Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E02-022 - CITY OF TUKWILA / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEWADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW TO SUPPLEMENT EXISTING PUBLIC HEARING DESIGN REVIEW CITY -WIDE E02 -022 City of tkwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: E02 -022 Applied: 10/17/2002 Issue Date: 10/21/2002 Status: ISSUED Proponent: CITY OF TUKWILA DCD Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: Proposal to add an administrative design review process to complement the public hearing process in front of the Board of Architectural Review. See file L02 -043. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section /Township /Range: CITYWIDE CODE AMENDMENT The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 /c0— CZ —oz Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) doc: Miscperm E02 -022 Printed: 10 -21 -2002 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official FROM: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor 10 RE: Code Amendment SEPA DATE: October 18, 2002 Project File: E02 -022 Associated File: L02 -043 Applicant: City of Tukwila Attachments: SEPA Checklist Location: This is a non - project proposal that will affect the MDR, HDR, MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C/ LI, TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L and MIC /H Zones in the City of Tukwila. Public Comment: No public comments were received in the mail or at the Planning Commission public hearing. Description: Tukwila is proposing to add an administrative design review process to supplement its existing public hearing design review. All projects that trigger design review are currently reviewed by the Planning Commission at public hearings. The new process would allow smaller projects such as additions, remodels and buildings under certain sizes to be reviewed administratively by the Director of the Department of Community Development. The thresholds in the Zoning Code for which projects trigger design review would be revised to add the administrative level (see Attachment A). In zones that require all structures to go through design review structures up to a certain size and remodels up to 25% of building value would be subject to the administrative process. Administrative design review would be added below the current threshold in those districts that currently have a high threshold so that medium sized projects like fast food restaurants would not fall through the gaps. The design criteria used to evaluate the projects would be the same Agencies With Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth - This is a non - project proposal. No development regulations would be affected by this change in process. 2. Air - This is a non - project proposal and no air impacts are expected. 3. Water — This is a non- project proposal and does not affect Tukwila's adoption of the standards in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. Plants - Our current landscape requirements and design standards would be applied to any proposals that require design review. The administrative process would use the same standards and criteria as the existing public hearing review process. 5. Animals — The proposed amendments will affect areas along the Green River shoreline, habitat of the endangered Chinook salmon. However, no changes to Tukwila's Shoreline Regulations are proposed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources - The proposal would be unlikely to affect the type or location of development in Tukwila. The design standards applied to new development and remodels would not change, only the process of applying them. Therefore the impacts would be the same as those expected under our current regulations. 7. Environmental Health - This is a non - project proposal. No environmental regulations would be affected by this change in process. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - The amendment would affect parcels with sensitive areas but would not change the Sensitive Area Ordinance or Shoreline Regulations. 9. Housing - The proposal will not result in a change to the housing supply, though it may remove a disincentive to remodeling multi - family buildings. 10. Aesthetics - The proposal would not affect the currently applied design review criteria, it would only change the process by which they are applied in some cases. Therefore there should be no change to the aesthetics of the projects. 11. Light and Glare - During the design review process we would continue to require that applicants locate and shield their site lighting to control off -site glare. 12. Recreation - The proposal will not affect recreational facilities. • • 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The proposed amendments should not have any impacts on historic or cultural sites. 14. Transportation - No transportation related impacts are expected from the amendments. This is a non - project proposal. Access issues are addressed during design review in consultation with the Public Works Department. 15. Public Services - The Police Department reviews site plans and makes safety related suggestions during the design review process. This would not be affected by the change in process. 16. Utilities - The proposal would be unlikely to affect the type or location of development in Tukwila, therefore utility usage would be the same as under our current regulations. Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of non - significance. • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanAci.tukwila.wa.us • SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. C, tnJi04— Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. (V Name: 0 I'e.- 7: ef4 % v C �-J<<LJ��c. VL� Address: 630o SS 131 • S v , /00 / / � L , �� q8) 6/3 Phone: (A) 431 - 36 7 J FAX: Signature: G :WPPHAMLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 Date: 10//7/2 FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P-SEPA Planner: /' �� File Number: v� O eiz Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: 1.._0„7 _ (74 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. C, tnJi04— Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. (V Name: 0 I'e.- 7: ef4 % v C �-J<<LJ��c. VL� Address: 630o SS 131 • S v , /00 / / � L , �� q8) 6/3 Phone: (A) 431 - 36 7 J FAX: Signature: G :WPPHAMLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 Date: 10//7/2 City of Tuk►ESA Screening Checklist City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: %� Il I �2 Street Address: 2SO v 6„90te-- ,& City, State, Zip: / t k 4- /gfiaf.3 Telephone: �J(7. 431 -3670 DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. January 25, 2001 1 • City of Tulcia ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue. to Question 2 -0 YES - Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. (SP Continue to Question 3 -0 YES - Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 4 -0 YES - Continue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4-0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (see. TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 5 -0 YES - Continue to Question 5 -0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate res I onse. Irk Continue to Question 6 -0 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 January 25, 2001 2 City of TukuIDESA Screening Checklist Part A (continued) 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18- 13).. For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. Checklist Complete YES — Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. 69 Continue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and /or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 1 -3 YES - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. 16- Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 1 -4 January 25, 2001 3 City of Tuk4ESA Screening Checklist Part B. (continued) 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -3 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) January 25, 2001 4 City of Tuki ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, . remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3 -4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 YES - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 January 25, 2001 5 • City of Tub. ESA Screening Checklist Part D (continued) 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) January 25, 2001 6 • E• File No. 50O?.- 00 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Code amendments to create an administrative design review process. 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 4. Date checklist prepared: October 11, 2002 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Code amendments to be adopted by the City Council during the 4th quarter of 2002. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None. 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. Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECPIST There are no active design review applications that would be affected by the ,proposed change in regulations. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. The City Council would need to adopt changes to the Zoning Code by ordinance. 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 alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Tukwila is proposing to add an administrative design review process to supplement its existing public hearing design review. All projects that trigger design review are currently reviewed by the Planning Commission at public hearings. The new process would allow smaller projects such as additions, remodels and buildings under certain sizes to be reviewed administratively by the Director of the Department of Community Development. The thresholds in the Zoning Code for which projects trigger design review would be revised to add the administrative level (see Attachment A). In zones that require all structures to go through design review structures up to a certain size and remodels up to 25% of building value would be subject to the administrative process. Administrative design review would be added below the current threshold in those districts that currently have a high threshold so that medium sized projects like fast food restaurants would not fall through the gaps. The design criteria used to evaluate the projects would be the same, regardless of whether an administrative or public hearing process was required. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project will affect the MDR, HDR, MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C/ LI, TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L and MIC /H Zones in the City of Tukwila. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Some parcels subject to the new process may be classified as environmentally sensitive. Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECPIST B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: This is a non - project proposal. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? This is a non - project proposal. 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. This is a non - project proposal. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. This is a non - project proposal. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. This is a non - project proposal. f Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. This is a non - project proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This is a non - project proposal. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: This is a non - project proposal. 2. Air Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC IST • 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. This is a non - project proposal. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. This is a non - project proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: This is a non - project proposal. 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. The proposed code changes would apply to developments that .trigger design review due to their proximity to the Green River. 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. This is a non - project proposal. 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. This is a non - project proposal. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. This is a non - project proposal. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Some projects subject to the new regulations may be located within the floodplain. Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC IST • 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. This is a non - project proposal. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. This is a non - project proposal. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. This is a non - project proposal. 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. This is a non - project proposal. Any development subject to the new regulations would still be required to meet Tukwila's surface water standards. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This is a non - project proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: This is a non - project proposal. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Page 5 deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC IST b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This is a non - project proposal. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non - project proposal. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Our current landscape requirements and design standards would be applied to any proposals that require design review. The administrative process would use the same standards and criteria as the existing public hearing review process. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: . Mammals: Fish: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The proposed code changes would apply to developments that trigger design review due to their proximity to the Green River. The Green River is a migratory route for listed salmonid species. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The proposal would affect parcels adjacent to the Green River. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: This is a non - project proposal. 6. Energy and Natural Resources Page 6 pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This is a non - project proposal. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non - project proposal. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Our current landscape requirements and design standards would be applied to any proposals that require design review. The administrative process would use the same standards and criteria as the existing public hearing review process. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: . Mammals: Fish: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The proposed code changes would apply to developments that trigger design review due to their proximity to the Green River. The Green River is a migratory route for listed salmonid species. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The proposal would affect parcels adjacent to the Green River. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: This is a non - project proposal. 6. Energy and Natural Resources Page 6 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. This is a non - project proposal. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This is a non - project proposal. 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: This is a non - project proposal. 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. No. This would only affect the nature of the design review process. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The new review process would affect Tukwila's multi - family, commercial and industrial zones. Therefore the types of noise typically found in those zones might affect the projects. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Generally building construction or remodeling would follow design review approval. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC IST • Tukwila's Noise Ordinance with its noise standards and restrictions on construction activities would apply to all projects. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? This is a non - project proposal. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. This is a non - project proposal. c. Describe any structures on the site. This is a non - project proposal. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This is a non - project proposal. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The project will affect the MDR, HDR, MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C /LI, TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L and MIC /H Zones in the City of Tukwila. f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The project will affect the MDR, HDR, MUO, 0, RCC, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C /LI, TVS, LI, HI, MIC /L and MIC /H Comprehensive Plan Designations in the City of Tukwila. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Some parcels subject to the new process may be classified as environmentally sensitive. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is a non - project proposal. j• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? This is a non - project proposal. Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECOPIST • k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. This is a non - project proposal. L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal would not affect the currently applied design standards, it would only change the process by which they are applied in some cases. Therefore no incompatibility should be created. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? This is a non - project proposal. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. This is a non - project proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: This is a non - project proposal. 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? This is a non - project proposal. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This is a non - project proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposal would not affect the currently applied design review criteria, it would only change the process by which they are applied in some cases. Therefore there should be no change to the aesthetics of the projects. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is a non - project proposal. Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECCIST • b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This is a non - project proposal. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? This is a non - project proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: During the design review process we would continue to require that applicants locate and shield their site lighting to control off -site glare. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non - project proposal. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. This is a non - project proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None required. This is a non - project proposal. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. This is a non - project proposal. There are no such structures in the City. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. This is a non - project proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None required. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC IST This is a non - project proposal. Access issues are addressed during design review in consultation with the Public Works Department. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? This is a non - project proposal. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? This is a non - project proposal. 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). This is a non - project proposal. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. This is a non - project proposal. Much of Tukwila is located near such facilities. f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This is a non - project proposal. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None required. 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. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The Police Department reviews site plans and makes safety related suggestions during the design review process. This would not be affected by the change in process. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This is a non - project proposal. 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. This is a non - project proposal. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: /UV� Date Submitted: 1o1/1/4,2, D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT 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 form the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than in the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It would not increase any of these problems because the types of uses allowed and environmental regulations would not change. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None required. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? The proposal would be unlikely to affect the type or location of development in Tukwila. The design standards applied to new development and remodels would not change, only the process of applying them. Therefore the impacts would be the same as those expected under our current regulations. Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: None required. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The energy efficiency standards in the building code applied to new development and remodels would not change under the proposal. Therefore the impacts would be the same as those expected under our current regulations. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None required. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for government protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This proposal would not allow development in any areas not already zoned for development. Tukwila's sensitive area regulations would not be affected. Therefore no impact is expected. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None required. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal would not affect the types of uses allowed in Tukwila's Zones and would not affect the Shoreline Substantial Development permit requirements. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None required. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal would be unlikely to affect the type or location of development in Tukwila. Therefore the impacts would be the same as those expected under our current regulations. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None required. Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC IST 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal would not affect the enforcement of any environmental regulations. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? To provide a streamlined design review process for smaller projects while maintaining the high quality of development in Tukwila. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The thresholds for requiring design review at all and the thresholds between administrative and public hearing review could be set higher or lower. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The Planning Commission and City Council have recommended the attached thresholds. They raise the thresholds for public hearing design review in Zones that have very low thresholds and add administrative review below the public hearing thresholds in Zones where they are high. This will allow for a more even level of review and design quality throughout the City. Therefore the proposed thresholds are the best fit for the objectives. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? No. The design review process is not specified in the Plan. 5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None required. Page 14 ploysaJyl Malnad u6lsao 6ul ;s!x3 }o!Tsia 6uiuoZ 0 z 0 c 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 r • • • =Admin. • Review • New Building Square Footage w CT' rn J CO CO O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O fsdmin Review . ZAF Admin.. 2eview. None ?▪ ■dmin. Review, Admin; Review a▪ V1F Admin. Review Admin: teview None Public Hearing Design Review Public Hearing Design Review :Comm. Admin. !Review; MF iPublic Hearing' t Admin. Review F and Comm. Public earing Design Review ublic Hearing Design eview Public Hearing Design Review Public Hearing Design Review Public Hearing Design Review iComm.'Admin. Review;MF.: ', -, - , 'Public Hearing 4V1F and'Comm. Public - fearing Design Review : ;Q o 5. 3 • avIF and Comm. Public Hearing Design Review (Commercial Admin. Reviews ' 'tl Public Review i. Commercial Admin. Review; MF Public Hearing Review: Public Review Proposed Administrative Design Review Thresholds