The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-FD-76 - LYNCH JOSEPH - REZONELYNCH REZONE R-4TOC-1 EPIC -FD -76 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Pte /FINAL DECLARATION OF S I c I f I CAf CE /'JON —S I Gad I F I CAi10E Description of proposal Rezone: R -4 to C -1 (Lynch) Proponent Joseph W. Lynch Location of Proposal Approximately 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No EPIC -FD -76 This proposal has been determined to Ole-et/not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (4e/is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official. 'Kjell Stoknes Position /Title Director, Office of Community Development Date 14 December 1978 Signature COMMENTS: ' • ADDENDUM 1 (C). The site will be graded to provide for siting of the structure as well as to provide an upper and lower parking area. Cutting of the site is to be minimized so that a grade entry can be accomplished from both the upper and lower levels of the office building. 3 (B). Consideration will be given to surface water run off from the parking areas. 4 (A) The major cedar /fir trees will be retained on site. The blackberry bushes will be cleared. 13. This project will be occupied by the XEROX CORPORATION as a marketing office. XEROX will be provided seventy -five (75) parking stalls for their use. This parking is provided on site. 15. Energy efficiency and savings have been taken into consid- eration. The building will be double glazed. The HVAC system will have an energy manager. - ti \N I A 19 09 City f Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor 14 December 1978 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kjell toknes, OCD Director FROM: Fr Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: Lynch Rezone: Environmental Review After completing a review of the environmental checklist for the pro- posed Lynch rezone, I have identified the following potential problem areas: 1. Earth. I requested and was subsequently supplied with a preliminary grading plan with sections. As you can see, essentially the entire site except for that small portion occupied by 5 large cedar and fir trees will be either cut or filled. Grading for the first floor of the structure will necessitate vertical cuts of up to 6 to 10 feet. A relatively small amount of the site will be filled from excavated dirt. On the other hand, most of the excavated dirt will be exported. The developers have not specified on the grading plan or in the checklist the amount of dirt to be exported. Grading activities will result in a number of rockeries and steeply sloping embankments on the site. Moreover, the process of grading will denude the site and expose surficial soils to increased wind and water erosion. In turn, erosion may result in siltation of municipal storm drains. It appears that some sort of control is needed in order to prevent this problem. 2. Water. Denuding of the site will cause increased rate of surface runoff and, hence, contribute to potential problems cited in #1 above. Future development of the site can be expected to increase this rate still further. 3. Flora. Presently there are some very charming, interesting, and large trees on the site. The more stately trees are the firs and cedars. Some of these will be removed during grading and construction activi- ties. I feel the need to control this situation so that trees which are identified on the proposed site plan to be "retained" are indeed retained at the time the building is completed. Memorandum Page 2 Kjell Stoknes 14 December 1978 4. Land Use. The development site abuts residential land (R -3) along the rear property line. The proposed site plan indicates only 5' of landscaping along this boundary with parking on -the other side. This small amount of landscaping, unless planted very densely, will not adequately screen parking facilities from potential residential development which is planned and zoned for the abutting property. 5. Aesthetics. (SEE, above also). Parking facilities along Southcenter Boulevard approach the embankment along the roadway. The passer -by on Southcenter Boulevard will look up and confront a row of auto bumpers extending the full length of the parking lot. The image or impression could be a negative and /or blighting one. Dense land- scaping or further setback of the parking area is required. RECOMMENDATION: In my opinion, none of the above potential adverse impacts are signifi- cant enough to require an EIS to be done. However, I feel that there are some small discrepencies which we should try to iron out through environmental review. These are: 1. Front edge of parking along Southcenter Boulevard to be set back or densely screened from the line of sight from the roadway below. 2. Rear property line be landscaped to a width of 10' or a dense land- scaping screen be established. 3. Parking lot dimensions correspond to City of Seattle Standards (and as reviewed by Planning Commission). 4. That every effort be made to save the large cedar and fir trees depicted on the tree survey. 5. B.A.R. approval of grading, building, landscaping, and site plans prior to issuance of building permit. Although :I. don't view the process as necessarily according to Hoyle, I recommend these conditions be attached to a declaration of non - significance. FNS /ch CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: JOSEPH W. LYNCH 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 400 - 108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 3. Date Checklist Submitted: November 30, 1978- 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: aft/ a { Tu k wila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: t4/tva. stf 14,-w 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): Two story frame office building consisting of 34,000 square feet with parking for 105 automobiles 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): The land area consists of approximately 97,000'square feet. The building will be two levels with at grade access to each level. Frame construction with cedar accented exterior. Fir trees will be retained on site. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: August 1979 9. .List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES x NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO x (c) Building permit YES x NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inloet orlake? Explanation: opt 0) Vet. 10°. A44. evvror- tJw p )0(1) 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? pt j f Explanation: ,ti0 AL AP ' V vy'N` �► r°. a • 4/ 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into .surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (e) YES MAYBE NO x .x x x x x (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- ,;yf• able for public water supplies? G i IAExplanation: 4 " Pc pi °' a A vtifr it\ oit�r Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? '(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation: YES. MAYBE NO x x 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: Li .ght and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: . Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural. resource? Explanation: 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO i x 11.' Population. Explanation: Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 6641 14cuvt. 44 4 te. I�LGr -Ga 4 7'PY G S' �9 F,L v � / Gf 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result.in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b). Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? d.d if ovts .(d) ArKerattons to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: /0S`va -14441 S/ Us v- e-atc.d (is fu 1 "9 7 v GALA C-t- frit s , 4t Al/ p .r AA . h (s k u) it w ' 1 G✓ 64"x- 4 P frs2 )( • lt'v vaue-Gt- 'vf s . ) wfbC fK fU .cc_ v p (u, wtc� 0 f ra. t re--/-4-11 2a-w — tr v e-I e t 10 0.'7 0 f al- wilt cc- r- th 144 . 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following.areas: (a) Fire protection? • . (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO x X x x x x x x x x x x x YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? _ ade.GlhbH.a -1 Explanation: writ Greats s d f y ,c u reiwies . 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: / ic2f-rcl AL4m4.4.1i4 x x x squ_pe.,"..h-viri s).1414.. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the.crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: x 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? YES MAYBE NO Explanation:. /2il�,fj1 `z,/ kf- s {vu c /ur -c.. -N �o�cyd fu..�c,.� 1iic, �tai weLL wu f a.tl ve- r it f f i7.60/..f eV' fv `Lai Gt b O k u va fj.�.1. Trutz-� - b - . 4,ow[ d. b to c-ki �vi rrw.r e / etAd J p f I AI �d ,o N.ir' t o / cr. /'? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist - ing recreational opportunities? X Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his - torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Signature and Title Date X (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NOx (e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO (f) Sign _permit YES NO (g) Water hook up permit YES x NO (h) Storm water system permit YES x NO (i) Curb cut permit YES x NO (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO (1) Other: • 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this pro osal? If yes, explain: NO 64 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes "and "maybe" answers are required) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO x x x XEROXPRELIMINARY GRADING_ SECTION - .. 4 4 -ra + eel± r .. ; - . . - � . • • ego _434./= -- Section -A A @2.0 7Ti.o- vi z 2.0 66.0 ILLeg 4— 8747 • Section C - Section- DD Section EE XEROX_PRELIMINARY_ GRADING SECTIONS —r3 n"- t 2.0 66.0 ILLeg 4— 8747 • Section C - Section- DD Section EE XEROX_PRELIMINARY_ GRADING SECTIONS —r3 n"- • \ ' 82 86 92 0 _XER 1v11-611"tAts ) 4-j fmf 1 1 Arcto of Utile- el- m (AGIV-rtliV PRELIM MAW-GRADING_ rrHuH • ;.1.FZCI.4 rrEcTh — A rtao f 6uth Fi 114 54 5 NM re. 4-' rr PLAN r4 7 ri 7 • 1 XGRADING__PL/I -- —114E M IT`H UH .a. 5061,1TM ARCH ri 'T'S 1" a 40' -