Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_ERC_Determination_Agency_Letter_NWGourmetFreezer_181214.pdf cc: King County Development and Environmental Services Jalaine Madura, Seattle Public Utilities Wendy Weiker, Puget Sound Energy Matthew Gilbert, City of Kent Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Duwamish Tribal Office Shirley Marroquin, King County Wastewater Treatment Division US Army Corp. of Engineers Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (digital) Jack Pace, City of Tukwila (digital) Laura Murphy, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program (digital) Misty Blair, Department of Ecology (digital) Larry Fisher, Department of Fish and Wildlife (digital) Steve Osguthorpe, City of Newcastle (digital) WS Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section (digital) Gary Kriedt, Metro Transit (digital) SEPA Center, WS Department of Natural Resources (digital) Andy Swayne, Puget Sound Energy (digital) December 18, 2018 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 SUBJECT: Reissuance of Environmental (SEPA) Determination Package For NW Gourmet Freezer Addition, LUA18-000667, SA-A, MOD Please disregard the previous Environmental (SEPA) Determination package for NW Gourmet Freezer Addition, LUA18-000667, SA-A, MOD, issued on December 14th, 2018. The package misidentified the SEPA decision as a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), as opposed to an Addendum to a previous DNS. For correct information regarding this project, please refer to the attached documents. Sincerely, Jennifer Henning Planning Director Enclosure(s): ERC Determination, Advisory Notes, Notice of Environmental Determination, and Environmental Checklist (select recipients) cc: King County Development and Environmental Services Jalaine Madura, Seattle Public Utilities Wendy Weiker, Puget Sound Energy Matthew Gilbert, City of Kent Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Duwamish Tribal Office Shirley Marroquin, King County Wastewater Treatment Division US Army Corp. of Engineers Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (digital) Jack Pace, City of Tukwila (digital) Laura Murphy, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program (digital) Misty Blair, Department of Ecology (digital) Larry Fisher, Department of Fish and Wildlife (digital) Steve Osguthorpe, City of Newcastle (digital) WS Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section (digital) Gary Kriedt, Metro Transit (digital) SEPA Center, WS Department of Natural Resources (digital) Andy Swayne, Puget Sound Energy (digital) December 14, 2018 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION ADDENDUM Addendum to the NW Gourmet Tenant Improvements (LUA13-000562, ECF) as Addended by the City of Renton (LUA18-000667, SA-A) Determination of Non-Significance Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 10, 2018: SEPA DETERMINATION: Addendum to a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) PROJECT NAME: NW Gourmet Freezer Addition PROJECT NUMBER: LUA18-000667, SA-A, MOD Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7246. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jeffrey Taylor Assistant Planner Enclosure: ERC Determination, Advisory Notes, Notice of Environmental Determination, and Environmental Checklist (select recipients) Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 1 of 4 December 10, 2018 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the NW Gourmet Tenant Improvements (LUA13- 000562, ECF) as Addended by the City of Renton (LUA18-000667, SA- A) Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) Date of Addendum: December 10, 2018 Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: June 10, 2013 Proponent: James Carlton, Tahoma Design Group Project Numbers: LUA13-000562, ECF and LUA18-000667, SA-A Project Name: NW Gourmet Freezer Expansion Proposal / Purpose of Addendum: The subject property totals 218,300 square feet (5.01 acres) and is located in the Employment Area Comprehensive Plan (COMP-EA) land use designation and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning classification. The site is currently developed with two buildings, a 66,786 square foot food processing plant with attached office, and a deta ched 1,680 square foot storage shed (Exhibit 3). The original threshold determination for NW Gourmet was issued on June 10, 2013 (Exhibit 2). The original application included a proposal to install five tanks with analysis of a sixth future tank (which has not been installed to date), with a maximum capacity of 30,881 gallons for each of the largest tanks. The tanks were installed on the west side of the building and enclosed by a 4-foot high concrete safety wall. The proposal also considered interior and exterior tenant improvements to the existing structure for forklift access to the loading dock, expansion of the loading dock area, and installation of larger loading doors. The warehouse, constructed in 1971, has been used for food storage for decades and this use was continued by NW Gourmet upon purchasing the property in 2013. The intended purpose of this SEPA Addendum is to disclose any proposed changes to the project. The revised project requires Administrative Site Plan Review to construct a 6,386 square foot freezer addition on the east side of the existing 66,786 square foot food processing plant (Exhibit 4), to be used for food storage. Northwest Gourmet is currently utilizing a refrigerated truck trailer parked in the footprint of the proposed addition to store soup, and other frozen food items pending distribution. If completed, the proposed addition would replace the trailer, allowing DocuSign Envelope ID: 504D3D3A-1FA8-4FE0-8D8A-CD94F1585931 Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 2 of 4 December 10, 2018 storage, processing and distribution to be handled within one structure. This would eliminate the need for workers to exit the building and haul frozen products from the truck trailer into the processing center to prepare for distribution. The addition will replace a section of the expanded loading dock which was previously analyzed by the initial SEPA threshold determination. The impervious surface area of the site will not be expanded as part of this proposal, and drainage conditions will be improved by converting the existing pollution generating loading dock surface into clean roof runoff. The proposal will utilize the existing storm drainage system to convey storm water to the City’s regional storm water system located along SW 7th Street. Storm water runoff from the building addition will discharge onto splash blocks and will be collected by the existing on-site private storm drainage system. The new addition incorporates several design features to further offset its impacts, including an 8-foot tall slatted fence to screen all ground mounted refrigeration equipment from public view. The proposed walls and roof also offer a higher thermal resistance value (R-Value) than the existing structure, which would also exceed building code requirements. Finally, the applicant will plant three (3) blaze maple trees in the existing planter strip to meet code requirements and improve the aesthetic quality of the site (Exhibit 5). As part of the proposal the applicant is requesting a Street Modification (Exhibit 6) to allow deviation from the required frontage improvements. The applicant contends that the existing improvements with the addition of three (3) blaze maple street trees substantially implements the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Community Design Element. Further, the applicant argues that the existing pavement, curb, and sidewalk are safe, maintainable and create a cohesive appearance for the area. The current proposal does not call for the removal of any trees or alter any plantings aside from the addition of three (3) new blaze maple trees. The City of Renton (COR) Mapping system indicates the northern portion of the property contains Regulated Slopes (15% - 25%), and the majority of the property, with the exception of the NE corner, is within the High Severity Seismic Hazard Area. The submitted geological report finds the project feasible when considering the soil conditions but recommends that the build ing be placed on piles to mitigate the impact of potential soil liquefaction (Exhibit 7). Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on June 10, 2013, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for Northwest Gourmet. The 14-day appeal period ended on December 28, 2013. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. Analysis: It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previously adopted DNS. Based on WAC 197-11-600(4)(c), the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The proposed addition is sited on existing DocuSign Envelope ID: 504D3D3A-1FA8-4FE0-8D8A-CD94F1585931 Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 3 of 4 December 10, 2018 impervious surface that was analyzed as part of the original SEPA theshold determination and would not change the analysis, or significantly impact the 1995 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there are no additional environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. Location: 600 SW 7th Street, Renton, WA 98055 (APN 1823059254) Lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Review Process: Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Jeffrey Taylor, Assistant Planner, City of Renton Planning Division, Department of Community & Economic Development at (425) 430-7246. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated December 10, 2018 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Exhibits Exhibit 1: DNS Addendum Exhibit 2: Environmental Review Committee Report (LUA13-000562, ECF), dated June 10, 2013 Exhibit 3: Site Plan Exhibit 4: Floor Plan Exhibit 5: Environmental Checklist Exhibit 6: Street Modification Request Letter Exhibit 7: Geological Report DocuSign Envelope ID: 504D3D3A-1FA8-4FE0-8D8A-CD94F1585931 Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 4 of 4 December 10, 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department Date Rick M. Marshall, Administrator Renton Regional Fire Authority Date C.E. “Chip” Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 504D3D3A-1FA8-4FE0-8D8A-CD94F1585931 12/10/2018 | 4:09 PM PST 12/10/2018 | 3:21 PM PST 12/10/2018 | 3:48 PM PST DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 | 425-430-7200, ext. 2 www.rentonwa.gov OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ADDENDUM TO THE NW GOURMET TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (LUA13 -000562, ECF) AS ADDENDED BY THE CITY OF RENTON (LUA18-000667, SA-A) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION ADDENDUM TO DNS: The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has determined that the proposed action does not substantially change the analysis of significant impact from the existing DNS (LUA13 -000562, ECF) and therefore an Addendum is appropriate. DATE OF NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: December 14, 2018 PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: NW Gourmet Freezer Addition / LUA18-000667, SA-A, MOD PROJECT LOCATION: 600 SW 7th St, Renton, WA 98057 LOCATION WHERE APPLICATION MAY BE REVIEWED: Applicant documents are available online through the City of Renton Document Center website. See also https://bit.ly/2qXaWST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, a SEPA Addendum, and one Modification to the street standards to construct a new 6,386 square foot freezer for the storage of soup and other food products, located at 600 SW 7th Street. The subject property totals 218,300 square feet (5.01) acres and is located in the Em ployment Area Comprehensive Plan land use designation and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning classification. The property is developed with a 66,786 square foot warehouse for the storage of food products. Vehicle access to the subject property would be maintained on SW 7th Street, utilizing the existing curb cuts. The applicant has requested a modification to street standards to keep the existing improvements and not increase their required frontage dedication. The applicant does not propose to remove any existing trees , and would plant new street trees throughout the landscape strip along SW 7th Street. The City’s mapping system indicates the site is within a High Seismic Hazard Area. Studies and reports submitted with the master application include a geotechnical report and a traffic report. NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 | 425-430-7200, ext. 2 www.rentonwa.gov ADDENDUM TO DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA18-000667, SA-A, MOD APPLICANT: James Carleton, Tahoma Design Group / jcarleton@tahomadesigngroup.com / 2215 N 30th St, Suite 205, Tacoma, WA 98402 PROJECT NAME: NW Gourmet Freezer Addition PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, a SEPA Addendum, and one Modification to the street standards to construct a new 6,386 square foot freezer for the storage of soup and other food products, located at 600 SW 7th Street. The subject property totals 218,300 square feet (5.01) acres and is located in the Employment Area Comprehensive Plan land use designation and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning classification. The property is developed with a 66,786 square foot warehouse for the storage of food products. Vehicle access to the subject property would be maintained on SW 7th Street, utilizing the existing curb cuts. The applicant has requested a modification to street standards to keep the existing improvements and not increase their required frontage dedication. The applicant does not propose to remove any existing trees, and would plant new street trees throughout the landscape strip along SW 7th Street. The City’s mapping system indicates the site is within a High Seismic Hazard Area. Studies and reports submitted with the master application include a geotechnical report and a traffic report. PROJECT LOCATION: 600 SW 7th St, Renton, WA 98057 LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: There are no mitigation measures proposed for this addendum. ADIVISORY NOTES: No new advisory notes are written for this addendum. Original mitigation measures and advisory notes for the addended project, NW Gourmet Tenant Improvements (LUA13-000562, ECF), may be found in the Environmental Review Committee Staff Report, dated June 10, 2013 (Exhibit 2), of the Addendum to the Environmental (SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 1 of 16 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. 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: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus 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. RECEIVED 11/14/2018 jtaylor PLANNING DIVISION SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 2 of 16 A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: NW Gourmet Freezer Addition 2. Name of applicant: Northwest Gourmet Food Products, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Mike Gilroy Northwest Gourmet Food Products, Inc. 600 SW 7th Street Renton, WA 98057-2916 Contact Person: James Carleton Tahoma Design Group 2215 N. 30th St., Suite 205 Tacoma, WA Ph: 253-284-0255 jcarleton@tahomadesigngroup.com 4. Date checklist prepared: November 2, 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is planned to commence November of 2018 and finish in early 2019. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None known at this time. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. · Modification to Roadway Standards for driveway location prepared by AHBL on August 10, 2018 · Geotechnical Report prepared by E3RA on July 27, 2018. · Technical Information Report prepared by AHBL revised September, 2018. · Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC) by AHBL on September 4, 2018 · Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by AHBL revised September, 2018 · SEPA Environmental Checklist for NW Gourmet Tenant Improvemennts prepared on November 2, 2018 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 3 of 16 · SEPA DNS for NW Gourmet Tenant Improvements issued on June 12, 2013 · Landscape Plan prepared by AHBL on November 1, 2018. 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 at this time. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. · SEPA Environmental Determination from City of Renton · Modification to Roadway Standards for driveway location from City of Renton · Site Plan Review Approval from City of Renton · Building Permit from City of Renton · Plumbing Permit from City of Renton · Mechanical Permit from City of Renton · Electrical Permit from City of Renton · NPDES Permit from the Department of Ecology 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.) The 5.01-acre site is currently occupied by Northwest Gourmet Food Products, Inc, including two existing building, a 66,786-square foot food processing plant/office building and a 1,680-square foot storage shed. The proposal is to construct a 6,386 square foot freezer addition in place of an existing paved loading dock area on the eastside of the building. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 4 of 16 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 proposal is for a building addition at an existing facility for Northwest Gourmet Food Products located at 600 SW 7th Street in the City of Renton, parcel number 182305-9254, SW-18-23-5. A vicinity map is provided below. The legal description is: POR OF SW 1/4 BEG S 89-10-25 E 723.32 FT & N 00-49-42 E 40 FT FR SW COR OF SUBD TH N 00-49-42 E 44.20 FT TH ON CURVE TO RGT RAD 334.60 FT AN ARC DIST OF 295.88 FT TH N 00-49-42 E 40 FT TH N 72-44-18 W 146.20 FT TH N 66-07-03 W 119.99 FT TH N 72-56-23 W 125.86 FT TAP ON CURVE TO LFT CEN BEARS S 16-07-42 W 363.06 FT TH ALG SD CURVE 201.19 FT TH S 00-49-42 W 464.54 FT TH S 89-10-18 E 447.58 FT TO TPOB SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 5 of 16 Figure 1: Vicinity Map 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)? The site is relatively flat with no slopes greater than 5% 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. Much of the site includes subbase fill comprised of loose gravelly sand with some silt. Per the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the majority of the site consists of Woodinville Silt Loam, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 6 of 16 which is described as poorly drained. There are no agricultural soils or agricultural land on site or in the area. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, there are no indications or history of unstable soils on site. 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 extent of sitework will be contained to the area of the new addition. The project area is flat and already impervious and no earthwork is expected for the building addition. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No erosion is expected as no clearing is involved and the construction will take place on a flat, developed area. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed project will be located in a loading dock area that was previously entirely impervious, therefore the overall impervious coverage of the site will remain unchanged. The estimated impervious coverage on the site is 75%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC) has been prepared which includes all measures to control erosion such as filter fabric fencing, inlet sediment protection, marked clearing limits, and surface pollution prevention during sawcutting. 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. Some emissions may temporarily occur during construction, resulting from engine emissions, dust, asphalt paving, and built-up roofing materials that are common during construction. Significant increases to air pollution is not expected in the long-term. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No, there are no significant off-site sources of emissions c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 7 of 16 During construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to reduce short-term emmssions, such as using water spray on dust and turning off machines when idle. 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. No, there are no known surface water bodies on site or in the immediate vicinity. 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. Not applicable, there are no surface water bodies within 200 feet of the site. 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 be no fill or dredge material placed in or removed from water bodies. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water will be affected by this proposal. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. According to King County iMap and FEMA mappings services, the project site does not lie within a flooplain. 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. No, the proposal will 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. No groundwater will be withdrawn from or discharged to groundwater. 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 8 of 16 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, the site is connected to sanitary sewer and no waste material will be discharged. 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 proposal will continue to use the existing storm drain system on site, which collects all water and conveys to the City’s regional stormwater system located in SW 7th street. An existing Filterra unit located offsite is used to provide treatment before discharging into the Black River, approximately 0.50 mile downstream from the site. The proposed building addition will be located entirely over an area that was previously impervious. Stormwater runoff from the building addition roof will discharge onto splash blocks and will be collected by the existing private storm drainage system. The proposed 300-square foot compressor pad to the south of the building addition will utilize basic dispersion, using sheet flow or a splash block to discharge into the existing lawn area to the south. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. It is not anticipated that waste materials will enter ground or surface waters as a result of this proposal. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No, the existing drainage patterns will be maintained. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: The proposed building addition will be located entirely over an area that was previously impervious, and will be converted from a pollution generating surface to clean roof water. All construction stormwater will need to be maintained on the site in accordance with the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the City of Renton, the 2016 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. 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 __X__shrubs __X__grass SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 9 of 16 ____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 building addition will be located at the existing loading docks which is impervious surface. A very small area of grass may be removed adjacent to the southern side of the addition. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species on the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site is currently well landscaped with a large lawn area and trees. To improve the site frontage, three autumn blaze maple trees will be added the existing planter strip. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. There are are no known noxious weeds or invasive species on or near the site. 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: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Small Rodents fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. To our knowledge, there are no threatened or endangered species on or near the project site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is located within the pacific Flyway for migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 10 of 16 There are no known invasive animal species on or near the site. 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. The building uses natural gas for heating. Freezer will be controlled by Electric methods. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, the potential use of solar energy is not affected by this proposal. 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: Additional R-Values above the minimum required will contribut to energy conservation. 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. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. There are no known sources of contaimation. 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. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System, a hazardous liquid pipeline exists offsite approximately 600-800 feet to the west of the project area. This will not affect the proposal. 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 be no storage, use, or production of any toxic or hazardous chemicals. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The need for special services, such as typical fire or police, will not be increased as a result of this proposal. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 11 of 16 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise around the site will come primarily from typical auto traffic and a nearby railroad. 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)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Some noise may occur in the short-term as a result of construction. All work will occur within the hours and noise level limits specified by City of Renton ordinances. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise impacts associated with construction will be limited in duration. Some noise can be mitigated by regularly maintaining construction equipment and turning off equipment when not in use. 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. North: Railway immediately to the north, with single-family and multi-family on the other side. South: Existing warehouse/industrial buildings. West: Existing industrial building. East: Existing office building. 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 nonforest use? No, the site has been in a heavily urbanized are for decades. 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: No, there are no farm or forest land operations in the area. c. Describe any structures on the site. The 5.01-acre site is currently developed with a 66,786-square foot warehousing facility occupied by Northwest Gourmet Food Products, Inc. There is also 1,680-square foot storage shed in the Northeast portion of the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 12 of 16 Medium Industrial (IM) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Medium Industrial (IM) 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. No critical areas are mapped on the site on the City’s GIS system or King County iMAP. In a pre-application meeting, the City conferred that there are no critical areas mapped on the site. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No people would be added by the project. There are currently 41 employees total. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No people would be displaced by the project. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The building occupancy will remain the same. The new addition will be designed to be consistent with the existing structure. New street trees will be added to improve the streetscape. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Not applicable. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. Not applicable, there is no housing component to this proposal. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing will be affected or eliminated by this proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable, there is no housing component to this proposal. 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? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 13 of 16 The height of the proposed addition will be the same as the principle structure, at approximately 33 feet. The existing building is concrete tilt-up and masonry, and the new addition will use insulated metal panels. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views will be altered or obstructed by the new addition. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed addition will be designed to be compatible with the existing warehouse building. The addition will create modulation with a different texture and color. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The lighting impact will not increase by the project. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No, it is not expected for light or glare to spill onto adjacent properties or affect views. Overall, light created on the site will not increase from current conditions. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No off-site sources of light or glare impact the proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Downcast lights? Motion sensored after hours? 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no recreational opportunities onsite or in the immediate vicinity. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No recreational uses will be displaced or affected. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable, no recreational uses will be displaced or affected. 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 ? If so, specifically describe. No, there are no historic or cultural landmarks onsite or in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 14 of 16 b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are 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 is no evidence of Indian or historic use onsite or nearby. 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. The Department of Archaology and Historic Preservation WISAARD database was used to check for any potential cultural or historic resources. 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. Not applicable. 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. As shown in the Vicinity Map (figure 1), the site is served by SW 7th street. Existing ccess will remain unchanged. 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? The nearest bus stop is about 500 feet from the site at the corner of SW 7th St and Lind Ave SW, and serves the 153 bus line and “F” line. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? No additional parking is required or proposed and no parking will be eliminated. The existing onsite parking areas are sufficient to serve the use. 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). No street improvements are required for this project. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. A railroad is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, approximately 250 feet from the project area. The railroad is used for freight and has does not impact the proposal. 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 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 15 of 16 be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Because the proposed freezer is an accessory to the existing use, no additional vehicular trips are expected to be generated as a result of the proposal. 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, the proposal will not affect or be affected by movement of agricultural and forest products. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable, no transportation impacts are expected as a result of the proposal. However, the project may be subect to transportation impact fees. 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. No increase in public services is necessary for the proposal. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other ___________ c. 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. The site currently is served by City of Renton for water and sewer. Power is provided by PSE. Any new utilities will be undergrounded. 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: Name of signee ___James K. Carleton, AIA_____________________________ SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) November 2, 2018 Page 16 of 16 Position and Agency/Organization __Vice President, Tahoma Design Group___ Date Submitted: __11/1/2018___________