Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-49-91 - NORMED SHAW PARTNERSHIP - OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING PHASE IINORMED BUSINESS PARK (PHASE II) OFFICE / WAREHOUSE BUILDING S0. 131ST PLACE EPIC 49 -91 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director April 28, 1992 Mr. Lawrence Shaw NorMed P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 RE: EPIC -49 -91 Dear Mr. Shaw: On September 12, 1991, the City 'received a SEPA Checklist requesting a SEPA determination for proposed grading and preloading as part of NorMed Business -Park (Phase II). As you are aware, the City has enacted the Sensitive Areas Ordinance which serves to protect environmentally sensitive-areas as defined in the Ordinance which includes wetlands. Because of the presence of wetlands on the subject property, you were notified on October 4, 1991 that additional information, specifically.a survey, would be .necessary to enable. the City to make a SEPA determination. , .4 As a follow -up to our October 4 conversation, you received a letter from me dated November 1 reiterating the need for more information. The letter stated that should you not intend to proceed with the project, you could be refunded up to 50% of the SEPA Checklist fee. In your letter dated November 5, 1991, you indicated that you intended to proceed with the proposal and requested that a hold be placed on your application. Your letter implied that additional information would be submitted within 3 to 4 weeks. My letter to you dated November 27, 1992 specified 5 items required by the City in order to proceed with our analysis of your proposal. These items were additionally discussed with you on October 4. It was also suggested that you consolidate your request with future site development and revise your current application. A December 12, 1991 submittal deadline was provided. During our phone conversation on December 10, 1991, you and I discussed the contents of the November 27 letter. You indicated . that a survey had been prepared and would be submitted. Because you expressed uncertainty of the presence of wetlands, you were 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 informed that staff would conduct a site visit in order to confirm their presence. In my letter. to you dated December 23, 1991, I indicated that a site visit was conducted on December 13 which confirmed the presence of hydric soils and vegetation associated with wetland habitat. The letter again requested that the wetlands be delineated and mapped and the map be provided to the City by March 1, 1992. No information had been provided by March 1. You were again contacted on March 11. You requested a further extension due to pending state and federal legislation concerning wetlands. Your letter dated March 18 expressed your interest in continuing with the project. To date, the requested information has not been received by the Planning Division. The project has been on hold for approximateloy 8 months. It . is staff's feeling that reasonable time has been given to enable the preparation and submittal of the information as requested by the City. Since none of the deadlines have been met, we can no longer maintain your file as active. You may reapply and pay additional fees at any time. I can be reached at 431 -3663 if you have further questions. Sincerely,. enni Shefrin Associate Planner cc: > Rick Beeler Ron Cameron EPIC -49 -91 File NorMed P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 (206) 242 -8228 March 18, 1992 Mr. Denni Shefrin Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 D MAR 2 0 1992 CITY OF TUKWILA ' - -P NING DEPT. Lawrence M. Shaw President Re: EPIC -49 -91 Dear Ms. Shefrin: As we discussed on the phone last Friday, we definitely intend to proceed with the above referenced application. Our current plan is to continue our research and discussions with environmental soils consultants and to prepare a plan for discussion with your Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schultz. I'm sure you're aware that it's difficult for me to both manage our wholesale distribution business and also devote an extensive amount of time to this complex project. Your patience as we work to solve the various issues is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Q4AA/J-. Lawrence M. Shaw President LMS /nmb Occupational, Emergency & Alternate Care Medical Supplies • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 December 23, 1991 Mr. Larry Shaw P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 RE: EPIC- 49 -91, Normed_Business Park Dear Mr. Shaw: PHONE k (206) 4331800 Gary L. VanDuscn, Mayor The City of Tukwila adopted the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and associated maps on June 6, 1991. The purpose of the ordinance is to establish standards to protect areas deemed environmentally sensitive. These areas include hillsides, streams, wetlands and coal mine hazard areas. In our conversation on December 10, I indicated the City's Sensitive Areas Map showed a wetland present on the subject property. Because there was some question about the map's accuracy, I stated that the site would be inspected by the City's Urban Environmentalist (Gary Schulz). An inspection was conducted on December 13, 1991. Gary noted the presence of hydric soils and vegetation associated with wetland habitat. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires that wetlands be delineated and mapped. The Ordinance specifies the methodology to be used by your consultant to delineate the wetland (see attached "Wetland and Watercourse Special Studies Report Criteria "). Once submitted, the map will help you and the City gain a better understanding of the implications of the wetland to your project. In order for the City to make a SEPA determination for the proposed preloading, the wetland delineation map along with the information requested in the letter to you dated November 27, 1991 must be provided. In order to keep your SEPA Checklist file active, the wetland delineation map should be provided by March 1, 1992. Feel free to contact Gary Schulz at 431 -3662 if you have questions related to the wetlands study. I would also like to set up a meeting with you at your earliest convenience to answer any questions you may have concerning the • • wetland and to discuss the City's goals for stream enhancement in the area. I can be reached at 431 -3663 for further questions. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin Associate Planner Enclosures: Sensitive Areas Ordinance Wetland and Watercourse Special Studies Report Criteria CC: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Rick Beeler, Planning Director Jack Pace, Senior Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer EPIC -49 -91 File CITY OF TUKWILA Wetland and Watercourse Special Studies Report Criteria A development proposal that is within 50 feet of a sensitive area will submit appropriate studies to adequately identify and evaluate the sensitive area and it's buffer. Projects proposing sensitive area impacts will require specific studies to assess the impacts and propose mitigating measures. Professional Qualifications Wetland and stream specialists performing work for City review will, upon request, submit professional qualification statements. A project list with references should be included to verify work history and performance. Wetland and Watercourse Analysis The exact location of wetland and watercourse boundaries will be determined by the applicant's consultant. Wetland delineations, performed by wetland specialists, will apply the wetland definition in TMC 18.06.938 and the methodology in the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (1989). Watercourse analysis will be performed by qualified stream or wetland specialists to characterize and classify the watercourse according to the watercourse definition in TMC 18.06.395 and the City's Water Resource study (1990). All buffers will be measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), if field delineation is possible, or from the top of bank. Wetland and watercourse reports submitted to the City should contain the following: 1. A plant species list or description with scientific names (nomenclature), relative abundance and distribution of species, and the major habitat types of vegetation. 2. Data plot forms, according to the Federal Manual method, to substantiate wetland study findings. 3. Report site maps should include: a. Vicinity map b. Public resource document maps including City's Sensitive Area inventory mapping, if applicable. c. Accurate topographic mapping, if required, showing contours at the smallest available interval. d. Field delineated and professionally surveyed wetland and /or watercourse boundary mapping. • • 4. The written report should discuss the following: a. Site description and general observations of habitat value related to wildlife use. b. Study methodology. c. Soil types mapped on the site including on -site verification and analysis. d. Vegetation description according to the classification system outlined in "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States ", Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979 (FWS /OBS- 79/31). e. Wetland or watercourse rating and associated buffer width according to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of the Zoning Code. Mitigation Proposals A mitigation proposal of wetland or watercourse relocation and /or buffer reduction should include the standard report format plus the following: 1. Conceptual mitigation or enhancement plan to describe and illustrate what impacts and compensatory actions are proposed. a. Include hydrology aspects, vegetation composition, and wildlife habitat details. b. Describe how water quality and flood storage potential would be improved. 2. Upon approval of conceptual plan, a final mitigation or enhancement plan will be required to include the following components: a. Detailed planting and grading plan including species to be used for revegetation. b. Performance standards. c. Construction management. d. Monitoring program to ensure success of the plan. e. Contingency plan to correct performance standards or unanticipated impacts. f. Performance security in the form of a monetary bond or other means to guarantee the successful completion of the plan. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability Development and Report Criteria All development applications on property having slopes greater than or equal to 15% are subject to the Zoning Code - Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Three primary factors that influence slope stability were incorporated into the geologic classification system. Important characteristics of the site are topographic relief, stratigraphy of subsurface soils, and local ground or surface water environment related to potential slippage and massive soil movement. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are considered sensitive areas and classified as follows: - Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. - Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 to 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or bedrock, and which also include areas sloping more than 40 percent. - Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. - Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow groundwater table. - Areas of potential coal mine hazard, ie. subsidence from subsurface excavation and tunneling. In order to identify the extent of sensitive slopes, the applicant must submit a survey of existing topography, drawn in two -foot contour intervals accurate to within one foot of elevation. The topographic survey must be stamped by a professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Washington. Mapped slope areas exceeding 15 percent should be designated on the site plan for potential geotechnical site review. Professional Qualifications The applicant is required to submit a geotechnical report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation will generally not be required for development of Class 2 slopes when: 1) any portion of the site is a minimum of 200 feet from a Class 3 or 4.area and 2) the proposed alteration remains outside the sloping area. Development of Class 3 and 4 areas and any identified seismic or coal mine hazard areas requires a geotechnical investigation and associated report. All geotechnical studies must be conducted by a geotechnical engineer. TMC 18.06.323 defines this individual as a professional civil engineer licensed with the State of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer with experience in landslide evaluation. Geotechnical engineers performing work within the City must submit professional qualification statements in addition to work history and references. Geotechnical Analysis The geotechnical report analyzes the site for overall stability and makes recommendations on the need for and width of buffer setbacks necessary to protect post - development site stability. The investigated geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions of the site will be used to confirm or revise the City's geologic classification. The scope of the investigation should comply with the specific requirements . presented below. 1. Landslide Hazards Class 2: Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas are required to have, at a minimum, a review of available geologic site data and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of the site is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant and the City. Class 3: Geotechnical reports for Class 3 areas are required to have a review of the available geologic site data, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration program suitable to the site conditions and the proposed development. Class 4: Geotechnical reports for Class 4 areas are required to perform the tasks listed for Class 3 areas. In addition, detailed slope stability analysis should be performed based on the information obtained during the field investigation. 2. Erosion Hazards Class 2, 3, and 4 landslide hazard areas are also potential erosion hazard areas. Geotechnical reports regarding proposed development in these areas will include erosion and sediment control recommendations that are appropriate to the site conditions and the proposed development. 3. Seismic Hazards Proposed development within areas of significant seismic hazards should include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential relative to the proposed development. For one or two story single - family dwellings, this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments of other occupied structures, this evaluation should include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. 4. Coal Mine Hazards Proposed development within areas of historical coal mine activities or mapped subsurface coal formations will require a detailed site reconnaissance by a geologist or a geotechnical engineer. Site specific information regarding the presence of mine entrances or workings is needed prior to permitting new construction in these areas. Permitting Requirements Prior to permitting any development of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: 1. There is no past or present evidence of slope instability and quantitative analysis indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties. OR 2. The potentially instable area can be modified or the project can be designed so that proposed impacts to the site and surrounding properties are eliminated, slope stability is not decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation will not affect slope stability. or CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 27, 1991 Mr. Larry Shaw P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 RE: Normed Business Park, EPIC -49 -91 Dear Mr. Shaw: PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor In your letter dated November 5, 1991, you confirmed your intent to proceed with the project as described in the SEPA Checklist dated September 12, 1991. In addition, you indicated that a survey is being prepared and you expect to submit it within three to four weeks. As you are aware, the City has adopted the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (enclosed). The ordinance describes environmental resources deemed sensitive and how they are to be protected through the implementation of buffer zones and setbacks. A study performed by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. resulted in the mapping of sensitive areas. According to these maps, the subject property contains a wetland in addition to the stream. To date, the survey has not been provided. To better assist you in the preparation of a survey or supplemental site plan, the following information should be included: 1) A current legal description. That provided does not appear to reflect recent replats; 2) Existing and finished grades shown at 2 -foot contours; 3) All property lines contained within the site boundary area accurately labeled and dimensioned. Property lines adjacent to vacated 4Trd Place South should be adjusted; �tn 4) Wetland an tream, including buffers and setbacks should be shown as required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Also, show where the stream is piped and exposed; 5) Specific locations for preload /fill materials. In addition, since the property lies within 300 feet of residentially zoned areas, Design Review and possibly SEPA would be triggered prior to issuance of any building permit. It may be more expedient for you to apply for Design Review and revise the SEPA Checklist for all proposed site development now. Information should be provided no later than December 12, 1991 in order to keep your application active. If you have any further questions, please contact me at 431 -3663. Sincerely, QAA- Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner Enclosure. CC: EPIC -49 -91 d• -a .lug► 2y) 0 \N rS , l- OP , 1\A "N N b * '?_‘,()V\ .1s! S o�g1u vY- — I nom. ems- )T\ 1 ) v4-\1.1 rJ , ,, ) f2LV UJ T r-'/ 4.0' T.drA - 6 25' e-- °,5)10 e. Po&M Cpik C/4 47r 760 `%GIG C1tP - ks-t- _ stm-15,1 52-t4 /- 4 - -2E —SAciT 11#73e....kkoo P- A X11 ,)a;gf? -cuut sa p1r■ e e✓08 J2 ✓00 Niv gan t San :4 IA} j IA ---' 'UvwK ?V113,-� CudL OdAaVV • • NorMed P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 (206) 242 -8228 November 5, 1991 Ms. Denni Shefrin Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: EPIC -49 -91 Dear Ms. Shefrin: Lawrence M. Shaw President Thanks for your letter of November 1, 1991 regarding the above referenced application. It is definitely our intention to proceed with this proposal. Unfortunately, the requested additional items have taken considerably more time than we anticipated. Our surveyors have indicated that the site topography map will take another 3 -4 weeks. Please hold the application pending receipt of the requested items. Sincerely, Lawrence M. Shaw President LMS /nmb i [11 NOV 071991 CITY OF TUOCWILA PLANNING DEPT. Occupational, Emergency & Alternate Care Medical Supplies CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 1, 1991 Mr. Lawrence Shaw NorMed -Shaw Partnership P.O. Box 3644 Seattle, WA 98124 Re: EPIC- 49 -91, Phase III Dear Mr. Shaw: PHONE It (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor On October 4, 1991, you and I had disccussed the proposed Phase III project associated with the Environmental Checklist received September 12, 1991. To enable further review, we discussed several additional items which would need to be submitted. A SEPA determiniation cannot be made without a full submittal of the project proposal. To date, no additional information has been provided. If you choose not to proceed with this proposal, please notify me by November 15, 1991 so that a portion (50 %) of the application fee can be refunded to you. Please contact me at 431 -3663 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner cc: File No. EPIC -49 -91 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: Wil a 11..■1 if ±1:11-liV q 0) I 1 E.P 12 1991 apt' Ui- ; u,e✓vlLA F'LAiV�V6!19 r The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara- tion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise infor- mation known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the .answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid. unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shore- line, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff -can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of- checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for_nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Conde No. Epic File No. 41. -1j Fee — $108.00 Receipt No.c2 1 5 S: o A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: NorMed Business Park (Phase II) 2. Name of applicant: NorMed -Shaw Partnership 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: L.M. Shaw P.O. Box 3644, Seattle, WA 98124 242 -8228 4. Date checklist prepared: 9/1/91 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Grading /Preload ASAP Construction - Spring 1992 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Phase III will be a.. third building. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Phase I was issued a Declaration of Non Significance in 1980. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Tukwila Street Vacation Application, -2- ri . c TJ' , n -- 1 SEP 1 2 1991 i U3,UV∎LA PLANNING DEPT. • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. All permits specific to a new office warehouse building. 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. Construction of an approximate 33,000 square foot office /warehouse concrete tilt up building. Anticipated uses are distribution andpossib1y fight manufacturing. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient informationfor 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. Address: 4XXX South 131st. Place, Tukwila, WA Legal: Blocks 2 and 3 of Fostoria Garden Tracts according to plat recorded in Vol me 13 of Plats2 page 40, King County. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Tt is near a designated watercourse (Type 3). -3- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI I1 • 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 Flat with mounds of preload from Phase I. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approx mate percent slope)? 0% 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. Sand and peat. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 10,500 cubic yards of structural fill to compress thekpeat)and raise floor level of building. Fill will be imported. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. Loose soil could erode during rains. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 75 %. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control fences and other necessary erosion control devices will be built and maintained throughout construction. 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. Construction dust. Virtually none after completion of construction. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Contractor to wet dirt roads when dusty. 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. Small stream. Flows to Duwamish River. • 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. Yes. All requirements of Tukwila's Sensitive V. Area Ordinance will be followed.' 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. Freeway separates site from Duwamish Flood Plain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. 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. Roof and parking lot run off only. Will flow to site drains and stream: Parking lot will be creaned twice a month by a professional cleaning service. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Exposed soil will he landscaped. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: xx deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Site was originally cleared as part of Phase I work. Site will be recleared and then landscaped. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: High quality landscaping similar to Phase I will be utilized. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: stickle backs (4 - 5 cm in length) in stream per Tukwila stream study. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: • High quality landscaping. Maintenance oT stream , per S.A.O. requirements. • • 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. Electric heat and lights b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy efficient Beating and lighting components. Night setback thermostats. Energy efficient heat pumps. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special services required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None necessary. 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) ?___ None. 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. Traffic, but low frequency and hence very low noise levels. Day time. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None necessary. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Held for Phase II construction. Phase I is office /ware Ouse /distribution building. b. Has the site been used, for agriculture? If so, describe. Notr many decades. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M -1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Manufacturing and Distribution g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes ;. Watercourse - Type 3 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 75 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None necessary. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None necessary. _ • 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None. 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? 77 feet Cnnrrete b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: _ Facility will be of high quality, similar to Phase I building. 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? Tnsignifirant_ b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None necessary. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Tukwila Community Center b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None necessary. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. . fl c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None necessary. 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. South 131st Place State Route 599 (freeway) Access via current road (vacated 44th P1 South) b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance—to-the nearest transit stop? Yes c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Per Code. None would be eliminated. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally. describe (indicate whether public or private). None except parking lots and loading dock access. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximately 100. Peaks: 7:OOam - 8:OOam; 5:OOpm - 6:OOpm. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Car pooling, use of bus lines. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, as generally needed by an office/ warehouse /distribution facility. Very limited in amount. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None necessary. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently availableat the site: el i natural as, Ovate , r'use service elephon • sanitary sewe septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Above utilities are already at the site and designed for servicing Phase II. 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 maker. decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 9-10-9/ PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAIII • Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 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? • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: 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: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Evaluation for Agency Use Only IIIEvaluation 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: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA, • E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Construction of an Office /Warehouse /Distribution Building (Immediate proposal is to obtain a grading /preload permit to prepare the site) 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Build elsewhere 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: This property was purchased in 1978, designed for an office /warehouse park and reviewed by Tukwila Planning Department (DCD) for this long range purpose.. - -We believe that this plan remains the best course of action. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- DATE INIT. R ACTIVI LOG COMMENTS • UZ� 0 c c 11 mpg iLrimoTh0/11 vatimisr4 ‘6419piarrin‘t • _ Am Oi 41.41 1111.‘16 44 ,bii4 1 L 1.1►,Ji1 . ,• ecJ GL 23 - L�. • ("J 240 k Nm0 01,0 ?4 .? 1l eon ��'L r�l�Si�i"�► i 2 As Zvi KT Am. , 4112 1Ntv■ Ste' w .: Atria 4 i ttr - t 0 5)i' 1n/ 4 1-go L /:/ .51 on L., PA ,2A Lon 4 $'t\)Qr ` ?- - 6 I • eS� • • Al • .1_, ter,' NI 1 / 6 l . .1 ... £ t i. A • ASA : 4 . £t 1 _. !. •■ ...IMMINME110 d. 4, A. IL 4. 1 do_NIA 4k ��1 2• , • ♦- iLiles • �.t A;I _ CNA !�. L ., ,.%r1L ,i /A * /A-4 44. / L.J �' Try MlyZE-0 a. ACTIVI* LOG DATE INIT. COMMENTS 3 - ST- – • •z• •e+ .o.earc N,e••..• . fn i•,fr.i,•f .0! oe ro••• ..<<.c to,. zi • . • .oe.tez •zu ND •cr.r ,rt. rm+L . i. r je IAG Oe1' '.dcr a FI s4 ,. *. ** * ** :1 IL N, • •./e. —. • • e ./9C ..1 /•N •N r3/ .F. • FFEt.C• • • s. T • cm+TLCt' • STEW 6 uF Lw SULT 0 1.QE6.CN • (_1o.C.' TT S•sl.h6 --1- C••••■•.T iuc. :•.D. LT Ft 1.45. 6.: CO. C van. On .0 r L6uS.m. ♦ww W comp.- i s..L n /1, .. l sEPS • ,.-... a6 •w.o _ GOOD T 6, co.. .oc C -z•• - ourcu. • mow} AK. Or 'EXISTING ,• • ...6'14%: 4S DeTEFW NrP -67 tKTM .MEINOD 'D .1%1 .. • ?RE1 D TO "OE GorTrKlfi0 Sti K- M1At_Ep .FI�L'40J6RhL1'. 4rrE6.1 ED;, EST .ce i0'corlR4TION -K '10T'41LEPr °11, cEP:12 1991 _c. �� u]ufaviLAl. PLANI/IN3 DEPT. 29 sue. 91 I`' 421 ;2I Pte:' • 6