Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-20-89 - CITY OF TUKWILA / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATIONCASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION ANNEXATION OF AREA TO CITY OF TUKWILA WITH PREANNEXATION ZONING MILITARY RD. S. / HWY 99 / S. 116T" ST. / 5.152ND ST. EPIC 20 -89 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY d -1989 Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 - 6000 August 9, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila Planning 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the Cascade View Annexation of 581 acres to the City of Tukwila. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. Until the City amends its shoreline master program to incor- porate the shoreline portions of the annexed area, the City will be obliged to administer the King County Shoreline Mas- ter Program as it applies to the annexed shoreline areas. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Bruce Smith of the Shorelands Program at (206) 459-6762. Sincerely, __D,ovyhe_a Donald J. Bales Environmental Review Section DJB; cc: Linda Rankin Washington State Department of Transportation 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place �s89 Bellevue, Washington 98007 -6538 I I (206) 562 -4000 !' . TO Rick Beeler Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98188 Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation August 7, 1989 SR 99 M.P. 18.72 C.S. 1732 Determination of Non- Significance 581 Acre Annexation FROM: JAMES L. LUTZ, P.E., Utilities/Developer Services Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 SE 30th Place, MS 113 Bellevue, WA 98007 -6597 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this document. Our response is checked below. XX We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments. Annexation by itself does not create any new adverse impacts on the state highway system, however, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on future individual developments in this area.. We have already submitted comments on this project. Our comments are included in our letter dated from to . We have no further comments on this project. We have reviewed the subject document and request the applicant provide further information. We have concerns about the following: Please contact Dick Aust of my Developer Section at PHONE: 562 -4274, SCAN 638 -4274, if you have any questions. DA:da cc: WSDOT State Aid - MS 121 •I' METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 Gregory M. Bush, Manager #:4 Environmental Planning Division GMB:jmg5037 August 4, 1989 Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Determination of Non - Significance File No.: EPIC -20 -89 Tukwila Annexation Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities or public transportation services. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, AFFIDAVIT OF DISTeIBUTION JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: EJ Notice of Public Hearing • Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet [I Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet • Determination of Nonsignificance J Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice (J Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1989 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project CASCADE VIEW ANNFXATIDN Signa`f File Number EPIC -20 -89 UIVJ U1J 1 KUDU I „ EPI -15 -88 EPIC -14 -88 EPIC— 1 -88 1 U IV FOSTER ANNEXATION THORNDYKE ANNEilliuN RIVERTON ANNEXA N SATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SHORELANDS DIVISION MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 ATTN: KAREN BEATTY SATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mv,:L STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 ATTN: KAREN BEATTY K::P:G CO PARKS, PLANNING & RES '1108 SMITH TOWER 506 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 ATTN: JIM TRACY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE DIST NPSEN —PL —RP P.O. BOC C -3755 SEATTLE, WA 98124 WASHINGTON ST TRANSPORTATION DPT TSM & P /LAND DEVELOPERS 9611 S.E. 36TH STREET MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 • FIRE DISTRICT #11 1243 S.W. 112TH SEATTLE, WA 98146 SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST #406 9690 SOUTH 144TH SEATTLE, WA 98168 KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 300 — 8TH NORTH SEATTLE, WA 98109 PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL ATTN: ENGINEER (EIS REVIEW) 300 S.W. SEVENTH STREET RENTON, WA 98055 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPT 1015 3RD AVENUE ROOM 922 SEATTLE, WA 98104 WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ATTN: WILLIAM FRY P.O. 1869 SEATTLE, WA 98111 VAL —VUE SEWER DISTRICT P.O. BOX 68063 SEATTLE, WA 98168 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT — FISHERIES WATER DISTRICT #125 115 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BLDG P.O. BOX 68147 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 SEATTLE, WA 98168 FIRE DISTRICT #18 4237 SOUTH 144TH SEATTLE, WA 98168 KING CO. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 3600 136TH PLACE S.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98006 ATTN: BRICE MARTIN CITY OF 'E OINES PLANNING DEPT 21630 1 TH SOUTH DES SINES, WA 98198 METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DN. ATTN: MANAGER MS 92 821 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 HIGHLI E T. ES 207 S. 50TH P.O. Be ' 518 SEAT E, 98166 SEA -TA TU ILA CHAMBER OF CC 5200 SOU CENTER BLVD SUITE TUKW A WA 98188 VALLE P.0 B KENT ILY NEWS 130 WA •:135 HIGHLINE SCHOOL DIST #401 5675 AMBAUM BLVD S.W. SEATTLE, WA 98166 RAINIER VISTA SEWER DIST. 11846 DES MOINES WAY S. SEATTLE, WA 98168 TUKWILA /SEA —TAC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P.O. BOX 58591 TUKWILA, WA 98188 WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal ANNEX 581 ACRES & 3,061 PERSONS TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA WITH PREANNEXATION ZONING. SEWER AND WATER PURVEYORS REMAIN THE SAME (SEE ATTACHMENT A). ANNEXATION VOTE ON 2/6/89. Proponent CITY Of TUKWILA Location of Proposal, including street address, if any GENERALLY BETWEEN MILITARY ROAD SOUTH/ HIGHWAY 99/ S. 116TH STREET/ S. 152ND STREET. (SEE ATTACHMENT B FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION.) Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -20 -89 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. 0 There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by August 8, 1989 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Address Date Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 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 FISCAL AND SERVICE IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION ATTACHMENT A MAYOR Gary L. Van Dusen CITY ADMINISTRATOR John McFarland CITY COUNCIL Edgar D. Bauch Joe H. Duffie Mabel H. Harris Joan Hernandez Clarence Moriwaki Dennis Robertson Marilyn G. Stoknes PROJECT MANAGER Alan Doerschel, Finance Director CITY OFFICIALS Maxine Anderson, City Clerk Rick Beeler, Planning Ross Earnst, Public Works Tom Keefe, Fire Ron Waldner, Police Don Williams, Parks /Recreation June 27, 1989 C I T Y OF T U K W I L A 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 (2061433 -1800 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONS PAGE I Introduction 3 II Revenue Impacts 5 III Cost Impacts for Annual Operations 8 IV Summary and Discussion 11 TABLES 1. Selected Cascade Characteristics 4 2. Property Tax Rate Comparison With and Without Annexation 5 3. Sales Tax Revenue 6 4. Summary of Revenue Impact 7 5. Range of Operating Costs and Full -time Employees for Cascade View 10 FIGURE A. Cascade View Area Vicinity Map 12 APPENDIX A. Population Data — Cascade View 13 CASCADE VIEW EXATION Fiscal Service Impact Analysis Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF STUDY This study provides a general planning analysis of the fiscal impact of providing Tukwila service to the Cascade View annexation area. The estimated cost and service impacts on Tukwila are based on a department level review of the area characteristics, and the staffing levels that departments would request to serve the area. Also included are possible capital project requirements. Specific decisions about the staffing requirements for the annexation area will be made when the City adopts an amended budget for the annexation. The City of Tukwila has received an annexation petition from the area known as Cascade View. The Cascade area lies within parts of Census Tracts 271, 273, and 281, and in the Puget Sound Council of Government's (PSCOG) Riverton Forecast Area Zone 3820. The Cascade area is bounded by South 152nd, Pacific Highway South, Military Road, 24th Avenue, and 116th Way. King County currently provides general government, road improvements, and police service. Other public services are provided by Water Districts 20 and 125; Rainier Vista and Val Vue Sewer Districts; Fire Districts 11 and 2; and the King County Library District. Upon annexation, the City of Tukwila would provide general government road improvements, police service and fire protection. The existing sewer, water, and library districts would continue to serve the area in their current roles. Tukwila does not envision assuming these special purpose district functions. A more detailed analysis of City services is provided in Section III. The City is planning to implement a Surface Water Utility in January of 1990. This study does not include costs of staffing for this new utility. BACKGROUND Table 1 summarizes some basic population data of the Cascade area. It is important to note that this area has an estimated population of 3,061 and encompasses 581 acres; that Tukwila absorbed a population increase of 6,200 on 2,700 acres between December, 1988 and April, 1989; and that the City has generally completed increasing its staff /service capability to serve these new areas at Tukwila standards. CASCADE VIEW MXATION Fiscal alb Service Impact Analysis Page 4 TABLE 1 Selected Cascade Characteristics CASCADE CITY OF % OF TUKWILA TUKWILA, Population * 3,061 10,923 28 Housing * Multi- Family 1,099 2,163 51 Single Family 669 3,422 20 Total 1,768 5,585 32 Number of Acres 581 5,143 11 Persons per Acre 5.27 2.12 250 Assessed Valuation $100,900,500 $1,670,000,000 6 Per Capita Valuation $32,963 $152,888 22 Per Acre Valuation $173,667 $324,713 53 *Appendix A CASCADE VIEW ` EXATION Fiscal CA Service Impact Analysis Page 5 II. REVENUE IMPACTS The most significant sources of potential revenue to the City from the annexation area are property tax, state shared revenues and sales tax. State shared revenue and sales tax are constant and do not change whether the area is in the City or not. A City property tax of 3.010 would be a new levy upon annexation. Taxes which would be dropped upon annexation are: the Fire District tax ($1.50), the County Road tax ($1.681) and Library tax ($0.500). Property owners would thus realize a drop in tax rate from $3.681 per $1,000 assessed valuation, to $3.010 per $1,000 assessed valua- tion. All other area taxes would remain constant. The annual impact of these different property tax rates, based on the 1989 levy rates for the area, are shown on Table 2. TABLE 2 Property Tax Rate Comparison With and Without Annexation 1989 Assessed Valuation of Cascade View Area $100,900,500 With Annexation: Tukwila Tax Rate 3.010* Tukwila Levy $303,710 King County Equivalent Rate: Fire District #11 Tax Rate 1.500 Road District Tax Rate 1.681 Rural Library Tax Rate .500 Combined Tax Rate 3.681 Combined Levy $371,415 *General Levy for Tukwila Only - 1989 During the first two years after annexation, revenue from property taxes are affected by various timing considerations. Property tax levy rates are set in one year and assessed and collected in the next year. This means that, regardless of when an annexation occurs, the property taxes for the current year would already be set and cannot be changed before the following year. CASCADE VIEW AERATION Fiscal Service Impact Analysis Page 6 Revenue from the City's general tax levy is affected by the timing of the annexation. If the annexation takes place before March 1, the City can levy property tax in the current year for collection in the following year, and there would be no revenue from the City property tax until the following year. If annexation takes place after March 1, the City cannot levy the tax until the following year, which means it is not collected until the second year after annexation, and there is no revenue collected during the first two calendar years after annexation. To some extent, this delay in collection of the City's general property taxes is made up by the provision that any Road District taxes that have been levied but not been collected as of the annexation date are distributed to the City upon collection. Also, the City would receive rev- enue from Fire District #11 in exchange for providing fire service, and would not have to pay for library service for the new citizens during this period. The retail sales and use tax is another source of revenue from the annexation area. The estimate of retail sales tax revenue, shown on Table 3, is based on a drive -by survey of the annexation area. Information on taxable sales from these businesses in 1988 was provided by the Department of Revenue. Tukwila's sales tax rate is one percent; fifteen percent of the local sales tax revenue collected within the City is allo- cated to the County. Table 3 reflects the County's share and the amount of revenue remaining for the City -- approximately $144,500 for the area. TABLE 3 Sales Tax Revenue Number of Retail Businesses 30 Retail Taxable Sales $17,000,000 Local Sales Tax Rate 1.0% Local Sales Tax Revenue $170,000 Less: County 15% ( 25,500) Tukwila Sales Tax Revenue $144,500 Other significant revenues for the area would be generated by state distributed revenues and locally imposed fees and fines. These are shown on Table 4 which includes footnotes on the method of estimating each revenue. Some of the rev- enues are restricted to specific uses. The motor vehicle fuel tax must be used for road purposes, the real estate excise tax must be used for capital projects, and emer- gency medical services (EMS) funds must be used for fire programs. Unrestricted revenues can be used for any purpose designated by the City. As shown on Table 4 the estimated annual amount of revenue that would come to the City from the annexation area is $636,210 in unrestricted sources and $102,000 from restricted sources. CASCADE VIEW A/41/EXATION Fiscal Service Impact Analysis Page 7 TABLE 4 Summary of Revenue Impact Unrestricted Revenue: Property Tax 1 $303,710 Sales Tax 2 144,500 Business Licenses /Fees 3 5,000 Permits /Planning Fees 4 50,000 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax 5 42,000 Liquor Excise Tax /Profits 6 36,000 Court Fees, Fines, etc. 7 40,000 Other Taxes, Fees, Charges 8 15.000 Unrestricted Total $636,210 Restricted Revenues: Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 9 $ 75,000 Real Estate Transfer Tax 10 7,000 EMS 11 20,000 Restricted Total $102,000 Grand Total Revenues $738,210 1. See Table No.2 2. See Table No.3 3. Based on number of businesses and percentage of misc. fees. 4. Assumes level of permitting activity equivalent to Foster / Riverton /Thorndyke. 5. Based on state formulas. 6. Based on state formulas. 7. Based on same level of activity as Foster /Riverton /Thorndyke. 8. Based on level of activity of total current city. 9. Based on state formulas. 10. Based on estimated current property turnover rate. 11. Based on current distribution from King County. CASCADE VIEW AIIEXATION Fiscal ilk Service Impact Analysis Page 8 III. COST IMPACTS FOR ANNUAL OPERATIONS The impact of annexation on Tukwila's costs for annual operations are primarily from the additional personnel that would be needed to serve the Cascade View area. There are some one time costs for additional equipment (e.g. vehicles, desk and chairs). A range of cost estimates was developed based on information supplied by department heads as to personnel and equipment needs. Personnel costs were esti- mated using the mid -range monthly salary for the same or similar positions that currently exist in the City; benefits were estimated at 25 percent of salary costs. The estimated cost impacts are based on experience of the previous annexations. The City will review these results internally. Final decisions about staffing require- ments for the annexation area will be made when the City adopts an amended budget for the annexation. All costs are shown as a range of estimates. A range was used to reflect the uncertainty about the overlapping impacts on services with previous annexations . General: The potential cost of additional facilities is not included in the analysis because of the low probability that this annexation by itself will require new buildings. Although there will be some resultant pressure on existing facilities. Police Services: The impacts on police service relate to both the size of the geo- graphic area, the density of the population, and the nature of criminal activity in the area. The annexation area is mainly residential, but there are some commercial areas (e.g. along Highway 99) that may attract a different type and frequency of criminal activity. The Police Department has estimated that it would need a 3 to 5 additional FTE's to handle the calls for service and projected increased activity. The total annual labor cost impact for the Police Department, ranges from $126,000 to $210,000. Additional costs for Valley -Com, jail services, and other operation and maintenance costs are estimated to range from $50,000 to $75,000. The total cost estimates for Police services are $176,000 to $285,000. The four existing Police Patrol Districts would not need to be increased to accommodate this annexation. Fire Protection Services: The annexation will not require an additional fire station. However, costs for Valley- Communications dispatch services, supplies, and other related expenses ranges from $15,000 to $30,000. Fire District #11, which currently provides service to Cascade View will turn over some of their assets in proportion to the value assumed by the City of Tukwila. The City already has a mutual aid agreement with District No. 11 for cooperative service upon request. CASCADE VIEW EXATION Fiscal l Service Impact Analysis Page 9 Negotiations are currently underway to integrate fire protection over the entire plateau with automatic mutual aid agreements between Tukwila and Fire Dis- trict Nos. 11, 2, and 24. The nearest provider would be automatically called via the 911 system with this agreement. All parties anticipate having automatic mutual aid by January 1990. Municipal Court: The annexation will affect Municipal Court costs because of the additional criminal and traffic cases that must be handled by the City. The Municipal Court has estimated that additional extra labor will be needed. Other Municipal Court costs include judicial, prosecuting attorney, public defense payments and payment for the Southeast Community Alcohol Treatment Center. The estimated costs for Municipal Court range from $15,000 to $25,000. Community Development: The Planning and Building Divisions would be affected by increases in building permit applications and development review tasks generated from the annexation area. An additional 1 -2 FTE(s) may be required to service this estimated demand which is expected to be equivalent to the Foster /Riverton /Thorndyke annexations. The range of costs including labor, professional services, and ancillary costs is $60,000- $75,000 and has been included in the estimate at Table 5. Parks and Recreation: The Parks Department estimates that the impact of annexa- tion would be relatively small, since residents in the area already use Tukwila's recreation programs. There would be some increase in costs for staffing recre- ation programs, mailing notices of classes and programs, and providing trans- portation services for senior citizens. The estimated costs for the Recreation Department, ranges from $10,000- $15,000. Administrative: The City's various legislative and administrative functions would be affected by the overall increase in responsibilities resulting from annexation, with impacts for the City Clerk, Finance Departments and Personnel Depart- ment. Annexation would also affect the responsibilities of the Mayor and City Council, but this increase cannot be easily translated into dollar amounts. The total cost impact for the Finance Department assumes that the existing sewer and water utilities would continue to serve, and that they would not be respon- sible for any billings to sewer and water customers in the annexation area. The total cost for these functions including insurance, range from $20,000 to $30,000. Public Works: The Public Works Department would be affected by the addition of roads and facilities that would result from annexation. The Department has determined the number of road miles in the area and looked at facilities in the area. The Department has identified staffing requirements of 2 to 3 FTEs for the annexation area based on this review. In addition to staffing requirements, there would be equipment rental costs. The General Fund effort includes Administration, Engineering Services, and Facilities Maintenance. The Street Fund portion includes maintenance of new City streets. The total cost impact ranges from $100,000 to $125,000. CASCADE VIEW Ar XATION Fiscal S Service Impact Analysis Page 10 Community Services: Several community service costs are budgeted in the Mayor's Office, including the costs for library and health services contract. The City pays the King County Health Department for services provided to City citizens based on a contractual agreement; the estimates for this contract are based on pop- ulation in the annexation areas. The library contract provides for payment of $19.53 per capita and the estimates are based on this per capita amount. The City contributes to various other programs on a voluntary basis; since these programs provide direct services to individuals, it is assumed that contri- butions would be increased in proportion to the increase in population related to annexation. The total estimated cost for these community services ranges from $100,000 to $125,000. Summary of Operating Costs: Table 5 summarizes the range of costs for each de- partment. TABLE 5 Range of Operating Costs and Full-Time Employees (FTEs) for Cascade View LOW NO. HIGH NO. RANGE *FTEs RANGE *FTEs Police Department $176,000 3 $285,000 5 Fire Department 15,000 - 30,000 Municipal Court 15,000 25,000 Community Development 60,000 1 75,000 2 Parks /Recreation 10,000 15,000 Administrative 20,000 30,000 Community Services 100,000 125,000 Public Works:General /Street 100,000 2 125,000 3 Annual Total $496,000 6 $710,000 10 *Includes only regular full -time or part -time employees Capital Improvements: Based on a review of King County's capital improvement plans, and discussions with Tukwila's Public Works Department, only two capital improvement projects have been identified for the annexation area. Since sewer and water services would be provided by existing purveyors, no capital improvements for these services were identified. The annexation area has some surface water problems, however, these will become part of the total surface water program revenue and expenditure analysis. CASCADE VIEW XATION Fiscal e. Service Impact Analysis Page 11 The only significant road project is the need for a signal at 130th and Highway 99 at an estimated cost of $200,000. Also, a paving project from 144th to Military Road for $53,000 is in the King County Capital Plan. The current City policy is for newly annexed residential streets to be improved through L.I.D.'s. Any other minor improvements that would be necessary are included in the opera- tions and maintenance costs portion of this report. N. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The annual revenues for the annexation area is estimated at $738,210 (see Table 4). Estimated annual operating costs range from $496,000 to $710,000, including Street Fund operations and maintenance costs (see Table 5). The high range of expendi- tures is virtually the same as the estimated revenues. Amounts for one -time costs are not shown in this analysis, but are expected to be nominal. There are several reasons for the apparent matching of revenues and expenditures as well as other ramifications to be examined. The impact of the Fire District #1 and Foster /Riverton /Thorndyke annexations brought two new police patrol districts as well as a new fire station close to the annexation area. The total number of positions added for these earlier annexations was 48.5 FTE's and approximately $2.5 million dollars in annual additional expendi- tures. These increases, facility space acquisition, and equipment purchases will enable the City to absorb this annexation area for the projected additional expenditures. This annexation will increase Tukwila's population to 14,000 residents which is very close to the 15,000 population threshold. At 15,000 population the City would be required to take over all traffic signals on State highways (approximately 20) at a total annual maintenance cost of $100,000. Also, there may be some incremental costs for services which cannot be determined at this time. Page 1Z CASCADE VIEW LEGEND Tukwila City Limits Sea Tic City Limits Proposed Cascade View Annexation NO SCALE Riverton TUKWILA Foster 140th St Foster High Thorndyke CASCADE VIEW ArkEXATION Fiscal Service Impact Analysis Page 13 Appendix A Population Data Cascade View NUMBER OF OCCUPANCY AVERAGE TOTAL UNITS 1 RATE 2 PERSON/UNIT 3 POP/ESTIMATE Multi - Family 1,099 .95 1.5 1,569 Single - Family 6699 .97 2.3 1,492 TOTALS 1,768 3,061 1 Obtained from map of King County Cascade View Existing Land Use, 1987. 2 Obtained from the City Clerk's Census Data of May 31, 1989. 3 Obtained from the City Clerk's Census Data of May 31,1989. • • CASCADE VIEW ATTACHMENT B 19-OCTOBER-88 Commencing at a point on the south line of the northwest quarter of Section 22, T23N, R4E, W.M., which lies 957.2 feet east of the west 1/4 corner og said Section; thence North 18'28'40" East along the centerline of Pacific Highway South 20.88 feet to an intersection with the easterly extension of the north margin of South 152nd Street, said intersection being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 88 °11'04" West along said easterly extension and continuing westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Military Road South; thence northwesterly along said east margin to the east margin of 24th Avenue South; thence northerly along said east margin to the south margin of South 116th Way; thence east along said south margin to the west margin of Pacific Highway South (State Rd. No.1); thence northerly along said west margin to the thread of the Duwamish River; thence easterly along said thread to the northerly extension of the new easterly Right -of -Way line for Pacific Highway South as shown under Deeds, Volume 3860, page 462, Records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said northerly extension and continuing southerly along the east margin of Pacific Highway South to the north line of South 152nd Street; thence westerly along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project: Cascade View Annexation 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila 3. Address and phone number of applicant: Vernon Umetsu, Assoc. Planner Tukwila Department of Community Development Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Ph. 206 - 433 -1858. 4. Checklist prepared: May 24, 1989. 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development. 6. Proposed schedule: Annexation vote to be held on February 6, 1990. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? The City will assume responsibility for all general public services such as general administration, fire, police, roads and zoning. The sole exceptions would be sewer and water service. Existing providers would continue to serve this area. The City has no plans to assume these functions at this time. Further expansions would be evaluated upon receipt of an annexation request. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared. This area has been evaluated in the King County Sensitive Areas map for slopes, and wetlands. 1 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? There are no known annexation or incorporation actions which conflict this proposal. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. No permits are necessary. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The City of Tukwila proposes to annex the Cascade View area in response to a petition from area residents. This area encompasses approximately 581 acres and 3,061 persons. See Item A.7 and "Tukwila Fiscal and Public Service Analysis" in Attachment A. 12. Location of proposal. The annexation area is located in portions of Sections 9, 10, 15, 16, and 22; Township 23N; Range 4E; Seattle, Washington. In general, Cascade View is bounded by Military Rd. /Sea -Tac City limits on the west, So. 116th St. on the north, Hwy. 99 /Tukwila City Limits on the east, and So. 152nd St. on the south. A further general description is shown in Attachment A while a legal description is shown in Attachment B. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? This area is not covered by the City's Comprehensive Plan. Environmentally sensitive areas will be established upon annexation based on pre- annexation Comprehensive Plan actions by the City Council. 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site. The terrain varies from flat in the south, to rolling and steeply sloping in the north. b. What is the steepest slope on the site? The steepest slope in the area is approximately 90 percent. c. What general types of soils are found on the site? A wide range of all soil types may be found in this 581 acre area including sand, clay, silt, and some peat. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils? There is some evidence of unstable steep northern slopes. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Does not apply to this non - project action. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? g. Does not apply to this project. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces? Does not apply to this project. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion. Does not apply to this project. Does not apply. • • 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal? Does not apply to this project. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? Not applicable to this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air. Not applicable to this project. 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site? Yes. The Cascade view annexation touches onto the Duwamish River at the extreme northern tip. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? No. Does not apply to this project. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands. None. Not applicable to this non - project action. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? This area does not lie within a 100 -year floodplain except a small portion along the Duwamish River. • • 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? No. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn. No. 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. None. c. Water runoff 1. Describe the source of runoff and method of collection and disposal, if any. None. Not applicable to this project. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? No. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. No such proposals are necessary for this project. 4. Plants a. Types of vegetation found on the site: The Cascade annexation area contains a variety of grasses, shrubs, and trees. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered. No changes will be made to the vegetation as a result of this annexation. • • c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known endangered species of vegetation in Cascade view. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures. None. 5. Animals a. Types of birds located near or on the site. A full range of urban, year -round and seasonal birds can be expected to be found in the Cascade View area. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species known to reside in the area. Such evaluation will be made as land is developed. c. Is the site part of a migration route? This area, as well as most of western Washington, is part of the Pacific Flyway migratory bird route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. No measures have been proposed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Does not apply to this project. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? No. Does not apply to this project. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? None. Not applicable to this proposal. 6 • • 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards. There are no environmental hazards related to this project. b. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No emergency services are required for this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards. No proposals are necessary for this project. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project? None. Not applicable to this project. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis? No noise would be created with this project. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts. Not necessary for this project. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are a variety of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses located within the 581 acre Cascade View annexation area. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? This area has not been used for agriculture except for possible historic, scattered small farms and grazing throughout the area. 7 c. Describe any structures on the site. Cascade has a mix of single family, multi- family, and commercial buildings. Maximum building height is approximately 7 stories, with the majority being one to three story structures. d. Will any structures be demolished? No. Does not apply to this project. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The following King County zoning classifications are found in the Cascade View area: RS- Single family residential RD3600 -Low density multifamily RM2400- Medium density RM1800 -High density RM900- Maximum density CG- General Commercial BC- Community Business BN- Neighborhood Business f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. The following King County Comprehensive Plan designations are found in the Cascade area: SF- Single Family residential LD -Low density multi - family HP -High density multifamily RR- Residential /Retail -mixed use multi - family and retail. NB- Neighborhood and community OF- Office HC- Highway oriented business PR -Park and recreation CF- Community facility If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable to this project. 8 • • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? King County has designated steeply sloping areas as environmentally sensitive. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j Not applicable to this project. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. None necessary for this project. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. Pre - annexation Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations will be established prior to the annexation vote. These designations will reflect a balance between existing uses and community goals. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided. None. Not applicable to this project. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are necessary for this project. • • 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure? No structures are proposed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. Does not apply to this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. None. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? None. Not applicable to this project. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. None. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This area contains a playing field at Cascade View Elementary School. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? No displacement would occur. 10 • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation. Not necessary for this project. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? Military Road is a historic landmark that lies within the Cascade View annexation area. This road was built in 1854 for the specific purposes of aiding the soldiers mobility during times of war. Presently, Military Road begins at the north bank of the Puyallup River and fades into Des Moines Way at 113th Avenue. The Robert Thomasson residence located at 2434 South 116th Way was built in 1934. This two story structure exhibits Italian Renaissance styling with multi - colored sandstone and granite blocks. The Duwamish 99 Bridge was built in 1927 and is located on SR 99 over the Duwamish River. The bridge is constructed of steel and contains four lanes and is 200 feet long. The L. Mayer Residence located at 15025 Military Road is a two story structure that exhibits Tudor styling with a steeply pitched gable roof. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. See Item "a" above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts. No measures are necessary for this non - project action. 11 • • 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site. The major public streets within this area are Pacific Highway, East Marginal Way, Military Road, 24th Avenue, and 116th Street. These streets are shown in the Cascade map in Attachment A. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? Cascade view is served by public transit on Pacific Highway, Military Road and 24th Avenue. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. None. Not applicable to this project. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets. No new facilities would be required as a result of this annexation. e. Will the project use water, rail, or air transportation? No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? None. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation. g. No measures have been proposed. 12 • • 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services? This area would not require increased public services as a result of annexation. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services. No proposed measures are necessary. 16. Utilities a. Utilities available on the site: Electric, natural gas, water, solid waste collection, telephone, and sanitary sewer services are available in the Cascade View area 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. No utilities are required for this non - project annexation. 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: 13 • • SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS 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? No impacts would result from the proposed annexation. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases. No proposed measures are necessary. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants and animals? This proposal will not affect plants or animals. a. Proposed measures to protect plants and animals. No proposed measures are necessary. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This proposal will not affect energy or natural resources. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources. Not necessary for this project. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection. Tukwila ordinances would replace King County ordinances in regulating the use of such areas. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources. The City of Tukwila regulates such areas using SEPA, project design review, and a variety of other engineering standards. The staff is also developing a sensitive areas ordinance for presentation to the City Council this year. 14 • • 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use? See Item No. 4. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts. Tukwila shoreline regulations would replace King County regulations. b. How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? The Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan must be amended upon annexation. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No increase in public services is expected as a result of annexation. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demands. No such proposals are necessary. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There are no governmental conflicts in protection of the environment as a result of annexation. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? There are no conflicts with Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan since it is outside of the plan area. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts. Not necessary for this project. 15 • • SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR PROJECT AND NONPROJECT PROPOSALS 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? To annex the Cascade View area to the City of Tukwila should the voters elect to do so; after having an opportunity to review Tukwila services, and zoning. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? There are no alternative means of accomplishing this annexation by voter election. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: See Item No. 2 above. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? No. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts. No proposals are necessary to reduce conflicts. 16