Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental ChecklistDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 ENV PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or “does not apply” only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. 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 proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEAD AGENCIES: Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: 2 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B even though questions may be answered “does not apply”. In addition the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words “project”, “applicant”, and “property or site” should be read as “proposal”, “proponent”, and “affected geographic area” respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Long Acres Business Center 2. Name of applicant: Ryan Companies U.S., Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 3900 E. Camelback Road, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85018 602-322-6100 Attn: Dave Williams 4. Date checklist prepared: August 20th, 2015 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction to commence in November, 2015 with substantial completion in June, 2017. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for future additions or expansion on this site. 3 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan) has contracted with Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the 17-acre vacant parcel legally described as Parcels 27 – 31 of Boeing Longacres Park located in Renton, WA. This report (draft dated 8/14/15) is currently underway and will also include a Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation, which was conducted in conjunction with a geotechnical investigation in January 2015. Ryan also intends to perform additional Phase II activities as a follow up to the draft Phase I ESA that is currently in progress. Ryan also has been provided with the following documents pertaining to the site that have been prepared by others:  “Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, 12,500-Square Foot Portion of City of Renton Parcel, Renton, Washington”, prepared for Boeing by Landau, dated April 9, 2013.  “Revised Data Summary Report, Boeing Longacres Lots 1 to 20, Tracts B and C, Renton, Washington”, prepared for Boeing by Landau, dated January 31, 2011.  “Boeing Longacres Office Park, Property Disposition Report, Renton, Washington” prepared for Boeing Shared Services Group by WHPacific, dated October 2008.  “Final Report, Additional Site Investigation Lot 8, Boeing Longacres Property, Renton, Washington” prepared for Boeing by Landau, dated November 4, 2008.  “Geotechnical Engineering Considerations, Lots 27 to 31, Boeing Long Acres, Renton, Washington” prepared for Boeing Realty Corporation (Boeing) by Terra Associates, Inc. (Terra); dated April 21, 2008.  “Longacres Office Park, Surface Water Management Project, conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan” prepared for Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (Boeing) by Shapiro and Associates, Inc. (Shapiro); dated August of 1998.  “Environmental Site Assessment, Broadacres Property, Renton, Washington” prepared for Boeing Realty Corporation (Boeing) by Landau Associates, Inc. (Landau); dated August 31, 1990. 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. None are known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton Land Use Approval City of Renton Grade and Fill Permit City of Renton Building Permit 4 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 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. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Development for the Longacres Business Center will include two (2) standalone buildings totaling 300,000 SF on 17.38 acres and will provide 1,063 parking stalls. The occupancy classification for development will be general office. 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. The project is located on the corner of SW 27th Street and Naches Ave SW in Renton WA. See attached map. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site The site previously was developed as the Longacres paddock and other ancillary uses to the race track. Most of the building site was cleared and either gravel, asphalt, building or grass cover. The site is currently undeveloped and covered with a moderate growth of brush, weeds, open grass and limited groupings of trees. Site topography is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 35% (2:1), 5 feet in height, 446 feet in length. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Site soils generally consist of three to seven inches of topsoil overlying one to nine feet of medium dense to dense inorganic fill material overlying alluvial silts and sands. The fill varied and consisted of sand, sand with silts, and silty sand with gravel, gravel, and crushed rock. In general, the fill is relatively thin ranging from one to two feet thick. Deeper fills were noted where abandon utilities were found. Native soil conditions underlying the fill. Where no fill soils were present consisted o f loose to medium dense alluvial silt, silty sand, sand with silt, and relatively clean sand. CPT data indicates 5 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 highly variable interbedded alluvial soils composed of silts, clay, and silty sand layers are present to a depth of 15 to 22 feet followed by medium dense to dense silty sand and sand to the termination depths of CPTS, 70 feet. The Geological Map of the Renton Quadrangle, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965) maps the site as Alluvium (Qaw). This mapped description is consistent with the native soils observed at depth in the test pits and indicated by the CPT data. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are not any indications or history of unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site is relatively flat, as such it is our intent to balance the site. This will reduce/ eliminate fill required for the project. As the entire site will be developed the total area of grading is approximately, 16.0 ac. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, erosion could occur, however, the use of typical construction best management practices such as silt fence will be sufficient to prevent any soil from leaving the site area. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Total Site Area 757,058sf Building Footprints 90,742sf 12% Impervious surfaces (non-bldg) 374,376sf 49% Landscaping 291,940sf 39% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Silt fence and covering any exposed stockpiles of material 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Exhaust emissions that would typically be expected from construction vehicles traveling to and from the site and from construction equipment are anticipated during project 6 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 construction. Exhaust emissions from passenger vehicles during post-construction use of the office building are also anticipated. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are not any off-site sources of emissions or odor affecting this proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The proposed project will comply with applicable air quality regulations and standards during construction activities and operations. In addition, measures would be implemented during construction to control dust emissions. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 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, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There is a manmade detention and water quality pond on the property north of the project site, which will be within 100-feet of the off-site detention facility being constructed for this site, in Tract B. This pond eventually flows into Springbrook Creek via pumped discharge and piping within the Boeing property to the north. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, pond construction in Tract B will be within 200 feet of the existing detention pond. 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. There will not be any amount of dredge material placed or removed. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This proposal will not require any surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 7 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 This proposal does lie within the 100-year floodplain according to the City records based on the 1996 FEMA panel. There is some discussion about revising the mapping but currently the floodplain does extend onto this site. Both building finish floor elevations are above the floodplain by more than 1 foot. Compensatory volume for the filling within this area is being provided via the additional depth in the detention pond proposed for Tract B. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. This proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Groundwater will not be withdrawn from a well for any purposes. 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. No septic systems or other waste discharges are anticipated on the project site. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The runoff generated for this site will be in the form of stormwater. The runoff will be collected and conveyed to a new detention and water quality pond being constructed off-site by this project in Tract B to the north. From the new pond, detained and treated runoff from this project will flow into the existing Boeing pond, which in turn pumps out into a conveyance system that extends to Springbrook Creek to the north. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Small amounts of waste materials could make it into the stormwater detention pond in Tract B, however water leaving the system should be clean of those contaminates. 8 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No. In the original stormwater design for the Longacres Office Park, runoff from this area was to be directed un-detained into the Boeing pond to the north, which is the current and previous (while developed as Longacres race track) runoff pattern for this area. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: A detention and water quality pond, conforming to the requirements of the Boeing Longacres Development Agreement with the City of Renton, will be constructed in Tract B to the north of this project. This location was chosen at the direction of the Boeing Company. 9 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 4. PLANTS a. Check the 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 ____orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site had been previously cleared and filled for development. Site will be stripped with the exception of trees preserved in perimeter setbacks. Most of the site consists of open field grass. Of the 45 trees on the survey, 38 will be removed and 7 will be retained. The majority of the site trees are Poplars and Cottonwood trees. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are none known near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Project perimeters and areas designated as wildlife habitat area will be planted with native and adapted species consistent with the site region. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Only such observed growth on the site are blackberries. 5. ANIMALS a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Signs of small mammals such as rabbits, field mice and gophers are present and local song birds and crows have been observed on the site. 10 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. None known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Most all of the site perimeters will be planted with native vegetation exceeding the 2% wild life habitat area requirement. Native plantings will be adjacent to open space corridors created by utility easements expanding the effective habitat corridor sizes. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Himalayan Black Berry. 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. Electric and natural gas will be used for the project energy needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This project will not affect the potential use of solar energy on adjacent properties. 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: Compliance with applicable energy code(s). In addition, the proposed building will use energy efficient glass. 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. 11 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Based on the results of the Terracon draft Phase I ESA, total petroleum hydrocarbons (oil range) have been detected in fill soil across the site, however, concentrations do not exceed MTCA Method A Cleanup Levels. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were detected in fill soil with lbenzo(a)pyrene, exceeding MTCA Method A Cleanup Levels in one location on the site. Regarding historical work, the Landau 1990 ESA indicated that one groundwater sample collected from the site contained total arsenic at 24 micrograms per Liter (µg/L) and total lead at 81 µg/L, which exceed their MTCA Method A cleanup levels of 5 µg/L and 15µg/L, respectively. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. There are no such conditions that will affect the design or development of this site. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. There will not be any such materials stored, used, or produced at the site. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Special emergency services will not be required. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from SW 27th Street and a commuter rail line to the west of the project will not affect the project. 12 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. On a short-term basis, construction noise from trucks and construction equipment would be created by construction of the proposed building s. Construction activities will generally occur on the site between 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. Saturday, and no work on Sunday as regulated by the City of Renton. On a long-term basis, the primary noise source will be noise from automobiles arriving at or leaving the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise attenuating equipment (such as properly operating mufflers) would be used to help suppress construction equipment noise. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The property to the west is railroad right of way, the properties to the south and east are developed commercial properties and to the north is undeveloped commercial properties. This project will not affect the current land uses on adjacent properties. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non-forest use? No known agricultural use has been conducted on the site 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: This project will not affect or be affected by surrounding farm or forest land. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures existing on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? There will not be any structures demolished with this project. 13 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning is CO- Commercial Office. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is EAV- Employment Area Valley. g. 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 a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. This site has not been classified as a critical area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Potentially 900 people could work on the site at full occupancy j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? There will not be anyone displaced by this project. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None are required. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project is planned to meet the current zoning and land use designations of the city. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None are required. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. There not any housing units on this project. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. There are not any housing units eliminate with this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable. 14 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 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? The tallest of the proposed structures will be 61’. The principal exterior building materials will be painted concrete, metal panels, and widow systems. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None are impacted. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed building will be set back a minimum of 225’ feet from the adjacent streets. Project will also use high quality building materials consistent with the local area. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Proposed development would generate light and glare from stationary sources and mobile sources typical of office use including vehicle headlights, interior lighting, building and parking lighting required by code. The light glare will be generated during typical office hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This project will not produce any safety hazards. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? This proposal will not be affected by any off-site sources of light or glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable (No significant light or glare impacts are expected.) 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? An internal loop trail will be provided and existing sidewalks and roadways connect to the Interurban Trail and Springbrook Creek Trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No existing recreational uses will be displaced. 15 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No impacts are expected. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. There are no such structures on or near the site. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Is there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. There are none. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. None. The project site has been cleared, graded and prepared for construction by previous owner. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None are required. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. There are two new access points proposed for the development. One is off of S. W. 27th Street and the other is off Oaksdale Ave SW. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? King County Metro F line passes the project site on SW 27th Street. It is approximately 1,200 feet to the Sound Transit Sounder Train Tukwila station. 16 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? 1,063 new parking spaces are being provided for use by the project. No existing parking is being eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Excluding driveways no improvements are included in this proposal. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The westerly boundary of the project is right of way owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad. No improvements to the right of way are proposed with this project. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?  Trips per day: 2,498.  Peak AM volume: 349 (highest hour 7-9 AM)  Peak PM volume: 334 (highest hour 4-6 PM).  Estimated 2-3% trucks overall.  Transportation Model used: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition for Land Use Code (LUC) 710 General Office Building and LUC 150 Warehousing g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No agricultural or forest products will be affected by the project. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The project is being constructed on existing commercial lots with the existing transportation grid. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project is to construct office buildings on bare ground so there will be an increased need for public services, however the project is in an existing commercial development and as such the impact is anticipated. 17 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Constructing the project within an existing development is one way the impacts are reduced. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other _Storm drainage__ b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Power- Extend existing services to the new buildings. Gas- Extend existing services to the new buildings. Telephone- Extend existing services to the new buildings. Sewer- Extend existing services to the new buildings. Water- Extend existing domestic services to the new buildings, Fire flows require water to be looped onsite to connect to the existing mainline in 27th as well as onsite. Storm Drainage- Surface drainage is available as surface flow to the north and in existing piping to the north that this project will extend to via the new pond in Tract B. 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. Proponent Signature: Name of Signee (printed): Jamey Barlet Position and Agency/Organization: Owner’s Agent / CollinsWoerman Date Submitted: 8/21/2015 18 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets 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, 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 plants, 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? 19 G:\AG\RYAN.01.15.004-PhaseII\09 Milestones\2015.08.17 - Land Use Submittal\Site Plan Review - Submittal\05_Site Plan Review - SEPA Environmental Checklist - CPL_Brumbaugh_CW.doc 05/14 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 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: 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.