Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-147-80 - WYNN HAROLD - REZONEWYNN REZONE S 152S ST, EAST OF MACADAM RD EPIC- 147 -80 CITY OF/TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /FINAL DECLARATION OF _ Y r a. /iNON —S I Gfil F I CA JCE Description of proposal Rezone.of 5.0 acres from R -1 to R -4 Proponent Harold Wynn Location of Proposal Lead Agency So. 152nd St. east of Macadam Rd. City of Tukwila File No.EPIC- 147 -80 This proposal has been determined to (km /not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (W /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 Mark Caughey Position /Title Acting Planning Director Date 7 October 1980 Signature COMMENTS: This declaration of non- significance pertains only to the legislative act of rezoning the subject property to a more - intensive residential use categroy. The Responsible Official reserves the option to perform a,separate threshold determination for any project submitted for approval following the rezone action, and to require thereby completion of an expanded checklist or completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Wynn Rezone, S. 152nd St. (EPIC- 147 -80) PROPOSED PROJECT: 76 Units on 5.0 - acres in Condominium Ownership - Request for Rezoning from R -1 to R -4 This threshold determination is limited in scope to the "legislative act" of rezoning, and the resulting impacts from that decision. A separate threshold determination, using the existing Environmental Data Base contained in File EPIC - 147 -80, and such additional information as required by the Responsible Official, will be made on the technical particulars of any project proposed pursuant to the rezone action. The subsequent, project- specific threshold determination may result in the need to prepare an "Expanded Checklist" addressing specific impact areas, or a full Environmental Impact Statement. This reasoning is based on the Court's opinion in Ullock v. Bremerton, 17 Wn. App. 573, 565 p.2d 1179 (1977) which held that "non- project rezoning has been held not to require an EIS as long as the (City) Council retains the authority to require such an evaluation at the project permit stage." IMPACT EVALUATION: Rezoning Action The legislative action of rezoning the Wynn site will have its most immediate effect on Section II -8 of the checklist: Land Use. The applicants have responded correctly that the rezone proposal to multi- family residential will have no significant associated impact. This finding is supported by reference to the Comprehensive Plan which calls for intensified residential uses on the Wynn site. It is also noteworthy that the proposed density of 15 D.U. /Ac. is significantly less than that already existing on nearby multi - family parcels. For these reasons, it is fair to conclude that the Wynn rezone will not alter present or planned land use patterns in the immediate vicinity, and will not require a major policy commitment unanticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION The proposed Wynn .rezone should be granted a Declaration of Non - Significance, with the stipulation that the City reserves the option to require preparation of an expanded Environmental Checklist (WAC- 197 -10 -360) or a complete Environmental Impact Statement for any specifc project proposed subsequent to the subject rezone. SW- kL&(i't'UJ4 6EPA 0e,kriewivtaliow koliwou, lit I V. 1w1g CWMI14 CO VAA, _ itomi revs Ow -flu- oke/re -lo a v e utt-6, otifita Guive tiwkd salmi., -IV, iitAkurtul ta vut3 wt (A4 flu, 64 ikr -1- _4a/1,w 16 tuik/ vt1A,vekAA,f ma. a vu/1 --1-6 P tv re IAA Id tmi1vt,a2h 0 vts V11 of Gi siomf 4L4L avt,t e citti ditt iw 0 sy_ f ve,1 leAm.vaf otusi are reAxvait4.1- 11,v, DcaAMA I pckwf Jo LA 'IAA- c/1/1 41At ea.+ to vi it a,m1Y., tta,V tr3U twvi rot/mm-1-1d e, gcci5 vt fc- 1 1k 11^{- M(a) _ aho qa,am,441-a11v (Lew eri-c fikvirivivw#114 + -PAL a-thm „ 1 p', tutdA-Fioani :In, Ata clii 9 KA 1614A4-h1 oito 4-0A, 0 i wo vo i A t/L 4 fi ca,m,e_ vtt Ai " cUturli cr to rt-e-6 US 4 0 PoIn , i _ 41AL Co tAA f i GUM ti fi. e 4 c0 lAkt, tAC to vs vi/kR)A ,r WI im et ham' A i a44 WIA, S i Ct, i t C1 I I4A 1 A ' OL C ' _ t WA VI alM : 1 . lriu, ki H. e( cm ct. ilpt 4ofteAft ,oci J -h. 9 aAAA -fikt, tvv:)ove,91 A7 gri 114, I irtz to Aei hiaii ilkt_ J i-k, il '-frcoufortAiu0; , . l r Gi 4-1 ci __I vt,-1-c vts i ft, or i c a Le_ 45:f 114-t- r 0 Y C 4 rroitcf_c 51 Lc_ 0 f art 0,/ llut. A 1 r u, 40 %AAA* . AL rro,F a, I am fiff-u Its 4 u c, a f utAG 114 fitt- if):0h9 mr64; tot4 YeAw.c. f ��/1 01'11 _ w Ins cif 5 =k_ dil.4.±1.- 5 . 61tkitiliMCVL tfActs c.o%(S GUJttAS1:5d 7-7r 1144. J a�%i _ a v�o �(.�ar 112-A, !te-Ii u e -114 i i A.S 2 - 11A -a_t 16._ tit e- rt IAA l d -1 roulA av� was .etrbine- OtiLS. o rw t l S c a. pc.. i s ccY u t.L a, di l4 v cwt. .1- y o u- r amiti c J e s (Nu, f( z./ p o vt s b 1, G r u rt. S14,43 t& t. d = 1 w vii t4A,M,-f- Am..) , 1 t 1 1 a T I Q, (Akk a VI y -c- i - i 1. Issued bi- s $2. Direct :ice, Olympia, istribu- cr hitney •� �/p�ae *0 <Ew July 1976] NORWAY HILL v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL Page 280 280 267 . 267 280 267 280 280 267 267 267 267 267 [No. 44015. ^- En Banc. July 8, `1976.] NORWAY HILL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, Appellant, V. KING COUNTY COUNCIL, ET AL, Respondents. [1] Environment —SEPA— Purpose —In General. SEPA, the environ- mental policy act, requires that the consideration of environmental values and a disclosure of environmental effects . from proposed actions be factors. in governmental decision making. [2] Administrative Law and Procedure — Judicial Review — Clearly Er- , roneous Test — Scope. Application of the clearly erroneous test upon judicial review of an administrative action (RCW 34.04.130(6)(e)) encompasses the entire record and all evidence noted therein, and } incorporates the p public policy of applicable legislative enactments into the standard of review. • ~' [3] Environment —SEPA— Impact Statement— Necessity— Negative De- '., termination— Review. An administrative determination that there is no necessity for an environmental impact statement under SEPA is properly reviewed by the courts under both the "clearly erroneous" and "arbitrary or capricious" tests. [4] Administrative Law and Procedure - Judicial Review — Clearly Er- - - . roneous Test — Supporting Evidence. The presence in the record of supporting evidence for an agency determination does not prevent " -. a conclusion, upon judicial review, that a .mistake has been made •.. c in reaching such a determination. Environment--SEPA—Impact Statement — Necessity— Negative De- . ;k;;` , termination— Environmental Factors. An agency determination that 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 1978... • . 268 NORWAY •I ]LL.;.v.;KIN COJNTY • .COUNCIL (July 1976 • a proposed action has no environmental significance, and, that no SEPA impact statement is necessary, cannot be made without actual consideration of the environmental factors involved and the environmental policy of SEPA. • [6] Administrative Law and Procedure— Judicial Review— Standards — Application. Upon appeal from a superior court's review of an administrative determination, an appellate court employs the same standards as properly apply in the superior court review and * : applies, them directly against the administrative decision. [7] Environment— SEPA — Impact Statement — Significant Effect —What • Constitutes. Generally, a 'proposed action will significantly affect the environment, so as to require an environmental impact state- .'.ment under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c), whenever there is a reasonable probability that it will have more than a moderate effect on the _• quality of the environment. A complete ,change in the use of a ' large area will generally significantly affect the environment. [8] Environment — SEPA — Impact Statement — Necessity — Alternate Procedures. No matter how extensive an agency's fully_informed • determination'fis,'•if a .proposed; action „will 'significantly affect the : environment,,,then an environmental impact statement is required., DoLLn!ER,J., did not participate:iri' the disposition of•this case.; • ' • • • • ;,.''Appeal from a. judgment• of the Superior Court for King • . _County,,No.•7.77177; James ; .W. Mifflin, J., entered' August 2,' ■ • 1974:'Reversed..' ..,. u : • , ;,:c;�;:. , • Action to. 'review. a determination of a county .council. -•�, The,, plaintiff,; appeals; from;• a: judgment'in favor: of the de- ._ :1 A .. . "r:: Riddell,,. .Williams,- lvie,1 Bullitt & Walkinshaw and Stim- son Bullitt, for appellant. `Christopher ' Z'.'' Bayleyf' Prosecuting ;Attorney, and John . Keegan, Deputy,,for respondent King County Council. Bogle' & Gates, 'by•'Philip K. Sweigert,• and Robert W. Graham for respondent,Woodside Corporation.• ' HUNTER,; J.- Appellant;'' Norway Hill Preservation and • Protection.. Association (Norway Hill Association) peti- tinned the King County Superior Court for a'.writ of 'certio- rari to,.areview the decision'? of :respondent King ,County Cotilicil'approving` a preliminary plat - for Norway' Vista, a roposedhousing subdivision. Appellant: specifically chal - C July 1976] NORWAY HILL; v. KING, COUNTY COUNCIL; lenged the Council's deterrriination that 'an ^environmental ' impact statement was not required. By stipulation, respon- dent Woodside Corporation, the project developer, was al- lowed to intervene. The Superior Court denied the writ of • certiorari and Norway Hill Association appealed from that judgment. Norway Vista; the subject. of the preliminary plat•'con= sists of 52.3 'acres located just south' of the city of Bothell. The tract itself • is heavily wooded and is part of a larger:.' vacant and heavily wooded area that extends to the west. Adjoining properties to the east and south of '• the subject tract have been developed to an urban residential density.' (approximately four dwelling units per acre). To the north, . the land has been cleared and there are scattered resi- dences on 1 /2 -to 3 -acre parcels. While not within the city .limits of Bothell, the subject tract is nevertheless covered _y that s comprehensive plan: The proposed plat plan for Norway Vista provides for the creation of 198 lots, each. with a single - family dwelling. The plat plan. describes an urban -type development with full improvements including sanitary 'sewers, curb and gutter streets, sidewalks, . and. The King County Council and' its administrative depart -, ments, pursuant to applicable county ordinances, gave ex- tensive consideration to the Norway Vista preliminary plat application. In its preliminary report, which was issued and • sent to the county zoning and subdivision • examiner on June 5, 1973, the Land Use Management Division of' the County Department of Planning recommended approval of the Norway Vista plat subject to certain conditions.' The , report also stated that the director of the Land Use Man- agement Division had determined that an environmental impact statement was not necessary. The county zoning and subdivision examiner held a public hearing2 that com menced on June 12,.1973, and was continued over to June .; 22, 1973, and June 25, 1973. On. July 2, 1973, the examiner'; underground utilities. • 'See King County Code 20.16.120. 'See King County Code 20.24.120. 270 KI NORWAY HILL v. KI G COUNTY. COUNCIL [July 1976 - ' issued his report 'to the King County 'Council in which he • recommended approval of the preliminary plat •application and concurred with the earlier determination that an envi- • yonmental impact statement was not necessary. • •:.. • ;Norway Hill 'Association.; appealed from this decision to the 'King County Council' and the Council remanded the matter: back to the Land Use Management Division for • : reconsideration,In light :of a soils 'study received after the previous 'hearings:, -On September • 4; .1973, the Land Use ••• Management .Division submitted an addendum to its . ,•• ..vious report and again recommended approval of the plat application, subject to conditions, and stated that no envi- • ronmental impact statement was necessary. The county zoning' and subdivision examiner held hearings in regard to the remand 'ow- September 4 and 18, .1973. The examiner's I findings, conclusions, and recommendations, which he is- . t. • ' sued on September 25, 1973, recommended approval subject to , conditions and stated that an ,:environmental impact ,statement was, not necessary. ' • ". . ' • .'• ".- The matter was againl appealed to the King County Council.rFollowing consideration on December 12, 1973, the Council requested another environmental assessment from ,,,t the Land Use Management Division in light of King ; County ordinance No '1700, which had become effective October 26,.1973.4..On 'January. 3, 1974, the Land Use Man- . agement Division issued its environmental assessment in which it recommended approval of the proposed • subdivi- sion, subject to stated conditions, and determined • that approval of the subject application would not consti- .1. t. tute ,a major action significantly effecting the quality of the environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact • Statement is not required. • • On.February 4, 1974, the King County Council accepted the zoning and subdiyision examiner's report of September 25, 1973. The. Council concurred in the examiner's recommen- i.„.. ati5, and,.,accordingly, approved the Norway Vista pre- • !See King County Code 21.24.190. • ; See King County Code 20.44.010-.170. • , c July 1976] : NORWAY HILL, v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL'. liminary plat, subject to the• conditions contained:?in • the examiner's recommendations., .. :. Following this decision, the Norway Hill Association pe' titioned the Superior Court for a writ of . certiorari, assert- ing '. that the King County Council had acted unlawfully in..: approving the preliminary plat' without requiring an envi - :1: „• ronmental impact, statement pursuant to •RCW- 43.21C .030(2) (c) before making its decision to grant approval:: The judgment of the Superior Court denied . the writ and made the following determination: The responsible officials for King County, in' consider ing the environmental impact of the proposed Norway: Vista plat and in determining that,the Norway Vista plat was not a major action significantly affecting the quality,; '• of. the environment and in approving the Norway Vista'. • preliminary plat „complied fully with the requirements of • the State Environmental Policy Act and acted reasonably • and not arbitrarily and capriciously. The dispositive and important issue presented' in this' • appeal is the proper scope of judicial review applicable to a'. determination made pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), that because the, government,;. action in question would not significantly affect the quality of the environment, no environmental impact statement is . required. Respondents King County Council and Woodside Corporation contend that the "arbitrary • or capricious • standard of review is correct, and, therefore, the Superior Court correctly, reviewed the .matter. Appellant Norway Hill Association, on the other hand, argues . that county approval of the preliminary plat was "a major action -sig nificantly affecting the environment" • and, consequently,. the Superior Court should have required an impact • state ment under a broader standard of review. As discussed below, we feel that determinations of no significant impact un er_SElA —i:e.— neg five threshold determinations,” re= •quire a reasonably broad standard of review. We believe-, that in addition to the "arbitrany_or-eapr -ici standard, . the broader . "clearly erroneous" standard of review is ap- propriate. Furthermore, we find that the King County 272: • NORWAY. HILL v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL [July 1976 Council's determination that approval of the Norway Vista plat did not require an environmental, impact statement ". was "clearly erroneous." [1].' In deciding upon the proper scope of judicial review applicable to "negative threshold determinations" made pursuant to ,SEPA, it is important to _consider the_broad, public policy promoted by that act. Briefly stated, the pro- cedural cedural provisions of SEPA constitute an environmental . full disclosure law. The act's procedures promote the policy of fully informed decision making by government bodies • ° when undertaking "major actions significantly affecting the quality of the: environment." See RCW 43.21C.010; RCW 43.21C.030. We have recognized that not all actions . are "major actions significantly affecting the quality of tFie_ en-_ ° yironment, ",`see• Eastlake Community-Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 475, 491,513 P.2d 36 (1973), and we have also recognized that "SEPA does not demand any particular substantive result in governmental decision m_ ak = iing ,"" Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d -,109, 118, 508 P.2d 166 (1973) ; see Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., supra at 497 & n.6. Yet it is elea that_the_mQst impnrtan . acnert of SEPA is the consideration of environ_mentat values In essence, what SEPA requires, is that the "presently . unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic - and technical considerations." RCW 43.21C.030(2) (b). It is an attempt by the people to shape :their future environment by deliberation, not default. (Italics ours.) Stempel v: Department of Water Resources, supra at 118; see Loveless v.'Yantis, 82 Wn.2d 754, 765, 513 P.2d 1023 (1973). ' ' : • The mechanism through. 'which this environmental con- ' sideration is ' accomplished is the detailed environmental' •statement required by RCW •43.21C.030(2) (c). y [The environmental impact statement] is the basis upon which the responsible agency and officials can make the ',balancing .judgment.; mandated'. by SEPA between; the. July'1976] NORWAY • HILL 'v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL': 273:. • benefits to• be gained by' the proposed "major action ">and its impact upon the environment. . • Juanita Bay Valley Community A'ss'n v.: Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 68, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973) . • • In order to achieve this public policy it is important that an environmental impact statement be prepared in all ap- propriate cases. As a result, the initial determination by the' "responsible official," see RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c), as..to, whether the action is a "major action significantly affecting • talkthe quality of the environment" is very important. The • policy of the act, which is simply to insure via a "detailed statement" the full disclosure of environmental information so that environmental matters can be given proper consid- eration during decision making, is thwarted whenever. an incorrect "threshold determination" is made. The determi- nation that an action is not a "major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment" means that the 'doled impact statemelfrof:_ SEPA is not equixed —b€fe e- the action is taken or the_ decision is made. Consequently„.... " [w] ithout a _judicial •, check,Tthe ,.temptation_ would be to. short- circuit the process by setting statement thresholds as' high as possible within the vague bounds of the arbitrary or capricious standard." Anderson, The National Environ -' mental Policy Act, in Federal Environmental Law 361 • (1974) ; 'see Note, Threshold Determinations Under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA: The Case For "Reasonableness" As A Standard For Judicial. Review, 16 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 107, ' 109 (1975). For the reasons stated 'above, we feel 'that. judicial review of "negative threshold determinations" beyond that pro= vided under the "arbitrary or capricious" standard is neces - • sary. A "negative threshold determination" is more than a simple finding of fact because the correctness of a no signif- icant impact determination is integrally linked to the act's, • mandated public policy of environmental consideration.. ' In addition to the familiar "arbitrary or capricious" Stan- •dard of review, the administrative procedure act sets out ' • the "clearly erroneous" standard. See RCW 34.04.130(6) e). 274! NORWAY HILL v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL [July 1976 • A reviewing court may reverse an administrative decision • , if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have_teeP prejudiced aTaTse the adirTinrstigiVe • -infer- ences ; conclusion, or decisions are:. • • (e) :clearly_erzoiseouS„in—view-Lot_the entire record as submitted and,the public policy contained in_the_aet_of, • authonziiiithiCaTgron or order . . RCW 34.04.130(6) (e)..- We defined this standard in Ancheta • . v. Daly,‘77W4.2d 255; 259;461 P.2d 531 (1969) : Perhaps the best description of the "clearly erroneous" test was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in TrUnited States v:United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, -='41395,' 92.1.;.• Ed:-746; 766, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542 (1948): "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evi- ;;clence' .to,.support it, the reviewing court on the *entire .,..„..';exidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." , • .• ••••;:' ,; • ,..,.Accord, Farm Supply Distribs., Inc. t. State tJtzl & Transp. 83 Wn.2d 446, 449, 518 P.2d 1237 (1974) , [2] The "clearly erroneous" , standard , provides a broader review than the "arbitrary or capricious" standard -:because. it mandates a review of the entire record and all the evidence rather than just a search for substantial evi- Ydence to support the administrative finding or decision!' See Ancheta v. Daly, supra, at 259, 260; Department of :,Ecology v. Kirkland, 8 Wn. App. 576, 580, 508 P.2d 1030 aff'd on other grounds, 84 Wn.2d 25; 523 P.2d 1181 (1974); Williams v. Young, 6 Wn. App. 494, 497, 494 P.2d 508' (1972). Judicial review under the "clearly erroneous': standard set outin_RC.W,34.04.130 (6) (e) _alsoc.requires con- . , „.;.: sideration of the "public policy 'contained in the act of the . legislature authorizing the decision." See Ancheta v. Daly, • , , • 'In an appropriate case an administrative decision could be "arbi- , trary or capricious," e.g., where there is no evidence in the record to - , support it, and yet not be "clearly erroneous." See Stempel v. Depart- . ment of Water Resources, 82 Wn.2d 109, 114, 508 P.2d. 166 (1973). ,Nevertheless, as this opinion indicates, both standards of review are ,applicable to "negative threshold determinations," and therefore, a determination that is "arbitrary or capricious" but not "clearly erro- neous",could.not be sustained.v ,1% • ; ;, July 1976] NORWAY. HILL v. KING' COUNTY COUNCIL• supra at 260 -61. Consequently, that public 'policy is "a part_ of the standard of review." See Schuffenhauer v.: Depart -: ' ment of Employment Security, 86. Wn.2d,233, 235, 543 P.2d 343 (1975). '.. [3 -5] We feel that the . "clearly erroneous ". standard. 'of ' ',. ' review set out in RCW 34.04.130 (6) (e) provides an appro- priate scope of review in the area of . "negative threshold. determinations" , under SEPA. That standard will allow; a reviewing court to give substantial weight to the agency. determination as required by RCW 43.21C.090, yet. at the same time it will allow, a reviewing court to consider prop -.' erly "the public policy contained in the act of the legisla ture authorizing the decision or order:" , ; ; •As stated above, the public policy contained in' SEPA ,is". consideration of environmental values.. To this end SEPA requires in appropriate cases a detailed • environmental im- . pact statement before decisions are made. The "clearly er -. roneous" standard of review permits , judicial scrutiny of "negative threshold determiations" to prevent: frustration of this policy. A determination of no ,significant environmental impact "can be held to be `clearly .erroneous' if, despite supporting evidence, the reviewing court on the' can firmly , conclude .`a, ..'mistake ; has been committed.' " Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, supra at 114, quoting Ancheta v. Daly, supra at 260.. . • In addition to public policy . considerations,. the "clearly' erroneous" standard also permits judicial scrutiny "in view of the entire record as submitted ... .." RCW 34.04.130 (6.) (e) . The SEPA policies of full disclosure and consideration of environmental =values re _ u ire actual .con-. `sideration of environmental factors before a determination; of no environmental si nificance can be made. See Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. Kirkland,. supra at .73; cf.:,. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 483 F.2d ; •1275, 1282 _ (D.C. Cir. 1973) ; Narrowsview ..Preservation, Ass'n v. Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 422, 526 P.2d 897. (1974) . As, a result, a reviewing court will always have a complete record upon which to' review a "negative threshold deter • • 276 NORWAY HILL v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL [July 1976 • mination." In the absence of a record sufficient . "to demon- strate that environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with ' the procedural requirements of SEPA," Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. Kirkland, supra, a "negative threshold determination" could not be sustained upon review even under the "arbitrary or capricious" standard because the . determination' would lack sufficient support in the record. See Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, supra at 114. We hold,' therefore, that both the "clearly erroneous" . and "arbitrary or capricious" standards of review set forth in RCW 34.04.130 (6) (e) and (f) are appropriate for judi- cial review of determinations of no significant impact made pursuant to SEPA.° [6] Turning to the present case, we note that an appel- late court, upon appeal from a superior court's application of any particular standard in reviewing an administrative decision, "applies the same standard directly to the admin- llistrative decision." Department of Ecology v. Ballard Elks Lodge, 84 Wn.2d 551, 555, 527 P.2d 1121 (1974); see Farm Supply Distribs., Inc. •v. State 'Util. & Transp. Comm'n, supra at 448. Consequently, it is proper for us, -.having decided 'that the "clearly erroneous" standard is the correct one for reviewing "negative threshold determina- tions, to apply, that standard and review the King County Council's decision in this case, that approval of the prelimi- nary plat for the Norway Vista project "would not consti- tute •a major action significantly effecting the quality of the ' environment." [7] The correctness of the Council's determination, as well as any "negative threshold determination," depends on the definition . and scope of the phrase "significantly ffec: ing" contained in ..RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c) . Unfortunately, • °The result reached in Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. Tacoma, ' ' 84 Wn.2d 416, 526 P.2d 897 (1974) , is not inconsistent with the stan- dards of judicial..review set forth above: However, to the extent that any 'language in • 'that . case ' may. be interpreted as , contrary to the standards of review discussed : in the ; present case, Narrowsview is •hereby :disapproved. • • July 1976] NORWAY HILL v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL • the legislature provided no guidance as to its intended defi -' nition and the courts and administrative agencies have like- wise failed to evolve a precise and complete definition.'. See Recent Developments, 49 Wash. L. Rev. 939, 959 (1974) ; Note, Threshold Determinations Under Section 102(2) (C) of NEPA: The Case For "Reasonableness" As A Standard For Judicial Review, 16 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 107, 111=14 (1975) . In an attempt. to give some definite meaning to this statutory phrase, we have noted that Ci the term "significantly" has been defined to include the ex2minatlon of at least two relevant factors: (1) the . extent to which the action will cause adverse environ- me Tt 1 effects in excess o those created by existing uses in the area and (2) t ie absolute quantitative adverse environmental effects of the action itself, including the cumulative" harm tlat_results from its contribution to existing adverse conditions or uses in the affected area. 1 (Italics ours.) Narrowsview Preservation. Ass'n v. Tacoma,' supra at 423. Still, a precise and workable definition is elusive because judgments in this area are particularly subjective —what to one person may constitute a significant or adverse effect on the quality of the environment may be . . of little or no consequence to another. See Hanly v. Klein - dienst, 471 F.2d 823, 830 (2d Cir. 1972) ; Recent Develop -. ments,' 49. Wash. L. Rev. 960 (1974) . In spite of this diffi- culty, it is clear that the legislature intended that environ- mental values be given full consideration in .government' decision making, and it implemented this policy through the procedural provisions of SEPA which specify the na- ture and extent of the information that must be provided, and which require its consideration, before -a 'decision is 'The legislature has attempted to correct this deficiency by setting up the Council on Environmental Policy and empowering it to adopt definitions and guidelines to aid the interpretation and implementation of SEPA. See RCW 43.21C.100; RCW 43.21C.110. The Council recently adopted the final version of its guidelines, effective January 16, 1976. Because they were not in effect when the controversy in this case arose, we need not consider their validity at this time. We note, however, that regulations covering "threshold determinations" are con -' tained in WAC 197 -10 -300 to 375. 00 NORWAY HILL v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL [July 1976 made. See Loveless v. Yantis, supra at 764; Eastlake Com- :; ,. munity Council f Roanoke Associates, Inc., supra at 487, 490; : Stempel v. `Department of Water Resources, supra at 117 -18; Juanita' Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. Kirkland, supra at 63 -65: Consistent with this policy it would• seem appropriate to state a general guideline rather than attempt a" value -laden definition 'of "significantly." Generally, the procedural requirements of SEPA, which are merely de- / signed to provide full environmental information,,should he 'invoked whenever more than a moderate effect on the qual- ity of the environment is a reasonable probability. See City • of Davis ;v.: Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 673 -74 & • n.16 (9th Cir. 1975). ,,, . .. ; In the present case, the King County Council, after de- termining that no environmental impact statement, • was re- " quired, approved a preliminary plat of a project that would transform a heavily wooded and unpopulated area into a residential suburban neighborhood. The Norway Vista proj- ct involves a large area and a large number of homes, ncluding all the ' necessary amenities. •In addition to its magnitude, the project will constitute a complete change of the use of the existing area. Moreover, certain, reports indi- cated that the project :will create runoff and soil erosion roblems. Based on these undisputed facts, we feel that on its face the Norway Vista project will significantly affect the envi- ronment, and therefore, we are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." See ''A`ncheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259 -60, 461 P.2d 531 (1969). The King County Council's determinatio that a env,.iron. mental impact statement ,was not required was "clear err us oneo"8 Cf. Wyoming Outdoor Coordinating Council v. Butz, 484 F.2d 1244, 1249 (10th Cir. 1973). " °We note that it is not disputed, and there is no question, that approval of the Norway Vista preliminary plat constituted a "major action" within the language of RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c).• See Loveless v. Yantis, 82 Wn.2d 754, 764, 513 P.2d 1023 (1973); Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 475, 490, 513. P.2d 36 (1973)., July 1976] NORWAY HILL; v. KING COUNTY COUNCIL [8] The. fact that the Council extensively 'Considered the matter and issued its_ approval without_xeq, iu ring . an environmental impact statement, onl afteer the im osition of conditions designed to prole t t ,eenyronmen does ,_not change this result. Nor is the fact that Norway Vista is .a logical extension -of nearby deve1opmants and consistent with the county comprehensive plan. determinative. The extent to which such protective conditions are necessary before approval, and a project's consistency with nearby` uses or comprehensive plans, may be considered in evaluat- ing the effect of a government action on the quality of the environment. But the clear mandate of SEPA, and the pur- pose behind the environmental impact statement require - ment, sTco sideration. of en_g oilme,ntaLvalues based on full information before a decision is made. The existence of certain nearby land uses does not mean that_a_simila o e; will not be significant, nor does the imposition of conditions n ullify, for SEPA purposes, the otherwise significant effects of a project or government action. Where the effect is sig- J ns an , envromental impact statement ' in order that 'fu. ull information available before govern- ' , ment action is taken, with or without the imposition of conditions. One of- tie purposes of this complete informa- tion requirement is to help the agency decide what protec - •, five conditions are need ee as a e Community Coun- cif oanoke. Associates, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 475,, 493, 496 -97, 513 P.2d 36 (1973). Since the Norway Vista project on its face involves the size and type of environmental change to which the full information requirement of SEPA was obviously meant to apply, an environmental impact statement should have pre- ceded the decision to approve the preliminary plat applica- tion. The judgment of the Superior Court is hereby reversed. Since the "threshold determination" made by • the King • County Council was "clearly erroneous," this case is re- _ • [No. 46022. En Banc. JUL 101980 STEPHEN HAYDEN, ET AL, Appellants, v. THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, ET AL, Respondents. [ 1 ] Equity -- Laches!-- Elements -- In General. -A party assert- ing laches as a defense •to_a lawsuit must prove that the plaintiff knew or could have known of the facts constituting the cause of action and unreasonably .delayed in commencing . the action to the damage of the defendant. [3] Environment -- Laches -- Applicability as Defense. Laches will constitute a defense to an action raising environmenta -1 challenges to governmental action unless application of the doctrine would prevent a decision on serious procedural or substantive defects in an action affecting an entire community.. Zoning. - -. Rezoning -- Findings of Fact -- Necessity. The requirement of Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, that write =n findings must be entered to support a rezoning deci- sion operates prospectively only. [ a ] Zoning Rezoning -- Basis -- Public Interest. A determi- nation by a zoning authority that there has been a change of circumstances since adoption of a.comprehensive development. plan and a zoning ordinance, and that a rezone would be in the public interest, will not be disturbed by the courts unless it is arbitrary or capricious. 1 (5] Environment -- SEPA -- Impact Statement -- Necessity -- Non - project Zoning. A rezone which carries no specific .con- struction project with it does not require an environmental impact statement if the zoning authority retains the right . to require such an evaluation prior to issuance of a permit. (6] Environment -- SEPA -- Impact Statement -- Necessity -- .Neg-- ative Determination -- Review. A negative threshold deter- mination as to a project's environmental significance requires an evaluation of environmental factors to an extent that constitutes prima facie compliance with SEPA procedural requirements. A reviewing court will give such a decision of a governmental entity substantial weight and will sustain it unless it is clearly erroneous, i_e;t the court concludes after reviewing the entire record that a mistake has. been - made. (7] Environment -- SEPA -- Impact Statement -- Necessity -- Neg- ative Determination -- Written Decision. The validity of a negative threshold determination does not depend upon its . being reduced to writing. Nature of Action: Several individuals challenged a city's rezone of undeveloped land and issuance of a building permit for a portion of the land. Superior Court: The Superior Court for Jefferson. County, No. 9220, Tyler C. Moffett, J. , on August 1 1 , 1978, upheld the action .of the city. 2 Supreme Court: Holding that the plaintiffs were guilty of laches in delaying commencement of the action and that there were no procedural or substantive defects in the city's action, tha. court affirms the judgment. J. Richard Aramburu4 for appellants. Glenn AbrahamL;fcr respondent Port Townsend. Bogle & GatesL Delbert D. Millers and Mary L. Gaudio, for respondent Safeway Stores. Platt Irwin S Collett by Bart G. Irwin and :Stephen _E_ Olivert for respondents Swain. Headnotes copyright 1980 Commission on State Law Reports. } IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STEPHEN HAYDEN and JENEEN HAYDEN, ) his wife; J.J. KIRCHER and EMMA ) LOUISE KIRCHER, his wife; ) KATHERINE LLOYD: ROBERT DE WEESE ) and KIRSTINE DE WEESE, his wife, ) 'Appellants, ) ) • v. ) ) CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND, a ) municipal corporation; SAFEWAY ) STORES, INC., a Maryland corpora- ) tion doing business in the State ) of Washington; H.J. CARROLL; E. ) CAREY HALPIN and JANE DOE HALPIN, ) his wife; COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ) DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Washington ) corporation; CLIFFORD SWAIN and ) BERNICE SWAIN; his wife, ) ) Respondents, ) ) JOHN. DOE and JANE DOE; and ) NORTHWEST FUND FOR THE ) ENVIRONMENT, a Washington non- ) profit corporation, ) ) Third Party Defendants. ) Filed No. 46022 EN BANC _ 1 0 1980 Appellants seek to invalidate (1) a rezone by the City of Port Townsend of 11.94 acres of undeveloped land, and (2) a building permit issued for a portion. of the rezoned property to respondent Safeway Stores, Inc. The trial court upheld the action . of the City. On appeal, the matter was certified here by the Court of Appeals. We affirm the trial court. The land concerned is located in the City of Port Townsend several hundred feet southwest of a small body of water known as Kah Tai Lagoon. It is perhaps a little greater distance north of 46022 - 2 Port Townsend Bay. Sims Way, the principal highway entering the City, borders the property on the south and runs between it and the bay. It is approximately 1. mile from this location to down- town Port Townsend. Prior to the rezone, the land was owned by H.J. Carroll, . a longtime Port Townsend realtor. Formerly a marshy area fre- quently covered by water, the area was used as a disposal site for spoil dredged from the bay. Thereafter, Carroll expended a substantial amount of money in bringing in fill dirt to raise the tract to the approximate level of the highway. The land southwest of the subject property is occupied by an A &W Drive -In and across Sims.Way are several industrial and commercial businesses, including a marina and a lumber yard. This area has been the subject of a number of planning studies. In 1969, the City developed a comprehensive plan for the community under RCW 35.63. A comprehensive zoning ordinance adopted in 1971 . classified the Carroll property P -I, public use. July 14, 1976,. Carroll filed with the City clerk a rezone application and on September 29, under WAC 197 -10 -365, he sub- mitted an environmental checklist to accompany the rezone request'. Carroll sought to'change the classification of his property to C -II, general commercial. . Following Carroll's submission.of the environmental check- list, the matter was referred to the City planning commission. October 25, the planning commission held its hearing on the appli- cation and recommended approval of the rezone to the City council. At public hearings held December 7, 1976 and January 4,: 1977, comments for and • against the rezone were received by the -9- council. Following the hearings, the City council indicated approval of the rezone and on March 1, 1977, it passed ordinance No. 1780 which reclassified the Carroll property C -II. Before the council took the rezone action, the City engi- neer, designated as the City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) administrator, made a threshold determination regarding the rezone application. A negative declaration resulted and no environmental impact statement (EIS) was required., In effect, this was a decision that the rezone was not an action that would significantly affect the environment. This negative threshold declaration was not reduced to writing. Some time after the rezone action, Safeway . entered into an option agreement to buy part of the rezoned land. It sub- mitted an environmental checklist to the City on May 6, 1977, and made known its desire to build a supermarket on the property. At the time of trial, Safeway had expended many thousands of dollars in preparation for construction of such a market. Respondents Swain purchased part of the rezoned property for the purpose of building a department store. The purchase price was $100,000. Swain would not have bought this property • had it not been zoned C -II permitting commercial use of the land. The. City engineer reviewed Safeway's environmental check- list and determined that certain deficiencies existed in its plan for utilizing the property. After a series of meetings involving' various governmental entities, the deficiencies were\ resolved. On October 14, 1977, Safeway submitted a written application for a building permit to the City. A proposed declaration of non- significant environmental impact concerning the Safeway building -3- 46022 - 4 permit was issued October 17, 1977, and duly published. A final declaration of nonsignificance was issued November 7, 1977, and some time after November 16, 1977, Safeway received its building permit. Appellants challenged the rezone and issuance of the building permit by filing an action in Jefferson County Superior Court on December 6, 1977. The matter came on for trial June 5, 1978, and continued'for 4 days. The trial court entered find- ings of fact and conclusions of law on August 11, 1978. The court then dismissed the complaint and held, . inter alia, (1) the action challenging the rezone was barred by laches; (2) formal findings of fact and conclusions as a basis for granting the re- zone were not required as this matter predated Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454,.573 P.2d 359 (1978), where the requirement was prospectively established; (3) the fact that the negative threshold determination was not reduced to writing did not in- validate the rezone; and (4) environmental factors had been con- sidered and no decision of the City was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. I. Laches is an equitable defense bottomed upon estoppel. Conaway v. Co- operative Homebuilders, 65 Wash. 39, 117 P. 716 (1911). The elements of this defense, which its proponent has the burden of proving, consist of: (1) knowledge by plaintiff of the facts constituting a cause of action or reasonable opportunity to discover such facts; (2) unreasonable delay by plaintiff in commencing an action; and (3) damage to the defendant resulting from the delay in bringing the action. Buell v. Bremerton, 80 Wn. • .46022 - 5 2d 518, 522, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972). Here, the decision to rezone was made by the City council January 4, 1977, and the ordinance formally finalizing the matter was adopted 2 months later on March 1. The City planning commis- sion, following a public meeting, had passed favorably upon the requested rezone the previous October 25 and recommended approval of the application to the City council. The council held two public meetings on the rezone. Appellants, or -some of them, at- tended these public meetings. They were aware of the imminence of . the rezone certainly no later than the City council's January 4, 1977 public hearing. As to the first element of laches, there is no question appellants had knowledge. As to the second element, appellants took no legal- action for 11 months -- almost a year. This action was commenced December 6, 1977. Is this an unreasonable delay considering the chronology of events set forth above? The trial court concluded that it was. We do not believe appellants have demonstrated otherwise. Appellants argue the delay in commencing their action was occasioned by the rapid course of events and the confusion as to whether a.building permit would be issued to Safeway. Rather than being an argument for delay, continuous activity would seem to mandate a need for action- -not procrastination. . H.J. Carroll was in the real estate business in Port Town- send and had been for 40 years. Whether appellants knew of his ownership of the 11.94 acres at the time it was being converted from marshy area to filled land does not appear from the. record. There can be no question, however, of their knowledge of the change in character of the land. That change occurred openly, - 5- Y V V L. . - V where all could see. When Carroll applied to rezone the acre- age to C -II in July 1976, it should have been apparent that the ultimate usage of the property would be commercial if the rezone request was granted. That is exactly what began to occur following enactment of the rezone ordinance. Options were executed, plans were formu- lated, environmental concerns were resolved, a building permit . was issued to Safeway, and a portion of the acreage was purchased by the Swains with . the objective of using it commercially. Throughout all this activity, as far as we can determine from the record, appellants gave no indication they would contest the rezone. Clearly, positions had been changed over the ensuing months after it became apparent the rezone would be granted. Just as clearly, should appellants prevail in upsetting the rezone, those . who had . changed their positions in reliance on the validity of the rezone would be damaged. Element No. 3 of the laches doctrine is established. Thus, we believe the trial court was correct when it held that facts of this case support the defense of laches. Nonethe- • less, we are reluctant to rest a decision in an environmental matter affecting an entire community, on laches. Often what is . everybody's business is nobody's business. In the face of serious defects in a rezone action, to estop a community from challenging that action solely because a developer moved with dis- patch while challengers were getting organized, raising funds, selecting an attorney and the like, causes us some. hesitation. -6- ' 46022 - 7 See discussion. in Lopp v. Peninsula School Dist. 401, 90 Wn.2d 754,758 -59, 585 P.2d 801 (1978). In this instance, we find. no defects -- procedural or substantive. II. Questions are raised by appellants concerning the impact . of Parkridge v. Seattle, supra, on this case. Specifically, the City council's failure to make findings and give reasons in . writing for the rezone is questioned. The trial court ruled that such requirement established in Parkridge was prospective and, since the rezone at issue here was adopted before Parkridge was decided, written findings were not mandatory. The trial court was correct. In Parkridge, we held that a rezone of 8 1/2 acres was in the nature of an adjudicatory action rather than legislative, as it is when a city adopts a comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. We said that in such a case the burden of proof is on the propo- nents to show that the rezone bore a reasonable and substantial relationship to promotion . of the public health, safety, morals or the general welfare. As noted below, the trial court found that burden had been satisfied. ` In Parkridge, the rezone would have further restr'icted the rights of the property holder An the use of the lots involved. Here, the rezone expanded the uses which the owner could make of . his property..•In Parkridge, the landowner was protesting the re- zone. Here, it was the landowner who sought the rezone. In Pierce v. King County, 62 Wn.2d 324, 382 P.2d 628 (1963), we extolled the virtues of zoning laws. Nevertheless, at. -7- page 336, we observed: [D]espite the beneficial results and the public necessity involved in the establishment of the zoning laws, they constitute a serious impairment of the right to use and enjoy property, and they do interfere with the possession thereof. Consequently, perhaps it is not necessary to scrutinize as meticulously the relationship between a rezone and the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare when the restrictions on the use of one's property are to be relaxed as when the restrictions are being further circumscribed. - Be that as it may -- here, both the City's planning commis- sion and council, after public hearings, concluded the landowner's application for the rezone was in the public interest and should be granted. No procedural defects exist; both proponents and opponents of the action had input and the decision- making body held that the proponents should prevail. In this instance, Port Townsend had adopted a comprehensive development plan in 1969 and a general zoning ordinance in 1971. As we said in Farrell v. Seattle, 75 Wn.2d 540, 543, 452 P.2d 965 (1969): We also recognize that, although zoning implies a degree of permanency, municipal authorities must be responsive to changing conditions and circum- stances which justify revision of existing zoning classifications. Otherwise, the outdated land use restrictions may become unreasonable, and refusal to amend or modify zoning ordinances could result in arbitrary and unreasonable conduct. Here, the request for rezone (July 1976) comes relatively soon after adoption of the comprehensive development plan and the zoning ordinance. To prevail,•proponents must demonstrate a change of circumstances if a rezone is resisted, as it is in -3 • 46022 - 9 this instance. The trial court held that the change of condition result- ing from much of downtown Port Townsend being designated for historical preservation, taken together with the topography of the City, met the test of changed circumstances warranting a rezone. Compliance with the historical preservation rules leaves insufficient land area available in downtown Port Townsend to accommodate a supermarket the size contemplated by Safeway. Thus, even though the application for . a rezone came within 5 years of adoption of the general zoning scheme, the request is not unreasonable. Where proper procedure is followed, including public hearings, it is for the City council to determine, in the light of changed circumstances, whether the general welfare of the community is furthered by rezoning the 11.94 acres for com- mercial usage. The trial court found nothing to 'militate against the council's decison. While we are aware that there is not unanimity of opinion in Port Townsend regarding this rezone, that division of opinion as such is not a matter for the courts. Appellants'. reliance upon Parkridge to support their posi- tion in opposition to the rezone is misplaced. In Parkridge, the trial court found neither-change of circumstances nor sufficient evidence to support the rezone, concluding that the action was invalid as being arbitrary and capricious. Here, the trial court found both changed circumstances and sufficient evidence to con- clude that the rezone was based upon reason. The City council's decision to grant the rezone may not be characterized as arbi- trary or capricious. Appellants also question whether the preparation and a 46022 - 10 / consideration of an EIS was required prior to the decision by the City council to rezone. Nonproject rezoning has been held not to, require an EIS as long as the council retains the authority to require such an evaluation at the project permit ..]stage. Ullock v. Bremerton, 17 Wn. App. 573, 565 P.2d 1179 (1977); see Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. Tacoma, 84 Wn..2d 416, 423 -24, 526 P.2d 897 (1974). That is the situation here. The rezone of the Carroll property carried no specific building project in connection with it. In any event, an environmental checklist was submitted to . accompany the rezone application and a non impact threshold determination was made by the City engineer. The trial court found sufficient consideration was given to environmental factors by the council in reaching its rezone de- cision and we are not shown that the court's decision is erroneous. Of more serious concern to us is appellants' challenge to the negative threshold determination made regarding the Safeway building permit. A. governmental body in the process of making a decision. which has a potential for impacting the environment must first determine if the contemplated action requires prepara- tion and consideration of an EIS. Major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment must be preceded by a consideration of environmental and ecological factors and re- quires an EIS. RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); Sisley v. San'Juan County, 89 Wn.2d.78, 82 -83, 569 P.2d 712 (1977), and cases cited. In Sisley, we recognized that where a government'action consists of issuing a permit for a private project, a 2 -step 46022 - 11 analysis is involved. Here, as in Sisley, we are concerned with the second step of the analysis - -the threshold determination of the project's environmental significance. Under our rule, to reach a valid negative threshold determination, environmental factors must\ have been evaluated to such an extent as to consti- tute prima facie compliance with SEPA procedural requirements. Upon review of a negative threshold decision, a review- ing court must be mindful that "the decision of the governmental agency shall be accorded substantial weight." RCW 43.21C.090. The standard of review is that of "clearly erroneous ". "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when al- though there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass'n v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976), quoting Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259 -60, 461 P.2d 531 (1969). Here, the City engineer determined that the contemplated Safeway building project would not significantly affect the en- vironment. This negative threshold determination was made only after the-City engineer reviewed Safeway's proposal and held a • number of meetings with Safeway and various governmental entities concerned with environmental factors. Deficiencies disclosed . by review and discussion of the proposed plan were remedied by • Safeway prior to its formal application for a building permit. While appellants challenge the procedure used■by the City engineer, under the circumstances the procedure appeals to us as eminently sensible. Where it is feasible, it appears reason- able to resolve potential environmental problems before . a formal 46022 - 12 application is made for a building permit. The pertinent question is whether environmental factors were adequately considered be- fore a final decision was made. That matter was explored at some length during the trial. Here, on the basis of the entire record, the trial court concluded the negative threshold determination was not clearly erroneous.. We agree. Appellants' contention that the negative threshold deter- minations in both instances, rezone and building permit, are required to have been reduced to writing is without merit. It is the consideration of the environmental factors, not the format, that is of import. Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd.,:90 Wn. 2d 856, 867, 586 P.2d 1470 (1978). Affirmed. We Concur: b 0 e m 111-aorpe Associ.es Planning • Environmental Analysis • Economics June 23, 1980 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development City Hall Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attri: Mark Caughey, Assistant Planner Re: Rezone Application, Conceptual Site Plan, and Environmental Checklist for Wynn Rezone - Lot 21, Brookvale Garden Tracts Dear Mark: Attached herewith are the various items required for the application for Mr. Wynn's rezone on his five -acre site, located. at South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue South. These items include those required in the Master Land Development Application form and those that we feel will supplement the application to explain the details of those items which we have been dis- cussing.'.in our meetings with the Planning and Public Works staff. Associates: Len Zickler Deborah Krouse Before listing those items, we feel we need a clarification as to the re- quirement for a waiver. A review by yourself, and also by Fred Satterstrom, leaves some question as to whether or not .a waiver is necessary. Only a small tip of any of the sensitive lands categories touches the site, and our site analysis (see enclosed) may leave some reason to believe that the only major site constraint is the steepness in the northeast corner which can be handled through site planning conditions and leaving this area in open space. There- fore, in response to Fred's and your recommendation, we are asking for a formal reading of the requirement for a waiver on this property. We would prefer to proceed with the rezone, expanded environmental checklist, with appropriate areas detailed, and a conceptual site plan, conditioning any action by the Planning Commission and the Council in significant detail prior to site planning efforts. As you are aware, the density contract that will be established on the property will have significant importance as to the site planning effort. Therefore, we are attempting to provide as much information as possible and proceed with a review by the Planning Commission. The items we have provided are as follows: 1. Request for clarification of waiver 2. Rezone application 3. Environmental checklist with the following subpoints covered in detail: a. Topography b. Soils and Geology c. Hydrology d. Vegetation e. Site Inventory f. Traffic g. Utilities Seattle: 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & Un;varsity • Seattle. WA 99101 • (208) 624.6239 Anchorage: Suite 503 • 1110 Wet Sixth Avenue • Anchorage. AK 9950:3 • (907) 275.5846 City of Tukwila Attn: Mark Caughey June 23, 1980 Page 2 4. Vicinity map 5. Three site alternatives, including site inventory and slope analysis 6. Topography and slope analysis 7. The fees required as follows: $200 for rezone and $50 for environ- mental checklist. Total by check from Mr. Harold Wynn: $250. The graphics presented herein are on a size for your review and will be repro- ` duced either by Xerox or Super K process when you feel they are ready for presentation. We have provided six copies of the application for your review and distribution to other departments. We would be happy to provide additional copies and to provide reduced copies of the graphics, if you feel they are appro- priate for, full application. Please contact us if there is any additional information required for this application at this time. In that we are going to be reviewing the LID 30 in'the next 30 days, following the hearing by the City Council on Monday evening, June 23, we would appreciate a written response by both your department and Public Works within that 30 -day period regarding your concerns or additional requirements that rezone and site development might require as related to LID 30. Thank you for your assistance and guidance in this matter to date. We look forward to working closely with the City in developing site plans and conditions that will insure a quality development on this piece of property. Sincerely, E AND ASSOCIATES Robert W. Thorp AICP RWT /wk enclosures • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle, WA 98101 • :206) 624 6235 tured ed. /, 42%) M, etc. Kedium iversity MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM RCPT. M.F. • EPIC. NOTE: Please write legibly or type all requested information -- incomplete applications will not be accepted for processing. SECTION I. GENERAL DATA .1) APPLICANT'S NAME Harold Wynn TELEPHONE :(206) 243 -1200 '/... ) APPLICA,WT'S• ADDRESS 14607 Pacific Hwy. S. ZIP: Seattle, 98168 • :f ••,•3) ••. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Same • TELEPHONE:( ) ,Consultant Planners: R W Thorpe & Assoc., 815 Seattle Tower :a) g �RC€R*a- ceatti,. 9Rlfl • 624 -623y: ...;•f'S): LOCATION OF PROJECT: (geographic or legal descrip.) Lot 21 - Brookvale Garden Tracts; Ell 523 T23 R4E WM; North side of South 152nd St. hetwePn Mararlam Rd_ South and 57th Ave_ South. KROLL PAGE: 334W 6) . WE OF PROJECT(OPTIONAL) Wynn Rezone and Conceptual Site Plan.. SECTION 7) II: PROJECT INFORbMATION BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE: Rezone of 5 -acre site to R -4; permit up to 98 condominium units and 142 p.s. (1:1.5 ratio) with recreational bldg and open space areas 8) DO YOU PROPOSE TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT IN PHASES? (net density 20`DU /ac). nVES ? EI NO (Probab 9) PROJECT DATE Site: 330 x 660 = 217,800 SF a. NET ACRES 4.98 c. b. GROSS ACRES 4.98 d. (48,000 - 67,000) BLDG.ariable SQ.FT. (22;-.307.) PAVING 56.800 SQ. FT.= 400 SF p.s. Depends on No. of PARKING SPACES Proposed - 142 FLOORS OF 2 and 3; some struc CONSTRUCTION parking. some cover e. LOT. AREA COVERAGE LANDSCAPE ' Balance SQ. FT- (50 & Open Space 26 %) + walkways, patios, tennis cour YES ONO COIP.PLAN Multi- family, High and 13) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION fl YES J.INO ON TrE CITY'S ENVIRO`'MENTAL BASE MAP ?(Please see Staff Analysis) 14) IF YOU WISH TO HAVE COPIES OF CITY CORRESPONDENCE, STAFF REPORTS, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS SENT TO ADDRESSES OTHER THAN APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER, PLEASE INDICATEE BELOW'. 10) DOES THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE EXCEED 10 %? 11) EYISTING ZONING R -1 -12.0 12. EYISTING not) units Densities a. LAME: R. W. Thorpe & Assoc. ADDRESS: 815 Seattle Tower, Third & Un Seattle 98101 b. WM: ADDRESS: OVER MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM JUPVL MENTARY QUESTIOFAIRE •chedule REZONE APPLICATION EXISTING ZONING R -1 -12.0 REQUESTED ZONING RM . PROPOSED REZONE SITE IS WITHIN TUKWILA CITY LIMITS EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE OF SURROUNDING PARCELS: ZONE NW: RMH NORTH NE: R -1 -12.0 SOUTH RMH EAST R -4 & RMH WEST RM N USE Stardust(41 DU /Ac) & Southcenter (26 DU /Ac) Apts. Partially undeveloped; 2 •SF houses. - La Vista Apts - dense apartment complexes -06 DTT /'A -) Gradin'South Apartments S &M evelo memt - units.( DU /Ac) Southcenter view condos. • USES - PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED ON PROPOSE) REZONE SITE Multi- family housing (condominiums) @ 18 -20 DU /Ac, or 90 -98 DU for 4.98 -Acre site; with recreational building and facilities; with 1.5 cars /DU. ACCESS TOTTH''Ejj.PROPOSED REZONE SITE IS FROM A DEDICATED, IMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY YES D N0. (If "NO ", please describe how the site is accessed Note: LID 30 Pending; access' is from South • 152nd Street. PROVISIONS TO BE MADE FOR ADEQUATE SEWER AND WATER SERVICES Sewer and water available to site at southwest corner in 152nd Street right-of-way. 411 CITY OF TUKW I LA • 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: Harold. Wynn (R. W. Thorpe'& Assoc. - Urban Planners, Agents) • 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 14607 Pacific Hwy. S., Seattle 98168; 243 -1200 (815 Seattle .Tower, Seattle 98101;624- 6239) 3. Date Checklist Submitted: June 1980 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City Planning Department 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Wynn Rezone and Conceptual Site Plan 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): Rezone - from R -1 -12.0 (Single family) to R -4 (Low density multi - family) - for a 5 ac. (4.98 ac) site at South 152nd between 56th and 57th Avenues South in order to permit. development of a proposed 98+ unit condominium rnmplPx • 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): Lot 21 - Brookvale Garden Tracts; an undeveloped, wooded site lying northerly • of 152nd Street between 56th and 57th Ave. South. Tracts to west, south, and north are developed; sites to the east above top of slope are partially de- veloped as single family residential or undeveloped. City trail adjgins on east property line. (See attached site analysis and site plan.) 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Variable - 1981 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, e enrdi- tienal- uSe;- s#3eve44.ae- e,rgli , -ems-. YES X NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO x (c) Building permit YES X NO (d) Puget Sounoir Pollution Control Permit 411 YES NO x (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. NO X (i) Curb cut permit YES NO x (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES ? NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES ? NO. (1) Other: 10. .Do you have.any plans for future: additions, expansion, or.futher activity related to-or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: No - entire proposal indicated, although project.may be phased to respond to market analysis. 11:- Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property.,covered by ..-. your proposal? If yes, explain: LID 30; Future use of property at southwest corner of site-for access, land use, and buffering. 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: Waiver, rezone. 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? (The first is unlikely.) YES MAYBE NO x (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? x _ (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (Limited by site design.) X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (Very unlikely - X — see soils report Park Place FEIS and USGS /USDA soils conservation data.) -2- i YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in.wi -rte 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: 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 cliinate,.either locally or regionally? x (See note) Explanation: (a) Auto emissions from 480 to 784 ADTrs. No detioration in ambient air quality. 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? x (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? x (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? 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? x Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? Explanation: (b) Yes, surface increased, detention ponds proposed, in site plan'. (e)., (f), (g), (h) Highly improbable. (i) YES MAYBE NO . 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: Approximately 58% to 65% of site will have vegetation removal for buildings. and parking.. 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? x Explanation: (d) Loss of vegetation - reduce bird and small rodent habitat. -4- x x i • YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: Only traffic and human outdoor recreation related noise. 7.. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? . Explanation: x From outside and parking lots; low wash lighting fixture can mitigate glare.. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the- present.or_planned land use. of an area? Explanation: Consistent with comprehensive plan and less dense than 80 ±% of neighborhood. 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: Building and petroleum products. 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. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution., density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: Increase of 72 to 108 people. YES MAYBE NO x Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or . create a demand for additional housing? x Explanation: Will provide up. to 98 new housing units, proposed to be owner- occupied. 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 traffic and circulation analysis. (a) 480 to 784 ADT's. 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? x (f) Other gover'lental services? Explanation: . (a) and (b) Normal to new housing units. (e) South 152nd Street (f) Planning, building during construction. 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: YES MAYBE NO (a) Power or natural gas? x (b) Communications systems? • '(c) Water? (d). Sewer or septic tanks? x (e) Storm water drainage ?. x (f) Solid waste and disposal? x Explanation: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal resultin the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: x . YES MAYBE NO 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: See view analysis, site and inventory data.. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist - ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: x Additional 72 to 108 people utilizing both on -site recreational faciltiies and City and regional facilities. 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 R. 4. Thorpe & Associates Consulting Planners -8- 47;7 Date x s:i STAMSTICoev 74, 1.wrF• sa..viLLTURT.D fARK'Nb GULLS eg vwxaTIWCrISICO ..ARAIIJte VALLS tIT Trat. PAI4.146- I.S s7741.02 /MT - • IS INIT. Ma NAL -0 60 So Vo GO NOKT* -tAt TRORPE It A. FICaltAINART SITE FLAN l'OR: wINN REZONE TE>1-11131-7 A .� 3 • 15orPrsr IY 015041 1 � 01 10 plsolo t� 3 4 . 5 6 AIM 37.z g. -1 -7•Z .- 1 Q149 :1 N9 t 0a 6...a r --- err - -- e p 14933 R.— 0 14950 CO LJ 40 A, s "= 2001 0 ?C) t1iJc=1 -PLAT 1 -9•Co MAP w -f ti► Eo,'e p. R.- I - 12.0 15056 Ef(1�1' I V C; -Z.W71U r L.ka : ii~• 1- IZ.O 2..7PC,..1 27p -241.144(1: 1}ANt e. 1e1 }{ 39 38 A rouTLEr S T) > Q 2S0 2 yic-cv cc41 PAS Rt-4 N 1vu! `� I 1 #�.M 44 1 22 1 1 CAofl' .+ 11�� T 426 so 238.114 /52ND . CEN It- Z -8.4 R.- S£ C SNAul o 0 15210 0 R.M H 37 '••_ v 51.C.2VC -'(1 Toro It �ZA�� o• • - Vt4ant1L A 1Z N 36 SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THE WYNN REZONE Natural Systems Review Topography The five -acre site slopes from the northeast to. the southwest corner, or from the adjacent single family areas to the existing multi - family area, from an elevation of approximately 260 feet to approximately 120 feet. This provides for an 18% overall slope,'with 30% slope in the first 200 feet of run from the northeast to the southwest corner. The last 550 feet of run averages 14 %, with much of the area being around 10% slope with some intermediate steeper areas. This compares with City data in the Data Inven- •.tory, Tukwila Planning Area of 5% to 15 %, and the northeast corner being 15% to 25 %. Utilizing topography available to the.City, and comparing it by walking the site using slope and elevation calculators, it appears, that the topography is a little more steep in the northeast corner than shown on the'City's topography and more gentle in slope on the remaining three - quarters of.the•site. That is, about 80% of the site ranges from 5% to 15% slope; :.about 5% ranges from 0% to 5% slope; 10% ranges from 15% to 25 %; and less than 5% of the site is over 25% slope, all located in the northeast corner. This slope would lend itself,to the proposed site plan alternatives which provide for a combination of structured and covered'satellite parking, and the terracing of the units in the hill to capture views and sun angles to the south and southwest. Mitigation of potential impacts. The preservation of the northeast corner of the site, a buffer strip along the 57th Avenue trail and along the east property line would preserve important steep areas and associated vegetation, while buffering.. to adjacent land uses. Geology and Soils A review and extrapolation-. of three area studies on adjacent sites, USGS information, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service data, and the City's Data Inventory shows general consistency with the exception of USDA which shows the site as urban soils. This is, however, incorrect, in that urban soils are generally'those which have been mixed through the urbanization process. Adjacent studies done for apartment and condominium projects on the hillside indicate a consistency with the data in the City report. The City report indicates that the site is largely Vashon till with a small amount of bed- rock. Extensive site visits and shallow probes did not indicate the presence of surface bedroc1; however, excavations of similar elevations on other sites have shown the existence of bedrock. The site has shallow glacial till weathered on the upper two or three feet and graded downward into glacial sand and gravel form foundation. This is consistent with both reports on adjacent sites and the City's information. The soils are well drained due to the slope of over 5% in most areas, except in two areas which are impounded by road and parking lot construction on adjacent lands. Both bedrock and till, however, provide excellent foundation strength, and the till appears to be stable with no evidence of sliding on the site. Activities during • 61 6 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 981 01 • (2O6] 624 -6239 • construction wouerequire construction techniqu o minimize erosion due to the slope, settling ponds during construction, and detention facilities following construction for stormwater. Hydrology A detailed site analysis shows no springs, even after heavy rainfall. However, along the southern property line, there is some minor seepage from other sites and runoff coming into the site and being impounded by 152nd and pro- perty development to the west. There is a small, wet area on the southerly property line near the center of the property that has developed over the years, due to a road being cut through the center section of the property from south to north. In that eventual development of the site might consume anywhere from 45% to 60% in improvements and impervious surfaces for drive- ways, parking, etc., the additional amount of runoff would require some miti- gation. The_ site planning efforts to date envision one or two detention facilities that will release additional stormwater runoff at a controlled rate into stormwater improvements which are proposed as a part of the 152nd LID. No streams or water running through the site will be affected by development. Vegetation The entire site is wooded with the center portion being less densely wooded and partially open with salal, Oregon Grape ferns, and vines occurring in the understory of Cedars, Firs, and Maple; in two areas smaller Willow and Alter trees also exist. There are some major Maples and other large trees within six to ten feet of 152nd along the entire property line. These trees have been generally inventoried during site visits and would provide an important buffer to the site if they could be retained, both during the site development and during the development of improvements along 152nd Street as a part of the LID 30. It is, therefore, important to limit the new construction along the north side of 152nd to six feet north of the existing pavement area, except those areas where two driveways will access the site and also provide turnouts for stacking of cars in emergency situations. Much of the vegetation of significance occurs in areas designated for green- belts along the north and east property lines and in the steep slope area in the northeast corner. As a mitigating measure, trees 6" or larger could be inventoried at the time a detailed topography map is developed in order to provide data for a site plan that would be based upon a given density from the rezone application approval with conditions. Miscellaneous Climate, Sun Angle, View Corridors. Site exposure is to the south and west and provides views in those directions across Southcenter to the Green River Valley and Mt. Rainier. Sun angles would provide for opportunities for use of solar heating, both passive and active, and the siting of .buildings to capture sun and view angles. In terms of view, it is important to retain some vegetation along the south property line in order to soften and screen extensive parking areas that exist along the entire south and west perimeters of the property. • a1 5 Scottie Tower • 3rd Si University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (206) 624 -6239 HAROLD WYNN REZONE 4.98 Acre Site South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue South SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW OF REZONE APPLICATION , Lot 21 - Brookvale Garden Tracts 1. That densitites be limited to those shown in the Conceptual Site Plans and analyzed in the Environmental Checklist with the total number of units not to exceed 98. 2. That the site plan for the five -acre parcel maintain over 40% of the area in open space, landscaping and natural areas. 3. That buffer zones of natural vegetation of a.minimum of 40 feet be preserved on the north and east boundaries (along trail) of the property; in addition, the steep (over 25%) area of the northeast corner be preserved. 4. That the applicant participate- in improved area access to serve the site as provided for in LID 30, with the provision that the design of LID limit the impact on the subject site to no more than six additional feet on the south side of South 152nd Street. 5. That circulation for emergency vehicles be provided through two access points to the site; the driveways being also capable of turnouts for vehicle stacking to allow passage of emergency vehicles. 6. That groupings of major trees, drainage swales and other natural features be inventoried further and the details provided for revisions in the site plans where feasible. 7. That the rezone be based on a condition that the Planing_ Commission review specific site, elevation, floor, and =landscape plans prior to site development and issuance of building permits. 8. That appropriate mitigating measures of the expanded Environmental Checklist and any required reports (i.e., soils, traffic, topography, etc.) be accepted as conditions of zoning approval. 9. That South 152nd Street be signed by the City for No Parking. 10. That all conditions set forth and agreements between the City of Tukwila and the applicants be attached to the fee title and be binding on all heirs, successors, or assigns. • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd 6 University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (2061624-6239 { }.. W. ®rime ssoce es , `t= Planning • a= nvironmental Analysis ° Eco: . mics WYNN REZONE Analysis of Relationship of the Proposed Rezone to Existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations Associates: Len Zickler Deborah Krouse Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan . The recently- adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several elements,, including a Goals and Policies section and a map that serve as,a land use guideline to assist the City's review bodies and staff in evaluating zoning applications and land use matters. As depicted,.the Conceptual Site'Plan provides for more dense use and,parking in the south and west portions of the site, depicted' as High Density Residential.._ Theridge line" is used as a natural demarca- tion between medium density, some-less-dense areas, and open space in order to buffer single family uses in thenortheast corner of the site. The proposed site plan and proposed development have been designed to be as consistent as possible with.the map,.and. the directions given to the property owners in the vicinity'by previous Comprehensive Plan, Rezone, and Site Plan approval. The plans also reflect the Goals and-Policies section of the Plan as summarized below. Residential Element: Section 1: Neighborhood Objectives and Policies Objective 1, Policy 1: Interior site transition and open space areas are based on topographic features. Objective 2, Policy 1: Site plan provides for transition with site by declining densities and.open space from dense (20-35 DU /Ac) development on west, south, and east. Objective 2, Policy 2: Vacant areas to north of site in medium density areas can provide for further transition. Objective 3,.Policy 1: Retention of significant vegetation along west and south site perimeters along with other noise reduction techniques will reduce impact of freeway noise. Maintenance of buffer areas on the north and east, particularly the steep slope area, will provide compatibility with this objective. In addition, the following items as incorporated into '. the proposal are responsive to policies in this section: Policy 1: Screening of adjacent uses. Policy 3: Undergrounding of all utilities. Policy 4: Maintenance of natural open space areas.. Policy 5: .Provision of guest.and recreational vehicle parking. Policy 6: .Provision of trails to link activity nodes in the area. Policy 7: Encouragement of recreational open space within multi - family development. Seattle: 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (206? 624 -6239 Anchorage: Suite 503 • .1 1 1 0 West Sixth Avenue • Anchorage. AK 99503 • (907) 276 -6646 Section 2: Housing • • Objective 1, Policy 1: Site plan calls for clustering various densitites and building types with variable setbacks and open space areas. Objective 1, Policy 2: Units are designed and anticipated to be marketed as condominiums. Objective 2, Policy 3: Building can be heavily insulated for noise and energy controls. Insulation, insulated glass, and buidling siting will be used to reduce freeway and overall noise. Objective 4, Policy 1: Site plan.provides.for grouping of units around court- yards and open space areas. Objective 4, Policies 2, 3, and 4: Can be observed in formal site plan approval. The following goals and objectives are relevant and the proposal is generally . consistent with each one. Element Goals Objective General Goals 2, 5, 6, 8 Natural Elements 1, 2, 3 Open Space 1 2 Residence 1, 2, 3 Transportation /Utilities 3, 4 Natural Environment 1 1, 2, 3 3 1, 2, 3, 4 4 1, 3, 4 5 1 6. 1 8 Open Space 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 2 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 3 2 Residence (See Previous Text) Transportation 1 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 9, 10, 11, 12 3 1, 2, 6 3, 7, 8 Utilities 2 2, 4, 5, 6 Sanitary Sewer 5 4, 5 Storm Water Systems 6 1, 2, 4 7 1, 2 Underground Utilities 8 1, 4, 5, 7 • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (2061624-6239 =. • • The following goals may be partially inconsistent with the application as presently proposed. Other policies and objectives not listed were considered not applicable. Goals General Goals: None Natural Environment: None Open Space: 3, provide recreational opportunities for all people of Tukwila Residence: None Transportation: None Objectives /Policies Objective /Policy Natural Environment Open Space Residence 2 -1 Retain wooded hillsides for wildlife (partially compatible). 3 -1 Some limited development may occur in areas of 20 %.to 25% slope, however. none in excess of 25 %. 8 Some on -site studies (i.e., slope analysis) have provided environmental data that may be different than that of the City's environmental data bank. 2 -4 Some areas of existing trails.may be rerouted to perimeter of development... 3 -3 No trail easements for public access are proposed at present. .3 -1 No low income housing is proposed. Transportation 6 -4 Trails, walkways may not be planned for handicapped. Zoning Code The proposed uses will comply with the appropriate sections of the Zoning Code (Title 18, TMC) for the R -4 classification. All density, bulk requirements, site coverage, parking, and other requirements have been reviewed and incor- porated in the plans. Building/Fire Code Provisions of the UBC and Fire Codes will be observed and changes made if necessary in order to comply. • 815 Seattle Tower • Ord & University • Seattle. WA 9B101 • (206) 624 -6239 p