Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-86 - MELIN JOHN - WESTERN ATHLETIC CLUBWESTERN ATHLETIC CLUB ENTRANCE TO Vf DENT EPIC- FD -86 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /FINAL DECLARATION OF /NON-SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Western Athletic Chub Proponent John T. Melin /Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. Location of Proposal Interurban Avenue Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No EPIC -FD -86 This proposal has been determined to (III1/not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (11/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 16 August 1979 Signature COMMENTS: 1. This negative delcaration is conditional subject to future develop- ments on the property requiring separate traffic analysis based upon the type of land use and mitigating measures to be provided as neces- sary. Reference Short Plat MF #79 -7 -SS. 11) -1\n/ubj, ) (01 yq CITY OF TUKWILA • ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME: we, s-}Er f Qk h )' +l C, Otu b Short P) o± PROJECT ADDRESS: �l+''(fnce `}�� t, rpCx.r)-. DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: k4 nr-laxrGh 1 q -Z 9 1. DEPARTMENN1 L REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) 04iiilding: 911 --1- / if % 7 by: X. / ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Manning: by: El Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: q • • CITY OF TUKHIILA • ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME: OieS C.rn CU:hIPkLLOLU-10/..h rb )O # 79 1- S PROJECT ADDRESS: C P -i0 T1 Den par DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: m oir C 1 9 7 C %Q 013) 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) ❑ B�u'"lding: by: Qingineering: ) by: *27 99 ❑ Fire: , by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑. Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: • CITY OF TUKW^WILA • ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM • PROJECT NAME: (k )es-1-err- Oth C_,C1 uIb / /)11 0 r t Rat 79 -7.3 PROJECT ADDRESS: Eiin+ran C EL. �O -roY' b •2 en t Pax DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: P-1 flay-c)' 1979 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) ❑ Building: by: ❑ En ineering: by: renFire: 3 .21/1 `7 by: ❑ Planning: by: V ❑.Police: .by: (reviewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENT''° elkneltLi6 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: eaCIAtw,c� DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 3l /4/7Q CITY OF TUKWILA • ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM C ` u6 .�I o,ef gat 7c7- 7- s n.ct- aeNt-- PQek 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) ❑ Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ F're: by: Planning: by: ❑. Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM 7"1-7-S5 PROJECT NAME: Wes- - n PICar PROJECT ADDRESS: T f C P --r--ny t T� K Q C ) DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: I �{ I'YIC c h (� % I (790 0 1 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: 0 Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Pl ping: by: Police: 7_,Ap by: (date) (reviewer) 2. ANY' PERTINENT COMMENTS: L (4 .}, JJ ta) ''s ( 1, s • 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: John T. Melin 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: c/o Western Athletic Clubs. Inc. 150 Greenwich, San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 781 -1874 3. Date Checklist Submitted: March 2, 1979 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila Planning Department 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Seattle Athletic Club /Southcenter 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): (See attached text) 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): (See attached text) 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: December 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 N0 (d) Puget Sounlir Pollution Control Permit • YES NO X (e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO (f) Sign permit YES NO X (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: State Fisheries Hydraulic Project Application X 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity -related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: (See attached) 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: Short Plat Application, Shoreline Substantial Development Application. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) YES MAYBE NO 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? X (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -2- X X • YES MAYBE 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, inlet or lake? Explanation: (See attached) 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate," either locally or regionally? Explanation: (See attached) 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? (e) 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? -3- 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- able for public water supplies? Explanation: (See attached) 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: (See attached) 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: (See attached) -4- YES MAYBE NO X X X X X X • 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: (See attached) 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: (See attached) 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: (See attached) 9. 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: (See attached) 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 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: (See attached) 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: (e) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO X X X X X X X (f) Other governmental services? Explanation:. (See attached) 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: (See .attached) 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: (See attached) 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO X X X X 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? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: (See attached) 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 X 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 I. BACKGROUND 6. The proposed action is a short plat procedure for property as described on Figure A, attached. The property would be divided into three par- cels, Parcel 1 (1.044 acres), Parcel 2 (4.525 acres), and Parcel 3 (7.991 acres). The short plat procedure is for the purpose of facili- tating potential future development, with no other impacts anticipated. The environmental impacts described in this checklist pertain: to the development proposed for Parcel 1 only. The proposed development is an athletic facility, about 23,000 square feet in size, two stories, with an exterior of glass and wood siding and extensive landscaping. The facility would be utilized by a private membership of about 1,500.persons and would offer twelve racquetball courts, swimming pool, sauna and jacuzzi, basketball court /gymnasium, exercise and weight room, snack bar and lounge. The site plan and building design are not finalized at this time, nor are grading or drainage plans for the site. Compliance with the appli- cable jurisdictional codes, provisions and restrictions would be the responsibility of the developer. 7. The development site (Parcel 1) is located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, T.23N., R.4E.W.M., and is bordered on the northwest and northeast by Parcel 2, on the southeast by Parcel 3, and on the south- west by the County right -of -way entrance to Fort Dent Athletic Center. The site is currently cleared of natural vegetation and covered with artificial fill derived from the construction of I -405. The extent of land affected by the potential environmental impacts includes Parcels 2 and 3, the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard. and SR 181 (Interurban Avenue) and the local arterial network, adjacent parcels of land may experience some minor impact, as may the ambient air in the immediate vicinity. The proposed development is compatible with the uses desig- nated for the site (City of Tukwila Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan) and with the adjacent Fort Dent park. 10. Parcel 2, just northeast of the proposed development site, will be retained for possible future expansion, possibly in conjunction with the King County Parks Department and Fort Dent. No plans exist at this time. II. Environmental Impacts 1. Earth (b): The site is filled and has been generally leveled, although some minor grading will be required prior to construction. Grading plans are not completed at this time, but will conform to King County and City of Tukwila standards. (c): There will be some filling for construction of the structure and parking lots. (e): Erosion potential would be slight, since the site is fairly level. There might be a slight temporary increase in the potential for soil erosion during construction phases of development, but would be miti- gated by proper construction techniques. On project completion, land- scaping will further mitigate any erosion potential. 2. AIR (a): The major source of air pollution would be carbon monoxide emission from vehicular activity. The ambient air quality is currently approaching or is at the eight -hour standard. The increase as a result of the proposed development would be minor and relatively unnoticeable when compared to emissions from the surrounding freeway and arterial activity. Vehicular emissions have been decreasing by about 7% per year as a result of federal regulations, and are expected to continue to offset future increases in traffic volume. Solid waste would be removed by a disposal company; no incineration would occur as a result of the proposal. 3. WATER (b): The increase in impervious surfaces on the site would increase the rate of storm water runoff. This runoff would be directed to the existing storm drainage system in the Southcenter Blvd. right -of -way, which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase; the system was designed to serve future development at this site. 4. FLORA (a) & (c): An on -site investigation of vegetative communities and species was conducted. The site is primarily abandoned pasture and is presently covered with a variety of common grasses and weeds. The majority of these would be eliminated and replaced with species used in landscaping of lawns and gardens, some new to the site. 5. FAUNA (a) & (d): An on -site investigation indicated that the site presently supports a wide variety of common small wildlife species, such as rab- bits, mice, moles, swallows and song birds. Many of these would be eliminated by removal of habitat in the area of development. Design and construction standards will be observed in order to avoid significant impact to the aquatic habitat of the Green River. The habitat and species found on the site are common; the site does not offer suitable habitat for any known rare or endangered species. 6. NOISE There will be a slight increase in noise levels resulting from human activity on the site, but the increase will be barely discernible in relation to the intensive activity which currently surrounds the site (automobile and truck traffic, railroad activity and recreation events) and in relation to the potential uses on adjacent parcels also desig- nated for commercial uses. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Localized low level lighting sources will be introduced to the site for safety and security purposes, and will conform to City of Tukwila stan- dards. 8. LAND USE The site is currently vacant and overgrown. The proposed development will commit the land to developed uses for the foreseeable future. The . proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code desig- nations, and with the uses designated for adjacent parcels. • 9. NATURAL RESOURCES (a): Typical amounts of building materials and construction will be consumed in construction phases. Long -term energy commitments would be minor. "Consumption would be similar to those required to meet this demand at an alternative site. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION (a): Although the proposed development is expected to have a membership of about 1,500, there will be only 12 racquetball courts, so the maximum usage at any one time is expected to be about 40 to 50 people. Peak hours for the proposal are expected to be from about 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM and from about 4:30 PM to 8:30 PM. The afternoon peak hour traffic at the intersection of SR 181 (Interurban Ave.) and Southcenter Blvd. is currently congested and the proposal will add slightly to that conges- tion. However, signalization and left turn lanes have been designed into the arterial system to handle future development to the east of this intersection. Based on the growth rate from 1972 to 1977 on the south leg of that intersection (currently the most heavily travelled, and the major link for Fort Dent and the proposed development), the estimated average daily traffic would be about 21,050 in 1979. In a "worst case" situa- tion, the peak hour of 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM would include about 1,800 vehicles on the south leg of that intersection, including approximately 150 cars bound for five or six athletic activities at Fort Dent, plus 70 to 80 cars arriving and leaving the proposed development. This situa- tion would mean an approximate 3% increase over projected . peak hour traffic. There will be no impact to off -site parking, as parking will be provided on -site in accordance with the City of Tukwila Zoning Code. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES (a) & (b): the proposed develoment will require some additional fire and police service. The City of Tukwila Fire and Police Departments have been contacted and foresee no problem in serving the development. Fire - resistant construction and sprinkler systems as required will mitigate chances of fire occurrence. 15. ENERGY (b): Construction equipment will consume electricity and fossil fuel in typical amounts for this type of construction. Long -term energy requirements for operation of the development will be minor. 16. UTILITIES All utilities (electrical power, telephone, water, sewer and storm drainage) are currently available to the site; only service hookups to existing systems will be necessary to implement the proposed development. The proposed development will be an all- electric facility. Electrical lines currently exist within the Southcenter Blvd. right- of -way, originally designed for development of the parcels east of SR 181. The lines have a five megawatt capacity, and the maximum demand from a facility of the type proposed would be about one megawatt. Puget Sound Power and Light, the company responsible for installation and mainten- ance, has been contacted and foresees no problem in serving the addi- tional demand. A telephone cable also exists in the Southcenter Blvd. right -of -way and Pacific Northwest Bell foresees no problems in servic- ing the proposed development. (f): Solid waste would be removed by a disposal company. 19. RECREATION The proposed development will complement the function of the adjacent Fort Dent facilities and provide a wider variety of recreational experiences available in that location.