HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E96-0007 - HOMESTEAD VILLAGE - NEW HOTEL BUILDINGHOMESTEAD VILLAGE
CONSTRUCT NEW HOTEL
15635 WEST VALLEY HWY
E96-0007
AFFIDAVIT
I, 'yL—V1A AneMuu-4r4
O Notice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
LIBoard of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
❑ Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
flPlanning Commission Agenda
Packet
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
was mailed to each of the following addresses
(s — Awac- 1-t>
OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
ilDetermination of Non-
significance
D Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
jDetermination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
0 Official Notice
0 Other
Other
on
Name of Project l-IOIV1�ST?Ab \ALLAtiE. Signaturec (h('rtAufijj,
File Number 1 1O ' tO(7-1
AFFIDAVIT
OF DISTRIBUTION
I, 5.;/L -V IA MCN�uu,► 1 hereby declare that:
O Notice of Public Hearing
❑ Notice of Public Meeting
LI Board of
Packet
OBoard of
Packet
LJ Planning
Packet
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
Commission Agenda
LI Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
LI Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
[gt
Determination of Non-
significance
LJ Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
JNotice of Action
Official Notice
Other
Other
was wed -to each of the following addresses on
Ekt Cb
L- Nt A QvLE-E.1 N
SQA Tn, _
-1-1/v1
�S
141oq- 25gZ
Name of Projecth1O/116ST ) 1/11-446/s ignature
File Number TE -cite 0001
5 - ZO- to .
CITY TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OFCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FAX TRANSMITTAL
FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665
TO:
N 1JA GAA. R►
DATE:
5- 20- Glo
TITLE:
FROM:
�y �v►A Mc tiu-LEN
COMPANY:
A1TLE- TI Ma
DEPARTMENT:
TITLE:
FAX NO.
14(04- 26gZ
NUMBER OF PAGES
TRANSMITTED, INCL.
THIS COVER SHEET:
I-► ND A 1AK6 LAG H o N 1 A\-'1,
Yvo'
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 3, - �., D
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: `-1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila. WA 98188
Office: (206) 431-3670
06/15/90
•,
• TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT (MAY 20 '96 04:05PM)
TUKAlk DCD/PW
(AUTO)
THE FOLLOWING FILE(S) ERASED
FILE FILE TYPE OPTION TEL NO. PAGE RESULT
057 TRANSMISSION 9* -4642582 02 OK
ERRORS
1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) BUSY
3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
BUILD A 96 UNIT HOTEL
PROPONENT:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS:. 15635 WEST VALLEY HY
PARCEL NO: 000580-0015
SEC/TWN/RNG:
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E96-0007
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 4321c.030(2) (c)
This -decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency, 'This
information is available to the public on request.
This determination is final and signed this att. day of Al
199_0.
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the
Department of Community Development.
•
000580-0010 •
StaZof�Washingtono
000000;
000580-0025
Kauput, Peter H.
P.O. Box 88108
Seattle, WA 98188
000580-0032
Gull Oil Company
P.O. Box 24687
Seattle, WA 98124
000320-0025
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
022300-0040
Texaco Inc.
Tax Department
P.O. Box 7813
Massachusetts City, CA 91608
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
000580-0004
Nelsen, Helen V.
15643 West Valley Highway
Tukwila, WA 98188
000580-0028
Taylor, Melvin R. & Sharon M.
15668 West Valley Highway, #300
Seattle, WA 98188
000580-0011
Schacht, Vernon
8363 Juanita Drive N.E.
Kirkland, WA 98034
000320-0007
Nelsen, Helen V.
15643 West Valley Highway
Tukwila, WA 98188
Washington State Department.of Ecology
—Environmental-Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Steve Tangney
Homestead Village
477-75 Fremont B- vd-_.__-- __
Fremont, CA 94538
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
6300*Southcenter Blvd Suite 100
Tu kwi la ; ._ -WA -98188—
000580-0030
Liu Shuh Wen & Kin Lua Chen
Nendels - Southcenter
15801 West Valley Highway
Tukwila, WA 98188
000580-0014
Kauput, Peter H.
P.O. Box 88108
Seattle, WA 98188
000580-0003
Tukwila Associates
380 East Park Center Boulevard, #310
Boise, ID 83706
242304-9014
Tukwila Associates
380 Park Center Boulevard, #310
Boise, ID 83706
Fr, rEtrcr,
CITY )F Yu: tVILA
MAR 2 7 1996
PERMIT CENTER
Ali
CHECKLIST: ENVIR :ENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE I MIT MAILINGS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHINGTON
( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X)
STATE AGENCIES
)OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
)TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
)DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
)OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
)DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
)DEPT. OF FISHERIES
( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV.
( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( )FIRE DISTRICT #11
( )FIRE DISTRICT #2
( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES
( )RENTON LIBRARY
( )KENT LIBRARY
( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
( )US WEST
( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
( )WATER DISTRICT #75
( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( )GROUP W CABLE
(.)OLYMPIA. PIPELINE.
( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( )T ILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
( PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE
)POLICE ( )FINANCE
( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING
( )PARKS AND ORECREATION
( )TUKWILA MAYOR
( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES
,DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS.DIVISION
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
)DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
*SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND
*SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS
( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT
( )PORT OF SEATTLE
( )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.-
SEPA INFORMATION CENTER
SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES
( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS
( )RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
UTILITIES
( )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
( )VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( )WATER DISTRICT #20
( )WATER DISTRICT #125
( )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
_.(•)RAINIER VISTA
( )SKYWAY -
CITY AGENCIES
( )RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(.)CITY OF SEA -TAC
( )CITY OF SEATTLE
( )CITY OF BURIEN
( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
MEDIA
( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS
( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV.
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE
RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE
RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE
(A,HIGHLINE TIMES
SEATTLE TIMES
i
PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS
SEPA MAILINGS
Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing)
Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section
Applicant
Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list)
Include these documents:
SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Affidavit of Dlstribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper).
SHORELINE MAILINGS
Notice of Application:
Notice of application for a substantial development Permit must be
mailed to owners and to property owners within 300 feet of subject
property, prepare an affidavit of publication, and publish two
consecutive weeks with deadline for comments due 30 days after last
newspaper publication date.
Shoreline Permit:
Mail to: (within•8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins
date received by DOE)
Department of Ecology Shorelands Section
State Attorney General
Applicant
Indian Tribes
Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list).
Include these documents:
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, if applicable)
Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements
Cross-sections of site w/structures & shoreline
Grading plan
Vicinity map
SEPA Determination (3 -+part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline
Notice of Application
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper)
Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper).
City of Tukwila
•
Attachment C
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE
May 16, 1996
SEPA DETERMINATION
Homestead Village, Inc.
E96-00007
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS)
This SEPA file is officially closed as a determination of non -significance (DNS) .
The following issues have been raised through the SEPA process. They are subject
to standards of the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Stormwater Management
Ordinance. The applicant must address these issues prior to approval of a building
permit:
Sensitive Areas Ordinance
1. The wetland pond adjacent to the proposed development is owned by the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A letter from
DNR must be obtained to show their approval of the site to be used as
proposed.
2. Provide geotechnical analysis to show that the proposed development will
not change the groundwater table for this and adjacent properties or impact
soils stability on adjacent properties.
3. Update the geotechnical report to reflect most recent plan submittals
including building FF elevations (show 21; revise to 24.5). Tukwila Public
Works recommends raising lowest FF elevation above 100 year flood
elevation (to 25.5, or 2 feet above this elevation, if possible).
4. The soils report should be part of the approved plans, as per specifications
in the geotechnical report regarding soil "Liquifaction," (page 9).
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
SEPA Determination
Homestead Village, Inc.
L96-0007
May 16, 1996
Page 2
5. Designate preload and associated temporary erosion control measures on
final plans.
6. The 50 foot wetland buffer setback will be reduced to no less than 25 feet
with an approved buffer enhancement plan per standards of the sensitive
areas ordinance.
7. New lighting features adjacent to the Type II wetland will be subdued,
fully -shielded downlighting and designed to have minimal effects on the
wetland habitat function. No direct illumination will be allowed.
$tormwater Management Ordinance
1. Rights for surface water discharge must be addressed and approved prior to
approval of final plans.
In addition to the above issues under City ordinance, traffic mitigations are $16,062 for
road improvements.
The Department of Public Works and the Urban Environmentalist in the Department of
Community Development will be the lead reviewers of the aformentioned issues. Written
approval and revised plans, where applicable, must be submitted to the Department of
Community Development as a record of completeness for this SEPA file.
Steve Tangney
Homestead Village, Inc.
47775 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, CA 94538
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
May 14, 1996
RE: State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Requirements for Wetland Pond
Adjacent to Proposed Homestead Village Hotel in Tukwila, Washington
Our Job No. 5705
Dear Steve:
According to the City of Tukwila's request, we contacted Mr. Dave Weiss, representing the State of
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), to research whether any special approvals or plan
review are required by DNR for your development adjacent to the wetland pond. We explained to Mr. Weiss
that the title company believes that the pond is owned by DNR and is surrounded by private property up to the
water's edge. We also explained that the local municipality would be reviewing the project for drainage
control using the King County Drainage Manual and applying buffers to the pond.
Mr. Weiss reported that DNR does not require any special or additional review by their department. This
is because most municipal jurisdiction requirements for buffers and drainage control adjacent to wetlands are
more stringent than the requirements of DNR. The only permit authority that DNR requires is for logging
merchantable timber, which is not applicable for this project.
Mr. Weiss reported that DNR will provide any input they may have during the SEPA review comment
period for the SEPA determination that will be issued by the City. Mr. Weiss can be contacted at
(360) 825-1631 for any questions concerning this matter. Let me know if you have any questions in this
regard.
Robert J. Armstrong, P.E.
Principal Engineer
RJA/es/ks
5705C.006
cc: ,Alexa Berlow, City of Tukwila Planning Department
Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila Public Works Department
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (206) 251-6222 (206) 251-8782 FAX
CITY t.;''.t!
MAY 1 4 1910
PERMIT
• •
Homestead
Village®
Incorporated
Ms. Alexa Berlow
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
May 13, 1996
RE: Proposed Homestead Village
Dear Alexa:
The following are responses to issues raised at the May 7, 1996 meeting with City staff in
connection with the proposed Homestead Village project.
ENGINEERING:
1. Soils Recommendations: Homestead Village is committed to following the
recommendations of the Soils Report by Earth Consultants (see attached letter).
2. Department of Natural Resources Drainage Acknowledgement: Please see attached
letter from Rob Armstrong, Barghausen Engineers.
3. Letter regarding soils stability: Please see attached letter dated May 13, 1996 from the
Soils Engineer regarding soils stability, liquefaction, and ground water.
4. Revised Bioswale and Grading to West Valley Highway: Revised Grading Concept
has been reviewed by Barghausen Engineers and found not to be practical due to existing
driveway grades and grades along West Valley Highway. Washington Department of
Transportation has been contacted regarding submittal requirements for a grading permit
along the 405 off ramp. The bioswale will remain in its original location, however,
drainage has been diverted through the bioswale prior to the underground storage vault,
as discussed.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
1. Landscape Plan: The attached Landscape Plan has been revised per direction from Gary
Schulz adding conifers along the top of bank in the buffer zone.
2. Lighting: Area lighting along the pond has been deleted in the attached plan.
Fixtures previously shown as L2 have been deleted. The 1 footcandle envelope for the
remaining porch lights has been shown. RP"r:
CITY CA; : d . ,WI LA
MAY 1 4 1996
47775 Fremont Boulevard •Fremont, California 94538 • (510) 656-1900 PERMIT CENTER
• •
3. Viewing Platform: The viewing platform has been removed.
PLANNING:
1. Revised Building Elevations: Building elevations have been revised on the attached
plan to show additional detail including doors, window detailing, enhanced end
elevations and a composite shingle roof instead of metal.
2. Trellis: It is my understanding that due to fire regulations, the trellis cannot be extended
up to the port corchere, however, detailing has been added to the port corchere to reflect
the trellis feature.
If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to
call me at 510-661-4049. Thank you.
Enclosures
Homestead
Village®
Incorporated
Very truly yours,
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE
INCORPORATED
Steven M. Tangney
Development Manager
RPrs'„r:0
CITY OF "; LtL.WILA
MAY 1 4 1996
PERMIT CENTER
• •
Homestead
Village®
Incorporated
Mr. Phil Fraser
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
May 13, 1996
RE: Proposed Homestead Village Project
Soils Report Recommendations by Earth Consultants
Dear Phil:
In response to your recent question regarding the soils engineers recommendations for
the Homestead Village project, I have reviewed the soils report and will confirm to you that the
soils recommendation listed in the report will be followed. It is our intention to use Earth
Consultants for structural design review, and on-site inspection during grading and building
construction. Furthermore, we will use Earth Consultants for on-site materials testing i.e.
compaction, concrete etc. If Homestead Village elects to use a different soils engineer, the City
will be notified in writing.
cc: Alexa Berlow
Very truly yours,
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE
INCORPORATED
Steven M. Tangney
Development Manager
47775 Fremont Boulevard •Fremont, California 94538 • (510) 656-1900
RPS.
CITY .„ .,iVIlLA
MAY 1 4 1996
PERMIT CENTER
May 13, 1996
Homestead Village, Inc.
47775 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, California 94538
Earth Consultants Inc.
Co;nrechnIcal hsgirtccr.., Oe.ok gltit.c a finviri urrnental Scientists
Attention: Mr. Steve Tangney
Subject:
References:
Dear Mr. Tangney:
Proposed Homestead Village
15635 West Valley Highway
Tukwila, Washington
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Study
E-7204-1, April 5, 1996
Togawa & Smith, Inc.
Project Plans
Homestead Village, Tukwila, Washington
April 26, 1996
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
Preliminary Grading, Drainage, Water
and Sanitary Sewer Plan
Homestead Village, Tukwila, Washington
February 2, 1996
E-7204.1
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this letter to address issues raised by the
City of Tukwila during a recent meeting.
Groundwater
The current topography of the site results in surface drainage to the existing pond on the west
side of the site. Given the fact that the storm drainage system for the project includes
infiltration and direction of overflow to the pond, in our opinion, the project will have a minor
effect on the groundwater conditions on the site. In our opinion, the project will not affect
the groundwater conditions on adjacent sites.
1805. - 136th ?lace N.E.. Suite 201, Be!levue, Washington 98005
Homestead Village, Inc.
May 13, 1996
Soil Stability
E-7204-1
Page 2
Provided the recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnlcai engineering study are
followed, the stability of the soil on the site will be improved, and the stability of the soil on
adjacent properties will not be affected.
Plan Review
The referenced plans were reviewed to confirm that the recommendations contained in the
referenced geotechnical engineering study remain applicable to the current design plan of one
building with a finish floor elevation of 24.5 feet. Based on our review, the recommendations
contained in the referenced report are applicable to the current design plan.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction was addressed on page 9 of the referenced geotechnical engineering study, in
accordance with section 1804.5 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. A peak ground
acceleration of 0.3g was used in our analysis.
As stated in the referenced study, in our opinion, the potential for widespread liquefaction
over the site during a seismic event is moderate to high. However, based on the soil and
groundwater conditions observed during our field exploration, the liquefiable soils are overlain
by a minimum of ten feet of soil that in our opinion would not liquefy. Therefore, the effect
of liquefaction on the planned buildings is anticipated to be minimal. We estimate that
settlement resulting from liquefaction would be in the range of one Inch.
This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
EARTH CONSULTAN
Kyle R. Campbell, P.
Manager of Geotechni
luhipa,54
cc: Rob Armstror its it (►ti Q 6
Earth Concuttantc. Ino.
KRC/kmt
May 4, 1996
DRAFT
For Your Review Before meeting with Steve Tangney, Tuesday, May 7, at
1:30 pm.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SEPA AND BAR APPLICATIONS
(Based on discussion with Jack Pace and Gary Schulz, May3, 1996)
Homestead Village
SEPA File # E96-0007
BAR File # L96-0015
PL.
SEPA:
•
•
oyC •
Vit ViV4k
CPw)
PAA„l °17/vr/n'
(jPieur w)
Go2..11oZ.
Detention pond to be designed in a manner that will not drain or
otherwise impact the wetland or watercouse in any way. A vault is
not the optimal best management practice.
We suggest:
(or SAO, Wetlands (c) Mitigation location) - [a] The hydrology and
ecosystem of the original wetland and those who benefit from them
will not be damaged by the on-site loss, and
[b] On-site compensation is not scientifically feasible due to
problems with hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors.
Need permission to locate water treatment facility on Wasington
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) property. '
(or SAO, Wetlands) -3[A] Essential utilities must be constructed
to minimize or, where possible, avoid wetland disturbance
Mitigate water fluctuation levels between pond and river in a manner
that corresponds with detention vault. —
Assure a lighting plan that will have the least amount of impact on
the wetland area, along the west side of the site.
Vf`47
•
• Resolve traffic mitigations as per comments made by Public Works.
• Copies of SEPA will be sent to all state agencies
Sensitive Areas Overlay (SAO): es
(18.45.040 (c) Sensitive Area Buffers - Rating and Buffer Widths)
• Extra effort must be taken to provide an enhanced buffer area. A
standard setback of 15 feet could be waived depending on the
enhancement, and by approval of DCD Director.
(3) (a) All commercial and industrial developments shall be set back
15 feet
(b) The Director may waive setback requirements when a site plan
demonstrates there will be no impact to the buffer zone
(see attached Figure 18-2)
(4) (B) Buffers for all types of wetlands and watercourses will be
increased when they are determined to be particularly sensitive to
disturbance
(c) Every reasonable effort shall me made to maintain the existing
viable plant life in the buffers. Enhancement will insure that slope
stability and wetland and watercourse quality will be maintained or
improved
(See notes to some SEPA items above as to wether they might be
included as SAO issues)
BAR:
• Roof materials should remain of composite material, not metal.
• Break up facade on north and south elevations
• Add variations to ground floor level as an additional measure to
reduce building bulk.
• Extend trellas all the way to entrance.
1 el} —
DV-
- I—L.t A-11-#: 01.4w^ A -
d
vvvL . --
Note: Question as to wether SAO Wetlands (c) [a] a
SEPA, or is considered an SAO issue?
d [b]) is applicable to
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of Checklist:
_EA (0 - Do07
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 RCW, requires all governmental agencies
to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts
on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you
and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from your
proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The
city uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposals are
significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise
information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most
cases you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without
the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your
proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may
avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period
of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your
proposals or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide
additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals:
Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific
development project, such as plans, policies and programs.
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and
"property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area,"
respectively.
5705.004 [RJA9k' r.fc.0
CITY OF ;bJVILA
MAR 2 0 1996
PERMIT CENTER
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
File Number E - DOO-]
ENVIRONMENTAL REV I F4'4W ROUTING FORM
PF+%L
Ptz,etsE .
MNVla- • JOANNA- 4PEi.IGVl2.
TO: [I, Building J Planning ( Public Works ❑ Police ar Parks/Rec
Project Name: t?D h St Ala v l.,t-A-G. E
Address: • W psi �/� - 1 -}-ice, @ T - atr:_?_ 5—(l So3I 412Atoy wy,
lks"
Date Transmitted: 4/ 2- � Response Due by: ;
Staff Coordinator: A'• $1=12 LOW Date Response Received:
Instructions 13-'k• R • cview i 5723 ; A4 k
M tt�c��c-�ro
P , 1zt=V Q h:12/1.610
t tu4r 5574 n Ia E7T-0a-E I-114tt •
The attached environmental checklist was received for this project. Please review and provide
the following information: a) Potential environmental impacts, b) how each should be mitigated
(i.e. SEPA condition, ordinance requirement, permit requirement etc.), c) recommended specific
language as to how the mitigation measure should read, d) the policy basis for the recommended
mitigation (i.e. adopted policy), e) the nexus between the recommended mitigation and the
impact, and f) corrections to the checklist and supporting documentation. THIS
INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT IN PROVIDING TIMELY AND ACCURATE SERVICE
TO THE PUBLIC. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
If you find the submittal incomplete and would like to request additional information, please
inform the staff planner within five working days!
Comments Prepared by:
Date: 3— 4
c:7V
MAY 1 1ggg6
PERMr c: ITER
April 23, 1996
Alexa Berlow
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Homestead Village BAR Application No. E96-0007
SEPA File No. L9600015
Response to Staff Review dated April 12, 1996
Dear Alexa:
The attached plan submittal addresses issues mentioned in your April 12, 1996, letter. I have described
the corrections below in the same order as they appear in your letter.
I. Public Works
A. Revise Traffic Study: Please refer to the letter from TP & E dated April 10, 1996,
which presents data based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) published data for
hotels.
B. Flood Plain: My civil engineer, Rob Armstrong, has reviewed the consensus raised by
Phil Frazier and has revised the grading plan to show a higher finished floor elevation
of 24.5 feet. This is 3.5 feet higher than on the original submittal.
C. Property Line: The property line is correctly shown on the ALTA survey included with
the plan submittal package.
II. Building
A. Handicap Parking: The site plan has been revised to show four (4) handicap parking
stalls instead of three (3). Note one (1) stall is still van accessible. A unms to BE
tari..1 3 +a
NLR..ERSE PAP*t 4
R--ri I- Au a r cp..4r
A. Viewing Platform: The viewing platform has been added to the pans. Also, Homestead t-aNns4 " e.
Village will cooperate with the City by funding and installing educational signage. I (44/75)
would like the City (Don Williams) to participate in the write-up of the signage.
III. Parks and Recreation
B. Trail: The trail along the pond has not been added to the plan at this time per our recent
discussions.
Alexa Berlow
City of Tukwila
IV. Planning
A.
C.
D.
E.
F.
-2- April 23, 1996
Pue1-t-i R-EviGAONs
V%U. tae N Ta S
North Elevation Building Modulation: Please see revised plan. c°124 -4E2-• UN tier Roptic) Ev
Bey 3. L 4/2.9
Landscape Plan: Revisions have been made to increase the overall landscape area of
the site, and planting has been upgraded. Existing vegetation on the side slope of the
pond will be preserved and protected.
Trail: Trail has not been added at this time per our recent discussions.
Pathways: In parking lot.
Lighting Plan: Added to plan set.
V -Shape: The V-shape concept has been explored and does not fit either the site
configuration or the space allocation/structural systems within the building. However,
elevations have been revised.
G. Windows at End Elevations: See revised elevations.
Sincerely,
Steven Tangney
Homestead Village Inc.
RJA/kn/ks
5763C.001
Memorandum
TO: Jack Pace
FR: Alexa Berlow
RE: Homestead Village SEPA Determination
It has been tentatively decided that the SEPA determination for the Homestead Village
project with be a Mitigated DNS with the conditions that follow. Gary has not made a
final decision on this and will probably do so on Thursday, so it would be advantageous
for you, me, and Gary to meet about the final determination on Thursday since we are
getting very close to the limit for meeting the BAR hearing date, given the 15 day
comment period now required for SEPA.
The issues Gary has raised address:
1. Lighting impact on the wetland side of the site. Gary is suggesting a
low(er) level scheme.
2. Confirming boundary of mitigated buffer area adjacent to the wetland. The
applicant proposes a viewing platform and trail, in addition to small picnic
areas. However, the amount of recreational amenities in the mitigated buffer
area are in question as they will encourage too much human activity and
disturb habitat currently living around the wetland.
3. Review detention and drainage plan.
Gary will talk to you about scheduling a meeting between the three of us. I plan to come
in Thursday morning before DRC to wrap this up, as well as address other work, so we
could meet anytime after 9am.
Thanks.
Alexa
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve•Lancaster, Director
April 16, 1996
Steve Tangney
Homestead Village
47775 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, California 98538
Re: Homestead Village, Tukwila, WA
SEPA File # E96-0007
BAR File # L96-0015
Dear Steve:
As a follow up to my letter of April 12th with a summary of comments to your
applications, I would like to convey additional comments made by Don Williams,
Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to the development of a
wetlands viewing area, extending a trail south towards the Green River, and landscaping
along the south side of the property adjacent to a state historic site.
First, in response to SEPA Question #13(a), the house next to and on the south side of the
lot is on the State of Washington Historic Register. Therefore, careful consideration
should be given to the landscape and along this side of the property (i.e. taking note of
existing trees, shrubs, or other planting) to integrate along with it as much as possible.
Second, in response to Question #12(c), there are recreation opportunities that should be
included in the project, primarily by the historic river channel -- specifically the pond
area -- such as views, pathway, and access to future river trail.
The existing pond in the old river channel and the Type II wetland offer several
opportunities to enhance the 50 foot buffer with additional planting and could have a
walkway path from the parking area or from the north side of the building to an elevated
viewing platform above the pond's edge. No direct access to the water should be
encouraged. However, visual "access" is encouraged.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
S. Tangney Letter
Homestead Village
Additional Comments
April 16, 1996
Page 2
A riverfront trail on the Green River is currently being considered and will most likely
occur when property to the north and west is developed. Therefore, a pathway to the
river trail to the extreme southwest corner of the site should be developed. It is also
recommended that historic signs be provided along this path, as well as on an elevated
viewing platform. The Department of Parks and Recreation could assist in developing
this feature.
If you have any additional questions about these comments, please contact me as soon as
possible.
Alexa Berlow
Associate Planner
cc: Robert J. Armstrong, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Don Williams, Director, Tukwila Department of Parks and Recreation
•
City of Tukwila
•
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
April 12, 1996
Steve Tangney
Homestead Village
47775 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, California 98538
Re: Homestead Village, Tukwila, WA
SEPA File # E96-0007
BAR File # L96-0015
Dear Steve:
The SEPA and Design Review application which you submitted on March 27th have
been routed and reviewed by appropriate staff in public works, building, parks and
recreation, and fire. The planning staff also made informal comments on the design of
your proposal overall which have been included for your consideration. Following are
comments from each of these departments:
Public Works:
o Revise traffic study to present context in comparison to national standards.
o Address questions regarding flood protection (see attached copy of comments
from Phil Fraser).
o Clarify property line extending into the pond.
Building:
o The proposed project must meet State Regulations for Barrier -Free Facilities,
Chapter II of the Uniform Building Code, as amended, for handicapped units and
parking. At least four (4) of the 99 units proposed for this project must be
handicapped units. The code also requires four (4) handicap parking stalls, one of
which must be a van stall, and that parking spaces be located the shortest distance
from an accessible building entrance. In addition, wherever practical, the
accessible route of travel shall not cross lanes of vehicle traffic.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
• S. Tangney letter
Comments to Homestead Village
SEPA and BAR Applications
April 12, 1996
Page2
Parks and Recreation:
o The proposal to develop a recreational plan around the wetland pond was viewed
positively by the Department of Parks and Recreation. However, it was requested
that you consider developing a viewing platform with educational signage
describing the history of the area and current habitat, rather than create a
recreational space that will attract physical access to the water's edge.
Public Works also suggested extending the fire lane along the west side of the site
as a recreational trail, extending as close to the river as possible.
Planning Staff suggestions (most comments are in response to general guidelines outlined
in multi -family design review):
• Introduce modulations on the north side of the building facing, and viewed from,
the highway.
• Enhance the landscape and recreational plan overall, including the southeast
(parking lot) side of the site as well as the northwest side along the pond.
o Develop a recreational trail along the west side of the property, extending as close
to the river as possible.
o Create more direct pedestrian pathways from parking stalls to the building
entrance.
o Submit a lighting plan
o Consider changing building plan from a straight, rectangular plan to a "V-shaped"
plan as a measure to incorporate the parking area into the site plan and to foster a
more intimate building entrance.
o Details of Building Design: lower encased windows on east and west elevations
as well as modular units on the south (and eventual north) sides of the building.
The purpose of this would be to decrease building scale and enhance points of
ground -level contact for pedestrians on the site (comments on PMT attached).
As we discussed over the telephone this afternoon, I will check further with parks and
recreation about future land ownership possibilities to the south and the development of a
public right-of-way from the River to West Valley Highway. If you have any further
questions about the above comments, please give me a call as soon as possible as I will
need to have revisions to your applications by Friday, April 19, 1996.
S. cerely,
Q.
Alexa Berlow
Associate Planner
• S. Tangney letter
Comments to Homestead Village
SEPA and BAR Applications
April 12, 1996
Page3
Enclosures: Comments to SEPA application from Phil Fraser, Tukwila Department of
Engineering
Comments to building design on PMT.
cc: Robert J. Armstrong, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
FROMP&E,
.
SPE
INC,
VICTOR H BISHOP P E.. President
' DAVID H ENGER, P E . Vice Pres'denl
04.17.1996 10:03
• •
N0. 7 P. 2
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 110 — BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004
TELEPHONE (206) 455-5320
FACSIMILE (206) 453-7180
/April 1.0 ;199.6 >
Ron Cameron, P.E.
City. Engineer
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter.Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Homestead Village Extended Stay Hotel
Traffic Impact Mitigation Pro -rata Shares
Dear Ron,
I have prepared this letter in response to our telephone conversation on
April 2,1996 regarding your review of our March 20, 1996 Traffic Impact Analysis of
the proposed Homestead Village extended stay hotel. The Hotel is to be located on
the west side of the West Valley Highway just south of 1-405.
You mentioned that the City recently approved an extended stay hotel proposed
by another developer who used the ITE trip generation rates for a Business Hotel:
You also mentioned that this had set a precedent for the City's review and impact
mitigation for this type of facility. You suggested that for the Homestead Village
project we should either use the ITE Business Hotel rates or we should provide some
additional trip generation data (preferably local Seattle -area data) to substantiate the
Barton-Aschman data from Texas which we used. However, as I discussed, and as
stated in our report, there are not yet any facilities in the greater Seattle area
comparable to a Homestead Village, although several are proposed.
Upon discussing the above with Steve Tangney of Homestead Village, Inc., he
decided that in order to expedite your review and approval we will use the ITE
Business Hotel rates for the purpose of calculating the pro -rata share contributions to
City street improvement projects. Table 4 attached shows the theoretical vehicular trip
generation for the Homestead Village project using ITE Business Hotel rates. Table 5
shows the resulting pro -rata share contributions to City streetimprovement projects.
As calculated previously, the noon peak hour trips shown for each location on Table 5
are based on the trip distribution shown on Figure 3 of our report. The resulting total
contribution as shown on Table 5 is $16,026.
T083096A.Lh
FROP&E,
INC.
Ron Cameron, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Tukwila
April 10, 1996
Page 2 -
04.17.1996. 10:04
•
NO. 7 P. 3
We would like to reiterate that the Barton-Aschman trip generation rates are
more appropriate for a Homestead Village project than the l'TE Business Hotel rates.
The ITE Business Hotel rates are -based on only three studies of the AM and PM
street traffic peak hours, only one study of a weekday, and .do not include noon peak
hour data. The ITE data was collected in suburban Atlanta and Dallas in the late
1980's. The Barton-Aschman data was collected at established Homestead Village
Hotels in five Texas cities for the AM, PM, and noon peak hours and for weekdays In
the autumn of 1995. Therefore, the Barton-Aschman data is more extensive, more
complete, more recent, and more specific to Homestead Village than the ITE data.
Never -the -less, in order to .expedite the project as discussed above, Homestead
Village has agreed to use the ITE rates for pro -rata share calculation purposes, with
the results shown on Table 5 and a total of $16,026.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
DHE:es
cc: Alexa Berlow, City of Tukwila Planner
Steve Tangney, Homestead Village
Very truly yours,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
&ENGINEERING, INC.
A.
David H. Enger, P.E.
Vice President
T083096A.Ltr
FROM
•
•
INC.
04.17.1996 10:05 NO.
P. 4
TABLE 4
THEORETICAL VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION USING ITE RATES
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
(79 OCCUPIED ROOMS AVERAGE)'
TIME PERIOD
TRIP RATE
ENTER
EXIT J
TOTAL
Average Weekday
7.27
287 (50%)
287 (50%)
574
AM Peak Hour
0.58
27 (59%)
19 (41%)
46
Noon Peak Hour
0.413
16 (50%)
16 (50%)
32
PM Peak Hour
0.62
29 (60%)
20 (40%)
49
3
Assuming 80% average occupancy (99 total rooms x 80% average occupancy
= 79 occupied rooms average).
Using ITE Trip Generation (5th Edition, 1991) average rates for Business Hotel
(ITE Land Use Code 312).
Adjusted from Barton-Aschman noon and PM peak hour trip generation rates
(0.26 trips per occupied room at noon, 0.39 trips PM, per Table 1) in proportion to
PM peak hour trip generation using ITE rate, i.e. (0.26) x (0.62/0.39) = 0.41
r
T063096A.Tb!
FROMITP&E,
INC.
04.17.1996 ja10: 05
1
NO. 7 P. 5
TABLE 5
q PRO -RATA SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
USING ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
LOCATION
NET NEW
NOON PEAK
HOUR TRIPS
COST PER NET
NEW NOON PEAK
HOUR TRIP
PRO -RATA
SHARE
CONTRIBUTION
Southcenter Pkwy./
Strander Blvd.
2
$140
$280
Southcenter Pkwy./
S. 168th St.
0
$278
0
Andover Park E./
Strander Blvd.
6
$135
$810
Andover Park W./
Strander Blvd.
3
$317
.
$951
Andover Park W./
Minkler. Blvd.
0
$392
0
Andover Park E./
Baker Blvd.
2
$377
$754
W. Valley Hwy./
Strander Blvd.
10
$283
$2,830
W. Valley Hwy./
S. 180th St.
3
$475
$1,425
Interurban Bridge over
Green River
8
$1,122
$8,976
TOTAL •
41:6,026 1,---\
-1-41(- Oval GI -h.4~3
Yeiv Tr71-4(-
kitta /14/til /Ili 47
12e,w,t)
prv,(at PulAtt .
T083096A.Tbl
.Date: 5 -Apr -96 17:44
From: PHIL (PHIL FRASER)
To: JOANNA
Copies -to: PHIL
Subject: HOMESTEAD VILLIAGE
Importance: HIGH
Message -id: 175C653101DEDEDE
Joanna -
There are significant issues regarding the SEPA checklist information
regarding flood protection for this project:
Under 3.a.1) Surface Water, the applicant states "The pond water level
fluctuates with the level of the Green River, which is about 100 feet further
west."
This indicates that the pond elevation is tied to the Green River. But the
Green River 100 flood elevation is between 22 and 23 ft in this reach of the
river, whereas the Pond is shown on the flood maps to have a flood elevation
of only 18.
Their building floor elevation is shown at 21. If the pond water level
fluxuates with the level of the Green River, then I question how it is tied
into the river water table both now and in future.
Questions that need to be answered:
Since the development wishes to use the adjacent pond for its 100 yr/7 day
storage (on other's property), they need to demonstrate what rights they have
to do so. Also, they need to identify what the impacts of discharging this
level of water will have on adjacent property, the wetland, and their own
property. Under different river conditions, how is the pond water table
influenced?
We don't believe there is a continuous levee around the Green River which
protects the property. Therefore, we request the developer to prove such a
continuous levee exists that is 2 feet above the 100 year flood plain that
provides necessary protection for their development. Included in this
analysis I request a survey of the extent and condition of the existing levee
they are relying upon.
In summary, I request the developer demonstrate there is protection from the
river using the property owner's property rights - for the life of the
project - or raise the site to the requirements of the Green River 100 year
Elevation.
•
CIIty 71thetllla
J,
March 22, 1996
John W. Rants, Mayor
epartment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Betsy Dyer
Engineering Assistant
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, Washington, 98032
RE: Homestead Village
SEPA File: E96-0007
BAR File: L96-0015
Dear Betsy:
We have received your applications for SEPA and Design Review. Following preliminary
review, the following items and issues remain in need of attention in order to complete your
application for routing:
For SEPA:
• Soils Report
• Wetlands Study
For Design Review:
• Check parking ratio figures. Parking requirements for hotels/motels is
one (1) per unit.
Other issues you will need to address during the routing process, and before any final decisions
can be made include:
For SEPA:
• Delineation of wetland and river on the site plan
• Show adjacent properties/land uses
• Proposed exterior building materials
For Design Review:
• Lighting standard specifications
• Specify lighting for parking area
• Augment overall lighting plan to show glare impact
• Proposed exterior building materials
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 o Far (206) 431-3665
• •
Dyer Letter
Re: Homestead Village
Page 2
In our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon we agreed that outstanding information for
the routing process could be completed and received in our office by Tuesday, March 26th.
Please let me know if there will be a problem meeting this deadline, as we can not route your
applications without this information.
Alexa Berlow
Associate Planner
IVICTOR H BISHOP P E. President
DAVID H ENDER. P E . Vice President
•
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
Mr. Steven M. Tangney
Homestead Village, Inc.
47775 Fremont Blvd.
Fremont, CA 94538
Re: Homestead Village Extended Stay Hotel
Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr.Tangney:
2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 110 - BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004
TELEPHONE (206) 455-5320
FACSIMILE (206) 453-7180
March 20, 1996
We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the proposed
Homestead Village extended -stay hotel in Tukwila, Washington. The project includes
99 hotel rooms and about 108 parking spaces and is located on the west side of the
West Valley Highway immediately south of the 1-405 freeway interchange.
I have visited the project site and surrounding street network to collect
additional field information for this analysis. Per the City's requirements this study
presents the following:
1. Vehicular trip generation for the project.
2. Assignment of the extended stay hotel project noon hour trips to the
street network.
3. Calculation of pro -rata share developer contributions to planned City
street improvement projects.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding
road network.
Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan for the project. The site will have.one
driveway onto West Valley Highway, which will operate as a right turn in only/right turn
out only driveway. The existing yellow type C traffic curb in the center of West Valley
Highway prohibits left turns along the site frontage. The proposed site driveway
T063096.Rpt
MAR 2 0 1996
PERMIT
CENTER
Mr. Steven M. Tangney
Homestead Village, Inc.
March 20, 1996
Page - 2 -
centerline is located approximately 40 feet north of the south property line, and is
midway between the adjacent signalized intersections at the 1-405 northbound ramps
and at Longacres Way. The proposed driveway centerline is about 250 feet or more
from the centerline of each of these intersections.
The proposed 99 unit Homestead Village hotel is an extended stay hotel which
will cater to the business traveler. This hotel will be one of the first of its type in the
greater Seattle area. The hotel will not have a restaurant, lounge, meeting rooms,
pool, weight room or other common hotel amenities. Patrons are generally charged
for accommodation on a weekly basis. There are other hotels located in the Seattle
area (such as Homewood Suites in Tukwila) which are also geared toward the
business traveler. However, none of these hotels charge primarily a weekly rate. In
addition, these other hotels typically have lounges, breakfast bars, meeting rooms,
pools, weight rooms and other amenities.
ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
West Valley Highway is a seven lane major arterial street. West Valley is also
a state highway designated as SR 181. Near the project site, West Valley has curb
and gutter on both sides, but has a cement concrete sidewalk only on the Homestead
Village side. The southbound curb lane adjacent to the sidewalk is an "add lane" that
begins at the 1-405 northbound off -ramp. Off -ramp traffic uses a right turn only lane
on the off -ramp that continues directly into the "add lane" on West Valley Highway.
The right turn movement•is not signal controlled, and operates as a free right turn. •
Right turning traffic from the off -ramp to the West Valley Highway does not stop.
Traffic using the proposed Homestead Village driveway will turn right to or from
this curbside "add lane" on West Valley Highway. The northeast corner of the project
site and the southwest corner of the West Valley Highway/I-405 northbound ramps
intersection must be kept clear of view -blocking vegetation or structures in order to
ensure good sight distances from the site driveway to approaching off -ramp traffic.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
The Homestead Village project is expected to generate the vehicular trips
during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours on Table 1. A
vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the
origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. These trip generation
T083096.Rpt
Mr. Steven M. Tangney
Homestead Village, Inc.
March 20, 1996
Page - 3 -
values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including
customer, employee, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips.
The usual source of trip generation information is the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation. However, since the Homestead Village hotel will be
so unique in its services and Trip Generation has only limited data (three studies) for
business hotels, TP&E obtained trip generation data collected for other Homestead
Village Hotels by Barton-Aschman Associates, a national transportation consulting
firm. Table 2 shows a summary of the Barton-Aschman data which was collected
over a seven day period at five established Homestead Village hotels in Texas. Trig
Generation recommends using the number of occupied rooms as the independent
variable to take into account local occupancy rates. Therefore, Table 2 shows the
calculated trip rate per occupied room. Table 1 assumes an occupancy rate of 80%
(99 total rooms x 0.80 = 79 occupied rooms).
Since the Homestead Village hotel will be one of the first of its kind in this
region, collection of comparable local Seattle area trip generation data is not feasible.
As discussed above, there are other similar hotels located in the Seattle area that are
called business hotels, but offer many other services that the Homestead Village
hotels do not offer. These additional services would likely increase trip generation at
these other hotels.
Figure 3 shows the estimated noon peak hour trip distribution and the
calculated noon peak hour site -generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on
the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, and previous
traffic studies.
TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.
The City is currently collecting pro -rata share contributions for nine street
improvement projects on their six year transportation improvement program. Fee
rates have been developed for each of the nine projects. The rates are based on the
street traffic noon peak hour. Table 3 shows the net new noon peak hour project
trips, fee rate and pro -rata share contribution at each location for the proposed
Homestead Village Hotel.
T083096.Rpt
Mr. Steven M. Tangney
Homestead Village, Inc.
March 20, 1996
Page - 4 -
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Homestead Village Extended Stay hotel project be
constructed with the following comments and traffic impact mitigation measures:
1. A "RIGHT TURN ONLY" traffic sign should be installed for traffic exiting the
project site driveway onto the West Valley Highway.
2. If required by the City, the hotel developer should agree to work closely with
the City to validate the trip generation data for the Homestead Village Hotel
presented in this report. As mentioned earlier, it will not be possible to
collect local trip generation data for a similar hotel, as none exist.
3. The hotel developer should offer to pay a total pro -rata share contribution of
$9,949 for various City street improvement projects, as shown on Table 3.
4. The northeast corner of the project site and the southwest corner of the
West Valley Highway/I-405 northbound ramps intersection must be kept
clear of view -blocking vegetation or structures in order to ensure good sight
distances from the site driveway to approaching off -ramp traffic.
5. The existing highway right of way between the existing sidewalk and the
Homestead Village site property line (approximately fifteen (15) feet wide)
will be landscaped by the developer with low, non -view -blocking
landscaping.
6. Based on the above analysis, no additional off-site traffic impact mitigation is
necessary for the Homestead Village project.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
DHE:es
EXPIRES OM 97
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
& ENGINEERING, INC.
efrx,-4.
David H. Enger, P.E.
Vice President
T083096.Rpt
SPE
•
•
TABLE 1
VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
(79 OCCUPIED ROOMS AVERAGE)'
TIME PERIOD
TRIP RATE2
ENTER
EXIT
TOTAL
Average Weekday
4.96
196 (50%)
196 (50%)
392
AM Peak Hour
0.35
17 (59%)
.11 (41%)
28
Noon Peak Hour
0.26
10 (50%)
11 (50%)
21
PM Peak Hour
0.39
19 (60%)
12 (40%)
31
2
Assuming 80% average occupancy (99 total rooms x 80% average occupancy = 79
occupied rooms average).
Using Barton-Aschman trip generation rates (trips per occupied room). See Table 2.
T083096.Rpt
1PE
• TABLE 2 .
1
BARTON-ASCHMAN HOMESTEAD VILLAGE
TRIP GENERATION STUDY RESULTS
Location
Units
Occupancy
Trips
Trip Rate
(Per occupied room)
Weekday
Dallas`
189
56%
Fort Worth
133
94%
634
5.07
Stafford
133
79%
487
4.64
N. Arlington
152
69%
546
5.21
Houston
133
77%
503
4.91
Average
138
80%
543
4.96
AM Peak Hour
Dallas*
189
56%
Fort Worth
133
94%
47
0.38
Stafford
133
79%
31
0.30
N. Arlington
.152
69%
33
0.31
Houston
- 133
77%
43
0.42
Average
138
80%
39
0.35
Noon Peak Hour
Dalia`s*
189
56%
Fort Worth
133
94%
12
0.10
Stafford
133
79%
33
0.31
N. Arlington
152
69%
32
0.31
Houston
133
77%
31
0.30
Average
138
80%
27
0.26
PM Peak Hour
Dallas*
189
56%
42
0.39
Fort Worth
133
94%
45
0.36
Stafford
133
79%
41
0.39
N. Arlington
152
69%
42
0.40
Houston
133
77%
41
0.40
Average
138
80%
42
. 0.39
* Trip data not available at this time for this location and time period.
M 131296. Rpt
�pE
TABLE 3
PRO -RATA SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL
LOCATION
NET NEW
NOON PEAK
HOUR TRIPS
COST PER NET
NEW NOON PEAK
HOUR TRIP
PRO -RATA
SHARE
CONTRIBUTION
Southcenter Pkwy./
Strander Blvd.
1
$140
$140
Southcenter Pkwy./
S. 168th St.
0
$278
0
Andover Park E./
Strander Blvd.
4
$135
$540
Andover Park W./,
Strander Blvd.
2
$317
$634
Andover Park W./
Minkler Blvd.
0
$392
0
Andover Park E./
Baker Blvd.
1
$377
$377
W. Valley Hwy./
Strander Blvd.
6
$283
$1,698
W. Valley Hwy./
S. 180th St.
2
$475
$950
Interurban Bridge over
Green River
5
$1,122
$5,610
TOTAL
$9,949
T083096.Rpt
VICINITY MAP
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE HOTEL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
36
SPRINGBROOK
GREENBELT
i'
* •
4,drficE —.
/ (IST RR.)
•
MANAGER
APARTMENT
•••!.* (2ND FLR.) '
•
L _ u
!ARM:APE /
,1\
'tit/
/".
\
\ ELEVATOR
\
Uo(DSCAPE
\ I
POR
COCHERE '
-- -4-
I T -T
-,..----,---..._ ---i
1111
1
! i i 1 I I I 0------`-
---- POLE SI,
I I ,
I
' LANDSC.APE •
(...-- r--- -)
0 vi
0
1, V
0
LANDSCAPE
, /; /rr/2/77I2 ,
cicic crcicjclic
74- '
E.)
o
91 1
I I
ENTRY
EXIT
SITE PLAN
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE HOTEL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SITE -GENERATED 'NOON PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE HOTEL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
•
Control No.
Epic File No.
Fee $325.00 Receipt No.
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
OUR JOB NO. 5705
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Homestead Village.
2. Name of Applicant:
Security Capital/Homestead Village.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Steve Tangney
4775 Fremont Boulevard
Fremont, CA 94538
4. Date checklist prepared:
March 19, 1996.
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construction Start - August 1996
Construction Completion - May 1997
One Phase Only.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related
to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No. This is a single-phase project.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Soils Report
Traffic Report
Wetland Study?
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
No applications are pending.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
SEPA, Byi Building Permit and Occupancy Permit.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal. and should not
be summarized here.
This project proposes a 99 unit extended stay business hotel on a 1.87 -acre site. The ho
building will be a single three-story structure with elevator.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,
and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a
range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are
not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
applications related to this checklist.
Located at southwest corner of West Valley Highway and I-405.
Southwest Quarter, Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
No. However, there is a Type III wetland located along the westerly boundary of the
site. The Green River is over 200 feet from the property.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
•
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly,
steep slopes, mountainous, other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
0.25 percent.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example,
clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Soils are expected to be soft loose alluvial sand and silt. A soils
report is pending.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Project will require approximately 2,000 yards of fill. Source is
unknown at this time.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe.
g.
No. Project grading will follow all required erosion control
parameters. Long-term erosion control will be reduced by hard
surface cover and landscaping.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
Impervious = 53,216 square feet or 67 percent.
Pervious = 26,408 square feet or 33 percent. -v
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• s
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts
to the earth, if any:
Erosion control measures will be consistent with the requirements of
City of Tukwila Engineering Department, which in general requires
earth check dams, straw bale erosion control dams and/or siltation
fencing to control off-site siltation during grading phases of
construction.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal
(i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during
construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
The only type of emissions that could be emitted would be from
automobile/trucks use during and after construction.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other
impacts to air, if any:
Due to the minimal emission generated by this project, there are no
measures proposed at this time to mitigate automobile emissions.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal
streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes,
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state
what stream or river it flows into.
The westerly boundary of the site consists of a seasonal pond
currently classified as a Type III wetland. The pond water
level fluctuates with the level of the Green River, which is
about 100 feet further west.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to
(within 200 feet) the described water? If yes, please
describe and attach available plans.
Construction will not occur within 200 feet of the Green
River, but will occur within 40 feet of the existing wetland.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would
be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands
and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
None.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and ap-
proximate quantities, if known.
Yes. Surface drainage will be collected into a storm drain
system and discharged into the adjacent wetland at
predevelopment rates.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so,
note location on the site plan.
Yes, 100 -year elevation is +18 feet on the attached survey.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste
materials to surface waters? If so, describe the types of
waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
None.
9t2-ovsY,. ,
' A .so L. we -its- tet = •S hwc l.�rw
C sl,t 2. 1.) Pe -sr n -
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
No.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for
example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected
to serve.
None.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (include quan-
tities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
The site currently drains to an existing wetland pond that
borders the west side of the site. The developed site will
continue to drain to this pond. A biofiltration swale will be
provided for water quality. An underground detention vault
will be provided to mitigate the additional runoff volume from
pervious surfaces. A preliminary drainage plan has been
submitted to the City.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If
so, generally describe.
No waste materials generated.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
Bioswale for water quality underground detention vault for water
quality.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
X grass
pasture
_ crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage,
other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
X other types of vegetation - blackberry
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Existing trees will be removed. New landscaping will be provided.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
None.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
New landscaping will meet or exceed City requirements. See attached
plan.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds an animals which have been observed on or near
the site or are known to be on or near the site:
X birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other occasional ducks
on adjacent pond
_ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other
_ fish, bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site.
None.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Adjacent wetland will remain undisturbed.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)
will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs?
Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electricity will be used for heating, cooling, and lighting. Gas will be
used for hot water.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
No.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the
plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or
control energy impacts, if any:
Energy efficient lighting. Individual heating units. Project will meet
Washington Energy Code.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure
to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous
waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
No.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
Police and/or fire department services in case of emergency.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental
health hazards, if any:
None.
b. Noise:
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation,
other)?
Existing traffic on I-405 approximately 200 feet to the north.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short-term or long-term
basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the
site.
Short-term noise from construction work 7:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. Long-term noise associated only with on-site traffic
circulation.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if
any:
Noise impacts generated on-site are minor.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Site is vacant.
West: Green River
South: One single-family residence
East: Commercial
North: I-405 freeway
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No, not in the past 30 years.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
One vacant, broken down old house.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Existing old house will be demolished. Structure is not habitable.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Tukwila Urban Center (TUC).
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation for the site?
Commercial.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
g.
Type III wetlands to the west of site.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the com-
pleted project?
j•
Eight workers.
Ninety-nine hotel rooms.
Approximately how many people would the completed project dis-
place?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if
any:
None.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
This project is compatible with existing and proposed uses. There are
three existing hotels within one block of the site.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
7
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
One on-site manager's residence - middle income.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not
including antennas; what is the principal exterior building
material(s) proposed?
Approximately 39 feet.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Landscaping, architectural modulation, including hipped roofs, etc.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time
of day would it mainly occur?
Night lighting will be provided for security but will comply with
Tukwila standards for glare.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard
or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
if any:
Cut off style fixtures as required.
12. Recreation
a. What designation and informal recreational opportunities are in
the immediate vicinity?
Fort Dent Park, Green River.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational
uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project
or applicant, if any:
None.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for,
national, state or local preservation registers to be on or next to
the site? If so, generally describe.
No.
.
Lk LM t1G. 16,
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
•
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on
or next to the site. .
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on-site plans,
if any:
West Valley Highway
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
0 eliminated, 108 provided.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve-
ments to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so,
generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water,
rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
met61.461.11 vA.
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would
occur.
g.
398 total daily trips.
28 a.m. peak, 10 noon peak, 19 p.m. peak.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,
if any:
None. See attached traffic study.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services
(for example: fire protection, police protection, health care,
schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
No, other than the usual and customary services. Building will be
sprinklered. On-site night security will be provided.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any:
See above (15a).
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural
gas. water, refuse service, telephone. sanitary sewer, septic
system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the
utilities providing the service, and the general construction
activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Proposed: Electricity
Gas
Phone
Water
Sewer
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
3 40/ R 6
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them
in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal,
or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal that would
affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the
proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;
emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or
hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plan, animals, fish, or
marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or
marine life are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural
resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural
resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for
governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and
scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic
or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,
including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline
uses incompatible with existing plans?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use
impacts are:
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master
Plan?
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,
state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the
environment.
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the
Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NONPROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a
proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the
Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall
perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental
information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive
information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred
course of action:
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the
Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
5705.004 [RJA/ks]
WETLAND BUFFERS
Type 1-100 foot wide buffer
type 2-50 foot wide buffer
Type 3-25 foot wide buffer
SINGLE FAMILY/MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
WATERCOURSE\
BUFFERS •\ 1`
type 1-70 foot wide buffer 1
type 2-35 foot wide buffer •
a l
Type 3-15 foot wide buffer
City of Tukwila
SAMPLE RESIDENTIAL
SENSITIVE AREA
SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
Figure 18-2
Pre-ipplication Ch4k1ist
CITY 0 UKWILA
Department of CoMmunity'DevelOpment
Building Division -Permit Center
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
PRE -APPLICATION FILE NO. PRE96-°°7 PROJECT.
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE
MEETING DATE/TIME:
2/29/96 @ 2:30 P.M. SITE ADDRESS: W VALLEY HY & 1-405
aV etvtf-Kt-,
eifollowinticoriitrientsrezasea,. enalfreirniattreiie
4-0-1- • •.4,144-4-4 4 :4...44-, ,•
itiona rnforiiattonrnaybeAe,..*- it:,Citiierjequgpmenteregtilationstiarneedt� be".!
ENVIRONMENTAL
1) A Tukwila inventoried wetland; Wetland #17, is mapped on the
site.. It has been rated as a Type 3 wetland based on the
original inventory data. Further on-site investigation may.
change the rating to a Type 2 because of significant tree.
cover.andthe.overall size. aPP.erP .t.0b.gr?ater than 1.0 acre
.(TMC .18_45_020 c.2).
. • •
A.wetland study, performed by a qualified consultant, maybe
needed to determine the wetland. boundary, rating,. and
appropriate buffer setback.
2) Permitted uses .in•Type:1 and. 2 wetlands are allowed by TMC.
18.45.080: Sections A, B, & H. • The wetland's 50-foot•buffer
Setback may be reduced up to 50- percent in areas"that will
have approved enhancement plantings. ,Buffer. width reduction
is determined by the DCD Director on. a case-by-case basis
provided the buffer does not 'Contain slopes 20%- or greater
(TMC 18.45.040 c.4.A.)..
New stormWater discharges to wetlands are subject -to standards
found in TMC 18.45.080 (b).
3) A Tree-Tei'Mitis needed to remove trees from a sensitive area
or-its-buffer-and-the:shoreline- zone (avic.1.13%.54..050)
..,•• .•.. •.
4) Due • to the site's proximity to the Green River, development
within 200 feet from the OHWM would likely require a Shoreline
Permit. In addition, the 7S Army Corps ..of. Engineers have
jurisdiction over wetlands. .This wetland. will likely
determined.as .11Adjacent"to the.Green River -and could require.
an Individual Permit for fillingor.dredging.
•
IP
VIIL1
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FOR
Attachement B
11110AVL( E T I AD V lLLA d 9 HNC.
AQP RtIt 246 10-$ 9!6
12- ins to + S vtv ru eo Iz sk i G .
PROJECT TEAM SITE DATA SUMMARY
0010:
VII 1401620/0 01.1.16E MC.
me rwlun 0-w.
(101(�1.-4111000(610) M1-4060 (143)
1 60104(.1 0015014 61401 Y. 116414
uro6rtn:
00000 0 SMM 141001[40 K.
4114 aAO116m
e11 0 - n.1
4446 (IMO I-16
2(411141(04 140 61111
60-
0011001.
0ROO TO MIT
1011�1p�j W(�2SOUP
M1pS0� CW06D6. MC.
EVII(AC1�I-11.12 Y06 6 RM NEtl6I6M0ONS 701 WA)
04163404( 1010201C1:
400001 0 ASSOCOI s
342 MAX RACE 5011 117
as NOM
01-5110S (20O) 023-1106 (FAX)
11013014 1110' /4010101
OCNrv2 0 61011. 111
4010014101101 140 0-1 M.
KOONS CO2 1101 1116004 611020 COOT
1111[ 104 1127 47116 10114. 1410
IAR: 40.370/110162 - 314 - 41040
w W6 1 1.0 Sl24/U21 . 2L1116111-1110.
0110016 11wnm1
CUM0A10
C010.1 .0
11010410.1401 -
MILK
101
COVERAGES
■1404 10,310 4f. 01.4E
MOW%
1.044614( 05.201 611. 20.76
C0/0110C
14141004.1 24.060 00. 42.111
4.ov1A¢
BOR 4001411- T74 0.1. 0.0E
ca 0120
- 11.034 S.I. 1004
BUILDING AREA
1ST M
110 M
10 RA
700E
0066
7064.
11104 01.
11,019 Sr.
10.40 L.
33.0.12 11.
1
11
SHEET INDEX
COVER SHEET
SURVEY
A41VA4a 1X6 Ono SLIMY
ARCHITECTURAL
0-1 5611 1.101
A-2 611 LOOM RAN
A-2 MST Alb 260X0 11x01 RYLxG 111/6
44 1100 71000 MO0MG RAM
4-0 010011 CleMi06
CML
0-1 716204*0 011014: 0010(66. 031101 • 0020111 awl RAN
LANDSCAPE
L-4
or
161
010201111116406 00
1.0.04C0( SO(DLLL 0 MOTES
M11ouoM 1100 USE MAr
MSIw 111.0 1010
Authorized Agent of
Togar4 & 00 0th. Inc.
JOOMLLM
G [flTh=
ARCHITECTS
44 West Green Street
0)d'Posodena, CA 91105
818.449.4449/449.4440 FAX
Job No. 95 695
Date 4/26/96
Sheet No.
•
VICINITY MAP
• CB -A 0(9 . 24.41
C0-11 RIR • 24.36 12' CW • 22.11
ce-c
STORM INVERTS
12'
CML21.96
2' CU4• 10.61
411-0 RI. • 25.13
5040-. (IN • 24.04
12' CUL N • 21.49
12'CUL S•21.46
(2' CULL S • 20.16
(2' colc` • 20.10
(0' CUL N • 1).59
12' CUL S • 10.14
LINF OF ORITIPLARY MGR
wATE14 AS 0Rn° OH
RANCH 15. 1005
ALTA / ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY
A PORTION OF THE HENRY MEADER D.I.C. NO. 48, IN SECTION 24,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN
CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY WASHINGTON
EASTBOUND I-40
OFFRAMP 5
l� 20-
��-`r� .................... .•••'
_44_4__4_.. _444_4 -
�1e
........ -_�
s 00404.20 4.--) le 9-4.
DLA01 UNIT
!FRU
/ 1)rn
/
4
4.)1
Ali(:04[5 RD
6]050941.1 / — REBM •/q/STK Cw
PROP cORNERR.
R 0581
1
// L /1//90
/V
+.4,/°/).,///:',.',7' \\
/
.•/
/7 /u,
////' per/ 0// A4ABB9wETL.VO, DE COT GP TIL916I/
AB OF TIE DATE 0a if! aMtL MODEM
i
1
SCALE�T • 20'
I EOEND'
I I
I 1
O
D
– o
(ON)
(U0)
B*1L
ILDECI 64CR LEE EBBW PDP. DE lE� 6=VAR(lO1wATER
7
FILISTING
OTLAPICATED
S
404
o /•-////'•.-
o� 4 / ////
as"� �//
/'/ •%//
// 4,
/,/
rN j%ij (4
OVERGROWN
ORNALIENTALS
TO IRIC. ND 5505100141
111.5.51-
S e5'21'UF
120.00'
PODnC
MICE
SmrtN d
P•OPERT9 LAE
(DK% 0.1'
Or
PROPERTY
aE
/O4Wu
FORM 1Y
SOON
PROPTATY°f LRC
•
fINCE
SOUTH OF PROPEATT LINE
LRB
mooartc
•SOU OF
PROPER,. LK
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
TM PIA No-LSTunSWLMACDE ARb RD owl GISAITOTOLE NUR.. C004104,
50110 Or
PROPERTYLFL
PQ 1
SOUTH
Rn LAL
POLE
110 4 le 049 Owl NO mog• NNm• aM•
040 RN•Os prow* 5000.14O4.9�500.0 Gem CaT040O M�RATN ":` 001 000•11 ' " "M�
"7x0'«7:II.e• :.., •.
brcludal 4m. . 1 15..
1001.40 4.•0110 0 • w .....4./�/ ..R •,e Area0....SN •Dm 45..0.
..R RR.9" 49.49 "44.44.100. ""°°"'.`; ° 5340"09/..,74 0.5,11. 1 i5.
Tm
au•Aal oem M• .v• ., —. 4 .m /.... BA. •/ (A vs. N(A•a)..
•��(�' "�� B r1// /5;19lo
6a ,HxrSmo�R4m.wlrw/5„6_ i1f00 •
RITAINDIG
WALL
GO -017
�ra um mC
)
\ Ag9
o. ws
044» 4x - §
4ONUSENI (AS NOTED)
ASPHALT PRANG
CONCRETE
CAMEL
0µ040L4 (AS NOTED)
WATER Vµ,5
MISTRANT
UTILITY ME
GUI H
SIGN
WATER 4(,004
JUNCTION BOX
UGH, STANDARD
CATCH BASPI
TYLE (4S NOTED)
0,500(40
UNDERGNWND
O.S.BL. (BURDINC SE10AC0 UNE)
FOLOLD 00LC IN ASPHALT PAANG. OVUM
TOMO PIT IP. Si STAMM ADOLFO PDX
Rw»UO DN1 rovT"T.. 10 DE 1 M »LE.
AS POOR Or WOW. ER R� Re USED
S.158th�TRET
z
Z
J 3 0
w c w U
> ¢ a
¢ z
o
a Y
w
z z
- } N 1-
Z W 3 Z
J ~ y
w
y I- N J
W
a_
O>Z
JIS
m O
�LL
>z<co
f U
W W 1- O
w LL zO
=rs
t+2
a LL
WN.
[ .Ont 11/ •oma MANOR
16.,01•.1106 COLOR NO
TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS
X411 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1' t6 1 t4 1: 1 :.m
'7
04
6 s .
r.z.oas +4d%,
0
mi111111111111111111100000000000
c c c ■ c c r
s
0
s
m
14
11111111111
011 12±C.Ct
•0.1011 SCR
SITE PLAN
aIm3ES07LAD VILLAGE
7UKWILA. WA
FOR
PTR HOMESTEAD VILLAGE WC.
SITE PLAN
Authorised Agent 01
Magma 1 Smith. Inc.
J0ciMLLM
f� 5[flITh=
ARCHITECTS
44 West Green Street
Old Pasadena, CA 91105
818.449.4449/449.4440 FAX
Job No. g/5110,598
8 5
Date 5/10/98
Sheet No.
•
•
/
LilTi OF 1 f00T. �1
CAM LE LLIAMATION••
�_ 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIgIIIIIMII 'um
1121B111111001
1111111111111
t1
oauuo11110 1
LEGEND
• E] -or unh-tYTP WA Lott. 01 MILL Iol tf fOOSM alert wsvl
071111110 1'-f rt. m 07117111 O Mu[ AI 171 MD >b LAO. 0701000115.
g l:J 'uSwor MOD tam IeRS-O.-I3D-111-u SII11 ILLI 00110037 s1GD.
ro101tn 77-0 *11.
fE1 .11•10MC ICU NOW= Uif MIR F m1 I0D11O Orawrm
SIM 5M1T Du somre OM 1 01.7 10'-0 A0g 0001.
SITE LIGHTING PLAN
>o
WA
FOR
PTR HOLQSTEAD VILLAGE INC.
SITE LIGHTING PLAN
Authorised Agent of
Togo.e t Smite Inc.
TociMUJM
fi mim=
ARCHITECTS
44 West Green Street
Old Pasadena, CA 91105
818.449.4449/449.4440 FAX
Job No. g5)69/5
5 89
Date 8/10/96
Sheet No.
Ar.
•
16.
1.0.0
,visasta,ca_. vi.01mm1=it, •I on:
107:'. •vc.-34110ror F• Y11rg1' F I 41
:6R1 la.SU
Mal 6.11161117
1
rf`f
,•• Poire31
0
ra
51.0/0
.10.40 mro/u
r
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
tuna
0
0 �T
t - ---=, ter
U.0.0 SW.% 51100.10 51w0r0
�r� �rJr 1FJ`3�G'Lk1r pi11 rs=
F-1Firg,_t7rr.tCol v,"-tt4aglLlt1
ow 51w0v0 swoon swam F/,0+0 �:•
mow
.tel •�— !:-�� '_—�—1
r r
-,
.w0/0
T —..
51/0/ 51/W0
./Ow
_z --R:
— —i.:
i -i—
•— . n ■MLOL
Y. .. A Aga
mi. 1!
kW Iinil
- - ',__ i —/.1:
_I_' in
st/0w
.wow .Mown
.law
-- 1
r _
WI VI
0
FOR MOOR
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
■ill,Ilia(Ifl�I,'�I111111l mil11 R.
—Er via—aos—
TUICWIEA, WA GIN3R —
• FOR
PTR HOMESTEAD VILLAGE INC.
BUILDING
_ FLUOR PLANS
Ant horiee/ Aeent of
Top., n ,milk Inc
JOOMI
t�
ARCHITECTS
44 West Green Street
Old Pasadena, CA 91105
818.449.4449/449.4440 FAX
Job No 951695
Dale 5/10/98 •
Sheet No
A-3
51.00
'MQC SWORD SRlao $DunD
l?Sf'i t _ iSPIAAL
'20.1
tor!. 710,30 r
•
MO.
�SW01D MO. MUM
SW.0 SWIM 54.014,
—1111.1'
_..c4/431 -
.11
Asa ve eon 11.
trNc5�Fi1—
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
�0
■I II l II I I�I nj,IVR. null:
S s m m 1x rm
1191
CCLUCI
C
FOR
PTR HOMESTEAD VILLAGE INC.
BUILDING
FLOOR PLANS
Aut honied Agent of
Toge.a & Smith. Inc
JOOMJM
G 5ITh=
ARCHITECTS
44 West Green Street
Old Pasadena, CA 91105
818.449.4449/449.4440 FAX
Job No 95 695
Dote 598
Sheet No
A— 4
•
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
N
■ •
3
7
3
SOUTH ELEVATION
.......................
EAST ELEVATION
„b ■I 11 11 Wn"II I' .I 1 4I n4 .Q1
ffiO fl ADV■ -1 AM
TUKWILA. WARENGTON
FOR
PTH HOIQSTEAD VILLAGE. INC.
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
Authorized Agent of
Togowo & Smitt4 Inc.
TOOiMIM
rnm=
ARCHITECTS
44 West Green Street
Old Pasadena, CA 91105
818.449.4449/449.4440 FAX
Job No. 95189
Date 5/10/96
Sheet No
r-20'
PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SANITARY SEWER PLAN
LEGAL Or non
That portion of u. Homy wear 00nolian 1064 Claim 00. 46. ping Win Section 24. To.n•hy 23
540116. Rang* 4 East. WiRom•tb Mr46un, n 1479 County. Waaw91a. *pt. m fea.e.
REGO.. int.section of b. monument w el S.ca5204y 51x1• MM..' 2. (Ww 66646
• •m)thing i 1«t Westerly. as right mg. b bEmt, margin
gin Mersa.
W
monument ofSouth156.26xSo•h N, os M NW angles b..
Northerly -f-w05. being 'primal. y owl.
MOLE OT 41' 3T Mat along U. monument line
highway n.
M 261.51 4•
E u 6•T 21. O 2464 I dMONG. W 20.11 1«1 b be wx7M MptO-a-.46 M+.
therrof and Me TRUE POINTam a distance
MOLE North 07 01. 26 . M 770 5. feet
MOLE North it 04. 36 Mot 6 NM. as W 0 prior
mon r M b u. E«MM 0« 291
ordinary a Nsph6 a1on M the Moen Slam 41 way Corn* prig b N. c«1.rW. c14o4.4ic ways lh u4. G.«
P. ae Mo.n en R mMy1a Stat. 0044 00404 - p.400 S0. of XgA.ay. nolh-oimd -.46
teSR-405 Omen Fir.r. Interchange Sto4m 22400 b Station 120411 Sheol 2 d 1 appxm
January 1963'
MarsNorth
84Southwesterly2I•obi • fr m tll.rly M. b a point from .1:76 ue TRUE p000 K 9G01f611G
Mars WM DT 21.00'East
a et
MOLE North 6S 31' co- East a distance N 440 1x1, more or lex. to 04e mug PDMI OF
BEGR4M4G'
EXCEPT 044 po.5wn c0b
M.moed by • SMI. of Washington M Ming County Superior Court cause
0 522029. and
EXCEPT
fc 05051201; Wean rights convoyed b b. Swed of Washington 6y deed recorded undo. Recording
Oa STORM HESifB
C3-4 RIM • 24.41
12' CMP a 21.96
12' [OMC M 10.61
C5-■ RIM a 24.36 12• CMP 22.11
CE -C RIM • 25.09 12• CPC 4 . 21.49
12' CPS S • 21.46
CS -0
RIM • 25.13 12• (MCS • 20.16
12• CPC N • 20.12
SOMM-4 RIM • 24.04 I•' COMC M . 47.59
12' CPC S 10.14
M.
PROPERTY LINE 6
MIE OF 00.04. MOI
FSO AT tripPEO ON
4*90
14411. 11. 1149
A PORTION OF THE I -B Y READER DLC. NO. 48, N SECTION 24,
TOWNOHP 23 NORTH{ RANGE 4 EAST, NILLA AETTE MADIAN
arr of TUCWLA Iwo COUNTY
WASHNOTOM ,., DWI"Nye
lOOAME M 1-405 ROW OF VW811240[] OO4EMO310 MAZE
01./16411:11SE/WMPE
2020
SBmRE .®E W.uT
E.5000
0.1361011 ¢.1600
a tE It
PPE 6 5.06
EA.a
1f.1p0EE
O200*31
'.43 ACCESS
011
• easnEouND A WA E DIORTIMO00
........... 511MEWIR
ry _
� �_
tzt
Par
'll�r tST
020 114
10
10.17.1
1116
iiiIIIIIIIIIII II B II:II 11111111111 IIIIIIII IIIIIII!)as
STORM 011..41¢ w/®
WEER Mw 11/70007110
SWAB SE21316/704
SOMA. SEWER CLEI10ur
EDGE Of PAVEMENT
AS 1•41 MOOR
W4G6TE
DUFFER
:I 1)I4I
r- .meal 04./14.._ *0/44/4«11 0 21 Sc.. 4•20 411. r-.. .r -.. n70a.15,051465004
F1gNIMff HfOFY ptWAGECAlCLLA1018 aWMif
TOIL 91E NDA . 56.m Si.. 1127 IG •
100 MIT OEY TWE IMRT17221011 . 329 110E3 • 48.100 PAC 1EET
001140 100 511/7 WY SURFACE II040 l0 MO . 24.480 10.018 RT
(029 PS PEW wig
E2¢11*0 50011/2 GY *004.109/Ci9/9 WATER =ORM . 2680. PBC nit
410.4E 23.820 (..F. Or 5101114E 4110 0000900
.11F0.1314 PM°00 101 MEA ..B AC
1101360.5 11001 TOP NIA..35 IC
amim m6. 111At9MMTABm1161.M
f]N� moE.see1B 10 CUT f} TYSKA
10.501 O
309076E
• 0.405
•
•
PRESERVE 1 PROTECT
NATIVE VEGETATION
SELECTIVELY REMOVE ALL
BLACKBERRIES WITHIN THE
FIRST 10' OF VEGETATION
TO REMAIN
LIMIT CF BLACKBERRY REMOvAL
A
71/
//
PRESERVE 1 PROTECT+
NATIVE VEGETATION
TOP OF pax
COTTOOMOoci
POLE 51
1 RC
TOP OF DANK `' • 9
LIMIT CF CLEARING
}=�! F 1 ---=
(J
6 CF
12 C5
/ 1 1 6 CF
/-
Aur
` ' a „ ° _ ®®� / f ! r®tray
/e . °•"''• fir.: p�. ; o' ' .'rr,
• ,ti
tie �) '. ib -'",4 r ' e':..;:;: : �' ��.!py � II/I► dY'I ��� 4Li ��/1 ���.� Ori , pe eta.
• � \F !` 0000 :00000'•00000 0O iI1i.`'•+090{1'•.',0000 00000::•00000:00000:•00000!00000 04 8
IIIIG:11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 W:11
laol1 .ve:•:.:
it ��. • 5 /%////,`,.:;, �' '<i:o:J':
M •J
LANDSCAPE PLAN
NORTH sc.Le r • m -d
Brumbaugh & Associates
[anax a a
Architecture
SE m9rb117
kfLprat. WA NM
Its Mil./
11
+
St
11;
1 CO
1
PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
SIZE
NOTES
A
TREES
ACER RIBRTM 'RED SUNSET' / RED MAPLE
2-1/2" CAL.
BAB, MATCHED FORM
110
O
ACER CIRCINATUM / VINE MAPLE
8' NT.
BIB. MATCHED FORM
t1
`.
BETULA JACCIIEMONTII / JACOUEMONTI BIRCH
PRUNUS C. 'THUNDERCLOUD' / THUNDERCLOUD FLOWERING PWM
THUJA PLICATA /WESTERN RED CEDAR
2-1/2" GAL.
2 -VA" CAL.
B.B. MATCHED FORM
BNB, MATCHED FORT
6' HT.
BNB, FULL . BUSHY
0
o
THUJA PLICATA 'EXCELSA' / EXCELSA CEDAR
SHRUBS
8' HT.
BIB, FULL 4 BUSHY
CS
CORNUS STOLCNIFERA / RED TWIG DOGWOOD
24"-30" HT.
FULL FOLIAGE, 48' O.C.
CF
CORNUS S. RAVIRAPIEA' / YELLOW TWIG DOGWOOD
24"-30' HT.
RILL FOLIAGE. 48" O.C.
IC
ILEX CRENATA 'CONVEXA' / COMPACT JAPANESE HOLLY
20•-24" HT.
RILL FOLIAGE, 36" O.C.
PL
PRUNUS LUSITANICA / PORTUGAL LAUREL
30"-36" HT.
RILL FOLIAGE, 48" OC.
RP
RHODODENDRON 'PJM' / RHODODENDRON
24"-30" SPR
RILL FOLIAGE, 36' O.C.
RA
RHODODENDRON 'ANAN KRUSCHKE' / RHODODENDRON
24"-30" SPR
FULL FOLIAGE, 36" OC.
RC
RHODODENDRON 'CUNNINGHAM•5 U3-UITE' / RHODODENDRON
24"-30" SPR
BULL FOLIAGE, 36" O.C.
TO
THUJA 0. 'EMERALD SMARAGD' / ARBORVITAE
6' HT.
RILL FOLIAGE. 30" O.C.
4
WISTERIA SINENSIS/ CHINESE WISTERIA
I GAL.
12' O.C.
GROUNDCOVER
GAULTHERIA 5NALLON / SALAL
I GAL.
24. O.C.
"`
RUBUS CALYCINOIDES / RUBUS
4• POTS
18" O.0
11011)@1INOQ
ANNUAL COLOR BED
4" POTS
12" OG
50D LAWN
SEE SPEC.
SEE SPEC.
•
NOTE. WAGING FOR GROUCCOTER TO DE TRIANGULAR PER
DISTANCE 5440N ON PLANT SCHEDULE.
ED
GROUNDCOVER SPACING
NOT TO 6C4LE
LANDSCAPE NOTES:
ALL EXISTING VEGETATION IN AREAS TO RECEIVE NEW LANDSCAPE, TO BE
CLEARED AND GRUBBED FROM THE SITE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF
LANDSCAPE WORK SUBGRADES FOR BED AND LAUN AREAS
INDICATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS TO BE SET AT 6" MINUS FINISH
ELEVATION.
2. GROUND COVER TO EXTEND UNDER ALL TREE AND SHRUB CANOPIES AT THE
SPECIFIED SPACING TO PROVIDE COMPLETE COVERAGE IN ALL PLANTING
BEDS DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE GROUND COVER
3. LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON THE SITE PLAN PREPARED BY
BARGH4USEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OF ANY FIELD CHANGES TO THE SITE PLANS WHICH MAY REQUIRE
ADJUSTMENT OF DESIGN.
4. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR GRADING AND DRAINAGE
INFORMATION. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANT
ADVERSE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS WI -11014 MAY AFFECT THE HEALTH OF PLANT
MATERIAL.
5. ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH A FULLY
AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
6. INSTALL (150) PACIFIC WILLOW CUTTINGS RANDOMLY PLACED
ALONG HIGH WATER MARK
6E4 GROWTH AT NYREERT IEIGNT
DARK 7111.CH PER 6PEC6
15A0011.1. TO 004516T OF
TOPSOIL PER SPECS. ADD
FERTILIZER PER SPECS.
6DARFT ROOTDALL 04
CONTANER MATERIAL . REMOVE
70P V3 CF BURLAP ON 818
MATERIAL.
O SHRUB PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE
PIT 70 DE TLICE TIE ROOTBCLL DIA.
2 6TR4ND6 14 GAUGE Gal, WIRE
WITH CLEAR vwn. NO6E.
NEW 21/2" FIR WOO 6TAKE
PANT DARK BROW
TREE YRAP (F 6PECIFIEDI
)b• DIA. TREE IIELL6 IN
LATIN AREAS. FILL WI714
2' 6 6PECIFIED ML04.
48710/E TOP 10 CF BURLAP.
LOOSEN LIFE BASKETS
BACKFILL PIT 01I14 6071.
TOP601L AND 50* NATIVE
SOIL. ADD 6PECFIED
FERTILIZER TO MN.
NOTES& DETAIL APPLIES TO ALL TREES. TRIPLE 6T4KE ALL DECIOu015 TREE6
LARGER ULAN 3' CALIPER AND ALL EVERGREEN TREES L4IIGER
TNAN 10' IEGNT.
O TREE PI_ANTING
NOT TO SCALE
Brumbaugh & Associates
Ldndscce a A7rhlte turc •
.>� P6 4 3424 117
K/tbld MAI NOM
8
STATE OF
KA3NwcTRK
LA10XAK ARMIEtI
O
5705
1`,1
Barghausen
Consulting Engineers Inc.
Land Planing, Suety It Engineering Specialists
f. A. Seg. .n,.'n.. 04031 pM, 11141111
r.DO'
Fon: Homestead Village, Inc.
47775 FREMONT BOULEVARD
FREMONT CA 94538
(510) 656-1900
Tisk:
Surrounding Land -Use Map
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE, TUKWLA WA
•
.......................................... : ............... . ........ ........... ...
......
5705
A,.
=—
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KENT. WA 98032
(206)251-6122
(206)251-8782 FAX
at EIOREERIIIC. LAM 1,11.0•01C..
6A061116. EINIPOWDRAL SERVICES
R.•
we,
_Rs
.n.M.1011
.110
SR -181
(WEST VALLEY liGHWAY)
.......... .....
N 074-1-30. w
For
SECURITY CAPITAL PACIFIC TRUST
47775 FREMOW BOULEVARD
FREMONT, CA. 94538
(510) 656-1900
Thor
Cat
BUFFER/SETBACK EXHIBIT
HOMESTEAD VILLAGE, Ttn(wILA WA
04/19/96 FRI 12:15 FAX 5106614066
HOMESTEAD FREMONT
a1002
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE •
- fvrwr,�& -
Chapter 18.45
SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY
Sections:
18.45.010
18.45.020
18.45.030
18.45.040
18.45.060
18.45.080
18.45.090
18.45.115
18.45.120
18.45.125
18.45.130
18.45.135
18.45.140
Purpose.
Sensitive area designation, rating
methodologies, classifications and
applicability.
Interpretation.
Sensitive area buffers.
Procedures.
Uses and standards.
Sensitive areas tracts.
Exceptions.
Variances.
Appeals.
Recording required.
Assurance device.
Assessment relief.
18.45.010 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Overlay
district is to establish special standards for the use and
development of lands based on the existence of natural
conditions thereon in order to protect environmentally
sensitive areas, including the natural character of
Tukwila's wooded hillsides.
(b) Standards are hereby established to meet the
following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive
areas:
(1) Minimize developmental impacts on the
natural functions and values of these areas.
(2) Protect quantity and quality of water
resources.
(3) Minimize turbidity and pollution of
wetlands and fish -bearing waters and maintain wildlife
habitat.
(4) Prevent erosion and the loss of slope and
soil stability caused by the removal of trees, .shrubs,
and root systems of vegetative cover.
(5) Protect the public against avoidable losses,
public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and
subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide,
subsidence, erosion and flooding.
(6) Protect the community's aesthetic
resources and distinctive features of natural lands and
wooded hillsides.
(7) Prevent unlawful disturbance of
archaeologic or geologic sites with historic or prehistoric
artifacts.
(8) Balance the private rights of individual
property owners with the preservation of envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas.
(9) Prevent the loss of wetland and
watercourse function and acreage, and strive for a gain
over present conditions.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.020 Sensitive area designation — rating
methodologies — classifications and applicability.
(a) Applicability— This chapter applies to any use
or development proposed on any legal lot of record, ..
any portion of which is a sensitive area or a sensitive
area buffer as defined in the Definitions chapter of this
title, and specifically including one or more of the
following and their buffers:
(1) Abandoned coal mines;
(2) Areas of potential geologic instability: Class
2, 3, 4 and seismic instability areas (as defined in the
Definitions chapter of this title and subsection (e) of this
section);
(3) Wetlands;
(4) Watercourses;
(5) Areas that contain archaeological remnants
of value to the archaeological research community,
which includes but is not limited to colleges,
universities or societies of professional archaeologists,
or which is designated as important to save as a record
of the area's past by the State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation.
(b) Sensitive Areas Maps and Inventories
(1) The distribution of many sensitive areas in
Tukwila is displayed on the Sensitive Areas Maps,
dated 1990, and on file with the Department of
Community Development (DCD).
(2) Studies, preliminary inventories and
ratings of potential sensitive areas are on file with the
DCD in the Sensitive Areas Notebook, dated May 1990.
(3) The maps and preliminary inventories and
ratings are hereby adopted by reference. The actual
presence or absence of sensitive areas as defined by or
otherwise referred to in this chapter and as determined
by the City will govern. The actual ratings and buffers
for any sensitive area will be determined by the City
using the methodologies and procedures provided in
this chapter for each type of sensitive area.
(4) All revisions, updates and reprinting of
sensitive areas maps, inventories, ratings and buffers
shall conform to this chapter.
(c) Wetlands — For the purposes of this chapter,
"wetlands" is defined in the Definitions chapter of this
title. A wetland boundary is the line delineating the
outer edge of a wetland established by using the 1987
manual in use on January 1, 1995 by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Wetland types and rating criteria are listed below:
(1) Type 1 wetlands, those wetlands which
meet any of the following criteria:
(A) The presence of species listed by the
federal government or State as endangered or threat-
ened, or the presence of critical or outstanding actual,
habitat for those species, _.
(B) Having 40% to 60% permanent open
water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of
vegetation,
Page 18-70 December 4, 1995
TITLE 18 — ZONING
18.44.150 Specific use regulations — high i •act
environment.
All uses allowed in the underlying ening district
shall be allowed in the high impact e. c ironment.
(Ord.. 58 §1(part), 1995)
18.44.160 Variances.
Variances shall be pressed by the Board of
Adjustment in accor• • nce with the shoreline
regulations.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.44.170 App als.
Appeals o any decision regarding granting or denial
on shoreli substantial development permits may be
appealed •ursuant to the appeal procedure as set forth
in the : oreline regulations.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
December 4, 1995 Page 18-69
(C) Equal to or greater than five acres in
size and having three or more wetland classes, one of
which may be substituted by permanent or open
water; or
(2) r Type 2 wetlands, those wetlands which
meet any of-the—following criteria:
(A) Greater than one acre in size,
(B) Equal to or less than one acre in size
and having three or more wetland classes,
(C) Equal to or less than one acre, that
have a forested wetland class comprised of at least 20%
coverage of total surface area, or
(D) The presence of heron rookeries or
raptor nesting trees,
(E) The presence of native plant associa-
tions of infrequent occurrence;
(3) Type 3 wetlands, those wetlands which
are equal to or less than one acre in size and that have
two or fewer wetland classes.
For the purposes of this section, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's "Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States FWS/OBS-
79/31" (Cowardin et al., 1979), contains the descrip-
tions of wetland classes and subclasses.
(d) Watercourses — For the purposes of this chap-
ter, "watercourses" is defined in the Definitions chapter
of this title. The City "Watercourse Study" (1990)
includes the methodology and criteria that will be used
for determining watercourse ratings.
Watercourse ratings are based on the existing
habitat functions. Each segment or reach of a water-
course is rated individually. The rating system will
score a reach point total for each side of the water-
course. Watercourse types, rating scores and rating
criteria are described below.
(1) Watercourse Types and Rating Scores.
(A) Type 1 watercourse, 21 to 33 points;
(B) Type 2 watercourse, 11 to 20 points;
(C) Type 3 watercourse, 3 to 10 points;
(2) Watercourse Rating Criteria.
(A) Instream Features.
(i) Width of watercourse: A measure
of the average width of the channel at the ordinary
high water mark.
(ii) Channel capacity: Quantifies the
ability of the channel to convey high flows without
flooding.
(iii) Channel stability: Measures the
stability of the channel, by evaluating evidence of bank
failure, scour, and downcutting.
(iv) Fish use and fish habitat:
Anadromous species and resident salmonid- need pro-
tection measures if present. Rating dependson the
number of different types of habitat present. '
(B) Corridor Quality.
(i) Width of unmaintained vegetation:
A measure of the width of unmaintained vegetation
from the ordinary high water mark.
•
TITLE 18 — ZONING
(ii) Vegetation diversity: Quantifies
the elements of terrestrial habitat associated with the
watercourse corridor.
(iii) Corridor barrier function: Provides
some measure of effectiveness of the buffer to limit
intrusion and disturbance.
(iv) Surrounding land use: Evaluation
of the land use immediately outside the vegetated
corridor.
(e) Areas of Potential Geologic Instability —
Areas of potential geologic instability are defined in the
Definitions chapter of this title, and are classified as
follows:
(1) Class 1 areas, where landslide potential is
low, and which slope is less than 2Q%;
(2) Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is
moderate, which slope is between 20% and 40%, and
which are underlain by relatively permeable soils;
(3) Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is
high, which include areas sloping between 20% and
40%, and which are underlain by relatively
impermeable soils or by bedrock, and which also
include all areas sloping more steeply than 40%;
(4) Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is
very high, which include sloping areas with mappable
zones of groundwater seepage, and which also include
existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of
slope;
(5) Areas of potential seismic instability, with
soft soils, loose sand and a shallow groundwater table.
(f) Sensitive Areas Special Studies
(1) Required. An applicant for a development
proposal that includes sensitive areas shall submit
those studies as required by the City to adequately
identify and evaluate the sensitive area and its buffers.
(2) Waiver. If there is agreement between the
Director and the applicant concerning the sensitive area
classification and type, the Director may waive the
requirement for sensitive area studies. There must be
substantial evidence that the sensitive areas
classification is correct, that there will be no detrimental
impact to the sensitive areas or buffers, and that the
goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this
chapter will be followed.
(3) Review -of Studies. The DCD will review
the information submitted in the sensitive area studies
to verify the information, confirm the nature and type
of the sensitive area, and ensure the study is consistent
with this chapter.
(g) When this chapter imposes greater restrictions
or higher standards upon the development or use of
land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive
covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail.
(h) All other relevant standards of this Code must
also be met.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
December 4, 1995 Page 18-71
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE •
18.45.030 Interpretation.
The provisions of this chapter shall be held to be
minimum requirements in their interpretation and
application and shall be liberally construed to serve the
purposes of this chapter.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.040 Sensitive area buffers.
(a) General.
(1) Any land alteration must be located out of
the buffer areas as required by this section. Buffers in
general are intended to:
(A) Minimize long-term impacts of devel-
opment on properties containing sensitive areas;
(B) Protect sensitive areas from adverse
impacts during development;
(C) Preserve the edge of the sensitive area
for its critical habitat value; and
(D) Prevent loading of potentially unstable
slope formations.
Land alteration is permitted for public
access, supplemental planting and approved land uses
as provided in Section 18.45.080.
An undisturbed sensitive area or buffer
may substitute for the yard setback and landscape
requirements of the Supplemental Development
Regulations chapter and the Landscape, Recreation,
Recycling/Solid Waste Space Requirements chapter of
this title.
(2) Wetland and watercourse buffers are
intended to:
(A) Provide shading to maintain stable
water temperatures and vegetative cover for additional
wildlife habitat;
(B) Provide input of organic debris, and
uptake of nutrients;
(C) Provide an area to stabilize banks, to
absorb overflow during high water events, and to
allow for slight variation of aquatic system boundaries
over time due to hydrologic or climatic effects;
(D) Reduce erosion and increased surface
water runoff;
(E) Reduce loss of or damage to property;
(F) Intercept fine sediments from surface
water runoff and serve to minimize water quality
impacts;
(G) Preserve the edge for its habitat value;
and
(H) Protect the sensitive area from human
and domestic animal disturbance.
(3) Buffers for areas of potential geologic
instability are intended to:
(A) Protect slope stability;
(B) Provide erosion control and attenua-
tion of precipitation surface water and stormwater
runoff;
(C) Reduce loss of or damage to property;
and
(D) Preserve the natural character of
wooded hillsides where they exist.
(b) Special Buffer Studies —Applicants for a use
or development on a legal lot of record within a sensi-
tive area maximum buffer shall be required to conduct
a sensitive area study to provide a buffer analysis for
the sensitive area. This study may be waived by the
Director pursuant to Section 18.45.020(f)(2).
(c) Ratings and Buffer Width — Ratings and
appropriate buffers for wetlands and watercourses are
listed below.
(1) For wetlands:
(A) Type _1,_1002.foot_wide_buffer;
(B) Type 2, 50 -foot -wide buffer
(C) Type 3, 25=foot=wide-buffer. ,_
(2) For watercourses, the buffer shall be as
follows:
(A) Type 1, 70 -foot -wide buffer;
(B) Type 2, 35 -foot -wide buffer;
(C) Type 3, 15 -foot -wide buffer;
(3) Setbacks. _-- _--
___(A) {All ,commercial and, industrial devil
opments shall be set back 15 feet and all residential
development shall be set back= ten .feetf This setback
shall be measured from the foundation to the buffer's
edge.
B) The Director may waive setback
requirement when a site plan demonstrates there
will be no impacts to the buffer zone. (See Figure 18-2.)
(4) Variation of Standard or Creation of Variable
Width Wetland/Watercourse Buffers.
(A) The Director may reduce the standard
wetland/watercourse buffers on a case-by-case basis,
provided the buffer does not contain slopes 20% or
greater. The approved buffer width shall not result in
greater than a 50% reduction in width, and the reduced
buffer shall not be less than 15 feet for wetlands and
ten feet for watercourses. Any buffer reduction
proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Director that it will not result in direct or indirect, short-
term or long-term adverse impacts to wetlands or
watercourses, and that:
(i) The buffer is vegetated and
includes an enhancement plan as may be required to
improve the buffer function and value; or
(ii) If there is no significant vegetation
in the buffer, a buffer may be reduced only if an
enhancement plan is provided. The plan must include
using a variety of native vegetation that improves the
functional attributes of the buffer and provides addi-
tional protection for the wetland or watercourse func -
tions and vs.
Buffers for all types of wetlands and
watercorsesill be increased when they are deter-
mined to be particularly sensitive to disturbance or the
proposed development will create unusually adverse
impacts. Any increase in_the width of the buffer shall
be required only after: completion of a wetland cit -
Page 18-72
December 4, 1995
(
Dtv 'w tc } R a td1,446, rifoKAA
\tercourse study by a qualified wetlands specialist;/or
expert which documents the basis for Lsuch-increased
width. An increase in buffer width may be appropriate
when:
(i) The development proposal has the
demonstrated potential for significant adverse impacts
upon the wetland or watercourse which can be miti-
gated by an increased buffer width; or
(ii) The area serves as habitat for
endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitor species
listed by the federal government or the State.
(C) Every reasonable effort shall be made
to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers.
Vegetation may be removed from the buffer as part of
an enhancement plan approved by the Director.
Enhancements will ensure that slope stability and wet-
land and watercourse quality will be maintained or
improved. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands
or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant
community of native northwest species that are appro-
priate for the specific site as determined by the Director.
If the vegetation must be removed, or
because of the alterations of the landscape the vegeta-
tion becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for a
permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands
and watercourses with comparable specimens,
approved by the Director, which will reproduce the
existing buffer value within five years.
(D) The Director shall require subsequent
corrective actions and long-term monitoring of the
project if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands,
watercourses or their buffers are identified.
(d) Areas of Potential Geologic Instability
(1) Each development proposal for a legal lot of
record containing an area of potential geologic instability
shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the
requirements of Sections 18.45.060 and
18.45.080(e)(4). The geotechnical report shall analyze
and make recommendations on the need for and
width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and
requirements of this chapter. Development proposals
shall then include the buffer distances as defined
within the geotechnical report.
1Nt,PO4s (2) Buffers may be increased by the Director
g,. when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive
y to the disturbance created by a development. Such a
decision will be based on a City review of the report as
�15Iei°jrepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a
site visit.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.060 Procedures.
When an applicant submits an application for any
building permit, subdivision, short subdivision or any
other land use review which approves a --use, _de_v-el-
opment or future -construction, the.. location ,ofany send -
S sitive areas and :buffers on the site shall be indicated on
the plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identi-
•
TITLE 18 — ZONING
fied, the following procedures apply. The Director may
waive item numbers 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the following if
the size and complexity of the project does not warrant
that step in the procedures and the Director grants a
waiver pursuant to Section 18.45.020(f)(2).
(1) Sensitive Areas Study and Geotechnical
Report. The applicant shall submit the relevant study
as required in Section 21.04.140 and this chapter.
It is intended that sensitive areas studies and
information be utilized by applicants in preparation of
their proposals and therefore shall be undertaken early
in the design stages of a project.
(2) Planned Residential Development Permit.
Any new residential subdivision, residential short
subdivision, residential boundary line adjustment, or
multiple family residential proposal which includes a
sensitive area or its buffer on' the site shall apply for a
planned residential development permit and meet the
requirements of the Planned Residential Development
District chapter of this title.
(3) Denial of Use or Development. A use or
development will be denied if it is determined by the
Director that the applicant cannot ensure that potential
dangers and costs to future inhabitants of the
development, adjacent and local properties, and
Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable
level.
(4) Pre -development Conference. The
applicant, specialist(s) of record, contractor, and
department representatives will be required to attend
preconstruction conferences prior to any work on the
site.
(5) Construction Monitoring. The specialist(s)
of record shall be retained to monitor the site during
construction.
(6) On-site Identification. The Director may
require the boundary between a sensitive area and its
buffer and any development or use to be permanently
identified with fencing, or with a wood or metal sign
with treated wood, concrete or metal posts. Size will
be determined at the time of permitting, and wording
shall be as follows:
"Protection of this natural area is in your care.
Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to
TMC Chapter 18.45. Please call the City of
Tukwila for more information."
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.080 Uses and standards.
(a) General Uses — The uses set forth in this
entire section, including subsections (a) through (h),
and the following general uses, may be located within
a sensitive area or buffer, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 21.04 and of this section:
(1) Maintenance and repair of existing uses
and facilities provided no alteration or additional fill
materials will be placed or heavy construction
equipment used in the sensitive area or buffer;
December 4, 1995 Page 18-73
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE •
(2) Nondestructive education and research;
(3) Passive recreation and open space;
(4) Maintenance and repair of essential streets,
roads, rights-of-way, or utilities;
(5) Actions to remedy the effects .of
emergencies that threaten the public health, safety or
welfare.
(b) Permitted Uses Subject To Administrative
Review—The following uses may be permitted only
after administrative reviewand approval by the
Director:
(1) Maintenance and repair of existing uses
and facilities where alteration or additional fill materials
will be placed or heavy construction equipment used;
(2) Construction of new essential streets and
roads, rights-of-way and utilities;
(3) New surface water discharges to wetlands
or watercourses or their buffers from detention
facilities, presettlement pond's or. other surface water
management structures may be allowed provided that
the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW
90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended, and
does not increase the rate of flow to the wetland or
watercourse beyond the level of the existing rate;
(4) Regional stormwater detention areas may
be allowed if use results in no decrease in rating of
resource and enhances existing values and functions.
Design shall be subject to the standards of this section
and other applicable City standards;
(5) Enhancement or other mitigation including
landscaping.
(c) Wetlands
(1) General.
(A)1 No use or development may occur in
a Type 1 and Type 2 wetland or its buffer except ast
;specifically allowed by subsections (a), (b) and (h) of
/this section. i Any use or development allowed is
subject to -the standards of this section.
(B) Only isolated Type 3 wetlands can be
altered or relocated, and then only with the permission
of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan
must be developed and must comply with the
standards of compensatory mitigation required in this
chapter.
(C) Mitigation plans shall be completed for
any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations and
relocation of wetland habitat allowed in subsections (a),
(b) and (h) of this section.
(2) Compensatory Mitigation.
(A) The mitigation plan shall be developed
as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved
by the Director. Wetland and/or buffer alteration or
relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation
plan clearly demonstrates that the changes would be
an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative
and qualitative functions. The plan shall follow the
performance standards of this chapter and show how
•
water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general
wetland quality would be improved.
(B) In order to achieve the City's goal of
no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration
of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a
restoration, enhancement or creation plan to compen-
sate for the impacts to the wetland and will compen-
sate ata ratio of 1.5 to 1.
(C) Mitigation Location.
(i) On-site compensation shall be
provided, except where the applicant can demonstrate
that:
_ a.- -The hydrology and ecosystem
of the original wetland and those who benefit from the
hydrology and ecosystem will not be damaged by the
on-site loss, and _ _
b. ,'On-site compensation is not,'
scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology,
`soils, waves or other factors; or f -
c. Compensation is not practical
due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding
land uses; or
d. Existing functional values at
the site of the proposed restoration are significantly
greater than lost wetland functional values; or
e. That established regional goals
for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other
wetland functions have been established and strongly
justify location of compensatory measures at another ,
site.
(ii) Off-site compensation shall occur
within the same watershed where the wetland loss
occurred.
(iii) In selecting compensation sites,
applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of
preference:
a. Upland sites which were for-
merly wetlands;
b. Idled upland sites generally
having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting
primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or
emergent vegetation;
c. Other disturbed upland.
(D) Mitigation Standards. The scope and
content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case-
by-case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area
increase, the mitigation measures to offset these
impacts will increase in number and complexity. The •
components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are
as follows:
(i) Baseline information of quantita-
tive data collection or a review and synthesis of exist-
ing data for both the project impact zone and the
proposed mitigation site;
(ii) Environmental goals and objec-
tives that describe the purposes of the mitigation
measures. This should include a description of site -
Page 18-74. December 4, 1995
•
selection criteria, identification of target evaluation
species and resource functions;
(iii) Performance standards of the spe -
cific criteria, for fulfilling environmental goals, and for
beginning remedial action or contingency measures.
They may include water quality standards, species
richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices,
or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria;
(iv) Detailed construction plan of the
written specifications and descriptions of mitigation
techniques. This plan should include the proposed
construction sequence and construction management,
and be accompanied by detained site diagrams and
blueprints that are an integral requirement of any
development proposal;
(v) Monitoring and/or evaluation pro-
gram that outlines the approach for assessing a
completed project. An outline shall be included that
spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated
by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's
progress;
(vi) Contingency plan identifying
potential courses of action, and any corrective
measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation
indicates project performance standards have not been
met;
(vii) Performance security or other
assurance devices as described in Section 18.45.135.
(E) Mitigation Timing. Where feasible,
compensatory mitigation projects shall be completed
prior to activities that will permanently disturb wet-
lands and immediately after activities that will
temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction of com-
pensatory projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to
existing wildlife, flora and water quality, and shall be
completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or
development.
(3) ntial Utilities.
Essential utilities must be constructed
to minimize or, where possible, avoid wetland distur-
bance.
(B) All construction must be designed to
protect the wetland and its buffer against erosion,
uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater
movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any
loss of flood carrying and storage capacity, and excava-
tion or fill detrimental to the environment.
(C) Upon completion of installation of
essential utilities, wetlands must be restored to pre -
project configuration, replanted as required and
provided with maintenance care until newly planted
vegetation is established.
(D) All crossings must be designed for
shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts
and reduce the number of crossings.
(4) Essential Streets, Roads and Rights -of -Way.
(A) Essential streets, roads and rights-of-
way must be designed and maintained to prevent
•
TITLE 18 — ZONING
erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of
groundwater.
(B) Essential streets, roads and rights-of-
way must be located to conform to the topography so
that minimum alteration of natural conditions is neces-
sary. The number of crossings shall be limited to those
necessary to provide essential access.
(C) Essential streets, roads and rights-of-
way must be constructed in a way which does not
adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the wetland
or interrelated stream habitat. Where feasible, crossings
must allow for combination with other essential
utilities.
(D) Upon completion of construction, the
area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade,
replanted according to a plan approved by the Director,
and provided with care until newly -planted vegetation
is established.
(5) Public Use and Access.
(A) Public access shall be limited to trails,
boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing or seating
areas and displays, and must be located in areas which
have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or
alteration, and
(B) Public access must be specifically
developed for interpretive, educational or research
purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part
of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan.
(C) No motorized vehicle is allowed
within a wetland or its buffer except as required for
necessary maintenance, agricultural management or
security.
(D) Any public access or interpretive
displays developed in a wetland and its buffer must, to
the extent possible, be connected with a park,
recreation or open -space area.
(E) Vegetative edges, structural barriers,
signs or other measures must be provided wherever
necessary to protect sensitive areas by limiting access
to designated public use or interpretive areas.
(F) Access trails must incorporate design
features and materials which protect water quality and
allow adequate surface water .and groundwater
movement.
(G) Access trails must be located where
they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas
and buffer areas, and must be designed so that sensitive
plant and critical wildlife species are protected.
(6) Dredging, Digging or Filling.
(A) Dredging, digging or filling within a
wetland and its buffer may occur only with the per-
mission of the Director and only for the following
purposes:
(i) Uses permitted by subsections (a),
(b) and (h) of this section; or
(ii) Maintenance of an existing wet -
land; or
December 4, 1995
Page 18-75
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
(iii) Enhancement or restoration of
habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation
plan identified in a sensitive area study; or
(iv) Natural system interpretation,
education or research when undertaken by, or in
cooperation with, the City; or
(v) Flood control or water quality
enhancement by the City; or
(vi) Maintenance of existing water
quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for
any diversion, rerouting, piping or other alteration
permitted by this chapter.
(B) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be
performed in a manner which will minimize sedi-
mentation in the water. Every effort will be made to
perform such work at the time of year when the
impact can be lessened.
(C) Upon completion of construction, the
area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade,
replanted according to a plan approved by the Director
and provided with care until newly -planted vegetation
is established.
(d) Watercourses
(1) General.
(A) No use or development may occur in
a watercourse or its buffer except as specifically
allowed by this section. Any use or development
allowed is subject to the standards of this section.
(B) Diverting or rerouting may only occur
with the permission of the Director and an approved
mitigation plan.
(C) Any watercourse which has critical
wildlife habitat, or is necessary for the life cycle or
spawning of salmonids, shall not be rerouted unless it
can be shown that the habitat will be improved for the
benefit of the species.
(D) Any watercourse which has no criti-
cal wildlife habitat may be rerouted if the waters
flowing from the new configuration can be shown to
do so in a manner that does not in any way adversely
affect the habitat of a downstream salmonid -bearing
water.
(2) Mitigation.
(A) Plans. Mitigation plans shall be com-
pleted for any proposals of dredging, filling, diverting
and rerouting of watercourses.
(B) Plan Contents. The mitigation plan
shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a
specialist approved by the Director. The plan must
show how water quality, treatment, erosion control,
pollution reduction, wildlife and fish habitat, and
general watercourse quality would be maintained or
improved. All such plans must be approved by the
Director.
(C) Mitigation Standards. The scope and
content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case-
by-case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area
increase, the mitigation measures to. offset these
•
impacts will increase in number and complexity. The
components of a complete mitigation plan are as
follows:
(i) Baseline information of
quantitative data collection or a review and synthesis of
existing data for both the project impact zone and the
proposed mitigation site;
(ii) Environmental goals and
objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation
measures. This should include a description of site -
selection criteria, identification of target evaluation
species and resource functions;
(iii) Performance standards of the
specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and
for beginning remedial action or contingency
measures. They may include water quality standards,
species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity
indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological
criteria. The following shall be considered the
minimum performance standards for approved stream
alterations:
a. Maintenance or improvement
of stream channel dimensions, including the
components of depth, width, length and gradient of the
original location,
b. Bank and buffer configuration
should be restored to an equal or enhanced state of the
original stream,
c. The channel, bank and buffer
areas shall be replanted with native vegetation which
replicates or improves the original in species, sizes and
densities,
d. The stream channel bed and
the biofiltration systems shall be equivalent to or better
than in the original stream,
e. The original fish and wildlife
habitat shall be maintained or enhanced,
f. Relocation of a watercourse
shall not result in the new sensitive area or buffer
extending beyond the development site and onto
adjacent property without the agreement of the affected
property owners,
g. A watercourse may be
rerouted;
(iv) Detailed construction plan of the
written specifications and descriptions of mitigation
techniques. This plan should include the proposed
construction sequence and construction management,
and be accompanied by detailed site diagrams and
blueprints that are an integral requirement of any
development proposal;
(v) Monitoring and/or evaluation
program that outlines the approach for assessing a
completed project. An outline shall be included that
spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated
by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's
process;
Page 18-76 December 4, 1995
fte"--
(vi) Contingency plan identifying
potential courses of action, and any corrective
measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation
indicates project performance standards have not been
met;
(vii) Performance security or other
assurance devices as described in Section 18.45.135.
(D) Mitigation Timing. DCD-approved
plans must have the mitigation construction completed
before the existing watercourse can be modified.
(3) Essential Utilities.
(A) Essential utilities must be constructed
to minimize, or where possible avoid, disturbance of
the watercourse and its buffer.
(B) All construction must be designed to
protect the watercourse and its buffer against erosion,
uncontrolled drainage, restriction of groundwater
movement, slides, pollution, habitat disturbance, any
loss of flood carrying capacity and storage capacity, and
excavation or fill detrimental to the environment.
(C) Upon completion of installation of
essential utilities, watercourses and their buffers must
be restored to pre -project configuration, replanted as
required and provided with maintenance care until
newly planted vegetation is established.
(D) All crossings must be designed for
shared facilities in order to minimize adverse impacts
and reduce the number of crossings.
(4) Essential Streets, Roads and Rights -of -Way.
(A) Essential streets, roads and rights-of-
way must be designed and maintained to prevent
erosion and avoid restricting the natural movement of
groundwater.
(B) Essential streets, roads and rights-of-
way must be located to conform to the topography so
that minimum alteration of natural conditions is
necessary. The number of crossings shall be limited to
those necessary to provide essential access.
(C) Essential streets, roads and rights-of-
way must be constructed in a way which does not
adversely affect the hydrologic quality of the
watercourse and its buffer. Where feasible, crossings
must allow for combination with other essential
utilities.
(D) Upon completion of construction, the
area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade,
replanted according to a plan approved by the Director,
and provided with care until newly -planted vegetation
is established.
(5) Public Use and Access.
(A) Public access shall be limited to trails,
boardwalks, covered or uncovered viewing and seating
areas, and displays and must be located in areas which
have the lowest sensitivity to human disturbance or
alteration.
(B) Public access must be specifically
developed for interpretive, educational or research
• TITLE 18 — ZONING
purposes by, or in cooperation with, the City or as part
of the adopted Tukwila Parks and Open Space Plan.
(C) No motorized vehicle is allowed
within a watercourse or its buffer except as required
for necessary maintenance, agricultural management
or security.
(D) Any public access or interpretive dis-
plays developed along a watercourse and its buffer
must, to the extent possible, be connected with a park,
recreation or open -space area.
(E) Vegetative edges, structural barriers,
signs or other measures must be provided wherever
necessary to protect watercourses and their buffers by
limiting access to designated public use or interpretive
areas.
(F) Access trails must incorporate design
features and materials which protect water quality and
allow adequate surface water and groundwater
movement.
(G) Access trails must be located where
they do not disturb nesting, breeding and rearing areas
and must be designed so that sensitive plant and critical
wildlife species are protected.
(6) Piping.
(A) Piping of any watercourse should be
avoided. Piping may be allowed in any watercourse if
it is necessary for access purposes. Piping may be
allowed in Type 3 watercourses if the applicant com-
plies with the conditions of this section, including:
(i) Providing excess capacity to meet
needs of the system during a 100 -year flood event; and
(ii) Providing flow restrictors, and
complying with water quality and existing habitat -
enhancement procedures.
(B) No process that requires maintenance
on a regular basis will be acceptable unless this main-
tenance process is part of the regular and normal
facilities maintenance process or unless the applicant
can show funding for this maintenance is ensured.
(C) Piping in a watercourse sensitive area
shall be limited and shall require approval of the
Director. Piping projects shall be performed pursuant to
the following applicable standards:
(i) The conveyance system shall be
designed to comply with the standards in current use
and recommended by the Department of Public
Works.
(ii) Where allowed, piping shall be
limited to the shortest length possible as determined by
the Director to allow access onto a property.
(iii) Where water is piped for an access
point, those driveways or entrances shall be consoli-
dated to serve multiple properties where possible, and
to minimize the length of piping.
(iv) When required by the Director,
watercourses under drivable surfaces shall be
contained in an arch culvert using oversize or super -
span culverts for rebuilding of a stream bed. These
December 4, 1995 Page 18-77
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE •
shall be provided with check dams to reduce flows,
and shall be replanted and enhanced according to a plan
approved by the Director.
(v) When necessary to provide for
fish passage, fish ladders shall be 1 -foot vertical rise to
10 -foot horizontal distance, or as approved by the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(vi) Stormwater runoff shall be de-
tained and infiltrated to preserve the watercourse
channel's dominant discharge.
(vii) All construction shall be designed
to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse,
buffer and surrounding environment.
(viii) Piping shall be constructed during
periods of low flow, or as specified by the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(ix) Water quality must be as good or
better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water
entering the pipe, and flow must be comparable.
(7) Dredging, Digging or Filling.
(A) Dredging, digging or filling within a
watercourse or its buffer may occur only with the
permission of the Director and only for the following
purposes:
18.45.080;
(i) Uses permitted by Section
(ii) Maintenance of an existing water-
course;
(iii) Enhancement or restoration of
habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation
plan identified in a sensitive area study;
(iv) Natural system interpretation,
education or research when undertaken by, or in
cooperation with, the City;
(v) Flood control or water quality
enhancement by the City;
(vi) Maintenance of existing water
quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for
any diversion, rerouting, piping or other alteration
permitted by this chapter.
(B) Any dredging, digging or filling shall be
performed in a manner which will minimize sedi-
mentation in the water. Every effort will be made to
perform such work at the time of year when the
impact can be lessened.
(C) Upon completion of construction, the
area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade,
replanted according to a plan approved by the Director,
and provided with care until newly -planted vegetation
is established.
(e) Areas Of Potential Geologic Instability
(1) General. The uses permitted in the under-
lying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which
contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to
the standards of this section and the requirements of a
geotechnical study.
(2) Exemptions. Any temporary slope which
has been created through legal grading activities may be
•
regraded without application of this chapter under an
approved permit.
(3) Alterations.
(A) Prior to permitting alteration of an area
of potential geologic instability, the applicant must
demonstrate one of the following:
(i) There is no evidence of past insta-
bility or earth movement in the vicinity of the
proposed development, and quantitative analysis of
slope stability indicates no significant risk to the
proposeddevelopment or surrounding properties; or
(ii) The area of potential geologic in-
stability can be modified or the project can be designed
so that any potential impact to the project and surround-
ing properties is eliminated, slope stability is not
decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge
or sedimentation shall not decrease slope stability.
(B) Where any portion of an area of poten-
tial geologic instability is cleared for development, a
landscaping plan for the site shall include tree replanting
with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees,
preferably native, and approved by the Director.
Replacement vegetation shall be sufficient to provide
erosion and stabilization protection.
(4) . Geotechnical Report.
(A) The applicant shall submit a geotech-
nical report appropriate to both the site conditions and
the proposed development. A geotechnical investiga-
tion shall be required for development in Class 2, Class
3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or
Coal Mine Hazard Areas unless waived pursuant to
Section 18.45.020(f) (2).
(B) Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas
shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of
available information regarding the site and a surface
reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas.
Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discre-
tion of the geotechnical consultant.
(C) Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class
4 and Coal Mine Hazard Areas shall include a site
evaluation review of available information about the
site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent
areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrol-
ogy conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be
done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in
Class 3 or Coal Mine Hazard Areas, and must be done
in Class 4 areas.
(D) Seismic hazard areas shall include an
evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential for
the proposed development area. For one-story or two-
story single-family dwellings, this evaluation may be
based on the performance of similar structures under
similar foundation conditions. For proposed develop -
ments including occupied structures other than one-
story and two-story single-family dwellings, the eval-
uation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to
provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral
Page 18-78 December 4, 1995
force procedure described in the Uniform Building
Code.
(E) Applicants shall retain a geotechnical
engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations
required in this subsection. The geotechnical report
and completed site evaluation checklist shall be
prepared in accordance with the generally accepted
geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and
signed and stamped by the geotechnical engineer. The
report shall be prepared in consultation with the appro-
priate City department. Where appropriate, a geologist
must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting
team. The report shall make specific recommenda-
tions concerning development of the site.
(F) The geotechnical engineers required
under this subsection must meet the qualification stan-
dards approved by the Director. Applicants shall
provide a list of qualifications of the firm or individuals
who will be doing the technical studies, and those.
shall be approved by the Director. If the engineers'
credentials are not sufficient, the City may require
applicants to use a different engineer or firm which
does meet the City's standards.
(G) The opinions and recommendations
contained in the report shall be supported by field
observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by
literature review conducted by the geotechnical
engineer which shall include appropriate explorations,
such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil
characteristics conducted by or under the supervision
of the engineer in accordance with standards of the
American Society of Testing and Materials or other
applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic
evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be
reviewed and approved by a geologist.
(H) An independent review of geotechni-
cal reports will be required per Section 21.04.140.
(5) Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants.
(A) It shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to submit, consistent with the findings of the
geotechnical report, structural plans which were pre-
pared and stamped by a structural engineer. The plans
and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from
the geotechnical engineer who prepared the geotechni-
cal report stating that in his/her judgment, the plans
and specifications conform to the recommendations in
the geotechnical report; the risk of damage to the pro-
posed development site from soil instability will be
minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the
report; and the proposed development will not
increase the potential for soil movement.
(B) Further recommendations signed and
sealed by the geotechnical engineer shall be provided
should there be additions or exceptions to the original
recommendations based on the plans, site conditions
or other supporting data. If the geotechnical engineer
who reviews the plans and specifications is not the
same engineer who prepared the geotechnical report,
•
TITLE 18 — ZONING
the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accom -
panying the plans and specifications, express his or her
agreement or disagreement with the recommenda-
tions in the geotechnical report and state that the plans
and specifications conform to his or her recommenda-
tions.
(C) The architect or structural engineer
shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifica-
tions, a letter of notation on the design drawings at the
time of permit application stating that he or she has
reviewed the geotechnical report, understands its
recommendations, has explained or has had explained
to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site,
and has incorporated into the design the recommenda-
tions of the report and established measures to reduce
the potential risk of injury or damage that might be
caused by any earth movement predicted in the report.
(D) The applicant, or the owner of the site
if the applicant is not the owner, shall submit a letter to
the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that
he or she understands and accepts the risk of develop-
ing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he
or she will advise, in writing, any prospective
purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of
structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the
slide potential of the area.
(E) The owner shall execute a covenant,
running with the land, on a form provided by the City.
The City will file the completed covenant with the
King County Department of Records and Elections at
the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the
recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner.
This covenant shall include:
(i) The legal description of the prop-
erty;
(ii) A statement:
a. Explaining that the site is in an
area of potential instability,
b. Of the risks associated with
development on the site,
c. Of any conditions or prohibi-
tions on development, and
d. Of any features in this design
which will require maintenance or modification to
address anticipated soil changes;
(iii) A statement waiving any claims
the owner or his/her successors or assigns may have
against the City for any loss or damage to people or
property, either on or off the site, resulting from soil
movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s)
authorizing development on the site;
(iv) The date of issuance and number
of the permit authorizing the development.
(6) Assurance Devices. Whenever the City
determines that the public interest would not be
served by the issuance of a permit in an area of poten-
tial geologic instability without assurance of a means of
providing for restoration of areas disturbed by, and
December 4, 1995 Page 18-79
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE •
repair of property damage caused by, slides arising out
of or occurring during construction, the Director m ay
require assurance devices pursuant to Section
18.45.135.
(7) Construction Monitoring.
(A) The applicant shall retain a geotechni-
cal engineer to monitor the site during construction.
The applicant shall preferably retain the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the final geotechnical recom-
mendations and reviewed the plans and specifications.
If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the
new geotechnical engineer shall submit a letter to the
City stating whether or not he/she agrees with the
opinions and recommendations of the original
geotechnical engineer. Further recommendations,
signed and sealed by the geotechnical engineer, and
supporting data shall be provided should there be
exceptions to the original recommendations.
(B) The geotechnical engineer shall moni-
tor, during construction, compliance with the recom-
mendations in the geotechnical report, particularly site
excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations includ-
ing piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and
any other geotechnical aspects of the construction.
Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific
recommendations contained in the soils report must be
implemented by the owner. The geotechnical engi-
neer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on
the progress of the construction to the City at such
timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or
deviations from the approved plans and specifications
shall be immediately reported to the City. The final
construction monitoring report shall contain a statement
from the geotechnical engineer that, based upon his or
her professional opinion, site observations and testing
during the monitoring of the construction, the
completed development substantially complies with
the recommendations in the geotechnical report and
with all geotechnical -related permit requirements.
Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the
report has been reviewed and accepted by the Director.
(8) Conditioning and Denial of Use or Devel-
opments.
(A) Substantial weight shall be given to
ensuring continued slope stability and the resulting
public health, safety and welfare in determining
whether a development should be allowed.
(B) The City may impose conditions that
address site -work problems which could include, but
are not limited to, limiting all excavation and drainage
installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities
such as installing erosion control and drainage systems
well in advance of construction. A permit will be
denied if it is determined by the Director that the
development will increase the potential of soil move-
ment that results in an unacceptable risk of damage to
the proposed development, its site or adjacent proper-
ties.
•
(f) Abandoned Mine Areas
(1) Development of a legal lot of record con -
taining an abandoned coal mine area may be permitted
when a geotechnical report shows that significant risks
associated with the abandoned mine workings can be
eliminated or mitigated so that the site is safe. Approval
shall be obtained from the Director before any building
or land -altering permit processes begin.
(2) Any building setback or land alteration shall
be based on the geotechnical report.
(3) The City may impose conditions that
address site -work problems which could include, but
are not limited to, limiting all excavation and drainage
installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities
such as installing drainage systems or erosion controls
well in advance of construction. A permit will be
denied if it is determined that the development will
increase the potential of soil movement or result in an
unacceptable risk of damage to the proposed develop-
ment or adjacent properties.
(g) Areas Of Important Geological Or
Archaeological Evidence
(1) Development on a legal lot of record
determined to have historic or prehistoric geological or
archaeological evidence, shall be prohibited until that
evidence has been studied or researched for any valu-
able information about our history. Removal or salvage
of the evidence shall be done in accordance with RCW
27.53, and shall be performed in a timely manner.
(2) Once the geologic or archaeological evi-
dence or articles have been studied or researched, or
the importance of the site is declared to be marginal or
not of use to the scientific community, development
shall be allowed on the site. Development shall not
begin on such a site until the Director gives approval.
(h) Permitted .Uses Subject to Exception Approval.
Other uses may be permitted upon receiving a reason-
able use exception pursuant to Section 18.45.115. A
use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall
conform to the procedures of this chapter and be
consistent with the underlying zoning.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.090 Sensitive areas tracts.
(a) In development proposals for planned resi-
dential or mixed area use developments, short subdi -
visions or subdivisions, and boundary line adjustments
and binding site plans, applicants shall create sensitive
areas tracts, in lieu of an open space tract, per the
standards of the Planned Residential Development
District chapter of this title.
(b) Applicants proposing development involving
uses other than those listed in subsection (a) of this
section, on parcels with sensitive areas or their buffers,
may elect to establish a sensitive areas tract which
shall be:
(1) If under one ownership, owned and main-
tained by the ownership, which protection of the tract;
Page 18-80 December 4, 1995
•
(2) Held in common ownership by multiple
owners who shall collectively be responsible for main-
tenance of the tract; or
(3) Dedicated for public use if acceptable to the
City or other appropriate public agency.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.115 Exceptions.
(a) General. With the approval of the Director,
isolated wetlands that are 1,000 square feet or smaller
in area, and which are low in value according to the
rating methodology used in the "City's Water Resource
Rating and Buffer Study, may not require the
compensatory mitigation standards of this chapter.
(b) Piping. Piping will be allowed in Type 1 and
Type 2 watercourses only where relocation or alter-
ation of a watercourse is denied and would result in
denial of all reasonable use.
(c) . Reasonable Use Exceptions.
(1) If application of this chapter would deny all
reasonable use of the property containing wetlands,
watercourses or their buffers, the property owner or
the proponent of a development proposal may apply
for a reasonable use exception.
(2) The application for a reasonable use excep-
tion shall be in a format specified by and filed with the
DCD. Requirements may include an environmental
impact statement pursuant to WAC 197-11=400.
Reasonable use exceptions shall be decided by the
Planning Commission following a public hearing
noticed as specified in the Public Notice of Hearing
chapter of this title.
(3) If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfac-
tion of the Planning Commission that application of the
provisions of this chapter would deny all reasonable
use of the property, development may be allowed
which is consistent with the general purposes of this
chapter and the public interest.
(4) The Commission, in granting approval of
the reasonable use exception, must determine that:
(A) No reasonable use with less impact
on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible;
(B) There is no feasible on-site alternative
to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or
density, phasing of project implementation, change in
timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or
related site planning activities that would allow a
reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts
to the sensitive area and its buffer;
(C) As a result of the proposed develop -
ment there will be no increased or unreasonable threat
of damage to off-site public or private property and no
threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off
the, development proposal site;
(D) Alterations permitted shall be the
minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the
property;
•
TITLE 18 — ZONING
(E) The proposed development is compat-
ible in design, scale and use with other development
with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity
of the subject property;
(F) Disturbance of sensitive areas has
been minimized by locating the necessary alterations
in the buffers to the greatest extent possible;
(G) The inability to derive reasonable use
of the property is not the result of actions by the appli-
cant in segregating or dividing the property and creating
the undevelopable condition after the effective date of
the ordinance from which this chapter derives; and
(H) Any approved alteration of a sensitive
area under this section shall be subject to conditions as
established by this chapter and will require mitigation
under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is
approved as a reasonable use, the Board of Architectural
Review's process, review and standards shall be
applied.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.120 Variances.
(a) The Board of Adjustment shall review requests
pursuant to the Variance chapter of this title for variance
from the standards of this chapter unless excepted by
Section 18.45.115.
(b) If a variance is granted, it shall be the mini-
mum necessary to accommodate the permitted uses of
the underlying zoning districts proposed by the appli-
cation, and the scale of the use may be reduced as
necessary to meet this requirement.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.125 Appeals.
(a) Any aggrieved party who objects to or dis-
agrees with DCD decisions or- conditions for
development in a sensitive area shall appeal to the
Planning Commission. Any such appeal shall be
made in writing within ten days of the interpretation,
condition or decision being appealed, and shall set forth
the basis for the appeal.
(b) In considering appeals of decisions or condi-
tions, the following shall be considered:
(1) The intent and purposes of the sensitive
areas ordinance from which this chapter derives;
(2) Technical information and reports consid-
ered by the DCD; and
•(3) Findings of the Director which shall be
given substantial weight.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.130 Recording required.
The property owner receiving approval of a use or
development pursuant to this chapter shall record the
City -approved site plan clearly delineating the wetland,
watercourse, areas of potential geologic instability or
abandoned mine and their buffers designated by
Sections 18.45.020 and 18.45.040 with the King
December 4, 1995 Page 18-81
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 110
County Division of Records and Elections. The face of
the site plan must include a statement that the
provisions of this chapter, as of the effective date of the
ordinance from which this chapter derives or thereafter
amended, control use and development of the subject
property, and provide for any responsibility of the
property owner for the maintenance or correction of
any latent defects or deficiencies.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.135 Assurance device.
(a) In appropriate circumstances, the Director may
require a letter of credit or other security device accept-
able to the city, to guarantee performance and mainte-
nance requirements of this chapter. All assurances
shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney.
(b) When alteration of a sensitive area is approved,
the Director may require an assurance device, on a
form approved by the City Attorney, to cover the
monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies.
Monitoring of alterations may be required for up to five
years.
(c) Release of the security does not absolve the
property owner of responsibility for maintenance or
correcting latent defects or deficiencies.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
18.45.140 Assessment relief.
(a) Fair Market Value. The King County Assessor
shall consider sensitive area regulations in determining
the fair market value of land under RCW 84.34.
(b) Current Use Assessment. Established sensi-
tive area tracts, as defined in the Definitions chapter of
this title and provided for in Section 18.45.090, shall be
classified as open space and owners thereof may
qualify for current use taxation under RCW 18.34;
provided, such landowners have not received density
credits, or setback or lot size adjustments as provided in
the Planned Residential Development District chapter
of this title.
(c) Special Assessments. Landowners who
qualify under subsection (b) of this section shall also be
exempted from special assessments on the sensitive
area tract to defray the cost of municipal improvements
such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers and water
mains.
(Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995)
Page 18-82 December 4, 1995