Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-22-89 - CITY OF TUKWILA - SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE ORDINANCE (SAO)
This record contains information which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW as identified on the Digital Records Exemption Log shown below. EPIC -22 -89 City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Ordinance RECORDS DIGITAL D- ) EXEMPTION LOG THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERMIT FILE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING REDACTED INFORMATION F,age # Code Exemption � � �� Brief Explsnatoty Description, Statute /Rule The Privacy Act of 1974 evinces Congress' intent that social security numbers are a private concern. As such, individuals' social security Personal Information — numbers are redacted to protect those Social Security Numbers individuals' privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec. 5 U.S.C. sec. DR1 Generally — 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a), and are also exempt from disclosure 552(a); RCW 552(a); RCW under section 42.56.070(1) of the Washington 42.56.070(1) 42.56.070(1) State Public Records Act, which exempts under the PRA records or information exempt or prohibited from disclosure under any other statute. Redactions contain Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, credit Personal Information — expiration dates, or bank or other financial RCW 189 DR2 Financial Information — account numbers, which are exempt from 42.56.230(5) RCW 42.56.230(4 5) disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.230(5), except when disclosure is expressly required by or governed by other law. CONTAINS FILES THAT REQUIRE REDACTION SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE AMENDING SUBDIVISION & ENVIRONMENTAL CODES CITY -WIDE AREAS EPIC -22 -89 METRO le Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 September 16, 1991 Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Adoption of Existing Environmental Document File Name: Amendments to adopt Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Ordinance including the Environmental Code. Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to water quality or to Metro's wastewater facilities or public transportation services. Thank; you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, Tim Goon, Environmental Planner Environmental Compliance and Right of Way and Property Division TG:ymg590 S E P I 9 1991 1i C11 V DEPT. PLANNING crnigF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665 TO: 00..-tit DATE: i f g q l TITLE: FROM: P/T)1kJD Ed41) COMPANY: /1 VI 4 TITLE: /, s 4 4J--„, ke,,,...) , DEPARTMEN 0 /MY// ,01/2 f,....00V.,4.."01. 0065Y 16.4 / DEP ' ' ENT: - . A f1.6'Y/sl'fA>,,,, ,/,,,Y> 0,.410,Y,*so 9,14,40,47,.. IJl FAX NO. NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: H i 5ii/lYY iN'I /lltZG,'N'•LNY.eeX, iHr'!li /!lr /r /i A-Ati . ilr: %iYi✓lL/llviv ff friL ;OWYiLll7JlGwSt✓iv'l%N' IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: c71._ 0,04,61 SENT BY (INITIALS): eie.) iiiH' ' l/li %/l{%YfiS4fl %ir% if/ JL: UNrf+ IS' itrbriiYHY I.:I'+�+Y`r.<.Y+ %Hfflii%L%Jl:. .... . 1 • •iM13f3rYLLrri' '51. 36 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 G Office: (206) 431 -3670 06/15/90 Part Eleven- 197 -11 -960 • SEPA Rules RCW 197 -11 -960 Adoption notice. ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption for (check appropriate box) X11 DNS ❑ EIS ❑ other Description of current proposal Amendments to adopted Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Ordinance including the environmental code. Proponent City of Tukwila Location of current proposal Nonproject proposal affecting properties city -wide. Title of document being adopted DNS, Environmental Checklist for Sensitive Area Ordinance, and Addendum to checklist. Agency that prepared document being adopted Ci ty of Tukwi 1 a Date adopted document was prepared DNS issued 25 October 1989; Checklist prepared 9 October 1989; and Addendum prepared 26 June 1990. Description of document (or portion) being adopted See title above If the document being adopted has been challenged (197 -11 -630), please describe: DNS was appealed and upheld by Tukwila City Council on December 18, 1989. The document is available to be read at (place /time) Department of Community Development Suite # 100, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 from 8:30 -5:00 p.m. We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document City of Tukwila Contact person, if other than responsible official Moira Carr Bradshaw Phone 431 -3651 Responsible official Rick Beeler Position /title Director, DCD Address 6300 Southcenter B Date ??( Signature Phone 431 -3670 , Suit: 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 [Ch. 197 -11 RCW —p 52] (1983 Laws) RFFtAVIT OF DISTIkSUTI0A 1, SYLVIA A. OSBY Q Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet (J Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit hereby declare that: Adendum to Aiix Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance 0 Oetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice. Q Notice of Action Q Official Notice O Other O Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY DIS File Number EPIC -22 -89 August 29, 1991 .19 . rendS c Z)Gt_a ,r 4,001000- CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES px U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • ( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency )0 F ederal Highway Administration' ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Office of Archaeology (,S4_ Transportation Department (>T4epartment of Fisheries • ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services ( <)Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division Dept. of Ecology, SEPA Division * Department of Game )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( 'Dept. of Planning & Community Devel. • = ..r- i=ct-16� -- ( ) Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department (, ) South Central School District Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library _ ( ) Kent Library Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone D4- .Seattle City Light (%K.1-Washington Natural Gas ( Water District 75 O(% Seattle Water Department (/h-Group W Cable ( ) Kent Planning Department ( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment ( ) Tukwila Mayor Tukwila City Departments: ( ) - Public Works ( ) - Parks and Recreation ( ) - Police ( ) - Fire ( ) - Finance ( ) - Planning /Building ( )Fire District 1 ( )Fire District 24 ( )Building & Land Development Division SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES )Puget Sound Power & Light d( )Val -Vue Sewer District ( )Water District 20 (. )Water District 25 Water District 125 ( Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES -� ( )Renton Planning Department ( )Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: ( )- Edgar Bauch ( )- Marilyn Stoknes ( )- Joe Duffie ( )- Mabel Harris ( )- Charlie Simpson ( )- Jim McKenna ( )- Wendy Morgan OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES (: ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) ) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ) Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce ) Daily Journal of Commerce d Chronicl �{� fir/ ije V MEDIA )METRO Environmental Planning Division Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more ( )Highline Times ( )Seattle Times C•LIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW M•INGS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers '/ (' ) Federal Highway Administration ✓( ) Office of Archaeology ✓( Transportation Department's a Department of Fisheries ( Office of the Governor ( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency FEDERAL AGENCIES ✓(XU.S. Environmental Protection Agency r ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services v( Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division'- )Dept. of Ecology, SEPA Division *.--- Department of Gamey ( )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations KING COUNTY AGENCIES (ice), Dept. of Planning & Community Devel.✓ ( ) Fire District 18 ( ) Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department South Central School District Tukwila Library ( Renton Library ( ) Kent Library y Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone/ Seattle City Light ) Washington Natural Gas/ ) Water District 75 ) Seattle Water Department v (- ) Group W Cable ..� ( ) Kent Planning Department ( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment ( ) Tukwila Mayor Tukwila City Departments: ( ) - Public Works ( ) - Parks and Recreation ( ) - Police ( ) - Fire ( ) - Finance ( ) - Planning /Building ( )Fire District 1 ( )Fire District 24 ( )Building & Land Development Division - SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES )Puget Sound Power & Light )Val -Vue Sewer District. )Water District 20 )Water District 125-' VIC )Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES ( )Renton Planning Department ( )Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: ( )- 'Sea -Tac Planning OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) �) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency ( > Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce ) Daily 'Journal of Commerce ✓( 4.;Va.11e-Daiiy. News :4,044)/ v 1Y/ Zvi /cam (METRO Environmental Planning Division — Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more MEDIA ( )Highline Times ( )Seattle Times CITY OF TUKWILA �� 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. �m� TUKWILA, WA 90188 (206) 4334800 TO: Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 58591 Tukwila, WA 98138 ttl 74. CITY OF TUKWILA 8200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKNLA, WA 98188 (308) 433'1800 TO: Metro Environmental Planning Division 821 Second Avenue Mail Stop # 92 Seattle, WA 98104 : -^ _ � ,� ' • .` ^ -~~~-~ -_ , __ ,. ~~` TO: Val Vue Sewer District P.O. Box 68063 Seattle, WA 98168 CITY OF TUKWILA 8200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98180 (206) 433'1800 TO: ` :4! Water District # 125 P.O. Box 68147 Seattle, WA 98168 � CITY OF TUKWILA 8200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 9088 (206) 4334800 TO: ~ • - --'---^—`' • Union Pacific Railroad Asst. General Attorney 1515 S.W. Avenue, 5th � ` , Suite # 400 Portland, Or 97201 ! CITY OF TUKWILA, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 v! Xl f�Thl.ty:•11Lt .. ` �, I i .. 4` iWi. 4 .ti. ;S''�'+�t'���51`r.�+:t, ?,? ��sif'+3' ",dif�+,., w_�6�',�''`St'.''r���,�* �.t�r .vrn ✓c.'`�14C�.. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 x sy i T, - ..ln:�:" 1i'�� j.: _ rjr�i���ld�-t�..'���f^xS .`,�... „�?.c _�..•wx "ly .{.,• -fs ",�l!tta..,_r`�• k,'fM +�iR,- ,'.*��. s4A. irk✓ �.a.. N -k.� y}.7 Lr'.,,,� b nc"'$.`p �.. � y: ^!may �i�i .HC. j'i�:..' �tA�; J.J- F ✓� Md,� ?.. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 ,> eta, .:,5;a r >cvrrv,'iSJix ..r.+_ dA,- ;''' t` ". (sYxV,ra;` ?a�{:;3...'.' MIZIet ..,r'+x.'•.:.:.AVAP :. Puget Sound Power & Light Attn: Environmental Review 10508 N.E. 4th Street Bellevue, WA 98004 i'v ., pg.;.: III CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 y��ifa� w�f! Sh��1 ��.i'r' S•}� in �r'L „:.' �r,� -:a. -� ttr � } # r� :.r "t �lr�tt..5:�ivj��'.•.. TO: Seattle City Light Environmental Affairs Dept. 1015 3rd Avenue Room # 922 Seattle, WA 98104 TO: CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 s k�,q . .,xp. yr ✓�r� 'kr.t -` . 5..:'.vw�'. ;..�. , ?is. i � �{ :. r. -. ,'a;.�+i Washington Natural Gas ATTN: Willima Fry P.O. Box 1869 Seattle, WA 98111 } • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: Water District # 75 P.O. Box 68100 Seattle, WA 98168 I IFi CjS +' qy, /",� c�t� Y K�:•"1(I: ^{; Y gl .ia415,, ++IV. , t flf'f1 r_. CITY OF TUKWILII 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 .. ,, �Yy 1 r. 1Y..F,�t! Y .;..,)r:� �. � *� r•tt�..:c�.'Jb :.?�:: �r �[r.�.: 'r. c, i . . }. , ..�'. . C ..1.•..r .r ITO: ti»Ya , Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: South Central School District 406 4640 South 144th Seattle, WA 98168 - j_ " -Yi P - Jt'k" N4 rJt 4� R +'trf�'.[t'•t Yt4`1 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Department of Game 16018 Millcreek Br. Millcreek, WA 98012 RWA CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 L) TO: Tukwila Public Library 14475 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98188 ��� �u�a, k � y'+�,+�WtY'�- N�,�•`4b�`S ��, y °��j„�, ��„e CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 • TO: King County Dept. of Building & Land Development - Sepa Division 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400 Pacific Northwest Bell ATTN: Engineer (EIS Review) 300 S.W. Seventh Street Renton, WA 98055 w.t srr. ,'� J,r �., z ,4, .,.n'.fa. ?, rt t .. ,. ..�:T ah•y -.�, ✓,i.., trrifj;`v'r• pt avFb��xJ�iZsr +Y.2.ya`�.r'rr�F$r;- CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER B0 TUKWILA, WA 9818 (206) 433 -1800 Dept. of Transportation 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 Wv2i5��1�••• li! �04.� i ! <•. -{l'la �' ...dliNirrl"� ^__ .ua.tlr✓ Zala CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: Washington State Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section - Shoreland Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Washington State Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section -SEPA Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 'f,.Gk�3 s;L�q� � \��,Sb�.�.+.y�'i�4tP, f':.�` �W a� tx�'1����?li.t..l,ti. s��t, =�•.:�': i''i "i!tat „'•'��2t3'^;v TO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District NPSEN -PL -RP P.O. Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 NWIAK CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: U.S. Environmental Protectior Region X 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (20E) 433 -1800 T Office of Archaelogy 111 West 21st Street MS -KL11 Olympia, WA 98504 • CITY OF ILA 6200 SOUTHCETrn BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 4 ` • • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Mr. John T, Welch 2700 South 133rd Seattle, WA 98168 a. "ui .,_ �!,•. lv.. sM' c :..b,_�r k`�M.txi:�j s :�✓ �i Mflfr i *�ttF 4T. 1W*MP CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 i .i. : ". ..a .i...i:. ,t�1..1:r!:y 5'�i..... n',. �`r4,. �i �i .:r 11 ✓r,.c_... r...�l� �'. �><i x�.r- .'�'.: ��.1�.��;1 AFF1AVIT OF oISTRITION I, DIANN MARTIN_EZ hereby declare that: Adendum to Q Notice of Public Hearing El Determination of Nonsignificance Q Notice of Public Meeting Q Mitigated Determination of Yon - significance Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Notice of Action C1 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Official Notice 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet CJ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on see attached MAILED TO OFFICE OF ARCHAELOGY JULY 17, 1990 OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 111 - W. 21ST AVE. M -S KL -11 OLYMPIA, WA. 48504 -5411 Name of Project SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY DI File Number EPIC -22 -89 .,July 16. , 1990. CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS X()<5- ( U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal Hi•hwa Administration e f nt ( ' ). Deparamen`t -of`F tshe o a ` ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON 9(( X U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) STATE AGENCIES ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services )0ept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division DDepf:. of'-'Ecology, SEPA Division *` � (X)Department of Game ( )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations KING (>SI Dept. of Planning & Community Devel. - H-F- i-re -Di s t r i ct�8- ( ) Boundary Review Board _ ( ) Health Department j1( (X) South Central School 'District ( ) Tukwila•Lib.r.ary ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library Pacific.;Northwest Bell Telephone Seattle ~City Light Washington Natural Gas Water District 75 Seattle Water..Department Group W.-Cable - Kent P,larining' Department.. Tukwila Board. 'of. Adjustment-: Tukwila Mayom:..'z•., Tukwila City.-:D.ep.ar_tments: ) - ) -.. Police,` �' ^,, =:. Fire ( ) - Finance ( ) - Planning/Building %,Cut)/ c v4- t /43/29/e/( COUNTY AGENCIES )Fire District 1 )Fire District 24 )Building & Land Development Division - SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES ( ')Puget Sound Power & Light ( )Val -Vue Sewer District ( )Water District 20 ( )Water District 25 ( )Water District 125. ( )Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES )Renton Planning Department )Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: Y• • `Ed'gar;3auch: - • MaA lyn •Stoknes ( ) - Joe Cu 3f :i-e. _; "( = )- klatel_ Harr d s (.• " -)- Char)).i(? ( )- Jim McKenna-. ( )- Wendy Morgan I:C.Q ' ; :? OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget`Suund Council of Government(PSCOG) X(X)METRO. Environmental Planning ''Division ( Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Office/Industrial 10,000 Of or more N(7q Tukwi'ia /.Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more • MEDIA ( ) Daily Journal of Commerce ( ) Renton Record Chronicle ( )Highline Times ( )Seattle Times CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #406 4640 SOUTH 144TH SEATTLE, WA. 98168 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: TUKWILA PUBLIC LIBRARY 14475 59TH SO. TUKWILA, WA. 98188 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION X 1200 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA. 98101 %.},rA t,i•i.' Y� +F,,� ", °�!'. �'�l J �f9� t jq.'t i�kjf?• t}; b1 OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 µ5 'J:. t7 i 1 ,k+11 i TO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION CENTRAL OPERATIONS PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CAMPUS MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -8711 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: SHORELANDS PERMIT COORDINATOR SHORELANDS AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT P DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CAMPUS MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -8711 '!v l�. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 i ":i. + 1,,.;tkr< [+ q.; 1 A l • TO: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE DISTRICT NPSEN -PL -RP P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE, WA. 98124 CITY OF TUKWI 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 'laj. �,5 k,!y �; 1 � '1 {� l '.r. '1••Yta as '�al TO: KING COUNTY PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVE 707 SMITH TOWER SEATTLE, WA. 98104 CITY OF TUKWI 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 GENERAL ADMIN. BLDG. M.S. AX -11 OLYMPIA, WA. 98504 .a } a CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 '6 r,• A TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 15325 S.E. 30TH PL. BELLEVUE, WA. 98004 • •, «,t CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 • DEPARTMENT OF GAME 16018 MILLCREEK BV. MILLCREEK, WA. 98012 r;: ¢,1 r.,.•iL� fr CIS OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: METRO 821 2ND AVENUE MAIL STOP 92 SEATTLE, WA. 98104 K.- j. �' a.:1't�'f !• �tfL '* '•7•rs, :d;;t;y:�'a.k�a i} ;�'71rd" ku °' i'4U }t' _ r'j4 "wa 11.E CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P.O. BOX 58591 TUKWILA , WA. 98138 fi ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • ADDENDUM Under Part Six - Using Environmental Documents, the City of Tukwila may use the existing environmental checklist and determination (determination upheld on appeal) for the revised sensitive areas legislation. Per WAC 197- 11- 600(4)(c) this checklist and attached legislation acts as an addendum that adds information and analysis. (If you did not receive the original checklist and determination, please call the contact person listed below.) This addendum does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing SEPA Checklist, EPIC FILE NO: 22- 89, and Threshold Determination - DNS dated October 25, 1990. (Upheld by the Tukwila City Council - December 18, 1990.) Responses to checklist questions are included below if they add to or amend original responses on checklist dated 9 October 1989. IF NO ANSWER IS SHOWN - NO CHANGE HAS OCCURRED FROM THE ORIGINAL RESPONSE. The attached legislative proposal will be heard by the Tukwila Planning Commission on Wednesday, July 25, 1990. Please send comments before that date to: Moira Carr Bradshaw Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 REVISED PROPOSAL ATTACHED A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project: Sensitive Areas Ordinance 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Moira Carr Bradshaw, 6300 Southcenter Blvd.;Tukwila, WA 98188; 431 -3651 4. Date checklist addendum prepared: 6 -26 -90 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 1 Planning Commission Hearing - July 1990 - City Council Hearing - August /September 1990; Adoption September /October 1990 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. BAR design guidelines for Commercial /Industrial and Multiple Family projects in Landslide Hazard Areas. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations - Jones & Stokes, May 1990 Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment - Hart Crowser, May 1990 Geologic Hazard Area Report &. Mapping - Geoengineers, May 1990 Tukwila Hillside: Design and Development Standards - Johnson: Architecture /Planning, March 1990 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. The Tukwila City Council is considering several other legislative proposals which would have city -wide impacts: Land Altering (Clearing /Grading /Filling) Ordinance; Tree Preservation Ordinance; Stormwater Ordinance; Multiple Family Development Standards Revisions. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objective and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposal is attached; however in brief the revised copy includes geologic and archeological sites as sensitive areas and revised subdivision and design standards and procedures for construction in Landslide Hazard Areas. 12. Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, 2 provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic reasonably available. While you should submit any plans by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or plans submitted with any permit applications related checklist. a legal map, if required detailed to this 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 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. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Require PRDs for residential developments in Erosion Hazard Areas which allows clustering and dedication of 20 % open space. 3 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. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. 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. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 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. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.' • 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Portions of Gilliam Creek lie within the 100 year floodplain. 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. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the systems, 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. 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. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. Buffer zones are proposed which control runoff impacts to wetlands and watercourses. Buffer zones may be provided for unstable slopes depending upon the recommendation of a project's geotechnical consultant. 5 • Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen trees: fir cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other. water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or . near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. 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: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 6 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 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: 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. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. b. Noise 7 • • 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? • • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? J Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Use of Board of Architectural Review criteria for PRD review of subdivision and multiple family developments will review for compatibility. In addition SAO does not change underlying zoning. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. b. Approximately how ,many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Density credits and flexible zoning standards to allow transfer of development from sensitive to unsensitive portion of sites is proposed. 10. Aesthetics 9 a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? Amend the PRD review criteria to include BAR criteria and modification of standards in Landslide Hazard Areas to require more effective use of existing and proposed landscaping and site design to blend with the existing topography and vegetation. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. 10 • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Passive recreation will be allowed in sensitive areas. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, natural, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or near the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Dr. Terrence Frest, from the Burke Museum at the University of Washington, stated that the fossil localities on the west end of Poverty Hill are of extraordinary scientific and educational interest. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. Recognize archeological and paleontology areas as sensitive areas as part of the ordinance. Washington State RCW 27.53 defines and protects these areas. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop ?. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 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.) 11 • • e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Rights -of -way that has no feasible alternative location based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency will be permitted in sensitive areas. 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. Yes additional inspection and review services will be needed to implement the proposal. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. We currently review impacts of development on environmentally sensitive lands through SEPA, a case by case system; adoption of the proposed regulations will add consistency and guidelines for protection. Adopted regulations and guidelines facilitate review of proposed development for both the developing entity and the administering staff. 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. 12 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: -< f D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON- PROJECT ACTIONS. (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, if 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 implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? a. Proposed measures to protect plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 13 • • a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 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? a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: b. How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? If the proposal prevents road extensions, then there will be continued traffic increase on existing roads. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Essential rights -of -way are proposed as a permitted use subject to standards. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 14 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts are: E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR PROJECT AND NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: One alternative listed above but not discussed previously would be an alternate form of regulation. The current proposal acts as an overlay, an alternative would be to create one of more new zoning districts which would replace the existing zoning on a site. While a great deal of time has been spent inventorying the City for sensitive areas, there is the possibility of boundary adjustments and new areas being discovered or areas being deleted. The idea of a new zone would be difficult because of the impreciseness of sensitive area boundaries, without site specific surveys. In addition the sensitive areas are located within many different neighborhoods, therefore the uses allowed on parcels could be wide ranging. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: jjiv- cklist 15 Minutes - Regular Meeting December 18, 1989 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA (con't) Ordinance #1547 Ordinance #1548 e. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 1393 AND CHAPTER 16.04 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE UNIFORM BUILDING, PLUMBING, ENERGY, MECHANICAL, AND ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS CODES WITH AMENDMENTS. f. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 16.16 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, STANDARDS, AND APPENDICES WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS AND AMENDMENTS, PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS, LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GASES, EXPLOSIVE STORAGE, AND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, SETTING A BAIL SCHEDULE FOR OFFENSES UNDER THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, SETTING A FEE FOR PERMITS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR APPEALS AND ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. Award Bid to Signal Electric g. for S. 180th Street & Sperry Intersection & Parking Improvement Award Bid to Terry Elliott for Foster Golf Links Restaurant BID AWARD OLD BUSINESS Appeal of SEPA Determin- ation of Nonsignificance for the Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Ordinance #1549 - Setting Rate Classifications and Rates for the Storm and Surface Water Utility. Bid award to Signal Electric in the amount of $262,806.00 for the South 180th Street & Sperry Intersection and Parking Improvement. h. Bid award to Terry Elliott for five year concession agreement to operate the Foster Golf Links Restaurant effective January 2, 1990. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT A CONTRACT TO REROOF THE COMMUNITY CENTER BE AWARDED TO ROOF TOPPERS IN THE AMOUNTS OF $24,246.83 FOR ALTERNATE A, AND $19,349.90 FOR ALTERNATE B. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HARRIS THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND UPHOLD THE DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESPONSIBLE SEPA OFFICIAL. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor VanDusen confirmed that the appeal is denied. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Attorney Colgrove read an Ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, setting rate classifications and rates for the storm and surface water management utility and fixing an effective date. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1549 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Council discussed the new rate structure that was set up to cover the storm and surface water utility and recommended changes to the proposed ordinance. Jim Johnstone, President of the Surface Water Management Citizens Advisory Committee, requested that the committee continue to work with the City to review the rate structure from time to time to look at the rates as opposed to the capital being generated. • COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS AGENDA ITEM TITLE CAS NO. N `I S.E.P.A. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE FOR THE DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE. Original Agenda Date 12/4/89 Original Sponsor: Council N\ /Admin. \\ � . xX Apprvd. Timeline CITY COUNCIL DECISION IS DUE BEFORE JANUARY 5, 1990. Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE S.E.P.A. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL (DIRECTOR OF DCD) THAT THE DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT, THEREBY WARRANTING A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE. Sponsor's Recommended Action: UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL. Alternative Action: (1) SUSTAIN THE APPEALS AND REQUIRE STAFF TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. (2) SUSTAIN THE APPEALS AND REQUIRE STAFF TO ISSUE A MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE. Committee Recommendations: NONE -.- THIS IS A QUASI - JUDICIAL PROCEEDING REQUIRING THE WHOLE COUNCIL TO HEAR THE APPEALS. Administration Recommendations: SUSTAIN THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL. RECORD OF COUNCIL - ACTION Date Action COST IMPACT (if known) FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENDICES STAFF REPORT WITH ATTACHEMENTS. CAS Hearing Record Appeal of Determination of Nonsignificance Sensitive Area Ordinance EPIC File 22 -89 The following exhibits were entered into the record during the public hearing process on the subject appeal. Due to the unwieldiness and duplication of some documents a list is provided below for the Council's deliberations on the subject. Copies are available in City Clerk's office. Staff's Draft Findings and Conclusions are included, without the attachments, to provide a format to aid the Council in their formulation of Findings, Conclusions and Decision. Exhibits A. Catherine Harris Statement (three page statement of objections with regard to their appeals and the appeal process) B. Louise M. Strander and M. Catherine Harris four page text of verbal testimony 1. Statement expressing regret that hearing is held on night of hearing 2. Copy of Council December 4, 1989 Agenda 3. Environmental Mailings. Checklist for subject file 4. Reduced copy Sensitive Areas Map 5. South Central School District Boundary Map C. 6. Copy Determination of Nonsignificance 7. City Council Notice of Public Hearing 8. DCD Brochure /Notice on Sensitive Area 9. Notice of City Council Public Hearing appeal 10. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 21. Regulations for subject file for Moratorium on subject SEPA Environmental 11. Council Agenda Synopsis and attachment for subject appeal Page Two Hearing Record SEPA Appeal 12. Sensitive Areas Report, November 3, 1989 with attachments 13. KCM Vicinity map, Major Drainage Basin Map, Wetlands Map, Flood Prone Areas Map, Historic Creek Corridors Map, and Capital Improvements Map; and Tukwila Planning Area Scope Map. D. Staff Report with Draft Findings and Conclusions with Attachments on SEPA Appeal E. Draft Sensitive Area Ordinance SEPA APPEAL SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE EPIC 22 -89 DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS November 30, 1989 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION SEPA APPEAL Sensitive Areas clnance EPIC -22 -89 Page 1 INTRODUCTION Now before the City Council is the appeals of an environmental Determination of Nonsignificance ( "DNS "). Tukwila Municipal .Code (TMC) 21.04.050 Designation of responsible official authorizes the Director of the Department of Community Development to act as the "Responsible Official" to make that environmental determination which is appealable to the City Council. That determination was made based upon a body of environmental data and the specific rules of state law, known as the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "). STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT The environmental review process was triggered by the City's proposal to adopt a Sensitive Area's Ordinance ( "SAO "). SEPA is very specific in what the Responsible Official can consider in terms of the "environment" and what test must be applied in review of the impact of the SAO. Elements of the environment are exclusively the following per Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197- 11-444 and TMC 21.04.030: WAC 197 - 11-444 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT (1) Natural Environment (a) Earth (i) Geology (ii) Soils (iii) Topography (iv) Unique physical features (v) Erosion /enlargement of land area (accretion) (b) Air (i) Air quality (ii) Odor (iii) Climate (c) Water (i) Surface Water movement /quantity/quality (ii) Runoff /absorption (iii) Floods (iv) Groundwater movement /quantity/quality (v) Public water supplies (d) Plants and Animals (i) Habitat for and number or diversity of species of plants, fish, or other wildlife (ii) Unique species (iii) Fish or wildlife migration routes (e) Energy and natural resources (1) Amount required /rate of use /efficiency (ii) Source /availability (iii) Nonrenewable resources (iv) Conservation and renewable resources (v) Scenic resources SEPA APPEAL Sensitive Areas •inance • EPIC -22 -89 Page 2 (2) Built Environment (a) Environmental health (i) Noise (ii) Risk of explosion (iii) Releases or potential releases to the environment affecting public health, such as toxic or hazardous materials (b) Land and shoreline use (i) Relationship to existing land use plans and to estimated population (i i) Housing (iii) Light and glare (iv) Aesthetics (v) Recreation (vi) Historic and cultural preservation (vii) Agricultural crops (c) Transportation (i) Transportation systems (i i) Vehicular traffic (iii) Waterborne, rail and air traffic (iv) Parking (v) Movement /circulation of people or goods (vi) Traffic hazards (d) Public services and utilities (i) Fire (ii) Police (iii) Schools (iv) Parks or other recreational facilities (v) Maintenance (vi) Communications (vii) Water /storm water (viii) Sewer /solid waste (ix) Other governmental services or utilities Specifically excluded from consideration are economy and cost - benefit analysis. An environmental checklist was completed by staff and then reviewed by the Responsible Official. Attachment A. The Official had to decide whether or not the SAO would have a significant adverse effect on the above stated environment (WAC 197 -11 -740). The term "significant" has been interpreted by the courts to mean "...whenever more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability." That review yielded the decision that the SAO would not have more than a moderate effect on the environment, the "environment" being defined as above. If the Responsible Official determines there will be no probable significant adverse environmental impacts from a proposal, WAC 197 -11 -340 requires that the Official formalize that decision in a DNS. (Attachment B) WAC 197 - 11-680 and TMC 21.04.280 allow an appeal of the decision of the SEPA responsible official to the City Council. Timely written appeals were filed by two parties on the decision of issuing a DNS; as opposed to determining that more than 1 SEPA APPEAL Sensitive Areas Onnance EPIC -22 -89 Page 3 a moderate impact to the environment will occur, thereby necessitating preparation of an environmental impact statement ( "EIS ") prior to acting on the proposed SAO legislation. The City Council is constrained by TMC 21.04.280 (d) to hear the appeals de novo ( "from the beginning"), while giving the Official's decision "substantial weight ". This means that the Council must decide if the Official mistakenly issued the DNS based upon the appellants providing substantially relative more evidence than the Official. The appellants bear the burden of proof. The Council decision is required by TMC 21.04.280(c) to be made by Friday, January 5, 1989, which is sixty days from the date the appeals were filed. FINDINGS SUMMARY OF SEPA APPEALS The issues raised in the two appeal letters are listed below in bold. Staff has in some instances summarized the items listed by the appellant. If an issue is verbatim, quotation marks are used. Following each statement is staff's response. Also attached is a memorandum of November 29, 1989 from the City Attorney. Mrs. Catherine Harris and Mrs. Louise Strander (Attachment C) 1. The SAO and other pertaining documents will lead to the protection and propagation of noxious weeds and poisonous plants as defined and pre - empted by state and other legislation. While understandably a concern, this is not a significant adverse environmental impact. The proposed SAO is a zoning code overlay to preserve wetlands and watercourses and to prevent development with hazardous impacts and regulates use and development of these areas. Enhancement of these areas is possible, which would include removal of noxious weeds. 2. There was not a public hearing or public input during development of subject document, or other attachments. Environmental checklist, SEPA Determination and wetlands inventory did not involve citizen input until the checklist has been prepared and determination made. Preparation of an environmental checklist does not involve public hearings. SEPA APPEAL Sensitive Areas Sinance • EPIC -22 -89 Page 4 An article appeared in the Hazelnut and a brochure dealing specifically with the issue was sent to every property owner in the City. A public workshop on the SAO was held on 25 October 1989. The DNS was issued October 26, 1989. The legislative process is separate from SEPA and may change the SAO. A modified SAO would then involve additional administrative SEPA review of probable environment impacts. 3. "No copy of legal notice, or affidavit of publication thereof, indicating subject document was on file at Tukwila City Hall, and indicating appeal and comment time periods." "According to distributed copies of DNS there was apparently no copies sent to the following parties which would be affected by and/or interested in subject document with attachments: South Central School District and Federal Railroad Administration." Per WAC 197 -11 -502 and TMC 21.04.210 notification is not required but was given to agencies with areas of environmental expertise. (Attachment E) 4. "Page 12 of distributed copies of subject document does not include signed affidavit attesting to true and complete knowledge that all matters required by the DNS are in fact non - significant." The person preparing checklist and name, address and phone number of contact person listed on first page of document is the same - Moira Carr Bradshaw. 5. "Within DNS, numerous references are made to what "may" exist, and where indicated things "may" exist. Further, there are also many references to "approximate." These indicate a lack of completeness and thoroughness leaving too much to guess work. & imprecise information on which to base an enormously sweeping action by the city." The draft ordinance, which was the subject of the checklist, is legislative and non -site specific. The threshold determination was made by review of the legislation itself and its effect on the environment. 6. Mr. Welsh states that water quality measures might be prohibited in an established buffer area which would have an adverse environmental impact. On page 12 of the draft SAO, Mitigation Plans for Alterations to Wetlands and Streams, is a proposed procedure for altering watercourses, wetlands or their buffers which would allow for measures which would enhance water quality functions. SEPA APPEAL Sensitive Areas Oitance • EPIC -22 -89 Pap 5. 7. Reasonable alternatives to protect steep slopes and wetlands are missing from SAO. An alternative to accomplishing the objectives of the proposal was listed on page 16 of the Checklist (Attachment A.) Continued reliance on the SEPA process to pursue environmental policies however leads to inconsistent, difficult, untimely administrative solutions in sporadic application. 8. Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce and the conflicts has been submitted. Conflicts with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan are identified on page 15 of the checklist and suggests provisions for maintenance of natural areas to reduce SAO conflicts with Plan. 9. The proposal's objectives are vague and not proven and that no alternate means have been discussed or compared. Page 16 of the checklist discusses the objectives of the proposal. The alternate means of accomplishing objectives is to continue to rely on Comprehensive Plan policies and the SEPA process as stated on page 16, number 2. 10. "...no relationship has been demonstrated determining the value of property being taken in relationship to the public benefit. " Mr. Welsh states that there will be property takings for public use and that the City of Tukwila revenues to pay for such would be an irretrievable commitment of monetary resources. An environmental impact statement should be required to discuss these costs and expenditure alternatives. TMC 21.14.190 EIS Additional Elements precludes this analysis from consideration of whether or not significant impacts occur. 11. "The lack of an environmental impact statement for this proposal violates the guidelines set out in Revised Code of Washington 43.21C.030. The legislature directs that to the fullest extent possible a municipal corporation shall include in every recommendation on proposals for legislation, significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on '(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,...(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. "' Because an EIS was not required these "alternatives" and "commitments" are not applicable to the DNS. SEPA APPEAL Sensitive Areas inance EPIC -22 -89 Page 6 CONCLUSIONS 1. The appellant's issues do not show that the Official acted erroneously. 2. The appellant's issues do not show where or how the proposal is likely to have a probable significant adverse impact to the environment as defined by WAC 197 -11 -744 and TMC 21.04.030. RECOMMENDATIONS The City Council adopt the above findings and conclusions and uphold the Determination of Nonsignificance. ATTACHMENTS AA. Memorandum of November 29, 1989 from City Attorney A. SAO Environmental Checklist (EPIC 22 -89) B. Determination of Nonsignificance (EPIC 22 -89) C. Harris /Strander Appeal Letter D. Welsh Appeal Letter E. Affidavit of Distribution (EPIC 22 -89) . REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Page 4 December 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of SEPA Determin- ation of Nonsignificance for the Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance Council President Stoknes declared the Public Hearing open at 8:25 p.m. Attorney Colgrove provided clarification to the Council on the procedures called for in the TMC regarding this type of appeal. In addition, he swore in en masse all persons intending to testify at the Public Hearing. M. Catherine Harris, 5610 So. 151st Street, representing herself and Louise Strander, appellants, read a statement which stated, in part, that they did not believe they could obtain a fair appeal because the Council who was hearing the appeal was made up of members who sponsored the proposed Sensitive Areas Ordinance upon which the DNS is based. She noted a citizen's protest over Councilman Moriwaki's testimony at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in November. Further, Ms. Harris stated that it was unfair that the appeal was scheduled at a regular meeting of the City Council with an extensive agenda. She also objected that neither the City's SEPA Ordinance nor TMC, Chapter 21, provides for the procedures for conducting and appeal. Ms. Harris noted that certain documents appeared to be prejudicial to the appellants. She questioned the procedure of opening the hearing to an at -large audience for participation. Lastly, Ms. Harris stated that a 10 day appeal period is unreasonably short. The appellants request the Council to reschedule the hearing before an independent governmental body or official. Attorney Colgrove responded that the appellants' main objectives appear to be the procedures and timeframes. Councilman Robertson, clarified several legal issues with the City Attorney. John Colgrove responded that there is another level of appeal available to the appellants, from the City to the courts. Ms. Harris continued that they base their appeal on the following items: that there appeared to be differences between the documents that were available for distribution and those Mrs. Strander collected; that the Council could have chosen to hold a Public Hearing or discussion on the DNS; that the draft SAO did not have an ad -hoc citizens' committee to assist m the formulation of the proposal; that the Wetlands study was not included in the study given to Mrs. Strander. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit A, written copy of verbal statement regarding the Hearing of Appeals of Determination of Non - Significance of Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance dated October 25, 1989; Exhibit B, written copy of verbal testimony of appeal, dated December 4, 1989; Exhibit C, original statement regarding the Hearing of Appeals of Determination of Non - Significance of Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance, dated October 25, 1989, original of verbal testimony of appeal, copy of the Determination of Non - Significance dated October 25, 1989, Sensitive Areas Slopes Map, copy of Title 21 Environmental Regulations, copy of Sensitive Areas Ordinance Findings and Conclusion dated November 30, 1989; Sensitive Areas Report dated November 3, 1989. John Welch, 2700 So. 133rd Street, Seattle, told the Council that he feels the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is not nonsignificant as it effects housing, commercial and industrial building. It is his opinion that the SAO is in direct conflict with the present Comprehensive Plan. Jeanette Burage, Northwest Legal Foundation, discussed possible legal consequences for not having an Environmental Impact Statement. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Page 5 December 4, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING (con't) PUBLIC HEARING 1990 Budget NEW BUSINESS Ordinance No. 1546 Levying General Taxes for the City of Tukwila for the Fiscal Year Commencing January 1, 1990. Resolution No. 1122 Accepting the Donation of Certain Real Property to the City by Barnard O. Wilcox and Ida Chandler Wilcox Rick Beeler, Director of the Department of Community Development and the Responsible SEPA Official, commented that he was constrained by SEPA and TMC 21.04 to review the data that they had on the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the checklist, and supportive evidence, to the threshold determination of whether or not the SAO would probably cause a significant adverse environmental impact. Information that was available to him at that time led him to believe it would not cause that impact. Based on that information, Mr. Beeler recommends that the appeal be denied. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit D, Staff Reports with attachments A -E; Exhibit E, Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Council President Stoknes closed the Public Hearing at 10:33 p.m. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ITEM 9C BE MOVED BELOW ITEM 10B FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION.* Councilman Robertson stated that he would like a week to review the written material. Councilman Moriwaki informed the Council that this is a quasi-judicial issue and cannot be discussed between councilmembers. *MOTION FAILED MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, THAT THE DECISION ON ITEM 9C BE FORWARDED TO THE REGULAR MEETING ON DECEMBER 18,1989. MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. Council President Stoknes opened the public hearing on the Proposed 1990 Budget at 10:37 p.m. Receiving no comments from the audience, Council President Stoknes closed the public hearing at 10:38 p.m. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Colgrove read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1990, on all property, both real and personal, in said City which is subject to taxation for the purpose of paying sufficient revenue to carry the several departments of said City for the ensuing year as required by law. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1546 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Colgrove read a Resolution of the City of Tukwila, Washington, accepting the donation of certain real property to the City by Barnard O. Wilcox and Ida Chandler Wilcox, husband and wife, and authorizing the Mayor to accept the donation on behalf of the City. • 01. / •49/4-dy2 /a, ,)-700 1rr ()yea 4'6161.5 .6i14a/ - 0,e6 veg6t -_lam C..� - - - -- �7i1C.f_ . e TUIMIL. CITY COUNCII. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING December 4, 1989 7:00 p.m. Ord. #1545 Res. #1122 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. SPECIAL AWARDS — �EFRT CRAWLEY, RETIRED TUKWI.A FIRE BUSINESS LEADER AWARD Mile and Dave Tullis, Boardwalk Restaurant Richard Seracka, Doubletree Suites Hotel 5. SPECIAL PRESENTATION DAN GRAVES, King Co. Animal Control 6. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: At this time, you are invited to comment on items that are not included on this agenda. 7. CONSENT AGENDA b. Approval of.Vouchers 8. BID AWARDS a. Award bid for Foster Fie Station #54 Remodel to John Korsmo Construction, Inc., in the amount of $283,647. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Vacation of a portion of East ID Way lying north of Tax Lot #198. b. Final Assessment Roll for LID #32, Southcenter Pkwy. Sanitary Sewer Extension. c. Appeal of the SEPA Determination of Nonaignificance for the draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. d. City of Tukwila 1990 Budget • 10. NEW BUSINESS a. An ordinance levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1990. b. A resolution accepting the donation of certain real property to the City by Barnard O. Wilcox and Ida Chandler Wilcox c. Budget Review: Contingency Fund Human Fire Equip. Cum.Res. Fund Animal Control City Hall Lim.GO 1977 Bond Fund City Clerk/Court Golf Crse Unlim.GO 1978 Bond Fund Finance Special Assessments Fund City Attorney Local Improvement Guarantee Fund Sister City Facility Replacement Fund Board of Adjustment Water/Sewer Rev. Bond Fund Personnel/Civil Serv. Bond Reserve Fund Police • Firemen's Pension Water Sever 11. ET Water/Sewer Construction a. Mayor b. City Council c. Staff d. City Attorney e. Intergovernmental 12. MISCELiMIEOUS 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pending Litigation (30 min.) 14. ADJOURNMENT FROM :CITY OF TUKI,J I LA INTRODUCTION TO :TUKLJILA CITY ATTY •NOV 29. 1989 1 :13PM P.02 Now before the City Council is the appeals of an environmental Determination of Nonsignificance ( "DNS "). Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 21.04.050 Designation of responsibl,e_Off-ci.l authorizes the Director of the Department of Community Development to act as the "Responsible Official" to make that environmental determination which is appealable to the City Council. That determination was made based upon a body of environmental data and the specific rules of state law, known as the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "). STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT The environmental review process was triggered by the City's proposal to adopt a Sensitive Area's Ordinance ( "SAO "). SEPA is very specific in what the Responsible Official can consider in terms of the "environment" and what test must be applied in review of the impact of the SAO. Elements of the environment are exclusively the following per Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-444 and 'AMC 21.04.030; (List all of WAC section) Specifically excluded from consideration are economy and cost- benefit analysis. An environmental checklist was completed by staff and then reviewed by the Responsible Official. The Official had to decide whether or not the SAO would have a significant adverse effect on the above stated environment (WAC 197 - 11-740). The term "significant" has been interpreted by the courts to mean "...whenever more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability." That review yielded the derision that. the SA() would not have more than a moderate effect on the environment, the "environment" being defined as above. If the Responsible Official determines there will be no probable significant adverse environmental impacts from a proposal, WAC 197 -11 -340 requires that the Official formalize that decision in a DNS which is attached. WAC 197- 11-680 and TMC 21.04.280 allow an appeal of the decision of the SEPA'gesponsible Official to the City. Council. Timely written appeals were filed by two parties oft the decision of issuing a DNS as opposed to determining that more than a moderate impact to the environment will occur, thereby necessitating preparation of an environmental impact statement ( "EIS ") prior to acting on the proposed SAO legislation. Theme Council is constrained b the State Administrative FROM :CITY OF TUKWILA Proc - • - TO :TUKIJILA CITY ATTY 411NOU 29, 1999 1:14PM F.93 TmC (d) ►rub dQ no vie _. : *. _pit e to e a peals while caving the Official's decision. "substantial weight ". This means that the Council must decide if tF'e Official mistakenly issued the DNS based upon the appellants providing substantially relative more evidence than the Official. The appellants bear the burden of proof. The Council decision is required by TMC 21.04.280(c) to be made by Friday, January 5, 1989,. which is sixty days from the date the appeals were filed. FINDINGS SUMMARY OF SEPA APPEALS The issues raised in the two appeal letters are listed below in bold. Staff has in some instances summarized the items listed by the appellant. If an issue is verbatim, quotation marks are used. Following each statement is staff's response. Mrs. Catherine Harris and Mrs. Louise Strander 1. The SAO and other pertaining documents will lead to the protection and propagation of noxious weeds and poisonous plants as defined and pre - empted by state and other legislation. While understandable a concern, this is not a significant adverse environmental impact. The proposed SAO is a zoning code overlay to preserve wetlands and watercourses and to prevent development with hazardous impacts and regulates use and development of these areas. Enhancement of these areas is possible, which would include removal of noxious weeds. 2. There was not a public hearing or public input during development of subject document, or other attachments. Environmental checklist, SEPA Determination and wetlands inventory did not involve citizen input until the checklist has been prepared and determination made. Preparation of an environmental checklist does not involve public hearings. An article appeared in the Hazelnut and a brochure dealing specifically with the issue was sent to every property owner in the City. FROM :CITY OF TUKWILA • TO :TUKWILA CITY ATTY "'NOV 29, 1989 1:15PM P.04 A public workshop on the SAO was held on October Z-5 1989. 1-% ?e 1:91J-S t-' 5 i FROM :CITY OF TUKIJILA 0 TO:TUKIJILA CITY ATTY •NOU 29, 1989 1:15PM P.05 procedure for altering watercourses, wetlands or their buffers which would allow for measures which would enhance water quality functions. 7. Reasonable alternatives to protect steep slopes and wetlands are missing from SAO. ,rnQ ova. ((a) WAC 197 -11- requires consideration of alternatives only it significant impacts are identified. P. sow i, u,!s 8. Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce and the conflicts has been submitted. Conflicts with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan are identified on page 15 of the checklist and suggests provisions for maintenance of natural areas to reduce SAO conflicts with Plan. 9. The proposal's objectives are vague and not proven and that no alternate means have been discussed or compared. Page 16 of the checklist discusses the objectives of the proposal. The alternate means of accomplishing objectives is to continue to rely on Comprehensive Plan policies and the SE?A process as stated on page 16, number 2. 10. ..no relationship has been demonstrated determining the value of property being taken in relationship to the public benefit. " Mr. Welsh states that there will be property takings for public use and that the City of Tukwila revenues to pay for such would be an irretrievable commitment of monetary resources. An environmental impact statement should be required to discuss these costs and expenditure alternatives. TMC 21.14.190 EIS Additional Elements precludes this analysis from consideration of whether or not significant impacts occur. 11. "The lack of an environmental impact statement for this proposal violates the guidelines set out in Revised Code of Washington 43.21C.030. The legislature directs that to the fullest extent possible a municipal corporation shall include in every recommendation on proposals for legislation, significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on: `(iii) alternatives to the proposed FROM :CITY OF TUKIJILA • TO:TUKWILA CITY ATTY :NOU 29. 1989 1 :16PM P.06 action,...(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented . " Because an EIS was not required these "alternatives" and "commitments" are not applicable to the DNS. CONCLUSIONS 1. The appellant's issues do not show that the Official acted erroneously. 2. The appellant's issues do not show where or how the proposal is likely to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact as defined by WAC 197 -11 -744 and TMC 21.04.030. zer_ f g 7( 71. 11\". (u--boxici'L 0/011 ti(-,h/C co-e&.0_c(or/JJ 4-A-A bjU (, 77. 6-1-- A/61\196-4/(i* aveic 1 MEMORANDUM November 29, 1989 TO: JOHN F. COLGROVE FROM: JOHN F. MAGNUSON RE: TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE SUBJ: ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL OF THE TUKWILA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION OF. NONSIGNIFICANCE I.. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Under the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "), an environmental impact statement ( "EIS ") must be included "in every recommendation or report for proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment . . " RCW..43.21C.030(2)(c). Certain actions are, however, exempt from the EIS requirement. First, "[a]ctions categorically exempt under •RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement . • RCW 43.21C.031. Those exemptions developed by the Department of Ecology ( "DOE ") pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030 have been adopted by Tukwila pursuant to TMC 21.04.100. Second, actions which do not have significant adverse impacts upon the environment apparently do not require the preparation of an EIS. "An [EIS] is required to analyze only those probable adverse environmental impacts which are MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 1 - 6341C3 ATTACHMENT AA significant. Beneficial environmental impacts may be discussed." RCW 43.21C.030 (emphasis added). If a proposed piece of legislation is not statutorily exempt from the required preparation of an EIS, an "environmental checklist" is prepared. WAC 197 -11 -315. In the present context, the checklist helps the City identify potential environmental impacts due to the proposal and to decide if the impacts are adverse or significant. If it is determined that the proposed piece of legislation does not adversely impact the environment, a threshold determination of nonsignificance ( "DNS ") is made by the responsible official, and no EIS need be prepared. WAC'197 -11 -340. and TMC 21.04.080. With respect to any legislative proposals made by the City itself, Tukwila's Planning Director is responsible for making any threshold determinations of nonsignificance. TMC 21.04.050. II. APPEAL OF DNS A threshold DNS by a nonelected City official pursuant to TMC 21.04.050 may be appealed to the City Council. The appeal hearing "shall be made de novo[,l" and "[a]l]. relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal . . . ." TMC 21.04.280. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075 and TMC 21.04.280(e), the appeals hearing before the City Council must result in a record for potential judicial review which MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 2 6341 C 3 • • includes the following: (1) findings of fact and conclusions; (2) testimony under oath; and (3) a taped or written transcript. Further, under TMC 21.04.280(d), the Council shall give "substantial weight" to the decisions made by the Planning Director in making his determination of DNS. III. THE PRESENT DNS The Planning Director determined that Tukwila's proposed Sensitive Areas Overlying Zone "did not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment" after reviewing a completed environmental checklist and other information on file. IV. THE PRESENT APPEALS A. November 6, 1989 Appeal Filed by M. Catherine Harris and Louise M. Strander. The issues raised in this appeal are discussed separately as follows: 1. The challenge contained in paragraph 1 of this appeal states that the provisions of the DNS and "other pertaining documents will lead to the protection and propagation of noxious weeds and poisonous plants as defined by and preempted by state and other legislation." The alleged preemptive legislation is not identified nor could I identify it upon my own research. The Council is free to hear testimony on this MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 3 6341 C 3 • • issue and make its own conclusion and finding of fact with respect to whether or not the continued existence of these plants constitutes an adverse environmental impact. 2. Paragraph 2 challenges that there was no public hearing or public input during development of the DNS. There is no per se right of the public to participate in the administrative preparation of a DNS. Following notice, of the Planning Department's determination of DNS, which was accomplished here, any aggrieved parties may challenge the DNS finding by an appeal to the City Council. 3. The challenge raised in the third paragraph of this appeal appears to reiterate the challenge discussed in paragraph 2, above. Under WAC 197 -11 -335, adopted by TMC 21.04.080, the agency making the threshold determination may do so based upon the following information: (1) physical investigations and independent studies; (2) consultation with other agencies; and /or (3) the environmental checklist. No public input or hearings are required. 4. The fourth challenge raised by the appeal argues that no affidavit of publication indicating that the DNS was on file at Tukwila City Hall or indicating the appeal period was apparently attached to the DNS. I have been unable to locate any such requirement that there be an affidavit of publication. In any event, the publication issue raises a question of fact which the Council may inquire into on its own MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 4 6341 C 3 initiative. It is noteworthy that the DNS, on its face, directs that City Clerk should publish the DNS in the Sunday, October 29, 1989 edition of the Valley Daily News. The DNS, as published, also includes directions with respect to how one can appeal the DNS. 5. Paragraph 5 raises a challenge to "page 12 of distributed copies of subject document." The challenge argues that page 12 does not include a signed affidavit attesting to knowledge that the DNS is in fact nonsignificant. I do not have a copy of page 12, but it would seem that the mere fact that the Planning Director found that the proposed legislation "does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment" accurately states the conclusion of the Planning Director. I am unaware of any statutory requirement that these matters be attested to by affidavit. 6. The sixth challenge to the DNS basically argues that the DNS was based upon a lack of completeness and thoroughness. Once again, this is a finding which is well within the Council's own fact- finding ability on de novo review. However, the Planning Director's decision should be given "substantial weight ". TMC 21.04.280(d). 7. The seventh challenge raised by this appeal concerns an allegation that no copies of the DNS were sent to the following parties: (1) South Central School District, and (2) the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety. As MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 5 6341C3 noted earlier, the DNS provides on its face for publication in the Valley Daily News on Sunday, October 29, 1989. TMC 21.04.210 provides the public notice procedure for a DNS. This section states that public notice will be given in several circumstances, including "[w]henever the responsible official determines that public notice is required." Notice under the section may be given by at least one of the following methods: (1) posting the property, for site - specific proposals; (2) publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city or general area where the proposal is located; (3) notifying public or private groups or individuals which have requested in writing notification for a certain proposal being considered; and (4) notifying owners of record of those properties within 300 feet of the subject property for site- specific proposals. TMC 21.04.210(c)(1) -(4). At least one of these methods has been complied with, namely method No. 2 which provides for published notice. Unless the two agencies which allegedly have failed to receive notice specifically requested such notice, there is no public notice issue. There may, however, be a notice issue under RCW 43.21C.080 of SEPA. Under this section, notice of any action taken by a governmental agency may be given in the following manner: (1) by publishing notice on the same day of each week for two consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper of general circulation MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 6 6341 C 3 in the area where the property which is the subject of the action is located; (2) by filing notice of such action with the DOE at its main office in Olympia prior to the date of the last newspaper publication; and (3) for notice to property owners in the context of a project proposal. A nonproject proposal is defined by SEPA as an action which is different or broader than a single site - specific project, such as plans, policies, and programs. It appears certain that the sensitive areas ordinance is a nonproject action and, consequently, personal notice to any affected property owner is not required. Whether or not Tukwila's notice is otherwise invalid because it was not published for two consecutive weeks is an issue which has not been raised by appellants. However, RCW 43.21C.080 is phrased in the permissive "may" rather than the mandatory "shall" and the City has otherwise given notice in accord with its own provisions under TMC 21.04.210 and WAC 197 -11 -510. B. November 6, 1989 Appeal by John T. Welch and Tukwila Property Owners for Property Rights.. 1. Paragraph 1 raises a challenge to the DNS under TMC 21.04.120(c)(1)(B). The challenge argues that under that subsection that proposals which include both exempt and nonexempt actions shall be dealt with in the manner stated therein. This section is inapplicable to the DNS at issue. The Planning Director determined that the proposed legislation was not exempt. In accord with his statutory directives, the MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 7 6341 C 3 Planning Director prepared an environmental checklist and concluded that the proposed legislation "does not have a probable significant adverse impact ". As discussed in Section I above, a threshold DNS can be made upon either a finding that the proposal legislation is statutorily exempt or that the proposed legislation does not adversely impact the environment. A DNS issued solely upon the latter basis is not within the ambit of the section cited by the appellant. 2. This challenge cites TMC 21.04.140(a)(2). Under this subsection, a "completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter." The checklist must identify any potential conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts. Whether or not the environmental checklist has included such conflicts and proposed measures is a question of fact within the Council's fact - finding power. These potential conflicts are apparently identified on page 15 of the checklist. 3. The appellants' third challenge is under the same subsection identified in paragraph 2, above. .Under TMC 21.04.140(a)(3), the environmental checklist must include a "description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preferred course of • MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 8 6341C3 • • action." Whether or not the environmental checklist developed by the Planning Director includes such information as a question of fact within the fact - finding power of the City Council. The information is apparently set forth on page 16 of the checklist. 4. The fourth challenge raised by appellants argues that certain elements normally included in an EIS were not developed by the Planning Director. Obviously, since the Planning Director determined that there was no adverse environmental impact posed by the proposed legislation, he also determined that an EIS was not necessary and any failure on his part to address the information raised by appellants in the fourth challenge is not error. 5. The fifth challenge addresses certain timetables established by TMC 21.04.090. Apparently appellants argue that under subsection (1) of this section, the City did not comply with the directive that it "should normally identify whether an action is categorically exempt within seven business days of receiving a completed action." Whether or not the City timely made such a determination is not dispositive because TMC 21.04.090 specifically states the "time estimates contained herein shall not be construed to be mandatory." 6. This challenge is based upon the same section cited in the challenges raised in paragraph No. 1, above. Again, since the Planning Director did not determine that any part of the MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) - Page 9 6341 C 3 • proposed legislation was statutorily exempt from the EIS requirement, this section is inapplicable. 7. Paragraph 7 raises a challenge phrased as follows: "Taking of property without compensation would deplete the resources of Tukwila." This challenge is addressed more fully in a subsequent appeal filed by the same appellants on November 9, 1989. This challenge lacks merit because it challenges the DNS on the basis that it does not include information which is required under RCW 43.21C.030(c) in "every recommendation report on proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. RCW 43.21C.031 states that the required information outlined in RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) shall be prepared "on proposals for legislation and other major actions having a probable significant, adverse environmental impact." The Planning Director specifically found that the proposed legislation at issue did not have an adverse impact. Thus, he concluded that an EIS was unnecessary and, consequently, the preparation of the information required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) was also unnecessary. 8. The November 9, 1989 appeal "Addendum" by appellants appears to raise another challenge, namely that the EIS should discuss any potential costs which the City must pay for just compensation to property owners whose property could conceivably be taken by the proposed legislation. Again, this, matter is one more properly subject to inclusion in an EIS, which was found not to be necessary in this case. MEMO RE TUKWILA / SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE (ISSUES RELATED TO THE APPEAL) — Page 10 6341C3 FROM:CITY OF TUKWILA TO :TUKWILA CITY ATTY City Of iukrnii9� PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1649 NOU 29. 1989 1 :13PM P.21 FAX TRANSMISSION DATE/TIME: -__.. .c.211.1.1 .., TO: (Name) (Company Name) (FAX #) FAX #: 433 -1833 PHONE NO: 453 -- SUBJECT:_ PAGE(s)•1(+ Cover Sheet) COMMENTS: 6 S O S C4 L NOV 13 ' 11: 14 METRO EfiGR. SERVICE-2'.-206681.-111710 METRO 1 Exchange Building 821 Second Ave. 4 'Seattle, WA 95104-150 - • maw. 1 _.aiusgfehmosarifferfim,, \'f.. (NOV 13 1989 NOyember 13, 1989 Rick Beeler, Planning Director Citypf Tukwila 6299 00Uthcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Determination of Nonsignificance File No.: EPIC-22789 Draft Sensitive Areas Orriinance Dear Mr. Beeler: Metro staff has reviewed the draft Sensitive Areas ordinance and supports and encourages its adoption by the City Council. We agree that such an ordinance is necessary to protect water resources and minimize impacts to wetlands and other water bodies. We do advocate the ordinance address existing public utilities by including a reference to these facilities under Section 18.45.120, Exemptions (1.a. Ceneral). Maintenance repairs and re*abilitation of existing public facilities should be perm"tted under the sensitive areas. ordinace. Thank you for 1 he opportunity to review and comment. i sirctly, 6.(2_ 122.55Z,T- (.) (L.- Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:jmg3142 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY r.10 %i 1,929 Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000 November 8, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance and the proposed sensitive areas overlay zone within the zoning code. Draft Ordinance Page 2, 18.06.938. The labels "major" and "minor" wetlands describe a wetland in a manner that may not be appropriate in all circumstances. Minor wetlands may be considered insignificant, inconsequen- tial or small. In fact, one minor wetland in Tukwila's in- ventory is greater than 10 acres and has three habitat types. Value laden labels sometimes make it difficult to justify protection of lower value wetlands to the public and to the courts. Based on the experience of other local jurisdictions who have used value laden labels and switched, we recommend more general labels such as Category A, B, and C. (See fur- ther comments on wetlands definition below.) Draft Ordinance Page 3, 18.45.010(1)(b). The definition for "wetlands" established earlier in the or- dinance describes marshes, bogs and swamps utilizing the regulatory definition of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Excluded from this definition are open water areas and water courses. While water courses have been picked up separately as a sensitive area, open water areas such as those found in the "major wetland ", Tukwila Pond, will not be covered. We recommend either substituting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's definition of wetlands which covers open water areas to six feet in depth, or defining ponds as sensitive areas. Draft Ordinance Page 4, 18.45.040(2). The proposed wetlands and water course buffer widths are too small to carry out the objectives in (1)(b). Most of the literature related to water quality impacts on aquatic sites illustrates that adverse impacts occur at distances less than 100 feet. Depending on the sensitivity of the wetland, Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 2 adverse impacts may also occur at greater distances. The literature related to wildlife habitat likewise indicates that greater distances may be necessary to protect the habitat needs of certain species. The departments of Wild- life and Fisheries should be consulted for an accurate as- sessment. A 100 foot buffer should be the minimum that is required ad- jacent to major wetlands in Tukwila, which may be adjusted upward based on the criteria outlined in part 4. The 25 foot buffer for minor wetlands should be adjusted upward, at least for those with a rating of 2. Twenty -five feet is inadequate to accomplish much more than a visual separation between a development and a wetland, and should be reserved only for those isolated wetlands with ordinary habitat value. Draft Ordinance Page 5, 18.45.080(2)(a). The proposed ordinance language will allow the city to autho- rize use and development in wetlands which is offset by "en- hancement" or "mitigation ". Based upon the limited studies of restoration and creation projects to date, there is scien- tific consensus that no wetland can be duplicated or repli- cated exactly because of the complexity of natural systems. From a scientific perspective, much is still unknown about how wetlands function, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Even less is known about how to restore or recreate certain wetland types and functions. Careful monitoring of wetland restoration /creation projects is rare, resulting in little . data to base specific cause and effect relationships. Conse- quently, those designing wetlands and those evaluating plans are operating with very limited technical guidance. Because of the uncertainty surrounding wetlands creation, it is important that mitigation be defined according to and fol- low the sequence outlined in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules definition of mitigation. As defined in the SEPA Rules, mitigation may include changing project plans or selecting alternative sites to avoid or reduce adverse im- pacts, using preferred construction or management practices to reduce on -site and off -site effects, or compensating for unavoidable wetlands losses. To ensure this, we recommend that the general provisions be modified to state: "No use or development may occur in a wetland or watercourse except where such use or development is unavoidable and unavoidable impacts have been compensated through deliberate wetlands creation, restoration, or enhancement." Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 3 The following definitions are recommended: "Mitigation" includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wetland impacts. This includes: - Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; _ - Minimizing unavoidable impacts by limiting the magni- tude of the action; and - Compensating for unavoidable, minimized impacts by re- placing or providing substitute wetland resources or en- vironments. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project induced wetland losses, and includes, but is not limited to, the fol- lowing: "Restoration" - Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by: a. Past alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland, or b. Recent permitted alternations or activities where restoration is a condition of the permit. "Creation" - Actions performed to intentionally estab- lish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly occur. "Enhancement" - Actions performed to improve the condi- tion of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. Finally, it is important that you establish clear standards for adequate mitigation that address location, timing, kind, and acreage. If you feel that it is more appropriate to as- sess mitigation on a site -by -site basis, the ordinance must express a clear goal for all mitigation proposals. We strongly recommend that you adopt a goal of achieving no overall net loss of wetlands, as defined by acreage and func- tion, and in the long -term, to increase the quantity and quality of the city's wetlands. This goal has been endorsed by Governor Gardner and has been adopted in the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Letter to Mr. Beeler November 8, 1989 Page 4 If you have any questions, please call Mr. Bill Leonard of the Wetlands Section at (206) 438 -7161. Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR: cc: Bill Leonard Title 21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Chapters: 21.08. Siting Criteria for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities 21.04 State Environmental Policy Act Chapter 21.04 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT Sections: 21.04.010 21.04.020 21.04.030 21.04.040 21.04.050 21.04.060 21.04.070 21.04.080 21.04.090 21.04.100 21.04.110 21.04.120 21.04.130 21.04.140 21.04.150 21.04.160 21.04.170 21.04.180 21.04.190 21.04.200 21.04.210 21.04.220 21.04.230 21.04.240 21.04.250 21.04.260 21.04.270 Adopted -- Authority. General provisions -- Adoption by reference. Definitions -- Adoption by reference. Definitions -- Additional. Designation of responsible official. Lead agency -- Determination - Responsibilities. Lead agency -- Transfer of status to state agency. Categorical exemptions and threshold determina- tions-- Adoption by reference. Categorical exemptions and threshold determina- tions- -Time estimates. Categorical exemptions -- Adoption by reference. Categorical exemptions -- Flexible thresholds. Categorical exemptions -- Determination. Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. Threshold determinations -- Environmental check- list. Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. Documents required - -SEPA decisions. EIS -- Adoption by. reference. EIS -- Preparation. EIS -- Additional elements. EIS -- Commenting -- Adoption by reference. Public notice -- Procedure. Consulted agency responsibilities -- Official designated. Using existing environmental documents--Adop- tion by reference. SEPA -- Decisions -- Adoption by reference. SEPA -- Decisions -- Substantive authority. SEPA -- Compliance -- Adoption by reference. SEPA -- Policies. 320 -33 (Tukwila 6/89) • Sections: (Continued) 21.04.280 21.04.290 21.04.300 21.04.310 21.04.320 21.04.330 21.04.340 •.04.010 -- 21.04.030 Appeals. Notice -- Statute of limitations. Environmentally sensitive areas. Fees. Forms -- Adoption by reference. Copies on file. , Severability. ■ 21.04.010 Adopted -- Authority. (a) The city adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197 -11 -904. This chapter contains the city's SEPA procedures and policies. (b) The SEPA rules contained in WAC Chapter 197 -11 must be used in conjunction with this chapter. (Ord. 1331 §1, 1984). 21.04.020 General provisions -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference: 197 -11 -040 Definitions. 197 -11 -050 Lead agency. 197 -11 -055 Timing of the SEPA process. 197 -11 -060 Content of environmental review. 197 -11 -070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process. 197 -11 -080 Incomplete or unavailable information. 197 -11 -090 Supporting documents. 197 -11 -100 Information required of applicants. (Ord. 1331 §2, 1984). 21.04.030 Definitions -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -700 Definitions. 197 -11 -702 Act. 197 -11 -704 Action. 197 -11 -706 Addendum. 197 -11 -708 Adoption. 197 -11 -710 Affected tribe. 197 -11 -712 Affecting. 197 -11 -714 197 -11 -716 197 -11 -718 197 -11 -720 197 -11 -722 197 -11 -724 197 -11 -726 197 -11 -728 197 -11 -730 Agency. Applicant. Built environment. Categorical exemption. Consolidated appeal. Consulted agency. Cost - benefit analysis. County /city. Decision maker. 320 -34 (Tukwila 2/85) 21.04,040 197 -11 -732 Department. 197 -11 -734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 197 -11 -736 Determination of significance (DS). 197 -11 -738 EIS. 197 -11 -740 Environment. 197 -11 -742 Environmental checklist. 197 -11 -744 Environmental document. 197 -11 -746 Environmental review. 197 -11 -748 Environmentally sensitive area. 197 -11 -750 Expanded scoping. 197 -11 -752 Impacts. 197 -11 -754 Incorporation by reference. 197 -11 -756 Lands covered by water. 197 -11 -758 Lead agency. 197 -11 -760 License. 197 -11 -762 Local agency. 197 -11 -764 Major action. 197 -11 -766 Mitigated DNS. 197 -11 -768 Mitigation. 197 -11 -770 Natural environment. 197 -11 -772 NEPA. 197 -11 -774 Nonproject. 197 -11 -776 Phased review. 197 -11 -778 Preparation. 197 -11 -780 Private project. 197 -11 -782 Probable. 197 -11 -784 Proposal. 197 -11 -786 Reasonable alternative. 197 -11 -788 Responsible official. 197 -11 -790 SEPA. 197 -11 -792 Scope. 197 -11 -793 Scoping. 197 -11 -794 Significant. 197 -11 -796 State agency. 197 -11 -797 Threshold determination. 197 -11 -799 Underlying governmental action. (Ord. 1331 §27, 1984). 21.04.040 Definitions -- Additional. In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197 -11 -700 through 799, when used in this chapter the following terms shall have the follow- ing meanings, unless the content indicates otherwise: (1) "Department" means any division, subdivision or orga- nizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or order. (2) "SEPA Rules" means WAC Chapter 197 -11 adopted by the Department of Ecology. (3) "Early notice" means the city's response to an appli- cant stating whether it considers issuance of the determina- tion of significance likely for the applicant's proposal. (4) "Official notice" means the notice that the city shall give of the date and place for commencing an appeal of 320 -35 (Tukwila 7/85) .04.050 -- 21.04.060 final city action upon an application for a permit or ap- proval where said permit or approval has a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing appeal. (5) "Notice of action" means the notice of the time for commencing an appeal of a SEPA determination that the city or the applicant may give following final city action upon an application for a permit or approval when said permit or approval does not have a time period set by statute or ordinance for commencing an appeal. (Ord. 1344 §1, 1985; Ord. 1331 §3, 1984). 21.04.050 Designation of responsible official. (a) For those proposals for which the city is a lead agency the responsible official shall be the planning director or such other person as the mayor may designate in writing. (b) For all proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and perform any other functions assigned to the lead agency or respon- sible official by those sections of the SEPA Rules that have been adopted by reference. (Ord. 1344 §2, 1985; Ord. 1331 §4, 1984). 21.04.060 Lead agency -- Determination -- Responsibilities. (a) The responsible official shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197 -11 -050 and WAC 197 -11 -922 through 197 -11 -940, unless the lead agency has been pre- viously determined or the responsible official is aware that another department or agency is in the process of determin- ing the lead agency. (b) When the city is not the lead agency for a propo- sal, all departments of the city shall use and consider as appropriate either the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) or the final EIS of the lead agency in making deci- sions on the proposal. No city department shall prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency unless the city determines a supplemental environmental review is necessary under WAC 197 -11 -600. (c) If the city, or any of its departments, receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197 -11 -922 through 197 -11 -940, it may object to the determination. Any objec- tion must be made to the agency originally making the deter- mination and resolved within fifteen days of receipt of the determination or the city must petition the department of ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197 -11 -946 within the fifteen -day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the city may be initiated by the responsible official or mayor. (d) The responsible official is authorized to make agree- ments as to lead agency status or shared lead agency's duties for a proposal under WAC 197 -11 -942 and 197 -11 -944. 320 -36 (Tukwila 7/85) 41A.04.070--21.04.090 (e) The responsible official shall require sufficient information from the applicant to identify other agencies with jurisdiction. (Ord. 1344 §3, 1985; Ord. 1331 §5, 1984) . 21.04.070 Lead agency -- Transfer of status to state agency. For any proposal for a private project where the city would be the lead agency and for which one or more state agencies have jurisdiction, the city may elect to transfer the lead agency duties to the state agency. The state agency with jurisdiction appearing first on the prior- ity list in WAC 197 -11 -936 shall be the lead agency. To transfer lead agency duties, the responsible official must transmit a notice of the transfer, together with any relevant information available on the proposal, to the appropriate state agency with jurisdiction. The responsible official shall also give notice of the transfer to the private appli- cant and any other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposal. (Ord. 1344 §4, 1985: Ord. 1331 §6, 1984). 21.04.080 Categorical exemptions and threshold deter- minations-- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the follow- ing sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -300 Purpose of this part. 197 -11 -305 Categorical exemptions. 197 -11 -310 Threshold determination required. 197 -11 -315 Environmental checklist. 197 -11 -330 Threshold determination process. 197 -11 -335 Additional information. 197 -11 -340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 197 -11 -350 Mitigated DNS. 197-11-360 Determination of significance (DS)/initiation of scoping. 197 -11 -390 Effect of threshold determination. (Ord. 1331 §10, 1984). 21.04.090 Categorical exemptions and threshold determina- tions- -Time estimates. The time estimates contained in this section apply when the city processes licenses for all private projects and those governmental proposals submitted to the city by other agencies. The actual time may vary with the complexity of the project, availability of staff, cooperation of agencies with jurisdiction or expertise, etc. The time estimates contained herein shall not be construed to be man- datory. (1) Categorical Exemptions. The city should normally identify whether an action is categorically exempt within seven business days of receiving a completed application. 320 -37 (Tukwila 7/85) 21.04.090 (2) Threshold Determinations. (A) The city should normally complete threshold determinations that can be based solely upon review of the environmental checklist for the proposal within fifteen business 320 -37a - (Tukwila 7/85) *4.100- 21.04.110 days of the date an applicant's completed application and checklist are submitted. (B) When the responsible official requires further information from the applicant or consults with other agencies with jurisdiction: ( i) The city should normally request such' further information within fifteen business days of receiving a com- pleted application and environmental checklist. (_ ii) The city should normally wait no longer than thirty calendar days for a consulted agency to respond. (.iii) The responsible official should normally complete the threshold determination within fifteen business days of receiving the requested information from the applicant or the consulted agency. (C) When the city must initiate further studies, including field investigations, to obtain the information to make the threshold determination, the city should normally complete the studies within thirty calendar days of receiving a completed application and checklist. (D) The city should normally complete threshold determinations on actions where the applicant recommends in writing that an EIS be prepared, because of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts described in the application, within fifteen business days of receiving a completed application and checklist. (.E) The responsible official should normally respond to a request for early notice within ten business days. The threshold determination should normally, be made within fifteen business days of receipt of the changed or clarified proposal, environmental checklist and /or permit application. (.F) The time limits set forth in this subsection shall not apply to withdrawals of affirmative and negative threshold determinations where such withdrawals are made in accordance with Sections 340 and 360 of the SEPA Rules. (G) There shall be no time limits on governmental actions originated by the city for determination of categorical exemptions or threshold determinations. (Ord. 1331 §7, 1984). 21.04.100 Categorical exemptions -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following rules for categorical exemption of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference, as supplemented in this chapter: 197 -11 -800 Categorical exemptions. 197 -11 -880 Emergencies. 197 -11 -890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions. (Ord. 1331 §28, 1984). 21.04.110 Categorical exemptions -- Flexible thresholds. (a) The city establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions: 320 -38 (Tukwila 2/85) 21.04.120 (1) For residential dwelling units in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(i) up to four dwelling units. (2) For agricultural stuctures in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(ii) up to ten thousand square feet. , (3) For office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings in WAC 197- 11- 800(.1)(b)(iii) up to four thousand square feet, and up to twenty parking spaces. (4) For parking lots in WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b)(iv) up to forty parking spaces. (5) For landfills and excavations in WAC 197 -11 -800 (1)(b)(v) up to five hundred cubic yards. (b) The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, headquarters office, Olympia, Washington. (Ord. 1344 §6, 1985; Ord. 1331 §11, 1984). 21.04.120 Categorical exemptions -- Determination. (a) When the city receives an application for a license or, in the case of governmental proposals, a department initiates a proposal, the responsible official shall determine whether the license and /or the proposal is exempt. The determination that a proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this chapter shall apply to the proposal. (b) In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt the responsible official shall made certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the governmental license required. If a proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the responsible official shall determine the lead agency even if the license application that triggers the consideration is exempt. (c) If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the city may authorize exempt actions prior to com- pliance with the procedural requirements of this chapter, except that: (1) The city shall not give authorization for: (A) Any nonexempt action; (B) Any action that would have an adverse environ- mental impact; or (C) Any action that would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (2) The responsible official may withhold approval of an exempt action that would lead to modificaton of the physical environment, when such modification would serve no purpose if the nonexempt actions were not approved, and (3) The responsible official may withhold approval of exempt actions that would lead to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when the expenditures would serve no purpose if the nonexempt actions were not approved. (Ord. 1331 §12, 1984). 320 -39 (Tukwila 7/85) 4101.04.130 21.04.130 Threshold determination -- Review at conceptual stage. (a) If the city's only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other license that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that the city conduct environmental review' prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications. (b) In addition to the environmental documents an appli- cant may be required to submit the following information: (1) Conceptual site plans and building plans; (2) Other information as the responsible official may determine. (Ord. 1344 §5, 1985; Ord. 1331 §9, 1984). 21.04.140 Threshold determinations -- Environmental check- list. (a) A completed environmental checklist shall be filed at the same time as an application for a permit, license, certificate or other approval not exempted by this chapter. The checklist shall be in the form of WAC 197 -11 -960 with the following additions: (1) Specification of designation as environmentally sensitive on city's comprehensive land use policy plan map; (2) Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed mea- sures to reduce the conflicts; (3) Description of the objectives of the proposal, the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the pre- ferred course of action. (b) A checklist is not needed if the city and the appli- cant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has been com- pleted, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another agency. (c) The city shall use the environmental checklist to determine the lead agency and, if the city is the lead agency, for making the threshold determination. (d) For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete the environmental checklist. The city may provide information as necessary. For city proposals, the department initiating the proposal shall complete the environmental check- list for that proposal. (e) The city may decide to complete all or part of the environmental checklist for a private proposal, if either of the following occurs: (1) The city has technical information on a question or questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or (2) The applicant has provided inaccurate information on previous proposals or on proposals currently under consi- deration. (Ord. 1344 §7, 1985; Ord. 1331 §13, 1984). 320 -40 (Tukwila 7/85) 21.04.150 21.04.150 Threshold determinations -- Mitigated DNS. (a) The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant. (b) An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether a Determination of Significance (DS) is likely. The request must: (1) Follow submission of a permit application and environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the department is lead agency; and (2) Precede the city's actual threshold determina- tion for the proposal. (c) The responsible official's written response to the request for early notice shall: (1) State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern that are leading the city to consider a DS; and (2) State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the environmental checklist and /or permit application as necessary to reflect the changes or clarifications. (d) When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal. (1) If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation measures, the city shall issue and circu- late a determination of nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional information or mitigation measures are required. (2) If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS, the city shall make the threshold deter- mination, issuing a DNS or DS as appropriate. (3) The applicant's proposed mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific. (4) Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff reports, studies or other documents. (.e) The city shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fifteen days after the date of issuance. (f) Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term 320 -41 (Tukwila 7/85) • •.04.160--21.04.170 Or condition of the permit or enforced in any manner speci- fically prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of any license issued. (g) If the city's tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were in- corporated in a mitigation DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the threshold determination to assure con- sistency with WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. (h) The city's written response under subsection (c) of this section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In addition, preliminary discussion of clari- fication or changes to a proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its threshold determination. (Ord. 1344 §8, 1985; Ord. 1331 §14, 1984). 21.04.160 Documents required - -SEPA decisions. For non- exempt proposals, the DNS or draft EIS for the proposal shall accompany the city staff's recommendation to any appropriate advisory body such as the planning commission. (Ord. 1331 §8, 1984). 21.04.170 EIS -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference as supplemented by this chapter: 197 -11 -400 Purpose of EIS. 197 -11 -402 General requirements. 197 -11 -405 EIS types. 197 -11 -406 EIS timing. 197 -11 -408 Scoping. 197 -11 -410 Expanded scoping. 197 -11 -420 EIS preparation. 197 -11 -425 Style and size. 197 -11 -430 Format. 197 -11 -435 Cover letter or memo. 197 -11 -440 EIS contents. 197 -11 -442 Contents of EIS on nonproject proposals. 197 -11 -443. EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS. 197 -11 -444 Elements of the environment. 197 -11 -448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations. 197 -11 -450 Cost - benefit analysis. 197 -11 -455 Issuance of DEIS. 197 -11 -460 Issuance of FEIS. (Ord. 1331 §15, 1984). 320 -42 (Tukwila 7/85) 111 401.04.180 -- 21.04.200 21.04.180 EIS -- Prearation. (a) Preparation of draft EIS's (DEIS) and final EIS's (FEIS) and supplemental EIS's (SEIS) shall be under the direction of the responsible official. Before the city issues an EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with thils chapter and WAC Chapter 197 -11. (b) The DEIS and FEIS or SEIS shall be prepared at the city's option by the city staff, the applicant, or by a con- sultant approved by the city. If the responsible official requires an EIS for a proposal and determines that someone other than the city will prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant immediately after com- pletion of the threshold determination. The responsible official shall also notify the applicant of the city's pro- cedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the draft and final EIS prior to distribution. (c) The city may require an applicant to provide infor- mation the city does not possess, including specific investi- gations. However, the applicant is not required to supply information that is not required under this chapter or that is being requested from another agency; provided, however, this does not apply to information the city may request under another ordinance or statute. (Ord. 1344 §9, 1985; Ord. 1331 §16, 1984). 21.04.190 EIS -- Additional elements. The following additional elements may be part of the environment for the purpose of EIS content, but do not add to the criteria for threshold determinations or perform any other function of purpose under this chapter: (1) Economy; (2) Social policy analysis; (3) Cost - benefit analysis; (4) Such other elements as may be required by the responsible official. (Ord. 1331 §17, 1984). 21.04.200 city adopts the now existing or supplemented in 197 -11 -500 197 -11 -502 197 -11 -504 197 -11 -508 197 -11 -535 197 -11 -545 197 -11 -550 197 -11 -560 197 -11 -570 (Ord. 1331 §18, EIS -- Commenting -- Adoption by reference. The following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as as may be amended hereafter, by reference as this chapter: Purpose of this part. Inviting comment. Availability and cost of environmental docu- ments. SEPA Register. Public hearings and meetings. Effect of no comment. Specificity of comments. FEIS response to comments. Consulted agency costs to assist lead agency. 1984). 320 -43 (Tukwila 7/85) 21.04.210 21.04.210 Public notice -- Procedure. (a) Whenever public notice is required, the city shall follow the procedures set forth in this section. (b) Public notice will be given in the following situa- tions: (.1) When the city issues the following determinations of nonsignificance (.DNS): (A) DNS involving another agency with jurisdiction, (B) DNS involving the demolition of any structure or facility not exempted by WAC 197- 11- 800(2)(.f) or 197 -11 -880, (C) DNS involving the issuance of a clearing or grading permit not exempted by WAC 197 -11 -800 through 197 -11 890, (D) DNS issued following a request for early notice pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 350(2), (E) Mitigated DNS issued pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 350(3), (F) DNS issued following the withdrawal of a DS pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 360(4); (2) When the city issues a determination of signifi- cance to commence scoping; (3) When a draft EIS (DEIS) is available for public comment; (4) Whenever the city holds a public hearing pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -535; (5) Whenever the responsible official determines that public notice is required. (c) The city shall give public notice by using at least one of the following methods: (1) Posting the property, for site - specific proposals; (2) Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circu- lation in the county, city or general area where the proposal is located; (3) Notifying public or private groups or individuals which have requested in writing notification for a certain proposal being considered; (4) Notifying owners of record of those properties within three hundred feet of the subject property for site specific proposals. (d) Notice of public hearings shall be published no later than ten days before the hearing. Notice of public hearings on nonproject proposals shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. (e) The city may require an applicant to compensate the city for the costs of compliance with the public notice re- quirements for the applicant's proposal and /or provide services and materials to assist. (Ord. 1344 §10, 1985; Ord. 1331 §19, 1984). 320 -44 (Tukwila 7/85) 111 0..04.220 -- 21.04.230 21.04.220 Consulted agency responsibilities -- Official designated. (a) The responsible official shall be responsible for preparation of written comments for the city in response to a consultation request prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping and reviewing of a draft EIS.' (b) The responsible official shall be resiponsible for the city's compliance with WAC 197 -11 -550 whenever the city is a consulted agency and is authorized to develop operating procedures that will enxure that responses to consulation requests are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all appropriate departments of the city. (Ord. 1331 §20, 1984) . 21.04.230 Using existing environmental documents- - Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference: 197 -11 -600 When to use existing environmental documents. 197 -11 -610 Use of NEPA documents. 197 -11 -620 Supplemental environmental impact statements. 197 -11 -625 Addenda -- Procedures. 320 -44a (Tukwila 7/85) • 04.240 -- 21.04.260 197 -11 -630 Adoption -- Procedures. 197 -11 -635 Incorporation by reference -- Procedures. 197 -11 -640 Combining documents. (Ord. 1331 §21, 1984). 21.04.240 SEPA -- Decisions -- Adoption by reference., The city adopts the following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference: 197 -11 -650 Purpose of this part. 197 -11 -655 Implementation. 197 -11 -660 Substantive authority and mitigation. 197 -11 -680 Appeals. 197 -11 -700 Definitions. (Ord. 1331 §22, 1984). 21.04.250 SEPA -- Decisions -- Substantive authority. (a) The city may attach conditions to a license or approval for a proposal so long as: (1) Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environ- mental document prepared pursuant to this chapter; and (2) Such conditions are in writing; and (3) Such conditions are reasonable and capable of being accomplished; and (4) The city has considered whether other local, state or federal mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to mitigate the identified impacts; and (5) Such conditions are based on one or more policies in Section 21.04.270 and cited in the permit, approval, license or other decision document. (b) The city may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long as: (.1) A finding is made that approving the proposal would result in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are identified in a final EIS or final supple- mental EIS; and (2) A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation measures that are insufficient to mitigate the identified impact; and (3) The denial is based on one or more policies identified in Section 21.04.270 and identified in writing in the decision document. (Ord. 1331 §23, 1984). 21.04.260 city adopts the as now existing as supplemented 197 -11 -900 197 -11 -902 197 -11 -916 197 -11 -920 SEPA -- Compliance -- Adoption by reference. The following sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, or as may be amended hereafter, by reference, in this chapter: Purpose of this part. Agency SEPA policies. Application to ongoing actions. Agencies with environmental expertise. 320 -45 (Tukwila 2/85) • 197 -11 -922 197 -11 -924 197 -11 -926 197 -11 -928 197 -11 -930 197 -11 -932 197 -11 -934 197 -11 -936 197 -11 -938 197 -11 -940 197 -11 -942 197 -11 -944 197 -11 -946 197 -11 -948 (Ord. 1331 §29, 4.270 -- 21.04.280 Lead agency rules. Determining the lead agency. Lead agency for governmental proposals. Lead agency ,for public and private proposals. Lead agency for private projects with one agency with jurisdiction. Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses for more than one agency, when one of the agencies is a county /city. Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from a local agency, not a county/ city, and one or more state agencies. Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses from more than one state agency. Lead agencies for specific proposals. Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency. Agreements on lead agency status. Agreements on division of lead agency duties. DOE resolution of lead agency disputes. Assumption of lead agency status. 1984). 21.04.270 SEPA -- Policies. (.a) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. (b) The city adopts by reference the policies in the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans as now existing or as may be amended hereafter: (1) Zoning Code -TMC Chapter 18.02; (2) Shoreline Master Plan- Ordinance 898; (3) Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan- Ordinance 1246; 1315; (4) Long Range Parks and Open Space Plan- Ordinance (5) Subdivision Ordinance -TMC Chapter 17.04; (.6) Comprehensive Sewer Plan- Resolution 904; (7) Comprehensive Water Plan- Resolution 873; (8) Uniform Building Code -1982 Edition - Ordinance 1287; (9) Transportation Improvement Plan- Resolution 917; (10) Annexation Policy Plan- Resolution 626; (11) Sidewalk Ordinance - Ordinance 1233; (12) Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction - Ordinance 1250. (Ord. 1344 §14, 1985; Ord. 1331 §24, 1984). 21.04.280 Appeals. (a) Any interested person may appeal a threshold determination, adequacy of a final EIS and the conditions or denials of a requested action made by a nonelected city official pursuant to the procedures set 320 -46 (Tukwila 7/85) L.04.290 -- 21.04.300 forth in this section. No other SEPA appeal shall be allowed. (b) All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in writing with the city clerk within ten calendar days of the date of the decision appealed from. (c) On receipt of a timely written notice of appeal, the city clerk shall advise the city council of the pendency of the appeal and request that a date for considering the appeal be established. The council shall expeditiously process the appeal and in any event shall render a decision within sixty calendar days of the date appeal is filed. (d) All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing of the appeal and the decision shall be made de novo. The procedural determination by the city's responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (e) For any appeal under this section, the city shall provide for a record that shall consist of the following: (1) Findings and conclusions; (2) Testimony under oath; and (3) A taped or written transcript. (f) The city may require the appellant to bear the expense for a written transcript. (Ord. 1344 §11, 1985; Ord. 1331 §25, 1984). 21.04.290 Notice -- Statute of limitations. (a) The city shall give official notice whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial appeal. (b) The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any action. (1) The form of the notice of action shall be sub- stantially in the form provided in WAC 197 -11 -990. (2) The notice of action shall be published by the city clerk, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080. (Ord. 1344 §12, 1985; Ord. 1331 §26, 1984). 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. (a) The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map- Ordinance No. 1246 as now exists or is hereinafter amended designates the location of environmentally sensitive areas within the city as special development consideration areas and is adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded areas. For each environmentally sensitive area, the exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 that are inapplicable for that area are: WAC 197-11-800(1), (2)(a) through (h), (3), (5), (6) (a), (14(c), (24) (a) through (g), and (25)(d), (f), (h) and (i). Unidentified exemptions shall continue to apply within environmentally sensitive areas of the city. 320 -47 (Tukwila 7/85) 21.04.310 (b) The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no different- ly than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. (c) Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. (Ord. 1344 §13, 1985; Ord. 1331 §30, 1984). 21.04.310 Fees. The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter: (1) Threshold Determination. For every environmental checklist the city will review when it is lead agency, the city shall collect a fee of one hundred dollars from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination, provided, that no fee shall be charged to or collected from the proponents of any proposal for annexation to the city and the city shall review such checklists without charge. Where payment of a fee is required, the time periods provided by this chapter for making a threshold determination shall not begin to run until payment of the fee is received by the city. (2) Environmental Impact Statement. (A) Whent he city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be prepared by employees of the city, the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred, including overhead, by the city in preparing the EIS. The responsible official shall advise the applicant of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation. (B) The responsible official may determine that -the city will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, for activities initiated by some persons or entity other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by the city. (C) The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the city prior to commencing work. The city will refund the excess, if any, at the completion of the EIS. If the city's costs exceed the projected costs, the applicant shall immedi- ately pay the excess. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under (A) or (B) of this subsection which remain after incurred costs, including overhead, are paid. 320 -48 (Tukwila 9/87) 004.320 -- 21.04.340 (3) The city may collect a reasonable fee from an appli- cant to cover the cost of meeting the public notice require- ments of this chapter relating to the applicant's proposal. (4) The city may charge any person for copies of . any document prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by RCW Chapter 42.17. '(Ord. 1425 §1, 1987; Ord. 1331 §31, 1984). 21.04.320 Forms -- Adoption by reference. The city adopts the following forms and sections of WAC Chapter 197 -11, as now existing or as may be amended hereafter, by reference: 197 -11 -960 Environmental checklist. 197 -11 -965 Adoption notice. 197 -11 -970 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS). 197 -11 -980 Determination of significance and scoping notice (DS) . 197 -11 -985 Notice of assumption of lead agency status. 197 -11 -990 Notice of action. (Ord. 1331 §32, 1984). 21.04.330 Copies on file. The city clerk shall maintain on file for public use and examination three copies of the Washington Administrative Code sections referred to herein. (Ord. 1331 §33, 1984). 21.04.340 Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter, including any section adopted by ,reference, should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or un- constitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitu- tionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter or any other section adopted by reference. (Ord. 1331 §35, 1984). 320 -49 (Tukwila 9/87) • 8.010 -- ,21.08.020 Chapter 21.08 SITING CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES Sections: 21.08.010 State criteria adopted. 21.08.020 Specific siting criteria. 21.08.010 State criteria adopted. Siting criteria for one -site and off -site hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities set forth in RCW Chapter 70.105 are adopted. (Ord. 1489 §4, 1988). 21.08.020 Specific siting criteria. Siting criteria for on -site and off -site hazardous waste treatment and stor- age facilities in the city shall be as set forth in Table 1. (Ord. 1489 §4, 1988). 320 -50 (Tukwila 6/89) TABLE 1 TUKWILA SITING CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES CRITERIA ON -SITE OFF -SITE (As defined in (As defined in TMC 18.06.347) TMC 18.06.346) Structural Stability Unstable slopes /soils 200 feet Coastal flooding X Surface Water Quality Protection Proximity to nearest sur- face water FEMA 100 -year flood zone Shorelines of statewide significance Protection of Domestic Water Watersheds Distance to ground water intake Air Quality Protection Ambient air quality M X M 1/2 mile 1/4 mile X X 1/4 mile X 1/2 mile 1/2 mile 1/2 mile M M Sensitive Area Protection Threatened and endangered species X X Wetlands X 1/4 mile State shorelines M X Parks and recreational areas X 1/4 mile Archaeological and historic areas and national monu- ments X 1/4 mile Transportation Routes Traffic flow and capacity* M M Safety standards for trans- port routes M M Adjacent Land Use Con- siderations Buffer zone M 200 feet 320 -51 (Tukwila 6/89) • • CRITERIA Minimum distance from resi- dential zones /residences Motels and hotels Minimum distance from occu- pied structures Agricultural lands /agri- cultural zone Public gathering place ON -SITE OFF -SITE (As defined in (As defined in TMC 18.06.347) TMC 18.06.346) 750 ft/ 100 feet 100 feet 500 feet 750 feet 1/2 'mile/ 500 feet 1/2 mile 500 feet 750 feet Host Community Consider- ations Utilities and public ser- vices M M Costs for emergency ser - vices X - A proposed facility is prohibited from siting under this criterion. M - Mitigation measures required to site in this area. Hazardous substance land uses shall be prohibited from using traffic routes which pass through resi- dential zones. In the event that Tukwila's hazardous waste siting criteria conflict with development criteria of specific zoning districts or siting criteria to be developed and adopted by the state of Washington, the more restrictive standard shall apply. 320 -52 (Tukwila 6/89) • State Environmental Policy regard to the consistency of the rules adopted pursuant to RCW 43.21C.120 and with the rules and guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 43.21C.110 shall be initiated by filing a petition for review with the pollution control hearings board in accordance with rules of practice and procedures promulgated by the hearings board. (2) All challenges to the hearings board provided un- der this section shall be decided on the basis of con- formance of rules, with the applicable rules and guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 43.21C.110. The board may in its discretion require briefs, testimony, and oral arguments. (3) The decisions of the hearings board authorized under this section shall be final. [ 1974 ex.s. c 179. § 9.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.2IC.080. Severability -1974 ex.s. c 179: See RCW 43.21C.910. 43.21B.260 Regulations and amendments of activated air pollution control authorities Filing with hearings board authorized Evidence. Activated air pollution control authorities, established under chapter 70.94 RCW, may file certified copies of their regulations and amendments thereto with the pollution control hearings board of the state of Washington, and the hearings board shall take judicial note of the copies .so filed and the said regulations and amendments shall be received and admitted, by reference, in all hearings before the board, as prima facie evidence that such regulations and amendments on file are in full force and effect. [ 1974 ex.s. c 69 § 5.] 43.218.900 Savings —Other powers and duties not affected Permits, standards not affected Sever- ability Effective date -1970 ex.s. c 62. See notes following RCW 43.21A.010. Chapter 43.21C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Sections 43.2IC.010 Purposes. 43.2IC.020 Legislative recognitions—Declaration- Responsibility. 43.21C.030 Guidelines for state agencies, local governments - Statements— Reports— Advice — Information. 43.21C.031 Significant impacts. 43.21C.035 Certain irrigation projects decisions exempt from RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). 43.21C.037 Application of RCW 43.2IC.030(2)(c) to forest 43.21C.038 practices. Application of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) to school 33.2 closures. IC.040 Examination of laws, regulations, policies by state agen- cies and local authorities — Report of deficiencies 33.21C.O0 Specific statutory obligations not affected. = 3.2!C.0660 Chapter supplementary— Conditioning or denial of 43.2IC.075 governmental action. Appeals. 33•2!C.080 Notice of action by governmental agency —How pub- licized— Form —Time limitation for commencing 43.21 C 0 challenge to action. 33 87 List of filings required by RCW 43.2IC.080. _IC.090 Decision of governmental agency to be accorded sub- stantial weight. '1985 Ed.) • 43.21 C.020 43.21C.095 State environmental policy act rules to be accorded sub- stantial deference. 43.21C.110 Content of state environmental policy act rules. 43.2IC.120 Rules, ordinances, resolutions and regulations - Adoption— Effective dates. 43.21C.130 Model ordinances. 43.21C.135 Authority of local governmental units to adopt rules, guidelines and model ordinances by reference. 43.21C.150 RCW 43.2IC.030(2)(c) inapplicable when statement previously prepared pursuant to national environmen- tal policy act. 43.2IC.160 Utilization of statement prepared under RCW 43.21C- .030 to implement chapter 90.62 RCW — Utilization of chapter 90.62 RCW procedures to satisfy RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). 43.2IC.165 Challenges to consistency of rules adopted pursuant to RCW 43.21C.110 and 43.21C.160--Procedurc- Finality. 43.2IC.170 Council on environmental policy. 43.2IC.175 Council on environmental policy Personnel. 43.21C.210 Certain actions during state of emergency exempt from chapter. 43.21C.220 Incorporation of city or town exempt from chapter. 43.21C.225 Consolidation and annexation of cities and towns ex- empt from chapter. 43.2IC.230 Development and adoption of plan under chapter 43.180 RCW exempt from chapter. 43.21C.300 Workshops — Handbook. 43.21C.500 Exemption from this chapter of emergency recovery op- erations from Mt. St. Helens eruption authorized - Exception— Expiration of section. 43.21 C.900 Short title. 43.21C.910 Severability -1974 ex.s. c 179. 43.21C.911 Section headings not part of law -1983 c 117. 43.21C.912 Applicability -1983 c 117. 43.21C.913 Severability -1983 c 117. 43.2IC.914 Effective dates -1983 c 117. 43.21C.010 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: (1) To declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; (2) to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; (3) and stimulate the health and welfare of man; and (4) to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and nation. [1971 ex.s. c 109 § 1.] 43.21C.020 Legislative recognitions- Declara-tion—Responsibility. (1) The legislature, recognizing that man depends on his biological and physical sur- roundings for food, shelter, and other needs, and for cultural enrichment as well; and recognizing further the profound. impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particu- larly the profound influences of population growth, high - density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource utilization and exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the criti- cal importance of restoring and maintaining environ- mental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the state of Washington, in cooperation with federal and local governments, and other concerned public and private or- ganizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to: (a) Foster and promote the general wel- fare; (b) to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony; and [Title 43 RCW —p 101] A3.2 1C.0 20 T143 RCW: State Government Execute (c) fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Washington citizens. (2) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Washington and all agencies of the state to use all prac- ticable means, consistent with other essential considera- tions of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: (a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, health- ful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (d) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage; (e) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (f) Achieve a balance between population and re- source use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (g) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of deplet- able resources. (3) The legislature recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful envi- ronment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. [1971 ex.s. c 109 § 21 43.21C.030 Guidelines for state agencies, local gov- ernments— Statements Reports Advice Information. The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regula- tions, and laws of the state of Washington shall be in- terpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all branches o. government of this state, including state agencies, .mud, nicipal and public corporations, and counties. shall:. ; (a) Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an im- pact on man's environment; (b) Identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the department of ecology and the ecological commission, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations; (c) Include in every recommendation... or report ona proposals for legislation and other major actions signifi- cantly affecting the quality of the environment, a de -q tailed statement by the responsible official on:, (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; [Title 43 RCW —p 1021 (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (iii) alternatives to the proposed action; (iv) the relationship between local short –term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhance- ment of Tong –term productivity; and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; (d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the re- sponsible official shall consult with and obtain the com- ments of any public agency which has jurisdiction b% law or special expertise with respect to any environmen- tal impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate federal, province. state, and local agencies, which are authorized''to de- velop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the governor, the department of ecol- ogy, the ecological commission, and the public, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency re- view processes; (e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alterna- tives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alterna- tive uses of available resources; (f) Recognize the world –wide and long –range charac- ter of environmental problems and, where consistent with state policy, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize interna- tional cooperation in anticipating and preventing a de- cline in the quality of mankind's world environment; (g) Make available to the federal government, other states, provinces of Canada, municipalities, institutions. and individuals, advice and information useful in restor- ing, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment; (h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of natural resource – oriented projects. [ 1971 ex.s. c 109 § 3.) 43.21C.031 Significant impacts. An environmental impact statement (the detailed statement required by RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c)) shall be prepared on proposals for legislation and other major actions having a probable significant, adverse environmental impact. Actions cate- gorically exempt under RCW 43.21 C.1 10(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under this chapter. An environmental impact statement is required to an- alyie only those probable adverse environmental impacts which are significant. Beneficial - environmental impacts,-. may be discussed. The responsible official shall consult with agencies and the public to identify such impacts and limit the scope of an environmental impact state- ment. The subjects listed in RCW 43.2IC.030(2)(c) need not be treated as separate sections of an environ- mental impact statement. Discussions of significant short –term and long –term environmental impacts, sig- nificant irrevocable commitments of natural resources, significant alternatives including mitigation measures, and significant environmental impacts which cannot be (1985 Ed.) State Environmental Policy mitigated should be consolidated or included, as appli- cable, in those sections of an environmental impact statement where the responsible official decides they logically belong. [1983 c 117 § 1.] 43.21C.035 Certain irrigation projects decisions ex- empt from RCW 43.21C.030(2Xc). Decisions pertaining to applications for appropriation of fifty cubic feet of water per second or less for irrigation projects promul- gated by any person, private firm, private corporation or private association without resort to subsidy by either state or federal government pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340, as now or hereafter amended, to be used for agricultural irrigation shall not be subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), as now or hereafter amended. [ 1974 ex.s. c 150 § I.] 43.21C.037 Application of RCW 43.21C.030(2Xc) to forest practices. (1) Decisions pertaining to applications for Class 1, 11, and 111 forest practices, as defined by rule of the forest practices board under RCW 76.09.050, are not subject to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) as now or hereafter amended. (2) When the applicable county, city, or town requires a license in connection with any proposal involving forest practices (a) on lands platted after January 1, 1960, (b) on lands being converted to another use, or (c) on lands which, pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended, are not to be reforested because of the likeli- hood of future conversion to urban development, then the local government, rather than the department of natural resources, is responsible for any detailed state- ment required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). (3) Those forest practices determined by rule of the forest practices board to have a potential for a substan- tial impact on the environment, and thus to be Class IV practices, require an evaluation by the department of natural resources as to whether or not a detailed state- ment must be prepared pursuant to this chapter. The evaluation shall be made within ten days from the date the department receives the application. A Class IV for- est practice application must be approved or disapproved by the department within thirty calendar days from the date the department receives the application, unless the department determines that a detailed statement must be made, in which case the application must be approved or disapproved by the department within sixty days from the date the department receives the application, unless the commissioner of public lands, through the promul- gation of a formal order, determines that the process cannot be completed within such period. This section shall not be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entity from determining that a detailed statement must be prepared for an action regarding a Class IV forest practice taken by that governmental en- tity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted. [ 1983 c 117 § 2; 1981 c 290 § 1.] 43.21C.038 Application of RCW 43.21C.030(2Xc) to school closures. Nothing in RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) (1985 Ed.) 43.21C.060 shall be construed to require the preparation of an envi- ronmental impact statement or the making of a thresh- old determination for any decision or any action commenced subsequent to September I, 1982, pertaining to a plan, program, or decision for the closure of a school or schools or for the school closure portion of any broader policy, plan or program by a school district board of directors. [ 1983 c 109 § 1.] 43.21C.040 Examination of laws, regulations, poli- cies by state agencies and local authorities Report of deficiencies and corrective measures. All branches of government of this state, including state agencies, mu- nicipal and public corporations, and counties shall re- view their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficien- cies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full com- pliance with the purposes and provisions of this chapter and shall propose to the governor not later than January 1, 1972, such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies in conformity with the in- tent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this chapter. [ 1971 ex.s. c 109 § 4.] 43.21C.050 Specific statutory obligations not af- fected. Nothing in RCW 43.21C.030 or 43.2IC.040 shall in any way affect the specific statutory obligations of any agency (1) to comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality, (2) to coordinate or consult with any other public agency, or (3) to act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certifi- cation of any other public agency. [ 1971 ex.s. c 109 § 5.] 43.21C.060 Chapter supplementary— Conditioning or denial of governmental action. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of all branches of gov- ernment of this state, including state agencies, municipal and public corporations, and counties. Any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to this chapter: Provided, That such conditions or denials shall be based upon policies identified by the appropriate gov- ernmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or codes which are formally designated by the agency (or appropriate legislative body, in the case of local government) as possible bases for the exercise of authority pursuant to this chapter. Such designation shall occur at the time specified by RCW 43.21C.I20. Such action may be conditioned only to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental documents prepared under this chap- ter. These conditions shall be stated in writing by the decisionmaker. Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. In order to deny a proposal under this chapter, an agency must find that: (I) The proposal would result in significant adverse im- pacts identified in a final or supplemental environmental impact statement prepared under this chapter; and (2) [Title 43 RCW —p 1031 43.21C.060 Title 43 RCW: State Government Executive reasonable mitigation measures are insufficient to miti- gate the identified impact. Except for permits and vari- ances issued pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, when such a governmental action, not requiring a legislative deci- sion, is conditioned or denied by a nonelected official of a local governmental agency, the decision shall be ap- pealable to the legislative authority of the acting local governmental agency unless that legislative authority formally eliminates such appeals. Such appeals shall be in accordance with procedures established for such ap- peals by the legislative authority of the acting local gov- ernmental agency. [ 1983 c 117 § 3; 1977 ex.s. c 278 § 2; 1971 ex.s. c 109 § 6.] 43.21C.075 Appeals. (1) Because a major purpose of this chapter is to combine environmental considerations with public decisions, any appeal brought under this chapter shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act provides a basis for challenging whether governmental action is in compli- ance with the substantive and procedural provisions of this chapter. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a spe- cific governmental action. (2) Unless otherwise provided by this section: (a) Appeals under this chapter shall be of the govern- mental action together with its accompanying environ- mental determinations. (b) Appeals of environmental determinations made (or lacking) under this chapter shall be commenced within the time required to appeal the governmental ac- tion which is subject to environmental review. (3) If an agency has a procedure for appeals of agency environmental determinations made under this chapter, such procedure: (a) Shall not allow more than one agency appeal pro- ceeding on a procedural determination (the adequacy of a determination of significance /nonsignificance or of a final environmental impact statement), consistent with any state statutory requirements for appeals to local leg- islative bodies. The appeal proceeding on a determina- tion of significance /nonsignificance may occur before the agency's final decision on a proposed action. Such an appeal shall also be allowed for a determination of significance /nonsignificance which may be issued by the agency after supplemental review; (b) Shall consolidate appeal of procedural issues and of substantive determinations made under this chapter (such as a decision to require particular mitigation mea- sures or to deny a proposal) by providing for simulta- neous appeal of an agency decision on a proposal and any environmental determinations made under this chapter, with the exception of the threshold determina- tion appeal as provided in (a) of this subsection or an appeal to the local legislative authority under RCW 43- .21C.060 or other applicable state statutes; (c) Shall provide for the preparation of a record for use in any subsequent appeal proceedings, and shall pro- vide for any subsequent appeal proceedings to be con- ducted on the record, consistent with other applicable [Title 43 RCW —p 104i law. An adequate record consists of findings and conclu- sions, testimony under oath, and taped or written tran- script. An electronically recorded transcript will suffice for purposes of review under this paragraph; and (d) Shall provide that procedural determinations made by the responsible official shall be entitled to sub- stantial weight. (4) If a person aggrieved by an agency action has the right to judicial appeal and if an agency has an appeal procedure, such person shall, prior to seeking any judi- cial review, use such procedure if any such procedure is available, unless expressly provided otherwise by state statute. (5) RCW 43.21C.080 establishes an optional "notice of action" procedure which, if used, imposes a time pe- riod for appealing decisions under this chapter: Some statutes and ordinances contain time periods for chal- lenging governmental actions which are subject to review under this chapter, such as various local land use ap- provals (the "underlying governmental action "). This section does not modify any such time periods. This sec- tion governs when a judicial appeal must be brought un- der this chapter where a "notice of action" is used, and /or where there is another time period which is re- quired by statute or ordinance for challenging the un- derlying governmental action. In this subsection, the term "appeal" refers to a judicial appeal only. (a) If, there is a time period for appealing the under- lying governmental action, appeals under this chapter shall be commenced within thirty days. The agency shall give official notice stating the date and place for com- mencing an appeal. If there is an agency proceeding un- der subsection (3) of this section, the, appellant shall, prior to commencing a judicial appeal, submit to the re- sponsible official a notice of intent to commence a judi- cial appeal. This notice of intent shall be given within the time period for commencing a judicial appeal on the underlying governmental action. (b) A notice of action under RCW 43.21C.080 may be used. If a notice of action is used, judicial appeals shall be commenced within the time period specified by RCW 43.21C.080, unless there is a time period for ap- pealing the underlying governmental action in which case (a) of this subsection shall apply. (c) Notwithstanding RCW 43.21 C.080(1), if there is a time period for appealing the underlying governmental action, a notice of action may be published within such time period. (6)(a) Judicial review of an appeal decision made by an agency under RCW 43.21C.075(5) shall be on the record, consistent with other applicable law. (b) A taped or written transcript may be used. If a taped transcript is to be reviewed, a record shall identify the location on the taped transcript of testimony and ev- idence to be reviewed. Parties are encouraged to desig- nate only those portions of the testimony necessary to present the issues raised on review, but if a party alleges that a finding of fact is not supported by evidence, the party should include in the record all evidence relevant to the disputed finding. Any other party may designate (1985 Ed.) nclu. tr;r„ :c t l prti SL; rc L- rc, he to :s 11 IC !.I State Environmental Policy 43.21C.080 ,Jditional portions of the taped transcript relating to is- ;,s; raised on review. A party may provide a written ;r,nscript of portions of the testimony at the party's own c,pense or apply to that court for an order requiring the r,rty seeking review to pay for additional portions of the ,►ritten transcript. (c) Judicial review under this chapter shall without ;t:eption be of the governmental action together with its , :companying environmental determinations. (7) Jurisdiction over the review of determinations un- ,;;r this chapter in an appeal before an agency or supe- .;or court shall upon consent of the parties be :- ,nsfcrred in whole or part to the shorelines hearings rd. The shorelines hearings board shall hear the -fitter and sign the final order expeditiously. The supe- •:or court shall certify the final order of the shorelines ;.:rings board and said certified final order may only be ;-:Ncalvd to an appellate court. IS) For purposes of this section and RCW 43.21C- +`'0. the words "action ", "decision ", and "determina- ::∎n• mean substantive agency action including any ;;ompanying procedural determinations under this pter (except where the word "action" means "ap- ;cjl- in RCW 43.21C.080(2) and (3)). The word "ac- ::'n- in this section and RCW 43.21C.080 does not -:can a procedural determination by itself made under H. chapter. The word "determination" includes any en- 0nmental document required by this chapter and state local implementing rules. The word "agency" refers to state or local unit of government. The word "ap- :1" refers to administrative, legislative, or judicial _-; eals. (9) The court in its discretion may award reasonable _::orney's fees of up to one thousand dollars in the ag- ; gate to the prevailing party, including a governmental on issues arising out of this chapter if the court specific findings that the legal position of a party 'rivolous and without reasonable basis. [ 1983 c 117 § t 43.21C.080 Notice of action by governmental 12enc■ How publicized Form —Time limita- tion for commencing challenge to action. (I) Notice of action taken by a governmental agency may be 7licized by the acting governmental agency, the appli- =- r t for, or the proponent of such action, in substantially form as set forth in subsection (3) of this section and the following manner: la) By publishing notice on the same day of each ••:ek for two consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper of =neral circulation in the area where the property which the subject of the action is located; I b) I ;y filing notice of such action with the depart- 7.2711 of ecology at its main office in Olympia prior to `: date of the last newspaper publication; and IC) Except for those actions which are of a nonproject - : -ture, by one of the following methods which shall be ' =complished prior to the date of last newspaper ^ublication: (l) Mailing to the latest recorded real property own - -'. as shown by the records of the county treasurer, who ::c Ed.) share a common boundary line with the property upon which the project is proposed through United States mail, first class, postage prepaid. (ii) Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner on the property upon which the project is to be constructed. (2) (a) Any action to set aside, enjoin, review, or otherwise challenge any such governmental action for which notice is given as provided in subsection (1) of this section on grounds of noncompliance with the provi- sions of this chapter shall be commenced within thirty days from the date of last newspaper publication of the notice pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, or be barred: Provided, however, That the time period within which an action shall be commenced shall be ninety days (i) for projects to be performed by a governmental agency or to be performed under government contract, or (ii) for thermal power plant projects: Provided fur- ther, That any subsequent governmental action on the proposal for which notice has been given as provided in subsection (1) of this section shall not be set aside, en- joined, reviewed, or otherwise challenged on grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a) through (h) unless there has been a substantial change in the proposal between the time of the first governmental action and the subsequent gov- ernmental action, or unless the action now being consid- ered was identified in an earlier detailed statement or declaration of nonsignificance as being one which would require further environmental evaluation. (b) Any action to challenge a subsequent governmental action based upon any provisions of this chapter shall be commenced within thirty days from the date of last newspaper pub- lication of the subsequent governmental action except (i) for projects to be performed by a governmental agency or to be performed under governmental contract, or (ii) for thermal power plant projects which shall be chal- lenged within ninety days from the date of last newspa- per publication of the subsequent governmental action, or be barred. (3) The form for such notice of action shall be issued by the department of ecology and shall be made avail- able by the governmental agency taking an action sub- ject to being publicized pursuant to this section, by the county auditor, and /or the city clerk to the project ap- plicant or proposer. The form of such notice shall be substantially as follows: NOTICE OF ACTION BY (Government agency or entity) Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, notice is hereby given that: The (Government agency or entity) did on (date), take the action described below. Any action to set aside, enjoin, review, or otherwise challenge such action on the grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW (State En- vironmental Policy Act) shall be commenced within days or be barred. (Title 43 RCW —p 1051 43.21C.080 TitleeRCW: State Government Executive The action taken by (Government agency or entity), notice of which is hereby given, was as follows: (1) (Here insert description of ac- tion taken such as: Adoption Ordinance No. ; Is- sued Building Permit; Approved preliminary (or final) plat, etc.) (2) (Here insert brief description of the complete project or proposal.) (3) Said action pertained to property commonly known as: (Sufficient description to locate property, but complete legal description not required) (4) Pertinent documents may be examined during regular business hours at the office of: lo- cated at: (Location, including room number) (Name of government agency, proponent, or applicant giving notice) Filed by (Signature of individual and capacity in which such individual is signing) [ 1977 ex.s. c 278 § I; 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 2; 1973 1st ex.s. c 179 § 2.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: "The purpose of this 1974 amenda- tory act is to establish methods and means of providing for full imple- mentation of chapter 43.21C RCW (the state environmental policy act of 1971) in a manner which reduces duplicative and wasteful practices, establishes effective and uniform procedures, encourages public in- volvement, and promotes certainty with respect to the requirements of the act." [1974 ex.s. c 179 § 1.] Effective date -1973 1st ex.s. c 179: This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions and shall take effect on July 1, 1973: Provided, however, That prior thereto, the department of ecology may take such actions, including the issuing of notices and the conduct of public hearing, as are neccs- sary to insure the implementation of section 1 of this act." [1973 1st ex.s. c 179 § 4.] 43.21C.087 List of filings required by RCW 43.21C- .080. The department of ecology shall prepare a list of all filings required by RCW 43.21C.080 each week and shall make such list available to any interested party. The list of filings shall include a brief description of the governmental action and the project involved in such ac- tion, along with the location of where information on the project or action may be obtained. Failure of the de- partment to include any project or action shall not affect the running of the statute of limitations provided in RCW 43.21C.080. [ 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 14.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.21C.080. 43.21C.090 Decision of governmental agency to be. accorded substantial weight. In any action involving an attack on a determination by a governmental agency [Title 43 RCW —p 1061 relative to the requirement or the absence of the re- quirement, or the adequacy of a "detailed statement'. the decision of the governmental agency shall be ac- corded substantial weight. [1973 1st ex.s. c 179 § 3.] Effective date -1973 1st ex.s. c 179: Scc note following RCM. 43.21 C.080. 43.21C.095 State environmental policy act -rules to be accorded substantial deference. The rules promulgated under RCW 43.21C.110 shall be accorded substantial deference in the interpretation of this chapter. [1983 c 117 § 5.] 43.21C.110 Content of state environmental policy act rules. It shall be the duty and function of the department of ecology, which may utilize proposed rules developed by the environmental policy commission: (1) To adopt and amend thereafter rules of interpre- tation and implementation of this chapter (the state en- vironmental policy act of 1971), subject to the requirements of chapter 34.04 RCW, for the purpose of providing uniform rules and guidelines to all branches of government including state agencies, political subdivi- sions, public and municipal corporations, and counties. The proposed rules shall be subject to full public hear- ings requirements associated with rule promulgation. Suggestions for modifications of the proposed rules shall be considered on their merits, and the department shall have the authority and responsibility for full and appro- priate independent promulgation and adoption of rules. assuring consistency with this chapter as amended and with the preservation of protections afforded by this chapter. The rule making powers authorized in this sec- tion shall include, but shall not be limited to, the follow- ing phases of interpretation and implementation of this chapter (the state environmental policy act of 1971): (a) Categories of governmental actions which are not to be considered as potential major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment, including cate- gories pertaining to applications for water right permits pursuant to chapters 90.03 and 90.44 RCW. The types of actions included as categorical exemptions in the rules shall be limited to those types which are not major ac- tions significantly affecting the quality of the environ- ment. The rules shall provide for certain circumstances where actions which potentially are categorically exempt require environmental review. (b) Rules for criteria and procedures applicable to the determination of when an act of a branch of government is a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment for which a detailed statement is re- quired to be prepared pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030. (c) Rules and procedures applicable to the preparation of detailed statements and other environmental docu- ments, including but not limited to rules for timing of environmental review, obtaining comments, data and other information, and providing for and determining areas of public participation which shall include the scope and review of draft environmental impact statements. (1985 Ed.) State Environmental Policy (d) Scope of coverage and contents of detailed state- ments assuring that such statements are simple, uniform, and as short as practicable; statements are required to analyze only reasonable alternatives and probable ad- verse environmental impacts which are significant, 'and may analyze beneficial impacts. (e) Rules and procedures for public notification of ac- tions taken and documents prepared. (f) Definition of terms relevant to the implementation of this chapter including the establishment of a list of elements of the environment. Analysis of environmental considerations under RCW 43.21C.030(2) may be re- quired only for those subjects listed as elements of the environment (or portions thereof). The list of elements of the_environment shall consist of the "natural" and "built" environment. The elements of the built environ- ment shall consist of public services and utilities (such as water, sewer, schools, fire and police protection), trans- portation, environmental health (such as explosive mate- rials and toxic waste), and land and shoreline use (including housing, and a description of the relationships with land use and shoreline plans and designations, in- cluding population). (g) Rules for determining the obligations and powers under this chapter of two or more branches of govern- ment involved in the same project significantly affecting the quality of the environment. (h) Methods to assure adequate public awareness of the preparation and issuance of detailed statements re- quired by RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). (i) To prepare rules for projects setting forth the time limits within which the governmental entity responsible for the action shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. (j) Rules for utilization of a detailed statement for more than one action and rules improving environmental analysis of nonproject proposals and encouraging better interagency coordination and integration between this chapter and other environmental laws. (k) Rules relating to actions which shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter in situations of emergency. (I) Rules relating to the use of environmental docu- ments in planning and decisionmaking and the imple- mentation of the substantive policies and requirements of this chapter, including procedures for appeals under this chapter. (2) In exercising its powers, functions, and duties un- der this section, the department may: (a) Consult with the state agencies and with represen- tatives of science, industry, agriculture, labor, conserva- tion organizations, state and local governments and other groups, as it deems advisable; and (b) Utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facilities, and information (including statistical informa- tion) of public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals, in order to avoid duplication of effort and expense, overlap, or conflict with similar activities auth- orized by law and performed by established agencies. (1985 Ed.) 43.21C.130 (3) Rules adopted pursuant to this section shall be subject to the review procedures of RCW 34.04.070 and 34.04.080. [ 1983 c 117 § 7; 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 6.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.21C.080. 43.21C.120 Rules, ordinances, resolutions and regu- lations Adoption Effective dates. (1) All agencies of government of this state are directed, consistent with rules and guidelines adopted under RCW 43.21C.110, including any revisions, to adopt rules pertaining to the integration of the policies and procedures of this chapter (the state environmental policy act of 1971), into the various programs under their jurisdiction for implemen- tation. Designation of polices under RCW 43.21C.060 and adoption of rules required under this section shall take place not later than one hundred eighty days after the effective date of rules and guidelines adopted pursu- ant to RCW 43.21C.110, or after the establishment of an agency, whichever shall occur later. (2) Rules adopted by state agencies under subsection (1) of this section shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 34.04 RCW and shall be sub- ject to the review procedures of RCW 34.04.070 and 34.04.080. (3) All public and municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and counties of this state are directed, con- sistent with rules and guidelines adopted under RCW 43.21C.110, including any revisions, to adopt rules, ordinances, or resolutions pertaining to the integration of the policies and procedures of this chapter (the state en- vironmental policy act of 1971), into the various pro- grams under their jurisdiction for implementation. Designation of policies under RCW 43.21C.060 and adoption of the rules required under this section shall take place not later than one hundred eighty days after the effective date of rules and guidelines adopted pursu- ant to RCW 43.21C.110, or after the establishment of the governmental entity, whichever shall occur later. (4) Ordinances or regulations adopted prior to the ef- fective date of rules and guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 43.21C.110 shall continue to be effective until the adoptions of any new or revised ordinances or regula- tions which may be required: Provided, That revisions required by this section as a result of rule changes under RCW 43.21C.110 are made within the time limits spec- ified by this section. [ 1983 c 117 § 8; 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 8.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.21C.080. 43.21C.130 Model ordinances. The department of ecology, in consultation with concerned state agencies, shall with the assistance of the associations of county prosecutors and city attorneys, the association of county elected officials, the Washington state association of counties, and the association of cities, draft model ordi- nances for use by counties, cities and towns in drafting their ordinances under this chapter. [ 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 10.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.21C.080. /Title 43 RCW —p 1071 43.21C.135 43 RCW: State Government Execute 43.21C.135 Authority of local governmental units to adopt rules, guidelines and model ordinances by refer- ence. (1) All public and municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and counties of the state are authorized to adopt rules, ordinances, and resolutions which incorpo- rate any of the following by reference to the appropriate sections of the Washington Administrative Code: (a) Rules and guidelines adopted under RCW 43.21 C. 1 10(1) in accordance with the administrative procedure act, chapter 34.04 RCW; (b) Model ordinances adopted by the department of ecology under RCW 43.21C.130 in accordance with the administrative procedure act, chapter 34.04 RCW. (2) If any rule, ordinance, or resolution is adopted by reference pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, any publication of such rule, ordinance, or resolution shall be accompanied by a summary of the contents of the sec- tions of the Washington Administrative Code referred to. Such summaries shall be provided to the adopting units of local government by the department of ecology: Provided, That any proposal for a rule, ordinance or resolution which would adopt by reference rules and guidelines or model ordinances pursuant to this section shall be accompanied by the full text of the material to be adopted which need not be published but shall be maintained on file for public use and examination. (3) Whenever any rule, ordinance, or resolution is adopted by reference pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the corporation, political subdivision, or county of the state adopting the rule, ordinance, or resolution shall maintain on file for public use and examination not less than three copies of the sections of the Washington Administrative Code referred to. [ 1975 -'76 2nd ex.s. c 99 § 1.] 43.21C.150 RCW 43.21C.030(2Xc) inapplicable when statement previously prepared pursuant to national envi- ronmental policy act. The requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) pertaining to the preparation of a de- tailed statement by branches of government shall not apply when an adequate detailed statement has been previously prepared pursuant to the national environ- mental policy act of 1969, in which event said prepared statement may be utilized in lieu of a separately pre- pared statement under RCW 43.2IC.030(2)(c). [1975 1st ex.s. c 206 § 1; 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 12.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.21C.080. 43.21C.160 Utilization of statement prepared under RCW 43.21C.030 to implement chapter 90.62 RCW Utilization of chapter 90.62 RCW procedures to satisfy RCW 43.21C.030(2Xc). In the implementation of chapter 90.62 RCW (the Environmental Coordination Proce- dures Act of 1973), the department of ecology, consis- tent with guidelines adopted by the council shall adopt rules which insure that one detailed statement prepared under RCW 43.21C.030 may be utilized by all branches of government participating in the processing of a master application. Whenever the procedures established pursuant to chapter 90.62 RCW are used, those proce- dures shall be utilized wherever possible to satisfy the [Title 43 RCW—p 108J procedural requirements of RCW 43.21C.030(2)(cl ;t time limits for challenges provided for in 43.21 C.080(2) shall be applicable when such are so utilized. [ 1974 cx.s. c 179 § 13.] Purpose -1974 ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43 ::t 43.21C.165 Challenges to consistency of rnM adopted pursuant to RCW 43.21C.110 and 43,21( .160 — Procedure — Finality. Sce RCW 43.11B ; ; . 43.21C.170 Council on environmental polio legislature may establish a council on environ-f..... policy to review and assist in the implementation chapter. [1983 c 117 § 6; 1974 ex.s. c 179 § 4. F'r -_:• RCW 43.21C.100.] 43.21C.175 Council on environmental polio Personnel. The council may employ such persor. -;. are necessary for the performances of its dutic•. ex.s. c 179 § 5. Formerly RCW 43.21C.105.) 43.21C.210 Certain actions during state of elm/. gency exempt from chapter. This chapter does not :, -;,., to actions authorized by RCW 43.37.215 and 43.3 - which are undertaken during a state of emergen;ti clared by the governor under RCW 43.06.210. ) I + ►1 278 § 4.] 43.21C.220 Incorporation of city or town minor from chapter. The incorporation of a city or town empted from compliance with this chapter. [19S2 § 6.] Severability -1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.'+1 :•1 Incorporation proceedings exempt from chapter: RCW 36.u; I 43.21C.225 Consolidation and annexation of cit." and towns exempt from chapter. Consolidations of .:: -. or towns, and the annexations of all of a city or tow- another city or town, are exempted from comrl :.:n.: with this chapter. [ 1985 c 281 § 29.] Severability -1985 c 281: Sce RCW 35.10.905. 43.21C.230 Development and adoption of plan uncle chapter 43.180 RCW exempt from chapter. This cha;r does not apply to the development or adoption of :1c plan required to be developed and adopted under char. 43.180 RCW. [1983 c 161 § 29.] Severability— Effective dates -1983 c 161: See RCW ":" .903 and 43.180.904. 43.21C.300 Workshops Handbook. The dcra ~• ment of ecology shall conduct annual state -wide %orl' shops and publish an annual state environmental N' ' act handbook or supplement to assist persons in comr''' ing with the provisions of this chapter and the imr'c- menting rules. The workshops and handbook shall include, but not be limited to, measures to assist '" preparation, processing, and review of environments) documents, relevant court decisions affecting this chap ter or rules adopted under this chapter, legis13ti•c changes to this chapter, administrative changes to the (190 f41 TUWAY MESSAGE TO -e p,r iftmen 4/5 e)26- eQ,J /Pal r-s 'A. PO 9 760 r Afr FROM fie%,_ &tij i /1)6e/#4 .Sh1))71 2c - . farIP4 m65 /6e DATE / / /7A 9 S S A G E 16.041 •./ Z7 5216 / v, ';` I /L.. fir.• 1/ , //I,/ %/L. /if _ b"OVg: • --8: kikkr 71/4tt" �1G"dheeh o v -2I m /7f 70,5-. 7 S 1. ii d_ JP 117 A idph lam. 11 d �,r'! /i// °fib_ i1/Ji `//t 4,1 4 % - .4;,-'" k ,( / JiI' I ih .iI / .i.a /ir► `/ di .1! JA. %�'�/iirie: Jp- - i / A/ / / 1 111-19f1/4 /,e'� r' '0 . et_5/ 11c/T�(/ `- �Z-Cf L J l% '' '. Al _��l��Y/ R E P L Y • ' DATE: SIGNED i ASSOCIATED L1 -A2375 SENDER: DETACH THIS PART AND FILE FOR FOLLOW UP PRINTED IN U.S.A. RE: TELEPHONE MEMO PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: ///7 INFORMATION ITEMS: DATE: Jew If L 77446: 9'= 36--- Q- x( 4v(iciLe? ,e4(.q ve Aza. 101 ,.:9 ,4 _ily L-4 54, 701, d NOV 6 ' -89 jL'J jW6TUbVI 1A THE CITY OF TUKWILLA IS NOTIFIED OF AN APPEAL OF THE OF DERTIMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO THE SENSATIVE AREAS ORDINANCE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 25. APPEALANT: TUKWILLA PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS JOHN T. Welch 2700 south 133rd Seattle Washington, 98168. (Representative). 242 -5504 Date; November 6, 1989 s-: ir;gforr) 21 -04- 120 -C1B: ANY ACTION THAT WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. In that water quality measures might be prohibited in an established buffer area. (C) ANY ACTION THAT WOULD LIMIT THE CHOICE OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES: Reasonable alternatives to protect steep slopes and wet lands are missing from SAO. (2)Would serve no purpose. No demonstration of purpose served.' (3) Lead to financial expenditure related to the SAO have not been related to the benefit. 21 -04 -140 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION REVIEW AT CONCEPTUAL STAGE: A (2) Identification of conflicts with the policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan and proposed measures to reduce the conflicts. No plan has been submitted to reduce the conflict ie: transfer of density credits. A (3) Description of the objectives of t:he proposal, the altern- ative means of accomplishing these objectives, comparison of the alternatives and indication of the preffered course of action. The objectives are vague and not proven, no alternate means have been discussed or compared. 21- 04- 190: -EIS ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS: Econamy or cost benefit analisis, no relationship has been demonstrated determining. the value of property being taken in relationship to the public benefit. 21- 04- 090:CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS AND THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS TIME ESTIMATES. 11) Seven days before exemption. Application not completed until after City Council passes final draft. 21- 04- 120:CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS DETERMINATION: C(1)c.This action would limit the. choice of resonable alternatives. No alternatives have been discussed. Page two: 21 -C -030: Taking of property without compensation would deplete the resources of Tukwilla. RE: to be added later. STATEMENT OF FACT: There was some confusion as to the deadline for filing this appeal, due to that confusion the appealant. reserves the right to add to or amend the issues stated. .0' U� NOV 9 APPEAL OF DETERPIINATION OF NONSIGNI FICANCE CR OF ' -- -_-- -- j Cii� yr T';:;':+ A SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE U Y r,: Addendum The lack of an environmental impact statement for this proposal violates the guidelines set out in Revised Code of Washington 43.21C.030. The legislature directs that to the fullest extent possible a municipal corporation shall include in every recommendation on proposals for legislation, significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on: "(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;. . . (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented:. . .. There were no alternatives studied in this case. Because it is clearly established in the law that a government entity must pay just compensation for property taken for public use, the commitment of resources which would be involved to compensate property owners for the property taken. under this sensitive areas overlay zone, would be irretrievable to the citizens of Tukwila. The environmental impact statement should discuss these costs and compare them to alternative expenditures. 4 /4- t., ty (11\EA‘,` L--/t4/ 6r 7✓K41.<.k� IJ� ' .6 t C'',` ir, ^ N rim of A0.7 E•1 1,, F /{1 l, i,t.::(= ,, C) /, (71:4 ;7jt / tC3S 7c-/-1 Gee o & E; - 5 / &e ca Fee / y t) j c.''',' do ?(.,,r F,;t- o� -tA N / � ' ' iI- a/ �' C~ �Eac� v6,2 - - - n r-- re-iu� T lhE %Jf`c +4.1,61 I 0-f- 7/), O7 :(-r-- lCi-, tVl /if d()Zu me,,*' 0.1, /l lead t0 ft, ibrOre�'.f'0.'' 02, rope r^lafiav' c170.0 vs tv &E-dW c'9“)," po/so�ovs ip 1 ay)fs5 a5 dEriera /at/o.•,, �7�rG WQ:5 I)ot pclb /.0 hFccrin 4tUr /i1r� Cu6 lc> i e;.? - Of c ob je 046,•- at>ae,A"e/ tS.. bev &/dpslant ipPe 2X 55 of cS0ijed chow/ix. ql al/ alb ments d/le eo m•rsnt or , ch<jcd- to, dr- po6 /,('. /4-,ipc,t doe u, ) ,7T) 0 r- bc, pf- Qp &,ty r1 d 1 C' a T 6r4, 1 r) A.) v C'o 0r1 o b i t t e,aat')0r cf 4r PC* oed" pccJ'c, -5 'For- *SeAs•,f',vF a ttwcl4 mc•ts It la, to bN$. 1Pot,cf _ � 6r &fF'r ciaul -( 'F I n io eating S' ‘.' b)c-0-- • do ?vrlcr 7' teas -(13i)J ir;d lQ,aT la r, 7 1r. ______ 1 n ; 0 'eil 1 l- NOV 6 '989 i .A• ,� CITY OF TIJ WILA CITY CLERK / U i< w 4_11 201,lc..S O t r d Jd`urylCii" do€'S rc% Inc J• 5i /is r- /. Z a'111 rr-ic 0/3 :3 *ok V i ct, j- /! ;i„ I9 G. I / ,,— t te -- re! u;Nc.3( 7'h c jJ Jv S d••-c.• 1,1 W,fA /,1 IQ /v--;, 7Y1 11 ci a`r e %t j v f/ `?- a) A c. *tic ; -c -• . rn'1 re � r � Mc, t-6 7 11' E; S.. 031- 11�c'. v� Ica v;, ncn- Ji7h, F'CC. -T /Cc 1,-)0(1 2. at e�G M aii -jh a r / r"C-' Fc', -c ,10 C, s 1 l am o� (Z0.7k06 700 mu eh to cv s CvorK: ti- I m ,p Cl/ SE- l .) d r ,:n c4 ri c rl 0' (04 i eh re )O5 � Sc) E ep /45 -flog Gc� � (� : id d'5trlhc�fCd /e"iln� 1I1 ePGIi df'•Carc:r,4lc, /lc CooriNS ralq',FS • Wh 1QA UJdvld Ifl fCP- 0Sie•OL !h Vc' /27 /(JIJLt-�1i /// 'Lc ay 4n ey, 0E. rJ k To t1"! r r0 %lc;,J; ,t b� 'Ffc'efcd h`j ry �vc�vmc o fh et oo j. Pa , I t-0,Q C-1,1-YX/e ID/ s /A^�c. l�yd11,1 /rl, .,c F .mac O ry . P.ssfcc () //i • t., CITY OF TUKWI 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER SEATTLE DIST NPSEN —PL —RP P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE, WA 98124 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 a • TO: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 GENERAL ADMIN BUILDING OLYMPIA, WA 98504 1 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 1 TO: KING CO DEPT OF BUILDING & — LAND DEVELOPMENT ATTN: SEPA INFORMATION 3600 — 136TH PL. S.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98006 -1400 l l CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TUKWILA PUBLIC LIBRARY 14475 - 59TH S. TUKWILA, WA 98188 78 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 • TO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION CENTRAL OPERATIONS PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CAMPUS MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -8711 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433 -1800 TO: SHORELANDS PERMIT COORDINATOR SHORELANDS AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CAMPUS MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -8711 :i }_ )�.¢ L •. �.; .4.': is 5- • FRIENDS OF THE DUWAMISH ATTN LEE MOYER 16205 PAC HWY S. SEATTLE, WA 98188 SIERRA CLUB 1516 MELROSE AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98122 AUDUBON SOCIETY ROOM 619 JOSHUA GREEN BLDG SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: JOE MILES 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: WILLIMA FRY P.O. BOX 1869 SEATTLE, WA 98111 WATER DIST # #75 P.O. BOX 68100 SEATTLE, WA 98168 SEATTLE WATER DEPT 821 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 GROUP W CABLE (TCI) P.O. BOX C96029 BELLEVUE, WA 98009 VALLEY DAILY NEWS (FAXED) 411UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY BARRY L. GROCE ASST. GENERAL ATTORNEY 1515 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 4 PORTLAND, . OR 97201 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 15325 S.E. 30TH PL BELLEVUE, WEA 98007 ATTN: JIM LUTZ FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN REGION 10 MOHAWK BLDG RM 412 PORTLAND, OR 97204 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF GAME 600 NORTH CAPITOL WAY OLYMPIA, WA 98504 WASHINGTON ST DEPT OF GAME 600 NORTH CAPITOL WAY OLYMPIA, WA 98504 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ATTN: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 10508 N.E. 4TH STREET BELLEVIEW, WA 98004 VAL -VUE SEWER DIST P.O. BOX 68063 SEATTLE, WA 98168 5 / METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING D. ATTN: MANAGER MS 92 821 SECOND AVNEUE SEATTLE, WA 98104 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTROBUTION I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: [I Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Ei Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet (] Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Determination of Nonsignificance (J Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action El Official Notice . J Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1989 , 19 (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE File Number EPIC -22 -89 Signatures" � - ATTACHMENT E DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Whereas the Tukwila City Council finds that an ordinance is necessary to implement the objectives and policies addressing development impacts, to water resources and areas of natural hazards identified in the Natural Environment, Open Space, and Utilities Elements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Whereas the Tukwila City Council finds that procedures and standards are necessary: a. To protect sensitive areas by regulating their development b. To minimize the impacts of development on the natural function and values these areas perform for the community and region. c. To protect the quantity and quality of water resources. d. To minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and to maintain wildlife habitat. e. To provide for the protection of trees and woodlands located in sensitive areas and in their buffers and for the revegetation of these areas when developed. f. To protect the public against avoidable losses and damages from: (1) Landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. (2) Maintenance and replacement of public facilities. (3) Property damage. (4) Subsidy cost of public mitigation of avoidable impacts. (5) Cost for public emergency rescue and relief operations. g. To alert appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers and lessees of the natural limitations of the physical environment. rate, h. To provide city officials with information to condition or deny public or private projects in order to protect sensitive areas; and expedite governmental review processes. i. To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as revised in 1984. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SUBDIVISION CODE Section 1. Chapter 17.20.020 Amended Chapter 17.20.020 Environmental Considerations of the Subdivision Ordinance, TMC 17, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Unsuitable Land. Land which meets the definition of a sensitive area or its buffer as defined in TMC 18 or is subject to flooding and poor drainage based on a review by the Public Works Department, the administrators of the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, shall be platted to reflect the standards and requirements of the Sensitive Area Overlay zone, TMC 18.45 and the Flood Zone Control Ordinance, TMC 16.52. Land shall not be platted unless the proposed lots can be shown to meet the requirements of both ordinances. SPAR 2. Trees. Every reasvnable effort shall be made to preserve existing4rees and if removed, frepfaced'ai= -1 1 =-r io with specimen decidudug'iandreori ferouszarees msignif cant stanid9i- A -tree removal /retention / revegetation plan shall be submitted at the time of preliminary plat application and shall be subject to Planning Commission and City Council preliminary plat approval. The plan shall show at two foot contour intervals, the existing ground elevations and proposed elevations for planned improvements. The approved plan shall be a part, of the grading permit application for installation of plat improvements. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 J DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 2 ZONING CODE Section 2. Chapter 18.06 Amended. 18.06.253 Essential right -of -way or utility. "Essential right -of -way or utility" means a utility facility, utility system or right -of -way where no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. 18.06.415 Landslide hazard areas. "Landslide hazard areas" means those areas subject to a severe risk of landslide due to: 1. A combination of the following factors: a. slopes greater than fifteen percent; and b. impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel); and c. springs or ground water seepage during the wet season (November to February). 2. The location of a landslide feature which has historical movement. 18.06.455 Lot Coverage. "Lot Coverage "means the surface of the subject property covered with impervious surfac •tether than outdoor pools, which will not allow for the percolation of water into t e un • er ying soils such as buildings, compacted gravel, asphalt and concrete 18.06.695 Sensitive Areas. "Sensitive Areas "means wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas and abandoned coal mine areas. 18.06.698 Sensitive Area Buffer. "Sensitive Area Buffer"means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area. x,.18.06.775 Steep Slopes. "Steep Slopes "means the ground that rises ten feet or more for every twenty -five feet of horizontal distance, thus having a slope of 40% or steeper, that has an elevation change of more than 10 feet and square footage of greater than 500 square feet. 18.06.855 Tree. "Tree "means any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greateror a multi- stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown. (19054--)Pti-rh?,Y0 18.06.935 Watercourses. "Watercourse's "means a course or route formed by nature or modified by man, generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which surface water flows naturally other than the Green /Duwamish River. The channel or bed need not contain water year - round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches,' storms water runoff alevilse,or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by saimonids or to co ey pass through stream flows naturally occurring prior to construction of such device yl i5 , 18.06.938 Wetlands. "Wetlands "means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. They are further. categorized as follows: • �..c'hha a.660(.46444. ape.,? w6.40.4vgre&S. 1. Major wetlands shall be those that rated a 1 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory 2. Minor wetlands shall be those that rated a 2 or 3 in the September 1989 Tukwila Wetlands Inventory or are less than an acre and have two or fewer wetland subclasses. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 3 ZONING CODE Section 3. Chapter 18.45 Established A new chapter 18.45 is hereby added to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) to read as follows: 18.45.010 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION The purpose of this overlay district is to establish special standards for use and development of land based on known hazards, and to minimize the disturbance of development to the natural character of the City's wooded hillsides and to preserve and enhance the quantity and quality of water in Tukwila's watercourses and wetlands. 18.45.020 SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION AND APPLICABILITY 1. This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any property, any portion of which: a. Is designated as a sensitive area on the Zoning Maps or b. Is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in TMC 18.06.695 and 18.06.698, and includes the following: • Abandoned coal mines • Landslide hazard areas • Slopes of 15% and steeper • Wetlands • Watercourses The maps are to alert the public and City officials to the potential presence of sensitive areas within development proposals. These maps are the best available indication of the presence of a sensitive area on property; however, it is the actual presence of sensitive areas on or adjacent to a subject property which will determine whether this chapter will apply to the development proposal. 2. When this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development or use of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter" shall prevail. 3. All other relevant standards of the TMC must also be met. 18.45.040 SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER DESIGNATION 1. Minimum Buffers a. General: Any structure and any land alteration must be setback out of the buffer areas as required by this section; Buffers in general are required in order to: (1) Minimize long -term impacts of development adjacent to Sensitive Areas, and (2) Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during construction, and b. Watercourse and Wetland Buffers are specifically required to: (1) Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and overflow during high water events and room for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects, and (2) Provide input of organic debris and coarse sediments, and uptake of nutrients, and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE PaeL4 (3). Stabilize banks, and (4) Intercept fine sediments, and (5) Preserve the edge for its habitat value, and (6) Protect the sensitive area from human an domestic animal disturbance. c. Steep Slope Buffers are specifically reqred to: (1) Protect slope stability, and (2) Provide attenuation of surface water runoff and precipitation and erosion control, and (3) Screen hillside development. d. Provided however, that land alteration for necessary access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080 are permitted. e. Sensitive area buffers located within the appropriate yard shall satisfy the landscape and yard requirements of 18.50 and 18.52. 2. Wetlands Buffer a. Major Wetlands: 40 feet from the wetland edge. b. Minor Wetlands: 25 feet from the wetland edge. 3. Watercourse Buffer a. Watercourses which are located adjacent to land which slopes less than 15% or which have intermittent water flows shall have a 25 foot buffer from the top of each bank. b. Watercourses which are located adjacent to land and which slopes 15% or greater shall have a 40 -foot horizontal buffer from the top of each bank. 4. The buffers for wetlands and watercourses may be required to be increased by Tukwila when the area is particularly sensitive to disturbance or the development poses unusual impacts as identified in the special study. The standards listed above will be the criteria for expansion of the watercourse and wetlands minimums. Examples include: a. b. c. The development proposal involves the production, use storage or sale of hazardous materials or is a use which has significant environmental impacts. The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington; Special study identifies the presence of salmonids within the watercourse and or adjacent land which is a landslide hazard area or subject to severe erosion. d. The adjacent soils are subject to severe erosion Slopes a. Top of Slope: 50 feet from top and sides of 40% slopes and landslide hazard areas and having a grade difference from top to bottom of at least ten feet. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 5 b. Sites where historic or potential mass slope movement occurs shall have a 75- foot buffer from toe of slope. > c. Slope Buffer Modification: The Director of DCD and the Director of Public Works mawaive or modify the slope buffer if the applicant demonstrates that: AA (1) The proposed construction method will, as demonstrated in the required geotechnical analysis, improve or not adversely impact the stability of the slope and reduce erosion potential, and (2) The proposal uses construction techniques which minimize disruption of the existing topography and vegetation, and (3) The proposal adequately addresses, without long term monitoring, the existing geological constraints of the site including soils and hydrology. 18.45.060 PROCEDURES 1. When an applicant submits an application for any development, subdivision, short plat or land use review which approves future construction or use it shall indicate whether any sensitive areas or their buffers are located on or adjacent to the site. If a sensitive area is identified and sufficient information to evaluate the proposal is not provided with the application, the applicant will be required to provide special studies as part of the SEPA process and per the specifications of 21.04.140. It is intended that sensitive area studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore should be completed prior to the design of a proposal. 2. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site„during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. 18.45.080 USES AND STANDARDS 1. General: Only the following uses may be located within a Sensitive Area or its buffer. Each permitted use is subject to the applicable standards of this Section. > 1\i Via L-e nQ` reps SUcG i ; Y� rc/ 2. Wetlands and Watercourses a. General: No use or development may occur in a wetland or watercourse except as specifically allowed by this section or through approved enhancement or mitigation plans.., Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. G� b. Essential Utilities (1) Essential public utilities must be constructed to minimize or where possible avoid wetland and watercourse disturbance by laterally drilling at a depth of at least four feet; and (2) All construction must be designed to protect the wetland and the watercourse against erosion, uncontrolled drai striction of groundwater movement, slides, pollution aesthetic loss habitat disturbance, any loss of flood carrying and storage capacity and excessive excavation or fill detrimental to the environment; and (3) Upon completion of installation of essential public utilities, wetlands and watercourses must be restored to pre - project configuration, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established; and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 6 (4) All crossings must be designed for shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts and reduce the number of crossings. c. Essential Roads (1) Roads must be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and not restrict the natural movement of groundwater; and (2) Roads must be located to conform to the topography so that minimum alteration of natural conditions is necessary. The number of crossings is limited to those necessary to provide essential access; and (3) Roads must be constructed in a way which does not adversely affect the aesthetic and hydrologic quality of the wetland and any interrelated watercourse habitat. Where feasible, crossings must be by bridging the wetland and watercourse and must allow for combination with other essential public utilities; and (4) Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted as required and provided with maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. d. Public Use and Access (1) Public access must be located in areas which have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or alteration; and (2) Public access must be specifically developed for interpretive, educational or research purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part of the adopted Parks and Open Space Plan trail linkage program: and (3) No motorized vehicle is allowed within a wetland or watercourse or their buffers required by Section 18.45.040 except as required for necessary maintenance or security; and (4) Any public access or interpretive facility developed in a wetland and /or watercourse must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park, recreation or open -space area; and (5) Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect Sensitive Areas by limiting access to designated public use or interpretive areas; and (6) Access trails must incorporate design features and materials which protect water quality and allow adequate surface and ground water movement; and (7) Consolidated area for nesting, breeding, and rearing must be preserved in the wetland and /or watercourse area and their buffer required by Section 18.45.080 to protect sensitive plant and wildlife species; and (8) Dredging or filling within a wetland and or watercourse may occur only for the following purposes: (a). Maintenance of an existing water body or water corridor, or (b) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in sensitive area study or (c) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City, or DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 7 (d) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila. 3. Sensitive Slope Conditions a. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites with slopes exceeding 15 %, except for those portions of 'a site where slopes exceed 40% and portions that are'landslide hazard areas. The standards of this section and the geotechnical recommendations of the required special study apply to each use or development in these areas. b. Limited Exemption: Slopes 40% and steeper with a vertical elevation change of up to 20 feet may be exempted from the provisions of this section based on Tukwila review of a soils report that demonstrates that no adverse impact will result from the exemption. (Slopes of less than 10 feet in elevation change need no soils report.) c. Restricted Uses: For those portions of sites or sites that are unbuildable due to this section the following uses may be permitted subject to the procedures and standards of this chapter: (1) minor landscaping alterations (2) pedestrian trails and picnic areas (3) public and private utility corridors d. Disturbance Limitations (1) Basic Requirement: Development on property including a slope equal to or greater than 15% must: (a) Consolidate all areas of disturbance on the areas of least slope, preserving areas of significant environmental features, such as but not limited to an area of vegetation valuable for habitat or aesthetic reasons, a ridgeline which constitutes an area -wide visual amenity, and (b) Minimize changes in grade, cleared area to areas of proposed impervious surface, and volume of cut or fill on the site. (c) Consolidate development to produce the least amount of coverage by buildings and other impervious surfaces. e Review: The applicant ma • r. • ose-a-elevel an which irement of Paragraph c.(1). The DCD Director e : • ublic Works may appro . - • - - . • I if -- does not comply wi e. Revegetation: Where any portion of a sensitive slope is cleared for development, it shall be replanted with an equal mix of specimen evergreen and deciduous trees. A ratio of ten trees per acre or four per lot whichever is greater_ of vine maples, filberts, hazelnuts, hemlocks and red cedar or other species approved by the Director of DCD shall be planted. In addition, live groundcover at a maximum of 12 inches on center shall be planted. f. Location: (1) Development must be located to minimize disturbance and removal of vegetation; and (2) Structures must be clustered to retain as much open space as possible and the natural topographic character of the slope; and DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 8 g. (3) Structures must conform to the natural contour of the slope. The foundation must be tiered to conform to the existing topography of the site; and (4) Development must be located so as to preserve the most sensitive portion of the site and its natural landform or to protect vistas from public spaces. Design (1) Development must minimize the footprint of buildings and other disturbed areas. The least number of buildings is desirable in order to consolidate the development; and (2) Development must retain consolidated areas of natural vegetation; and (3) Development must be designed with a foundation type that is compatible with existing slope conditions and that minimizes topographic modification. Where feasible, earth retention measures should be incorporated into the structure; and (4) Standard prepared building pads; i.e., slab on grade, resulting in grading more than ten feet outside the building footprint area are prohibited: and (5) Development must be designed to minimize the amount of impervious surface; and (6) Use of common access drives and utility corridors is required where feasible; and (7) Development must be designed to minimize lot coverage and must, with the exception of detached single family structures, incorporate understructure parking and multi -level structures where permitted; and (8) Roads, walkways and parking areas must be designed parallel to contours with consideration to maintaining consolidated areas of natural topography and vegetation. Access must be located in the least sensitive area feasible; and (9) Use of retaining walls which allow the maintenance of existing natural slope areas is preferred over graded artificial slopes. (10) Change in grade, cleared area and volume of cut or fill on the site must be minimized; and h. Construction Types (1) Use of foundation walls as retaining walls is preferable to rock or concrete walls built separately and away from the building. Freestanding retaining devices are only permitted when they cannot be designed as structural elements of the building foundation; and (2) For slopes exceeding 40% use of pole -type construction which conforms to the existing topography is required where feasible. All structures must be tiered to conform to the existing topography and to minimize topographic modification; and (3) Piled deck support structures are preferred for parking or garages over fill - based construction types. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 9 4. Abandoned Mine Areas a. Development of a site containing or adjacent to an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted when all significant risks associated with the abandoned mine working have been eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. b. Any building setback or land alteration shall be based on the geotechnical engineering special study. 18.45.120 EXCEPTIONS 1. Provisions for existing development: a. General: All residential and commercial development located in wetlands, watercourses and /or their corridors or on steep slopes and in existence, or for which the development rights are vested on the effective date of this ordinance, is conforming as to the use and setback requirements of TMC, Chapter 18, and is not subject to the nonconforming provisions of Section 18.70 with respect to use and setback requirements. (1) Residential Development: A residential development described above may be expanded into a Sensitive Area or its buffer through the variance procedure outlined in 18.72. Only one expansion through the variance procedure will be allowed and that expansion will be limited to a 20 percent increase of total square footage. 2. Provisions for existing legal lots of record a. Development of a single family dwelling shall be allowed, if application of this chapter denies all use of property provided construction shall occur subject to the procedures and standards of 18.45. Minor wetlands and watercourses that prevent all use of existing property, may be altered and relocated if special study demonstrates that alteration/ relocation can meet the performance standards of 21.04.104(a)(4). 3. Provisions for variances: The Board of Adjustment shall review requests for variance from the standards of this chapter unless exempted by 18.45.120(2) or unless specifically waived elsewhere within this chapter. The use restriction on steep slopes shall use criteria of this paragraph as well as the criteria and procedures of 18.72. It is the applicant's burden to: a. Demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards and criteria of this Chapter, and b. Provide a geotechnical and stability analysis as required by the City which indicates engineering design acceptable to the City, and c. Provide other information necessary for the analysis as required by the Director of Public Works, and d. Provide an engineering solution that does not rely on life of project maintenance not normally performed in building and site maintenance. e. The City may require the applicant to fund a qualified professional, selected and retained by the Department of Public Works, to review the analysis and design. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 10 f. If the Directors of Public Works and DCD determine that the applicant complies with the above, Protected Area status no longer apply to the subject sensitive area; however the standards for development shall be applied. 4. Provisions for emergencies that threaten the public health, safety, and welfare. The restrictions and related requirements of sensitive area use shall be exempted by Tukwila provided due diligence is used to minimize damage. 5. Hold Harmless: Property owners who submit development applications to the City for expansion or reconstruction or construction in a Sensitive Area or its buffer, shall execute a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney which releases the City from liability for any damage arising from the location of improvements within the Sensitive Area or its buffer. 18.45.160 RECORDING REQUIRED 1. The property owner receiving approval of a use or development pursuant to this Chapter shall record a site plan clearly delineating the wetland, watercourse, steep slope, landslide hazard area or abandoned mine and their buffer designated by Section 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King County Division of Records and Election. The face of the site plan must include a statement that the provisions of this Chapter, as now or hereafter amended, control use and development of the subject property. 2. The boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and the adjacent developable land must be permanently identified with a wood or metal sign with treated or metal posts. Wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 18.45.180 ASSURANCE DEVICE 1. In appropriate circumstances, the City may require a performance or maintenance assurance device in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter and adequate protection of a Sensitive Area and its buffer for up to two years after construction completion. All assurances shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney. 2. When alteration of a sensitive area is approved, the director of DCD may require an assurance devise, on a form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five years. Release of the security does not absolve the applicant of responsibility for correcting latent defects or deficiencies that do not appear until after the monitoring program has ended. ENVIRONMENTAL CODE Section 4. 21.04.030 Amended. Section 21.04.030 is hereby amended to delete WAC 197 -11 -748 Environmentally sensitive area. Section 5. Section 21.04.040 Amended. Section 21.04.040 is hereby amended to add: (6) "Sensitive area" means wetlands, watercourses, slopes steeper than 15 %, landslide hazard areas and abandoned coal mine areas as shown on the adopted zoning maps and as defined in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.06. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 11 Section 6. Section 21.04.130 Amended. Section 21.04.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Special studies as described in 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. Section 7. Section 21.04.140 Amended. Section 21.04.140(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) If the site is a sensitive area, then the following special study will be required. The DCD Director and Public Works Director may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a use or application. The following exceptions shall generally apply: • Single - family residential permits -f Alts Je-peated. by.• " ' ,. • No alteration of a sensitive area or its buffer is proposed. Special studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. All studies shall contain the following information unless it is already available in the permit application: (a) Map of the project at a 1:50 or larger scale, including: i. reference streets and property lines. ii. existing and proposed easements, rights -of -way, and structures. iii. contour intervals not to exceed 5 feet; 2 feet may be required for sites with ri varied topography. iv. hydrology — show surface water features both on and adjacent to the site; show any water movement into, through, and off of the project area; show stream and wetlands; show seeps, springs, saturated zones. (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) v. field location of tops and toes of 40% slopes and embankments (NOTE: these 11 should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) vi. location of buffer, proposed building(s) location, and other paved areas. vii. location of trees and description of vegetation on site. (b) Written report detailing i. how, when, and by whom the study was performed (including methodology and techniques). ii. description of the project site and its existing condition and artificial features such as utilities, paving, cuts and fills. iii. the total acreage of the site in sensitive areas and their associated buffers. iv. the proposed action and potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to the sensitive area features (see definitions). v. the mitigation measures proposed to avoid or lessen the projects' impacts during construction and permanently. When alterations to the sensitive area or its buffer are proposed, include a mitigation plan. vi. weather conditions during and prior to study if relevant to conclusions and recommendations, including seasonal factors which could reduce stability of site before, during or after construction. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 12 (2) Sensitive Area Study - Wetlands: In addition, for wetland studies, include the following: (a) On the map i. the edge of the wetland as flagged and surveyed in the field using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. January 10, 1989 ii. the edge of the 100 -year flood plain. iii. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. iv. when alteration of wetland is proposed, the vegetation of the wetland according to the Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior (b) In the report i. description of the wetland and the general condition of the wetland using the Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System. ii. determination of actual use of the wetland by any endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species of plants or wildlife as listed by the federal government or the State of Washington using both scientific and common names and their relative abundance. iii. a list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observations. - iv. description of the soil types within the wetland using the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. v. description of the proposed buffers. (3) Sensitive Area Study - Watercourses. In addition, for watercourse studies, include the following information: (a) On the map i. the location of the ordinary high water mark and the top of channel bank. ii. the toe of any slope 15% or greater within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark. iii. the location of any proposed stream crossing, utility easements, or trails. iv. the edge of the existing 100 -year flood plain. (b) In the report i. characterization of watercourse (riparian) vegetation ii. description of the soil types adjacent to and underlying the stream, using the Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. iii. determination of the presence or absence of salmonids. Reference sources including the State Department of Fisheries Catalog of Streams and Salmon Utilizations, Metro Stream Resource Inventories, or State Wildlife Department Game Fish Distribution in Selected Streams. Electrofishing on site or the equivalent may be necessary if no existing documentation is available. iv. When a stream alteration is proposed, include existing stream width and flow, stability of the channel, type of substratum, estimate of infiltration capacity and biofiltration function, presence of hydrologically linked wetlands, and analysis of fish and wildlife habitat, and proposed flood plain limits. (4) Mitigation Plans for Alternations to Wetlands and Streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: aMiicae , awl t/L/K-eSe DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page .13 etattfr r es egrshn.Vi mcfi / V / /es (a) Baseline information: This is quantitive data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. For wetlands, the information should define habitat values (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures), functional values (e.g., wetland value assessment procedures of Adams and Stockwell, 1983), or document pertinent resource characteristics such as habitat area or species counts or density (e.g., mean number of eelgrass shoots per square meter). ii. For streams, habitat value, functional value and habitat evaluation are also necessary. At a minimum the following levels of analysis should be included: • Reconnaissance and evaluation - information required for the special studies (section V.D.), additional visual survey of the stream system and /or other pertinent information. • Habitat Trend Analysis - in some cases a more detailed analysis may be required. For this type of analysis current reference is Platts, W.S. et. al. " 21987, Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management, General Technical Report INT -221, U.S.F.S., Intermountain Research Stations. • Extended monitoring - in an abnormal rainfall year pre - development monitoring may be necessary to provide adequate baseline data. (b) Environmental Goals and Objectives: These are written goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (c) Performance Standards: These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: i. maintain stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient; ii. restore native vegetation unless expressly waived by DCD; iii. create an equivalent channel bed; iv. create equivalent biofiltration; v. replace habitat value unless expressly waived by DCD; vi. replace horizontal alignment (meander length). (d) Detailed Construction Plan: These are the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (e) Monitoring and /or Evaluation Program: This component outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. It also_describes the experimental and control site survey or sampling methods. C rotocol shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (f) Contingency Plan: This section identifies potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 14 (g) Perfor a ce and Maintenance Bonds: Monetary agreements per Section 18.4 .160 ensure fulfillment of the mitigation project, the monitoring program, and 1 determine during the review and contingency measures. (5) Sensitive Area Study - Steep / Unstable Slopes (a) On the map: i. subsurface exploration locations. ii. the drainage plans for discharge of storm water runoff from developed areas iii. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. iv. the location of soil borings and cross - section locations at intervals to be determined by the Director of Public Works. (b) On the cross - section: i. existing and proposed grades at 2 -foot intervals. ii. structural elevations. iii. profiles should extend beyond property lines where necessary to evaluate conditions impacting the risk of instability on the site or adjacent sites. iv. known and inferred subsurface conditions. (c) In the report: i. discussion of any evidence of past or existing instability, significant erosion or seepage on the slope and on any information that could affect the future stability of the site; ii. a discussion of the nature and extent of any colluvium (heterogeneous mass of rock detritus or soil material emplaced primarily by gravitational process on or at the foot of slopes) or slope debris near the toe of slope in the vicinity of any proposed development; and iii. review of available literature regarding site and surrounding area. iv. a geologic description of site (exploration logs identified on the site plan) indicating the soils and stratigraphy of the site v. recommendations for foundation, site grading and earthwork. vi. recommendations for management of surface and subsurface drainage, including analysis of groundwater activity for various times of the year, and include in stability analysis. vii. recommendations for appropriate building setbacks, grading restrictions, vegetation management and erosion control for any proposed development in the vicinity of the steep slopes. (6) Sensitive Area Study - Abandoned Coal Mine: The study shall be prepared by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer who has demonstrated experience in evaluating hazards associated with abandoned coal mine workings. (a) on the map: i. obtain the best available mine maps, reference the date and source and show; ii. the extent and depth of all subsurface mine workings iii. the location of all mapped entrances, air shafts or other surface openings (b) based on an evaluation of the site in its present condition, show i. the location of any observed surface openings ii. the location of any observed pits, swales, depressions which could indicate subsidence or collapse iii. the location and nature of any mine related debris on the surface iv. the location and character of any spoils or tailings. v. the character and stratigraphic orientation of any bedrock exposures DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 15 (c) in the report: i. discuss the geologic setting of the site including the depth of Pleistocene overburden, the nature and orientation of the bedrock units and the location and thickness of all coal seams. Include at least one cross - section showing the geologic setting, extent of workings and proposed development. ii. discuss the potential for discharge of noxious gases in the vicinity of the subject site. iii. discuss the potential for sudden collapse, void openings, or other threats to health or safety associated with development. iv. recommendations for any development setback restrictions based on an engineering evaluation of potential hazard from subsidence over large areas as well as localized collapse. v. recommendations for mitigation where possible to support with study data and engineering design. Section 8. Section 21.04.270 Amended Section 21.04.270 (1) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) Zoning Code - TMC Chapter 18 Section 9. Section 21.04.300 Amended Section 21.04.115 Environmentally Sensitive Areas is hereby renumbered and amended to read as follows: (a) Sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and defined in Zoning Code TMC 18.06 or hereinafter amended designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. The Categorical Exemptions within Part Nine, WAC 197 -11- 800(1); (2) a through g; (3); (6) a and b; (14) a, c, and d; (24) a through grand (25) d, f, h, and i are inapplicable within sensitive areas. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 e rvS.oli Voir g 36 r,n wakr cre0615.. d/5 df.v0(rd gbyropofch-c- lanclabowy- )5; ,...i i , i„ ,--. A .--: •:!4/1_ 1 /I ru v 6,11 ICe17`Ce c4" / 2gs rL7-/ -bca_6000 4.-bZ /609-7-6,/e 6/7-///\/ eeNP POW 6-14/2eWit4 (54 itA,Meefehoafx/ 0.11/41 (kw 565 rz?x)e)//1047-1-W„ piepo,sgo 'OW (AeSeZ, Z-656-76/A-pe,k) --irom(7-707J Re)( ced e7U5 RAW0-)0 13L) e el 2 -1-thile77A1.5 / SIOY? 471P % 04:11/00,0& M-Z4 - 5 11 11-0&5,,s odiaKeaS are 112,ozifria0 ekotra)/070— 6ripetogi LI,,z6be/7/-7 WAC 197 -11 -970 Description of Proposal DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE THE CITY OF TUKWILA PROPOSES THE ADOPTION OF A SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE WITHIN THE ZONING CODE, AND AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CODES TO REFLECT THE PROPOSAL. Proponent CITY OF TUKWILA Location of Proposal, including street address, if any NON PROJECT LEGISLATIVE ACTION INCLUDES ALL AREA WITHIN CITYLIMITS. SEE MAP INSIDE WETLANDS INVENTORY FOR APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES OF CITY. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC-22-89 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. There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by NOVEMBER 13.1989 . 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, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date /-;;137)A f` Signature I 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.ONS PLEASE PUBLISH IN THE SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1989 EDITION OF THE VALLEY DAILY NEWS. DISTRIBUTION: MAYOR, CITY CLERK, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, FILE CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTRJG FORM EPIC: ADDRESS Lilt 9 DATE TRANSMITTED ai,9,0 423 STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED PY r v i L ;EAb�,i�3 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below. ITEM COMMENT Date: /o /zs /ry Comments prepared by: , .09/14/89 ENVIRONIVIfiNTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EPIC: PROJECT 54,0 ADDRESS DATE TRANSMITTED a,p 0 / 0/a23 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /6/Z25- 5- AR STAFF COORDINATOR v DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED. The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below. ITEM COMMENT Date: Igg9 Comments prepared by: , 09/14/89 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project: Sensitive Area Ordinance 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Department of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Moira Carr Bradshaw 433 -1848 4. Date checklist prepared: 9 October 1989 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Pubic Review - November /December 1989 Ordinance Adoption - December 1989 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Additional legislation related to resource management includes a Clearing and Grading Ordinance. Amendments to these ordinances are possible based on implementation experience. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A wetlands inventory, prepared by Jones and Stokes, maps and identifies the system(s) in Tukwila. Maps of the watercourses and aerial photographs of contours are also available. 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. The Department of Ecology is currently working on minimum standards for local jurisdictions on wetlands 1 ATTACHMENT A regulations pursuant to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Tukwila Planning Commission Recommendation and Tukwila City Council Approval and Ordinance Adoption are required for implementation. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objective and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The City of Tukwila is an approximate 8 square mile suburban municipality in the Puget Sound Region of Washington state. The proposal would amend the city's zoning code to create a new overlay zone for its sensitive areas which it defines as slopes greater than 15 %, wetlands, watercourses, and abandoned coal mines. The City's environmental ordinance and subdivision code will also be amended to reflect the definitions and standards of the overlay zone. The overlay zone would be shown on the zoning map of Tukwila to identify and alert the public to the sensitivity of a site. The overlay zone will require : a. special study b. protected areas and buffers c. permitted uses from the underlying zoning district outside of protected 1- areas and buffers. d. provision for existing uses and reasonable use of a sensitive site e. development standards for sites with sensitive areas. 12. Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The City of Tukwila is located south of the City of Seattle, east of the Duwamish River and Pacific Highway, north of 160th, 164th and 188th street from west to east and west of the right of way margin of the BNSF Burlington Northern railroad and 51 Avenue S. (See attached map.) 2 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The new ordinance will encompass those areas that are designated. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Because the proposal is a nonproject action and encompasses all the land within the City limits and not just one site, the majority of the following questions are not applicable unless answered. 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 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.. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The development standards of the ordinance will limit the amount of disturbance allowed on steep sites and within adjacent areas of watercourses and streams which will control erosion. Therefore, the amendment will result in more vegetation being retained and less impervious surface on the more highly erodible and steep development sites. 3 • • 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. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The proposal to require greater retention of vegetation in buffer areas and less clearing on steep sites will result in greater air pollution control. 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 rover it flows into. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3. Estimate the amount of till 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. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 4 • • 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 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. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the systems, 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. 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. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. The use of buffer areas adjacent to surface waters and the restriction on impervious surface on steep sites will control and reduce runoff impacts. 4. Plants 5 • a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen trees: fir cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other. water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. The revegetation of sensitive sites with native trees and shrubs is proposed to enhance and buffer sites. 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: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 6 • • d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 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: 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. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 7 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. 8 • i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposal is an overlay on the existing zoning districts. Therefore no change in the land use plan of the city is proposed. There will be decreased densities due to the proposed protected status of wetlands, watercourses and hillsides. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 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? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? 9 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? Retention of vegetation and planting of additional vegetation will be aesthetic improvements in project developments. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, natural, state, or local preservation registers 10 known to be on or near the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 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.) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 11 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 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. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 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. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency 's relying on them to make its decisi on. /. .4_14 4/ /4 AKA Signature: Date submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. 12 • • TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON- PROJECT ACTIONS. (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, if 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 implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal will not increase discharges to water or emissions to air; or the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances ; or the production of noise. Primarily the proposal will decrease the amount and improve the quality of surface water runoff. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal is intended to preserve vegetation adjacent to resource areas such as wetlands and watercourses and a percentage of the existing vegetation on hillsides. The buffer areas and limits on land disturbance on hillsides is intended to protect the water quality of watercourses and wetlands which will protect fish and marine life. a. Proposed measures to protect plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Wetlands, which provide surface water filtration and nutrients to downstream waters, will be protected and buffered. Minor wetlands may be filled but must be reestablished on a 1:1 basis. Watercourses will be required to remain open and unpiped except for access points to established lots, and will be buffered by undisturbed areas. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 13 • • The proposal will preserve natural resources such as the wetlands, watercourses, and the natural landform of hillsides. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Established protection status for the above listed areas and limits on the disturbance which can occur on and adjacent to them. 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? The proposal will protect and conserve the areas designated as environmentally sensitive; although certain permitted uses will be allowed subject to construction standards. a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Minimum buffers and additional buffers where required to protect resources are proposed as measures to reduce impacts of development on these areas. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The result of the proposal would be to restrict uses and guide development which would adversely impact water resources and the natural land form. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: The proposal is being developed as an amendment to the land use code of the city as a measure to coordinate land use regulations and reduce inconsistent application. b. How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? The proposal is similar to but will not affect the Shoreline Plan. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? 14 The proposal is likely to decrease demands on surface water management responsibilities and should not affect demand for other public services and utilities. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will not conflict with local, state or federal laws but will be reflective of state and federal laws. 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? Objective 3, page 48: " Diminish the environmental effects of natural and man -made systems which adversely affect the quality of living in the Tukwila Planning Area." and then Policy 4 of the above objective, page 50, " Encourage a minimum care and maintenance level for undeveloped open spaces." discusses the effects of natural, undeveloped areas to allow blackberry bushes to grow unchecked and clog streams and wetlands to produce mosquitoes which negatively impact the livability of Tukwila. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflicts are: The proposal would protect these areas from fill but would allow maintenance subject to standards and replanting. 15 • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR PROJECT AND NON - PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides an overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? In general, to implement the policies of the Natural Environment, Open Space and Utilities elements of the Comp Plan and to create standards and consistency for the development process. The proposal will preserve natural features of the environment which will preserve habitat and enhance water quality and storm water management functions. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Rely on SEPA as is the current practice or to create a different type of ordinance then the overlay zone proposed. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Regulation based on policy tends to be uncertain. Policies are vague and conflicting and developers do not refer to policy documents for regulatory guidance. Application of specific standards such as buffers and procedures are not consistently applied if they are not in code form. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? See question 8, page 24: a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: F. SUPPLEMENTAL FOR TUKWILA SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE 1. The attached draft is without benefit of community comment or the legislative process. Changes and amendments can be expected during the course of its public review. 2. Property owners and residents pending issue through an article in of the City have been notified of the the City's newsletter and through the 16 1 mailing of a citywide brochure on the issues and process. The public review process of the draft document will begin Wednesday, October 25, 1989 with a public workshop. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on 9 November 1989, deliberate on the 16th of November and then make a recommendation on the 14th of December to the. City Council. The City Council will then hold a public hearing, deliberate and adopt in January of 1990. jjiv- cklist 17 WETLANDS INVENTORY Gary Van Dusen, Mayor Rick Beeler, DCD Director Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Manager Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1808 -136th PI, N.E. Bellevue, Wa. 98005 October 1989.. Imillidilki CITY OF TUKWILA Community Develo merit Department Planning Division TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 METHODOLOGY 1 RESULTS 1 Habitat Types 2 Size 2 Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated 2 Percent Edge Buffered 2 Education /Recreation Potential 2 Disturbance Rating 4 Overall Wetland Rating 4 (Available by site upon request) TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORIES LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Summary Matrix of Tukwila Wetlands 3 2 Overall Ratings for Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Following Page 1 Locations of Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila • 1 INTRODUCTION Wetlands are considered to be valuable resources due to their functions in water pollution control, wildlife habitat, flood control, and as aesthetically pleasing open space. For these and other reasons, federal, state, and many local governments have developed regulations and policies aimed at protecting wetlands. The City of Tukwila has recently become interested in identifying wetland resources within the City, and arranged to have this wetland inventory conducted. The wetland inventory was conducted in order to determine the presence of wetlands; no attempt was made to identify exact wetland boundaries. METHODOLOGY The wetland inventory for the City of Tukwila involved two stages; review of literature, and field investigation. The literature review was conducted by reviewing available resources, including: • Aerial photographs (1986, 1" =200') ▪ King County Wetlands Inventory (King County, 1981) • U.S. Soil Conservation Service soils maps (SCS, 1970) • U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (Renton, Des Moines, - and Seattle South Quadrangles, 1973, 1:24,000) • National Wetland Inventory Maps (Renton, 1988; Des Moines, 1987; and Seattle South, 1987, 1:24,000) All potential wetlands identified using these sources were visited to determine actual site conditions. In addition, City staff were interviewed to determine locations of other potential sites not identified using the sources listed above. In the field, a wetland determination was made by examining soils, vegetation, and any obvious hydrologic features. If the site was determined to be wetland, a data form was completed. The form is based on the Black Lake Wetland Inventory Field Form, and is reproduced in Appendix A of this document. The form was reproduced from A Guide to Conducting Wetland Inventories (Washington State Department of Ecology 1989). Due to the level of detail of the study, wetland boundaries were not determined in the field. Exact wetland boundaries should be determined at the time of a permit application. Approximate wetland boundaries were determined based on field visits and aerial interpretation; these approximate boundaries were transferred to assessors maps. Because landmarks that are obvious on aerial photographs are generally not present on assessors maps, the wetland locations shown on the assessors maps are very approximate. RESULTS Fifteen wetlands were identified during the inventory. The locations of these wetlands are shown in Figure 1. Although Tukwila is, for the most part, highly urbanized, wetlands in the City exhibit a diversity of habitat types, including open water, emergent marsh, shrub swamp, and forested swamp. Based on aerial photographs, many wetlands rt.. a li 1C,77 lt . C minim dIEOPI MMMMM t$ Lake Wa s TO s e. IA EIREEMIFFI rafte re FIERO a larintaptimm 411,x. ®� II ION 17.14,1.,, . e N /ter ;▪ l SEATTLE TACOMA It ▪ INTERNATIONAL y� •e . -. 1, \\ t ▪ AIRPORT NIOet_:: UNCTION. RILL! 41 Figure 1. Locations of Inventoried Wetlands 1 • within the City have already been filled and converted to other land uses. Completed data forms for each of the 15 inventoried wetlands are presented in the following pages. Table 1 summarizes information about each wetland. In addition to the 15 inventoried wetlands, additional wetland habitat likely exists along the banks of the Duwamish Waterway /Green River. Due to limited access to private property along the river, and the small size of these areas, the entire river was not surveyed. The river has been dredged, and banks along the majority of the river are steeply sloping and vegetated with upland species, such as blackberry. However, there may be areas along the river where banks are not as steep; in these areas, emergent marsh or scrub shrub communities may be present. Information in Table 1 allows for comparison between the different wetlands in Tukwila. The following section describes information presented in each of the columns in Table 1. Habitat Types Open water, unconsolidated bottom (mud or exposed, unvegetated ground), emergent marsh, scrub shrub, and forested swamp are wetland habitat types. These habitat types are based on the U.S.F.W.S. classification scheme (Cowardin et.al. 1979'). A dot in one of these columns indicates that the particular habitat type is present in the wetland. Size The approximate acreage (0 -5 acres, 6 -10 acres, or greater than 10 acres) of each wetland is listed in this column. Acreage figures are very approximate, since they are based on transfer of information from field visits and review of aerial photographs to assessors maps. No flagging or survey work was conducted in the field. It is possible that wetlands that fall close to the edge of a size class have been placed in the wrong size class. Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated This column gives an estimate of the percentage of land within 1000 feet of the wetland edge that is vegetated. This information is based on review of aerial photographs, and can be used to get an idea of the amount of urbanization in the vicinity of a particular wetland. Percent Edge Buffered This column presents an estimate, based on aerial photographs, of the percentage of the wetland edge (within 20 feet of the wetland) that is vegetated with tree or shrub species. Studies have shown that buffers surrounding wetlands protect the wetland and provide additional habitat and protection to wildlife species using the wetland. Education /Recreation Potential A wetland with a "yes" in this column indicates that educational or recreational opportunities may exist at the site. Education potential includes opportunities for 2 TABLE 1. SUMMARY MATRIX OF TUKWILA WETLANDS WL # OW HABITAT UB EM TYPE SS FSw Size (Ac.) % 1000 ft. veg. % Edge Buf. Ed. /Rec. Potential , Disturb. Rating 1 6 -10 20 50 3 2 • • 0 -5 25 80 3 3 • • 0 -5 40 40 3 4 • • 0 -5 20 20 3 5 • 0 -5 50 20 3 6 • 0 -5 30 100 3 7 • 0 -5 25 100 YES 1 8 • • • 0 -5 75 15 YES 2 9 • • • > 10 0 60 YES 1 10 • • • 0 -5 50 80 YES 1 11 • • 6 -10 20 60 2 12 • • • >10 0 0 3 13 • • • 5 -10 45 70 YES 2 14 • 0 -5 30 80 1 1 5 • 0 -5 50 75 3 16 • • • 0 -5 30 100 3 17 • • • 0 -5 80 100 3 OW = Open Water UB = Unconsolidated Bottom EM = Emergent Marsh SS = Scrub Shrub FSw = Forested Swamp LEGEND 1000 ft. veg. = percentage of area within 1,000 feet of wetland edge that is vegetated % edge buf. = approx. percentage of area within 20' of wetland edge vegetated with trees or shrubs Ed. /Rec Potential = potential for wetland to be used recreationally or educationally (see text) Disturb. Rating = Relative amount of disturbance in and around wetland (see text) • • interpretive trails or viewing points; recreation potential includes opportunities for trails or passive recreation such as bird watching. The potential for these activities was determined based on potential for safe access to the site and character of the wetland. No attempt was made to evaluate other aspects of feasibility of developing these resources. Disturbance Rating Wetlands within the City of Tukwila were assigned a "disturbance rating" based on the relative amount of disturbance in and adjacent to wetlands. The scale is from 1 (least disturbed) to 3 (most disturbed). A wetland with a rating of 1 is relatively undisturbed, and has undeveloped buffers surrounding at least portions of the site; disturbances do not extend into the wetland. A wetland with a rating of three (3) is bounded on all sides by developed areas, fill, transportation corridors, or displays evidence of other disturbances such as garbage dumping. Wetlands with a rating of two contain a combination of disturbed and undisturbed areas. This system of rating is a relative scale, comparing Tukwila's inventoried wetlands with each other. It is important to note that, on the whole, all wetlands in Tukwila are subject to relatively high degrees of urbanization and associated disturbance. These ratings are also very subjective, and are based on visual observation of sites and review of aerial photographs. It is likely that unseen disturbances (such as polluted water runoff) affect the wetlands; these unseen disturbances are not reflected in this rating. Overall Wetland Rating Wetlands were assigned ratings (1 = highest wetland value, 3 = lowest wetland value) based on degree of disturbance, diversity, buffer, potential for other uses, and wildlife habitat; an overall wetland rating based on a summary of these separate elements was also assigned. Again, these ratings were assigned based on a comparison of inventoried wetlands in Tukwila with each other. Table 2 presents a summary of this information. These ratings are very subjective, and should be used for general evaluation purposes only. It is possible that, with more detailed information, ratings could change. TABLE 2. OVERALL RATINGS FOR INVENTORIED WETLANDS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA* Wetland # Disturb. Rating Diversity Buffer Habitat Ed./ Rec. Overall ` Rating 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 6 3 3 1 3 3 3 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2. 2 2 2 1 2 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 2 1 2 2 3 2 12 3 2 3 1 3 2. 13 2 1 2 1 1 1 14 1 2 1 1 2 2 15 3 3 2 2 3 3 16 3 2 2 3 3 3 17 3 3 2 3 3 3 * Wetland ratings are discussed in text King County Esccu*Ivs Tim Hill ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RECE VED CITY OF USIA BUILDING Via' / Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts �n the quality of the environment. The . purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen- cies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known. or give the best de- scription you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases. you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer. or if a question does not apply to your proposal. write "do not know" or "does not ap- ply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning. shoreline, and landmark designations. .Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems. the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in- formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. L'se of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals. even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN .aD- DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions. the references in the checklist to the words "project." "applicant." and "property or site" should be read as "proposal." "proposer," and "affected geographic area." respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project. if applicable:Amendments to King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (KCC 21.54) and Sensitive Areas Rules to implement the amendments. 2. Name of applicant: King County Parks, Planning, and Resources Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Joe Nagel , Director 296 -7305 1107 Smith Tower Bldg. 506 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 93104 4. Date checklist prepared:December 16, 1938 5. Agency requesting checklist:King County Parks, Planning, and Resources Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing. if applicable): Adoption of the proposed amendments by the King County Council is anticipated in 1989 following public review of the proposal. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions. expansion. or further activity related to or connected with this proposal'' If yes. explain. The administrative rules may be amended from time to time in order to reflect changed conditions or improvements in our understanding of the sensitive areas and their reaction to different development impacts. Specifically, the Wetlands and Stormwater Program will produce additional guidelines on use of wetlands for surface water management. 1 [Ch. 147 -11 RCW —p 401 NS: Laws) P • SEPA Rules Part Eleven- 197 -11 -960 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared or will be prepared, directly. related to thisproposai.The Sensitive Areas Folio shows the approXimate location o€ many sensitive areas in the western portion of the county. The Wetlands Inventory has mapped over 800 wetlands in the western two thirds of the county and rated these in three categories. King County also has a set of maps showing the location of the 100 -year floodplains for most of the major rivers and streams. The. Draft EIS King Co. General Dev.. Guide ((18q981), the Draft Supplemental EIS Executive Proposed General Dev. Guide 9. L)o you,Know and appTtcatton5 are pending too governmental approvals of other proposals dirrectll�aff affecting the re i I • property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. The Department of Ecology is currently working on minimum standards for local jurisdictions on wetlands regulations pursuant to the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. There are numerous other governmental programs either in place or proposed that will impact development of sensitive areas in King County, includir Watershed Action Plans, Basin Plans,- Community Plans, SAMPs, and Nonpoint pollution programs 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The Washington Department of Ecology must approve the amendents to King County's Shoreline Master Program and the amendments to King County's Flood Hazard Ordinance. The Sensitive Areas Rules will require approval under King County's administrative rules ordinance (KK 2.90) • 11. Give brief. complete description of your proposal. including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific infor- mation on project description.) The proposed amendments to King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance will increase the protection afforded wetlands, streams, steep slopes, landslides, coal mine hazards, flood hazards, erosion hazards, and seismic hazards from the impacts of development. The amendments together with the rules proscribe buffers, setbacks, native growth protection easements, and other regulations aimed at protecting these areas. These amendments and rules implement the 1905 Comprehensive Plan policies on environmentally sensitive areas. The amendments and rules regulate private and public development proposals that require specific approval from King County such as roads, utilities, subdivisions, building permits, grading permitd,master plan developments, PUDs, etc. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project. including a street address. if any, and section. township. and range. if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description. site plan. vicinity map. and topographic map. if reasonably. available. While you should submit any plans required by the agenc. you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal involves all of the area inKing County in that it regulates development in the jurisdictional boundaries of the County. TO BE COMPLETED B1 APPLICANT B. -ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a General description of the site (circle one • Flat. rolling. hill, steer dope,, mountainous. other Not allicable (N //1). b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)' N/A E\ Ll.“10• FOR AGE \C1 LSE ONLY 2 i Ins; Law. [(h. 1.' -I I RCVV —p all Part Eleven -- 197 -11 -960 SERA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY LSE ONLY 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. N/A d. Are there surface indications or history_ of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so. describe. N/A e. Describe the purpose, type: and approximate quantities of any filling or _grading pro- posed. Indicate source of fill. N/A f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing. construction. or use'' If so, generally describe: N/A g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example. asphalt or buildings)'.' N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion. or other impacts to the earth. if any: The administrative rules contain specific requirements related to control of erosion on areas defined as erosion hazards including retention of understory, phased clearing, seasonal restrictions, and reveaetation requirements. The rules will be applied on a project by project basis. ?. 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. N/A b. .Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that ma■ affect ■our proposal" If. so. generally describe. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air. if am: The rul es will result i n more vegetation being left on a development site. Since most debris from clearing is often burned, the rules will reduce air pollution resulting from slash burning. Also, the more trees that are retained on site will positively affect the problem of the greenhouse effect. 3 ICh. I47 -I1 RC%■—p 42j • SEP.a Rules Part Eleven- 197 -11 -960 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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. N/A 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. N/ A 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. In- dicate the source of fill material. N/ A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de- scription. purpose. and approximate quantities if known. N/ A `) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so. note location on the site plan. 11 /A 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface ■aters.' If so. describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: I 1 Will ground water be withdrawn. or will water be discharged to ground eater.' Give general description. purpose. and approximate quantities if known. N/A 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the _round from septic tanks or other sources. if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial. containing the folkmin_ chemicals . . .; agricultural: etc.). Describe the general izc 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 sere. N/ A 4 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Part Eleven- 197 -11 -960 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT SEPA Rules 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. N/A 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters'? If so. generally describe. N/A EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. if any The rules contain specific guidelines on the use of wetlands and streams for surface water management aimed at protection of the biologic and hydrologic values associated with these resource areas. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: N/A _ deciduous tree: alder. maple, aspen. other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar. pine. other shrubs _ grass _ pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail. buttercup. bullrush, skunk cabbage. other _ water plants: water lily. eelgrass, milfoil. other — other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered'? N/A c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A d. Proposed landscaping. use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site. if any: N/A S. 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: N/A birds: hawk. heron. eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear. elk, beaver, other: fish: bass. salmon. trout, herring, shellfish. other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A ICh. 197 -11 RCµ' -p 441 5 • SEPA Rules • Part Eleven- 197 -11 -960 • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALt.ATION FOR AGENCY LSE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. N/A d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. if any: The rules require undisturbed buffers around wetlands, streams, and other sensitive areas. The buffers will provide important wildlife habitat as well as protect the integrity of the sensitive area from the adverse impacts of development. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric. natural gas. oil. wood stove. solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manu- facturing. etc. N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties'' If so, generally describe. N/A 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: PJ /A 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. The proposed rules on flood hazards will prohibit the storage of hazardous materials in the flood hazard areas during the flood season. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards. if any: As mentioned above, the rules proscribe the placement of hazardous materials in the flood hazard areas. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project for example: traffic. equipment. operation. other)'' N/A 2) ‘‘..hat 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: traffic. construction. operation. other)'.' Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A 6 10,S3 (.a '.) I('h. I� "-11 R( —p 451 Part Eleven- 197 -11 -960 SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The rules will require the retention of vegetation in buffers that will help reduce noise impacts overall on a development site by absorbing sound waves before they can leave the project site. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A . b. Has the site been used for agriculture'? If so, describe. N /A. c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A d. Will an ' structures be demolished? If so. what'? N/A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/A f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A g. If applicable. what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site'? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so. specify. N/A i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project' N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace'? The proposed amendments will not displace any current residents but they may result in lower densities on a site with sensitive areas that shall remain undeveloped unless the Council adopts a density credit. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. if any: N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. if any: ' N/A 7 [Ch. 197_11 RC -p 461 SSEPA Rules • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle. or low- income housing. N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts. if any: N/A 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'? • Part Eleven - 197 -I1 -960 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY LSE ONLY N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The rules will require the retention of vegetation in buffers and sensitive area that may result in obstruction of views on a specific property. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. if any: The retention of vegetation is viewed b: many as an improvement in the aesthetics of a subdivision of other development project. II. Light and Glare a. «'hat type of Tight or glare will the proposal produce'.' that time of day would it mainly occur'' N/A b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere \Aith views.' c. What existing off- site Nources of light or glare may affect your proposal'? N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. if any: N/A 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinit\ N/A b. Would the proposed project displace and existing recreational uses' If so. describe. N/A 8 1U.; I...,,.. (( h. I e I I R( %%—p 47I art Eleven- 197 -11 -960 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • SEPA Rules • EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if anv:The rules will require buffers and setbacks from the sensitive areas that will remain undeveloped. These areas will provide passive recreation opportunities in the form of hiking, bird watching, and fishing. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for. national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N/A b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological. scientific. or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site. and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. N/A b. Is site currently served by public transit'' If not. what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop'' N/A c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many ■ would the project eliminate'' N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets. or improvements to existine roads or streets. not including driveways? If so. generally describe (indicate .whether public or private). ` N/A e. Will the project use or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water. rail. or air transporta- tion? If so. generally describe. N/A How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project.' If known. indicate when peak volumes would occur. !Ch. I47 -11 RCN —p 181 N/A 9 • • SEPA Rules Part Eleven- 197 -11 -960 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA \T EVALUATION FOR AGENCY LSE ONLY g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. if any: N/A 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro- tection, police protection. health care. schools. other)? If so. generally. describe. N/A b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The proposed amendments and rules will reduce demand on public services because they will restrict development of hazardous areas thereby reducing emergency services costs. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity_ natural gas. water. refuse serv- ice. telephone. sanitary sever. septic system. other. N/A _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. N/A C. SIG\ATLRE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: .. Date Submitted: 1 (1983 Laws) j ICh. 197 -11 RCN —p 49i s- i Part eleven- 197 -11 -960 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • • SEPA Rules • 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 implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal will not increase an? of the impacts to the above. The proposal will result in significant reduction of discharges to surface waters, emissions to air, releases of hazardous substances., and production of noise through the regulation of development on wetlands, streams, steep slopes, landslides, coal mine hazards, erosion hazards, flood hazards, and seismic hazards measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: -.The rules require that number 1 and 2 wetlands, class 1 and 2 streams, 40% steep slopes, floodways, landslides and their buffers shall remain undisturbed with native growth protection easements and separate tracts to protect them. The remaining sensitive areas may be altered to a limited extent with appropriate mitigation. Compensation for altering number 3 wetlands must ensure no net loss of weZtl�o Aiilaq21Poposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal will increase theretention of animal, plants and fish on' a development site by requiring specific.. buffers and setbacks from wetlands, streams and other sensitive areas. These buffers will provide habitat, food, and shelter from the adverse impacts associated with development. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The rules require buffers on all wetlands and streams to protect the resource area form negative impacts. .These buffers may be increased when the site contains important fish or wildlife habitat as determined by special studies. The native growth protection easements and separate tracts will help protect the vegetation from alteration. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal should not deplete energy or natural resources but rather help conserve these features. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The rules will reduce the impacts to streams an "thereby increase opportunities to protect fish habitat. Other natural resources like wildlife and trees will benefit from the protection of wetlands and streams. The rules will also protect water quality from adverse } mpacts by requiring undisturbed buffers around the sensitive areas thereby reducing the of pollutants entering • gr 'iuVol.53VoUliirt i> ciroPtS1'E@ likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or ar- eas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection: such as parks. wil- derness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites. wetlands. floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposal will protect and conserve the areas designated as environmentally sena?.ti,-e.areas. The rules require specific development. standards when a proposal contains one or more of these areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Minimum buffers, additional buffers where required to protect resources, application to public as well as private development proposals, setbacks, native growth protection easements, separate tracts, monitoring of alterations, specific mitigation requirements, and fencing or marking of all separate tracts to identify them. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use. including whether it ould flow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal will encourage land and' � shoreiine use that is compatible with existing plans. [Ch. 197 -11 RCW —p 501 (1983 Laws) SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Part Eleven - 197 -11- -960 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The rules require that where they conflict with other land or shoreline plans, the most protective of environmentally sensitive features shall prevail. Specfic provisions to protect shorelines include reduced construction within flood plains, greater setbacks and buffers, minimum buffer sizes, and native growth protection easements. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public ser- vices and utilities? The proposal shuld reduce demands on public services like surface water management, flood protection, and stream restoration. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Strict erosion control measures, undeveloped buffers acting as siltation filters, reduced development of flood plains, and other requirements will reduce demands on public services and require that individual' project bear a greater burden of the impacts associated with development. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will not conflict with local state or federal laws. The proposal is consistent with either the intent or the language of the following laws or rules: Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09) State Clean Water Act (RCW 90.48) Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) Puget Sound Water Quality Act (90.70) Fisheries Hydraulic Project Approval (WAC 220 -110) Federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531) Federal Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251) State Floodplain Management Act (RCW 86.16) King County Surface Water Ord. (KCC 9.08) King County Comprehensive Plan State Planning Enabling Act (RCW 36.70) [Ch. 197 -11 RCW —p 511 (1983 Laws) February 23, 1989 > A O (4 OFFICE OP THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DECISION ON APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NONSIGNIFICANCE SUBJECT: Appeal of Determination of Environmental Non - significance. for Proposed Amendments to King County Code (Chapter 21.54) and Proposed Administrative Rules (Proposed King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Rules) Appellant: Maxine Keesling SUMMARY OP RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISION: Division's Preliminary: Division's Final: Examiner: PRELIMINARY REPORT: Deny the appeal. Deny the appeal. Deny the appeal. The Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary Report on this appeal was received by the Examiner on January 12, 1989. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Land Development Division's Report and examining available information on file with the appeal, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on this appeal was opened by the Examiner at 9:30 a.m. on January 26, 1989, Hearing Room No. 2, 3600 136th Place S.E., Suite A, Bellevue, Washington, and closed at 4:25 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning anci.Subdivision Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. King County proposes to adopt an ordinance relating to zoning; adding to and amending the definitions and regulations for development affecting sensitive areas. The County also proposes to adopt sensitive areas rules to implement King county Code Chapter 21.54 (as amended). In particular, a draft proposed Ordinance, dated December 9, 1988, and draft Sensitive Area Rules, dated December, 1988, have been proposed. Ord. 21.54 SEPA Page 2 The King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department is the project proponent. The King County Building and Land Development Division, a division of that department, has the responsibility for performing the duties of the lead agency (see KCC 24.44.020). Effective December 27, 1988, the Building and Land Development Division issued a Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed action. 2. On December 29, 1988, an Appeal of the DNS was filed by Maxine Keesling. The appellant asserts that an Environmental Impact ,Statement is required to analyze: A. Health problems associated with wetland preservation; B. The necessity for preserving isolated wetlands less than an acre in size; c. The environmental and economic impacts of using only the "prevalence of wetlands vegetation' criterion for defining wetlands; D. The negative impacts of prohibiting use of land for recreation, views, pasture, landscaping, crops, etc.; and E. The contribution to urban sprawl. 3. In making the threshold determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance, the merits of the proposal are not a consideration. The lead agency "shall not balance whether the beneficial aspect of a proposal outweighs its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts....' WAC 197 -11- 330(5). 4. The purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement, which would be required in the event of a Determination of Significance, is to provide the decision -maker with additional information concerning the effects of a proposed action on the environment. An EIS would identify and analyze alternative means to accomplish the purposes of the proposed action, and would provide information on _.methods for mitigating the adverse impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 5. Although an Environmental. Impact Statement may address economic considerations, the sole issue to be addressed in considering an appeal of a Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance is whether the proposed action would have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The elements of the environment to be considered in making the threshold. determination are only those which are identified by the. State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) and the State Environmental Policy Act Rules (chapter 197 -11 WAC). Among the elements of the environment which must be considered in making a threshold determination are environmental health; scenic resources; land and shoreline use; and recreation. See WAC 197- 11 -44t. 6. The primary purpose of this proposal is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by protecting and restoring sensitive areas, and mitigating impacts to sensitive areas by regulating their development. Specifically included are protecting the public from Ord. 21:54 SEPA, Y,w4 Page 3 damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion; preventing adverse impacts to water quality of wetlands and streams; and protecting unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment. The proposal would prohibit or substantially limit development, including alteration, to the sensitive areas which are subject to the proposed ordinance and rules. 'Alteration' is defined as: Any human - induced action which changes the existing condition of a sensitive area or buffer. Alterations include but are not limited to grading, filling, dredging, channelizing, removing vegetation, applying; pesticides, discharging waste, grazing domestic animals, modifying for storm water management, relocating, or other activities that change the existing vegetation, hydrology, or habitat.' (proposed Rules, Section V). The sensitive areas and their buffers include: Wetlands and Their Buffers. No. 1 Wetlands shall have a 100 -foot undisturbed buffer of natural vegetation; No. 2 Wetlands, a 50 -foot buffer; -and No. 3 Wetlands a 25 -foot buffer. All Streams. Class 1 Streams shall have a,100 -foot buffer on each side of the channel (which may reduced to 50 feet in rural and urban environments); Class 2 Streams shall have a 50 -foot buffer on each side of the channel (which shall be extended to a minimum of 100 feet for Class 2 streams uaed by salmonids); Class 3 Streams shall have a 25 -foot buffer. Steep 'Slopes. All slopes 40% and steeper,'with a 5D-foot' buffer from-the top, toe and along: all, sides. Landslade Hazard Areas. All landslide hazards 'that occur on slopes 40% or steeper, together with minimum buffer of 50 feet from all edges of a landslide hazard area. •7. The proposed rules provide opportunities to seek variances or waivers, as well as the possibility of administrative extensions cif the required buffers, by the Buil-ding and Land Development Division. Waivers or extensions would be based upon peculiar circumstances which may-exist itn specific situations. However, a stated purpose of the proposed ordinance and rules is to provide increased i predictability.' Therefore, it 1s reasonable to expect that the "general standards of the ordinance and rules will normally be applied to all" 'development' ,proposals; •and that vsriances",' .waivers and extensions wil 'be granted or iml:oscd only in exceptional situations. • Accordingly, the "possibility of waivers of "- extensions is not considered to lessen the probability -of the' impacts of this proposed aotion. �. O. The appellant asserts that the proposed action will increase mosquito breeding opportunities, resulting in the need to increase use of pesticides. The appellant also asserts that leaving areas of native growth alongside streams and wetlands can be 'hazardous for children. The responsible official, however, has found that the retention of additional mosquito breeding areas, and hazards associated with the inability to monitor children's activities in natural areas, are not significant probable impacts. The responsible official's • Ord. 21.54 SEPA Page 4 determination is entitled to substantial weight; there is no evidence that his determination that there is no substantial impact on environmental health is clearly erroneous. 9. Evaluating the necessity for a proposed . action is not an issue which is addressed in making a threshold determination concerning the significance of a proposal's environmental impacts. Similarly, the appropriateness of criteria to be used in defining "wetlands" is not, of itself, an environmental impact. (In any event, the current proposal does not use the single criterion identified by the ap?ellant.) 10. The proposed ordinance and rules would have an impact on scenic resources by generally precluding thinning, pruning or removing vegetation on steep slopes and their buffers, or within buffers adjacent to wetlands and shorelines. The proposed ordinance and rules would also substantially . limit future access to the shorelines of rivers and streams by individual property owners and by the public. If the ordinance and rules are adopted and enforced in their present form, future public recreation development, such as riverfront trails and public access points to rivers and streams within King County would be prohibited or limited to situations in which waivers or variances were obtained. Although the proposed development restrictions may significantly benefit the environment, they will also adversely impact the future use of important scenic resources, shorelines and commonly enjoyed recreational areas within King county. Although not quantifiable, these impacts are not remote and speculative consequences. They would result directly from the terms of the proposed ordinance and rules, unless administrative variances were provided. Consequently, the impacts are probable. The requirement for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is for "major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment ". (RCW 43.21C.030(c)). The requirement is triggered by "probable significant, adverse environmental impact °. RCW 43.21C.031. Although adoption of the proposed ordinance and rules would limit man's use and enjoyment of the environment, the proposal does not damage the environment. In other words, these impacts of the proposed action are`not impacts upon the environment-itself. 11. The proposal, by precluding development in sensitive - portions of the urban area, may result in the development of compensating areas which are likely to be further:from existing urban and rural centers. (This is commonly referred:to as "urban sprawl °). However, there is no evidence that development in other areas, to compensate for prol :i -bit oa of dovelopment in sensitive areas, is a probable significant adverse impact. Simply labeling such development with the disparaging term, "urban sprawl', is not substantial evidence that the DNS is erroneous. Furthermore, in making the threshold determination, the reponsible official is required to take into account that, 'For some proposals, it may be impossible to forecast the environmental impacts with . precision, often Ord: 21254 SEP.A t ,. Page 5 because some variables cannot be predicted or values cannot be quantified ". WAC 197- 11- 330(3)d. For this proposal, it is not reasonably possible to predict the extent to which development will be prohibited in areas which may now be developable, or to identify the areas which may become the 'compensating areas', or describe (much less quantify) the impacts of development of any such compensating areas. CONCLUSIONS: I. In making a determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance, the lead agency is not required to assess the necessity for or economic impacts of a proposed action. 2. The responsible official's determination that the impacts of the proposed action on the environment are not significant adverse impacts is not demonstrated by the evidence to be clearly erroneous. 3. The requirement that a proposed major action which significantly-affects the quality of the environment be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement does not necessitate the preparation of such a statement when the probable significant impacts of the proposal are not impacts on the environment, but simply limit future use of the natural environment, i.e., preserve the natural environment. 4. The appeal should be denied. DECISION; The Appeal of .Maxine Keesling from the December 27, 1988 Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance for the proposed King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Rules. is denied. ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1989. s N. O'Connor ping and Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 1989 to the following parties of record: maxine Keesling Muckleshoot Indian -Tribe • TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 1989 to the following parties: Ralph Colby, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Building and Land Development Division Jim Tracey, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Building and Land Development Division Joe Nagle, Parks and Planning Bryan Glynn, Parks and Planning Michele McFadden, King County Council Staff Ord. 21.54 SEPA Page 6 MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING ON BALD FILE NO. ORD. NO. 21.54 AND RULES. James N. O'Connor was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Those participating in the hearing were Pat Downs and Jim Tracey of Building and Land Development Division, Reilly Atkins from King County Parks and Planning, Maxine Keesling and Morgan Bradley. The following exhibit were presented and entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1 Exhibit No. 2 Exhibit No. 3 Exhibit No. 4 Exhibit No. 5 Exhibit No. 6 Exhibit No. 7 Building and Land Development Division Report dated January 26, 1989. Determination of Nonsignificance, dated December 27, 1988. Environmental Checklist. Proposed Ordinance and Rules. Appeal letter from Maxine Keesling, dated December 29, 1908 Supplemental Arguments, dated January 10, 1989 Letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated August 28, 1987, re amendments to King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 3853D;JNO;ja Ord. 21.54 (Sepa) • • PARKS, PLANNING & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION REPORT TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING - JANUARY 26, 1989 - 9:00 A.M. HEARING ROOM 2 - EASTPOINTE PLAZA BUILDING 3600 - 136th PLACE SOUTHEAST, SUITE A BELLEVUE, WA 98006 (Call 296 -6662 to confirm hearing date, time and place.) APPEAL OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATION ORD. NO. 21.54 and Rules A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Description: Proposed amendments to KCC 21.54 and rules to increase protection afforded wetlands, streams, steep slopes; landslide, coal mine, flood, erosion, and seismic hazards from im- pacts of development by proscribing buffers, setbacks, Native Growth Protection Easements, and other regulations. Applicant: Joe Nagel, Director Parks, Planning and Resources Department Appellant: Maxine Keesling 15241 N.E. 153rd St. Woodinville, WA 98072 Location: Unincorporated King County NOTE: The entire SEPA file will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and is available for public review. B. SEPA DETERMINATION: On December 27, 1988, a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) was published. C. SEPA APPEAL: On December 29, 1988, Ms. Keesling appealed the DNS to the Building and Land Development Division. Ms. Keesling has re- quested that a Determination of Significance be issued and an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. Supplemental argu- ment was received from Ms. Keesling January 10, 1989. D. APPEAL ISSUES: BALD has identified the following elements of the environment (WAC 197 -11 -444) to which Ms. Keesling's arguments can be classified: Environmental Hearth; Land and Shoreline Use - Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans; Housing; and Public Services and Utilities. At several.,points in the 13 pages of mr.teria:l provided by Ms. Keesling, Economic impacts are dis- cussed. ,WAC 197 -11 -440 does not lit economic impacts as an_i ?.Prnent of this environment. Furth °:r, WAC 197 -11- 448(2) removes socioeconomic analysis frot cons=.3eration,'as does WAC 197 -11 -450. E. BALD RESPONSE: ,As required by WAC 197 -11 -330, the responsible official has reviewed the environmental checklist and supporting documents prior to the environmental determination. Using the definitions of probable (WAC 197 -11 -782) and significant (WAC 197 -11- 794), the responsible official concluded prior to, and now again after APPEAL OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATION ORD. NO. 21.54 AND RULES the appeal, that this proposal will not have a probable signifi- cant adverse impact but will, in fact, preclude significant adverse impacts in a predictable manner. As to the specific issues cited in the appeal, the following discussion is BALD's analysis of their merits. As stated before, no analysis of economic impacts is required under SEPA and was not conducted prior to issuing a determination nor in light of the numerous economic impact arguments presented by Ms. Keesling. Health Two issues are cited in the appeal: 1) mosquito health risks, and 2) Native Growth Protection Easements, which are cited as creating physical hazards to monitoring children's activities. Neither presents a significant probable impact which would be caused by adopting the proposed ordinance and rules. Land and Shoreline Use - Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans BALD has reviewed the Shoreline Management Act, State Environmental Policy Act, and the King County Comprehensive Plan and does not find the proposed KCC amendments in con- flict with these documents. No significant impact is pre- sent. However, the intent of these policy documents would be carried out by the adoption of KCC 21.54 amendments and rules. Housing Elevated housing costs are cited as a significant adverse impact by Ms. Keesling. BALD believes that this is primar- ily an economic issue which is not a consideration before the responsible official. Ms. Keesling cites 197 -11 -448 as requiring economic analysis. Section 1 of the citation recognizes that economic considerations are a component part of the total agency decision- making process, not an element of the impact assessment process. Public Services and Utilities It is suggested that an EIS is necessary to evaluate the economic costs of providing public services, parks, sewers, and roads in a manner which protects environmentally sensi- tive areas. First, please refer to our previous response which discusses why consideration of economic impacts are not appropriate. In the case of providing public services, BALD believes that these amendments and rules will preclude significant adverse impacts and will not cause them. F. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed amendments to KCC 21.54 and associated rules will nog:, result in significant adverse impacts in any respect. G. RECOMMENDATION: DENY the appeal. PD:lg 1/20/89 2 'APPEAL OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATION ORD. NO. 21.54 AND RULES TRANSMITTED to parties listed hereafter: Zoning and Subdivision Examiner's Office Joe Nagel, Director, Parks, Planning and Resources Department ATTN: Bryan Glynn, Deputy Director James C. Tracy, Manager, BALD ATTN: Ralph Colby, Manager, Technical Services Pat Downs, Environmental Coordinator Reilly Atkins, Resource Planning Maxine Keesling 15241 N.E. 153rd St., Woodinville, WA 98072 ..r. 3 TILE NO. OR D . 2\1.541 EXHIBIT NO. 1 - Building and Land Development Preliminary report, date j4.ntar-/ 2 6, 1l1 3- 5EPa Gkeckti st h1 B-oposec Ord.ACL/.ce Rules 5- 4 4pea l / -W e r , denied ► �. a-� -mss 6 - le -116.47'a( argUMe4 5, dG-/-ed /-/O -89 JAN- 13 —'89 15:23 ID: KING CO BALD TEL NO:298 -6698 4972 PO7 • 15241 N.E. 153rd Street Woodinville, WA 98072 January 10, 1989 King County Building & Land Development 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 ATTN: SEPA Center Re: ADDENDUM to KEESLING APPEAL (12- 29 -88) of DNS for Sensitive Areas File ORD21.54-A Ordinance & Rules The overriding impression from reading this proposal is that its intent is to shut man out of the environment, rather than find ways to co -exist in harmony as required by both SEPA and the Shoreline Management Act. Worse, the shut -out requirements are in many instances based on fear, not fact. (Similar to fears of negative effects on Whidbey Island groundwater that prompted Islanders to pressure their governing officials to shut down Trillium's state - sanctioned timber- cutting operations. Neither private attorneys nor government officials could find any scientific facts that supported those fears.) An Environmental Impact Statement is needed to identify specific adverse impacts and to discuss alternative means of accomplishing legitimate goals. This submittal categorizes certain comments on pages following, with subjects located as noted: Page, Subject 3 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS 4 HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES 5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING, URBAN SPRAWL, NARROWED RANGE OF BENEFICIAL USES 7,8, 9 PICTURES of traditional streamside and wetland uses that indicate County hypocrisy involved in this proposal (Note that County development in Kenmore, pictured and described on page 9, took place AFTER the adoption of current protective wetlands regulations.) Miscellaneous comments follow, all of which require discussion in an EIS: 1. WAC 197 -11 -908 requires that The location and extent of all environmentally sensitive areas shall be clearly indicated on a map that shall be adopted by reference as part of the SEP procedures . . a copy shall be sent to the department of ecology. The City of Seattle has followed this requirement for its sensitive areas and did an extremely thorough mapping job. In Seattle no environmental review is required for any missed sensitive areas. By contrast, the County proposal contains the catchall phrase: "In cases of mapping error, the actual presence of the features defined . . as sensitive areas . . . shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land as a sensitive area." Which makes mapping superfluous and mockery of the SEPA mapping requirement. 2, Missing_ definitions make analysis of this proposal difficult. Definitions are needed for hydric soils, "outstanding potential habitat ", "plant associations of infre uent occurrence ", endan erect, threatened, sensitive, important, rare and monitor species of plants and /or wildlife). Also, wetlaSES should be TT-s`ted and des - cribed, rather;than simply making a.reference to another document; i.e., Palustrine, Lacustrine, etc. Furthermore, the wetland definition appears to be based solely on vegetation, especially in view of t e e n t on s last sentence: "Where the vegetation has MAXINE L. MIs.ING 1524! M.E, 1S)rd STRELT YNIYRYY[1 C 4L IBA7! Pagel JAN- 13 —'89 15:24 ID: KING CO BALD TEL NO:296 -6698 • • #972 Poe been removed, a wetland shall be determined by the presence of hydric soils." Since Riley Atkins, Lead Resource Planner for this proposal, told me the intent is to use ALL THREE Army Corps of Engineers criteria for determining wetlands - vegetation, soil type, and presence of water - that intent should be made very clear in the definition. (And the EIS should discuss the difference between using one, as opposed to all, of the three ACE criteria to determine wetlands.) 3. A minimum ,arcel -size resulator threshold is needed for isolated wetlands. The EI s ou • • scuss, ase. on nown impacts, the size at which preservation benefits outweigh loss of traditional property uses; i.e., justify the narrowing of the range of beneficial uses. (Richard L. Settle, professor of law at the University of Puget Sound Law School, stated at the 12 -8 -88 SEPA seminar at the University of Washington that environmental regulations must not be unduly burden- some or confiscatory, and must be for SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIED adverse impacts, not for GENERAL impacts.) 4. Also needed in an EIS is a discussion of the necessity, based on scientific fact, for leaving isolated wetlands as -is as opposed to replacing them in some instances with dredged ponds or lakes for recreation and waterfowl habitat. Or, in the case of dryer wetlands, replacing them with pasture grass. 5. The need for dryland buffers must be demonstrated. Wetlands form their own buffers in adjoining areas as the vegetation drops from 100% hydrophytes to 50% hydrophytes. IS the addition of 25' to 100' of dryland demonstrably necessary? 6. The need for untouched native- •rowth corridors alone all streams, including sometimes- flowing irainage channe s, must a so •e demonstrated t rough the EIS process. There must be strong, strong evidence of unmitigatible environmental damage to justify eliminating man from traditional waterfront uses, including residential landscaping and picnic areas. 7. The proposal's Environmental Checklist said retained trees will "positively affect the problem of the greenhouse effect." Since non - native grass, shrubs, and trees should protect from the- greenhouse effect as well as do the native variety, an EIS discussion is needed to prove otherwise. Especially in view of the state- ment by Dr. Michael Schlesinger of Oregon State University and member of a recent panel of greenhouse - effect experts, to the effect that estimated global deforesta- tion accounts for about one -fifth of the atmosphere's increase in carbon dioxide, with the big impact being in the tropic regions. Since he also said logging in the Pacific Northwest has little effect on carbon dioxide increase, and since tree cutting is necessary for solar heating, the necessity for retaining maximum trees, native or otherwise, is open to question and should be discussed. 8. The costs of required special studies should be broken down and analyzed in the EIS to determine relative value ii necessity of study requirements. Also to be addressed is whether or not these studies should be the exception, rather than the rule. This proposed ordinance will have a tremendous effect on man's welfare and the economy, and there is absolutely no doubt that if ever an Environmental Impact Statement was justified and required, it is for this proposal. Sincerely, r� Maxine Keesling (483 -6565 MAXINE L. KEESLIN6 1S241 N.E. 153rd STRUT weoslIvlLLE. WA 96072 Page 2 JAN- 13 -'89 15:25 ID: KING CO BALD TEL N0:296 -6698 #972 PO9 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LA. • The last page of the Project Environmental Checklist, paragraph 7, states that the sensitive areas ordinance and rules do not conflict with state laws, including the State Shoreline Management,Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. An EIS is required to discuss just how the ordinance and rules comply with those laws' requirements for protecting private property rights, fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses - including recreation and scenic vistas, supporting diversity and variety of individual choice, and encouraging harmony between MAN and his environment, when the proposal's main thrust is the complete elimination of man and his traditional uses from important elements of the environment, especially waterfront. Further, an EIS is needed to identify the specific, adverse impacts that will occur if a property owner substitutes non - native landscaping for native brush. (Landscaping, in this instance, includes pasture grass, crops such as blue- berries, and flower and vegetable gardens, as well as non- native shrubs and trees.) Following are details, court decisions etc. 1. Regarding the contents of an EIS for a.nonproject proposal such as this, WAC 197 -11- 442(2) calls for an EIS discussion of impacts and alternatives, with emphasis on alternatives. Nowhere has there been even a MENTION of alternatives to locking man out of the environment in order to accomplish proposal objectives. 2. WAC 197-11- 448(1) calls for weighing social, economic and other considerations. At the U of W SEPA seminar on 12 -8 -88, Kenneth S. Weiner (who served as Special Counsel for the Washington State Legislature's Commission on Environmental Policy and acted as Deputy Executive Director and Counsel for the White House Coun;i1 on Environmental Quality under Presidents Carter and Ford) emphasized what he called the "balancing mandate in SEPA" and stated that the courts want common sense used. Mr. Weiner called WAC 197 -11-660 "the basic road map" of SEPA; and that section contains the following: "Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal, and shall be stated in writing by the decisionmaker . . . Mitigation measures shall be reasonable . . ." The foregoing,has yet to be done in connection with Native Growth Protection Easements, which are clearly "mitigation measures." 3. In ALLINGHAM v. SEATTLE, 109 Wn.2d 947, 1988, the court stated that "The owner of a lot located within a greenbelt zone cannot make any profitable use of that portion of his land required to be reserved under the ordinance: he cannot build a home on it, drive his vehicles across it, or cut down the trees and plant a garden on it. Although he still holds title to the property reserved as greenbelt land, he is denied the control over his property typically accorded landowners. We deem this to be a taking." In OLYMPIA v. PALZER, 42 inn. App. 751, 1986, concerning greenbelt open space tracts reserved through platting requirements, the court said: We hold invalid those portions of the ordinance purporting to restrict ownership and to impose use restrictions in perpetuity." Footnote 3 on page 754 of the decision is especially interesting and pertinent. In HOLLYWOOD HILL CITIZENS 4. KING COUNTY, 101 Wn.2d 68, 1984, the court referred to a U.S. Supreme Court reference to property rights: "So viewed, the prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law reflects the high value, embedded in our constitutional and political history, that we place on a person's ri'ht to enjo what is his, free of .overnmental interference." In PARKRIDGE v. SEATTLE, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359, 1978, the court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court as follows: "In determining whether respondents' administrative acts and policies may be upheld, it should be observed that the usual resum tion of the validity of the acts of public boards and officials, oes not a.. o acts invo ving e or e ure o an in v •ua s rig s or e .epriving m o e ree use o is proper y, MARINE L. KEESLING 15241 N.E. 153rd STREET WOODINVILLE, WA WIZ Page 3 4. JAN- 13 -'89 15:25 ID: KING CO BALD TEL NO:296-6&B HEALTH AND SAFETY IS• S • #972 P1© 1. rr e served, "undisturbed" Native Growth Protection Easement area' or; private. property are hazardous to resident children. According to Joel Gordon, one of the speakers at the 12-8 -88 SEPA seminar at the University of Washington, the ALLI:NGHAM v. SEATTLE greenbelt case brought forth the judicial comment that "Kids shouldn't have to play in brush." (Gordon is immediate past Chairman of the Environmental & Land Use Law Section of the Washington State Bar Association.) While the bulk of NGPE•s don't necessarily present a safety hazard, those required along all streams DO present a safety hazard. Mothers won't be able to see small children who wriggle through the_brambles and,fall into the stream,. The brambles Tong Bear Creek are w at caused firefighters anaTo5TTEe to spend-several hours searching the banks for the body of the 17-year-old thrown from a car in an accident on Avondale Road in March of 1988.) 2. int i)ecember, 1972, REPORT ON OPEN SPACE - SECTION II WETLANDS ELEMENT, prepared by the Conservation Committee of the Environmental Development Commission, recognized mosauitoes as being a problem great enough to warrant draining or fill- ing cif, some - wetlands as the remedy., The mosquito problem has not gone away in the ensuing sixteen years and needs to be addressed. (One especially important question is what cumulative impacts to human health arise from repeated applications of chemical -laden insect repellants to the skin, and repeated sprayings of mosquito - killing liquids inside the home and outside on the patio.) News articles copied below indicate the problem. Journal - -American sundas ;tidy 3, )988 Q4' Eastside Q &A. Barbara Hanna QYou -can't walk the Lake Hills Greenbelt trails without being attacked by mosquitoes. Can't something be done about them -- maybe drain or spray, their breeding areas? - -- Dianne Y., Bellevue. ABarring a malaria epidemic, it's not likely anything will be done about the mosquitoes. • The Lake Hills Greenbelt is a wetlands park - - and.wetlandJireaab - their veryluilure . lave more mosqui -- Coif f Fa n uplaandIt re_a1_.,_ °" ittri t such a big problem we'd want to disrulit the entire wetlands en- vironment," says Roger Hoesterey, director of resource management for the Bellevue parks department. Draining the park's wetlands would totally disrupt the ecology of the area and would also be illegal. Sprayingg the area h.chemicals.eould arm. -oilier aquatic insects which are part of•the food ans3i�'.....__.. _. ....... For WO with allergies, Hoesterey recommends insect repellant. Mosquitoes the only. The only problem at the new number olrmosquitoes after June 6, Possession Beach Waterfront Park • and Mock said the wet spring caused comes with wings and bloodthirsty mosquito problems in many areas. appetite - mosquitoes. Tom Roehl, port consultant, said Caretakers Jerry and Karen Lutz Monday that this week the high grass were asked .about mosquitoes at last on the hillsides_ is, beint_cut wfiicfi Tuesday's port meeting, and Jerry sfiaul.•d.' _reduce... .so e „ mosquito . replied the situation was "great tit hrabitat. Ijte was reluctant•. to plan 1� the weather warmed up . :. they more spraying, :however, because came out like flowers in blossom." "there's' an element that questions The voracious bugs don't bother any,kind.of spraytrjg of anything:" • boat launchers .much, but they do Early Monday afte'rnooii'Karen annoy picnikers who are attempting Lutz reported that the mosquito to enjoy the beach. •& preserved problem at the park seemed to be ..wetlands ,area serves ass am -O improving considerably. She said she • round. for mp ldltrg 't eS_a he was outside Sunday night and didn't • port has taken stejps toalleylate the get bit at all. The drier weather may problem: be alleviating the problem, she said, • Vivian Mock, co -owner of Island so perhaps more spraying won't be Tree Service, said Friday her needed.. company was hired to spray the area The monthly Port of South for mosquitoes, but they.were careful Whidbey meeting dealt mostly with to use environmentally safe spray. details of the park which opened May "You can't put real' man -made 21. The commissioners gave Lutz chemicals in .there," she said of the permission to buy • a riding lawn - public park. • mower, and Roehl reported that. On June 6 Mock sprayed the area landscaping work is progressing bur. with a biological substance with the "not as swiftly" as hoped. brand name of Vectobac • which is Roehl also said the car -and- trailer "supposed to do a good Job . it kills spaces will be stenciled as such to the larvae." keep single cars out of the boat But the Lutzses reported a' large trailer spaces.. Lutz reported that 3. A child, caught-in the mandated 10' livestock stream watering fenced chute, could be hurt, and possibly killed, by milling horses in .that too - narrow chute. rAxINE L. Kr!�.�:,1 iG Page 4 15241 N.1`.. 1.:::'ni Srki:L• i 180etuYtui:. 511!17: JAN- 13 -'89 15:26 ID:» I'Nr CO L�ALD ; `TEL N0:296 -6b98 t#972 P11 • 1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS WAC 197- 11- 440(6)(e) requires a discussion of "effects on public services, such as utilities, roads, fire, and police protection, that may result from a proposal." And while the SEPA INDEX lists,economics as optional under 440(8), the economic impacts of the sensitive areas proposal are too widespread to NOT be included in an EIS: 1. Increased public service costs will directly result from adopting the ordinance and rules, which cover public projects as well as private. We already have examples from exercise of existing rules, which are not nearly so stringent. Twice, in the Woodinville area supposedly knowledgeable county purchasing staff has bought land primarily for ballfields. The first site has already been ruled out for ballfields because a $162,000 design study revealed more,'wetlands than had been apparent; and the second site is about to suffer the same fate. (As is indicated by current news releases that talk of a "picnic park" instead of the ballfields in former releases.) And in Issaquah, a $308,000 site purchased for a district court was shelved because of "potential flooding problems." A cost analysis should include not only monies spent to buy properties that can't be used as intended, but also lost interest from monies sunk in the properties and lost tax revenues from properties removed from the tax rolls. Also, the question should be asked: What would this state's economy be today if Seattle had been developed under current environmental-regulations. And the related question: Is Seattle an example of bad, harmful development especially in light of its position at or near the top of national best - places -to -live lists? King County will be shooting itself in both feet if it passes -this ordinance. 2. Decreased'tax'revenues caused by removing Native Growth Protection Easement tracts from the tax rolls will decrease funding for public services - justas.annexations and incorporations are affecting that funding. One Bear Creek Valley horse breeder would lose 14 out of 18 acres of pasture to NGPE tracts, resulting in the removal of 78% of his property from the tax rolls. A more itportant removal would be the tax roll loss caused'by.tlie'.assignment of NGPE status to major portions of our highest -taxed land: waterfront corridors and wetlands, view hillsides, and commercial areas such as the district court site in Issaquah. (Current no- tax -of -NGPEs philosophy is evidenced by page 7 of the hearing examiner's Revised Report and Recommendation to the King County Council for Winchester Hills, II, File 788 -3: ". . the Building and Land Development Division shall have the NGPE in question transferred to nontaxable status." A call to Julian Haraki elicited the information that this is standard practice for NGPEs in separate tracts.) There could be even greater future costs in defending the county against lawsuits brought by owners stripped of property use, and HORRENDOUS losses if courts decide takings damages commence on the date of passage of the ordinance that caused the takings. 3. A cost analysis of potential utilit rate increases is needed as utilities pass on the higher costs of detouring around sensit ve areas. Especially as regards sewers that traditionally have utilized the lowest topographical gravity -flow locations along water bodies. What are the maintenance and energy costs for pumping sewage uphill, and what happens environmentally when pumps fail ?? 4. A cost analysis is also needed for the NGPE fencin /w�S�H1���estock are present. The fencing costs for the Bear Creek horse breeder mentioned in #2 above would exceed $30,000. Is that cost BALANCED by an increase in fish population - which appears to be thriving in current, unfenced conditions? And if there IS a compensating increase, should the $30,000 fencing cost be borne by the property owner, or by the public that benefits from the fish increase. 5. Landscaping businesses are primary users of preserved Sammamish Valley ag lands; i.e., the sod farms and the numerous pure uo ubs, and flowers, including Molbak's. The economic impact /6'f MNAA telitT6n of native growth called for in the sensitive areas proposal should be analyzed. MXINE L. KEESUNG 15241 M.E. 163rd STREE'f N000INV1LL£. WA ,0972 Page 5 JAN- 13 -'89 15:27 ID: KING CO BALD TEL NO:296 -6698 #972 P12 • • AFFORDABLE HOUSING, URBAN SPRAWL, NARROWED RANGE OF BENEFICIAL USES WAC 197- 11- 440(6)(e) requires discussion of "significant impacts that will narrow the range or degree of beneficial uses of the environment" and of "significant environ- mental impacts upon land and shoreline use, which includes housing . . ." As can be seen from the following, the sensitive areas proposal will have significant impacts on housing and land use and urban sprawl, and will narrow the range of beneficial uses. 1. UNaffordable housing is a more a t term for what results govern- mental essive regulation. Increased development costs that include / � rTh g roads and utilities around sensitive areas and the costs of high percentages of development sites lost to protected sensitive areas AND their non- sensitive BUFFERS, lead inexorably to increased housing costs. The impact is illustrated by the following statement on page 11 of the 4 -21 -88 BALD Report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner for Lake of the Woods Divisions 2 -6, File 688 -2: "The final locations and require- ments for all the wetlands will substantially affect the number lots and road layout presently shown." (This impact could be partially mitigated by allowing reasonable density credits for sensitive areas, but the credits in the proposal are not reasonable, especially in light of the extensive non - sensitive buffers that are included in the sensitive area tracts. The MINIMUM required dryland buffer for a 150' x 150', half - acre Class III "Low Concern" Wetland, would take a MINIMUM .4 -acre of dryland out of use - almost as much as the wetland itself.) A related housing cost is that high development costs caused by government regula- tions will eventually eliminate short platting as an affordable alternative to formal platting. And since short plats constitute the main land supply for small builders who can build more cheaply than most big builders, the demise of short plats means the demise of a prime source of affordable housing. 2. Urban sprawl will be the inevitable result of environmental policies that severely decrease dousing densities and commercial buildings below what's allowed by existing zoning. One example of this is the reduction from 34 lots on 62 acres, originally proposed as part of the plat of Lexington in an acre -zoned area east of Woodinville, to 12 lots on those 62 acres. Another example, in a sewered area south of Woodinville, zoned for 4 - 6 homes e, is the plat of Winchester Hills II where the number of houses, after working /t d" nvironment, will be fewer than 2 homes per acre. The resulting pressure towards urban sprawl elsewhere is obvious. An EIS is needed to discuss alternatives and analyze whether everything the county calls "sensitive" really IS sensitive to the point that NO use can be made of such extensive areas. It's been said that under current environmental philosophy all of Florida is a wetland. Almost the same can be said of King County, if the term is changed from ':wetland" to "sensitive areas" that include hills missing in Florida. 3. The range of beneficial uses that has been narrowed and needs an,'EIS discussion includes owners' loss of livestock pasture areas, loss of gardening and landscaping areas, loss of waterfront recreation areas, and loss of views. a. Eliminating livestock pastures, such as those of the Bear Creek Valley owner who could lose 14 out of 18 pasture acres, in favor of regenerating native growth to encourage fish, could severely damage an industry that contributes more money to the state's economy than does fishing. Besides the economic impact, there is the impact on the beneficial, wholesome use of free time. Countless children turn to horses and other livestock and 4H rather than drugs and loitering. When a small suburban acreage can't be cleared for pasture, the kids who would have been involved at home will instead be looking for entertainment away from home, with all that entails. b. The same is true of adults who buy a place in the suburbs but can't clear for vegetable gardens, lawns and flowers, waterfront picnic areas, or views for contempla- tion. These bored adults, too, will be seeking relief away from home - contributing to overloaded roads and public parks. Or, equally bad, increasing time spent as drinking couch potatoes or arguing with spouses. "The devil finds mischief for idle hands." NAXINE L. KEESLING 15241 N.E. IWO STAEZT WOODINVILLE, OA l0011 Page 6 JAN -13- '89.15:28, ID:, KING CO BALD TEL NO: 296 -6698 • 'llt110 by Jeffry W. Myers • W<St Stock • t#972. P13 ccT� lI yoL underst me, go heights watersi - Wait 'W hittn Above i s taken from front cofer of 4.00.4ge'eei'vedc King County. open space brochure. And below is from article on, .Beer Creek; renewal : And also note framed ypictumoutside Council Chambers. NONE OF THESE SHOW IMPENETRABLE STREAMSIDE BRAMBLES, which is the NATURAL vegetation along our streams. (As the police found along Bear Creek recently when they overlooked the student's.body thrown from.the car on Avondale and conceale0.by the brambles.) The...Woo00vl0, W $IYTho: Na4h10R�! e%e'. ir Creek r.0 ... , In a few yeers, watching Bear Creek Row by may WA different experience, Snohomish and King vuntles are conducting a study which may call for improvements to keep the Stream tic* Baumgartner photo WOQbSUYlt.t.r., W.1 OSOfl Page 7 • JAN- 13 —'89 15:30 ID: KING CO BALD TEL NO:296 -5698 El I101' 1 • 14'372 P14 1 THE STYLE, THE CHARM, THE WIT... TORY THE PEOPLE, THE PLACES... AS OLD AS HIS , A YET ALWAYS NEW, ALWAYS EXCITING... FP CF 1114A,.).1 You are invited into a world of beauty that is reserved for the very few. Above: an Irish garden — m d the .Jiver Vari ry. BELOW: Snapshot taken at COUNTRY VILLAC'E. shopping .center north of Bothell on June 6, 1987. MAXINE 1. KEESLINC 15241 N,C, 1 :7r0 ST5£f( W000IMYILLC, WA '8072 Pang R JAN-13—'89 15:31 ID: KING CO BALD TEL NO:296-6E98 #972 P15 TO' THE LEFT are pictures of the Kenmore police and park & ride lot - there, is also a library and fire station in the same location. ALL BUILT ON WETLANDS - RECENTLY - BY KING COUNTY. (pictures taken )1-29-87) (The point being made is that King County is shooting itself in the foot with nd7disturbing-wetlands regulations. (Don't forget the 32-acre park south of Cottage Lake that King County bought mainly for athletic fields. The biologists couldn't find enough "dry land" for the fields. On that say basis, the biologists will find the new $331,000 substitute 13-acre site .equally un- satisfactory.) MAXINE L. KEESLINC 15241 W.E. 1;ord STREIT MODIOVILLF., WA '5022 Page 9 JAN- 13 -'89 15:19 ID: • KING CO BALD TEL NO:296 -66980 x#972 P02 r 15241 N.E. 153rd Street Woodinville WA 98072 December 29, 19RA King County Building and Land Development Division #?=.1 3600 136th Place S.E. l "`' "'' i' Bel l evue, WA 98006 ` `, i ' 1 f` ATTN: SEPA Center • , ":yc•► ',.,.P `,, , n! Re: File 0RD21.54A - DNS notice published in 12,- .2„7 .Tinier KCC21.54 & SA ,. ..-.8 :,''" t Amend: & Rules '(APPEAL OF THE DETERMINATION Or 4 4- SIGNIFICANCE) After making several calls I determined that the. above is indeed the DNS. notice for the new Draft sensitive areas ordinance, plus rules. (The published notice is remarkably deficient in alerting the public to the subject natter.) I have repeatedly made oral and written requests for a copy of the above - including to Jim Tracy - but have never received anything from the county. Today, however, Riley Atkins agreeid to mail ,:, , me a copy of the ordinance -rules and Pat Downs .agreed to mail me a copy of the SEPA checklist. So I reserve the right to add to my arguments why an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared: (The following j } is based on bits and pieces of knowledge picked up elsewhere including wetlands requirements being enforced ahead ,of adoption as conditions of )1i recent subdivisions.) i., 1. The December, 1972 REPORT ON .OPEN SPACE - SECTION II WETLANDS ELEMENT :, % stated that As a.practical matter the County is generally not concerned with scattered wetlands of less than an acre in size except as these may be included within or adjacent'to other types of open space. The same N report also stated that wetlands in urban areas may create problems of % ti insect control.: "In some areas, the mosquito problem is so great that it. L there is a real need to exercise some form of control over this nuisance . ' Draining or filling maybe the best answer if other alternatives fail . . " st An EIS is needed to address both the issue of insects and of the proven v 1 necessity for preserving isolated wetlands less than an acre in size, and Z ta to address the basis for the change in philosophy since the 1972 report which was prepared by the Conservation Committee of the Environmental N Development Commission, 4 2. An EIS is needed to discuss the environmental and economic impacts of �` v using only the prevalence -of- wetlands- vegetation criteria for defining k o "i wetlands. Project Manager Jamie Hartley of the Regulatory Branch of the, 41 Army Corps of Engineers on 12 -15 -88 told me that all federal agencies, , including Fish and Wildlife, are in the process of agreeing to use the . methadology for defining wetlands; i.e.; the presence of ALL THREE` CRITERIA of. vegetation, soils, and water shall be used to determine wetlands. 6 4(e (Except where there is no vegetation at all.) Attachments A,_ .B ..and:JC; are re- ) y ferred to and incorporated by reference as elaboration of this need for an 4 q N EIS to analyze -- impacts when so much land is taken out of use to prevent h'i unproven so-called "impacts." o o r 3. An EIS is needed to lay out the proofs of the claimed negative impacts. ,1 Broad generalization is not sufficient, as was made plain at the recent SEPA seminar at the University of Washington, where BALD's Jim Tracy was a speaker. Enclosed is check for $50.00 to cover the appeal fee. . JAN- 13 -'89 15:22 410 KING CO BALD TEL NO:2998 #972 P06 COUNTRY N. W. 483 -8685 14421 WOODINVILLE-REDMOND AD. REDMOND, WA 68052 Olfll{ • M.ft FBUO PO ea wooa�wur, wuwnpan aeon ,�¢,��I4 IMO Mouut HO/ &OPP. PhAt n FORRW.004 �/ /1 Tike s } JAN- 13 -'89 15:20 ID: KING CO BALD TEL NO:296 -669: 15'241 NE 153rd ' Woodinville WA 98072 December 28, 1988 #972 P03 Arr Editor, Letters Seattle Times How clever of Attorneys Sterling and.Evans to'have made a thriving extortion business out of environmental concerns. But they're only one of the environmental factions., legitimate and otherwise, that are eliminating affordable housing, jobs, and traditional lifestyles. NIMBYs (Not In My.Back Yard) seize environmental issues to.preserve their own neighborhoods; professional envi.ronmentalists.pursue their own specialties in order to justify their existence; while others are simply swept up in the do- .good tide. (Like Jennifer James' "Mary" who sought guidance to becoming an environmental activist as a means "to survive a broken relationship. ") The banning of even pollution- approved wood .stoves, and presumably fireplaces, is an unthinkable elimination of tradition.. (Especially in view of the Northwest Power Council's recent banning of hydropower development on 44,000 miles of our streams and rivers, the closing -down of nuclear power, the elimination of coal - fueled power plants, and the.using -up of non - renewable oil.) g esale elimination of potential views and traditional land uses vi.a /BVXMVIgugN /Ing_ NGPEs (Native Growth Protection Easements) is not only an abrogation of constitutionally - protected property rights, but also is a contributor to urban sprawl as formerly- useable property is removed from the land supply, and a contributor to higher taxes for some people as. others: property is downvalued due to the owners. inability to use their properties. (In the Bear Creek Valley, NGPEs to protect dry "wetlands" will shut an Arabian horse breeder out of 14 of his 18 acres of pasture.) And who ends up paying for the $718,000 fish screen Puget Power was directed to build to protect, 10 to 20 fish per year in a creek where a hydroelectric project was proposed? (For the ULTIMATE benefit, of course, of the sea lions::) When Whidbey Islanders picket private -land logging being done according to new state. rules formulated by Indians, loggers,.and environmentalists, there is a suspicion that the underlying motivation is a desire to preserve, "their" greenbelt of pretty trees.. And "hypocritical" is the only.word to describe Bellevue's fierce opposition, supposedly based on traffic impacts to Bellevue streets,. to ongoing development at Factoria, when Bellevue pays not the slightest heed to impacts of traffic from Bellevue's ever- growing city center to Kirkland's Lake Washington Boulevard. And how about Bothell's environmental fears of radiation from a four -foot wide microwave dish proposed,as a part of the Seattle Times' Bothell building project? The irony of spending such astronomical sums on environmental proteotion is that many environmental fears are not based on fact'. Research is still needed to prove a connection between wetlands and groundwater, and how many logs to leave.in streams, and how critical water temperature is to fish. The logging industry, environmentalists and Indian tribes are just -now entering into an 8 -year, $16 million program of scientific studies to resolve such issues, and the Draft 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Management Plan calls for the establishment of a foundation to support research "most needed to understand the character and functioning of Puget Sound and the significance of human impacts on natural processes Just how far do we.go in protecting the environment here in this state's.major metropolitan corridor. IS it a legitimate goal to try to . restore metropolitan -area wild salmon runs to pre- white.man levels despite the availability of hatchery and aquaculture .fish, and IS there a limit on adding environmental- protection costs to housing, and IS there a limit to lifestyle sacrifices we're supposed to make in favor of brambles and bugs. Is Nature ALWAYS right any Man ALWAYS wrong? Maxine Keeling (483-65%5) JAN- 13 –'89 ofjtt 15:20 Is KING CO BALD TEL NO:29E41,98 Time for common sense in environmental protection /2-- Environmental tilt Is swinging too far Editor, 1 z C 'r; As a postscript to my previous letter . on environmental extrem- ism, the possibility.,,thatAlie pre - ferred :siteitor. the; new se !for cen- ter: in Bothell May be dropped be- cauN of . a potential '.;we lands" designation (even if R's only wet when it rains) is sn example of the seriousness of the extreme tilt to- ward the environment and away from man's needs and niceties. The wetlands designation . cost us the use of the 32 acres the coun- ty bought primarily for ballfields south of Cottage Lake in 1983. And it's certain the biologists will also designate as wetlands the new substitute 13 -acre, 8381,000 ballfields site the county bought last year on the Woodinville -Du- vall Road near the blueberry farm. (The county parks' spokes- • We've gone beyond reason in environmental protection. Land use controls in the forthcoming Bear Creek Community Plan are one example of why there will be even less money tomorrow for human services than there is today. In a well - meaning attempt to protect salmon in Bear Creek, property owners will be shut away not just from the creek, but also from sometimes- running drainage courses, which are included in the definition of "streams." It is proposed that all streams in the Bear Creek Corridor be fenced 100 feet from each edge, and that don't -touch Native Growth Pro- tection Easements be pl n the fenced areas. (Implicit in this legislation is th unproven ssumption that mingling grass, water iris, flower ng shrubs and weeping willows with the devil's club and nettles will harm the salmon.) The ease- ment wording includes this statement: "Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the easement." Besides major fencing costs and loss of property use to the private sector, which will engender costly lawsuits, current county policy removes these minimum 200 -foot NGPE cor- ridors from the real estate tax rolls, resulting in major tax losses to the public. (One Bear Creek owner who raises Ara- bian horses would lose 14 acres out of 18 acres of pasture under this scheme, while the county loses 78 percent of the property taxes.) Financial costs aside, the State Shoreline Management Act calls for "recognizing and protecting private property rights . , . (and) planning for and fostering all reasonable and ap- propriate uses." The "use element" of the act calls for recrea- tional uses, and there's a section on scenic vistas and aesthetics; And the State Environmental Policy Act states a purpose to •. encourage; productive and enjoyable har- ;mony between man and his environment," plus "Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice." The complete elimination of an owner and aesthetically pleasing non - native landscap- ing from the owner's shoreline does not comply with the in- tent of state law. We should question whether the State of Washington's ma- jor metropolitan corridor is an appropriate location for meeting environmentalists' goals of restoring the wild salmon runs to pre -white man conditions despite the increasing use of fish hatcheries and aquaculturc to provide fish protein. The answer should be based partly on an economic impact analysis of environmental regulations, including costs to both the public and private sectors. The current philosophy of man - can't - improve -on- nature completely negates man's intelligence and innovations and, if logically extended, would mean the end of all things we do to change what nature dealt our persons, including medicine and cosmetics. The pendulum has swung too far, and it's time fur common sense In enviramertal protection. Maxine Keesling Woodinville man exhibited remarkable naive- te when he expressed the belief the property won't be termed wet- lands because it is not "classi- fied" ..as such. He's evidently not familiar with the catchall provi- sion that the actual presence or absence of certain vegetation, in- cluding alder, canary grass, but- tercups, vine maple, is the ulti- mate determinant of wetlands, not the classification mapping books.) We must make it plain to our elected officials that, in the major urbanized areas at least. man is as important as native growth 14972 PO4 f -- — fir and must be accommodated, not shut out. There are lots of so- called-wetlands horror stories about, and the involved citizens should write letters -to- the - editor to enlighten the rest of us as to what is going on. And those who agree the envi- ronmental pendulum is too far over should call and write elected officials listed in the blue pages. (King. County's new numbers are on page 1115 of the Seattle phone book.) Maxine Keesling Woodinville JAN- 13 -'89 15:21 ID: 444rTigiiimIg FMC W ' Cy z S.O a.ag"rg411;g) Ggki; Wos ilialluili eolr- I mgoily A5aa Lt- 84,1 �-''fb eD � � FR! �i Q Q• i7 � 4 1 ;n i3.4 l7 i emCcrt�o 9 sNp� pep� p ,q. . i� ��� RgN lNo go p � n�'" i I w Ba ' d a A a tz !=1,"2 gin,7 y R .e T g g g R rC Vo D E-:54 54 1m 40m14 °_ '� �M�vr w z 2:0 51..5 imibs 0 0 '16" 0 KING CO BALD TEL NO: 296 -669 'g440s l'ler'° #972 P5 h, , G A gem 'J04-r5 sx velopment .issue Pressure eases cly by Bob Baumgartner f , t Just four months ago residents along Paradise Lake Road and Firstmark Corp. appeared to be at,loggcrheads over a pro- posed a 44 -acre housing development. Residents worried that the proposed Lcx- in develonnjsj . nearby would dam'i'er t e ragile Bear Creek system i stmark's cot €truction plans included ! hem ; :+ and a bridge over the creek. But, for now at least, the residents and dei'eloper have resolved the conflict. Firstmark spokesman Ty Waude said the company has redueed1iousing den.ities and eliminated plans for a bridge crossing Bear Crock. After a few meetings with members of the Paradise Lake Wetlands Coalition, a group of homeowners who had been opposed to the project, the resolution was reached, Waude said. "I'm happy that we've been able to move in a positive direction. We're going to try to make this as ymod a plat as we can for everyone concerned," he said, adding: "We still have a few steps to go, though." Waude doesn't expect any construction for at least a year, and hearings probably won't be held until late summer, he said. /11 gap ' E The land in question is divided Into each havin : a different ownet prope y, an t e corporation es pects to resubmit plans for the west sid soon, W ; de said. 4 • ..h- , i• posin •(poi a . • each: final; plan calling fo With count, this density wou propose ear . a e mnsb area or five aeres per house he said. Coalition President Mary Resnick said th group of about 25 residents is pleased wit the way Firstmark worked with them. "We're just sort of waiting to see what going to happen (next)," she said. There still a possibility another developer coul build on the property at an unacceptabl level until the Bear Creek Plan is approves she said. For the present, though. residents ai satisfied with the project, she said. "It looking pretty good. We're feeling optimist at this time." _ o & pV . Cat''` 4T5 - 4 nriefietail. roximatel 4 'C►' nd t rose a en into at c a110 • .tn O Coos Bbink ermr„.0, magazine's `unruined' list Associated Press,/ r� 7�'s paradise." ll But Sarah Worthen a Coos Bayl native and 19-year.old sophoa►ore. at Oregon State University in Cor• vallis, said the mp>;;azine is wrong. "Coos Biiy isn't perfect,". Worthen said. " down the schoo COOS BAY, Ore, — This small port on the southern Oregon coast is one of the "100 things they haven't ruined yet" in the works, according to "" magazine. NM The ew York publication ranked Coos Bay with National Geographic magazine, the Augusta. National Golf . Course, potatoes, Hinckley yachts, the Bushmen of the. 'Kalahari. and ',the: ,game. of Monopoly. Crystal Shoji, • director Of ...the Bayea Chamber of Commerce, said..Ctos Bay deserves the. rating, '''T :suspect Alma. a lot to do with our environment," Shoji said. "The beaches, the rocks, a lot of natural things.. People :like our scenic resources, and they're not crowd- Bruce Brandt, who owns the Sawmill Restaurant, one of the tr wn's' favorite gathering places, snid, `.'Hack Eaat they muut think 14 [, : 1: L. : •' eve �l1.1!1-�i7i•Sa:lp!'19t= : •• •• ,� . 1361 :cm , -• '.A- 11: f -. • • ,A./ • Q:rl s- are no t s et more Kevin Doyle, editor of "M," said the recommendation to in-. dude Coos Bay on the list came; • from a staff member who used to. live in the area. Vesik/r7 p AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 1599 RELATING TO SENSITIVE AREAS AND SEPA REQUIREMENTS, AND AMENDING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 18 AND 21. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have previously considered at length the regulation of development on and around sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 1599 relating to sensitive areas on June 10, 1991; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to correct and clarify various provisions of Ordinance No. 1599 as originally adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.45.115 Exceptions. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45.115 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.115 Exceptions. A. General. With the approval of the Director of DCD, isolated wetlands that are 400 square feet or smaller in area, and which are low value according to the rating methodology used in the City's Water Resource Rating and Buffer Study, may not require the compensatory mitigation standards of this chapter. B. This chapter shall not apply to a site used or proposed for a single family dwelling as defined in TMC 18.06.240 or to a site used or proposed for an accessory use thereto as defined in TMC 18.06.870 in a Class 2 area of potential geologic instability that is at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 area, and which does not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. ( With respect to Class 2, 3, and 4 areas of potential geologic instability, this chapter further shall not apply to those portions, not meeting the definitions of and classifications for Class 2, 3, and 4 areas of potential geologic instability, of any site used or proposed for a single family dwelling as defined in TMC 18.06.240 or to a site used or proposed for an accessory use thereto as defined in TMC 18.06.870. COMMENT: Several sections within Areas of Potential Geologic Instability 18.45.080(E) require items which are extraordinary given the scope of single family remodeling and building activities. For example, prior to permitting alterations of any slope (15% or greater) the applicant must demonstrate that (1) there is no instability and quantitative analysis indicates slope stablility or (2) modification can occur while maintaining slope stability. In effect, this requires a geotechnical engineer regardless of the type or quantity of slope disturbance. In Class 2 areas, with or without slope disturbance, an indemnity letter and filing of restrictive covenants is required. These requirements, reflective of a Seattle administrative rule, were drafted for Class 3 and 4 and not Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate. Requirements for erosion hazard, which is high, are available through the land altering ordinance. The second paragraph of this proposed amendment is designed to allow single family construction and /or remodeling on sites that, for example, might be 100 feet deep with a 40% slope only on the back 10 feet of the site. This amendment would allow single family development on the flat, front portion of the site without being subject to the SAO. C. Piping. Piping will be allowed in Type 1 and Type 2 watercourses only where relocation or alteration of a watercourse is denied and would result in denial of all reasonable use. D. Reasonable Use Exceptions. 1. If application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property containing wetlands, watercourses or their buffers, the property owner or the proponent of a development proposal may apply for a reasonable use exception. 2. The application for a reasonable use exception shall be in a format specified by and filed with the Department of Community Development. Requirements may include an environmental impact statement pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197 -11 -400. Reasonable use exceptions shall be decided by the Planning Commission following a public hearing notice as specified in 18.92. 3. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that application of this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property, development may be allowed which is consistent with the general purposes of this ordinance and the public interest. 4. The Commission, in granting approval of the reasonable use exception, must determine that: a. No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible; b. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and /or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer; c. As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 2 d. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; e. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; f. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible; The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this Chapter; and g. h. Any approved alteration of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, Board of Architectural process, review and standards shall be applied. Section 2. Chapter 21.04.300 Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 21.04.300 is hereby amended to read as follows: 21.04.300 Environmentally sensitive areas. A. Environmentally sensitive areas designated on the zoning maps and Z ,..... g p and/or as now defined in t�r�. ��- dad 1 >.3 or i aid pursuant to TMC 18.45.020, as hereafter amended, designate the locations of environmentally sensitive areas within the city and are adopted by reference. In addition to those areas identified in WAC 197 -11 -908 and for purposes of this chapter, environmentally sensitive areas shall also include wooded hillsides, and the Green /Duwamish River and its shoreline zone as defined by the Tukwila Master Program. For each environmentally sensitive area, tk all categorical exemptions within WAC 197 -11 -800 are applicable far these areas are: WAC 19' 1 - fl#} residential structure of one !unit, 2)(a) r d h)(a ... ...: �4 -(g), an an Unidentified exemptions st ali oant'nue to ap envtronment a ly sensitive areas of the c :ty. COMMENT: Before the adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, certain activities were exempt from the SEPA process. A process which includes payment of a $225.00 fee, completion of an environmental checklist and issuance of a Determination by the City. Exempt activities are those which are assumed will not have a significant impact on the environment and include for example: construction of a residential structure ( up to 4 units, ) fill activity ( up to 500 cubic yards, ) and repair, maintenance and remodeling. There is no benefit to the SEPA process other than public comment and review that cannot be had from the City's specific sensitive areas and land altering ordinances. SEPA has no standards for development. Therefore we should reinstate the SEPA exemptions and not create an additional process for minor activities because they occur on a lot with sensitive areas. B. The city shall treat proposals located wholly or partially within an environmentally sensitive area no differently than other proposals under this chapter, making a threshold determination for all such proposals. The city shall not automatically require an EIS for a proposal merely because it is proposed for location in an environmentally sensitive area. C. Certain exemptions do not apply on lands covered by water, and this remains true regardless of whether or not lands covered by water are mapped. Section 3. Chapter 18.45.040(B) Special Buffers Studies. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.040 Sensitive Area Buffers. A. General. 1. Any land alteration must be located out of the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in general are intended to: a. Minimize long -term impacts of development on properties containing Sensitive Areas; b. Protect Sensitive Areas from adverse impacts during development; c. Preserve the edge of the Sensitive Area for its critical habitat value; and d. Prevent loading of potentially unstable slope formations. Land alteration is permitted for public access, supplemental planting and approved land uses of 18.45.080. An undisturbed sensitive area or buffer may substitute for the yard setback and landscape requirements of TMC 18.50 and 18.52. 2. Wetland and Watercourse Buffers are intended to: a. Provide shading to maintain stable water temperatures and vegetative cover for additional wildlife habitat; b. Provide input of organic debris, and uptake of nutrients; c. Provide an area to stabilize banks, to absorb overflow during high water events, and to allow for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects; d. Reduce erosion and increased surface water runoff; e. Reduce loss of or damage to property; f. Intercept fine sediments from surface water runoff and serve to minimize water quality impacts; g. Preserve the edge for its habitat value; and - 4 - h. Protect the sensitive area from human and domestic animal disturbance. 3. Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are intended to: a. Protect slope stability; b. Provide erosion control and attenuation of precipitation surface and storm water runoff; c. Reduce loss of or damage to property; and d. Preserve the natural character of wooded hillsides where they exist. Spec a .. u f.ea Stud .es fry use t develo me t ran 'a ga l cs record. with `!one u reds ` feet ,'of a "sen si tive 'area sha b required to .conduct a >sens Live area study tai nova de a be er analysis o the sensitive area...... hi0 tud> mad; be .aived...by ..the '. DC1 Director' f of owir • COMMENT: The required buffers of 18.45.040(C) are the maximum that will likely be recommended by specialists and then required by the City for each type of wetland or watercourse. In addition, there are legal and administrative difficulties with property owners, of properties 100 feet off -site from sensitive area lots, surveying and studying a sensitive area on someone else's property. B. Ratings and Buffer Width. Ratings and appropriate buffers for wetlands and watercourses are listed below. 1. For wetlands: a. b. c. Type 1 - 100 -foot Type 2 - 50 -foot Type 3 - 25 -foot 2. For watercourses, the a. Type 1 - 70 -foot b. Type 2 - 35 -foot c. Type 3 - 15 -foot 3. Setbacks: wide buffer wide buffer wide buffer buffer shall be as follows: wide wide wide buffer buffer buffer a. All commercial and industrial developments shall be set back 15 feet and all residential development shall be set back 10 feet. This setback shall be measured from the foundation to the buffer's edge. b. The Director of DCD may waive setback requirements when a site plan demonstrates there will be no impacts to the buffer zone. 4. Variation of Standard of Creation of Variable Width Wetland /Watercourse Buffers: a. The DCD Director may reduce the standard wetland /watercourse buffers on a case -by -case basis, provided the buffer does not contain slopes 15% or greater. The approved buffer - 5 - width shall not result in greater than a 50 percent reduction in width, and the reduced buffer shall not be less than 15 feet for wetlands and 10 feet for watercourses. Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DCD Director that it will not result in direct or indirect, short - term or long -term adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses, and that: (1) The buffer is vegetated and includes an enhancement plan as may be required to improve the buffer function and value; or (2) If there is no significant vegetation in the buffer, a buffer may be reduced only if an enhancement plan is provided. The plan must include using a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and provides additional protection for the wetland or watercourse functions and values. b. Buffers for all types of wetlands and watercourses will be increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the proposed development will create unusually adverse impacts. Any increase in the width of the buffer shall be required only after completion of a wetland or watercourse study by a qualified wetlands specialist or expert which documents the basis for such increased width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate when: (1) The development proposal has the demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts upon the wetland or watercourse which can be mitigated by an increased buffer width; or (2) The area serves as habitat for endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitor species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington. c. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation may be removed from the buffer as part of an enhancement plan approved by the Director of DCD. Enhancements will ensure that slope stability and wetland and watercourse quality will be maintained or improved. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the DCD Director. If the vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands and watercourses with comparable specimens, approved by the DCD Director, which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. d. The DCD Director shall require subsequent corrective actions and long -term monitoring - 6 - of the project if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, watercourses or their buffers are identified. C. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. 1. Each development proposal for a legal lot of record containing an area of potential geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of Sections 18.45.060 and 18.45.080(6). The geotechnical report shall analyze and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals shall then include the buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. 2. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such a decision will be based on a City review of the report as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. Section 4. Chapter 18.45.060 Procedures. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.060 Procedures. General: When an applicant submits an application for any building permit, subdivision, short subdivision or any other land use review which approves a use, development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive item numbers 1, 2 4 and 5 of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant that step in the procedures. 1. Sensitive Areas Study and Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. It is intended that sensitive areas studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore shall be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. 2. Any new subdivision, short subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or multiple family residential proposal which includes a sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. This requirement may be waived by the DCD Director on commercial and industrial sites, on existing developed sites, and in other cases where substantial evidence exists that such waiver will not have a material negative impact on any sensitive area or buffer. COMMENT: Without the amendment, property owners of commercial, industrial, and developed lots, who are platting lots or adjusting property lines must apply for a Planned Residential Development. A PRD process is inappropriate for commercial, industrial or developed lots. 3. Denial of Use or Development: A use or development will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot ensure - 7 - that potential dangers and costs to future inhabitants of the development, adjacent and local properties, and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. 4. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, specialist(s) of record, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre- construction conferences prior to any work on the site. 5. Construction Monitoring: The specialist(s) of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 6. The DCD Director may require the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any development or use to be permanently identified with fencing, or with a wood or metal sign with treated wood, concrete or metal posts. Size will be determined at the time of permitting, and wording shall be as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." Section 5. Chapter 18.45.080 Uses and Standards. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080(A), and Ordinance 1599 in part, are hereby amended to read as follows: 18.45.080 Uses and Standards. A. General. The t�'owng genet; uses set forth in this entire section, including subsections A -H, may be located within a sensitive area or buffer, subject to the provisions of TMC 21.04. Each permitted i use is subject to the standards cf this section. 1. Mainentance and repair facilities provided no fill materials will be construction equipment or buffer. of existing uses and alteration or additional placed or heavy used in the sensitive area 2. Non - destructive education and research. 3. Passive recreation and open space. 4. Maintenance and repair of essential streets, roads, rights -of -way, or utilities. 5. Actions to remedy the effects of emergencies that threaten the public health, safety or welfare. 6 . tither . uses may be a .'< wed pursuant : : .45.080 S -H COMMENT: This amendment is designed to remove a possible ambiguity regarding SEPA application. As currently written, the "general uses" enumerated in subsection (A) are clearly subject to SEPA (TMC 21.04). Given the additional enumeration in subsection (A)(6) of the other uses set forth in subsections (B) (H), the better argument is that the uses set forth in (B) -(H) are also subject to SEPA. There is some ambiguity, however, and the proposed amendment is designed simply to remove that arguable ambiguity and make clear that all uses in this section 18.45.080 are subject to SEPA unless otherwise exempted (e.g. pursuant to TMC 18.45.115). Section 6. Refund of SEPA Checklist Fees. The Mayor shall authorize the Finance Director to refund SEPA Checklist fees received, between the effective date of Ordinance No. 1599 and the effective date of this ordinance, for the benefit of sites used or proposed for a single family dwelling or for an accessory use thereto in a Class 2 area of potential geologic instability. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of , 1991. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Ordinance No. SAO APPROVED: Mayor Gary L. VanDusen 9