HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-66 - BERNHARDT SHARON - RIVERTON ANNEXATIONRIVERTON ANNEXATION
EPIGFD -66
CITY OF TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINAL
DECLARATION OF ►'JON-S I GN I F I CA JCE
Description of proposal Riverton Annexation
Proponent
Location of Proposal
Sharon Bernhardt
North of South 136th Street, west of 42nd Avenue South
to Duwamish River, west & south of Duwamish River, east of
Hwy. 99
Lead Agency City of Tukwila
File No. EPIC -FD -66
This proposal has been determined to (ice /not have) a significant adverse im-
pact upon the environment. An EIS (/is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)
(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Responsible Official
Position /Title
Date
Kjell Stoknes•
Director, Office of Community Development
2 October 1978
COMMENTS:
Signature
1
Cott' of Tukwila Hubert H. Crawley
Fire Chief
Fire Department OFFICE MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
ijell Stoknes
Hubert H. Crawley , Fire Chief
Riverton Annexation
October 3, 1978
In regards to the memo sent to me on September 27, 1978, I would like to
make the following comments;
1. The area as outlined in the memo will not have any initial effect on
the operational effectiveness of the fire department. However, it is
wise to note;that.it is a continuation of the drain on the resources of
the fire department. A combination of projects under construction and
the annexation continues the drain, and thereby reduces the effectiveness
of the fire department.
2. Due to the statements appearing in the newspapers, and the desires of the
fire districts, something should be settled regarding the agency to cover
the area for fire and emergency medical services.
Should you wish further information or comments please feel free to inquire.
RECEIVED
O.C.D.
Cm OF TUKWILA
SEP 5 1971
City of Tukwila Fire Department, 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 575 -4404
ONCE MEMO •
CITY of TUKWILA
Sept. 27, 1978
TO: All City Department Heads
FROM: I(jell Stoknes'
SUBJECT: Riverton Annexation
•
Please review the attached:environmental questionaire form and bring any
comments in written form to the Mayors staff meeting on October 2, 1978.
Please be prepared to submit this information to me so I can forward them
to the City Council that night for their review with the other materials
going to them on this subject.
RECEIVED
• O.C.D.
CITY Of NKWIIA
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ye y
rf 1P3
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:
Sharon Bernhardt
2. Address and Phone Number of. Proponent: 3418 - S. 126th Seattle,
Washington 98168 phone: 246 -2630
3. Date Checklist Submitted: September 27, 1978
4. Agency Requiring Checklist:
City of Tukwila
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Riverton Annexation Petition
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
Petition to annex to the City of Tukwila by the election method.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
Land north of city limits, starting at 42nd Avenue South where it intersects with
the Duwamish River then north and west down the channel middle to Pacific Highway Sout
thence south along eastern boundary at Pacific Highway South to South 136th Street
thence east to 42nd thence north to point of beginning.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: February 1979
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc.
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit
(c) Building permit
YES NOX
YES NO X
YES NO X
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO X
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES NO X
(f) Sign permit YES NO X
(g) Water hook up permit YES NO X
(h) Storm water system permit YES NO X
(i) Curb cut permit YES NO X
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES NO X
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES NO X
(1) Other: City of Tukwila approval; King County Boundary RPViPw Rnard
approval
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
NO
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
NO
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
NONE
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
YES MAYBE NO
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil? X
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures? X
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? X
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Explanation:
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
'body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
. through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters? X
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies? X
Explanation:
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora? X
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? X
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
Explanation:
5 Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
'(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna? X
X
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? X
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels? X
Explanation:
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? X
Explanation:
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation: All land would annex as single - family if the annexation peti-
tion is approved. After annexation, zoninn hearings would be conducted to
implement the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for,the area.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
X
X
X
11. . Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
X
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? _X
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? X
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods? X
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
Explanation:
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services? X _
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
X
X
(a) Power or natural gas? X
(b) Communications systems? X
(c) Water? X
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
(e) Storm water drainage? X
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
Explanation:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
X
• •
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his-
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
YES MAYBE NO
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Signature and Title
X
X
Additional Explanations: Riverton Annexation (Environmental Checklist)
14. Public Services.
a. Fire Protection? Success of the annexation would cause the
Tukwila Fire Department to provide fire protection services.
Potentially, the City may request Fire District 18 and 1 to
continue providing fire protection service on a contractual
basis.
b. Police Protection? The Tukwila Police Department would assume
police protection responsibilities over the area.
c. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? The Tuk-
wila Public Works Department would assume responsibility over
all roads and storm water systems in rights -of -way. Val -Vue
Sewer District would retain all rights over sanitary sewer
systems and Water District #35 over all water systems.
d. Other governmental services? The City of Tukwila would assume
responsibilities for all other governmental services presently
provided by King County.
• •
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
A. Natural Characteristics
This section is included to give some general physical characteristics of the
land from information contained in the Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area
1975.
1. Geology:
The area is composed of 4 geologic characteristics. These are alluvium,
outwash deposits, pre - vashon till and bedrock. Except where there is
alluvium deposits the area has good foundation stability. Foundation
stability is poor where there is alluvium deposits and should be investi-
gated prior to any further development. Reference should be made to
page 10 of the Data Inventory for further explanation and character-
istics of each of the geologic deposits and map 1 -2 in the same document
for the general locations of each type of geologic feature.
2. Slope Stability:
Most areas within the annexation area are stable with the exceptions
of the southern portion just east of Pacific Highway South and to a
lesser degree, Quarry Hill. Slope stability ranges from unknown to
unstable and should be investigated in these prior to any further
development. Reference map 1 -3 in the Data Inventory Document for the
location of lands within the various slope stability categories.
3. Slopes:
The annexation area is mainly flat except for Quarry Hill which has
slopes over 25% and the valley wall which runs along Pacific Highway
South which is 5 - 15 %. Slopes of 5 - 15% are generally well suited
to residential use but is too steep to provide desirable commercial and
industrial uses. Slopes of 15 - 25% are generally suitable only for
low density residential and recreational use. Slopes in excess of 25%
are usually too steep for any kind of urban development.
4. Water Features:
The primary water feature is the Duwamish River which borders the area
on the north and east. Two small streams flow through the area which
provide drainage from the valley wall to the Duwamish.
5. Soils:
There are 4 soils groups in this area. These are marshy soils; rough,
broken and stony land; alluvial soils and till soils. The largest area
is covered by alluvial soils and till soils. The alluvial soils are
characterized as having low bearing capacity, slight erosion problems,
poor internal drainage, good arability and a high water table. The high
water table and low bearing capacity require much site preperation prior
to development. The till soils have a high bearing capacity, slight
erosion problems, fair internal drainage and arability. Hardpan occurs
only a few feet from the soil surface which will support heavy struc-
tures. Reference map 1 -6 in the Data Inventory Document for soils
characteristics and general locations of these soils.
• •
6. Vegetation:
There are some major wooded areas, the largest located in the valley
wall along Pacific Highway South and along the banks of the Duwamish.
7. Wildlife:
The wildlife is generally that which is characteristic to the Tukwila
area and valley environment.
B. Population /Social Characteristics.
1. Population:
According to Tukwila estimates, the population of the area is 906..
2. Social Characteristics:
The 1970 Census figures are unreliable for this area. Due to this, it
can only be assumed that the general population characteristics are
similar to that of the census tract within which the City of Tukwila is
located. That is, a median age of 25.4 years, average education at
122 years, average income $11,500. Additional information on this
subject can be found in the Tukwila Data Inventory pages 86 - 91.
C. Housing Characteristics and Land Use
1. Housing Characteristics:
It is estimated that the majority of structures have been constructed
prior to 1950. There are approximately 346 housing units in the area,
of which about half is owner occupied and half is renter occupied. The
average lot value is approximately $11,082. The average value of
improvments on property is approximately $20,251. The value of the
entire area proposed for annexation according to the 1978 King County
Assessors office records is $14,790,650. Of this $5,232,150 is for
the value of land and $9,558,500 for improvements.
2. Land Use:
The land within this potential annexation area is primarily a mixture
of low density residential uses and light industrial uses with some
commercial areas and a small area zoned for_ high density residential
use. The residential areas are located between East Marginal Way South,
Highway 599 and the Duwamish; and the area south of South 126th Street;,
and the area south of South 125th Street and east of East Marginal Way
South.
0. Zoning /Comprehensive Plan-
1. The area within the proposed annexation has a variety of land uses..._
Generally, the_land north_of.South 126th. Street, except quarry hill''
is shown as light industry. Land south of South 124th Street is
shown as single - family, except for some commercial designations along
East Marginal Way South and Pacific Highway South. Some multiple - family
is also shown adjacent Pacific Highway South at the south boundary of
the annexation. Parks and Open Space designations are shown at the
former Southgate Elementary School and undeveloped King County Park
Property.
-2-
PROPOSED RIVERTON ANNEXATION
SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Assessed valuation of area:
a. Land $ 5,232,150
b. Improvements . 9,558,500
TOTAL $14,790,650
2. Land area:
a. 270 acres, or
b. .42 square miles
3. Average value per acre: $54,780
4. Assessed valuation of Tukwila: $360,409,786
5. Land area of Tukwila: 2,463 acres, or
3.85 square miles
6. Average value of Tukwila per acre: $146,329
7. Valuation of proposed annexation as a percentage of Tukwila valuation:
.41%
8. Land area of proposed annexation as a percentage of Tukwila: 10.9%
9. Population of proposed annexation:
1970 Census: 1,229
10. Population of Tukwila:
1978 Actual: 3,160
11. Proposed annexation population as a percentage of Tukwila's population:
39%
12. Linear miles of road in proposed annexation:
a. minor roads: 4 miles
b. Major roads: 2 miles
• •
Proposed Riverton Annexation
Supplement to Environmental Questionnaire
13. Revenue estimates to City from proposed annexation:
a. Property tax levy (2.85 x $14.7 million) $42,079
b. Sales tax (est.) 5,000
c. Per capita (32 x 1,229) 39,328
TOTAL $86,407
Page 2
10/1/78
14. Estimated lose of revenue to King County and special purpose districts:
a. Property tax (Road levy) (2.032 x $14.7 million) $30,054
b. Library levy (.562 x $14.7 million) 8,312
c. Fire Dist. 1 and 18 (1.000 x 14.7 million) 14,790
d. Per capita 39,328
e. Sales tax 5,000
TOTAL $97,484
15. Revenues of City of Tukwila (All funds):
$7,721,406
16. Revenue from proposed annexation area as a percentage of Tukwila's revenue:
1.1%
a. As a percent of current fund: 3.2%
17. Number of persons per acre in proposed annexation: 4.55