Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-29-87 - SCHNEIDER - REZONE TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICESCHNEIDER REZONE REZONE FROM R -1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE SOUTHCENTER BLVD & MACADAM ROAD EPIC -29 -87 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 28, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m. by Mr. Haggerton, Vice - Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Larson, Kirsop, Knudson, Hamilton and Haggerton. Members absent: Mr. Coplen. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Rebecca Fox and Joanne Johnson. Mr. Haggerton noted the passing of Leo Sowinski on January 25, 1988. MR KNUDSON MOVED THAT FLOWERS BE SENT AND $100.00 DONATION BE MADE TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA AID UNIT. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MINUTES MR. LARSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 14, 1988 MEETING AS WRITTEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 87 -6 -R: GERALD R. SCHNEIDER Request for rezone of a 27,153 square foot parcel from R -1 -7.2 (Single Family Residential) to P -0 (Professional Office). Rebecca Fox, Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending approval. Gerald Schneider, 6510 Southcenter Blvd., concurred with the staff report and staff's comments. Carl Bloss, 6510 Southcenter Blvd, clarified that Attachment A of the staff report is not the design that will be used. He submitted the legal description of the proposal which was entered into the record. Lee Phillips, 6550 Southcenter Blvd., spoke for Mr. Hamke and others in the neighborhood opposed to the proposal. He felt it would decrease property values, and constituted a spot rezone. PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1988 Page 2 Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. LARSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION WITH THE ADDED STIPULATION THAT ANY PROJECT THAT BE PROPOSED ON THIS PROPERTY BE BROUGHT BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH HAGGERTON, HAMILTON, KIRSOP AND LARSON VOTING YES. MR. KNUDSON VOTED NO. 87 -3 -UCU - SEATTLE RENDERING WORKS Request for an Unclassified Use Permit to install an incinerator and waste -heat boiler to reduce odor emissions from the site. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report recommending approval. Rick Tomkins, 304 Main Avenue So., Renton, represented the applicant and further clarified the proposal and adding that the installation of the machinery will represent a substantial improvement over what now exists. Bill Hammond, Seattle Rendering Works, 5795 S. 130th Place, responded to a question raised by Mr. Knudson by listing the other sites using this same machinery proposed to be installed here. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. LARSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR AN UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT TO INSTALL AN INCINERATOR AND WASTE -HEAT BOILER, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND RECOM- MENDATIONS. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Jack Pace reported on the status of the Sidewalk Plan. He reviewed the 1987 accomplishments of the Planning Department as well as the 1988 Work Plan. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson Secretary City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: DEVELOPMEMT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: Becky /Joanne DATE: January 14, 1988 SUBJECT: DRC MEETING OF: January 14, 1988 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m. PRE - APPLICATION MEETINGS DRC AGENDA 1. NEW A. Schneider Rezone - SEPA Checklist B. Annexation Handout C. Washington Color and Chemical D. Other E. Adjournment MEETING ROOM: Conference Room #3 (Rebecca) (Moira) (Jack) AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, JOANNE JOHNSON hereby declare that: [( Notice of Public Hearing [[ Notice of Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [J Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet • Short Subdivision Agenda Packet El Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit [J Shoreline Management Permit Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action [[ Official Notice [l Other [j Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 ATTN: KAREN BEATTY PERMIT COORDINATOR Name of Project SCHNLEDFR RF7ONE File Number EPIC -29 -87 THURSDAY, .JANUARY 14, 1988 , 19 Signatur WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal REZONE 27,153 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY FROM R -1 - 7.2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO P.O. (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) ZONE. Proponent GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Location of Proposal, including street address, if any NORTH OF SOUTHCENTER_BLVD. AND EAST OF MACADAM ROAD (OLD BLUFF ROAD) Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -29 -87 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. El There is no comment period for this DNS [1 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Address Date 1 -14 -88 Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukw,,,,seWA_ Signatur Phone 433 -1846 88 You may appeal this determination to the ity Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS . CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN 87- 6 - /e- EPIC EP/C "29 -87 FILE ENVIRONMENTA REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: In BLDG 0 PLNG Q P.W. Q FIRE Q POLICE .Q P & R PROJECT he/.de/ 2O/ LOCATION 1149 fg 9 ivalkenie (PfacaIam FILE NO. *- pe�4,98- eeh., RESPONSE REQUESTED BY �. f : RESPONSE RECEIVED DATE TRANSMITTED 44V88 STAFF COORDINATOR Rei,ecca, tV)C 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 DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT A/0 Q cYn'I?Y!94,4 /14- pi;, c DATE J %/yi/ COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN 87-- EPIC EP/c '29 -g 7 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: 0 BLDG Q PLNG Q P.W. 111/FIRE (l POLICE Q P & R PROJECT Jchne rde/ Re 22v2e- n % , /Zocr (D /a' 8/� ■evoc.ef) LOCATION No�f� .� ✓14cen /3i ✓a/�E• V/Ifaca /am , FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 4z/88 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY j75r8 STAFF COORDINATOR Re mecca- fVX 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 DEPART- MENT .THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT A 7`,4e c a 74e1 K i5 S re � s G h d (cFi c -P 11 � 'gam / ,-T-e <ri A rres s h4 5 G� 4 ,i--,0 6/w► in 461- c., r6 j C 5-40 -es re i., e ' I.A -P.1 /5" roe (l dt r iot C cc e 5 r .._, -s1 /74/6// Z 17i'ee t I- i exjf1) 7, //Gt (4.? GP C Gt i.5-,e G ( 4 rc Cif f fi v-,o4 GC''` i4/1 f G G ✓c l -j Lj y % h rd s, ✓r✓! kir viva ✓ f ,U e 4.- 14 ✓'� / i 3 7 %P (/,i4,. (A. ,o aiJ X ve 1`© 6e (ems4i�s�kl & cAvi-,ce wq 1 - ,y?/4,4 is "le,- aG®4p rte► --/ '7` •T 1/ / 0 cAli �,4 S F-1 f'4 Ic I, e>4 DATE /' /Zw COMMENTS PREPARED BY u/21,1- sJ3 C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: CN 6_,e EPIC EP/C -29 -g 7 FILE TO: E1 BLDG r] PLNG (i P.W. ] FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT Jchhetd% ge 7/U � Road- CO/a' 8/0 ,�� LOCATION Voi� � A4C°d� /✓c/ y/ f ; V/Ifac,Varii ,, FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED /Xz /BB RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ,/;,32/544 STAFF COORDINATOR Re ece4L Fox. 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 DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE II CO2i/( imic✓'v1 No e 1 k pail 0 1 oi 2Y W( 4/4 L4,11(.i &Al 00ILe I f--1,11,,, ra ri) 1/14,- % j C.P.S. Form 11 Purpose of Checklist: ENVIRONMENTAL 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 on 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. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara- tion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise infor- mation known, or give the best description 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 apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shore- line, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff 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 City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, 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 read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Control No. Epic File No. Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 04it ,q- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Schneider office building rezone 2. Name of applicant: Gerald E. Schneider 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6510 Southcenter Blvd. suite #1, Tukwila, WA 98188 248 -2471 4. Date checklist prepared: November 16, 1987 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Spring, 1988 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental checklist dated January, 1979 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. Yes. City of Tukwila's proposed road im rovemmnra rn CnurbC-aArA-c-11- -2- 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Rezone & building & grading pprm;rq_ 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi . checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no . need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. 12,000 s.f. office building: 37 parking- ±.talle 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. East of 6510 Southcenter Blvd. and North of Sc11rhrPnrPr _nu i Au.krai 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General descri.tion of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 50% 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. Silty clay d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Excavating for foundations & retaining walls_ Fi11, if required. will be imported from off -site_ f.. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Exposed steep slope will he protected_ from Prncinn About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 60% Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency. Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Hydroseed & mulch exposed surface for temporary erosion control. Permanent solution is surface drainage control & landscaping. 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. Normal construction emissions during construction. Emissions after construction would be insignificant. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 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. Green River is S.E. of sites ac.QSs Southcpn g r Boulevard. 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. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. Surface water will be collected from hardQiirfaces & channeled to existing storm drainagp QyQram 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No 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. ,Srnrm rPrPntior, system will bo inotallcd to mainta' . • into existing storm drain sysrPm Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. It is possible that ails & resins from partiiag lot & building mararial,..Gould enter e-t�rm runoff system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Desigr;ed rete_Q.tjon sysram 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of site: x deciduous tree: x evergreen tree: X shrubs X grass _ pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of v or altered? Most of the s trees, shrubs & berries vegetation found on the alder, maple, aspen, other fir, cedar, pine, other buttercup, bullrush, eelgrass, milfoil, other egetation will be removed ite will be clear@.Qf c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will reduce the regenerationQf existing natural flora not rnnci ctan „ p ',"4_. n ec ing around o i buildinoa_ 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: None fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural Gas - heating b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Compliance with state & local energy conservation for building construction. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. Building will utilize fire sprinkler system. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. _ None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic.noise. but not unusual for nffjra hn4l4ing 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise tygic'al of small wnnd frNna4 ctiviti Qs hPtwPPn house of 7.1n A M to 5 P 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. Noi.sp from sit, would be lost in background noise from highway. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Office building on West Single - family North & East b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R1 -7.2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? P.O. 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. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 30 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Office buildings arg_s_gasjar ent with previous development on Southcenter Blvd_ Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? N/A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? 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? 3Q' Wood Framed b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Esthetic building design and associated landscaping of building & parking area. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? _ Little or no afar *. imilding lights for minimum security and safety b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Non d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: manna 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Park and Tennis Court 50' to North b. Would the proposed project displace any existing . recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None -14- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and .describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Southcenter Blvd. and access to T -4D5. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? yes_ piihlir transportation 2t-GsrAs.r of 65th Ave_ S_ & Snpthrenter Rlvr1 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 37 parking spares when prnjar None eliminated Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). 11 . . - 11 - . • 0 - - - e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 164 VTPD peak at 8 A.M. & 5 P.M. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Encourage employees to ride bus - ioin car pools 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. PerhapG i & nolie Protection. but the impact would be insignificant b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Piro cpri nk1 a buildings anti prOvidc g r•„r; ty .1 ; ^htS 16. Utilities tilities -ntly available at the site: Clime servTe ary sewe , septic system, other. atur • wax. <aim 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. Puget Power, Pacific Northwest BP11_ waGhin v-am_ Natural Gas, Water & Sanitary Sewer — City of Tukwila C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: /r -/x'!7 PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only O. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? No significant increase or rate of discharge Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable 2. riow would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? No significant effect Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Not significant Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources "are: Not applicable 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? Not applicable Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Not applicable Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: Not applicable How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? Not applicable 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No significant increase Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not applicable 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None to my knowleAge Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Nn Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Not Applirahl. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To rezone the site to conform to comprehensive plan map intention. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? None 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: N/A Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A -23- Evaluation for Agency Use Only