HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-124-79 - SCHNEIDER DEVELOPMENT - SUNRISE TOWNHOUSESUNRISE TOWNHOUSE
SCHNEIDER DEVELOPMENT
EPIC- 124 -79
CITY OF TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/FINAL
DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE / ' cTr�44- IrnaGE_
Description of proposal 261 Townhomes
Proponent Schneider Homes c/o Val Rupeiks
Location of Proposal South 178th St. & I -5 (Southeast Quadrant)
Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No EPIC - 124 -79
This proposal has been determined to (ha.ve /oet—hevel a significant adverse im-
pact upon the environment. An EIS (is /4s not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)
(c).. This decision was .made after review by the lead agency of a. completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Responsible Official
Position /Title
Date
12/21/79
K.iell Stoknes
O.C.D.'Director
Signature
COMMENTS:
The environmental-impact statement must provide an emphasized impact.analysis. .
in the following subject areas: 0
1. Increase the detail description on the proposal to include type of structures,
# units each, and the comprehensive plan amendment request from single to •
multiple family.
2. The probable trend on future land uses in the vicinity as a result of this
project.
3. The availability and location of probable access points to other lands in
the vicinity as a result of this project.
4. The estimated traffic generation on South 180th Street as a result of:
a. This project.
b. Full development of the land in the vicinity based upon probable future
land uses as set forth in item 2 above. (Update of Study of Property
to the S. 180th St. done by Christopher Brown on November 1978)
• •
c. Assessment of impact and potential mitigating measures, if necessary.
5. A statement of fact regarding location, adequacy, and method of connection to
water, sewer, and storm water systems. (_Include method of controlling additional
storm water runoff. •
6. Estimate the number of acreas in the general vicinity that are not developable and
usage. as a long -term habitat for. small mammals and birds presently on the property.
(Land over + 25% slope)
The City may withdraw this affirmative threshold determination pursuant to
WAC 197 -10 -370 if conditions are such that the terms and purpose of that
section are complied with.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW -- EPIC - 124 -79
SCHNEIDER HOMES 178th Street. at 53rd Avenue South
INTRODUCTION
The subject checklist is submitted in conjunction with applications for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezoning to permit construction of
261 townhouse units on a 24 acre site in an unincorporated area adjacent
to Interstate 5 and 53rd Avenue South at 178th Street. Annexation to the
City of Tukwila is also necessary to accomplish extension of municipal
services. In accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act,
WAC- 197 -10 -320, the following is a item -by -item initial review of the
checklist:
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND
ITEMS 1 -11 - No Comment
ITEM 12 - Other Applications Required
No response to this item is given on the checklist, however, the afore-
mentioned Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning requests have already
been filed with the OCD. Documents necessary to initiate annexation are
yet to be submitted.
SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ITEM 1: EARTH
The applicants indicate that construction of the project will result in
modification of existing soils and topography. While some degree of
grading is, of course, essential to construction activity, the extent
of such grading, and its associated environmental risks to soil erosion,
existing drainage patterns etc., is not possible to ascertain from the
checklist information.
I also disagree with the applicant's response to Item 1(b) - compaction
of soils is essential to proper preparation of building pads, and at
least some of the site will be "over- covered" with impervious pavings.
It is also important to this analysis to have some indication of "earth
balance" resulting from the proposed development and tb identify what
disposition will be made of any excess soil.
ITEM 2: AIR QUALITY
I agree with the applicant's conclusion that the project itself will
probably have a negligible effect on the local /regional airshed. From
our first exposure to this project, however, this office has expressed
concern about air quality impacts upon residents of this development
as a result of proximity to Interstate 5. This concern was identified
in my letter to Mr. Rupeiks dated 10 September 1979, and was reiterated
verbally in the meeting of 29 September 1979 with Mr. Rupeiks and his
attorney, Mr. Wilson. My notes indicate that Mr. Rupeiks was in progress
on preparation of an air quality study for the project -- this study
would be useful for quantifying potential health risks (if any) to project
residents as a result of long -term exposure to freeway pollutants, and
for suggesting mitigation measures to deal with such risks.
ITEM'3: WATER QUALITY
This aspect of the proposed project is of crucial concern to the Public
Works Department. Acting Director Philip Fraser raised some question
about availability of public facilities to receive and process sanitary
effluent and storm water runoff. Also, as a result of the extreme slope
of the area and potential modification of present surface drainage patterns,
the impact of this development upon surrounding properties is of concern.
Therefore, the Public Works Department is requesting a comprehensive utility
feasibility study which should quantify project - related service demands,
and the capabilities of and costs to existing public facilities required
to serve that demand. This study, to be truly meaningful in terms of
addressing growth- inducing impacts of the proposed annexation, should
also analyze cumulative utility service demand potential for adjacent,
undeveloped parcels.
ITEM 4: FLORA & FAUNA
In the aforementioned letter of 10 September, our office expressed concern
about the scope of vegetation removal envisioned to implement this project.
My notes on the meeting of 29 September indicate that you requested sub-
mittal of a tree retention and removal diagram with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment application, with the intent of identifying and saving signifi-
cant groves or outstanding individual specimens.
With respect to indigenous wildlife, it would be well to find out what
species will be displaced by construction activity, and whether or not
suitable nearby habitats are available to receive them. Also, it is neces-
sary to identify the presence of _especi ally= timi;d;;Animal s now;pnese4t „which
might be permanently displaced from the site due to the introduction of
domesticated animals following occupancy of the proposed project. The
foregoing information will be useful in evaluating the adequacy and arrange-
ment of proposed open space on the site. Professional consultation may
be needed to adequately- research this information.
ITEM 6: NOISE IMPACTS
At the aforemention 29 September meeting, you requested a profile diagram
of the site extending through I -5 in order to evaluate noise impacts upon
the project from the roadway. This information should be supplemented
with a narrative describing possible architectural solutions for interior
noise control.
ITEM 7: LIGHT AND GLARE
Nighttime visibility of this project from the valley floor, especially
during evening darkness, will depend to a large degree upon the extent to
which existing tree cover is removed. Also, use of "urban" street lighting
equipment with intensive mercury -vapor or sodium - pressure color will almost
certainly be visible from lower elevations. While Policy 4 under Objective 4
• •
of the "Residential" policy section of the Comprehensive Plan encourages
adequate neighborhood lighting to enhance security, this objective can be
met with low - profile, low intensity lighting such as the applicants indicate
that they intend to use. An exterior lighting specification aimed at pro-
viding adequate area lighting without visibility beyond the project boundaries
should be proposed at the design- review stage of project approvals and should
be approved by the Police and Public Works Departments, as well as by the 0.C.D.
ITEM 8: LAND USE IMPACTS
The proposed development density is approximately 11 + D.U. /acre which
excebds considerably the 0 -5 + D.U. /acre density proposed for the site and
its immediate surroundings under the Comprehensive Plan. The impact of
doubling anticipated holding capacity of the site is especially crucial in
terms of the public sector's ability to provide diverse and adequate services,
and of the adjacent street network to accommodate the incremental and cumula-
tive loading of project - related traffic.
In addition, the proposed density increase could have a growth- inducing impact
upon this environmentally - sensitive neighborhood by establishing a basic
development form and intensity. The land use implications of the project are,
therefore, significant and should be reviewed on a neighborhood -wide, rather
than project- specific, basis.
ITEMS 9 -10: NATURAL RESOURCES /RISK OF UPSET
No Concerns
ITEMS 11 -12: POPULATION & HOUSING
The applicant's response to this item is correct in stating that the area's
population will increase with occupancy of the project. The extent of that
increase, however, is quite significant measured against the currenct city -wide
population and housing stock. Referring to the January 1979 "Building, Valuation
and Revenue Data" table, the 1978 population of Tukwila is 3,100 +; at a project
occupancy of 2.2 persons /D.U., 574 new residents will be added -CO the City
representing nearly a 20% immediate population increase. Further, the 1978
number of multi-family units in the City, about 1,400, would increase some
12 -15% by implementing this project as proposed.
ITEM 13: CIRCULATION /TRANSPORTATION
The Public Works Department has requested a formal traffic analysis for the
project. Their concerns include substantiation of trip generation and the
holding capacity of the street network, alignment and site distance configurations
for major access points, and a general discussion of the project relative to
other city traffic studies and policies.
ITEM 14: PUBLIC SERVICES
The aforementioned increase in population and housing stock resulting from
implementation of the proposed project raises some question as to the City's
ability to satisfy the concomitant service demand within the means of the
public economy. I suggest, therefore, that the applicants prepare a public -
service cost - revenue analysis to ascertain the direct service demands of the
project, the capital commitment, if any, associated with extending police,
fire or utility services beyond present city boundaries, and the anticipated
time -frame and method by which those costs can be recovered.
• •
ITEMS 15 -18: ENERGY /UTILITIES /HUMAN HEALTH /AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS
The impacts of the project upon these areas of inquiry have been discussed
in preceeding sections of this analysis.
ITEMS 19 -20: RECREATION / HISTORIC /ARCHAEOLOGIC. CONSIDERATIONS
No Concern.
CONCLUSION
The proposed housing development discussed herein is of sufficient physical
scale and trend - setting importance to warrant detailed study of its poten-
tial effects on the site specific and community -wide environment. It would
be incorrect to conclude from this analysis that the project is anticipated
to be completely negative in its influence on the City of Tukwila; on the
contrary, the project is in conformance with several of the Comprehensive
Plan policies relative to encouraging quality and variety in the City's
housing stock. We suggest, however, that early consideration of the topics
discussed herein will cause any development of the site to respond sensitively
its= etting; and t� the :Tong= terM- econ.omtc andaesthettc v.i,tal tty ; :o.f. ahe ,Ci.ty.
RECOMMENDATION
Per authority of WAC -Sec. 197- 10- 330(1a), staff recommends that the appli-
cant be requested to supply the following information in order to more
accurately determine the environmental significance of the proposed project:
SITE- SPECIFIC STUDY NEIGHBORHOOD -WIDE STUDY
Soils Report
Preliminary Grading Concept
Air Quality Impact Study
Tree Removal /Retention Plan
Interior Noise Control
Alternatives To The Proposed
Project
Water /Serwer Utility Service Feasi-
bility Study
Wildlife Habitat Survey
Growth Inducing Impact Analysis
Traffic Circulation Capacity
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that, the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A foe of t50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6510 Southcenter Blvd.,
Suite #1, Tukwila; Washington 98188, Phone: 248 -1471.
3. Date Checklist Submitted: October 29, 1979
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Office of Community Development
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Sunrise Townhouse Development
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
.gamily townhouse development, comprised of 261 dwelling units and
supporting community facilities.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
"'density townhouse development on 24 acres of land. About 50% of the
land is envisioned to be in common open space.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 1983
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES X NO
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES X NO
(c) Building permit YES X NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO X
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO
(f) Sign permit YES X NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES X NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES X NO
('1) Curb cut permit YES NO X
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES X NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES NO X
(1) Other:
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this 'proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
Another very preliminary PUD proposal is being contemplated for the
property east of the subject.
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro -
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? X
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil? X
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures? X
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? X
(e)
Any increase in wind or water `erosion of soils,
either on or off the `site? . X
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Changes in deposition erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Explanation: (c) -
No doubt, some changes in the topography will occur.
On site construction of roads, parking areas, utili -,
ties, etc., will result in some change in the existing
to o ra hy. Ar`'attempt will be made to maintain the
ex1sttin grades.
' 2. Air. Will t e proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation: -
The project will not affect the existing air quality
to a measurable extent.
Water. Will the proposal result.in:
(a) Changes An currents, or the. course or0 direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any 'alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals,, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
X
X
X
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates:,: detergents,: waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
Explanation: King County Ordinance #2812 will be
complied with. Catch basins and settling ponds
will be used to control the rate, quantity and
quality of the storm water.
. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species.of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
' existing species?
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Explanation: (a) &.(b)'- The site will be par -
,tially cleared and ground :cover removed by
construction and the placement of improvements.
The removed vegetation will be replaced by land-
scaping.
Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
Explanation: The - ,native small bird and animal popula-
tion will have to•'relocate to other vacant sites.
(d)
X
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase noise
levels?
Explanation:
An increase in the noise levels can be expected during
the construction phase of the project. Freeway noise
will be mitigated by architectural and landscape
treatment.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
Explanation:
Low intensity lighting will be used.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal. result in the.altera-
tion of the,,present or planned land. use
Of an :area?
Explanation:
The general
area is . planned; for residential use::
9. Natural Resources.
(a)
(b)
Will the proposal . result in:.
Increase'in the rate of.us.e of'any natural;
resources ?:
Depletion of any „nonrenewable. natural.
resource?
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, denstty,or growth rate
of the human population of an area ?.
Explanation:
Population will increase in the area.
YES MAYBE NO
X
12. Housing. Will the proposal.affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? X
Explanation:
The project will provide diversity and additional..
choice and variety of housing.
13. . Transportation / Circulation.`. Will the proposal
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities,'or
demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? .
Explanation: The project will increase the
traffic. volume by about 1,560 vehicle trips per
day. The morning peak traffic will be increased
by 154 vehicles per hour and the afternoon peak
hour by 179 vehicles.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:'
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
(e) Maintenance of public. facilities, including
roads?
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
(f) •Other governmental 'services?: X
Explanation:
:The project will have anaccumulative effect on',
• these services.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a). Use of substantial amounts of fuel.or'energy ?.
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new. sources of
energy?
Explanation:
16 Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for.
new systems, or alterations to the'
following utilities;,
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
The project will contain a drainage system that
supports the proposed development and does not
increase the storm water discharge rate.
'17. Human Health. Will the proposal result'in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
•
X
X
(over)
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
On site recreation facilities will be provided by the
developer.
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his-
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
X
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
`-'" 44,,ij---4-(.° President . Ortnhar 99, 1979
f ignature and Title Date
CLAR1 COLEMAN & RUPEIKS, INC.
X
PROPERTIES WITHIN 300 FEET FROM SUBJECT PROPERTY
ANDERSEN ANKER
6318 S Prentice St.
Seattle, Wash. 98178
STEMBOL JR. SIGURD E.
17825 54th P1. S.
Seattle, Wash. 98188
PARROT DAVID
5425 S. 178th St.
Seattle, Wash. 98188
RICHARD PEGGE S.
10016 NE 23rd
Bellevue, WA 98004
JONIENTZ PAUL
5565 S. 178th St.
Seattle, Wash. 98188
IVERSON HAROLD B.
950 Andover Park E
Tukwila, WA 98188
FLINK RAY & MADELINE
18059 S. Center Parkway
Seattle, Wash. 98188
SCHOENBACHLER HERMAN
18115 Southcenter Parkway
Seattle, WA 98188
SCHOENBACHLER HERMAN
18115 57th Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98031
SEGALE MARIO A
P. 0. Box 88050
Tukwila, WA 98188
DENURE J.W. and P.C. HOGE
5563 S. 178th
Seattle, Wash. 98188
LEVITZ FURNITURE CORP.
212 High St.
Pottstown, PA 19464
■