent months, however.
And it is probable that air traffic noise will continue to
increase in our area in the coming years, especially if a third
runway is added at Seatac.
b.2. NOISE. Per applicant, City Code allows construction noise between
7 A.M. and 10 P.M. Is this true for all zoning areas? --- even
those next to HDR areas? Sources in the construction industry
tell us that "special permits" are required to work beyond 6:00
P.M. The Homeowners of Laurel Estates would strongly object to
such hours --- we feel they would be extremely onerous and
inapproriate for an HDR area. They would contribute to and
compound already heavy noise levels caused by freeway and air
traffic. We request that construction activity be limited to
normal 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. working hours.
Experienced individuals in the commercial construction industry
also inform us that a backhoe or a jackhammer (on their own)
exceed 90 DBA. We request that the,Applicant review his statement
regarding a maximum 90 DBA level.
Long-term, the applicant is proposing normal operating hours of 6
a.m. to 12 midnight. Applicant states that "noise during long term
operation should have no adverse impact" --- we are of a different
opinion, and would be interested in reviewing his documentation.
The Applicant is not one of those who would be obligated to live
and sleep next door to such an operation! Even at the Kent/Hwy
167 range (a longer range), the striking of balls can be heard at
the opposite end of the range in daytime hours! Operation of the
proposed facility will result in constant noise from: golf balls
being hit, baseballs being hit, batting equipment, lawn
maintenance and ball pick-up equipment, as well as probable loud-
speakers (these types of operations regularly sponsor tournaments).
Not only the noise, but glare from the lights would again
Page 8
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
be troublesome and objectionable to nearby homeowners and residents
there are several HDR developments nearby (on 158th, 150th and
across the 518 freeway) that would be impacted by the noise and
glare. Considering the size of the property and short distances,
buffer zones and landscaping would help only minimally.
b.3. Applicant's response of "None" to this question is unacceptable;
there ARE noise issues to be addressed! The site is an open,
elevated area --- sounds reverberate heavily in the area. We
request that further study be required.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE (pages 11-12)
c. Regarding the two advertising billboards on the site (See Exhibit
5), who do these belong to and what kind of easements would be
necessary? One of the billboards (on the west side) sits on an
area directly adjacent to the proposed building. The other
currently makes use of an access road through the area that would
be developed for the driving range (applicant's plans do not
reflect any access roads).
e. Current zoning classification (per 8/95 Amendments) indicates
Regional Commercial only.
f. Current Comprehensive Plan designation indicates Regional
Commercial only.
h. Applicant fails to indicate that there is a Class 3 Waterway on
the site.
i. Applicant states that 10-15 people would be working at the
facility; it should be noted that employees would then use up to
1/2 of the proposed "new" parking spaces.
1. Current zoning allows such a facility as a conditional use --- the
Homeowners of Laurel Estates object to this particular use on the
property.
We are o.f the opinion that the proposed project's dimensions (on
such a small site), public safety issues, noise and light issues,
traffic and environmental (streambed, etc.) issues combine to make
the project incompatible with existent neighboring land uses.
Surrounding neighborhoods would be "poorly served" by such a
project in our midst.
10. AESTHETICS (Page 13)
a. Applicant states that "maximum fence height shall not exceed 115
feet". Applicant's plans show netting/poles at a height of 120
Page 9
FILE: ENVCKLST - 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
feet on the north and east sides. Applicant, in an informal
meeting with the Homeowners of Laurel Estates, stated that he
could easily increase net height (in 25 foot increments) if need
be for purposes of ball containment! (We hope not!!)
A height of 115 feet alone translates to 11 1/2 stories. Current
zoning codes allow a height exception of up to 10 stories ONLY on
this site. (Note that Laurel Estate Homeowners are of the opinion
that even the 10 -story exception is inappropriate and incompatible
with the location and surrounding neighborhoods --- we would hope
that current zoning will be further reviewed and reconsidered by
the Planning Department and City Council.)
Additionally, Applicant needs to provide information regarding the
type of material, dimensions and durability of netting and poles/
girders. The Kent/167 facility (See Exhibits 9 & 10) appears to
utilize both wood poles and steel/alloy girders --- what are the
determining factors in selection of materials?? Soil stability?
Wind factors in the area? Public safety -- proximity of roadways
and adjacent housing facilities? We need more information!!
Could poles/girders snap or break in heavy winds? Could nets be
torn in high winds, and hang in disrepair over a period of time?
This particular site is very exposed to wind elements. Refer to
attached photos of the Kent/167 facility, which show that the
netting is hung in sections and guy wires/lines are apparently
used to stabilize the nets (lines extend out 20'-40' beyond the
nets). If similar stabilizing lines need to be used on the
proposed facility, has Applicant factored placement of these into
his plan --- this could seriously impact his usable driving range
area!!). And again, the adequacy of insurance becomes a factor in
the overall analysis.
b. Applicant states that the impact on neighboring views "will be
minimal" -- but that is again his opinion only. The reality is
that driving ranges are NOT small and unimposing. Granted, they
are not fully solid enclosed structures, but they do have
SIGNIFICANT height, depth, substance --- together with lighting
requirements and billowing effects of the netting, such a facility
will have MAJOR IMPACT on the views of surrounding neighborhoods.
Several multi -family housing units (condos and apartment buildings
both) face or have views looking out on this site. These include
facilities on 158th, on 160th and across the 518 freeway.
c. Based on informal discussions with the Applicant, and per
information homeowners have obtained relative to other such
facilities, we are of the opinion that landscape buffers will only
MINIMALLY reduce aesthetic impacts. However, for us to fully
determine the adequacy of any "landscape buffers", we need more
specific information from the Applicant as to the type of trees to
Page 10
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
be planted, whether deciduous or fir, the caliper size required at
time of planting, the number of years to mature growth, height of
trees at mature growth, ability of soils at the site to support
the proposed trees, shade factors, maintenance of overhanging
branches, etc.
Note also that approximately 4-6 large cottonwoods have been blown
over on the north end of Laurel Estates property over the last 5
years during heavy windstorms; trees have all fallen in a west to
east direction as the result of typical wind patterns in the
area. Consequently, the wrong type of trees (i.e., those with
shallow root systems) planted on the east side of the property
(adjacent to Laurel Estate condos) could be disastrous to Laurel
Estate homeowners in the event of a bad windstorm.
11. LIGHTS & GLARE (Page 14)
a. Applicant states that "range area shall be lighted from dusk until
12:00 A.M." Applicant previously stated to Laurel Estates
homeowners that these would be normal operating hours. Such hours
of operation would prove onerous and unacceptable to adjacent HDR
areas, and we request that such hours of operation not be
allowed.
Additionally, would range maintenance and cleanup be performed
during these same hours, or outside of these stated hours (the
latter would mean lights would be on for longer. periods)?
Regarding Applicant's proposed use of "low impact lighting", no
one we have talked with (including Applicant, city employees or
golf pros) have actually seen or experienced it. So... while it
may "work" in theory (in a sterile void), the reality of it in a
real world environment may be quite different -- who can say?
We really need to see it in use in order to determine its
potential impact.
Additionally, the concept of "low impact" lighting seems
paradoxical when nets are reaching up to the proposed 115/120 feet
height and customers are hitting balls to improve their range and
distance (which means they want to see where and how far the
balls are going). Lights placed high on the poles/girders., even
if covered and directed downward, would still seem to have
considerable impact on neighboring areas in as much as the
property site is so exposed. (See site view, Exhibit 5)
b. Applicant can hardly state that light or glare from his project
will not be "a safety hazard or interfere with views" when he has
no experience with the "product" that he is proposing to use.
c. The freeway lights, passing car lights, numerous commercial
Page 11
FILE= ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
enterprises and parking lots along Highway 99 already have
significant light/glare impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
This project would definitely compound an already "bright"
situation.
d. Again, Applicant does not know how this "state of the art low
impact lighting" will look --- so Applicant cannot answer this
question candidly.
12. RECREATION (Page 14)
b.& Has Applicant done a market survey to support his contention that
c. his operation will not displace any existing recreational uses??
If approved and built, Applicant's driving range would be
competing with 3 others situated within an approximate 3-6 mile
radius. The other three are (1) the Kent/167 range, (2) the
Tukwila/Southcenter Parkcenter currently under construction, and
(3) the Kent downtown facility. Can this small of an area support
four such single -use and same -use facilities??
If the area can't support 4 such facilities, which one(s)will "go
under"? If it should be the Applicant's, what would happen to
the facility? If the range were abandoned, the netting could
quickly fall into disrepair. This is of obvious concern not only
to neighbors concerned with maintaining the integrity of their
property values, but also to the City of Tukwila and the
Leaseholder (SRO properties), particularly since this is a very
visible property.
All parties involved obviously need more information --- and we
need to determine how to protect our various interests in the
event the proposed facility goes out of business (whether that be
within 1 year, or within 5 years).
14. TRANSPORTATION (Page 15)
a. Applicant failed to note that S. 158th also accesses the site.
South 158th (via 42nd Avenue South) already experiences a high
degree of usage from theatre -goers, and would be significantly
impacted by another recreational facility at the same location.
Tukwila citizens and others who are familiar with the area
regularly use 158th to avoid the lights and traffic on Highway 99
when going to and from the theatre. Residents to the east of the
theatre also regularly use S. 158th, Old Military Road and/or the
theatre parking lot to access Highway 99.
b. Note that the nearest bus/transit stops are on 160th and on
Highway 99. Individuals going on foot from transit stops to the
proposed facility would have to walk through one of the theatre
Page 12
FILE= ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
parking lotsor down a narrow and poorly lit road (Old Military
Road), neither of which are desirable from a public safety
standpoint.
c. The placement of "new" parking spaces along Old Military Road needs
to be looked at more closely. The roadway adjacent to the
southwest corner of the property is within only a few feet of the
previously identified ravine/gully. Additionally, it appears cars
in these same spaces would be backing directly onto what is
identified as Old Military Road, an access road to the theatre
parking lot and the State Highway Patrol facility --- is this a
safe situation? (See Exhibits 4,7 and 8)
d. Applicant needs to provide more information regarding improvements
to the existing access roadways.
What would be done to improve Old Military Road where it comes
down from 160th? This road is narrow, not well lit, the turn
from 160th is extremely difficult to see at night, and there is a
large drainage ditch running along a portion of the east side of
the road. There is a definite traffic safety issue here!!!
South 158th, to the south of the proposed project, is a narrow
roadway, has a blind curve, no sidewalks, and a deep drainage ditch
(that "eats" cars in icy conditions) on the south side of the road.
There are no speed signs currently posted; speeds driven often
exceed acceptable levels and make it dangerous for anyone on foot.
(See Exhibits 7 & 8)
Parking is allowed along sections of 158th (including the area
adjacent to the proposed development), and there is a small area
with sidewalks, between 42nd Avenue South and Old Military Road.
On -street parking is a necessity along this road due to the fact
that existent multi -family housing developments have less than 1
and 1/2 parking spaces per unit (current zoning codes require 2 per
unit). Laurel Estates guests and some residents (and over -sized
vehicles) regularly use the roadside along the vacant land for
parking. (See Exhibit 8)
And while on -street parking is an absolute necessity, it also
creates a dangerous traffic situation at times --- visibility when
exiting from housing facilities is often limited due to the
combined impact of the on -street parking (including large
recreational vehicles) and the narrow street. Because of the
parking, the street often becomes a one -lane roadway (2 cars
cannot always pass safely).
The increased volume at South 158th and Military Road could
conceivably warrant a traffic light at the intersection. Again,
the above points out the need for a full EIS.
Page 13
FILE: ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
e. Applicant's response to this question is unclear. Is he proposing
to run shuttle buses to and from the airport?
f. Applicant indicates 6:00 p.m. as a peak volume hour. This hour
coincides with peak times for nearby residents coming home from
work, and possibly peak hours for moviegoers and bowlers (most
league activity starts around 6:00 p.m.). Again traffic patterns
need to be fully analyzed.
Also, does Applicant have a market study on which to base the
estimate of 750 cars per day? Is this number valid when
tournaments are held? Realistically, what kind of volume is
expected during peak hours?
g. Will City of Seatac and Port of Seattle approval be required??
Does proposal meet with statewide Management Growth Act
requirements? The approximate "750" cars per day could also
significantly impact airport traffic.
What proof will Applicant provide to attest to the "minimal impact
within the City of Tukwilla (sic)"? And what proof is there that
people will "wait out" rush hour periods at the facility? Most
people have so many things going on in their lives these days, they
either plan ahead or just "go for it" --- they don't typically
"wait out" rush hours.
Also, what will be the impact of concurrent use on the combined
theatre/bowling alley/driving range facilities?? The proposed
range will certainly impact parking for the existent businesses;
customers of existent and new facilities will be regularly vying
for some of the "most convenient" spots (those are the ones that
are expected to be "shared"). Will business operations at the
theatre and bowling alley be negatively impacted? Does SRO
operate these facilities or are they also leased facilities?
16. UTILITIES (Page 17)
a. Applicant has indicated that the .majority ..of the necessary
utilities are already available on the site. Is that actually the
case?' Is all of the infrastructure already in place? Are the
water mains, sewer lines, electrical lines, and telephone lines
already in place? Additionally, do current city codes require
telephone and electrical lines to be run underground (this would
seem to be a necessity in an area that is so exposed to the effect
of high winds).
The residents of Laurel Estates have experienced frequent and
ongoing water quality and water pressure problems since our condos
were constructed in 1984. We have contacted the City of Seattle,
Page 14
FILE= ENVCKLST 27 -Nov -95
LAUREL ESTATES CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS COMMENTS/CONCERNS
REGARDING "ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST" FOR "SRO GOLF & BASEBALL
FACILITY" - FILE #PRE95-024
(Letters and numbers below correspond to those on the Checklist)
City of Tukwila, and Water District 125 numerous times; there
doesn't seem to be anything they can do to improve the situation
--- so we've more or less resigned ourselves to the situation.
What impact will a high water user such as the proposed facility
have on OUR water quality --- will it make things even worse?
Note also that Applicant's Plans show a fire hydrant on the
southeast corner of his design. Is this a "new" one to be
installed, or is it the existent one which actually is situated
approximately 8-10 feet on the east side of Laurel Estates fence?
If the latter, there could be a problem with the Applicant's plans.
This needs to be confirmed as soon as possible. (See Exhibit 8)
b. Applicant needs to be informed that electricityy in the area is
provided by City Light, not Puget Power.
0. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Pages 18-21)
If we read the description for this Section correctly, the Applicant DOES
need to respond to these questions. The majority of the questions here are
relevant to the proposal at hand, and do need to be answered -- in detail.
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (Pages 22-23)
Again it appears that the Applicant's responses to the questions are
incomplete.
Page 15
wh. \0¢,d-ate, hs w► a-re-tLw.K�
p�-o � �-z,,,d �v�
J
V v2w5 rc w �a,rlc;��a� cM e�1 5� e•C s'� � (aok r ecor4-4
,t(45 • t40 -1•t slope -'6,�w Sa�.�c� -L-o hog •
ins -,Ar
e -S
Cia•,d.a S
%a.). r, i,,, g w¢3,4- aka 2-w.k-1•a cam• 4r,
kl..6V,M)4)
cak _mire
5%, --aies -?rihirxra c11"Ac
riebaL.‘ • '9\J ('`.10J /?11TYX, CI? 11" -A-34°10
--Norkro crrik— N.As ±crt,..)
cud_ ry ..14:11 !rA (wartotnicacA %gm)
ft21-.? T\Q •Vaikit C":"AQQ\ 17-47 Rtt1:2"1\e‘f klik591'%
ms's moo\
4c-axid-
�t
-Nowt_ d
-a-
V%;60 W -54e- PC 5i l (615V._. „o, v� a %- L, Gr4s5y
area.. -6 -4 — wtd2,)-ttut,, . o8t.ou.nd. `5J\ofes Acture, Stlevtplir '
1prc.V C n� .
C-lalL p eek, iobki n (1cza- J 14 ti...J
re
Gtrcru.4 d ror5 og" cr 4 c7o t n+ .
4,0.
'.',;•'.": '
1
u I., ...
0
11 41 ' i' 1
i
_ . „_, .. , t ,, . t ''.' .. . '.' , •. S' f , ., : J i ,1„ ii
. , . . ,..,,?, . ....,.., ; , :.. • . , i ;,.. y;,. -.0v'..0 poi .4
....., ......f: .,: .., , ..,,,,. .. .,- ..':.'"itr, '•'4'.. v
'.• , , •,•:- ,,,-\.:. . • '.. • '!..,::''''''','...1.'•'-:.*: c.
7 .... , . .., • Sr'', b. ,:,' 1 i4e. ,-.....tir. .
, ..
\he,0 \ooki(O 'ere- ) -Crtrw% S. t 9844; eiv4" ama pos54--5
AA. eeNk-relme.0-, Acs a_C.Ga.45 kjEcua 40
VA\ v-10-04, corfnef--
Nikit2x0 k ooki S, %Sg44 sM
svykeirer_41:,rs-,
1 q04,2_ ('NL
7
4t�L 3'\ ook; Az QA-)QA--�o LADa r d -PmPeAy
o 0
4fi Cu.r'e . DVS - ; ki arta.. ew• ,r G -
roa 1 ,
1110111 \Lc':
4.4/ 1 1.0-1 ThivsvI ,vN1� C..
I.LA.tc.e. vukebte reu5 1 i eNey
uo res _2y4 J: in 0,..-u cu--J
+e-nk AP---k'7 1 ei..,,,A a.v.e.-ko-(61
0.P9r 3a' -40' 40-vm.
rte.
'xk►V i-1- 61
c.-C- 4,04-ACT 601,
141+x-45 ;cc:tavts
-92ilteiwAs3
ee�► q c rd2.2 r wpe-cl o�►�
cQe
-)(I11h;-1- to
• •
November 22, 1995
Mr. Steve Lancaster
Director
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Suite 100
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Subject: SRO Golf & Baseball Facility
File: PRE95-024
Dear Steve,
Currently there is a developer who is proposing to build a golf range just off of 158th street, behind the
Lewis and Clark theaters. As a resident of Laurel Estates; which is directly adjacent to the proposed
building site, I have several concerns regarding this proposal. The most pressing, and the one which I
will limit this correspondence too, is the traffic hazards this development would bring with it.
The developer is estimating that 750 customers will visit his golf range each day. The roads leading to
this site cannot safely hold this additional traffic. There is no direct street to the facility. Patrons will
have three (3) methods in which to gain access to the site, none of which contain a direct road or route.
From the west, patrons will have to entire from Pacific Highway, into the main entrance of the Lewis and
Clark theaters. From their they will have to wind around the south end of the theater, and drive through
the east parking lot. From previous experience, I know that this is often congested with those individuals
trying to either get to the theater or Bowling Alley, and those of use who live on 158th. I recently was
struck by a car driving diagonally through the parking lot, so I know from first hand that an additional
500 - 700 cars a day would be greatly hazardous.
From the east, patrons could drive by way of Military Road, and cut through 158th street (which dumps
out in the east end of the Lewis and Clark parking lot). As you may be aware, 158th street is the home of
Laurel Estates, one additional Condo complex, and three apartment complexes. In the evening, many
individuals are forced to park their cars on the street, due to the lack of parking in each complex. As a
result, the week nights often make this street a one lane road. Often is the time, when traveling home
from the office, that I must stop and wait for a car to drive up the road before I can enter my complex.
Several hundred cars trying to use this road as a short cut to the golf range, would only increase the ,
hazards to cars parked on the street, those of us trying to get home, and the children which live in these
apartment complexes (they seem to have no where to go play but the lawns in front of there apartment
complexes or in the street).
There is a third, less traveled route to the site. From 160th street (south of the Bowling Alley), there is a
small street that gives individuals access to the "Riverton Heights Bible Fellowship" church. Drivers
coming from Pacific Highway will travel east on 160th street, and turn north onto this street. In turning
north, the driver must cross two lanes of traffic, onto a unlit, downward sloping, narrow roadway.
It is honestly, a road you have to see for yourself to appreciate the hazards and difficulty gaining access
to.
At the very least, should the Golf Range be built, this road would have to be widened, and a stop light
placed onto 160th street.
(RECE VED
NOV 2 7 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
The building of a Golf Range, or any other object which would draw large numbers of individuals at this
site, brings with it a significant traffic and safety problem. To outline these roads and the access
problems in a letter such as this is difficult. For that reason, I invite you and any of those individuals in
your department to contact me personally. I would be very pleased to walk you up and down the streets
to specifically show how the proposed development will bring a great deal of traffic problems to our area.
I believe that only by seeing these concerns first hand can you prevent, by further development to the
roads or by rejecting the proposal, unnecessary safety problems to this area.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Haines
Resident, Laurel Estates
3810 So. 158th Street
Unit B-2
Tukwila, WA. 98188
Home: 433-0898
Office: 455-6564
.cc J. Jimerson
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
November 17, 1995
Carol A. Huber, Committee Chairperson
Homeowners and Residents of Laurel Estates Assn.
3810 S. 158th
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: Proposed SRO Golf Facility
Dear Ms. Huber and Association Members:
Thank you for your letter of November 10, 1995.
As you may know, the proposed driving range is subject not only to design review, but also must obtain a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Thus, the public hearing tentatively scheduled for January 25, 1996 will
consider both the applicant's request for design approval and for a CUP. I have enclosed, for your
information, copies of the Tukwila Zoning Code chapters indicating the criteria under which both requests
will be judged. The CUP criteria include compatibility with surrounding land uses and minimization of
possible adverse impacts on the area.
Regarding your request for an additional public hearing to address SEPA issues: The Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules require that:
If a public hearing on the proposal is held under some other requirement of law, such hearing shall
be open to consideration of the environmental impact of the proposal, together with any
environmental document that is available (WAC 197-11-535(1), part).
In other words, your stated desire to bring in experts to testify with regard to the various environmental
issues involved with the proposal, can and will be accommodated by the hearing already anticipated.
The SEPA Rules provide for a separate public hearing only where a hearing will not otherwise take place
on the proposal itself (WAC 197-11-535(2)). One of the basic tenents of SEPA is to combine
consideration of environmental impacts with land use decisions, so that better decisions can be made.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Carol A. Huber
11-17-95
Page 2 of 2
I look forward to meeting with you to discuss these matters, or other aspects of the SRO proposal in more
detail. Please don't hesitate to call me or John Jimerson at 431-3670, if you need additional information
prior to our November 21 meeting.
Sincerely,
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
cc: Mayor Rants
John McFarland, City Administrator
Linda Cohen, City Attorney
Jack Pace, Senior Planner
John Jimerson, Associate Planner
Jim Roberts, Uncle Stuart's Golf, Inc.
•
November 10, 1995
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
City of Tukwila
Community Development Department
6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Ref: File #PRE95-024 - REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPA REVIEW
Project: SRO Golf Facility
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
With reference to the above Project, the Homeowners of Laurel Estates
Condominium Association are formally requesting that an Additional
-
Public Hearing (in addition to the January 1996 Design Hearing) be held
to specifically address the SEPA aspects of the above application.
In conjunction with this SEPA Hearing, we hereby request the ability to
bring in experts to testify with regard to the various environmental
issues involved in the applicant's proposal for a driving range.
The applicant should also be offered the opportunity for rebuttal by
providing his own environmental consultants.
We are very concerned not only with the impact that such a facility
would have on our condo property values, but also its potentially
negative impact on the environment, traffic, and general livability of
our neighborhood.
Please address your response to our Committee Chairperson, Carol A.
Huber, who can be reached at 232-3510 (her place of employment) during
normal working hours.
Signatures of the majority of Laurel Estates residents (we are a 28 -unit
complex) who support this request are included on the attached page.
Additionally, we are in the process of obtaining additional signatures
from other local residents, and we will provide these to you within the
next 30 days.
Also, as indicated on November 3, 1995 to Mr. John Jimerson, the
Associate Planner who has been assigned this file, we will be submitting
within the next week a list of our concerns as they specifically relate
to the Environmental Checklist submitted by Mr. Jim Roberts, the
developer. We will also be addressing numerous omissions and
inaccuracies that have been noted in the Checklist.
RECEWED
NOV. 13 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
November 10, 1995
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
Tukwila Community Development Department
•
Page 2
We anticipate your prompt and positive response with regard to our
request for an Additional Public Hearing on the SEPA issues.
Sincerely,
Homeowners & Residents of Laurel Estates Association (signatures below)
3810 S. 158th
Seattle, WA 98188
cc: John W. Rants, Mayor
Jack Pace, Senior Planner
Phil Frasier, Senior Engineer
Phil Snyder, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Jim Roberts, Uncle Stuart's Golf Inc.
Name
Unit #
C/4(( '4h/7e --ion_-S
l0.
II,
br Ka .d
5epuni
47V) ogie--rt
L2. C.
t3 (,(l t(-)ttnU
,4Maul LC. i u54S5 ✓ / (a u l� �Z���r✓��
(anle:, Ari JY A3 , i u&
� j(j-1,6
-6-7
• •
November 10, 1995
Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director
Tukwila Community Development Department,
Page 3
Homeowners & Residents of Laurel Estates Association (signatures below)
Name
lar..tJ 7 t/YO�
f�
Signature
Unit 0 A`"j"✓ e
Thid4-tt• 4-1 s
C%;:v!A5 4±=L___1Lt
(0e,44.4.41.11- /' a /)0
1g, <lmher11 1, (G(JSv
c to . , VIP1 j Jar) in)
M I C44t . M ot(clucAl
3 Act.Amin (st
e_-.Sqs--1
2S�
ii\X'-'7?t)1(4
2(.-
/. CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CONDITAINAL USE
APPLICATION
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3680
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Construction of a 62 station
Golf Driving Range, Baseball Battinq'Cage area, and supportive facilities
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection)
South 160th Street and Pacific Highway South. Due East of Lewis
And Clark Movie Theater.
Quarter: sw
Section: 22 Township: 23 North Range: 4 East
(This information maybe found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name:
Uncle Stuart's Golf Inc. (Jim Roberts)
Address: 9010 N.E. 41st Bellevue Wash. 98004.
h ne: 206 462 8060
Signature•Qn4_ Date: 9 f 2 / `� j
* The lic t is the pers n whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and
to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name: Sterling Realty Organization Co.
OWNER
Address:777 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue Wash. 98004
Phone: 206 455 8100
I/WE,[signature(s)]it/1 /,S
swear that I/we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved
injhis application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the
best of my/our knowledge and belief. Date: C Z R AE('E'VED
OCT 2 :? 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
,,4ONDITIONAL USE APPI ATION 1 Page 2
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Vacant Land
6. PROPOSED. CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020):
Golf Course Driving Range/Baseball Batting Cage.
7. ADJACENT North:_. State Highway 518
LAND South: Regional Commercial]High-Density Residential.
USES East:• High -Density Residential. •
West: Regional Commercial.
8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale/retail/warehouse functions, outside storage of goods or
equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding of the activities you
proposed to develop on this site):
The project is the construction of a Golf Driving Range
containing 41 covered and 21 uncovered hitting stations.
•Baseball Batting Cage. •Supporting areas will include Pro
Shop, Food Service,. Restrooms, Offices, and Storage
facilities.
9.. Will the conditional use be in operation and/or a building to house the use be started
within a year of issuance of the permit?
Yes.
10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a Conditional Use Permit
will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030 (attach additional
sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in
which the subject property is situated.
RESPONSE:
The project will enhance the public welfare by providing
and promoting recreation.
1
1 11 .
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required
in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE:
Yes. The project will meet or exceed the standards required by
type ditrict. • RECEIVE
OC f 2 5 1995
COMMUNI I Y
DEVFI QPMFNT
,'•ONDITIONAL USE APP TION
/
0. (continued)
•
Page 3
. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
RESPONSE:
The project will go well with the surrounding -land,
uses; Bowling Alley, Movie Theater, and High -Density
• the recreation.
The Golf and Baseball.use will enhance
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan.
• RESPONSE:
Yes. • The recreational use goes well. in this area.
.,The project will develop the property less than :the
All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed
use may have on the area in which it is located.
SPONSE:
Yes. Off site glare. from •lighting' will 'be at a minimum.
'Golf netting will be screened to the North and East by
existing .landscaping, and to the South by new landscaping.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 13 1995
COMMUNi i Y
DEVELOPMENT
,4ARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
/DESIGN REVIEW APPLICION
CRITERIA
The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision-making on yourproposed' ro
Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe ow
attach additional response to this form.
your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insuffic en
t,
Page 2
1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE
A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetsca e a
provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. P nd to
B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate th
impact of large paved areas. e visual
C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site.
RESPONSE:
A. Existing landscape to the North, East, and West,
and new landscape to the South will compliment
the .project.
B. The parking and service areas will be landscappri i
•
and will enhance the existingMovie Theater and
Bowling Alley.
C. The scale of the building blends well with the site.
2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA
A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged.
B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided.
C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood
character.
D. . Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of
safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.
E. Compatibility of on-site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged.
RESPONSE:.
A. The project is well designed and will be a compliment to the are
B. The landscape blends well with the surrounding character
of the site.
C. The building will be consistent with, and will complement
the established neiborhood.
D&E. The parking is clustered near the entry of the building
with excellent on site and street circulat•ion.:-
VED
OCF Zi1395
rnMMi 1NtTN/
/ESIGN REVIEW APPLIG.TION
�'�, Page 3
LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT •
Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they
should be recognized and preserved and enhanced.
Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and
provide an inviting and stable appearance.
' C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important
axis, and provide shade.
D.
In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic,
mitigating steps should be taken.
E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of frees or shrubs in paved areas is encour-
aged.
F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom-
plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be
effective in winter and summer.
G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and
pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used.
H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land-
scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the
building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive
brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided.
.RESPONSE:
ASB The topographic character and site grading blend with the development
and the character of the site,,
$DitThe landscape treatment reinforces the charaeter.of the development.
The service areas have been screened with fences and/or plantings.
G. •N/A
H. The parking and bldg. lighting are designed as down lighting to reduce
glare.
4. BUILDING DESIGN
A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its
desigk and relationship to surroundings.
•
B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permar.enFAICEIWIED
velopments.
OCT 2r,3 1995
COMMI INrr ,
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 4
C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have
portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancill good pro -
consistent with anticipated life of the structure.' Parts shall be
D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used onlyfor accent.
E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof,ground s
screened from view. or buildings should be
F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixture
posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. s, standards and all ex -
G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Vari
detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. ety of
RESPONSE:
A$B The bldg design is a low profile structure..
C. See submitted elevations.
D. Selected colors reflected the natural character of the site.
E. Mechanical equipment
F. Downlighting is planned and will be harmonious with the buildin
design. g
G. The bldg, while long and narrow, has good architectural form and
interest.
5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE
A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part
architec-
tural of concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, gs,he scale le
should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings,
proportions should be to scale. gs, and
B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furnitur
guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. e should meet the
RESPONSE:
A. No accessor bdl. are .lanned.
B. Exterior lihtin of edestrian areas will be in harmony with the
and the develo ment. site
= s
OCT 2 5 1995
ESIGN REVIEW APPLIC^;TION
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
Page 5
The following six criteria are used in the spedal review of the Interurban area
in
the development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to rov' erder to manage
compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities
the Green River and nearby recreational facilities,p ide incentives for
to encourage development of more people -
oriented
use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur
descibe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use ad Please
ct„ Use ad
response space, if necessary. ditional
I• The proposed development designshould be sensitive to the natural amen'
The site is not in the Interurban Special Review Dis trilcts of the area.
2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due re and for th
of public recreational areas and facilities. g e use and enjoyment
' N/A
3. • The proposed development should provide for safe.and convenient on-si
lation. to pedestrian circu-
The proposed property use should be compatible with neighborin uses and c
to the district in which it is located. g omplementary
The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse envll''
onmental im-
pacts.
6. The proposed development should demonstratedueregardforsi significan the area. g storical features
CE VEE
OCT 2 5x1995
Cont. No.
Epic File No. -.Eqc'- oo3-L
Fee $ 325 Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: SRO GOLF and BASEBALL FACILITY.
2. Name of applicant: Uncle Stuart's Golf Inc.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Uncle Stuart's Golf Inc.
9010 N.E. 41st Bellevue, Wash. 98004 Contact Jim
4. Date checklist prepared:
94/77/95
RohPrts at 206-462-8060
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construction is planned for March 1996, and should be
complete by July 1996.
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.
Possible subsurface investigation. Possible waterway or
wetland analysis.
Class 2 slopes, and a Class 3 waterway may exist on the .
property. Evaluation and mitigation if any will be
addressed with the cities Urban Environmentalist, Planning
Director, Public Works Department, and the Department of
Community development.
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.
RECEIVED
-2-
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• •
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Conditional Use Permit, Building Permit, Occupancy Permit
eV
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.
Construction of a Golf Driving Range on an approximately 8 acre
site containing 41 covered, and_21uncov d hi ing stations_
Supporting areas will include Pro Shop, Food Service,
Restrooms,Offices, and Storage facilities.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
Property is boardered by the Lewis and Clark movie theater on the
West (Pacific HWY SO. HWY 99), HWY 518 to t12e__liorth. and _
S. 160th St., Military Road S., and S. 158th S. to the South.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Yes_ Potential f lass ? Slopesf and a Class 'i terway
may exist.
-3-
RECE VE
OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
•TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA,
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
o' n• hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, o er
•
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 40%
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
Soils are moderately well drained formed in glacial till.
(U.S. Soil Conservation Scrvicc 1985.) The majority of the
site is .fill material excavated from. the movie theater and
howling alley sit -Ps tom the West_
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity?' If so, describe.
No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
Site will be recontoured per attatched plans.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Not likely.
g•
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example,, asphalt or buildings)?
Less than ,o%.
RECEIVED
OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
410
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
Approved temporary erosion control measures will be used
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.
Construction activities will produce dust and exaust
emissions. After construction, vehicle exaust emissions
will increase. Some emissions from kitchen and lawn
maintenance equipment will occur. Impact should be minimal.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
Contractors will be required to controll siis_t during
ronst rnct ion .
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.
Yes. There is an existing_storm drain on the property.
-5-
RECEL V E
OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
•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.
Yes. See attached plans.
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.
Material will be used from on site. See attached plans.
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. Yes. See attached plans.
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.
-6-
REC EIV
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. No.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
NnnP_
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.
Surface water run-off from buildings and the parking
area_ Water will he diverted intn a hinfiltration
swale that flows into the retention structure.
See attached plans.
-7-
'RECEIVED
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Rate of flow, and oil/silt systems are planned.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
C shrubs Black Berry, Scot's Broom
XX grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? R1aclkhPrry, salmonberry rass,-and Scot's Broom
will be removed and replaced with grass after site is recontoured.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. None.
-8-
;11 EC E IV ED
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: See attached plans.
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: a heron, eagle,
other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. None.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
We --arm i n the vacinitv of the Pacific Flyway.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: Trees 'to be planted within landscape buffer.
RECEIVE
OCT 2 5 1995
_9_ COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
r��
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Natural gas for heating, electricity for lighting.
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:
Project will meet the State's energy Code for heating
and lighting.
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.
Golf balls nay fly out of property onto adjacent property.
1) Describe special emergency services that might.
be required.
Local Police and Fire Departments will be adequate.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
Netting and othercontainment elements shall mitigate
Ball hazard.
-10-
ECE VED
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
III Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
None.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short-
term or a long-term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
h construrtinn art-ivity will cause
an increase in noise levels as high as 90 DBA. City Code
allows construction noise between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
Noise during long term operation should have no adverse impact.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Recreation to the West. Food Service, Residential, and
Peligons to theSouth. Residential to the East. State
Highway to the North.,
Site is currently vacant land.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Two advertising billboards.
FiECEWE
-11- OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No_
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? Regional Commercial/High-Density Residential -•
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Regional Commercial/High—Density Residential
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
N/A
g.
toe
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes. Man made steep slopes and storm drainage.
Steep Slopes were created by fill from adjacent sites, and
storm water run of from adjacent properties. Both will
be mitigated.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? 10-15
j.. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: N/A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: The project is allowed under current zoning as
a conditional use. It is acceptable under the comprehensive
plan as well.
-12-
^RECE VED
OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing? None.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing. None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: None.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including .antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
35 foot maximum building height.
Concrete block and wood siding.
Maximum fence height will not exceed 115 feet.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? ,
Some view may be obscured by the netting, but the impact
will be minimal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
be maintained.
-13-
RECEIVED
OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
The Range area shall he lighted untill 12:00A.M.
Low impact lighting shall be used to keep off site glare to
a minimum.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
State of the -
11 •
--shall be used.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Bowling Alley and Movie Theater.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The Golf Driving Range, Putting Area, and Batting Cage
will obviously enhance Recreation in the -area.
-14-
;RECEIVED
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe. No.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: None.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposEd accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Highway 99 (Pacific Highway South) Via S. 160th Street
and Old Military Road.
See site plans.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? yes,
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Maximum 31 new spaces. Would utilize existing Movie
Theater and Bowling. Alley parking.
-15-
RECEIVED
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• 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).
oons rielgoa-`SiWo and properly: a1T g S. 158th St.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. SeaTac Airport close by.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
Aproximately 750 per day.
Peak volumes should occure around Noon and 6:OOPM.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
City of seatac has a mitigation fee per Peak hour trip. This will
addressed. There should be minimal impact within the City of
Tukwilla. -ffic durring"rush" hour periods utilizing
the sports facility.
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.
Somei_ncrease in Police and Fire protection service is
assumed.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None.
RECEIVED
-16- OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
•
16. Utilities
a. Circle lities currently available at the site:
1'ctr1c1t a aaS �xf Pri P IICP caruT
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
Water to be provided by WD125.
Sewer to be provided by Valvue Sewer District.
Electric to be provided by Puget Power.
Gas to be provided by Washington Natural Gas CO..
Telephone serviced by U.S. West. Refuse serviced by Waste Managmen
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency
relying on them to i ake its dectsio .
t,
Signature:
Date Submitted:
is
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
-17-
RECEIVED
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA• • 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 imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? Does not apply.
Proposed measures to avoid. or reduce such increases are:
DOPS not apply.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
Does not apply.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
Does not apply.
RECEIVED
-18- OCT 2 5 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT'
• • Evaluation for
3. How would the proposal be .likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
Does not apply.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resources are:
noes not apply_
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?
Dos not apply.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
Does not apply.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and.
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
Does not apply.
-19-
Agency Use Only
RECEIVED
OCT 2 '1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
Does not apply.
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
Does not apply.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
Does not apply.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are: Does not apply.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
Does not apply.
-20-
RECEQVEt
OCT 25 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
410 • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Does not apply.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
Does not apply.
-21-
RECEIVED
OCT 2 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC,
•Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
The objective is to construct a Golf Driving Range and
Basehall Bat1-ing Cage along with supportive facilities.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? None.
3. Please.compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
N/A
-22-
RECEIVED
OCT 2E 125
COMMUNITY
®EEVELOPME T
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Doesthe proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
Nnne
-23-
ECE lW LEL'_D
OCT 2V1:735
COMMUNf19
®EVELOPKIENT
..
L94-0004: Tukwila Golf Driving Range
Mitigating Conditions
April 12, 1994
B.7. Environmental Health (Pg. 8)
The Director of the Department of Community Development
shall, in consultation with the Tukwila Golf Course Manager
and other departmental representatives, ensure that the
hazard of balls flying onto adjacent roadways and property
has been mitigated to an acceptable level.
B.11 Light and Glare (Pg. 11)
The desire for bright grounds lighting to track the golf
ball's flight, landing, and distance signs shall be
accommodated as long as there is no direct off-site
illumination and/or indirect glare such as produced by a
"stadium halo."
B.14 Transportation
i. A traffic mitigation payment of $24,684.00 for
intersection impacts shall be provided as discussed in
the traffic study, prior to final construction
approval.
ii. Frontal improvements as required by Public Works
Department road improvements ordinances and/or the
Planning Commission (Conditional Use Permit L94-0005),
shall bedesigned based on the 57th Avenue South
(Southcenter Parkway) Design Report.
As an alternative to immediate construction, the
applicant may enter into a developer's agreement to
provide a fair -share payment for the improvements,
which would be built later in a coordinated manner with
the overall road improvement. An exception would be
permanent or temporary improvements which are
determined by the Public Works Department or the.
Planning Commission (through the Conditional Use Permit
process) to be needed immediately.
iii. An additional 10 foot right-of-way dedication or an
easement for sidewalks, curbs, and utilities shall be
provided prior to approval of the construction. This
area is required in order to place the required frontal
improvements as designed in the "57th Avenue South,
'Preliminary' Design/Locaition Report".'
1.
L94-0004: Tukwila Golf Driving Range
April 12, 1994 Pg. 2
B.16 Utilities
i. Adequate long term sewer service shall be provided to
the site.
This may be provided with a temporarysewer line, to
satisfy the immediate needs of the proposed
development, in conjunction with a developer's
agreement to provide a fair -share payment for permanent
sewer service; or the immediate placement of a long-
term sewer line. Either option shall be provided prior
,to final building construction approval.
ii. A developer's agreement to provide a fair -share payment
for commercial water service, up -grading the existing
substandard domestic line, shall be provided prior to
final construction approval.
file 94\tukgolf\sepa
EXTENDED BURIED.SEWER LINE
T -FABRIC FENCE WITH POLES
T,OP,OF. FENCE ELEV. 434
24' SEWER
HANDRAIL BARRIER ON WALL -
.
ALL. -. CATCH FENCE AT WALL
i 310=\
----Si
314 CPO..
316 •-
• 318—,... \ \ —
.320= • \ \' \ - .
,326 --` \.\`\. \: \\.
/ //.iii �?• /8—_ � ; � �;
/ i /. / 30�. \ \\\ . ..:
/ / / -332 � \ •,.:\
7 7 /' I / : 334-- \ �_ , ': \ \
f. \\.
/ /
EXISTING COTTONWOOD
TREES TO REMAIN
SHARED PARKING
PROPOSED 6' SE
PARKING LOT LIG
1ST FLOOR. COVERED TEES
F.F. ELEV 36
GRASS EE SURFACE
2ND FLIOR COVERED
LANDSCAPE STRIP
4' SIDEWALK
CLUBHOUSE
RESTROOMS, CONCESSIONS
1500 SO. FT.
SEE ELEVATIONS SHEETS 2 ID.3
EXISTING
FIRE HYDRAN
25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER
. PA&
RETAINING WA VAVVI 71
6HANDICAPPED v��jll�\'\ i�
SPACES. 1�4 ;mom
- 5% RAMP DO v`11®\c1\7��
LANDSCAPE PLA R \ •�`i9
,. STAIRS
1 SPACE'
4' SIDEWALK
. FIRE HYDRANT
.60' R:O.W. •
FABRIC FENCE WITH
POLES
TOP OF FENCE ELEV. 434
LOCATION MAP
11 SPACES
LOADING ACCESS
MAINTENANCE FACILITY:
SEE ELEVATIONS SHEET 4
24'X24".: '.. ..
11 SPACES
VALUE SEWER. DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT 125 •
SITE DATA
GROSS LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE , "
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE •
. MAIN STRUCTURE ROOF AREA •
MAINTENANCE FACILITY
BATTING CAGE AREA
PAVEMENT (PARKING, SIDEWALKS)
LANDSCAPE/TURF
TOTAL NEW PARKING SPACES
REGULAR.
COMPACT,
HANICAPPED
HANICAPPED - VAN
SQUARE FEET
. .333,358
31,364
7,900
576
5,957
.. 16,931
• 301,994
. 29
23
6_
l LL OEC'VV'EO
ACRES
7.65
6.93
NOTE: PRACTICE RANGE WILL SHARE PARKING WITH 61;'7 , `V1
ADJACENT COMPLEX. of `LL( t I Y
' UAUGUST 29, 1995
4411 S. RURAL ROAD
. Ind FLOOR
TEMPS; AZ 85044 U.S.A.
•
PREPARED FOR: � - ' PHONE: (602) 730 -1536
UNCLE STUART'S GOLF INC. S.R.O. PROPERTIES FAX: (602) 730-1530 . PI�JLLIPS
CONTACT: .
JIM ROBERTS (206)462-8°80 GOLF PRACTICE RANGE
1.13F 4.
9010 N.E. 41ST ST. BELLEVUE. WA 98004
•. OPEN 2ND LEVEL.
- COVERED 2ND LEVELNL'
TEE STATIONS ?x11._ ei TEE STATIONS -
1ST LEVEL I�
COVERED TEES
METAL RAILING.
AND PICKETS WITH
4" SPACING . s., :II
METAL ROOF.
OBSERVATION' AND :•
CONCESSION PATIO •
.WITH TABLES ABOVE
CMU BLOCK WITH•
PLASTER AND. PAINT.
EXISTING PARKING • •
LOT. GRADE •
PROSHOP CONCESSIONS
WASHROOMS••
METAL FRAME STRUCTURE ROOF
COUNTER
OFFICE
TORAGE
STAIRS TO SECOND TIER
ENTER FIRST LEVEL TEES
COUNTER,,:
GOLF TEE STATION
SECTION SCALE: 1/4"=1'=0"
BALL FENCE STAIRS TO SECOND. LEVEL TEE STATION —
10' TEE STATION
XXXX x k
".--WASHROOM
SAFETY
ZONE
GOLF
TEES
MERCHANDISE
WASHROOM'
•
ENTRY
ACCESS FROM PARKING
' WALKWAY
•
RETAINING WALL AT ENTRY
• kLGEC4LED: ..
G.
CT
DL7 GI-OVA!33T
COVERED OBSERVATION DECK
WITH TABLES AND CHAIRS
PRO SHOP/ CONCESSIONS.
UNCLE STUART'S GOLF INC.
CONTACT:
JIM ROBERTS (206) 462-8060
9010 NE. 419T ST. BELLEVUE, WA 99004
PREPARED FOR - I
4411 S. RURAL ROAD
2nd FLOOR
TEMPE, AZ 85044 U.S.A.
PHONE: (602), 730 - 1536
FAX:. (602)730- 1530
(PHILLIPS'
eveiuvrev
2OF4.
METAL ROOF
METAL RAILING AND
PICKETS WITH'.,
4" SPACING _.
PRO SHOP
^asr,
(% ih.
4
/ CONCESSIONS
EAST ELEVATION PROSHOP PRACTICE TEES
SCALE 1 /4"=1'—O". .
fkr
sir
OPEN TEES
NYLON BALL NET
COVERED TEES
.: COVERED
OBSERVATION
DECK
PRO SHOP
/ CONCESSIONS . • •
NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/4'= '—U"
COVERED TEES
(10)
OPEN TEES
1ST LEVEL TEES
+/— 100' FROM GRAD
GREEN TARGET.
GOLF FENCE : AND R.O.W. AT S..158TH STREET
• SCALE 1/4"=1'=0"
25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER
PREPARED FOR:' -.
UNCLE STUART GOLF INC..
CONTACT:
• JIM ROBERTS
na aav-Roao . . .
30' R.O.W.
''4' SIDEWALK
SYCAMORE, SWEET GUM AND
FLOWERING ACCENT TREE
FLOWERING EVERGREEN SHRUBS
INTERMITTENTLY _
FLOWERING ACCENT TREE
TURF DRAINAGE AND RETENTION AREA
SOUTH 158TH .STREET OCT
Hyl 6NITV
DEVELOPMENT
0411 S RURAL ROAD
2nd FLOOR
TEMPE, AZ 85044 U.S.A.
S.R.O. PROPERTIES .: PHONE: (602) 730 -1536 PHILLIPS
FAX (602) 730 -1530 COLPO rIic v
AUGUST 29:1995 GOLF PRACTICE RANGE .3 OF 4
24'
EMPLOYEE DOOR
WEST' ELEVATION..
4' -
OFFICE WINDOW
METAL ROLLER EQUIPMENT DOOR
NORTH ELEVATION`
MAINTENANCE BUILDING SCALE 1 /4'=1'-
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
PREFABRICATED METAL 'BUILDING
S.R.O. PROPERTIES
AUGUST 29.1995 GOLF PRACTICE RANGE
PREPARED FOR
UNCLE STUART'S. GOLF INC..
CONTACT:
JIM ROBERTS (206),462+806q JED
9010 N.E.413T ST. BELLEVUE. WA 99004
PREPARED FOR: .'I'T 25 E$5
. ' CO:aN.c1MTY
-. .. ^-A�FiciT
4411S. RURAL ROAD
_ 2nd FLOOR
TEMPE, AZ 85044 U.S.A.
PHONE:16021730-1536 PHILLIPS
FAX: (601) 730- 1530...
4OF4