HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-12-88 - SCHNEIDER GERALD - SCHNEIDER ANNEXATIONSCHNEIDER ANNEXATION
ANNEX PORTIONS OF
PROPERTY NOT IN CITY &
AMEND COMP PLAN FOR
OFFICE USE
S. 178T" ST. & I -5
EPIC 12 -88
A F F I D A V I T
OF DISTRIBUTION
I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that:
ci Notice of Public Hearing
(l Notice of Public Meeting
Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet
(l Planning Commission Agenda Packet
C7 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
[[ Shoreline Management Permit
[� Determination of Nonsignificance
[I Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance
Determination of, Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
O Official Notice
■
0 Other ADDENDUM TO EPIC -12 -88
(SCHNEIDER ANNEXATION)
O Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1988
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION
MAIL STOP PV -11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
ATTN: KAREN BEATTY PERMIT COORDINATOR
WATER DISTRICT 75
P.O. BOX 68100
SEATTLE, WA 98168
JIM TRACY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KING CO PARKS, PLANNING AND RESOURCES
1108 SMITH TOWER
506 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98104
Name of Project SCHNEIDER ANNEX -- EPIC FILE
File Number. EPIC -12 -88
Signatur
TO: REBECCA FOX /)'<"*.
FROM: BRAD COLLINS
DATE: JUNE 6, 1988
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES ADDED TO mCHNEIDER ANNEXATION, COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT, AND PRE- ANNEXATION ZONING PER CITY REQUEST
The following information is provided for the modification of applica-
tions to include adjacent properties. If more information is needed,
please contact me at.842 -5135.
SEPA Environment Checklist
All. Description of the Proposal
The subject property is 35 4-cves alpnim,1� in size.
Portions of the subject property are proposed or annexation to the City
of Tukwila as well as for Comp Plan Amendment and zoning classification.
The proposed use is office, and the applicants are willing to eliminate
multiple family residential uses as permitted under P -0 zoning. The
subject property is located south of S. 178th St. and east of I -5. The
subject property is mostly vacant with 5 single family homes located on
lots along S. 178th St., borders on the west by I -5, and fronts S. 178th
St. on the north.
Al2. Location of the Proposal
Section 35 Township 23 Range 4 Tax Lots 12, 33, 109 and Secluded Terrace
Park Lots 1 -18 and Section 35 Township 23 Range 4 Tax Lots 19, 20, 22,
0, 43, 46, 76, 90, and 114 and unincorporated portions of 5. 178th 5t.
and 53rd Ave S. right -of -ways east of I -5. Site maps submitted with
annexation, Comp Plan Amendment, and zoning applications. There is no
site plan for office development at this time.
B8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. vacant with .5 single family residences near the northern portion of
the subject site; Interstate 5, S. 178th St., and S. 188th
Connector R.O.W. border or pass through the site
c. 5 single family residences on Tax Lots 19, 20, 43, 76, and 114.
d. not at this time
j. perhaps 5- single family households and approximately 15 people
k. none proposed
B9. Housing
b. 5 middle income single family residences
c. .none proposed; owners are applicants
Signature:
Date Submitted:
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal Comprehensive Plan Amendment, zoning and annexation of all
or portions of approximately 24 acres.
Proponent GERALD SCHNEIDER
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Generally located South of
So. 178th Street and East of I -5, in Section 35, Township 23, Range 4. Tax Lots 12,
33, 109 and Secluded Terrace Park lots 1 -18.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -12 -88
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it 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.
Q There is no comment period for this DNS
This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
May 25. 1988
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1846
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Date �� ((6° _Signature
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
FM.DNS
CITYU02FCUKWILA
✓' - ROUTING FORM
TO: [[ BLDG. Q PLNG. Q P.W. [[ FIRE [[ POLICE Q P.& R.
PROJECT SO- fNEIbER ANNEXATION --Addt hov4.Q Soils) MOi.Sc i/ olfa
ADDRESS ill fro) w+Gt / 16' 551 AVE ,S. q S• I% 0 t'
DATE TRANSMITTED 513100 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY MC w,edl,l) - - 5/518
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR �EJ/,EC.Gik I=DX RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [[
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [j
PLAN APPROVED ED
PLAN CHECK DATE V-1--e-
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA '. E
DR
- ROUTING FORM
TO: [I BLDG. [J PLNG. Q P.W. [[ FIRE ❑ POLICE ❑ P. & R.
PROJECT SGttn[EIIJER ANNEXATION �-, 4.4.141, AD
Soils hOlSc 4 A' 14. �
ADDRESS Apl roXi vmA y Y s1 Ave., S• Et 5 . / 7 +1
DATE TRANSMITTED q3I 0 0 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY D2G meal") --
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RegFC.CA Fox RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
11! 4 « e S S i f /41-5 G < s !./it 4 7Ae/' ,4 / / . #
❑ n4 eAdA7ii.rr, w, -/3 w..71er a,, ✓4eJeA ?ia,-, 1 Pels' P. GP i:r p
f1
❑ �.ie �olP$5 c.( GGc41: ^� el t.✓P51�' c/VP F ✓� 5'A ,G�.
❑ C0'e /011y14' ic7cr ,1 / &e .17-‘5- Q L7v°'
[7]- /-4 . s .4 ✓,°h • i s 57/4 Pi/ , 0. Si7 /P ,./*. 4-./ f 1 I
❑ Q // wz /-P/ /%7 Pj 7'4 i •r OW1 I:, I1 P Pc/ ro GP v/ay ✓•4 led
❑ (c / Ai-Lo, Q )^ f P Se' i s-P
a l 744 ? e c d r ■► 4 , 0 - , / 1 1 ) A/ /Live e."411
."4 G°r J g
❑ •��� c��✓�✓%� ;ham /kcr� 744 r needs t 6e
S c tr G f leh i % J P o 74.
Gre 4"1/ e✓d i
❑ 7c, S.QP / t 74 Pi) 'e /S' c v✓r e A r,10,64:,
El
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0
PLAN APPROVED J
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
' CITY OF TUKWILA
- ROUTING FORM
•
1i'
`�
TO: J BLDG. El PLNG. Q P.W. El FIRE Q POLICE Q P. & R.
PROJECT Sct}NEILbER ANNEXATION --, horm_e soils, Vioisc 4 ft/ �c
- Ihfo
ADDRESS A f ero)(i vNAif,i1 n 4VI .� S• 61 5. 17
DATE TRANSMITTED 5/100 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY MC meal et) - - 5/5/
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR R,Ep 'CLA Fox RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
❑ ° C X a-i- A 1.s 4ii.
Q
Q
a
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
Q
Q
Q
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED E�
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED E[
PLAN APPROVED E[
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TJKWILI�
- DRCC
- ROUTING FORM
• • ' .,4 •
TO: BLDG. Q PLNG. 4[[ P.W. El FIRE 0 POLICE a P. & R.
PROJECT SCtthJE. I bER A I EMTI ON -T hors soi lsj oo i.sc El -tr ' f1 .C.- rhf
ADDRESS Ap rog v%Qi 1111' fJ Ave., s• S. I7O'
1"
DATE TRANSMITTED qlog RESPONSE REQUESTED BY MC w,edleti -- 5/5/09
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR galF 7k RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
0
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [[
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED a
PLAN APPROVED C1
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REBECCA FOX
BRAD COLLINS r' -i
APRIL 28, 1988
SCHNEIDER ANNEXATION SUPPLEMENTAL SEPA INFORMATION &
EARLY NOTICE REQUEST
Subsequent to the April 7, 1988, Development Review Committee
meeting on the Schneider Annexation, this memorandum provides
the requested supplemental SEPA information and is the
applicant's request for Early Notice of the SEPA threshold
determination.
NOISE
Additional noise information was obtained by field
investigation on the site. On April 20, 1988, during the
afternoon peak traffic hours from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm, noise
levels were monitored by Brad Collins with the help of Steve
Robinson. A City of Tukwila noise meter, Bruel & Kjaer Type
2232 Serial #1006261, was used. The weather conditions were
fair skies and mild temperatures (approximately 65 degrees F).
The noise level readings were taken at four locations on the
site as shown on the attached site map. Two different
readings were taken at each of four locations on the site:
(1) the highest dB(A) level using the manual reset and (2) an
approximate average dB(A) level using the auto reset.
Noise Level Reading Loc 1
3:15 -3:45 em
4:30 -5:00 em
Loc 2 Loc 3
Loc 4
71.7/65 64.2/57 71.5/65 70.5/63
70.5/64 61.7/56 70.0/64 69.9/63
These noise level readings are comparable to, though not quite
as high as, those found on the Valley View Estates site west
of I -5 and north of the subject site. According to the Valley
View Estates FEIS (January, 1986, City of Tukwila), the
maximum noise levels exceeded 75 dB(A) during many hours of
the day and 80 dB(A) during several hours. The conclusion
that can be drawn from the Valley View Estates FEIS is
"exterior noise levels outside the fenced play area, including
the proposed recreation areas, would be in a range EPA
characterizes as having significant adverse impacts (i.e., 65-
70+ dBA's). "
It can also be expected according to the S.
Connector Study (December, 1984, Centrac) that
Street Connector, which could be constructed
subject property, would further impact the noise
found on the site.
188th Street
the S. 188th
through the
levels to be
SCHNEIDER ANNEXATION SEPA SUPPLEMENT
APRIL 28, 1988
PAGE 2
SOILS
A preliminary soils report on the subject site was attached to
the application environmental checklist. This report was
completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. and dated August 17,
1979. Their evaluation was directed towards overall site
stability and suitability for building construction,. and a
detailed subsurface exploration was not performed.
The soils report noted the following:
(1) The general gradient is towards the east, and the slope
inclination is generally between 10 and 20 percent
adjacent to Interstate 5 and on the smaller, northern
parcel located on S. 178th Street.
(2) In the central and eastern portion of the larger parcel,
slopes up to 80 percent are present in an arcuate ravine -
like shape, which descends eastward to a relatively level
area where several springs were noted.
(3) Soil exposures observed on the site indicate that the on-
site soils are predominantly granular in nature and are
geologically described as "Advance Stratified Drift."
These are materials deposited along the path of the
glacier movement which occurred in this area over 15,000
years ago.
(4) A test pit was excavated on the steep slope face of the
central /eastern ravine. This indicated the subsurface
materials were medium dense to dense gravelly sand to a
depth of 9 feet. This was underlain by a clean, dense,
medium to coarse grained sand. No water was observed,
but the materials observed below a depth of 9 feet were
noted to be wet, indicating the groundwater level
probably within a few feet of this depth.
(5) The report concluded that the site is suitable for the
proposed development (at that time multiple family
housing). The steep sloped ravine in the central /eastern
portion of the property was most likely the scarp
remaining of an old landslide estimated to have occurred
in excess of 100 years ago. The steep slopes of the
ravine appeared to be presently stable.
(6) The recommendations of the report were to minimize the
clearing of vegetation to reduce potential erosion, tight
line all runoff from downspouts to prevent it running
down the slopes, set back all buildings at 1-Ergat 2n feet
from the top of the slope; a-rfd— incorporate a eq
subsurface drainage to assure that increased flows of
water will not occur into the subsurface. -
SCHNEIDER ANNEXATION SEPA SUPPLEMENT
APRIL 28, 1988
PAGE 3
Hart - Crowser & Associates also conducted a field reconnais-
sance and geotechnical site evaluation of the area for the
proposed S. 188th Connector roadway (S. 188th Street Connector
Study, December, 1984, Centrac). This work included the
identification of unstable areas, seepage, exposed soils and
assessment of possible cut and fill slopes, suitability of on-
site soils for embankment, and other construction
considerations. They found the hillside between Interstate 5
and 57th Avenue S. is primarily covered with a mantle of loose
to dense silty sandy gravel and beneath that hard to very
dense layers of .glacially overridden clayey silt, fine sandy
silt, fine sand, and silty sandy gravel (till). The majority
of the exposed soils provide good structural support for a
roadway with the exception of landfill materials and organic
soil. They concluded that a roadway can be constructed along
the D or E alignment (through the subject property) with fewer
slope stability and other major geotechnical problems likely
than along'more southerly alignments.
TRAFFIC
Based on preliminary estimates of potential office space and
building type for the subject site, an estimate of traffic
generation is made. It might be expected that 22 two -story
office buildings with 50' x 120' footprints or 264,000 square
feet of office space may be placed on the site.
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual (3rd
Edition, July 1984) for estimating trip generation, the
following average daily trips (ADT's) could be anticipated
from this office develoment:
Land Use /Bldg Type Low Average Weekday High Average Weekday
Gen Off 200000* GSF 2878 ADT
Gen Off 1001_000- GSF 4673 ADT
Most of these average weekday trips would be expected to
access off of S. 178th St. with most southbound am and
northbound pm peak hour traffic using Southcenter Parkway;
westbound am and eastbound pm peak hour traffic using
Southcenter Parkway, S. 180th St., or 57th Ave. S.; eastbound
am and westbound pm peak hour traffic using Southcenter
Parkway or Military Road; and most northbound am and
southbound pm peak hour traffic using Military Road, unless
the S. 188th St. Connector were available.
\\.•• ';'•
• •.•' ••••■
• it
\\.1
••
t4-
`444.4-
."?
I.
4
• 1•
,1•4
•
.7"
no •.• •••••••■••
•
• • •4•
- ;•• cn
'8 s•
. b; •
CITY OF TUKWILA
Y tN1U -1L -ii
PERMIT NUMBER 88 -2 -A
88 -2 -CPA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM 88 -2 -R
TO: 0 BLDG. [] PLNG. D P.W. FIRE Q POLICE 0 P. & R.
nvironmenta
PROJECT Schneider Annexation <Zoning
Comp Plan Ammendment
ADDRESS S. of 178th & E. of I -5
CONTROL NUMBER
DATE TRANSMITTED 4/4/88 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Thursday 4/7 DRC
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Rebecca Fox
RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
Q
Q
O ► �C' t i -'oe (72/ /78 , h,/; ac.ce z,4•- 4
0 aileic, . GGavka G -- �ei?deed) z� 4 /721//taL vie ski .do -ev.
/ 8 i
/
O ciliz ai- iteffe a,4i,r o z /t o Ceti ZA 53 `e,. /c/, i ;v . 1 u. .,) ,-
i. i -i i /
Q ,,Z4 ikive,- w,,4(14,07;t Vito, A z � wa.0 4c Ge...e4c. Imo. . 7
a
O /i ts.e/r c.Cl
Q
Q
a
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 12
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [J
PLAN APPROVED 0
PLAN CHECK DATE 51 7 /fa9.3'
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
'OP
88 -2 -CPA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM 88 -2 -R
tN1L -1L -bb
CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER 88 -2 -A
CONTROL NUMBER
TO: [ BLDG. 0 PLNG. P.W. D FIRE a POLICE a P. & R.
nvironmenta
PROJECT Schneider Annexation <Zoning
Comp Plan Ammendment
ADDRESS S. of 178th & E. of I -5
DATE TRANSMITTED 4/4/88 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Thursday 4/7 DRC
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Rebecca Fox
RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
[[ 341 -ertafti 44AI ark eft5004fkilic, diT144/ 5;.14 E S k le+Irv) ck7Zd utiust /7,
C[ /979 ;1 appaa5- Coved *ons 011 -));5- s4e cc)oug hp ak -ma jo
[] ConS -/-Y' Ii e f i mp loci 41410, kteAtw, , (vhtiD /e ie sw is AM ct
D fie) eli i leeril WoufcJ he re$uil'ec( pavl 4 e `ihe f, a/oc en1r
[[ S -i r'{sec( 4r phall rpvieuJ.
a
a
a
a
a
a
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED DE
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0
PLAN APPROVED [[
PLAN CHECK DATE 4(/$15
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER 88 -2 -A
88 -2 -CPA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM — •ROUTING FORM 88 -2 -R
ri•
TO: Q BLDG. 1:1 PLNG. P.W. n FIRE Q POLICE Q P. & R.
nvironmenta
PROJECT Schneider Annexation Zon.in.g.
Comp Plan Ammendment
ADDRESS S. of 178th & E. of I -5
CONTROL NUMBER
DATE TRANSMITTED 4/4/88
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Rebecca Fox
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Thursday 4/7 DRC
RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
Q
Q
0
Q i
0
Q .r
0
0
9.
rD.'R.C. REVIEi�•�REQUESTED '( �:_ ' j PLAN CHECK DATE
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTEDV'I( -''� . -----s-' COMMENTS PREPARED BY
PLAN APPROVED
C.P.S. FORM 2
Lrik, -14-oo
. CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER 88 -2 -A
88 -2 -CPA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM 88 -2 -R
TO: [] BLDG. [[ PLNG. (j P.W. FIRE 0 POLICE [ P. & R.
— Environments
PROJECT Schneider Annexation <Zoning
Comp Plan Ammendment
ADDRESS S. of 178th & E. of I -5
CONTROL NUMBER
DATE TRANSMITTED 4/4/88 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Thursday 4/7 DRC
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Rebecca Fox
RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
0
ISL 1` oKS l S
. 0 PAS (S- t- «g?A 1 6- e u c 1.
O vo
O ---c-ap 1 .c- l 6E. L. y f
O eO(L uuo s esoo. (--• M Qes- -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
StfDeCZ FJLS-
•1 !sue , Itia►■_.tm. % " 61 4 *a -
UST.
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED J
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [[
PLAN APPROVED [l
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED B
C.P.S. FORM 2
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
The site slopes from west to east 10 to 20% with the
the steepest slopes near the center of the eastern edge of the property
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? slopes in excess of 60% are near the eastern edge of
the property
C. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If OUL
you know the classification of agricultural soils,]
specify them and note any prime farmland. O °
See preliminary soils report; predominantly
granular in nature and are geologically described
as "Advance Stratified Drift"
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Tree greeth on the site is not terribly young or old,
indicating relatively stable slopes in recent times.
In the eastern and central portion of the site there
is some evidence of a landslide that over 100 years
ago.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. does not apply - office development
plans would be necessary to even estimate how much
grraIhk-or rifling might be necessary
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
temporarily under office development construction
If proper;• - erosion control measures are not taken
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildin s)? do not know - site
characteristics suggest that maximum -bulk dimensions
allowed under zoning regulations would not be approached
Haase of site configuration and environmental
sensitivities to steep slope areas .
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: do not know -
again office development plans would be necessary;
however, office development plans would have to comply
with City of Tukwila erosion control standards
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.
does not apply - offices typically generate lower
levels of air pollutants than other uses except for
automobile emissions; these emis$ons w noa- ee
nk own mil office development is proposed
b. Are.there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. the subject site is immediately adjacent to
I -5 and resulting automobile emissions from ve- hIctes
using the freeway w ll impact the sIie - mor— a for
residential use than for office use
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: at the time of office
development a transportation managementTn could
be implemented; use the subject site for non - residential
uses
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.a small pond (40
ft, in diameter) lies at the Ea—fa—Of the steep
slope area near the eastern boundary of the site
&Ct1;9'°(jekAlst''
0.)06(\A 006M
5
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. does not
apply
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. does not apply -
storm water runoff could be expected from office
roofs and parking /driveway areas; the runoff
would be collected discharged into the City
o a s orm rainage system; quantities are
not known nor a collection syiE m designees
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)? traffic noise from
I -5 is significant; if the South 188th Street
Connector is built through the subject property
noise impacts could be tremendous
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.
long -term traffic noise associated with office
use; short -term construction noise during
office development - both noises would occur
during normal working hours
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: does not apply - use the su§aect
site for non - residential uses
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? vacant with 4 single family residences
near the northern boundIi ha o3' the sub ec site; —
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
P`- Ock
Interstate 5 S. 178th St. and S. 188th St. Connector
R.C.W. border or pass through the site
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. no
c. Describe any structures on the site. none
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
no
• e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? RS-9600 King County portions and R-A Tukwila
portions
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Low Density Residential Tukwila
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? does not apply
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
yes - the eastern portion of the site has steep
slopes; the South 188th Street Corridor Study found
tlope stability could be addressed through
engineering mitigation
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? do not know
Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? zero
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: does not apply
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: use the subject site for non - residential
uses to mitigate impacts from I -5 and S. 188th Street
Connector; future office development plans would be
necessary to design site specific mitigation measures
for adjacent single family residences
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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?
does not apply - future office development would be
expected to have some site exterior lighting for
walks, driveways, and parking areas and primarily
used in the evening
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? most likely
not
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? the South 188th Street Connector
could become a source of light and glare since if
may pass through the subject property
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: City _review of site design;
use of the subject site for non- residentiaTuses
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- Pu
tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Christensen 4 '
Trail 0
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:
does not apply - site design for future office
development could incIi3e recreation iaciTT e —
for on -sits users
-14-
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). do not know -
except for curbcut probably no other improvements
are anticipated
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. several miles from Sea -Tac
Airport
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur. do not know - future
office development plans would be necessary to even
estimate trips generated; peak hours would be expected
to occur during am and pm rush hours approximately
at 8 am and 5 pm
Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: at the time of office
development a transportation management plan could
be implemented; future office development plans would
be necessary to identify more specific mitigation
g.
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. Public service demands
typical of office development would be needed; future
plans would have to be evaluated to determine actual
levels needed
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. do not know
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
future office development plans would be necessary
to design utility systems; City of Tukwila would be
prodding san�i;ary sewer, storm drainage; Puget
mower - electricity; PNB - telephone; water - do not
know (•either City of Tukwila or Water District No. 75)
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
1
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
0. 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? future office development plans would determine
the levels increased water discharges, air emissions, and
noise production associated with office use; these increases
would be expected to be typical of professional offices;
toxic or hazardous substances are not expected to be
included in this office use activity
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
use of the subject property for non - residential uses
would mitigate the impacts of 1 -5 and S. 188th Connector
on site users ]bore sensitive to noise in particular;
future office development plans would follow mitigation
based on City standards and scope of the project; possible
transportation management plan implementation
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life? future office development
would displace a significant portion of the existing
vegetation and much of the existing wildlife on the site;
discharges, emissions, and human activity would disturb
and generally degrade natural systems
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are: separate residues from
runoff before it goes into the storm drainage system
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? no - the proposal does question the •
continued designation of the area for residential uses
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: change the land use designation of the area to
non - residential uses
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? no - the proposal does question the
continued designation o the area or res en a us
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: change the land use designation of the area to
non - residential uses
-23-
*I'4 City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
THE FOLLOWING IS AN ADDENDUM TO EPIC -12 -88 (SCHNEIDER
ANNEXATION).
THE CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED FOR THE APPLICANT, GERALD E.
SCHNEIDER, BY BRAD COLLINS TO DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF EXPANDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /REZONE /RE- ANNEXATION ZONING AREA. THIS
ADDENDUM FULLY INCORPORATES THE SEPA CHECKLIST REFERENCED ABOVE,
WHICH WAS ISSUED APRIL 1, 1988.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
Planner:
FOR STAFF USE
rile Sri
Cross -Ref ice: Ices: Receipt No.:
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Annex those portions of the subject property
not in the City of Tukwila and amend the Comp Plan for office use.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s),
block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access
street, and nearest intersection)
Tax Lots 12, 33, 1-09 and Secluded Terrace Park Lots 1 -18 Section 35 T23 R4
South of S. 178th St. and East of I -5
Quarter: NW
Section: 35 Township: 23 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT:* Name:
* Contact Person: 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188
Brad Collins Address:
365 Ericksen, Suite213 248 -2471
Bainbridge Is., WA hone:
Gerald E. Schneider
842 -5135 98110
Signature:
Date: ig- ,2i c ?
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding
the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent,
unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
4. PROPERTY Name:
OWNER
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
Gerald E. Schneider
Address: 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188
Phone:
I /WE,[signature(s)]
swear that we are t e owne s or co ract purchaser s o tho
property involved in this 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 — c2 — 2.2/
248 -2471
Arn Miff
5.. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing
DESIGNATION
Proposed
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Page 2
Low Density Residential - Tukwila
Office - Tukwila
(Tukwila
6. ZONING: Existing RS-9600 (King Co) & R-A Proposed P-0 Tukwila
7. USE: Existing vacant
Proposed future office
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies
solely upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the
greater will be the burden of showing that the proposed change meets the
criteria by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must show in a clear and
precise manner why the amendment application should be granted. The
Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal using the
following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other
documentation to support your request.
A. Unforeseen changes in circumstances have occurred in community condi-
tions that justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject
property or existing plan policies. (Examples are Functional road
classifications or new or changed City policies /plans)
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s)
B. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the
proposed designation.
RESPONSE: Much of the Office designated areas of the Comprehensive Plan
have now been developed and there are few vacant P -0 zoned properties,
Noise levels on the site threaten public health for residential uses.
9. To supplement the above criteria discussion, analyze the Tukwila Compre-
hensive Plan policies which relate to your proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Identify the policies and their page numbers.
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s)
(29 /MB.COMP)
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 3
8.A. Unforeseen Changes in Circumstances
Several changes in City transportation and land use policies after the
1977 adoption and the 1982 revision of the Comprehensive Plan have
occurred which are inconsistent with the current low density residential
map designation of the subject property.
First, the City's Transportation Improvement Plan now identifies a four
lane highway (limited access) connecting S. 188th St. freeway
interchange with Southcenter Parkway ( at 57th Ave. S. or S. 178th St. ) .
The most probable alignments of this S. 188th Connector run through the
southeast portion of the subject property and would result in freeways
on three sides of the site or going right through the site.
Second, 57th Ave. S. and S. 178th St. have been upgraded from collector
arterials to the equivalent of secondary arterials in the City's
Circulation Plan. Initial four lane improvements have already been
constructed on each of these roadways, and other improvements to these
existing and new arterials are planned or recommended for 1990.
Third, the Comprehensive Plan has been amended from low density
residential to office for the nearby Martin property, which is also
located south of S. 178th St. and west of 57th Ave. S. This Comp Plan
Amendment recognized the changes in circumstances for the area and the
inconsistency of these changes with residential development.
Fourth, just north of the subject property on S. 178th St., the City
approved an office development, which commits the use of S. 178th St.
east of I -5 to commercial traffic. It is questionable whether a livable
and viable single family neighborhood could be created with all of these
changes in circumstances.
9. Comp Plan Policy Analysis
The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan map designations should reflect
public policies. In this case changes in transportation policies and
land use approvals have created an inconsistency between City policies
and the current map designation of low density residential.
The Comprehensive Plan policies which are most directly related to this
application are analyzed in the following discussion:
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 4
Goal 3 (p. 12) Encourage planned expansion of the corporate boundaries
of Tukwila while providing adequate service levels and improvements to
all areas within corporate limits.
This Comp Plan Amendment is in conjuntion with the annexation of the
western portion of the subject property into the City. It is one of a
few properties east of I -5 that is not already part of Tukwila.
Logically and physically the area can be more easily serviced by the
City of Tukwila, although existing water service is provided by Water
District No. 75. Because the area is isolated between I -5 and Tukwila,
most services provided by King County or Special Districts would be very
inefficient or at very low levels.
Natural Environment Policy 1.1 (2. 24) Maintain the wooded character of
the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation
in slopte stabilization.
The proposed action recognizes in its environmental checklist that
vegetation buffers along the freeway(s) and steep slope areas will be
retained, particularly for slope stability, noise .reduction, and
aesthetic purposes. Office development will allow for a much greater
clustering of site development than would occur with low density
residential development and thereby maintain the wooded character on a
greater portion of the site.
Natural Environment Policy 2.1 (p. 25) Strive to retain viable areas of
wooded hillsides, agricultural lands, wetlands, streams, and the Green
River for wildlife habitat.
of the wooded steep slope areas will be retain, particularly by the
ater degree of clustering that is typical of office development
versus single family subdivision. Due to the high noise levels and with
the addition of a second highway (S. 188th Connector), the viability of
the area for wildlife habitat is and would be greatly diminished without
any development on the site.
Natural Environment Policy 3.1 (2. 26) Discourage development on slopes
in excess of 20 percent.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist c it steep slope
areas to no development. The clustering of site development that is
typical of office development will leave more of the site undisturbed
than would be typical of single family subdivision.
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 5
Natural Environment Policy 3.2 (2.26) Preserve the views of hillside
residents.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist commit the retention
of a wooded buffer along the freeway. County residents located west of
I -5 will continue to overlook the same view toward the Green River
Valley and the Cascade Mountains. Future office development will be
located below the wooded western boundary due to the topographical
sloping to the east and therefore will have little impact on the
hillside residents view.
Natural Environment Policy 3.3 (2.26) Preserve and promote the quality
of landform.
The clustering typical of office development and the mitigation of the
proposed action to protect steep slope areas from disturbance will
implement this policy.
Natural Environment Policy 6.1 (2.29) Discourage development in areas
where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of
slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified
professional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even ater site
modification.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist commit to
implementation of this policy.
Natural Environment Oblective 8 (2.30) Recognize the environmental
basemap of the Tukwila Planning Area which depicts the distribution and
extent of natural amenities based on the previously mentioned objectives
and use this map as a general planning guide.
The site is designated as having special development considerations due
to steep slopes and woodlands. Unstable slopes and surface water areas
may also be present but would remain undisturbed by the proposed
action. The proposed action and its environmental checklist also
recognize and plan accordingly for the sensitive treatment of steep
slopes and significant areas of woodlands.
Open Space Policy 1.1 (2.34) Strive to preserve steep hillsides and
wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and
revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist have made these
commitments to the extent that undisturbed areas are scenic. The
clustering typical of office development and greater landscaping
requirements and design review will encourage a more scenic landscape
plan for areas that are disturbed than is required of single family
subdivision.
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 6
Residence Objective 1 (2.45) Protect all viable residential
neighborhoods from intrusions by incompatible land uses.
The latest transportation and land use policies for this low density
residential area have not protected residential uses from intrusions.
In particular the planning, upgrading, and improving of new arterials
through the area will have a detrimental impact on the viability of the
area for residential use. The approval of commercial traffic on S.
178th St. is in direct conflict with Residence Policy 1.4 (p.46). By
these policy changes the City has recognized that the area is not a
viable residential neighborhood nor has it developed as such over the
last 25 years.
Residence Policy 1.1 (2.45) Use natural features, like topography, to
separate incompatible land uses from the residential areas.
The established residential area in the vicinity of the subject property
lies west of I -5. The proposed action and environmental checklist
utilize topography and wooded areas to maintain a visual separation from
this residential neighborhood, which is physically separated almost
completely by I -5.
Residence Policy 1.3 (2.46) Prohibit spot zoning in established
residential neighborhoods.
The area east of I -5 and S. 178th St. has not become an established
residential neighborhood with very little residential development
occurring over the past 25 years. The most recent land use decision
(the Martin office rezone) requested by long time area residents and
approved by the City of Tukwila recognized that the area is not an
established residential neighborhood. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would correct inconsistencies created by new City policies and
City actions that are contrary to low density residential map
designation of the area.
Residence Policy 1.4 (p.46) Vehicular traffic to commercial, office or
industrial uses should not be through residential areas.
The proposed S. 188th Connector, the upgrading and improvements of S.
178th St. and 57th Ave. S. as secondary arterials, and the approval of
office development with its only access on S. 178th St. recognize that
the area is not an established residential neighborhood.
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 7
Commerce /Industry Policy 1.1 (2.60) Encourage the grouping of uses
which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide
necessary services.
The subject area is currently being developed for two uses: office and
major roadways. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would encourage the
continuation of this development within the City of Tukwila. Future
office development on the subject site would be much more compatible
with the S. 188th Connector than low density residential use, since a
primary service for the office is access to major roadways. There would
certainly be compatibility with other office uses in the area and make
improvements in services designed for new office uses much more
economically efficient.
Commerce /Industry Policy 1.2 (2.60) Allow for the location of new
commercial and industrial areas and the expansion of existing ones when
this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not
detrimental to the public welfare.
The annexation of the subject area and approval of office uses would
recognize compatibility with surrounding land uses in particlular
transportation and office uses that are approved or planned. The
continued designation of the area for low density residential uses with
approved traffic and anticipated noise impacts would be contrary to
public welfare.
Commerce /Industry Policy 4.1 (2.66) Encourage the use of commercial
office developments as buffers between residential land uses and other
land uses.
The site offers a use buffer between the intense roadway and
commercial /industrial uses encroaching upon the area and the residential
area on the west side of I -5.
Commerce /Industry Policy 4.3 (2.66) Encourage the location of
commercial offices in areas of high natural amenities.
The subject site has views to the east of the Green River Valley and the
Cascade Mountains. Office use could take advantage of this natural
amenity without as much detriment due to noise levels that exceed public
health limits for residential uses (i.e., sleep interference
thresholds). The clustering typical of office development will also be
able to take better advantage of the natural amenity offered by
preserving wooded areas of the site than would typical single family
subdivision.
REZONE APPLICATION
Page 2
5. WHAT IS1:HECURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY? RS -9600 King County & RA Tukwila
!A _
6. WHAT IS THEA SIZE OF THE PROPERTY? 23.9471 acres or 1,043,137 sq. ft.
7. WHAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS REQUESTED? P-0 Tukwila
8. WHAT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION ?' Density Residential Tukwila
REZONE CRITERIA:
The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies solely
upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the greater will
be the burden of showing that the proposed change is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan as implemented by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must
show in a clear and precise manner why the rezoning application should be
granted. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal
using the following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other
documentation to support your rezone application.
9.. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the
adopted comprehensive land use policy plan, the provisions of this title,
and the public interest;
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Pages 3 -7
Existing land uses and roads, as well as planned public improvements seriously
degrade the viabilitiy of the subject site for single family residential use.
The proposed zoning change will be in conformity with this criterion to the extent
that it is in conformity with the Comp Plan map, since it complies with the policies.
10. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for
the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be
supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and
its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form;
RESPONSE:
There :is!no proposed development to be shown.. A site plan does show
the: a
iracteristics and relationship to surrounding areas. The site can be
developeattosome: level of P -0 use intensity. The actual level of use which can be
developed.;- tii'e,actual mitigating measures to be required, and assurance of project
compatibility with surrounding areas will be addressed when an actual project is pro=
11. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land. Use Policy posed.
Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfac-
tion that there. is an additional need for the requested land classification.
To respond to this criteria, obtain a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applica-
tion and submit in conjunction with Rezone Application.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application submitted.
REZONE APPLICATION
Page 3
12. Signif icantr changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surround-
ing neighbo^hood•that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone.
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 3
13. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the public health, safety,
and welfare as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property
value, imposed on the individual property owner.
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Pages 3 -7
Zoning approval would not impose a diminution of property value on the owner, and the
the threat of public health problems due to residential development in an area that i
heavily impacted by noise from existing and proposed roadways would be greatly reduce
The environmental constraints on the. S. 188th Connector may also be reduced by use of
this property for a less noise sensitive office development.
14. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it
has been zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property
has remained unimproved°and:.land development in the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: A portion_of the subject property was subdivided for residential
developmentaand anaccess road constructed prior to the construction of
I -5, ;'`took: part' of the subdivided lots. Since and because of the
pro
ere -has been no development of residential use on
:;for4eriod of over twenty -five years.
(29/MB. REZONE )
1. .j L.
u
��e
r I1bT Co..c.. Mw,
2
j
aI6
l.W ! Sae.. 2629.4
/�
IR
61'40'61 'E ^R N 1'30'03 B.
2.3.00' ; � / 14.53'
:.� .. kaa •
SC \
if •
IP
Sal- V4" I mow. P. PG
W1TN CAP *10444.
0-V 141..`.1
y N
SL1'so'6i "B
S87'60'57'17-
o!
Grlllr. Couc. MW.
NI
10 21.434.0
a
s'
508.00'
1 GtIWr. �i•HL. (Mu.
1111. OS"
SuR N Qa Y W02 L 1.4a6-7
( 1 4 4 . 1 -
!:O c■,GINEER :NG
PG d:: 152
�ouuOVLY Su GM/ . •
.SCM►i GIOE2 NeL..�6S, I ►fir .
J..l.� 1111
o�w
GO.1.0 Ira leo.
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT FOR SCHNEIDER PROPERTY ZONING
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is a Washington nonchatter optional,,,:
municipal code city and as such has the power to enact laws and enter
into agreements to promote .the health, safety, and welfare of its
citizens and thereby control the use and development of property within.
its jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Schneider, hereinafter referred to as
"the Owners," are the owners of certain real property located in the
City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, which is the subject of .this
Agreement and. which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, and
WHEREAS, the Owners have applied for an amendment of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designation for the property from Low
Density Residential to Office and for zoning of the property from R -A
(Agricultural) to P -O (Professional and Office), and
WHEREAS, the Owners propose that the City Council limit
residential development on the property to a density no greater than
single family as a condition of the property being zoned to P -O, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized similar agreements
reflecting such limitation.
NOW, THEREFORE, in the event that the property legally described on
Exhibit A is approved for annexation and classification to P -O
(Professional Office) zoning, the Owners hereby covenant and agree as
follows:
1. Restrictions on Development. No residential developmenmt shall
be permitted on the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference ae if set forth in full
at a density which is greater than that permitted under the City's
R -1 (Single Family Residence) regulations. The development
regulations applicable in the R -2, R -3, R -4, and RMH Districts
shall not apply to the property, and no residential development
other than single family shall be permitted.
2. Future Traffic Analysis. At the time of the filing of an
application for development of the property described on Exhibit A,
the Owners shall, at the Owner's sole cost and expense, provide a
traffic analysis of a scope to be determined by the City in order
to determine whether mitigating measures with respect to traffic
may be required as part of the development proposal.
3. Binding Effect - Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded
with the King County Auditor and shall constitute a covenant and
servitude running with the land described on Exhibit A and shall be
binding upon the Owners, their successors in interest, and assigns.
The Owners shall pay all recording fees necessary to record this
Agreement.
-1-
4. Police Power. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to
restrict the authority of the City to exercise its police powers.
5. Enforcement. In addition to any other remedy provided by law,
the City may, at its discretion, maintain a lawsuit to compel
specific performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement
or to otherwise enforce its provisions, through injunctive or other
relief, and if the City prevails in such action, it shall be
entitled to recover all costs of enforcement, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
6. Severability. In the event any section, paragraph, sentence,
term, or clause of this Agreement conflicts with applicable law, or
is found by any court having jurisdiction to be contrary to law,
such conflict shall not affect other sections, paragraphs,
sentences, terms, or clauses of this Agreement, which can be given
effect without the conflicting provision, and to thisend the terms
of this Agreement shall be deemed to be severable, provided,
however, that in the event any section, paragraph, sentence, term,
or clause of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with
applicable law, the City shall have the right to bring the proposed
development back before the City Council for further review and
imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure that the purposes
for which this Agreement is entered into are, in fact, accomplished
and the impacts of the proposed development are mitigated.
DATED this day of , 1988.
ACCEPTED BY:
The City of Tukwila
BY=
Mayor, Gary L. VanDusen
OWNERS
Gerald E. Schneider
Gail Schneider
-2-
1)-;-„) (C]i �j 0Ff-(ill C°ntro1 No.
t � i
!-2 - - ---• - -a Ejoic File No.
APR 1 1988 Fie $100.00 Receipt No.
ENY IRdMMEN1AL CHE:CIC`LIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Schneider Annexation, Comp Plan Amend, Zoning
2. Name of applicant: Gerald E. Schneider
3. Address and hone number of applicant and contact person :6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila
Wa 98188 (248 -2471) and Brad Collins, 365 Ericksen, Suite -21T,—Birtntsirttigisr-MTIktr 981.10
(842 - 5135)
4. Date checklist prepared: March 25, 1988
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): simultaneous
annexation, Comp Plan Amendment, and zoning; no development is immediately
anticipated for the subject property
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. future office
development
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. EPIC - 124 -79, Location & Feasibility
Study and Regional Travel Impact Report for the South 188th Street Connector (Centrac,
198 4)
also EPIC - 323 -86 and EPIC- 316 -86 and Valley View Estates EIS (1986) include environ-
mental information indirectly related to this proposal
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. do not know
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
City of Tukwila annexation, Comp Plan Amendment, and zoning approval
K ng oun y :oun•ary ew :oar • approva may •e nee.e. ur s• c ton Ts
envoked
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi .
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no .
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.
The subject property is 23.9471 acres or 1.,043,1.37 sq. ft. in size. Portions of
the subject property are proposed for annexation to t e amity of Tukwila as we 1
as for Comp Plan Amendment and zoning classification. The proposed use is office,
and the apgiEliEE is willing to eliminate residential uses as permitted—un er -P-0
zon ng. The subject property is located South of S. 178th St. and East of 1 -5.
The subject property is vacant and bordered on the West tE I -5 and fronts on S. 178th
St. Most of the surrounding property is also vacant with 4 single family homes north o:
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the s12,1
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if subjec'
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur overpropert
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. 109
Section 35 Township 23 Range 4 Tax Lots 12, 33, la and Secluded Terrace Park Lots
1 -1.8. The subject property is located South of S.1.78th St. and East of I -5.
Site map submitted with annexation, Comp Plan Amendment, and zoning application.
There is no site plan for office development.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
yes
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainoys, other
The site slopes from west to east 10 to 2,: with the
the steepest slopes near the center of the eastern edge of the property
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? slopes in excess of 6o% are near the eastern edge of
the property
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.
See preliminary soils report; predominantly
granular in nature and are geologically described
as "Advance Stratified Drift"
d.. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Tree grewth on the site is not terribly young or old,
indicating relatively stable slopes in recent times.
In the eastern and central portion of the site, there
is some evidence of a landslide that over 100 years
ago.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. does not apply — office development
plans would be necessary to even estimate how
or filling might be necessary
f.• Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
temporarily under office development construction
if proper,erosiw control measures are not taken
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? do not know — site
characteristics suggest that maximum bulk dimensions
allowed under zoning regulations would not be approached
eeccaase of site configuration and environmental
sensitivities to steep slope areas
Evaluation for.
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: do not know -
again office development plans would be necessary;
however, office development plans would have to comply
with City of Tukwila erosion control standurdartU
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.
does not apply - offices typically generate lower
levels of air pollutants than other uses except for
automobile emi irons; these emissions will not be
nc own mil office development is proposed
b. Are .there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. the subject site is immediately adjacent to
I -5 and resulting automobile emissions from v hIc is
using the freeway w 1l impact the sTe - more for
residential use than for offer use
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: at the time of office
development a transportation management pin could
be implemented; use the subject site for non -resi a tial
uses
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.a small pond (40
ft, in diameter) lies at the bottom of the steep
slope area near the eastern boundary of the site
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. does not apply - office development
plandswould be needed to determine whether or not
work on the site would involve the pond; it T
not expected to be affected-since it is in the
most isolated part of the site from the rest of
the property
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. none
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. -no
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. no
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge. petroleum residues from
parking lot and driveways could be discharged
into storm drainage facilitiesi_volume of this
discharge would depend on future office develop-
ment
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. does not
apply
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. does not apply -
storm water runoff could be expected from office
roofs and parking /driveway areas; the runoff
would be collected and discharged into the City
of Tukwila storm system; quant± ties are
not known nor a colleen system designees
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. does not apply
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: office
development plans would have to comply with City of
Tkwila drainage requirements
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other madrona
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
x shrubs
grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
x water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
x other types of vegetation blackberries
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? do not know
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. none known
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: does not apply - will not be known
until office development plans have been made
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: small birds
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small rodents
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. none known
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain. no
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: none
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.
does not apply - future office development will
require electric and possibly gas or oil for heat
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: does not apply
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. King County Solid Waste Transfer Station .
is locate1n close proximity to the South; fires
and hazardous waste storage and treatment could have
an adverse affect on the use of the subject property
- more for residential than for office
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. do not know - expect those typical
for office development
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: does not apply -
use the subject site for non - residential uses
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)? traffic noise from
I -5 is significant; if the South 188th Street
Connector is built through the subject property
noise impacts could be tremendous
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.
long -term traffic noise associated with office
use; short -term construction noise during
office development - both noises would occur
during normal working hours
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: does not apply - use the su §aect
site for non - residential uses
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? vacant with 4 single family residences
near the northern boundaries of the subject 3 i;e;
Interstate 5 S. 178th St. and S. 188th St. Connector
R.O.W. border or pass through the site
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. no
c. Describe any structures on the site. none
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? RS-9600 King County portions and R-It Tukwila
port3ons-
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Low Density Residential Tukwila
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? does not apply
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
yes - the eastern portion of the site has steep
slopes; the South 188th Street Corridor Study found
that slope stability could be addressed through
engineering mitigation
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? do not know
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? zero
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: does not apply
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: use the subject site for non - residential
uses to mitigate impacts from I -5 and S. 188th Street
Connector; future office development plans would be
necessary to design site specific mitigation measures
for adjacent single family residences
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. zero
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: does not apply
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?
does not apply - future office development plans
d be necessary before this info raii will bee
known; P.O Zon ng -Brits office structures to 35 ft.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? views from the valley floor
may see future offices depending on site design; views
from residences west of I -5 will probably not be altered
because of the sloping topography and depending on
site design
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts; if any: retain significant trees andLr
landscape along the western property line and above
the steep slopes near the eastern property line
11. Light and Glare
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
does not apply - future office development would be
expected to have some site exterior lighting for
walks, driveways, and parking areas and primarily
used in the evening
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? most likely
not
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? the South 188th Street Connector
could become a source of light and glare since if
may pass through the subject property
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: City :review of site design;
use of the subject site for non - residents T uses
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Christensen
Trail
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:
does not apply - site design for future office
development could inclUdi5 recreation Tacilit eies
for oon -site users
-14-
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. none known
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
none known
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: does not apply
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. The
subject property fronts on to S. 178th St., which
would expect to be the access. The South 188th St.
Connector and 1 -5 are not expected to provide access
to the subject site
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? public transit is located approximately
a quarter mile downhill at Southcenter Parkway and
S. 180th St.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate? do not
know - future office development plans would be
necessary to even estimate the number of parking
spaces to be provided; zero would be a iminated
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). do not know -
except for curbcut probably no other improvements
are anticipated
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. several miles from Sea-Tac
Airport
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur. do not know - future
office development plans would be necessary to even
estimate trips generated; peak hours would be expected
to occur during am and pm rush hours approximately
at 8 am and 5 pm
9.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: at the time of office
development a transportation management plan could
be implemented; future office development plans would
be necessary to identify more specific mitigation
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. Public service demands
typical of office deverciiiaia would be needed; future
plans would have to be evaluated to determine actual
levels needed
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. do not know
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
future office development plans would be necessary
to design utility systems; City of Tukwila would be
prodding sanitary sewer, storm drainage; Puget _
mower - electricity; ?NB - telephone; water - do not
know (either City of Tukwila or Water District No, 75)
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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? future office development plans would determine
the levels increased water discharges, air emissions, and
noise production associated with office use; these increases
would be expected to be typical of professional offices;
toxic or hazardous substances are not expected to be
included in this Office use activity
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
use of the subject property for non - residential uses
would mitigate the impacts of 1 -5 and S. 388th Connector
on site users More sensitive to noise in particular;
future office development plans would follow mitigation
based on City standards and scope of the project; possible
transportation management plan implementation
2. low would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life? future office development
would displace a significant portion of the existing
vegetation and much of the existing wildlife on the site;
discharges, emissions, and human activity would disturb
and generally degrade natural systems
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are: separate residues from
runoff before it goes into the storm drainage system
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources? consumption of resources typical of
office use - construction materials, fuel for operation
of buildings and user transportation
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are: possible transportation management
plan implementation
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? enai'ronmentally sensitive steep slopes would
be left undisturbed or designed around to mitigate slope
stability
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are: retain vegetation near steep slopes
and disturb these areas as little as possible; engineer
structures and site grading
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? The property and much of the surrounding
area has remained vacant, and the proposal may facilitate
development, which is more compatible with existing and
proposed highways.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area: use the subject site for non — residential
use, which is more compatible with existing and proposed
highways; maintain significant vegetation buffers along
the west and east property lines
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?
increases would be typical for office development
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are: possible transportation management plan implementation
and payment of increased taxes
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment. It does not if steep
slope areas are not disturbed to the point of failure.
1
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? no - the proposal does question the
continued designation of the area for residential uses
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: change the land use designation of the area to
non - residential uses
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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? To annex
an area of the County that is isolated betTreerrty
of Tukwila and I -5 and that cannot be well)herviced by
King County. To allow land uses more compatible with
existing and proposed highway impacts.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? Obtain services from other purveyors.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: King County and Special
Districts or another municipality could not provide
services as efficiently as the City of Tukwila,
particularly for this isolated location from other
service purveyors.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what oli-
cies of the Plan? no - the proposal does question the
continued designation of the area for residential uses
Proposed measures . to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: change the land use designation of the area to
non - residential uses
-23-
D /apartment of Health and
Building & Land Development .
with information necessary to
evaluate development proposals.
Please return to:
BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT
Edward B. Sand, Manager
450 Administration- Building.._.__.
(e;," �1'� I�
V LABILI `(PR 1 1988 -
Ci ,ti` t .Ji.V fLA
PLANING DEPT.
Seattle, Washings
206.344.7900
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER A AI
ono wri a.in is ox
number
name
APPLICANT' S
PROPOSED USE
C3 Building Permit
CD Short. Subdivision
NAME
LOCAT ION � >�� /f'f%
!:lxk LOt?t J/ .
(Attach
SEWER AGENCY INFORMATION
1. a. ❑
❑ Preliminary Plat or PUB.
❑ Rezone or other
4/01716s
•,r
Just
o PS:i7k 1`z sr
map & legal description if necessary)
# # #
Sewer service will be provided by side sewer connection only to
•
' an existing . ] 41 size sewer L4950t:7 feet from the site
and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use.
OR an- l' 4 t+ q+ra ode 1 UMP .Sfl -(f l nM r - Iw P41 d'. U
—b-.-❑ Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system•of
Pbsvaim
---b ] (1) 45, feet of sewer trunk or latteral to reach the. sil
and/or
the construction of a collection system on the site;
-'/74/ and/or �'
L1.. / 1G ocr 1 \, \ 1
(2)
1 1
w
71=714.1 ./t k ; ; ' -dam.+
Jil5/
2. (Must be completed if 1.b above is checked)
a.
OR
❑ The sewer system improvement is
in conformance with a County approved sewer
comprehensive plan. ?Least c K
The sewer system improvement
plan amendment.
3. a. ❑ The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the distri
or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension
of service outside the district or city.
f try Vh L? D LIZ - c-11-1 Pic T) tkW
co P v1 ,
will require a sewer comprehensive
OR
Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service..
4. Service is subject to the following:
a. Connection charge: `Ism
v.)+, c .
S ,J�
S'4T a
stoc of Tu%WA
I hereby cert
certification
Easement(s):
Other: 5?1SG cos.eNteur 10'Y.) Gl it-tit.i fe I F CPU C-
if�10y 1a f r wtr
•
^'.� SM , sue+ airy s �C?1 tom. S Y S i w cAI-1
Au. ov wu-caluv -to D vNII∎h -t. c.tr'i'S Stc+-.)&S `lS@ar- P ly
ify that the above sewer agency information is true. Thy
shall be valid for one year from date of signature. tr"D
;N
C11-1 OF �l utLu►r��
Agency Name
F279
5 1
Title
?fsL
Signatory Name
�__ ' ' ��1ir 312 45/
Date
S
g
ature
Olt? i.[1\7
APR _..1988
('I!-y' 11
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists
t! Environmental Scientists
t'LMNIN DEPT .
Schneider Homes
c/o Mr. Val Rupeiks
Clark Coleman Rupeiks
3233 Eastlake East
Seattle, Washington 98102
Subject:
August 17, 1979 E -1055
Visual Site Evaluation
24 Acre Property
South 178th Street and Interstate 5
Tukwila
Dear Mr. Rupeiks:
As requested, we have conducted an evaluation of the overall geologic
conditions at the subject site as they pertain to development of the site for
condominium buildings. Our evaluation was directed towards providing an opin-
ion regarding overall site stability and suitability for building construction.
A detailed subsurface exploration was not performed in this study.
Initially, we conducted a visual reconnaissance of the site conditions..
The work was performed by an engineering geologist who walked the site, logged
exposed slopes, made detailed site observations and measured slope angles.
Later, this work was supplemented by a site reconnaissance by the undersigned
as well as excavation and logging of two test pits near the base of the steep-
est portion of the site.
The 25± acre site consists of two parcels located south of South 178th
Street and east of Interstate Highway 5. An approximately 5 acre parcel is
located immediately to the south of South 178th Street. The remaining 20
acres is located to the southwest and is connected to the smaller parcel by
a 25 foot wide corridor. The site is located on the east facing hillslope
which borders the Kent Valley on the west side. The general gradient is
towards the east, and the slope inclination is generally between 10 and 20
percent adjacent to Interstate 5 and on the smaller parcel south of South 178th
Street. However, in the central and eastern portion of the larger parcel,
slopes of up to about 80 percent are present in an arcuate ravine -like. shape.
This shape descends eastward to a relatively level area, then rises slightly,
then descends again. Several springs were noted within this area. Also, we
noted several types of swamp vegetation in this area. Much of the site
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005
222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, P.O. Box 111744, Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998
•
Bellevue (206) 643 -3780 Seattle (206) 464 -1584
Tacoma (206) 272 -6608
Schneider Homes
August 17, 1979
E -1055
Page Two
supports a moderate to heavy growth of underbrush with many trees of various
sizes. On the steeper slopes in the central eastern portion of the site, the
amount of vegetation as well as the surficial duff layer was considerably
smaller.
Soil exposures observed on the site indicate that the on -site soils are
predominantly granular in nature and are geologically described as 'Advance
Stratified Drift'. These are materials deposited along the path of the glacier
movement which occurred in this area over 15,000 years ago.
To examine the general soil conditions in the area of the ravine, two
test pits were excavated. One:pit was excavated on the steep slope face. This
indicated the subsurface materials were medium dense to dense gravelly sand to .
a depth of 9 feet. This was underlain by a clean, dense, medium to coarse
grained sand. No water was observed, however, the materials observed below a
depth of 9 feet were noted to be wet, indicating the groundwater level is
probably within a few feet of this depth.
The second test pit was excavated in the relatively level area at the
base of the ravine. This pit indicated about 2 feet of loose topsoil followed
by loose, wet, silty clayey sand with several inclusions of clay and silt.
Heavy seepage was noted at a 2 foot depth and caving conditions were also
encountered in this pit.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS •
Based on our preliminary evaluation, we conclude that the site is
suitable for the proposed development. However, we feel the steep sloped
ravine in the central - eastern portion of the property represents the scarp
remaining from an old landslide. To some extent, this is substantiated by
the very poor strength characteristics and the heterogeneity of the materials
observed in the test pit excavated in the level area at the base of the ravine.
It is not possible to ascertain the age of the landsliding, however, based
on visual observations alone, we estimate an age in excess of 100 years.
Also, from our visual observations, the steep slopes of the ravine
appear to be presently stable, however, factors that could affect the stabil-
ity are introduction of excessive surface or subsurface runoff, excessive
steepening of slopes by either cutting or filling, or imposition of heavy
loads on the ground surface above the slopes.
We recommend site development plans be prepared in such a manner to
minimize the clearing of vegetation which reduces the erosion potential. All
runoff from downspouts should be collected in tight lines connected to a
storm drainage system; this runoff should not be allowed to run down the
slopes. All buildings should be set back at least 25 feet from the top of
the slope and adequate subsurface drainage should be incorporated into the
plans to assure that increased flows of water will not occur into the subsur-
face.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Schneider Homes
August 17, 1979
E -1055
Page Three
To develop detailed foundation and earthwork design criteria and verify
the above setback requirement, a detailed subsurface exploration program should
be conducted. This should consist of drilling several deep borings at or near
the top of the slope. However, prior to performing this work, it is essential
that an accurate topographic map be prepared to enable proper correlation of
surface and subsurface features.
We trust that this preliminary report of our site evaluation is adequate .
for your current requirements. If you need additional information, please
call.
Respectfully submitted,
ARTH CO ULTANTS, INC.
Anil Butail, P. E.
AB /mh Chief Engineer
Earth Consultants, Inc.