Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-319-86 - COLUCCIO VINCENT - ORILLIA ROAD / 204TH STREET ANNEXATIONCOLUCCIO ANNEXATION- ZONE RECLASSIFICATION FOR FUTURE OFFICE / WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOWER GREEN RIVER VALLEY AREA ORILLIA RD. & S. 204T" ST. EPIC 319 -86 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor April 23, 1986 Mr. Jack Sedlacek 25131 - 98th Place South Kent, WA 98031 Dear Mr. Sedlacek: Tukwila staff has completed it preliminary review of the environmental checklist which you submitted for the proposed annexation. Our analysis shows that we need the following information from you in order to complete our evaluation. 1. Please complete pages 22 and 23 of the checklist; you did not fill these out when you submitted the checklist. 2. Please provide the specific information which has been noted on the checklist form. 3. Please provide environmental information relating to the potential impacts of the specific zoning which you would desire for the area after the annexation is accomplished. Please answer the checklist questions to take into account the potential impacts which that zoning would allow to happen. Please provide this information no later than May 10, 1986. I have enclosed a new checklist form for your convenience, as well as a Comprehensive Plan map. Please note the residential and industrial designation of the annexation area. Additionally, our Public Works department has reviewed your legal descrip- tion and indicates that the description is not acceptable and requires significant revision. The legal description with comments is attached. We will need a corrected, official description in order to proceed with the application. Finally, the proposed boundaries of the annexation are jagged and may pose problems with service provision. I would like to meet with you or your representative to discuss adding neighboring properties to the annexation to smooth out the boundaries. Please call me at 433 -1848 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, 67‹,e,AL_?;><:- Rebecca Fox Nai): Wtr 1\), '11 o1/4 i ar3g-ikk TArk, redv d o mJ p0 Z-VA l��' j -- 9 ii -1141:s. erti.exAheyi• hi" astele;‘) you Iry ..y wC 6Q n ► j l � . fi r .( / LOG '°� 4 / ♦{. (., TirL n rS ✓J 7'.0 Aw off_ /, iv /7, .9® _ ' Ga -tZa�^ Y"�� ..— ,. �- 1 posh a.Q �,. 1O eli e/ Y CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: fi,Y(,Vlt,i,(b6Y1/ CN EPIC 14-8C1) FILE no-15 f-1 TO: BLDG r i PLNG ' P�..W:._t ri FIRE PROJECT CO I LICCIO CLVLY� e Lab yi % LOCATION /),e...z Go:ALa d, op-a}° POLICE pea- P & R w• DATE TRANSMITTED LI -W U, STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY r ig'8Co 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 '� (".46( f C_ E L5 buciA G it rUy a' ) /)y Cat i_ f ci L4JWZ 1, I /U6 c,1 /1 i'YIC OYL C1K.41/ Ad hp 1,1,40 tz_n) comp, c, fT-E Ad__0(4-- L-3/ 0-ENV•It-Grik TR-111sP RrkTI c' t.P.�. �s N -ry al\mw y\--6\ 0c P - iL_nis)11-r-i c» � u �'I L it I L_n I �-`� Pt SI�V. oZ /V\J44-1L A ftl Lj' f "J 1•'\_ (a - J WPWrn - G-\ P 3 Lc— ( e- -r1 TU��w (LA ^11,1LL, ice. \) 1 )4U (4> -- (�, 1 o Lip Lf\ N f DATE ej- . / I i COMMENTS PREPARED B C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: fLyL4' LtedjCYL) TO: BLDG ;"PLNG) II P.W. FIRE r ur-nm.'aJ ' Dcvig PROJECT co wed a✓1.ff r.Q,fi LOCATION '1, CL 1I YY)O DATE TRANSMITTED 1-1-//-36 STAFF COORDINATOR • CN OV /17 EPIC ,W-80 FILE )(p-t5 /i POLICE P & R 7 � FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4 -1` "" "1 (.,) 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 O d- �C L5 ()/U 4/A6Lhti,fo_po. m// /ow /,ems 0444,4 i fev ewr' as /t ,*=- ki-1 419-, /Ce /94-0 /Pp /. Q % % ct- 6.--e t f v 0 .- ei j9 G%ss iZ /lam e�c x°5+2 a 'sc� /�,�'sc�c Lv O 4 v� tai" Cam, �'`� e� i n r�r� / -fir ®•%• �- s ✓� G CI /.fi MRev37 c ter/. -e./ / v DATE V/ B COMMENTS PREPARED BY %2. C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: ( L✓Lt X aLbCYL) TO: BLDG PLNG � P.W. FIRE r rncy /O L 2249 PROJECT CO I LI CCIO % v1.Yi.F fifthSP*().) LOCATION it,t, C ki LLL1Et Yn DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR • CN 51/-07 EPIC 4-8(p FILE no-P5 -44 POLICE l &. R pL . L ?w'I FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C4 / -2 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. o(.lamCC EL5 (,vc o vG� � ��(q?ITEM COMMENT king C�� vQ �(��.1 � yCw �tr�Y C j in � � DATE 4,/ /<%or:C COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: (14/LA talliC ti TO: grt jP LNG P.W. rl FIRE rn n/a/ PROJECT Co IUCCiO (P vi.� f. fob' �f LOCATION `v-t- i'nO 2 DATE TRANSMITTED (-4'/ / 1 6, STAFF COORDINATOR CN 36-J17 EPIC 14-8& FILE FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 61° 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. .� r O c ILIA kii9 Ci-,1),Li/Lf9 tAkzuku , it) datyrnii,LboY1 ICJIG E z3 (., (j./t. /qg3 y quo he. L,1 ITEM COMMENT DATE c( COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: fLealt((, 04) TO: BLDG riPLNG ' P.W. ! ( POLICE r 00- PROJECT Co I L)Co (ni�n ' C bU LOCAT I ON 11U C ut7U A I. 01949 DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR • CN EPIC 1Q-3(.. FILE (p-J� ii P & R w. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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. , -� 6440 u/t.e ct E L 5 (,t)ClA _n/ ITEM COMMENT a n i G iL (//L /Q 6' rOy DATE tea ce ,,.k 0-3&A -t.R.a. 0,1 _.o.cr<J-d 15 COMMENTS PREPARED BY CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • • CN Sj" //% EPIC,14-8C1) FILE no ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: /lJt4ti %.Ct ball TO: riPLNG j P.W. Ej FIRE :POLICE (' j P & R rn n /a, Lkx4 y ¶pa d- f:. w. PROJECT ('o IUCCiO it n.rl.F rn ) LOCATION '),e,t C LWIAJ YY-649 FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED LI-//-$L RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ' {Rg-g(o STAFF COORDINATOR 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. ., l `G't u t z C(. E L 5 (,v 6tA ITEM COMMENT oxizt /(, /QqZ kt 1 gC L y tApza�u , �u� Jri-mt C 1 yvwcrna y e THE ATTACHED CPS DOCUME T PROVIDES LITTLE OR NO INFORMATION ON WHICH AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THIS ANNEXATION UPON THE POLICE DEPT. COULD BE BASED. THE USE OF A 1983 DEIS WITH ITS ATTENDANT OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS WITH NO RECENT UPDATE IS OF LITTLE OR NO VALUE. THE MAJOR IMPACT UPON POLICE OPERATIONS WOULD BE IN THE TRAFFIC AND CRIME VULNERABILITY AREAS. WITHOUT A MORE RECENT TRAFFIC STUDY AND SOME IDEA OF THE TYPE INDUSTRY THAT WILL BE SOLICITED FOR THE AREA ANY MEASUREMENT OF IMPACT ON THIS DEPARTMENT WOULD BE MORE OF A GUESS THAN A CREDIBILE STATEMENT. SUFFICE IT TO SAY AN ANNEXATION OF THIS MAGNITUDE, BUILDINGS, PEOPLE ANI TRAFFIC WISE WOULD REQUIRE THE CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL PATROL ZONE WITH ITS ATTENDANT MANPOWER COMMITMENT AND AN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER TO WORK THE EXTREME SOUTHEND OF THE CITY. 4 -15 -86 pjl DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA • CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: (114,,l.Q(1bOYIJ CN OCR -(I% EPIC 14-80 FILE V -/' 14 TO: BLDG r"PLNG K✓(�P.W. 'FIRE (POLICE P & R T rrt.cy ) ✓a, DOW y � zu. po�� PROJECT CO I UCC O 0,14,111.er,(ablOYU LOCATION 'LIL cuidtQllAA/ 0Y)14O FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED L-1-11-36, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR 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 "dkt, e-ai'OCAf CC. EL3 U)OIA a/4.L ek (i/L /Q(3 %i ct, king Cam/IA-9,A171114-4, V46°LitlirWlettint gok(-640,9 qiild,h0-4-1-0 • DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 "PALL' u-a) U -7 -80 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Con•l No. VP "ll-7 Epic File No. Fpir._3fG -(. Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 611.94- 2. Name of applicant: /iYi :J ( L /GG<D ET ,L 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: JAG/C 5Ed //J ' 7.5,15/ 98�` �l ✓moo , 4r7YT; 9&e,3 / 4. Date checklist prepared: .2-----/=-e0% 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 4j/// 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or-connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. /1/74 --WM7: _03. R MI/PG ' I r/ eWir 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. !r7' Mrel _2f/ .Arefir ra&oid Zia 15"740 613 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. AB 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. tY/4 i3K13 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 objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized 'Here. Z//29_ 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. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? 4J TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI•T Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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)? / 3 "/a 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. rr� e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties 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)? Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: /1//g- 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. A/h c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ✓,V 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. c� ?' vE?� • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. /x2 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. 41/-6.041,//1/ 1•d '7e- _LS 77;;)", 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. V ,7r� 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. • 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. D 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. 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. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. "lJ d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 1./4,v 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: iduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs gr ss 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. 4. • • 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: 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: /1''Dr 'C fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Dni� 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. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: btAIE--,ILtit/s1.1 • • 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. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 71/'(3 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 environ- mental health hazards, if any: %y'Dnir� • 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)? 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. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ' iL %en'dv ✓r 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? _Plz,"r" / -Z-De-t"-K7, b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. e2d c. Describe any structures on the site. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R �'7L� — f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? S 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. ,rD i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project ? ��i1� -./.1_ j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? bin ±ka k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: /09 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9.. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether igh, middle, or low - income housing? b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. fY7/3- 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? fy'�av c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: e7///9- • 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? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? or-Y'D 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: ar�/� 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. ,'i4 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: • • 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. 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: /7///5..? 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. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? %L, /�= c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate ?_ 11771,1z6le .✓ • 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._______________________ /�ry� f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. pvl�Y-f -y�wy g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation 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 contrg1 direct impacts on public services, if any. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circ - utilities currently available at the site: natural gas, ^a er r- - service, ■�•-�:• . sanitary sewer, is 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. 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 its •ecisio Signature: Date Submitted: TO. BE COMPLETED BY APPLIST D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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/-vc wes7-025c5 nr0.vo: - AC' V4 //Yl -, l rv—c 1/1�4,5ir /� T2� � e'7r..S'Sica -✓ S i ry ,, • er3"41 /7-A.29GA*.e- w r�2 /vd' �c ce•0 yr iti c t7, 4.4 ..2~1.04.4r .r Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: `i1,/,-7j r�- r►.rr,. v ,.2 $ __-v / �? e' ' o;, h// e, 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? ,z. Z71•a4.S7-..1 Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, mats, fish, or marine life are: fla -rval c�t���v� Lt,,// !f:5�� ani- -18- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? /2' 0 0-i/ TI � ''` 1 Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses 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? 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, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • • Evaluation for Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: 57-7 v 1.47,9--rte S cr �ca�✓ 5 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? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: d4T /i�c -i 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. }=9-- 7 ' ins 'T, ,-)-2F Agency Use Only -20- • • 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? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: 1 VALLEY* RI DOE P. ARK .as eninvirass . aan•IE MM. 0 00 gs 000 OW. moo" a 0 ■s.TM sr .• 4 Q• ' e EXF m•• �" PROF ANNE MC OP P.O. POIN1 SCAL I m 1 .pv, ,e. • Naar .CNN* Sy • FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VINCENT COLUCCIO REZONE APPLICATION King County Department of Planning and Community Development Building and Land Development Division King County, Washington Prepared for the Review and Comments of Citizens, Citizen Groups, and Government Agencies in Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Revised Code of Washington 43.21.C, and King County code 20.44 DATE OF ISSUE: COMMENTS DUE: COST: Supervisor, Building and Land Development Division 444m1 ACTION SPONSOR: PROPOSED ACTION: PROJECT LOCATION: INTRODUCTION Vincent Coluccio 4317 South 188th Street Seattle, Washington 98188 The action sponsor is requesting that the County of King, State of Washington, approve a zoning reclassification of approximately 38 acres of land. The requested rezone is from Suburban Estates and Agricultural classification to Light Manufacturing. The rezone is requested to allow the action sponsor to provide a site for the future development of office, light industrial, or warehousing activity. The property is located in the Lower Green River Valley area of unincorported King County, south of the City of Tukwila and north of the City of Kent. The property is bounded to the west by Orillia Road and to the south by South 204th Street. South 200th Street divides the property approximately in half. LEAD AGENCY: King County RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Holly Miller, Director Department of Planning and Community Development King County, Washington CONTACT PERSON: David Feltman (206) 344 -5286 AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS: CH2M HILL, Inc. 1500 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Report Coordination and Planning Analysis (206) 453 -5000 Philip M. Botch & Associates, Inc. 11000 Main Street Bellevue, Washington 98004 Civil Engineering and Urban Planning (206) 455 -1035 iii LIST OF LICENSES: Transportation Planning & Engineering Inc. 1126 - 108th Avenue NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Transportation Analysis (206) 455 -5320 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place NE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643 - 3780/464 -1584 Only rezone approval from King County Depart- ment of Building and Land Development is re- quested at this time. Future construction permits will include grading and building permits from the King County Department of Building and Land Development and a hydraulics permit from the King County Department of Surface Water Management. LOCATION OF EIS BACKGROUND DATA: General Project Files: CH2M HILL, Inc. DATE OF ISSUE: COMMENTS DUE: COST OF COPY: Engineering and Planning Information: Philip M. Botch & Associates, Inc. Transportation Information: Transportation Planning and Engineering, Inc. Soils Information: Earth Consultants, Inc. iv DISTRIBUTION LIST FEDERAL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services 2625 Parkmont Lane Building B -3 Olympia, Washington 98502 Attn: EIS Reviews REGIONAL Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: EIS Reviews Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 200 West Mercer Street Seattle, Washington 98119 Attn: EIS Review METRO Environmental Planning 821 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: EIS Reviews Seattle -King County Commuter Pool 300 Dexter Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: EIS Reviews STATE Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: EIS Reviews Washington State Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: EIS Reviews v Washington State Department of Game 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: EIS Reviews Washington State Department of Natural Resources 28329 SE 448th Street Enumclaw, Washington 98022 Attn: EIS Reviews Washington State Department of Transportation Highway Administration Building KL -11 Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: EIS Reviews Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Environmental Health Programs LD -11 Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: EIS Reviews Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 111 -.21st Avenue West KL -11 Olympia, Washington 98504 Attn: EIS Reviews Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 7150 Clearwater Lane KY -11 Olympia, Washington 98504 KING COUNTY King County Executive Randy Revelle King County Courthouse Zoning and Subdivision Examiner King County Courthouse Office of the Prosecuting Attorney King County Courthouse Planning Division Transportation Planning King County Courthouse Planning Division Community Planning King County Courthouse vi Public Works (2 copies) King County Administration Building Seattle -King County Department of Public Health Division of Environmental Health Management Public Safety Building, Room 903 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: EIS Reviews King County Councilman (address to appropriate person, list below) King County Council King County Courthouse King County Councilmen Audrey Gruger Scott Blair Bill Reams Lois North Ruby Chow Bruce Laing Paul Barden R. R. Bob Grieve Gary Grant King County Conservation District 35 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: EIS Reviews King County Department of Public Safety King County Courthouse King County Fire Marshall Tom McDonald King County Administration Building King County Parks Division King County Administration Building Agriculture Office Department of Planning and Community Development King County Courthouse UTILITIES AND SERVICES Kent School District 12033 SE 256th Kent, Washington 98031 King County Water District No. 75 19863 28th South Seattle, Washington vii i City of Kent Department of Public Works 5821 S. 240th Kent, Washington 98031 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98168 Angle Fire District No. 24 2929 South 200th Seattle, Washington Puget Sound Power and Light Real Estate Division 10608 NE Fourth Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attn: EIS Reviews Northwest Pipeline Company P.O. Box 425 Redmond, Washington 98052 Attn: EIS Reviews Pacific Northwest Bell Forecasting 1706 Bell Plaza Seattle, Washington 98191 Attn: EIS Reviews GENERAL INTEREST GROUPS Seattle Audubon Society 619 Joshua Green Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Attn: EIS Reviews Sierra Club 4534 -1/2 University Way NE Seattle, Washington 98105 Washington Environmental Council 107 South Main Street Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: EIS Reviews Rainier Audubon Society P.O. Box 778 Auburn, Washington 98002 viii NEIGHBORING CITIES City of Kent Planning Department 220 South 4th Kent, Washington 98031 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98168 City of Des Moines 21630 - llth South Seattle, Washington 98188 City of Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 LIBRARIES King County Library System 300 Eighth Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 Attn: Documents Librarian 5 Copies 2 - Planning 1 - City Administrator 1 - Public Works 1 - City Attorney 3 Copies 2 - Planning 1 - Mayor /Council 2 Copies 1 - System 1 - Nearest Branch Governmental Research Assistance Library 307 Municipal Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Documents Librarian Seattle Public Library 1000 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Documents Librarian NEWSPAPERS Seattle Times Real Estate Division P.O. Box 70 Seattle, Washington 98111 Seattle Post - Intelligencer Real Estate Division Sixth and Wall Seattle, Washington 98104 ix Daily Journal of Commerce Real Estate Division 83 Columbia Street Seattle, Washington 98104 Federal Way News 1534 South 312th Street Federal Way, Washington 98002 Highline Times (Burien) 207 SW 150th Street `Seattle, Washington 98166 Renton Record Chronicle 801 Houser Way South Renton, Washington 98055 Kent News Journal 704 West Meeker Kent, Washington 98031 Auburn Globe News 236 East Main Street Auburn, Washington 98006 CONTENTS Page Introduction iii Distribution List v Summary 1 Part A Discussion of Major Issues Letters Received 9 Section I. A Discussion of Issues Related to the Provision of Sewer Service to the Proposal Site Emphasizing the Potential for Agricultural Land Conversion 11 Section II. A Discussion of Alternative Locations for the Proposal and Alternative Uses for the Site 19 Section III. A Discussion of the Relationship of the Proposed Rezone to the Land Use Plan Maps of Kent and Tukwila 25 Section IV. Transportation Issues 35 Section V. Issues Related to Water and Wetlands, Flora, and Fauna 49 Section VI. Additional Discussion of the Relationship of the Proposed Rezone to Valley Floor Plan Policies Part B Letters Received 55 State of Washington Department of Transportation 61 City of Tukwila 65 Commuter Pool 69 King County Office of Agriculture 73 King County Division of Planning 77 Fred W. Pittenger 83 City of Renton 89 xi Page State of Washington Department of Game 93 King County Department of Public Works 99 Puget Power 103 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 107 King County Conservation District 115 METRO 121 King County Fire Marshal 125 State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 129 State of Washington Department of Fisheries 133 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 137 State of Washington Department of Ecology 141 City of Kent 145 xii FIGURES Page 1 Location Map 3 2 Aerial View of Site with Photographs of Site Vicinity 4 3 Topographic Context of Proposal Site 7 4 Impact of Proposed Sewer Service on Farmlands 13 5 Eligible Agricultural Lands in the Site Vicinity 14 6 Generalized Existing Land Use 26 7 Existing Land Use 27 8 Probable Future Land Use in the Study Area 28 9 City of Tukwila Planned Land Use in the Study Area 30 10 City of Kent Planned Land Use in the Study Area 31 11 Possible Future Land Use in the Study Area 32 12 1981 Average Daily Traffic Volumes 42 13 1987 AWDT with Proposed Coluccio Site Development 43 14 1987 A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Proposed Coluccio Site Development 46 15 1987 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Proposed Coluccio Site Development 47 SUMMARY Nineteen letters were received commenting on the proposal to rezone the subject property. To enhance the readability and clarity of this document, the material included is presented in two parts. Part A consists of six reports addressing comments of related nature that were repeatedly expressed. Part B consists of all of the letters received, accompanied by responses to comments not addressed in Part A. The six reports in Part A are: I. Issues related to the provision of sewer service to the proposal site emphasizing the potential for agricultural lands conversion II. Alternative locations for the proposal and alternative uses for the site III. The relationship of the proposed rezone to the Kent and Tukwila land use plan maps IV. Transportation issues V. Water, wetlands, flora, and fauna VI. Additional discussion of the relationship of the proposed rezone to valley floor plan policies A list of letters received will be found at the beginning of Part A. A major concern expressed in many letters was the impact of the project (and subsequent sewer service to the proposal site) on the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Detailed investigation of this question showed that most lands identified by public agencies as eligible for preservation programs are located south of South 204th Street. To avoid increasing development pressures on these lands, the project sponsor proposes to obtain sewer service from the City of Tukwila. A plan for providing sewer service from South 180th Street to South 204th Street is included in Tukwila's Draft Sewer Plan, which it is anticipated will be adopted in early spring of 1983. Under this plan, sewer service will be available only to lands north of South 204th Street. More detailed discussion of this issue will be found in Section I. A second major concern questioned the need for more industrial land when much vacant land currently exists which has urban services and industrial zoning. The project sponsor points out that the vacant parcels described are in the valley floor and do not possess the unique characteristics of the subject site. In addition, the project sponsor believes that, although 1 c there is a surplus of these flat valley sites, there are few sites avail- able with the views, topographic variation, and access characteristics of the subject site. For this reason the sponsor does not believe that the rezone creates more of an already overly abundant land resource but instead will provide needed additions to the scarce supply of higher quality office and light industrial sites. This issue is discussed in Item II of Part A. The location of the site is shown in Figure 1. Basic information regarding the topography and character of the site area is shown in Figures 2 and 3. FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP 3 Approximate Scale in Feet M Indicates View Direction 4 Photo taken 9/7/81 10 5 FIGURE 2 AERIAL VIEW OF SITE WITH PHOTOGRAPHS OF SITE VICINITY 1-5 I Elm. 3001 FLOOR OF GRAVEL PIT (Elev. 30.80' ) PROPERTY UNE NOTE: SKETCH IS BASED UPON COMPUTER GENERATED ISOMETRIC VIEW OF THE AREA. Wetlands (EI.v. 18'1 Fa Referee : 200.200. APip=zetMlr 1 Au, 100 -YEAR FLOOD LIMIT ( Flee. 21.51 7 FIGURE 3 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTEXT OF PROPOSAL SITE LETTERS RECEIVED Sent By Date State of Washington Department of Transportation 11 -15 -82 City of Tukwila 11 -8 -82 Commuter Pool 11 -15 -82 King County Office of Agriculture 11 -16 -82 King County Division of Planning 11 -17 -82 Fred W. Pittenger 11 -12 -82 City of Renton 11 -2 -82 State of Washington Department of Game 11 -10 -82 King County Department of Public Works 11 -12 -82 Puget Power 11 -17 -82 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 11 -18 -82 King County Conservation District 11 -12 -82 METRO 11 -15 -82 King County Fire Marshal 10 -18 -82 State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 10 -14 -82 State of Washington Department of Fisheries 10 -21 -82 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 10 -25 -82 State of Washington Department of Ecology 11 -15 -82 City of Kent 11 -15 -82 Note: All letters are reproduced in Part B. 9 Section I A DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICE TO THE PROPOSAL SITE EMPHASIZING THE POTENTIAL FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND CONVERSION King County Office of Agriculture Comment 1* Page 62. The section on Land Use, Existing Conditions states, "Consider- able areas in the Green River valley are undergoing change from agricul- ture use to more intensive development." The statement implies that the proposed rezone and development is not setting any new trends in the conversion of agricultural lands. This is untrue. Sewers do not exist on the west side of the river in this area and as a result, conversions have not been taking place. The above DEIS statement is misleading in its generality. The introduction of sewers to the west side of the river will in fact cause the future conversion of considerable farmlands in the area. The Draft EIS does not adequately discuss the possibilities of future farmland conversions resulting from this proposal. King County Division of Planning Comment 7 One of the most significant potential impacts of the extension of sewer service to this area is conversion of designated agricultural lands south of South 204th Street to urban uses. The Draft EIS's consideration of this issue (pages 98 and 99) is inadequate and should be revised to give greater attention to how this proposal might cause the conversion of agricultural lands and what mitigating measures are possible to pre- vent it. King County Division of Planning Comment 9 With the exception of the brief discussion on page 33, the draft does not appear to adequately consider the project's impact on eligible agri- cultural lands south of South 204th Street. Moreover, the document should have a map showing the location of those lands in relation to the project site. City of Kent Comment 10 The extension of the 27 inch sewer line across the Green River is a major issue with the City of Kent and requires more in -depth discussion. Recently, the City adopted a recommendation in the Agricultural Lands Study that will establish an "Agricultural Lands Preservation Element" as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The areas most directly affected by this action are the lands that lie south and west of the Green River. At this time, there is little pressure to develop those lands at urban densities because they lack the necessary urban services. Extension of *In each case, the comments being addressed are quoted verbatim; similar comments are grouped and are followed by a single response. 11 the 27 inch sewer line will, therefore, have a tremendous impact on this new city policy. Accordingly, this proposed action is an adverse impact not as "may be viewed... by some people" but by recently adopted City policy. City of Tukwila Comment 1 The proposed project is sited at the urban fringe of both Kent and Tukwila, yet the EIS does not adequately discuss the growth inducing potential of the project on these communities. We believe this topic to be a key issue in the analysis of the proposed rezone, and suggest that the impact of the proposal on the adopted policies pertinent to direction and timing of growth within Kent and Tukwila be discussed in the text. We are particularly concerned about the effects, both primary and secon- dary, on growth as influenced by the extension of infrastructural ser- vices to this unincorporated area, since Tukwila has been identified as a potential purveyor of sewer service to the Coluccio site. Response The proposal itself will not cause the direct conversion of any actively cultivated farmlands to more intensive use. The proposal has been modified to exclude the option of sewer service from Kent. This will eliminate adverse impacts on agricultural lands south of South 204th Street that might result from extending sewer service through this area. It will also assure that the project supports the agricultural preservation efforts of the City of Kent and of King County and will help make the project more consistent with the recently adopted City of Kent Agricultural Lands Study. The Draft Tukwila General Sewer Plan contains a recommendation to provide sewer service to the area bounded by I -5, the Green River, South 188th Street, and South 204th Street at the request and par- tial expense of property owners. The project sponsor proposes to obtain sewer service through the methods described in this plan. The project site forms the southern boundary of this sewer service area, and service to parcels south of 204th Street would not be available. Figure 4 shows the existing zoning within the area described above and designated within Tukwila's draft sewer plan as the South Ser- vice Area Basin. The area zoned M -2 at the northwest corner of this basin has sanitary sewer service, which connects to a line in South 180th Street. There are two 35 -acre parcels within this sewer service basin that are zoned for agricultural use. In addition, there is a parcel zoned "residential agriculture" that contains roughly 18 acres. Figure 5 indicates that one of the 35 -acre agriculturally zoned parcels within the proposed sewer service basin has been mapped by King County as eligible for acquisition under the provisions of KC Ordinance 4341. Other parcels that meet the criteria of the 12 AREA CURRENTLY WITH SEWER SERVICE ( BOUNDARY OF CITY OF TUKWILA SOUTH SERVICE AREA BASIN BOW LAKE Tukwila City Limits t h • )S ANGLE LAKE 4. AREAS ZONED A AND R-A , WITHIN THE SOUTH SERVICE /1 AREA BASIN -4,— Kent City Limits "lb • A / AREAS SOUTH OF S 204TH ST. WOULD NOT BE SERVED OR IMPACTED UNDER THE TUKWILA PLAN R-A 521 2th St. M-H-P X - Y Existing Zoning (X - Y) Proposed Zoning 13 FIGURE 4 IMPACT OF PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE ON FARMLANDS SFA -T AC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT . `\ -�, ;16Qth .at.. 5.1.70\ St. Soots • Center TUKWILA R.rie'rt Ck BOUNDARY OF CITY OF TUKWILA SOUTH SERVICE AREA BASIN BOUNDARY OF LOWER GREEN RIVER /VALLEY AGRICULTURAL «+ i DISTRICT 2. �mow a mire= mg 0 LEGEND Agricultural Lands of Countywide Significance Farmland and Open Space Land Eligible for Acquisition in Priority 1 -A1• Food Producing Farmlands 0 2000 4000 Eligible for Acquisition Under Priority 1 -81. nu-L_) 1. From King County Ordinance No. 4341 relating to the acquisition of voluntarily offered interests in farm and open space land in King County. 2. From King County Ordinance No. 3064 relating to the designation of certain agricultural lands in King County and to the application of County policies concerning subdivision, rezoning, municipal annexations and sewer and water district activities related to these lands. FIGURE 5 ELIGIBLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS 14 IN THE SITE VICINITY ordinance are eligible as well, and all parcels within the sewer service basin that are zoned or used for agricultural purposes are assumed to be eligible for acquisition. No lands within the south sewer service area basin fall within the boundary of the Lower Green River Valley Agricultural District as defined in KC Ordinance 3064. Although the provision of sewer service to the south service area basin would provide sewer service to the three parcels zoned for agricultural use within the basin, two of these parcels currently have potential for sewer service, and only one parcel (located just east of the proposal site) would have substantially improved sewer service as a result of the proposal. The most northerly of these parcels (at 57th Avenue South and South 180th Street) already is near a sewer line in South 180th Street; the extended sewer line would not substantially improve sewer ser- vice to this 18 -acre parcel, nor would it increase the likelihood of a rezoning action for it. The 35 -acre parcel zoned agricultural in the oxbow of the river is adjacent to the Segale Business Park and could be connected to the system which serves this development. Although an extended sewer line in 57th Avenue South would provide improved sewer service to this parcel, it would not make sewer service available where there were no options prior to the develop- ment of the proposed system. As discussed above, increased pressures for indirect conversions are limited to the one parcel of land just east of the subject site, which is zoned for agricultural use and which would receive substantially improved sewer-service if the Tukwila sewer plan were implemented. 'If this were parcel rezoned to a light industrial classification, such rezoning would be in conformance with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This parcel, as well as other lands in the area, is eligible for development rights acqui- sition under priortiy 1 -B of King County Ordinance No. 4341 on a voluntary basis if funds are available; therefore its conversion to more intensive uses is not a certainty. No farmland conversions south of South 204th Street are expected as a result of the proposal, as these lands would not have sewer service and their agricultural use and zoning are protected by legislation as well as by plans of City of Kent and of King County. Further discussion of growth in the study area will be found in Section III. * * * City of Tukwila Comment 2 Included in that discussion of the growth- inducing potential of the project on Kent and Des Moines should be a review of the relationship 15 between the extension of public services to the area and the potential requirement of annexation to the provider jurisdiction. City of Tukwila Comment 5 Footnote 1, Page 98: The remarks attributed to Planning Department staff member Mark Caughey have been paraphrased in a way which might be misleading. The correct information which he conveyed to CH2M HILL in the referenced conversation was that Title 14 of the Tukwila Municipal Code definitely requires City Council approval of sewer service exten- sions beyond the corporate limits. However, the code is silent on the matter of annexation. Therefore, your text should at least change the word "will" to "may" in line 6 of paragraph 2, page 98. Response Comment acknowledged. This sentence should read, "The City of Tukwila may provide service to areas outside the city limits without annexation, but city council action is required." The project sponsor is willing to annex the proposal site to Tukwila. City of Kent Comment 31 In order to service the area west of the Green River, a crossing of the river would be necessary. The gravity system proposed by Kent's Compre- hensive Sewer Plan is adequate to service the subject property. Kent's system is considerably closer than the Tukwila system, and it does not require any pumping equipment to service the rezone property. A gravity system is more energy efficient. Extending sewers to the west side of the Green River will probably en- courage development of vacant and agricultural lands west of the Green River. The City of Kent will probably require annexation before the subject property would be serviced with sanitary sewers. Response Consultants to the City of Tukwila have analyzed the comparative costs of Kent or Tukwila providing sewer service to the study area. The costs of the two alternatives are close, and the project sponsor prefers to obtain sewer service from Tukwila in order to support Kent's policies of discouraging development of vacant and agricul- tural lands in the area. * * * See Tukwila General Sewer Plan (Draft, 1982). 16 Metro Comment 1 We note that the proposal is not located within the Local Service Area (LSA) of the King County Sewerage General Plan. Unincorporated portions of the County must be located within the LSA for Metro to provide sewer service. If the area in question were designated as a part of the LSA, it would be tributary to Metro's Renton treatment plant. Metro has prepared a facilities plan for the Renton system with a grant from ODE and EPA, in part because the Renton treatment plant has reached its "design" capacity and continued development is occurring within the service area. A final plan for the Renton service area was adopted by the Metro Council in November 1981 and contains a recommended program for upgrading the Renton system so that water quality and health will continue to be protected. The plan calls for these improvements to be on line in the summer of 1986. Response Comment acknowledged. It is anticipated that sewer service will be provided to the property by the City of Tukwila. State of Washington Department of Ecology Comment 2 There is no guarantee that sewer service will be available at the time desired for this project since the Renton sewage treatment plant (STP) is currently operating above design capacity much of the time. Addi- tional sewer connections or extensions may not be available until the STP is expanded. This expansion is currently projected to be operational by July 1, 1986. Response Comment acknowledged. Physical development and occupancy of the project can be timed to coincide with the availability of sewer service. * * * 17 Section II A DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE SITE King County Office of Agriculture Comment 2 Page 105. The Alternatives section does not discuss the alternative of locating the future proposed development east of the Green River where land, zoning, sewers and water already exist for such purposes. There is a surplus of M -L zoned land in the Green River Valley without creating more on the doorstep of a viable agricultural community. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the amount of vacant and sewered M -L zoned lands in the Green River Valley nor give sufficient reasons why more such lands should be created. City of Kent Comment 11 According to WAC 197- 10- 440(12)(e), the discussion of alternatives for a rezone type of action need not be limited to only the subject site. It could (and should) be expanded to include the alternative of achieving the same objective (that is, providing industrial use) on another site, such as a site(s) in Kent or Tukwila which is already serviced by ade- quate utilities., By limiting alternatives discussion to the one site, there is no way to discuss the alternative of providing the same amount of development in an already serviced area. King County Division of Planning Comment 10 A proposal to convert hillside land constrained by steep slopes, erosion hazards and wetlands and lacking sewer or water service to industrial use is ironic in the Green River Valley where, only a short distance away, there is a large inventory of flat, unconstrained, serviced and industrial -zoned land on the valley floor. The project sponsor and final EIS should address whether it is in the public interest to allow conversion to industrial use at this location instead of using existing land east of the Green River. City of Kent Comment 7 Mitigating measures discussed in this section are all specific- project- type conditions. It would seem that because this is essentially a re- quest for a rezone (and not a specific project) that there should be a review of area -wide implications. In regards to the 13 transportation mitigating measures, there seems to be a general question that should be raised: Is this rezone request timely when there is such an abundance of industrially zoned land in nearby Kent, Tukwila, and Renton? In Kent alone 45 percent of the in- dustrially zoned land is vacant at this time and it already has most of the urban services to support this type of development. 19 City of Renton Comment 3 Secondly, the discussion of alternatives to the proposed action is lim- ited and inadequate. Large acreages of zoned, filled, and sewered land are available for industrial development in both Kent and Renton. A comparison between impacts of development in these locations versus the impacts -- especially secondary and cumulative impacts - -of development in an undeveloped area west of the Green River should be addressed. Response The site possesses particular characteristics that make it more amenable to certain forms of development than flat valley floor sites. These characteristics include views, varied topography, and freeway access. The valley floor is highly suitable for industry, which has requirements for heavy rail and truck access, large level areas for assembly and storage, and high- capacity sewer, water, and power utilities to support industrial processes. On the other hand, the subject site's characteristics are attractive to an emer- ging generation of high - technology industries. These firms consist of concentrations of highly educated professionals in a high - quality working environment. These types of industry need pleasant surround- ings of the sort available at the subject site to attract their work force. The most prevalent growth in types of high - technology industry seems to be occurring in the areas of administration, research, and development in communications, electronics, medicine, and aerospace. The heavier industrial activities in the valley floor are not desirable neighbors for the high - technology firms that would be attracted to the proposal site. The rezone would not simply provide more of a resource that appears to be in excessive supply at present but would create a new type of locational oppor- tunity for higher rent tenants who place a premium upon such factors as view, access, and unique site identity. The project sponsor believes it is in the public interest to provide light industrial and office sites with a variety of characteristics such as this. These types of sites are scarce in the Green River valley at present because of the topographic limitations of much of the valley walls. The south slope of the Tukwila Hill is a notable.exception. The popularity of this location for corporate offices of high - technology firms and its similarity to the subject site have led the project sponsor to believe that similar types of uses could occur at the subject property. Development of the site will not directly cause the loss of agricultural resources as would the development of most other valley sites. The site has particular characteristics that differentiate it from other sites in the Green River valley. First, it is not located on flat alluvial valley soils, and therefore the elevated hillside location and substantial relief of the site itself provide oppor- tunities for spectacular views across the Green River valley and of Mount Rainier, which are not available from sites on the valley 20 floor. These views will tend to attract higher rent tenants, with beneficial effects on property tax revenues. Flat valley floor sites therefore are not viable alternative loca- tions for the types of uses which the project sponsor hopes to attract to the subject site. This position is supported by persons directly involved with land development in the region. The Puget Sound Economic Development Council has established as a major goal in promoting economic health for the area the expansion of high - technology industry in central Puget Sound. As stated at the annual forecast meeting of the Council on January 6, 1983, while properly zoned vacant land is "available" for industrial development in the area, less than 30 percent of such "available" land is "suitable" for high - technology development.1 As further stated, high - technology industry, which is nonpolluting and requires a type of employee highly suitable for the region, demands sites of unusually attractive characteristics for two reasons: (1) these firms link their success to presentation of a highly positive visual image and (2) they need to attract a type of employee who is well - educated and highly sensitive to his working environment. This is confirmed by the recent experience of Fairchild and Hewlett - Packard. Both of these firms had to seek rezoning of sites in the Puget Sound areas in order to obtain locations that meet their criteria, even though industrial -zoned land theoretically was "available." The proposal site offers amenities sought by such desirable high - technology industry. Valley floor sites, with limited vegetation, terrain not conducive to innovative building forms, and with ware- housing, heavy industry, open storage, and other necessary but not attractive neighbors, are not attractive to high - technology industry. A detailed comparison of the impacts of the proposed development at the subject site and development at other sites in Kent and Renton is not possible because other sites have varied characteristics. It is probable that impacts of the proposed development would be more adverse at some alternative locations and less at others. Traffic impacts, for example, would be expected to be more severe at sites not as close to freeway interchanges as the proposal and where a greater use of congested local arterials would be necessary. Impacts on agricultural lands would be greater if fill were placed on soils suitable for farming, which would be the case at valley floor sites. 1Speech of James Fitzgerald, President of Quadrant Corporation. 21 Development of this site has less impact upon storm drainage utili- ties than valley floor sites because development will not decrease existing flood storage as it would on the floodplain. The elevated topography will allow use of on -site stormwater detention techniques such as underground and surface storage, more difficult in valley floor areas with higher groundwater tables. The secondary and cumulative impacts of development of valley sites are generally greater than of hillside sites such as the project. Valley sites often require filling to overcome unsuitable soil and water conditions. This fill has adverse impacts at the borrow site and creates the need for large and expensive public works projects (such as the SCS program) to Accommodate displaced flood waters. Finally, development of valley floor sites removes valuable agricul- tural land from production and may constitute an irreversible and irretrievable loss of natural resources. Development of the subject site will not directly create any of these adverse impacts; and if sewer service is extended from Tukwila, no conversion of agricultural lands not currently zoned or planned for industrial use need occur. The areawide impacts of the proposal are discussed in the DEIS, beginning on page 111. Further discussion will be found in this Final EIS. * * * King County Office of Agriculture Comment 3 Page 105. Of the four actions discussed in the DEIS - -No Action, Proposed Action, Less Intensive Land Use, and More Intensive Land Use - -only the No Action alternative does not involve sewer extension from either Kent or Tukwila. The Alternatives section fails to discuss any possible land uses which do not require sewers, such as mini storage, or suburban estates residential on the filled portion of the property. The No Action alternative implies that there is no reasonable use of the property unless sewers are provided. A new alternative is needed to adequately explore the possibility of land uses that do not require sewers. State of Washington Department of Game Comment 1 Because the secondary impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed rezone are so great, we recommend that the present zoning of the site be retained. An alternative land use should be considered which would be compatible with adjacent land uses (agriculture, wetlands, riparian corridor) and would avoid increasing the development pressure on these sensitive areas. Response Uses that do not require sewer service were not considered because they do not meet the sponsor's objectives. The possibilities men- tioned for the site (suburban estates residential and mini storage) 22 could be viable short -term uses. However, location of the site on an arterial 3/4 mile from a major freeway interchange, in addition to the site's exceptional views, suggests that in the long run the highest and best use of the site is a more intensive one. Moreover, implementation of Kent's transportation plan will result in a major cross - valley arterial at South 200th Street and will place the site at the intersection of two major arterials. Considering these factors, the project sponsor believes that uses that do not require sewer service will not meet his objectives to optimize the use of the property in the long term. 23 Section III A DISCUSSION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED REZONE TO • THE LAND USE PLAN MAPS OF'KENT AND TUKWILA City of Renton Comment 1 The proposed rezone site appears to be one of those areas which "fall between the cracks" of local land use plans. Because of this situation, we urge that the land use plans of Kent and Tukwila be reviewed carefully for guidance as to the appropriate level of development. Our reading of these plans and King County policies suggest that rezoning the site may be premature for several reasons. State of Washington Department of Game-Comment 8 Page 113, Figure 26. The area between South 204th Street and South 212th Street has been designated as a unique and fragile area by the Kent City Council in the Valley Studies Plan. The area is incorrectly designated as "probable light industrial warehouse and commercial uses" in this figure. City of Kent Comment 12 This map appears to not be the product of a systematic analysis of com- prehensive plans of Kent, Tukwila, and King County. Instead, it appears to be pure conjecture, and the subsequent discussion of "secondary im= pacts" based on this map is therefore inaccurate and misleading. City of Kent Comment 13 Following the lead of the above comment, the discussion under "Impacts" is inaccurate. The statement is made that development of the site "will be compatible with other land use in the immediate vicinity and in the Green River Valley." Actually, if this were compared to the proposed development with the planned "residential- agricultural" use of Kent's Comprehensive Plan, it could not be concluded that it would be compatible. Response Figure 26 in the DEIS is an attempt by the project sponsor to pro- vide a basis for analyzing impacts if the proposal were to induce substantial redevelopment in the study area. The figure was not based upon existing land use plans but reflects the project spon- sor's personal opinion of a possible course that development in the study area could take. These opinions are based on an observation of the existing and emerging land use patterns in the Green River valley and near the site. In general, the valley floor appears to be developing with industrial use, and the valley wall appears to be developing with multifamily, office, and commercial uses (Fig- ures 6, 7, and 8. 25 r".'t • alt.= las 11112'151111401114141, \ Residential :•• Residential Renton CBD • ts • - 5 1:30 Residential/ Industrial Vacant Lands ........ Residential • Moines Residential / I Agricultural n • Vacant Lands :el, Li ' f i a0 1 f.- 6t„bf7izt.4. GRAVEL PIT 26 ' 20 FIGURE 6 GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE METE . • • • • • • - • r‘. 'c ros RENTON BUSINESS PARK •_ • _Nnorr_ VII 1111..11H141111111Mij ••111•••••••■.:.•-.74L..-.LL...• •1111••••11 MEM. M. U I I IRE. II 1..1 l■ RSThTI AA'MQ TRUCKING FA ASPHALT GFIAVE $ PIT SIT s t- NEW PARK BOEI DEV, CE • Fl •?• s'• .......... . ..... . • . .. .. . ... : -• PROPOSED KENT HIGH COMMERCI COMPLEX AL KENT RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL I k AGRICULTURAL SOURCE: COLUCCIO REZONE DEIS r.) on 27 S FIGURE 7 EXISTING LAND USE EXIST! G INDUS RY EXISTING USINESS PARK •`\ • • • •. ANGLE LAKE EXISTING TRUCKING FACILITY POTENTIAL WETLANDS POTENTIAL OPEpr SPACE SOURCE: COLUCCIO REZONE DEIS 28 EXISTING BUSINESS PARK BOEING • $.,212th St. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WARE . SE AND C • RCIAL USES -0E1) FIGURE 8 PROBABLE FUTURE LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA In response to the comment that the figure concerning probable future land use in the study area was not based upon the existing plans of adjacent jurisdictions, the project sponsor has developed a revised plan that is intended to follow more closely the existing plans of Kent and Tukwila. King County as lead agency does not endorse this plan but merely presents it as the sponsor's point of view. The following text is a statement by the sponsor's consultant. "The overlapping portions of the land use plans for the study area prepared by Kent and Tukwila (Figures 9 and 10) contain some areas of agreement and some areas of conflict. Both plans indicate that the valley wall should be for low- density residential uses. The Kent plan indicates residential, agricultural, and open space uses as appropriate for the valley floor while the Tukwila plan shows industrial use for this type of land. Figure 11 shows a revised plan for future land use in the study area that combines the pro- posals of the Kent and Tukwila plans. Where conflict exists, the more intensive land use has been shown and other factors such as existing zoning and the physical conditions in the area have been taken into account as discussed below. "The long -range viability of a long strip of low- density residential use sandwiched between a freeway and industrial and commercial areas may be questionable. However, residential use has been shown (Figure 11) as occupying the valley wall (as indicated in both city plans), with the exception of the five gravel pits. These gravel pits are designated for for office or light industrial uses. This concept is based on the premise that low- density residential develop- ment in a gravel pit is not economically viable because the costs of bringing the site up to an adequate level aesthetically would make the selling price of the lots noncompetitive with other low - density land._ A more intensive use of these gravel pits will make it possible to recontour•the sites in such a way as to maximize their view and access advantages, thereby creating high - quality sites for office and light industrial uses. "The greatest difference between the Kent and Tukwila plans lies in the perception of appropriate uses for the flat valley floor lands. Tukwila reserves these lands almost exclusively for industrial and commercial uses (which are shown on the Tukwila plan map as extend- ing south to South 200th Street, the southern planning area boundary). Just south of 200th Street are two large parcels in King County, zoned for manufacturing use; the planned industrial use of the valley floor shown in the Tukwila plan has been extended south to South 204th Street to reflect this existing zoning. "The Kent plan shows the valley floor as best used for agricultural and residential purposes on the west side,of the Green River. (The east side of the Green River is reserved for commercial and indus- trial uses in a manner similar to the Tukwila plan.) This residen- tial- agricultural designation extends northward up the west side of the river to the northern planning area boundary of Kent at the southern city limits of Tukwila, in the vicinity of S 188th Street. 29 tc• T I r-lt.! 8 t h St • P' • , _ 5 \\• LEGEND Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Low Density Residential Wis:A,"0 Parks & Open Space Public Facilities 30 Planning Area Boundary 5212th St. FIGURE 9 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNED LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA L S11 761 -111 r\--- BOW LAKE 188th St ANGLE Lt INEJ o'ry \tom== • -.s-' �. L_ ,' l f • 'L1 I_5•; •-v ,f ■ N : :SITE :`•: UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREA • :`: L 5 • • LEGEND Light Industry - Business Park Residence-Agriculture Open Space- Trails 31 ' A. 1 Jr, �`y- ■ AM MININ116-7,•• FIGURE 10 CITY OF KENT PLANNED LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA JAI 1) - • _ -7 /' LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES ON VALLEY WALL AS SUGGESTED BY KENT AND TUKWILA .COMP. PLANS BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE FORMER GRAVEL PITS TO 88 t h B. ALLOW OFFICE/ 1 I LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ...... USES IN THESE SITES. ANGLE LAKE r-- N KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION INDUSTRIAL USES , IN VALLEY AS SUGGESTED / BY TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE 7— PLAN >FUTURE CROSS VALLEY ARTERIAL 1 EXISTING MANUFACTURING ZONING ( KING COUNTY ) BUFFER AREA BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL/ AGRICULTURAL USES SUGGESTED BY SPONSOR RESIDENTIAL / AGRICULTURAL LAND USES IN VALLEY AS SUGGESTED BY KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 212th St. 1 Proposed by City of Kent 32 FIGURE 11 POSSIBLE FUTURE LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA "The wetlands identified by Kent as a 'unique and fragile area' provide a natural buffer between separate industrial uses to the north and agricultural uses to the south. This concept is shown on the map and is supported by the project sponsor's willingness to maintain that portion of the wetlands lying on the subject site in a wetland condition. The portion of the project site used as a gravel pit seems to be most logically suited to a light industrial and office use because of its physical characteristics. The portion of the site south of South 200th Street is proposed for open space and industrial and office uses because of its relatively flat topog- raphy and the presence of wetlands. "The plan as presented is intended to be a reasonable compromise between conflicting land use proposals in the study area. It sup- ports the major objectives of both Kent and Tukwila with regard to use of valley floor and hillside lands: agricultural and wetlands areas are preserved while land is provided for industrial and office uses. The plan helps limit the southward expansion of industrial uses on the west side of the Green River by providing a definite southern boundary for these uses at South 204th Street. This bound- ary can be effectively maintained in the long term if buffers are required as proposed and sewer service to areas north of South 204th Street is provided by the City of Tukwila rather than the City of Kent. "Development of office and industrial uses in the barren gravel pits will introduce high - quality development into the study area, with a resulting beneficial effect on the development of other vacant lands in the valley floor north of South 204th Street. "Because the land use plan originally analyzed presents a more in- tensive use of the study area than does the revised plan, the impacts presented in the Draft EIS will be greater than those which would actually result from the revised plan. The original plan represents a worst -case concept which should be revised at the time that a land use plan for the area is being considered for adoption." 33 Section IV TRANSPORTATION ISSUES State of Washington Department of Transportation Comment 1 The implementation of the proposal, with approximately 7,800 vehicular trips per day, will have a significant adverse impact upon the safety, operation, and level of service of the I -5 /South 188th Street interchange. The impacts must be mitigated. Response The mitigating transportation measures to be considered are listed on pages 88 -89 of the DEIS and include possible widening of the intersections of the I -5 freeway ramps with South 188th Street. * * * State of Washington Department of Transportation Comment 2 The traffic mitigation proposed should note costs and sources of commit- ted and uncommitted funds. Response Costs and sources of funding for transportation impact mitigating measures have not been determined at this time. * * * State of Washington Department of Transportation Comment 3 In a period of shrinking budgets this Department is finding it increas- ingly difficult to fund improvements. The traffic mitigation improve- ments proposed are not contained within our current six -year operating program. Response Costs and sources of funding for transportation impact mitigating measures have not been determined at this time. * * * Commuter Pool Comment 1 In reviewing the DEIS document it is unclear whether the intensification of land use which the rezone represents is reflected in the current traffic volume projections and plans of the surrounding cities of Kent, Tukwila, Renton, and of King County. If current plans and projections do not include this site and the study area as light manufacturing then this impact needs to be identified. 35 Response Previous regional traffic volume projections probably did not in- clude traffic generated by development on this specific proposal site. Depending on the methods used for the volume projections, the proposal traffic may be included within general volume growth rates, may be expected for a different site indicating a shift in traffic volumes, or may not be included. One of the purposes of the EIS is to identify the impacts due to this proposal on this site. * * * Commuter Pool Comment 2 As stated on page 70 (DEIS) the lower Green River valley is expected to continue to experience rapid growth in both population (1980 - 32,000; 1990 - 39,000 Tukwila /Kent) and employment (1980 - 48,000; 1990 - 70,000 Tukwila /Kent, page 71 DEIS). The DEIS states that while much of the land in the study area is cur- rently undeveloped it is probable that granting the rezone will result in a significant increase in the area's development. The cumulative impact of development in the area could result in traffic generation of 43,000 trip ends per day (page 120 DEIS). The exact improvements to handle this increased level of traffic are said to be beyond the scope of the DEIS. We feel however, that in light of the projected peak hour levels of service at nearby intersections that would result from the proposed development alone, and the lack of public funds for capital improvements in the area, it is imperative that a strong transportation management program be spelled out and committed to as part of the rezone. We note that the 1982 King Subregional Ridesharing Plan states that in order for the Tukwila /Kent area to accommodate employment growth, 43 per- cent of 1990 work trips to the valley must be in a transit /ridesharing mode. This represents an increase of 150 percent over current levels. METRO Comment 3 On pages 31 and 32, the DEIS discusses Valley Studies Program Transpor- tation Policies.as they - relate to this proposal. The proponent states that shuttle service to the nearest park- and -ride lot will be included in this proposal as a transportation mitigating measure. We wish to point out that there is very little park- and -ride service provided in the off -peak direction so that the practicality of this shuttle service may be limited. 36 Suburban office and industrial parks such as this proposal do not typi- cally generate significant transit demand. This is due mainly to three factors: (1) low employment levels and densities; (2) large quantities of free employee parking; and (3) site layouts which place buildings far from the street behind large expanses of parking, making access to tran- sit service inconvenient. Commuter Pool Comment 3 The proponent's comment on the Valley Studies Program Transportation Policies (page 32 DEIS) appears inconsistent with statements made on page 88 under the heading of "Mitigating Measures." The comment (page 32) states that the provision of shuttle service from park and ride lots, preferential in ride - matching programs, linkage to major bicycle paths, and bicycle parking facilities will be included in the development. .None of these items, however, were included as mitigating measures on page 88. The comment (page 32) then states that shuttle service to park and ride lots will depend upon a large employment base. It is unclear whether the shuttle service will be provided for if there is an unspeci- fied formula for determining the need for the service. Response Comments acknowledged. The transportation impact mitigating measures to be considered (pages 88 and 89, DEIS) include elements of a strong transportation management program. More specific transportation strategies will be detailed when the site is developed. A typographical error on page 32 of the DEIS omitted "preferential parking for car pools and van pools" as the fourth item from the end of the list of transportation mitigation programs quoted from the Valley Studies Program Transportation Policies. This preferen- tial parking will be included in the development on the proposal site (i.e., one of the last four items on the list). "Provision of shuttle service from park and ride lots" will not necessarily be included in the development, but is another possible strategy. As requested, the provision of preferential parking for car pools and van pools, participation in ride - matching programs, linkage to major bicycle paths, and bicycle parking facilities have been added to the list of transportation mitigating measures on page 89 (see below). City of Kent Comment 7 Mitigating measures discussed in this section are all specific project type conditions. It would seem that because this is essentially a re- quest for a rezone (and not a specific project) there should be a review of area -wide implications. 37 In regards to the 13 transportation mitigating measures, there seems to be a general question that should be raised: Is this rezone request timely when there is such an abundance of industrially zoned land in nearby Kent, Tukwila, and Renton? In Kent alone 45 percent of the in- dustrially zoned land is vacant at this time and it already has most of the urban services to support this type of development. Response Comments acknowledged. The transportation impact mitigating measures to be considered (pages 88 and 89 of the DEIS) include elements of a strong transportation management program. More specific transportation strategies will be detailed when the site is developed. The relationship between this rezone request and the availability of other industrially zoned land is covered in Section II. * * * Commuter Pool Comment 4 Although a larger employment base increases the chances for successful ridesharing programs, our experience has demonstrated that 2,000 employees, which is the estimated employment generated by the proposal (page 1, DEIS), is more than an adequate number of employees to support van pools and justify transit subsidy, subscription service, and other options to help mitigate the adverse transportation impacts generated by a proposal. Response Comment acknowledged. The transportation impact mitigating measures to be considered include encouraging ridesharing, prefer- ential parking for car pools and van pools, and participation in ride - matching programs. * * * King County Division of Planning Comment 2 The peak -hour traffic counts taken in January 1982 should be adjusted for month and day of the week to reflect average peak -hour values. Response The a.m. and p.m. peak -hour traffic volumes shown in Figures 13 and 14 of the DEIS were counted manually on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, which are generally considered to be average days of the week for traffic volumes. These counts appear consistent with machine - recorded traffic volume counts taken in this vicinity in previous years and appear to be typical values. 38 ( Data on peak -hour traffic volume variation by month of year for the vicinity of the proposal apparently are not available. Daily traffic volumes during the winter months are generally lower than during the summer months. However, peak -hour volumes may be more consis- tent throughout the year than daily volumes. If sufficient data were available to determine annual average weekday traffic volumes, these average values probably would be within a few percent of the volumes shown in Figures 13 and 14 of the Draft EIS. Since appro- priate daily and monthly adjustment data apparently are not available, the manual count data were used in Figures 13 and 14. King County Division of Planning Comment 3 Table 3 on page 77 should be clarified to identify LOS E' if any move- ments operate at that level. In addition to level -of- service values it would be helpful to include a volume -to- capacity ratio. Response Table 3 has been clarified as requested. Peak -hour volume -to- capacity ratios (v /c) calculated by the Webster method are shown for the signalized intersections. The levels of service for the unsignalized intersections were calculated by means of TRB Cir- cular 212 method, which does not include v/c calculation methodology. Since these levels of service are already shown for individual unsignalized traffic movements, the greater precision of v/c ratios is not necessary and hence is not used for the unsignalized inter- sections. * * * King County Division of Planning Comment 4 The 2 percent annual growth rate appears to be quite low. The growth rate on Orillia Road between 1978 and 1981 is approximately 6.5 percent compounded annually. Forecast data should be updated. City of Kent Comment 24 From our experience, we have found that 4 to 6 percent on arterials and 6 to 8 percent on minor roads is the expected annual average rate of increase. Over a 6 -year period (1981- 1987), this higher rate of in- crease could result in traffic volumes 12 to 25 percent higher than predicted in the EIS. Unless other factors limit the rate of increase, we see no reason to limit the expected traffic growth to 2 percent per year. 39 Table 3 (From Draft EIS) PEAK -HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE AND VOLUME-TO- CAPACITY RATIO (v /c) AT SELECTED INTERSECTIONS (Existing physical conditions at all intersections, except as noted) (v /c ratios computed for signalized intersection only) 1982 Existing Conditions Orillia Road S and AM C/C S 200th Street PM D /E' Orillia Road S and AM C -D (.74) I -5 SB Ramps PM D -E (.89) Orillia Road S and AM C (.73) I -5 SB Ramps PM D (.79) Frager Road S and AM D- E /B /E /D S 212th Street PM E /D /E' /E Frager Road S and AM A/A S 200th Street PM A/A 57th Avenue S and AM A -B (.54) S 180th Street PM B -C (.66) 1987 Without Coluccio Site Development C/C E /E' D (.83) E (.98) D (.77) D (.86) E /C /E /E E /D- E /E' /E A/A A/A B (.60) C -D (.75) Proposed Development D -Ea (.90) Ea (.96) Db (.83) Db (.84) Ec (.92) Dc (.77) E /C /E /E E /E /E' /E A/B A/B C (.71) D (.86) Description of Levels of Service: A Little or no delay B Slight traffic delays C Average and acceptable traffic delays D Longer, but still tolerable traffic delays E Long traffic delays, congestion E' Severe delays, no remaining calculated reserve capacity F Forced flow, jammed due to external causes Key: X /X: X /X /X: X /X /X /X: X (.ZZ): X -Y: Left turn from main street /right and left from side street Southbound left turn /Westbound right turn/Westbound left turn Westbound left turn /Eastbound left turn /Southbound/Northbound Overall level of service for signalized intersections (v /c ratio) Borderline between levels of service Notes: Existing physical conditions at all intersections, except as noted. aSouthbound left -turn lane, separate westbound right -turn and left -turn lanes, and a second westbound right -turn lane and intersection signalization. bAdditional westbound right -turn lane (unsignalized free - flow), total of two northbound left -turn lanes and a northbound right -turn lane. Additional eastbound right -turn lane. 40 c Response The King County Department of Public Works publication Historical Traffic Count 1973 to 1981 lists average daily traffic volumes on Orillia Road South northwest of 42nd Avenue South, beginning with 16,211 in 1978, 16,454 in 1979, 16,853 in 1980, and 17,239 in 1981. These figures represent an average traffic volume growth rate -of approximately 2.1 percent on Orillia Road South. King County traffic volume data for this period at other locations on Orillia indicate a higher volume growth rate, but there are apparent discrepancies in the data. The Final EIS for the Proposed Kent - Highlands Multi - family Develop- ment, issued by the City of Kent in April 1982, is the other recent traffic study covering the area of this proposal. Figure 19 of that document lists a 1980 average daily traffic volume of 16,500 on Orillia Road South northwest of 42nd Avenue South. The table on page 125 shows a projected volume of 23,000 for the year 2000 with- out the Kent - Highlands project. This represents a traffic volume growth rate of approximately 1.7 percent per year on Orillia Road South from 1980 to 2000. The projected year 2000 average daily traffic volume on Orillia with the Kent - Highlands project was 27,900, representing a 2.7 percent annual traffic volume growth rate. However, the Kent - Highlands project apparently has been abandoned. The 2 percent annual background traffic volume growth rate was used in this analysis in the interest of being consistent with the City of Kent's recent document. The King County Department of Public Works, Division of Traffic and Planning, provided traffic volume growth rates based on PSCOG popu- lation forecasts for the area bounded by Puget Sound, I -5, the Seattle city limits, and South 216th Street. Total 1982 to 1987 traffic volume growth for this area was projected at 7.4 percent, equal to approximately 1.4 percent per year. Population and traffic volume growth rates for the areas east of I -5, including Kent, are expected to be higher, but the proposal vicinity is expected to exhibit traffic growth characteristics more similar to the area described above. In discussions with the Division of Traffic and Planning it was agreed that 2 percent per year would be a suitable traffic volume background growth rate for the vicinity of the proposal. When the proposal - generated traffic is added to this background traffic volume growth, higher total traffic volume growth rates result. Calculation of equivalent annual growth rates from the 1981 average daily traffic volumes (Figure 12) to the projected 1987 AWDT's with the proposal (Figure 13), indicate about 5.6 per- cent on Orillia north of 200th, 3.3 percent on Orillia south of 200th, 18 percent on 200th east of the site, 7.5 percent on Frager north of 200th, and 5.0 percent on Frager south of 200th. These values are reasonably consistent with the generalized expected FIGURE 12 1981 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 42 S. 200TH ST. ''ar 11 u = a 0 s (1170) S. 188TH S. 180TH ST 1 N NOT TO SCALE (1560) 6360 (390) 10,520 (1170) 00 \.b : 7370 1 (6240) (.LOTH ST ^ J S. 204TH ST (XXX) Increase attributable to proposal NOTE: Revised Figure 19 of Coluccio Rezone DEIS 43 N 22,960 (1,560) FIGURE 13 1987 AWDT WITH PROPOSED COLUCCIO SITE DEVELOPMENT annual average traffic volume growth rates stated in the Novem- ber 15, 1982, letter from the City of Kent responding to the pro- posal DEIS. Traffic generated by the proposal and the traffic generated by many other projects within the metropolitan region will all contribute to the total growth rate. City of Kent Comment 28 Our recommendation is that the proposed rezone be denied. The traffic impacts are substantial. In addition, the interchange with I -5 at South 188th Street will be heavily impacted due to the existing zoning in the valley floor and Tukwila. The City of Tukwila is contemplating the construction of a connection from Southcenter Parkway to this inter- change. The City of Kent plans to connect a new east -west arterial from the east -west arterial from the East Hill of Kent to Orillia Road at South 200th Street. These two planned improvements are necessary due to traffic expected from existing zoning, and they will require expansion of the I -5 inter- change by themselves. There does not appear to be a compelling public need for more zoning of this type, and there appears to be little excess capacity available for traffic generated from new zoning. The zoning proposal should not be approved at this time. Response Comment on the desirability of the rezone is not appropriate in an environmental impact statement. As the City of Kent presents no specific traffic figures, it is difficult to gauge the degree of mitigation required by the proposed arterials. Possible mitigation measures to assure adequate capacity for traffic generated by the proposal are presented in the traffic sections of the Draft and Final EIS. Application of these or simi- lar mitigating measures to other development that may occur in the valley will reduce overall traffic impacts and will have other public benefits such as providing support for public transportation and energy conservation. The need for the proposed rezoning is covered in Section II of the Final EIS. * * * King County Division of Planning Comment 5 The 7,800 trips generated seems to be a reasonable figure unless banks, restaurants and other higher trip - generating uses are developed. Fig- ure 19 however only reflects 6,800 trips from the proposed development and should be revised. 44 City of Kent Comment 25 South 188th Street west of the I -5 interchange should show 2,360 vehicles attributable to the proposal, even though no number is shown for 1987 total traffic. City of Kent Comment 26 The increase attributable to the proposal on the southbound on -ramp to I -5 from South 188th Street should indicate 340 vehicles, not 160. The total volume is correct. City of Kent Comment 27 The volume shown on South 200th Street between Orillia Road and Frager Road (2,490/1,360) only applies to that stretch east of the site. The volume on South 200th just east of Orillia Road should show a 1987 volume of 6,570, with 5,440 attributable to this proposal. This missing volume shows more clearly the significant impact expected at the intersection of South 200th and Orillia Road. Response Figure 19 of the DEIS has been revised as requested (see Figure 13). King County Division of Planning Comment 6 Both a.m. and p.m. trips represent 13 percent of average daily traffic. The a.m. traffic movements attributed to the proposal at the intersection of South 200th and Frager Road amount to 300 trips while the p.m. move- ments account for only 200 trips. Should the p.m. values be corrected? Response Clerical errors in Figures 20 and 21 of the DEIS have been corrected; the revised figures (Figures 14 and 15) follow. The discrepancy noted in Figure 20 has been revised by reducing the a.m. eastbound left -turn volume on South 200th Street at Frager Road to result in 200 proposal - generated trips using this intersection during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This accounts for 20 percent of the estimated 1,000 proposal - generated trips occurring during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The 1,000 trips represent 13 percent of the 7,800 average weekday trips generated by the proposal. * * * Revisions of the DEIS Text A review of the DEIS has revealed errors in the "Transportation" section, which should be corrected as follows: S 178TH Sr 3.188TH 8 �o� ?� ��_ r." �o� si ion y O N 7,844 r +� 70 (0)-11 374 (0)-• 12 (0)--) N O N t i {n JJ. O 0 Q E m -87(72) l `25 (24) S. 200TH ST. N. 1/' 123(18)-) 11 8161-+ i—§: 0 c rye ^�o op m 1t_179 (0) 4-113 (0) `'103(88) Nu r O i0N N J J 0 (XXX) Increase attributable to proposal NOTE: Revised Figure 20 of Coluccio Rezone DEIS S. 212TH S� 46 o: S. 180TH ST. 228 (44) Al-858 (0) r32 (0) N NOT TO SCALE FIGURE14 1987 A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROPOSED COLUCCIO SITE DEVELOPMENT s. leers sr oho ppppMM� N t0 M 106 (0)..) 144 (0)-+ 6 (01—.), V-292 (0) *•432 (0) `'67 (14) s.1eoTH ST. As% '906. (? sssi 1 0 g L `205 (170) s, 200TH ST. 575 (510) tr . 1 148 (128).) 48 (42) -y a CC S. 212114 (XXX) Increase attributable to proposal NOTE: Revised Figure 21 of Coluccio Rezone DEIS 47 5T. N G �i oll� ern 2(0) -J 1072 (128) -0. 2 (0)--\ 170 (8) *1550 (22) x-350 (0) Zfr 0 0 0 N 1 N NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 15 1987 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROPOSED COLUCCIO SITE DEVELOPMENT Page 32: In the list at the top of the page: Add a new seventh item (fourth from the end): - Preferential parking for car pools and van pools The eighth item should read: Participation in ride - matching programs Page 85: In the first paragraph under "Mitigating Measures," the sentence reading "a three -lane curb -to -curb width on South 200th Street will serve proposal traffic well and allow for further traffic growth in the area" should be deleted. Page 89: Add two transportation mitigating measures to be considered: o Provide preferential on -site parking for car pools and van pools and participate in ride - matching programs o Provide linkage to nearby major bicycle paths and provide on -site bicycle parking facilities 48 Section V ISSUES RELATED TO WATER AND WETLANDS, FLORA, AND FAUNA King County Division of Planning Comment 1 Noticeably absent in this section (Relationship to Plans, Policies and Regulations) is any discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (4365) which governs the erosion hazard, seismic hazard and wetland areas present on this site. Response The distribution of environmentally sensitive areas in western King County is shown in maps published by the Department of Planning and Community Development in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio. These maps are adopted by reference in ordinance No. 4365 and are used by the department to alert the public and responsible officials to the possible presence of sensitive areas on the sites of development proposals. In cases of a mapping error, the actual presence or absence of the features defined as sensitive areas, as determined by qualified professional and technical persons, governs the treat- ment of an individual building site or parcel of land as a sensitive area. The subject site is not shown as a landslide hazard area. The northern portion of the site is, however, shown as a Class III seismic hazard area and erosion hazard area. No portion of the site is shown as a wetland or coal mine hazard area although wet- lands have been identified on the site by county staff (as discussed in the DEIS). The existence of potential seismic and erosion hazards on the site gives the manager of the Building and Land Development Division the authority to require special studies by qualified professionals. The county may approve with conditions or deny the proposal in order to carry out the provisions of ordinance No. 4365. The soils report contained in the DEIS was prepared at the sponsor's initia- tive to determine more specifically the level of seismic and erosion hazard on the site. King County Division of Planning Comment 8 In the discussion of the "More Intensive Land Use" alternative (page 105) it should be clear that no detailed studies of this particular wetland beyond the 1981 inventory have been made. The Planning Division is preparing wetland guidelines under the provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and K.C.C. 2.98. As administrative guidelines, they do not require adoption by ordinance. 49 Response Comment acknowledged. This paragraph should be corrected to read: "To fill the 6 -acre wetland would require special studies to show that the wetland is not of sufficient value to warrant preservation under the guidelines prepared by county staff under the provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and K.C.C. 2.98. Recommendations of county staff, based on inventory work, are to preserve the wetland." City of Renton Comment 2 This wetland is part of a much larger wetland which has been designated for possible acquisition by the sponsors of the Soil Conservation Ser- vice's East Side Watershed Project. Rezoning and development -- including sanitary sewer service - -of this area may substantially impact the ability of local sponsors to implement the environmental mitigation program for the SCS project. City of Kent Comment 17 Page 8. Natural Resources - The flooded area addressed has been targeted by the City of Kent to remain as a wetland. If steps are taken to annex this property to Kent or Tukwila, steps could be taken to save the wet- lands areas. Response The proposal will not directly impact lands which have been desig- nated for possible acquisition by the sponsors of the Soil Conser- vation Service's East Side Watershed Project. If sanitary sewer service is provided from the City of Tukwila, as preferred by the project sponsor, there will be no possibility of sewer service to the lands in question and no impact on the ability of local spon- sors to implement the environmental mitigation program for the SCS project. * * * City of Kent Comment 1 Page 17, Figure 2. It is suggested that the parking area storm drainage be directed to the detention pond (to the north) as opposed to the adja- cent wetland and open space area to the south. Response The design of the stormwater detention system will be finalized during the building permit process. The option of directing storm drainage from the southern parcel to the northern would be con- sidered in detail at that time. * * * 50 State of Washington Department of Game Comment 9 Page 117, Water, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. By stating that no un- avoidable adverse impacts have been identified, this document assumes that all water quality impacts can be mitigated. This is not true. Development would increase the volume of runoff. The amount of oil, silt, and other pollutants in this runoff would also increase. Oil separators and other stormwater facilities are not 100 percent effective even under ideal conditions. Some contamination of surface water by oil and other pollutants is inevitable. Total mitigation for adverse impacts to water quality is not feasible. Response Comment acknowledged. Detailed mitigating measures for water qual- ity impacts will be addressed during final design and building permit processes. State of Washington Department of Game Comment 10 Page 117, Flora and Fauna, Impacts. The loss of 300 acres of forest, 150 acres of agricultural lands, and possibly 40 acres of wetlands would result in a major loss of the remaining wildlife habitat and populations in this section of the Green River valley. Water quality impacts would also degrade fish habitat. This section of the document fails to recog- nize these impacts. Response Comment acknowledged. If the study area were to develop as indi- cated, a major loss in wildlife habitat as well as other water quality impacts would occur. This discussion has been revised as indicated in Section III concerning the relationship of the proposed rezone to the land use plan maps of Kent and Tukwila. * * * State of Washington Department of Game•Comment 11 Page 117, Flora and Fauna, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This document fails to list the unavoidable adverse impacts (loss of habitat, elimina- tion or reduction of fish and wildlife populations) that would result as secondary impacts of the proposed rezone. Response Comments acknowledged. Development of other sites in the study area would result in adverse impacts on fish and wildlife, similar to those described for the proposal site in the letter. * * * 51 King County Conservation District Comment 1 We recommend that an undisturbed vegetative buffer strip at least 20 feet wide remain adjacent to the wetland. Response Comments acknowledged. The precise method for buffering adjacent to the wetland will be addressed during the final design and build- ing permit process. King County Conservation District Comment 2 Under the Mitigating Measures - Soils Section, page 47, the text states that "site preparation and site grading should not proceed until drainage provisions have been installed and ponded water and seepage have been completely removed from the construction area." We feel that these provisions should include the implementation of a Temporary Erosion - Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), as the TESCP and the drainage system will both need to be operational prior to any extensive land clearing and grading. Due to the sensitive nature of the soil and water resources on -site, we recommend that the TESCP be developed in order to meet the minimum standards of the King County Conservation District. Response Temporary erosion - sedimentation control plans have been prepared in conjunction with two grading permits issued on March 23, and May 26, 1982. These plans are now being implemented. Further TESCP's will be prepared when permits for further site development are applied for. * * * METRO Comment 2 In order to preserve the beneficial functions of the wetlands on the proposal site, all mitigating measures for erosion and stormwater control listed in the DEIS should be made conditions of the rezone. All storm - water facilities should be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure that they continue to function properly. Response Comment acknowledged. 52 * * * State of Washington Department of Ecology Comment 1 The proposed project may require a flood control zone permit from the Department of Ecology. Application forms and information on this re- quirement are available from the Northwest Regional Office, 4350 - 150th Avenue, NE, Redmond, Washington 98052. Response Comment acknowledged. The need for a flood control zone permit will be investigated following the rezone process. A permit will be obtained if required. * * * City of Kent Comment 30 The subject property is within a drainage basin which discharges to open channels which are maintained by King County Drainage District #2. The District channels discharge directly into the Green River through an outlet pipe which is controlled by a flap gate. Since the HUD 100 -year flood elevation on the subject property (21.5) is substantially below the Green River water surface elevation when the river is under 100 -year conditions (flowing at 11,600 cfs - elevation 32 ±), significant ponding occurs during sustained periods of high river flows. Development of the property situated above the 100 -year flood plan will increase the amount of ponding that takes place in the low wetland area due to an increase in the total amount of runoff. It is imperative that the existing avail- able storage below the 100 -year flood elevation at least be maintained, and it appears that this storage should be substantially increased when development takes place. If the 7 -day holding criteria is valid for basins that discharge directly into the Green River (i.e., Black River Pump Station, Horseshoe Acres Pump Station, Auburn Mill Creek, etc.), then shouldn't the same criteria apply to properties within the subject drainage basin? This would amount to approximately 20 acre -feet of additional storage that would have to be provided by the developer. The additional storage would be usable only if provided in the low wetland area. These concerns should be addressed more closely by King County Surface Water Management. The standard 10 -year detention design does not appear to be adequate. Response Comment acknowledged. These concerns will be discussed with King County Surface Water Management when the final design of the storm drainage system is prepared. * * * 53 Section VI ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED REZONE TO VALLEY FLOOR PLAN POLICIES City of Kent Comment 2 Pages 29 to 31. Under the discussion there is no mention of objectives and Resources, Waterways, or are critical to a complete evaluation local planning policy. of the Valley Floor Plan policies, policies of the Open Space, Natural Urban Design Quality elements. These policies of the project's consistency with Response Excerpts from the "Open Space ", "Natural Resources ", "Waterways," and "Urban Design Quality" elements of the Valley Floor Plan follow. Discussions of the project's relationship to these objectives and policies are interpolated as appropriate. o OPEN SPACE OVERALL GOAL: INSURE THE PRESERVATION OF VALLEY LANDS FOR A VARIETY OF OPEN SPACE USES WITHIN THE CITY OF KENT SPHERE OF INTEREST. GOAL 1: Establish a comprehensive strategy to protect and preserve the Green River and environs. Policy 1: Consider development of outdoor recreation facilities along the Green River Policy 2: Determine the fiscal impacts of a bond issue to acquire open space along the Green River Policy 3: Work with Federal, State, local and special governments on finding solutions to preserving open space along the Green River Policy 4: Conduct a vigorous campaign to acquire funds for open space along the Green River Policy 5: Encourage owners to deed to the City land along the Green River when those areas are proposed for development GOAL 2: Reserve, conserve and preserve open spaces. Policy 1: Encourage interlocal cooperation to preserve open spaces west and east of the Green River Policy 2: Encourage participation in interjurisdictional flood control plans and programs 55 Policy 3: Seek alternative solutions to alleviate on the Valley floor. Comment: The proposal will not have an adverse impact to preserve open space along the Green River. flooding problems on Kent's ability The proposal site is not on the valley floor and is more than 1/4 mile from the nearest point of the Green River, so it will not directly affect any existing or proposed open spaces along the river. Concerns that provision of sewer service to the proposal site will cause conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses and hence indirectly cause a loss of open space are addressed in the responses to questions D -1 and S -10. On -site storm water detention facilities will help reduce the develop- ment's impact on flooding of the valley floor. GOAL 3: Preservation of the open, rural qualities of the Valley to complement new development. The Planning Department shall develop standards for the manner in which objectives and pol- icies under this goal will be interpreted. These standards shall be reviewed and approved by the Council before implementation. Objective 1: Landscaping with materials compatible with the rural characteristics of the valley Policy 1: Designate open space districts or buffer areas between abutting land use districts. Comment: The project sponsor is proposing such a district along South 204th Street to separate industrial and residential agricultural uses. The wetlands area in the southern portion of the subject property is committed to this buffer function to help implement this concept. Policy 2: Establish a street tree/boulevard beautification program. Comment: Street trees could be provided along South 200th Street when it is improved. Policy 3: Develop a recommended planting list for trees, shrubs, and ground cover that industrial, residential, commercial developments can utilize in the development of their plant landscaping. The plant list would include indigenous plants with low maintenance characteristics. Comment: Such a plant list, if available, would be followed in the preparation of a planting plan for the site development. Objective 2: Building design compatible with the rural characteristics of the valley Policy 1: Limit use of reflective materials. 56 Policy 2: Encourage that the predominant colors used for building facades to be earth tones. Policy 3: Encourage low- profile buildings. Policy 4: Encourage the spacing of buildings so that open space or landscaping may be aggregated. • Comment: These objectives and policies could be followed when final site and building plans are prepared. Objective 3: Establishment of common -use open space. Policy 1: Require industrially developed areas to include open space features that can accommodate 'some of the recrea- tional demand of employees. Comment: The wetlands that will be preserved on the proposal site could be developed to accommodate some of the recreational demand of employees. Policy 2: Require residential, industrial, and commercial develop- ments to dedicate land or contribute funds toward open space acquisition. Policy 3: Establish guidelines that lead to usable distributions of open space within new developments. Policy 4: Promote the development of scenic roads and pedestrian access to scenic areas. Policy 5: Setbacks along designated recreational and /or scenic routes shall allow for the provision of planned pedestrian/ bicycle paths and /or planned tree -lined corridors (as shown on Landscape Corridor map). Comment: The project does not border any designated recreational or scenic routes. Other policies would be followed if required at the time of final design. 0 NATURAL RESOURCES OVERALL GOAL: PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE VALLEY FLOOR GOAL 1: Ensure the preservation of ecosystems. Objective 1: Preserve and protect vital habitat for species common to the Valley floor. Policy 1: Encourage property owners to deed, to the City, land for open space and water retention 57 Policy 2: Encourage use of mineral and soil resources in harmony with the existing ecosystems. Comment: The wetlands portion of the proposal site could be deeded to the City, if required, for open space and stormwater retention. Extrac- tion of minerals from the site is not occurring at present. GOAL 2: Insure the preservation and improvement of existing atmospheric conditions Objective 1: Control Valley floor sources of pollution, both point and non- point. Policy 1: Seek local compliance with Federal Air - Quality standards Comment: The major source of pollution from the proposal would be from vehicles traveling to and from the site. These vehicles are assumed to meet Federal standards for air quality. The relationship between the proposal and regional air quality standards is discussed in the Air Quality section of the Draft EIS. o WATERWAYS OVERALL GOALS: PROVIDE FOR PRESERVATION OF THE VALLEY FLOOR'S WATERWAYS GOAL 1: Provide optimal usage of the Green River, creeks and other Valley Floor waterways for fish, wildife habitat, general recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. Objective 1: Restore, preserve and enhance water quality and biotic habitats. Policy 1: Sign interlocal agreements with other agencies and juris- dictions on water quality. Policy 2: Restrict use of pesticides and other pollutants in land cultivation activities. Policy 3: Retain vitally needed natural buffer strips along the Green River. Comment: Use of oil and water separators and stormwater detention facilities will help assure that the project will have minimal impact on the wetlands, SCS channels, and Green River, which receive the drainage from the subject site. More detailed discussion will be found in the Water Quality section of the Draft EIS. Objective 2: Develop a Land Acquisition Program to preserve open space along the Green River. Policy 1: Acquire easements along the Green River for hikers and non - motorized vehicles. 58 Policy 2: Discourage non - recreational development of waterways and natural wetlands. Comment: The wetlands portion of the site will be preserved as open space. This area could be linked to the Green River via South 204th Street or the SCS channels through actions by the City of Kent or others if desired. GOAL 2: Preserve natural water resources. Objective 1: Natural water resources should be conserved by a Surface Water Management Program. Policy 1: Encourage enlargement as necessary of creeks and tribu- taries to support aquatic life and associated ecosystems. Policy 2: Encourage use of Kent sewage lagoon for water retention and natural wildlife. Comment: The proposal will comply with existing surface water management programs by preserving existing wetlands and providing on -site stormwater detention facilities. o URBAN DESIGN QUALITY OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE THE POTENTIAL GENERAL DESIGN QUALITIES OF NATURAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES GOAL 1: Promote use of an Urban Design Strategy to improve the visual and aesthetic environments in the Valley area of Kent. Objective 1: Develop urban design guidelines to enhance public improvements. Policy 1: Establish urban design criteria for capital improvement facilities Policy 2: Revise existing ordinances to include urban design consid- erations e.g., aesthetic street designs in residential, commercial, and industrial subdivisions. Objective 2: Promote a strategy for tree planting and landscaping to establish continuity and character of natural and man- made objects. Policy 1: Encourage the formation of a Green River Corridor Citizen Advisory Committee. Policy 2: Designate streets for scenic, hike, and bike route desig- nation through official City action. 59 Policy 3: Develop a street tree program for areas having unique street patterns. Policy 4: Develop a graphic sign program to display a singular urban design scheme. Policy 5: Develop special design features for all roads in the Green River Corridor planning area. Objective 3: Encourage use of design guidelines to protect and preserve architectural and historical resources. Policy 1: Develop an Historic Resource Inventory Study. Policy 2: Review and recommend an ordinance to create a special design district for downtown Kent. Policy 3: Establish a register of architectural and historical resources of local significance. Policy 4: Support expansion of functions of the Town Historian Objective 4: Encourage citizen awareness of urban design. Policy 1: Develop an Urban Design Inventory Study for the City of Kent Policy 2: Develop public information pamphlets explaining basic urban design concepts and principles. Policy 3: Promote public workshops on the design qualities of Kent. Comment: Applicable urban design guidelines for the site would be fol- lowed during the final design process if they are available. 60 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • 13-1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C-81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 DUANE BERENTSON Secretary November 15, 1982 RECEIVED Holly Miller, Director Department of Planning and Community Room 450, King County Administration 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Ms. Miller: BLDG. & LAND DEVELOP Development NOV 1 51982 Building PM 71819110111112111213141516 SR 5 King County DEIS Review Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application (K -453) We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments: 1. The implementation of the proposal, with approximately 7,800 vehicular trips per day, will have a significant adverse impact upon the safety,operation and level of service of the I -5 /South 188th Street interchange. The impacts must be mitigated. 2. The traffic mitigation proposed should note costs and sources of committed and uncommitted funds. 3. In a period of shrinking budgets this Department is finding it increasingly difficult to fund improvements. The traffic miti- gation improvements proposed are not contained within our current six year operating program. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. We look for- ward to working with the county and the developers to resolve our mutual transportation concerns. PRL : j cw 61 Very truly yours, J.D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Administrator G.L. GILBERT, P.E. District Design Engineer 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Please see Section IV for a discussion of these comments. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor iggEOZ77. NOV 101982 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 2 8 November 1982 co Holly Miller, Director I-. Department of Planning and Community Development W -217 King County Courthouse ,,. 7, P; Seattle, WA 98104 cl Subject: Coluccio Rezone DEIS We thank you for sending to us a copy of the subject DEIS for review; our comments are as follow: General Comment The proposed project.is sited at the urban fringe of both Kent and Tukwila, yet the E.I.S. does not adequately discuss the growth inducing potential of the project on these communities. We belive this topic to be a key issue in the analysis of the proposed rezone, and suggest that the impact of the proposal on the adopted policies pertinent to direction and timing of growth within Kent and Tukwila be discussed in the text. We are particularly concerned about the effects, both primary and secondary, on growth as influenced by the extension of infrastructural services to this unincorporated area, since Tukwila has been identified as a potential purveyor of sewer service to the Coluccio site. Included in that discussion should be a review of the relationship between the extension of public services to the area and the potential requirement of annexation to the provider jurisdiction. The Community Pages 70 -71: The text is disturbingly ambiguous in its treatment of the project's impact on housing demand within Kent, Tukwila and the surrounding geographic area. First, Table 2 on Page 71 does not even bother to include housing unit statistics for the City of Kent, as it does. for Tukwila. The report does not attempt at all to forecast regional distribution of housing demand associated with "2000 additional employees in the local workforce" who will eventually hold jobs on the site. This concern is especially important to the City of Tukwila since the residential vacancy rate, particularly in the rental segment of the City's housing market is quite low. For this reason, we feel that the DEIS should analyze housing demand by unit type and income level vs availability on a 65 Page -2- Holly Miller, Director Department of Planning and Community Development 8 November 1982 quantitative basis for the project vicinity, emphasizing distinct impacts and mitigation for the Kent, Tukwila and Des Moines communities. Public Services Page 90 -92 (Schools): The text discussion which appears under "Existing conditions" seems more appropriately placed under the "impact" section in which there isrno discussion of schools. We suggest that the discussion of impacts of the project on local schools be refined on the basis of the expanded housing/ locational analysis requested under the community heading above. Utilities - Footnote 1, Page 98: The remarks attributed to Planning Department staff member Mark Caughey have been paraphrased in a way which might be misleading. The correct information which he conveyed to CH2MHILL in the referrenced conversation was that Title 14 of the Tukwila Municipal Code definitely requires City Council approval of sewer service extensions beyond the corporate limits. However, the code is silent on the matter of annexa- tion. Therefore, your text should at least change the word "will" to "may" in line 6 of paragraph 2, Page 98. We appreciate the opportunity to review this document. TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MC /blk xc: Ping. Dir. Brad Collins, AICP Planning Director 66 CITY OF TUKWILA Comments 1, 2, and 5 Please see Section I for the response to these comments. Comments 3 and 4 The project sponsor agrees that housing and school impacts of the project are important. However, without knowledge of the specific use of the property it is difficult to provide a detailed forecast of housing requirements of the type requested. This difficulty is largely due to the wide variation in worker skills required by various employers who might occupy the site. In addition, levels of unemployment and housing vacancy that might exist at the time of project completion are difficult to forecast. However, it appears that both unemployment and residential vacancy rates will remain high in Washington State for an extended period, and that the housing needs of employees of new industry can be accommodated without creating a housing shortage. For example, if an aerospace- oriented firm were to occupy the site at the present time, it is likely that virtually all jobs could be filled by unemployed persons currently residing within commuting distance of the site and there would be negligible impacts on housing and schools. 67 CnMMUTER POOL VANPOOLS RIDESHARING INCENTIVES RIDEMATCHING F__XIBLE WORKING HOURS PARKING MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE District Administrator Washington State partment of Tra ^s,ortation Traffic Engineer City of Renton Traffic Engineer King County Director of Public Works City of Kirkland Manager of Transit Development Metro Transportation Engineer City of Bellevue Traffic Engineer City of Seattle Eff 'NEROY EFFICIENCY AWARD Ar Amami P pr. b £..r'y Mom .,TTLE/KING COUNTY COMMUTER POOL 710 Second Avenue. Room 300 Dexter Horton Building >eattle. Washington 98104 (206)625 -4651 embg 19v 18 AB: 8 4 Nov 1 , X1982 Holly Millen, `"Director Dept. of.Planning and Community Development King County, Washington Dear Ms. Miller: Seattle /King County Commuter Pool has completed review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Vincent Coluccio Rezone. We have the following coaanents on the transportation and parking components of the.impact statement: 1. In reviewing the DEIS document it is unclear whether the intensification of land use which the rezone represents is reflected in the current traffic volume projections and plans of the surrounding cities of Kent, Tukwila, Renton and of King County. If current plans and projections do not include this site and the study area as light manu- facturing then this impact needs to be identified. 2.• As stated on page 70 (DEIS) the lower Green River Valley is expected to continue to experience rapid growth in both population (1980-32,000; 1990-39,000 Tukwila /Kent) and employment (1980 - 48,000; 1990 - 70,000 Tukwila /Kent p. 71 DEIS). The DEIS states that while much of the land in the study area is currently undeveloped it is probable that granting the rezone will result in a significant increase in the areas development. The cummulative impact of development in the area could result in traffic generation of 43,000 trip ends per day (page 120 DEIS). The exact improvements to handle this increased level of traffic are said to be beyond the scope of the DEIS. We feel however, that in light of the projected peak hour levels of service at nearby intersections that would result from the proposed development alone, and the lack of public funds for capital improvements in the area, it is imperative that a strong transportation management program be spelled out and committed to as part of the rezone. 69 Holly Miller Page 2 November 15, 1982 We note that the 1982 King Subregional Ridesharing Plan states that in order for the Tukwila /Kent area to accommodate employment growth, 43% of 1990 work trips to the valley must be in a transit /ridesharing mode. This represents an increase of 150% over current levels. 3. The proponent's comment on the Valley Studies Program Transportation Policies (page 32 DEIS) appear$ inconsistent with statements made on page 88 under the heading of "Mitigating Measures ". The.comment (page 32) states that the provision of shuttle service from park and ride lots, preferential in ride - matching programs, linkage to major bicycle paths, and bicycle parking facilities will be included in the development. None of these items, however, were included as mitigating measures on page 88. The comment (page 32) then states that shuttle service-to park and ride lots will depend upon a large employment base. It is unclear whether the shuttle service will be provided or if there is an unspecified formula for determining the need for the service. 4. Although a larger employment base increases the chances for successful ridesharing programs, our experience has demonstrated that 2,000 employees, which is the estimated employment generated by the proposal (page 1 DEIS), is more than an• adequate number of employees to support van pools and justify transit subsidy, subscription service and other options to help mitigate the adverse transportation impacts generated by a proposal. We hope you find our comments useful. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, iam T. Roach Program Manager RL:mib 70 COMMUTER POOL Please see Section IV for the response to these comments. King County Executive Randy Revelle Office of Agriculture Eugene G. Duvernoy, Director November 16, 1982 TO: Ron McConnell . ager Buildin a Land ' evelopment FM: Eugen ernoy, Director RE: DEIS Coluccio Rezone Application The King County Office of Agriculture is opposed to this proposed rezone application. The subject property is not within either the Lower Green River Agricultural District as identified in Ordinance 3064 or the lands eligible for development rights acquisition described in Ordinance 4341. Nonetheless, the property is adjacent to the northern boundary of both. The approval of the subject rezone request and subsequent development would have definite negative effects on the future of agriculture on the west side of the Green River. The following are specific comments on the DEIS: 1. Page 62. The section on Land Use, Existing Conditions state, "Considerable areas in the Green River Valley are undergoing change from agriculture use to more intensive development." The statement implies that the proposed rezone and development is not setting any new trends in the conversion of agricultural lands. This is untrue. Sewers do not exist on the west side of the river in this area and as a result, conversions have not been taking place. The above DEIS statement is misleading in its generality. The introduction of sewers to the west side of the river will in fact cause the future conversion of considerable farmlands in the area. The Draft EIS does not adequately discuss the possibilities of future farmland conversions resulting from this proposal. 2. Page 105. The Alternatives section does not discuss the alternative of locating the future proposed development east of the Green River where land, zoning, sewers and water already exist for such purposes. There is a surplus of M -L zoned land in the Green River Valley without creating more on the doorstep of a viable agricultural community. The DEIS does not adequately discuss the amount of vacant and sewered M -L zoned lands in the Green River Valley nor give sufficient reasons why more such lands should be created. 73 W226 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 1206) 344.7503 Ron McConnell November 16, 1982 Page Two 3. Page 105. Of the four actions discussed in the DEIS; No Action, Proposed Action, Less Intensive Land Use and More Intensive Land Use, only the No Action alternative does not involve sewer extension from either Kent or Tukwila. The Alternatives section fails to discuss any possible land uses which do not require sewers such as mini storage, or SE residential on the filled portion of the property. The No Action alternative implies that there is no reasonable use of the property unless sewers are provided. A new alternative is needed to adequately explore the possibility of land uses that do not require sewers. ED :KA:.me 74 KING COUNTY OFFICE OF AGRICULTURE Comment 1 Please see Section I for a response to this comment. Comments 2 and 3 Please see Section II for a response to these comments. To: From: Subject: Department of Planning and Community Development ME�IO�ANDUM Harold Robertson, Manager W-217 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-7610 Date: November 17, 1982 Ron McConnell, Acting Director, BALD Harold Robertson, Manager, Planning Division VINCENT COLUCCIO REZONE DRAFT EIS Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft EIS. We would like to offer the following comments: Relationship with Plans, Policies and Regulations o The project appears to be reasonably consistent with the 1964 Comprehensive Plan . industrial development policies with the possible exception of Policy C -2 relating to development on large level sites. o Noticeably absent in this section is any discussion of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (4365) which governs the erosion hazard, seismic hazard and wetland areas present on this site. Water o Existing drainage channels on the valley floor are not "SCS P- channels ", but agricultural drainage channels. It should be clear that no federal drainage or flood control project is planned for this area and restriction on the outlet into the river with related flooding caused by high river flows will continue into the foreseeable future. Flora and Fauna o The wetland on the site was included in King County's wetland inventory. It is mapped in the Sensitive Areas Folio and will be included in the Inventory Notebook as Lower Green River no. 3 (3202 for future reference to data) . o The Washington Department of Game contends, and we agree, that wildlife populations don't "migrate" when impacted by new development. They are permanently lost. 77 2 3 4 5 Ron McConnell November 17, 1982 Page 2 Transportation /Circulation o The peak hour traffic counts taken in January 1982 should be adjusted for month and day of the week to reflect average peak hour values. o Table 3 on page 77 should be clarified to identify LOS E' if any movements operate at that level. In addition to level -of- service values it would be helpful to include a volume -to- capacity ratio. o The 2 percent annual growth rate appears to be quite low. The growth rate on Orilla road between 1978 and 1981 is approximately 6.5% compounded annually. Forecast data should be updated. o The 7800 trips generated seems to be a reasonable figure unless banks, restaurants and other higher trip generating uses are developed. Figure 19 however only reflects 6800 trips from the proposed development and should be revised. o Both AM and PM trips represent 13 percent of average daily traffic. The AM traffic movements attributed to the 6 proposal at the intersection of S. 200th and Frager Road amounts to 300 trips while the PM movements only account for 200 trips. Should the PM values be corrected? 7 8 Sewer o One of the most significant potential impacts of the ex- tension of sewer service to this area is conversion of designated agricultural lands south of S. 204th St. to urban uses. The draft EIS's consideration of this issue (p. 98 - 99) is inadequate and should be revised to give greater attention to how this proposal might cause the conversion of agricultural lands and what miti- gating measures are possible to prevent it. Alternatives o In the discussion of the "More Intensive Land Use" alter- native (p. 105) it should be clear that no detailed studies of this particular wetland beyond the 1981 inven- tory have been made. The Planning Division is preparing Wetland Guidelines under the provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and R.C.C. 2.98. As administrative guidelines, they do not require adoption by ordinance. 78 10 Ron McConnell November 15, 1982 Page 3 General Comments o With the exception of the brief discussion on p. 33, the draft does not appear to adequately consider the project's impact on eligible agricultural lands south of S. 204th St. Moreover, the document should have a map showing the location of those lands in relation to the project site. o A proposal to convert hillside land constrained by steep slopes,erosionhazards and wetlands and lacking sewer or water service to industrial use is ironic in the Green River Valley where, only a short distance away, there is a large inventory of flat, unconstrained, serviced and industrial -zoned land on the valley floor. The project sponsor and final EIS should address whether it is in the public interest to allow conversion to in- dustrial use at this location instead of using existing land east of the Green River. If you have any questions, please contact Dick Butler in the Resource Planning Section (7990). HR: le 79 KING COUNTY DIVISION OF PLANNING Comment 1 Please see Section V for a response to this comment. Comments 2 through 6 Please see Section IV for responses to these comments. Comment 7 Please see Section I for a response to this comment. Comment 8 Please see Section V for a response to this comment. Comment 9 Please see Section I for a response to this comment. Comment 10 Please see Section II for a response to this comment. Toi Holly Miller, Director David Feltman f �! Department of Planning an @CCiVmp9pity Development King County. Washington it/ p/..45. Copy tos Editor, Kent News Journal �r�r� , l 704 West Meeker Street_ Kent, Washington ;r�d, Subjects Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application References Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issued October 11, 1982 The following comments are those of Fred W. Pittenger. 4301 S. 200th, Kent, Washington. Phones 872 -8636. My property consists of 5.5 acres located to the West of Orillia Road. South 200th Street is our North boundary. and the East edge of the property begins approximately 220 feet West of Orillia Road. Twenty five years ago my wife and I purchased this land and built our home. The land was then and is now zoned for Suburban Estates. We purchased the property with the understanding that the zoning was established as the result of thoughtful and intelligent planning for the future. We built our home for our lifetime, not just for a few years. Trusting that the zoning was the result of thoughtful and intelligent planning, I am decidedly opposed. to having .the zoning changed to allow one greedy person to make a fast buck at my expense and the expense of the whole area. It is true that the Valley has changed from twenty five years ago. I am sure there are some arguments in favor of some of the changes. Many of these changes, how- ever, have not been for the over all, long range good of futilre generations. A great deal of thought and effort was spent in preserving a green belt on the west side of the Valley. It is my opinion that the West side of the Valley and close proximity should be kept as a green belt. If there was a real need for additional space in this immediate area for industrial and business use, I could 'feel some small sympathy toward the rezone request. However, there is absolutely no need for such industrial and business use. There is ample space in the valley floor already lost to agricultural and residential use that is available and for sale. 83 Currently, there are for sale signs on the subject property. T feel that the only reason rezoning is requested is to allow one person or group to make a profit. They were not compelled to buy the property, and they knew the present zoning before they purchased the land. Long range planning must be to maintain a green belt area as it is presently zoned. Residential development of the local area has been slow, uncertain, and with many setbacks. As the rezoning application states, the area to the North of South 200th has been a gravel pit. But, it was never a legal gravel pit - -the property was mined in spite of the zoning. The history of the West Hill area has been one long battle of over twenty five years trying to prevent greedy people from exploiting the area. King County aided in the rape of the area "to provide the State and County with necessary fill for highways to aid all the people" to quote them. They then stated that for that purpose, no rezoning was required. In reality, it lined the pockets of afew at the expense of many and circumvented the existing zoning. My neighbors and I attempted to fight against such gravel pits, but we did not have sufficient financial resources to continually battle the constant reapplications of mining operators. Even when we won a round, we lost because operations continued in spite of zoning or regulations. Eventually, Military Road above us and to the South began to crack and settle dun to being undermined and weakened by gravel mining to the East and below it, and mining was finally, legally halted. At that point my -neighbors and I thought that at last the area might be left alone for an orderly residential growth and maintence of a green belt. But instead, now an area immediately South of 200th Street has been covered with gravel and f;.11, and it has been stated that the area is not fit for farming. Why? Because it has been illegally filled - -no p;;rmit was ever issued. Should an illegal act be rewarded by rezoning so a profit can be made at the expense of neighbors? In the past, gravel pit operators have gone to court with elaborate plans and pictures. Statements were made that they "p_anned only to level some ugly hogbacks and gently contour the hillside to provide lovely sites for future homes." In each case, the only result was an ugly hole in the ground. No home sites, no clean up, nothi:ig but a rape of the area. With this sort of history, we can only conclude that a change of zoning is not to our advantage because of the 84 history of damage done to all the residents in the area. Again let me reiterate that rezoning must not be done merely to line someone's pocket at the expense of a whole area. Rezoning should be done only for the benefit of the ENTIRE area and for ALL people who live there. November 12, 1982 (a4y D PITTENGER fr"%) 85 FRED W. PITTENGER Comments acknowledged. Many of the issues raised in this letter have been addressed in preceding reports. As no direct questions relating to the adequacy of the discussion in the Draft EIS were raised, no specific response to this letter has been prepared. 87 of R A L' *b © z NIL 0,9 �. rea SEWS w•- BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR Holly Miller, Director Department of Planning and Community Development King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: VINCENT COLUCCIO REZONE DRAFT EIS 1 1 21 31 THE CITY OF RENTON POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 235 -2552 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 November 2, 1982 Dear Ms. Miller: NOV EPEOTArrit 5 1982 DEPARTMEN1 OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We have reviewed the above noted Draft Environmental Impact Statement and would like to offer the following comments for your consideration. The proposed rezone site appears to be one of those areas which "fall between the cracks" of local land use plans. Because of this situation, we urge that the land use plans of Kent and Tukwila be reviewed carefully for guidance as to the appropriate level of development. Our reading of these plans and King County policies suggest that rezoning the site may be premature for several reasons. First of all, the permanently flooded and seasonally flooded wetlands south of S. 200th Street (which appear to be undersized in both the diagrams and written discussion) have been identified as a unique and fragile area. This wetland is part of a much larger wetland which has been designated for possible acquisition by the sponsors of the Soil Conservation Service's East Side Watershed Project. Rezoning and develop- ment -- including sanitary sewer service -- of this area may substantially impact the ability of local sponsors to implement the environmental mitigation program for the S.C.S. project. Secondly, the discussion of alternatives to the proposed action is limited and inade- quate. Large acreages of zoned, filled and sewered land are available for industrial development in both Kent and Renton. A comparison between impacts of development in these locations versus the impacts -- especially secondary and cumulative impacts — of development in an undeveloped area west of the Green River should be addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. If you desire further clarifi- cation of our comments, please feel free to contact the Policy Development Department at 235 -2552 rte: 0 C co n co •• ro -mot Very/fruly yours, avid R. Clemens Policy Development Director for The Environmental Review Committee aeo 89 cc: Ralph Colby, Supervisor King County Building and Land Development Division CITY OF RENTON Comment 1 Please see Section III for a response to this comment. Comment 2 Please see Section V for a response to this comment. Comment 3 Please see Section II for a response to this comment. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor cbv STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME ,7 , 15 P 4 : 1- 9 6W North Capitol Way, G)-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (20I6) 753 -5700 November 10, 1982 Ms. Holly Miller Department of Planning and Community Development W -226 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Ms. Miller: FRANK LOCkARD Director 11 EVEVE-11-in LLD 1i 0''J 121882 DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING & COMMI. , T DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application, portions of NEk and SEA, Section 3, Township 22 N., Range 4 E., King County Your document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; our comments follow. We are extremely concerned over the secondary impacts of the proposed rezone on wetland, riparian, and agricultural areas along the Green River. These sensitive areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife. Wetlands and stream corridors are used extensively by wildlife for breeding, rearing of young, feeding, drinking, and migration. Many wildlife species can be found in wetlands and riparian areas. These include muskrats and other furbearers, great blue herons, rails, wood ducks, and other waterfowl, marsh hawks, songbirds, and small mammals. Green River Valley wetlands are heavily used by migratory waterfowl of the Pacific Flyway. Destruction of any of these wetlands would reduce the number of waterfowl that survive migration. Farm lands also provide important habitat for wildlife. Small mammals are usually abundant on farm lands. Hawks and owls hunt over open fields and feed on these small mammals. Game birds, such as pheasants and quail, and songbirds live in agricultural lands. Waterfowl use farm lands for feeding during winter. Riparian corridors and wetlands along the Green River are important for water quality and aquatic life. Wetlands help maintain critical low flows because they serve as sponges. They store water in winter and discharge it in summer. Along with corridors, they help filter storm water pollutants and shade the water. They provide food for fish, as insects from these areas fall into the water. The current fishery resource of the Green River is at a critical stage. If sports, commercial, and tribal fisheries are going to exist, fish habitat and water quality will need to be protected. 93 Ms. Holly Miller November 10, 1982 Page Two The proposed rezone would set a precedent for future intensive development along the west side of the Green River. Road improve- ments, sewer systems, and other utilities would greatly increase development pressure on adjacent wetlands, farm lands, and other sensitive areas. Secondary impacts would eliminate much of the remaining wildlife habitat and further degrade fish habitat along this portion of the Green River. This draft EIS does recognize these secondary impacts and attempts to address them in Section V. However, the secondary impacts to fish and wildlife are not adequately described. (See our specific comments on the document below.) Because the secondary impacts to fish and wildlife from the proposed rezone are so great, we recommend that the present zoning of the site 1 be retained. An alternative land use should be considered which would be compatible with adjacent land uses (agriculture, wetlands, riparian corridor) and would avoid increasing the development pressure on these sensitive areas. Our specific comments on this document are: Page 6, Fauna, Impacts. The document states that wildlife might migrate to contiguous properties. When wildlife is forced into 2 surrounding lands, it must compete with wildlife already dependent upon those areas. Because the surrounding areas are naturally filled to capacity and support the maximum numbers of wildlife possible, displaced wildlife is eliminated. Page 6, Fauna, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. As long as existing vege- 3 tation is lost from the site, there will be unavoidable adverse impacts in the form of wildlife habitat loss. 41 Page 60, Flora, Impacts. The loss of existing vegetation results in the loss of wildlife habitat. Page 61, Fauna, Existing. Conditions. Passerine species (i.e., song- 5 birds) will occupy the existing forest and wetland habitats on the site year - round. The document incorrectly implies that their use of the site is occasional. I Page 61, Fauna, Impacts. According to the document, "existing wildlife 6 populations will migrate as the habitats disappear." This statement is inaccurate; displaced wildlife is eliminated. Page 62, Fauna, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. Again, because adjacent areas are at their carrying capacity, displaced wildlife is eliminated. 7I 94 •." 8 9 Ms. Holly Miller November 10, 1982 Page Three Page 113, Figure 26. The area between South 204th Street and South 212th Street has been designated as a unique and fragile area by the Kent City Council in the Valley Studies Plan. The area is incorrectly designated as "probable light industrial warehouse and commercial uses" in this figure. Page 117, Water, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. By stating that no unavoidable adverse impacts have been identified, this document assumes that all water quality impacts can be mitigated. This is not true. Development would increase the volume of runoff. The amount of oil, silt, and other pollutants in this runoff would also increase. Oil separators and other storm water facilities are not 100% effective even under ideal conditions. Some contamination of surface waters by oil and other pollutants is inevitable. Total mitigation for adverse impacts to water quality is not feasible. Page 117, Flora and Fauna, Impacts. The loss of 300 acres of forest, 150 acres of agricultural lands, and possible 40 acres of wetlands 10 would result in a major loss of the remaining wildlife habitat and populations in this section of the Green River Valley. Water quality impacts would also degrade fish habitat. This section of the document fails to recognize these impacts. Page 117, Flora and Fauna, Unavoidable Adverse Im•acts. This document 11 ails to list the unavoidable adverse impacts (loss of habitat, elimination or reduction of fish and wildlife populations) that would result as secondary impacts of the proposed rezone. Thank you for sending your document. We hope you find our comments helpful. BW:cv cc: Agencies Region Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Betsy Wolin, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division 95 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME Comment 1 Please see Section II for a discussion of this comment. Comments 2 through 7 Comments acknowledged. Comment 8 Figure 26 has been altered to include the unique and fragile area L -5. (The figure is included in Section III.) Comments 9 through 11 Please see Section V for a response to these comments. 97 November 12, 1982 King County State of Washington XIQBmfi}iiii l4, County Executive , Randy Revel le Department of Public Works 3if3ktfai if liehligOirector , Donald LaBelle,-, 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue e \ �� v Seattle, Washington 98104 L (208) 344-2517 Holly Miller, Director Planning & Community Development C O U R T H O U S E ATTN: Ron McConnell, Acting Manager wilding and Land Development Division alph Colby, Building and Land Development_ Divis1..Qh r. r r_ RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application Dear Ms. Miller: This Department has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments: Surface Water: Page 45, Figure 4 - The "Upper Limit of 100 -Year Flood Area" conforms fairly well with the FEMA Flood Insurance Map limit which has been added in red. The FEMA flood elevation for ponding is 21.5 msl. In any case, the parking area south of South 200th Street will have to be built up with fill, as indicated in Figure 2, Page 17. Pages 55 -57, Figure 8 - The development is shown as avoiding interference with major drainage channels. Although designa- ted as SCS P- channels, they actually come under Drainage District Number 2. They have been proposed to be part of the planned SCS drainage system, but could be simply left with the Drainage District. This is an inconsequential point for the - purposes of the Environmental Impact Statement. To avoid perpetrating a minor error, the figure of 11,600 cfs at Auburn, given on page 57, paragraph 5, should be 12,000 cfs. The Environmental Impact Statement recognizes that the 100 - year flood elevation of the Green River is 32.0 msl; it may be worth knowing that south of South 204th Street the levee has a freeboard of less than one foot. If the levee were overtopped in that area, flows would pass north over South 204th and South 200th Streets. 99 Holly Miller, Director November 12, 1982 Page Two Transportation: The impact of the proposal on the intersec- tion of South 200th Street and Orillia Road is of particular concern to this Department. The suggested mitigating measures of installing signalization, providing a southbound left turn lane on Orillia Road and improving South 200th Street, will definately be a requirement of development approval. These measures are described on pages 88 and 89 of the document. The length of the left turn lane on Orillia Road and the type of signalization. to be provided, are important considerations and will have to be closely coordinated with the Traffic Section of our Roads Division. Yours truly, DONALD''J. LABELLE Director JL/GS:cp cc: George Wannamaker, Acting Manager, Surface Water Management Division ATTN: Herb Young, Surface Water Management Division 100 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Comments acknowledged. 101 PC ICE November 17, 1982 Mr. David Feltman s/ Building and Land Development Division 431 King County Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 C.' Subject: Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Feltman: We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments for your consideration: Page 93, Energy, Impacts, last paragraph - As you have correctly indicated in this section, the expansion of utility facilities would be required to serve the additional energy load resulting from the proposed industrial- business park development. This would include expanding the single -phase distribution system to a, three -phase distribution system. In addition, upgrading existing electrical facilities to provide reliable service could include the construc- tion of a new substation and its associated transmission (55 kilo- volts or greater) and distribution (under 55 kilovolts) lines. Page 94, Energy, Impacts, first paragraph - The statement regarding off -site costs for upgrading existing facilities should not be interpreted as firm. The actual off -site costs at the time of service could be higher than the estimate provided. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Laurel Arima at 451 -3092. MVS /LMA:bl Very truly yours, M. V. Stimac, Manager Licensing & Regulation 103 Puget Sound Power & Light Company Puget Power Building Believe, Washington 98009 (206) 454 -6363 PUGET POWER Comments acknowledged. 105 SERVING: ING COUNTY )0 West Mercer St. P.O. Box 9863 Seattle. 98109 006) 344.7330 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Ralph C. Colby Supervisor, Building and Land Development Dept. of Planning and Community Development King County Administration Bldg. Seattle, WA 98104 200 West Mercer Street, Room 205, P.O. Box 9863 Setttle, Washington 98109 L ' t L ( (206) 344.7330 e e 1Jb8 , 1982 �c ' I2 EVELOPI4E l Dear Mr. Colby: Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Vincent Coluccio Rezone and are forwarding comments. The text discusses potential carbon monoxide problems and includes a map of the carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area on page 51 and discusses the CO nonattainment area on page 53. The size of this area has been reduced by rede- signation of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The CO nonattainment area has been broken up into smaller areas located in Seattle, Bellevue and Tacoma. We are enclosing copies of the redesignated boundaries, which can be used as a replacement for Figure 6. Under Mitigating Measures, page 55, it could also be noted that the new source review regulation of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency will assure that any new industry which is an actual or potential source of air con - taminents will meet air quality standards. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Very ly yours, .TSAP COUNTY .ral Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island Residents —.al 344.7330 kc ERCE COUNTY _13 Hess Budding Tacoma. 98402 383-5851 �HOMISH COUNTY 06) 259.0288 BOARD OF DIRECTORS A.R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer 107 HAIRMAN Gene Lobe. Commissioner Kitsap County: Stor6nr. Councilman for Booth Gardner. Pierce County Executive: James B. Haines. Counrrlman Snohomish County. Doug Sutherland. Mayor Tacoma Randy Revese. King County Executive. William E Moore. Mayor Everett. Charles Royer. Mayor Seattle VICE CHAIRMAN Harvey S Poll. Member at Large Gene Nelson. Mayor Bremerton A R Dammkoehler, Au Posutron Contra: O!! cer Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 200 West Mercer Street, Room 205, P.O. Box 9863 Seattle, Washington 98109 (206) 3447330 Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas On December 18, 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency redesignated the carbon monoxide nonattainment area in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington (see Federal Register Vol. 46 p. 61655). The result was that the carbon monoxide nonattainment area, which had comprised the entire federal aid urban area, became five smaller nonattainment areas, six unclassi- -fiable areas and the remainder an attainment area. The new carbon monoxide nonattainment areas are: the Seattle CBD, Seattle Dearborn Street and Rainier Avenue Corridor, the University District in Seattle, the Bellevue CBD and the Tacoma CBD. Maps of the nonattainment areas are attached, except for the Dearborn Street and Rainier Avenue Corridor, which is bounded two blocks either side of the corridor, extending from 4th Avenue South to Empire Way South. Areas where modeling identified intersections with potential carbon monoxide violations, but where no monitoring data is available were identified as unclassifiable. These include areas in Auburn, Bellevue, Everett, Puyallup, Seattle and Tacoma. Legal descriptions of these areas may be found in the Federal Register Volume 46 p..42293, August 20, 1981. SERVING KING COUNTY 200 Wes! Merce• SI PC Boy 98E3 Sealne 98109 1206, 344.7330 KITSAP COUNTY Du' Doran". too Toll flee Numbe' 2ennn 8385 Bamollope Islano Reswents D■a' 3414-7310 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Ness Bwglnp Tacoma 88402 (206: 383 5851 '1N0MISI+ COUNTY 2590288 BOARD OE DIRECTORS C..AIAMAN Gene Lobe Commiss.one, totally County ace 5..b.!.1. Counc nny n t W Boom Gran P'•ce County Eaecunve DovL S,/Ine•ynC Mayo' Tacoma 1 108 James 8 Names Counc.ln%an Snonom's.' t.Ounly Wnllam r Moo, Mayo' [eve- Ramat Reveue KM; County E.ecut . Roye' Mayo' Seam.. VICE CMAIRMAA r.a•.f 5 D0'' Memoe' al La•Qe Ge't Ne.so' Marc' B•e'ne•tor A R Da"nrcle ^Y• A.•RO.dl,o• io "::o O .ce ■ iiriiHriruHrik wir q gaiisaai� ; . riraltmgQ2211Fillii hsw.sev arum U.. ELLIOTT . RAY • ■ .SE 4 • FM '•�E o •:Pl 4ry s ''•''t r'G�'•p - - S,77ECN L 'A•S1.QW lC Ns. •fQtir E L L I O T T T B A Y War Ter o0w.. Pm". wales • ■ II'E apt . Rpm II ra/ % i11) V.111111111 MI 11/0/1 ■! 1 /JGi.11 limilltor ano so c l$a I 1I1 n �lil. Ill I i i i n11■ ■ ) k1V74 441 fiddling' -: '. t limo Ao•biesovsnireislon y0 � ♦4"*4�� �►���`��• VIII■ ERNE ‘"'t‘-illsits11<` 0.414 lik _ A*4. i. � 'A M IN! MEE * 11110610-1131111h, ‘7-7- - \\eN&_ gl V 7ti \Ni I!. WINN Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area - Seattle CBD / / / //i CO Nonattainment Boundary i 109 4 E E N /—E Ie spirountil 7 - .IM i MI '4 - fil ill ' a i Illi r Pa'. �••.. MIN s. .14 infil l inn illigE1 Illy . !JIIVI1IHIIHip'.. :���.�.._� �';�:�� -�� Get , �111�i111��L! 1� .,�, N LktV imirlirzi... ;, . is r"0� 't ► it thzty • t Vigirli •T ��Qi ,ltirs�4� C kOitql,Mtf1111 1 /Iltt I Mgr 1 l � 11 11;15,1011111.111! 1iri1 � : if 7 ! r 11111 ' ill . ma gliilligibig li . ILI .. .:...... - effalea■ ®i��om��l�i11ii1C11 Eli I 1 la 211111,11Milifili i II i�� row , ma �octCna ` _ ��l® niaggiintirpii ilial=11--11611 eti --��� 'oc,p,.d a 3 of ig - .:, ..• I %111). • iiiiiipT fer, IS ..i1 /. iii Ni , , � � c It Niiiiir ` Portages !far • -� / \ \ \ \ • es. ou Co se , ',‘N.ItVe as %�I PORTAGE - r, B aQe k: ,f',��il, l��A' .-- r.day �I% �AI� % Yacht I hr!� -- _._.,e,ii...6 Gas inks o �i.li' p, At Club s S 0f j � Montl.4e U � le Qrou J = M it'f �• � Ilk! of • 1i111®l, A. inn SIM AU rig CR IN NM j _- !MJII /=III l� u � Ste. O G use l» X101 Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area- University District CO Nonattainment Boundary 1 110 • Park NAYS Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area - Bellevue CBD CO Nonattainment Boundary.. i 111 Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area—Tacoma CBD d: CO Nonattainment Boundary 112 PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Comments acknowledged. L. 113 AmC King County Conservation District Sk 35 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 r i U1 November 1.1-t'. 1982 . . CJ Mr. David Feltman Building & Land Development 450 King County Administration Bldg. Seattle, WA. 98104 Re: Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application D.E.I.S. Mr. Feltman: According-to the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of the King County Area, 1973, the soils found on the afore- mentioned site are of the Alderwood - Kitsap, Everett, Snohomish and Woodinville series. Though filling of the lower areas of the northern part of the site has occurred, the boundaries between these soils roughly correspond with those provided in the D.E.I.S. Alderwood - Kitsap (AkF) is made up of about 50 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 25 percent Kitsap silt loam, and about 15 percent of unnamed, very deep, moderately coarse textured Indianola soil. Slopes are very steep, ranging from 25 -70 percent. Drainage and permeability vary. Runoff is rapid to very rapid and the erosion hazard is severe to very severe. Soil limitations are severe for building foundations and shallow excavations due to steep slopes and moderate to severe slippage potential. There is low to moderate corrosivity for uncoated steel and concrete. This soil is poor for topsoil, fair for roadfill and has low -com- pressibility for embankments. This soil is best used for timber. Everett (EvC) is made up of somewhat excessively drained gravelly sandy loam that is underlain by a very gravelly sand at a depth of 18 -36 inches. Some areas may have up to 5 percent Alderwood, or 5 percent Indianola, or up to 25 percent Neilton. Slopes are 5 -15 percent. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Soil limitation is moderate for building foundations if slope is more than 8 percent, and slight to moderate for septic tank filter fields due to the potential for groundwater pollution /con - tamination. This soil is poor for topsoil, good for road - fill and has low compressibility for embankments; pervious when compacted and has piping hazard. This soil is best used for timber, pasture and urban development. 115 CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF - GOVERNMENT 1 Snohomish (So) silt loam is a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium in stream valleys. Slopes are 0 -2 percent. Per- meability is moderate in the upper part of the profile and moderately rapid in the lower part. There is a seasonal high water table at or near the surface during wetter winter months. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a severe hazard. Degree of limitations is severe for low building foundations due to flood hazard, low shear strength, organic material below a depth of 13 -46 inches; is severe for shallow excavations due to seasonal high water table and organic material below a depth of 13 -36 inches; and is severe for septic tank filter fields due to flood hazard, seasonal high water table, and organic layers. This soil is fgood for topsoil to 17 inch depth, poor for roadfill and poor or embankments due to piping hazard and organic layers. It is highly corrosive to uncoated steel anc moderately corrosive to concrete. This soil is best used for row crops, pasture, and hay, and is designated as prime farmland in King County. Woodinville (Wo) silt loam is made up of nearly level and gently undulating, poorly drained soils that formed under grass and sedges, in alluvium, on stream bottoms. Slopes are 0 -2 per- cent. Permeability is slow and high water table at or near the surface can occur during wetter winter months. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard is slight, and stream overflow is a severe hazard unless flood protection is provided. Soil limitations are severe for low building foundations, shallow excavations, and septic tank filter fields due to seasonal high water table, flood hazard, low shear strength, moderate shrink -swell potential and organic lenses being present. It is fair topsoil material and fair -to -poor for roadfill; its use as embankment material is adversely affected by a moderate shrink -swell potential. This soil is best used for row crops, pasture, and urban development - it is classified as Prime Agricultural Soil in King County. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio has designated most of the north and south portions of the project as Class III Seismic Hazard Areas, most of the north portion as Class III Erosion Hazard Area, and the southern half of the southern portion as Shallow Water Wetland. We concur with the recom- mended foundation stabilizing measures, and suggest that those measures be certified by a qualified soil geotechnical engineer familiar with seismic and erosion potentials. We recommend that an undisturbed vegetative buffer strip at least 20 feet wide remain adjacent to the wetland. -2- 116 Under the Mitigating Measures - Soils Section, page 47, the text states that "site preparation and site grading should not proceed until drainage provisions have been installed and ponded water and seepage have been completely removed from the con- struction area ". We feel that these provisions should include the implementation of a Temporary Erosion - Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP), as the TESCP and the drainage system will both need to be operational prior to any extensive land clearing and grading. Due to the sensitive nature of the soil and water resources on -site, we recommend that the TESCP be developed in order to meet the minimum standards of the King County Conservation District. Thank you for affording us the opportunity to review this document. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us (226- 4867). JAB:am cc:file -3- 117 Sincerely, James A. Ballweber Water Quality Planner KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT Comments 1 and 2 Please see Section V for responses to these comments. MET RO C �IMunicipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seatde,washingeon 98104 1 2 tt91-087In tu AV 15 1982 November 10, 1982 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Holly. Miller, Director Dept. of Planning & Community. Development King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application Dear Ms. Miller: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments. Wastewater Facilities We note that the proposal is not located within the Local Service Area (LSA) of the King County Sewerage General Plan. Unincorp- orated portions of the County must be located within the LSA for Metro to provide sewer service. If the area in question were designated as a part of the LSA it would be tributary to Metro's Renton treatment plant. Metro has prepared a facilities plan for the Renton system with a grant from. DOE and EPA, in part because the Renton treatment plant has reached its "design" capacity and continued develop- ment is occurring within the service area. A final plan for the Renton service area was adopted by the Metro Council in November 1981 and contains a recommended program for upgrading the Renton system so that water quality and health will continue to be protected. The plan calls for these improvements to be on line in the summer of 1986. Water Quality In order to preserve the beneficial functions of the wetlands on the proposal site, all mitigating measures for erosion and stormwater control listed in the DEIS should be made conditions of the rezone. All stormwater facilities should be regularly inspected and maintained to ensure that they continue to func- tion properly. 121 Vicent Coluccio Rezone Application 11/10/82 Page Two Transit un pages 31 -32, the DEIS discusses Valley Studies Program Transportation Policies as they relate to this proposal. The proponent states that shuttle service to the nearest park -and -ride lot will be included in this proposal as a transportation mitigating measure. We wish to point out that there is very little park -and -ride service provided in the off -peak direction so that the practicality of this shuttle service may be limited. Suburban office and industrial parks such as this proposal do not typically generate significant transit demand. This is due mainly to three factors: 1) low employment levels and densities; 2) large quantities of free employee parking; and 3) site layouts which place buildings far from the street behind large expanses of parking, making access to transit service inconvenient. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, Rodney. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Div. RGP:sma 1 122 METRO Comment 1 Please see Section I for a response to this comment. Comment 2 Please see Section V for a response to this comment. Comment 3 Please see Section IV for a response to this comment. 123 King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director TO: David Feltman, Shoreline E.I.S. FROM: Tom McDonald, Fire Marshal^ rr RE: Draft E.I.S. - Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application. DATE: October 18, 1982 I have reviewed the subject Draft E.I.S. and would like to forward the following comment: Based on Figure 2 on page 17 (proposed site development concept), it appears steep access road will be necessary and access for fire fighting purposes will be limited to the west side only. Should these assumptions prove to impede required fire department access, it will be necessary to build fire protection into the buildings in the form of automatic sprinkler systems. TWM:saj 125 Building & Lsnd Development Division 450 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 1206) 344.7900 KING COUNTY FIRE MARSHALL Comment 1 The grade of access roads and subsequent need for sprinklers will be addressed during the building permit process. The developer will comply with fire department requirements. 127 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 111 West Twenty-First Avenue, KL -11 • Oympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -4011 October 14, 1982 Mr. David Feltman King County Dept. of Planning and Community Development Seattle, WA 98104 Log Reference: 347- C -KI -01 Re: Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application DEIS Dear Mr. Feltman: JACOB THOMAS Director A staff review has been completed of your draft environmental impact statement. The document adequately considers known and anticipated cultural resources and the potential for impact to these. We concur with your recommendation for a professional archaeological survey prior to development. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. dj Sincerely, 129 Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. Archaeologist STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Comment acknowledged. 131 iNG lou,.,ry DEPT OF PANNi+-1G 4 Co"". D. Date: Orr Li) /98.2. CouotTwowce /' OCT 2 5 1982 SEATT «' l4/A Gentlemen: .RAFT E.I.S. V COLKc 10 7tEZpNE Dated: cam.- rotlE /982- Proponent: 1/Ip c... r Drainage: S4R ACF WRIA: ? 09 The above - referenced proposal was received by the Department of Fisheries on Ocr /3, /98z . We would like to submit the following comments. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)(RCW 75.20.100) is required. No Comment. Other. See attached. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, abitat nage cc: SEPA File Game Habitat Manager t Division 133 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Comment acknowledged. 135 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 7150 Oeanwater Lane, KY -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -5755 October 25, 1982 IAN TVETEN Director Re: 35- 2640 -1820 Draft EIS Vincent Coluccio Rezone Application (E -2452) Mr. Ralph C. Colby, Supervisor Plan Implementation King County Planning & Community Development 450 Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Colby: The staff of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the above -noted document and finds that it will have no effect on properties under the management or control of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, g0....4 David W. Heiser, E.P., Chief Environmental Coordination 137 WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Comment acknowledged. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor 1 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (106) 459-6000 . ()O, DON AL W. MOU, gr1) ``�� Director c. November 15, 1982 I-,. C 1--,' J r c r. r Mr. David Feltman v / c King County Department of Planning n and Community Development :7_ L. —, 450 King County Administration Building — •• 300 Fourth Avenue u' Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Mr. Feltman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental impact statement for the Vincent Coluccio rezone. We reviewed the EIS and have the following comments. The proposed project may require a flood control zone permit from the Department of Ecology. Application forms and information on this requirement are available from the Northwest Regional Office, 4350 - '150th Avenue, N.E., Redmond, Washington 98052. C. There is no guarantee that sewer service will be available at the time desired for this project since the Renton sewage treatment plant (STP) is currently operating above design capacity much of the time. Additional sewer connections or extensions may not be available until the STP is expanded. This expansion is currently projected to be operational by July 1, 1986. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Roy Bishop or Mr. Mike Dawda of the Northwest Regional Office at 885 -1900. BJR:lc cc: Marlene Wylie, NWRO Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section 141 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Comment 1 Please see Section V for a response to this comment. Comment 2 Please see Section I for a response to this comment. CITY OF 21 3 MAI November 15, 1982 Ms. Holly Miller, Director King County Department of, Planning and Community Development King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Ms. Miller: The comments from the City of Kent regarding the Vincent Coluccio Rezone Draft Environmental Impact Statement appear below. Planning Department Page 17, Figure 2 Pages 29 - 31• Page 33 4 Page 67, Figure 10 It is suggested that the parking area storm drainage be directed to the detention pond (to the north) as opposed to the adjacent wetland and open space area to the south. Under the discussion of the Valley Floor Plan policies, there is no mention of objectives and policies of the Open Space, Natural Resources, Waterways, or Urban Design Quality elements. These policies are critical to a complete evalua- tion of the project's consistency with local planning policy. The discussion of the Kent Agricultural Lands Study is highly presumptive when it states that: "Because of the site's unsuitability for agri- cultural uses; it will probably be deleted from further study when and if staff begin site - specific investigations and make recommendations." Perhaps, the City of Kent is the best judge of what will be deleted from our recommendations. This should be rewritten. For the most accurate representation of the uses illustrated, it is suggested that contours be added to the figure. Ms. Holly Miller, Director Page 2 Planning Department (continued) Page 71, Table 2 The population figures for the City of Kent are incorrect for 1970 and 1980. Page 83 Pages 88 - 89 Page 91 Page 99 In the discussion of transportation needs, it is noted that, "It is not expected that any of these major street network improvements would be built until late in this decade or during the 1990's." If this it indeed the situation, then the proposed additional 7,800 vehicle trips per day would seem to create a nearly impossible situation especially at Orillia and 200th. Signalization of that intersection would appear to be a necessity. Mitigating measures discussed in this section are all specific project type conditions. It would seem that because this is essentially a request for a rezone (and not a specific project) that there should be a review of area -wide implications. In regards to the 13 transportation mitigating measures, there seems to be a general question that should be raised: Is this rezone request timely when there is such an abundance of in- dustrially zoned land in nearby Kent, Tukwila and Renton? In Kent alone 45 percent of the industrially zoned land is vacant at this time and it already has most of the urban services to support this type of development. Under Parks and Recreation Facilities, the first sentence should be corrected to read: "The one third acre Anderson "Green Belt" Park located nearby (one mile southeast of the site)..." In addition, there should be some discussion of Russell Road and Frager Road as scenic roads as well as Kent's River Greenbelt concept. The extension of the 27 inch sewer line across the Green River is a major issue with the City of Kent and requires more in -depth discussion. Recently, the City adopted a recommendation in the Agricul- tural Lands Study that will establish an "Agricul- tural Lands Preservation Element" as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The areas most directly 146 Ms. Holly Miller, Director Page 3 Planning Department (continued) Page 105 Page 113, Figure 26 Page 118 Building Department Page 6 affected by this action are the lands that lie south and west of the Green River. At this time, there is little pressure to develop those lands at urban densities because they lack the necessary urban services. Extension of the 27 inch sewer line will, therefore, have a tremendous impact on this new city policy. Accordingly, this proposed action is an adverse impact not as "may be viewed... by some people" but by recently adopted City policy. According to WAC 197 -10 -440 (12)(e), the discussion of alternatives for a rezone type of action need not be limited to only the subject site. It could (and should) be expanded to include the alternative of achieving the same objective (that is, providing industrial use) on another site, such as a site(s) in Kent or Tukwila which is already serviced by adequate utilities. By limiting alternatives discussion to the one site, there is no way to discuss the alternative of providing the same amount of development in an already serviced area. This map appears to not be the product of a systematic analysis of comprehensive plans o,f Kent, Tukwila and King County. Instead, it appears to be pure conjec- ture and the subsequent discussion of "secondary im- pacts" based on this map is, therefore, inaccurate and misleading. Following the lead of the above comment, the dis- cussion under "Impacts" is inaccurate. The state- ment is made that development of the site "will be compatible with other land use in the immediate vicinity and in the Green River Valley." Actually, if this was compared to the proposed development with the planned "residential- agricultural" use of Kent's Comprehensive Plan, it could not be con- cluded that it would be compatible. Noise - increase of 5 - 10 dba is not a practical guess. All development already properly zoned and ready for construction must be added to this - -peak traffic could and probably will reach 95 dba at times. Project could generate primarily, heavy truck traffic on hills where dba's are even higher due to gearing down. 147 15 161 171 18 191 211 Ms. Holly Miller, Director Page 4 Building Department (continued) Page 7 Page 8 Page 63 Page 64 Noise - it has been proven in all recent studies seen that landscaping will not buffer noise it- self. Heavy berming or walling of a solid material would be more apt to serve as a buffer. Item #2 under mitigating measures is not a valid mitigation to noise limitation. Unavoidable adverse impacts from noise, on and off site, will be of serious concern to citizens of Kent. Light and Glare - landscaping could be used to pro- tect the valley floor from unnecessary light and glare created by new development. All public streets should also be screened. Natural Resources - the flooded area addressed has been targeted by the City of Kent to remain as a wetland. If steps are taken to annex this property to Kent or Tukwila, steps could be taken to save the wetland areas. Noise - mitigating measures - paragraph two would not reduce noise levels in itself. More attention should be given to specific methods for reducing noise pollution. Paragraph three are high ideals and if included as requirements of development could indeed help. Light and Glare - impacts - last sentence is not believeable with focus on security. The develop- ment will be isolated, so will require more in- terior and perimeter lighting than in areas of heavier development. Mitigating Measures - it will probably not be practical from a security standpoint to retain natural vegetation unless on -site security is planned. General Comment If sewer is provided west of the Green River in the north sector of the Kent city limits, development could be attracted which could put a burden on the Building Department's current manpower. Current planning for work- load only includes those areas east of the Green River with utilities 148 Ms. Holly Miller, Director Page 5 Building Department (continued) currently available and still undeveloped. An increase in manpower 21 for the Department could be anticipated due to additional acreage being approved for development. Fire Department General Comment The proposed site is entirely within the county area served by the Angle Lake Fire Protection District #24. At this time, the City of Kent Fire 22 Department responds to this area only on request from District #24. The additional traffic generated would not have an impact on emergency response of the Fire Department. Public Works Department General Comment In the EIS, the consultant has made reasonable assumptions, and the transpor- tation impact depicted appears to be realistic. However, there are several changes which should be made in the text, so that the proposal's impacts can be properly evaluated. The expected impacts on the planned and existing transportation system lead to a recommendation of denial. Page 7 Noise - mitigation - it has been proven that land- scaping has almost a zero effect in reducing noise levels. Earth berms, walls and fences do have a positive affect. Page 78 24 The consultant states that the traffic increases have been calculated at a flat rate of 2 percent per year, regardless of type of roadway. In Kent, traffic volumes have increased at an average rate of 6 percent per year. On S. 212th Street in the Kent valley floor, volumes have increased at an average rate of 4 percent per year over the past three years. The Urban Arterial Board recom- mends using a figure of 2 percent per year in the Seattle - Everett urbanized area, but only if other figures are not available. Using the 2 percent figure substantially understates the actual traffic increases in Kent. 149 Ms. Holly Miller, Director Page 6 • Public Works Department (continued) From our experience, we have found that 4 - 6 per - cent on arterials, and 6 - 8 percent on minor roads is the expected annual average rate of increase. Over a six -year period (1981- 1987), this higher rate of increase could result in traffic volumes 12 - 25 percent higher than predicted in the EIS. Unless other factors limit the rate of increase, we see no reason to limit the expected traffic growth to 2 percent per year. -Page 84, Figure 19 This figure needs to be revised in three areas: 1) S. 188th Street west of the I -5 interchange should show 1,360 vehicles attributable to the proposal, even though no number is shown for 1987 total traffic. 2) The increase attributable to the proposal on the southbound on -ramp to I -5 from S. 188th Street should indicate 340 vehicles, not 160. The total volume is correct. 3) The volume shown on S. 200th Street between Orillia Road and Frager Road (2,490/1,360) only applies to that stretch east of the site. The volume on S. 200th just east of Orillia Road should show a 1987 volume of 6,570, with 5,440 attributable to this proposal. This missing volume shows more clearly the significant impact expected at the intersection of S. 200th and Orillia Road. General Comments Recommendation of Denial Our recommendation is that the proposed rezone be denied. The traffic im- pacts are substantial. In addition, the interchange with I -5 at S. 188th Street will be heavily impacted due to the existing zoning in the valley floor and Tukwila. The City of Tukwila is contemplating the construction of a connection from Southcenter Parkway to this interchange. The City of Kent plans to connect a new east -west arterial from the East Hill of Kent to Orillia Road at S. 200th Street. 150 28 29 301 Ms. Holly Miller, Director Page 7 These two planned improvements are necessary due to traffic expected from existing zoning, and they will require expansion of the I -5 interchange by themselves. There does not appear to be a compelling public need for more zoning of this type, and there appears to be little excess capacity available for traffic generated from new zoning. The zoning proposal should not be approved at this time. Mitigating Measures If other factors are determined sufficient to require approval of this rezone, mitigating measures should be required to reduce the immediate impact of generated traffic. All the mitigating measures on pages 88 and 89 should be required as conditions of approval: 1) Construction of a southbound left -turn lane on Orillia Road at.S. 200th. 2) Improvement of S. 200th to a three -lane section from Orillia Road to the east site boundary. 3) Dedication of property for additional street right of way sufficient to allow for a future primary arterial from the valley floor. This would require 80 feet or 40 feet from centerline. 4) Coordination with Metro and the Seattle -King County Commuter Pool to encourage employee ridesharing. 5) Construction of a pedestrian connection from the east site boundary to Frager Road. 6) Installation of a new fully- actuated traffic signal at Orillia Road and S. 200th with coordination capabilities. 7) Widening of the intersection of Orillia Road and S. 200th to provide two westbound right -turn lanes and one westbound left -turn lane. Improvements to the I -5 /S. 188th Street interchange as specified on page 89 and on page 77, footnotes b and c. To evaluate the future transportation impact, the consultant has assumed that these improvements will be in place. Requiring such improvements as a con- dition of approval will ensure that they will indeed be in place when they are needed. Storm Water The subject property is within a drainage basin which discharges to open channels which are maintained by King County Drainage District #2. The 151 Ms. Holly Miller, Director Page 8 District channels discharge directly into the Green River through an outlet pipe which is controlled by a flap gate. Since the HUD 100 -year flood elevation on the subject property (21.5) is substantially below the Green River water surface elevation when the river is under 100 -year conditions (flowing at 11,600 cfs - elevation 32±), significant ponding occurs during sustained period of high river flows. Development of the property situated above the 100 -year flood plan will increase the amount of ponding that takes place in the low wetland area due to an increase in the total amount of runoff. It is imperative that the existing avail- able storage below the 100 -year flood elevation at least be maintained, and it appears that this storage should be substantially increased when development takes place. If the 7 -day holding criteria is valid for basins that discharge directly into the Green River (i.e., Black River Pump Station, Horseshoe Acres Pump Station, Auburn Mill Creek, etc.), then shouldn't the same criteria apply to properties within the subject drainage basin? This would amount to approximately 20 acre feet of additional storage that would have to be provided by the developer. The additional storage would be usable only if provided in the low wetland area. These concerns should be addressed more closely by King County Surface Water Management. The standard 10 -year detention design does not appear to be adequate. Sanitary Sewer In order to service the area west of the Green River, a crossing of the river would be necessary. The gravity system proposed by Kent's Compre- hensive Sewer Plan is adequate to service the subject property. Kent's system is considerably closer than the Tukwila system, and it does not require any pumping equipment to service the rezone property. A gravity system is more energy efficient. Extending sewers to the west side of the Green River will probably encourage development of vacant and agricultural lands in the area. The City of Kent will probably require annexation before the subject property . would be serviced with sanitary sewers. In summary, the staff believes that the present DEIS is inadequate in light of several problems noted in the previous discussion. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please give me a call at 872 -3390. ch ncerely, Li7u4 J/5MES P. HARRIS Panning Director • 152 CITY OF KENT Comment 1 Please see Section V for a response to this comment. Comment 2 Please see Section VI for a response to this comment. Comment 3 Comment acknowledged. The final sentence is changed to read: "Because of the site's unsuitability for agricultural uses it may be deleted from further study when and if staff begins site - specific investigations and makes recommendations." Comment 4 Comment acknowledged. Please see Section III for an areawide land use map containing contours. Comment 5 The correct population figures for the City of Kent for 1970 and 1980 are 16,596 and 22,971, respectively. (Source: Kent Planning Department.) Comment 6 Comment acknowledged. Comment 7 Areawide implications are discussed in a separate section of the Draft EIS, beginning on page 111. The relationship between this rezone and the availability of industrially zoned land is discussed in Section II of this FEIS. Please see Section IV for a response to this comment. Comment 8 Correction acknowledged. Anderson "Green Belt" Park is actually one- third acre in size rather than the 4 acres indicated in the Draft EIS. The park is only one mile from the site instead of 3 miles, as indicated in the Draft EIS. Comment 9 Russell Road and Frager Road have been designated Scenic and Recreation Drives and are not intended to provide access to new development. Kent is working to establish a regional system of parks and trails along the Green River. 153 Comment 10 Please see Section I for a response to this comment. Comment 11 Please see Section II for a response to this comment. Comments 12 and 13 Please see Section III for a response to these comments. Comment 14 Comment acknowledged. Noise levels would probably be closer to those suggested by the Kent Building Department. Comment 15 Comment acknowledged. If noise buffers in the form of berms or solid walls are required to meet applicable noise ordinances, they would be provided by the developer. Comment 16 Comment acknowledged. Specific methods of reducing the light and glare impacts of the proposal would include landscape screening of public streets, and would be addressed during the final site planning process. Comment 17 Comment acknowledged. This area has been proposed for preservation, as discussed in Section III of this FEIS. Comment 18 Comment acknowledged. Comment 19. Comment acknowledged. Interior and perimeter lighting would probably be visible from adjacent streets. Comment 20 The only substantial on -site vegetation that exists occurs around the perimeter of the parcel. It is believed that many of the larger trees in these areas could be retained. Underbrush could be cleared to improve security. 154 Comment 21 It is anticipated that sewer service will be provided from the city of Tukwila to the north. For reasons discussed previously, it is not anticipated that this sewer service will encourage any development within the City of Kent and therefore would not create a need for more manpower within the building department. Comment 22 Comment acknowledged. Comment 23 Comment acknowledged. See response to Comment 15. Comments 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Please see Section IV for a response to these comments. Comment 29 Comment acknowledged. This recommendation will be considered during the formulation of conditions of approval for this rezone. Comment 30 Please see Section V for a response to this comment. Comment 31 Please see Section I for a response to this comment. 155 1 -21 -76 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 MOTION NO. Introduced by: Councilwoman Stern 76 -40 :... r 3 •. A MOTION granting the appeal of the applicant in the matter of the reclass- ification request from A and SE to ML petitioned by JOSEPH GUNTER, ET AL, designated Building and Land Development File No. 254 -75 -R, and stating-conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the. subject reclassification request was ecommended for denial or continuance by the_Deputy Zoning and ubdivision Examiner and such recommendation was appealed by he applicants; and, WHEREAS, the Planning - and — Community Development Committee as reviewed the record on the above matter; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are not suitable for gricultural use without considerable investment in drainage acilities; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties are so located and impacted y adverse conditions for agriculture that their reclassification s modified herein should not be considered as applying to _ surrounding agricultural lands, and should not be interpreted s a change in Council policy regarding the preservation of ` agricultural land in the Green River Valley; and, WHEREAS, a Council study of the' agricultural lands in the Green River Valley is expected to be completed by January, 1977.. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT.;MOVED by .the Council of King County: The subject property requested for reclassification by JOSEPH ' 3UNTER, ET AL, designated Building and Land Development File tio. 254-75-R is reclassified from A (Agriculture) and SE (Suburban :states) to ML -P subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owners shall obtain approval of =a drainage plan for the subject properties in`°`accord- ance with the provisions of Chapter 20.50, King County Code. The King County Division of Hydraulics, in reviewing a proposed drainage plan for the subject properties, shall consider the potential reduction in DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF LAND USE MANAGEMENT ADDENDUM TO PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER JANUARY 6, 1976 - PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: Joseph Gunter FILE: 254 -75 -R A. BACKGROUND: This application was continued to the January 6, 1976 Public Hearing at the request of the Zoning & Subdivision Examiner to allow the Division time to gather additional soils information. B. FIELD INVESTIGATION: The Division met on the site with two representatives , Joe Henry and Richard Johnson from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. The purpose of the field investigation was to verify the accuracy of the King County Soil Survey. Mr. Henry and Mr. Johnson sampled the soil by digging three test holes, one on the eastern portion of the property , one in the center, and one on the west portion before the property beings to slope upward and westerly . Each hole was dug to a depth of 60" at approximately 10" intervals to test the color variations and textures . C. CORRESPONDENCE: 1. The Division sent a. letter to the Soil Conservation Service re- questing comments of their on -site soil investigation, stating the evaluation of the soils , specifically the class and its suitability for farming, and the agricultural potential. 2. The response from the Soil Conservation Service is as follows: "The soil on said property is Newberg silt loam. This soil has a Land Capability Class of II on a scale of I to VIII, with I being the best suited for agriculture. "In a representative profile of the Newberg silt loam, the surface layer is very dark grayish -brown silt loam and very fine sandy loam about 20" thick. It is underlain, to a depth of 60 inches or more, by stratified very fine sandy loam, loamy fine sand, and silt loam. Permeability is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60" or more. A seasonal high water table is at a depth of .3 -4 feet. Available water holding capacity is high, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. The Newberg silt loam is among some of the most agriculturally productive soils in King County. "The area that was rocky on, the surface on the extreme west portion was the same soil ( newberg silt loam) . Apparently rocks had been hauled and deposited on the surface." FILE: 254 -75 -R D. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions stated in. the Divisions original Staff Report still apply . E. RECOMMENDATION: DENY. TRANSMITTED to parties listed hereafter: Joseph Gunter Richard Kammeyer Jerry Hillis 403 Columbia, Seattle, WA. Ann Mack Ed L. Reitan Christine Foulks City of Kent, Attn: James P. Harris M.A. Segale Inc. EBS.: 304: jl 12/19/75 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * ** Applicant: Request: STR: B -C M.00 • •LE 254 - 75 -R JOSEPH GUNTER, ET AL S -E, and A to M -L W 35 -23 -4 and W 2 -22 -4 Proposed Reclassification f 1 S. 188 rw APPENDIX B 400' ST. __...._.. _. 1 200TH ST. M-P .T -114