Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-83 - GOMEZ GEORGE - ALLENTOWN ANNEXATIONALLENTOWN ANNEXATION EPIC -FD -83 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF CO4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT /FINAL DECLARATION OF NON -S I Gil I F I CANCE Annexation and zoning regulations for the proposed Description of proposal "Allentown annexation ". Proponent George Gomez Location of Proposal North of & adjacent to the City of Tukwila Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No EPIC -FD -83 This proposal has been determined to (111111/not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (S /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 March 1, 1979 Signature COMMENTS: kw ►`A Al City o Tukwila o �i Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard J W `���= Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Collins, Planning Director F Rona: Mark Caughey, Associate Planner DATE: 14 March 1983 SUBJECT: Allentown Annexation -- Environmental Review As requested, I have reviewed the existing evironmental documentation for the Allentown annexation, and would like to offer the following observations: 1) It appears that the first and only SEPA checklist (EPIC- FD -83) dealing with the annexation proper was filed with the OCD Plan- ning Division on 28 February 1979. On the following day, a final DNS was signed by the Responsible Official. No written analysis preceded that signing, though it seems that a written threshold determination and statement of findings in support of the DNS would usually have been done. It is also somewhat unsual that the written checklist review was not done in light of the fact that the checklist was prepared by a layman. The signatory thereto is a resident of the Allentown area and a proponent of the petition. Though the responses are no doubt sincere, they are at the same time rather. simplistic. 2) A second checklist (EPIC- FD -92) regarding Allentown was prepared on 28 March 1979 and pertains to zoning for the annexation area. The checklist is not signed, though my guess is that it was pre- pared by an OCD staff planner. Again, a final DNS was issued without a prior written thr.eshold,Teview. Neither does the re- cord show that a proposed DNS was circulated to the other agencies with jurisdiction as is required by the SEPA guidelines. 3) The extent and complexity of environmental investigation in the record to date is probably inadequte in terms of the requirements of SEPA and the basic information needed by city officials to determine the technical feasibility of serving Allentown upon completion of the annexation process. If during the course of the Allentown lawsuit we were not attacked on the adequacy of SEPA com- pliance, we probably could have been. The ultimate decision of non - significance may be defensible; however, the lack of a writ- ten rationale hampers the appearance of a complete and orderly review process. Memorandum Allentown Environmental Review Page 2 As an example of the difficulties with the present checklist, both files suggest in nebulous terms that traffic, noise, and utility impacts may result from post- annexation development; however, the direction, timing and magnitude of that growth is not identified, even though most of the probable new development will occur on light - industrial zoned lands juxtaposed with existing single family use areas. Inadequacy of existing infrastructure is not identified, such as direct discharge of sewage ef- fluent to the river as was disclosed five years earlier during the BRB's investigation of the Allentown proposal. Finally, the environmental pro- cess does not include any realistic assessment of the city's fiscal capability of providing municipal services to the annexation area, or any possible alternative service configurations which might be sought on a cooperative basis with outside agencies now operating in the area. 4) In fairness to the staff, it should be noted that a significant amount of environmental data appears in the departmental report for the Allentown Zoning action (79- 11 -CA). This data will serve as a solid basis on which to conduct a more detailed study of the environmental aspects ofi: any re- vived effort to annex Allentown. A detailed scope -of- review should pre - ceed any serious debate before the City. Council on this matter. CITY OF TUKWILA 1 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: George Gomez 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 4504 South 124th Seattle, Washington 98178 Phone: 762 -7971 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: February 28, 1979 City of Tukwila Proposed Allentown Annexation 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): Annexation of approximately 4 /10th of a square mile 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): Property is located north of the present City limits. All property would be affected by annexation and proposed Tukwila zoning regulations. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: September 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 NO X (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO X (c) Building permit YES NO X • • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit (f) Sign permit (g) Water hook up permit (h) Storm water system permit (i) Curb cut permit (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: King County Boundary Review Board approval. YES NO X YES NO X YES NO X YES NO X YES NO X YES NO X YES NO X YES NO X 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: NO 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: N/A 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? -2- YES MAYBE NO X YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X (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, inlet or lake? Explanation: x 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? x (b) The creation of objectionable odors? x (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x Explanation: 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? X (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X -3- • • (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- able for public water supplies? Explanation: 4. 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: YES MAYBE NO 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)? x (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? x (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Explanation: • YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? x Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? x Explanation: Tukwila will probably implement its Comprehensive Plan in developing proposed zoning regulations. These may vary from King County's present zoning. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? x 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: 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: 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) Alterations 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: 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 • . YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services ?. X Explanation: (a) The City would propose a contract with Fire Dist. #1 for them to continue providing fire services. (b) Police protection would change from King County to Tukwila. (d) Tukwila may be requested by King County to assume maintenance of any park properties. (e) Tukwila would take over road maintenance. (f) Depending on the desires of Water Dist. #25, the City may take over the water system. The area presently is 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: unserviced for sewers. (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 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? X x Explanation: (c) The City, if it takes over Water Dist. #25, would assess the condition of the water system and develop a program for repair and replacement as needed consistent with financial constraints. (d) The area is presently on septic tanks. In order for this to change the people in the area would have to request sewers or the King County Health Dept. would have to declare the septic tanks to be a health hazard. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X Explanation: • • 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? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? 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: YES MAYBE NO 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. -AY -77 nature and Title l J Date -8- x x X