Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-17 - YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS - TRUCK TERMINALYELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS 42AVES&S135"ST EPIC -FD -17 CITY OF TUKWIL A OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13t913'F F I NAL • DECLARATION OF STr'.iTrrrcr CE /NNO;'d— SIGNIFICAiJCE. Description of proposal Yellow Freight Systems - Truck Terminal Proponent Republic Freight System, Inc. Location of Proposal 42nd Avenue & South 135th Street Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -FD -17 This proposal has been determined to (.b'e /not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS ( /is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c). This decision. was made. after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Kjell Stoknes Position /Title Director, Office of Community flevelnpment Date 4 May 1977 Signature COMMENTS: 54,, OFFIFE MEMO CITY OF 1'LI KWI LA Kit4 FROM: /A SUBJECT: Yew Fulda kitiA6 1 aim v ' f V IAan� q¥44/1- Gout c�v,5 with Y ant fo y rp,, ,,,,W1 t ,Ai VtW ow Y r 1-ifuoic 1 pw+ wyvl r w+ vto A- p/� liviturivill w/Al af%u O c 15 of `tk i/ frA K0414,44 +WI 0 14/j w +t4L U ki4Arl 11 Y bbl✓' . TO: Responsible Official Kjell Stoknes Position /Title Director, Office of Community fevelnprnent Date 4 May 1977 Signature COMMENTS: • MEMO R A N D U M C TY of •TUKW LA. OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 19 May 1977 TO: Gary FROM: F d SUBJECT: Ye low Freight Neg. Dec. A negative declaration was recommended by myself on Yellow Freight Systems for the following reasons: 1. The applicant provided a report on noise which indicated that the noise generated by the truck terminal operation would not have a. significant effect on the daytime ambient noise level. 2. The applicant indiated that South 135th Street would not be used by truck traffic using the project site. 3. The applicant submitted drawings of hooded yard lights which were to be used on the project site. These lights were to concentrate light downward so as not to cast glare beyond the property. 4. The location of similar, though smaller, operations in the vicinity meant that`the proposed land use was not necessarily a precedent. 5. None of the other reviewing departments within the City indicated that an EIS should be required on the proposed terminal. The issuance of a negative declaration does not necessarily mean that a proposal will not, in fact, have some adverse environmental impacts associated with it. The negative dec. merely establishes that the expected adverse impacts are not significant enough to proceed with a full environmental impact statement. In the case of Yellow Freight Systems, it was known at the time of the negative dec. that a public hearing would be held in the near future. I felt that the potential adverse impacts caused by the proposal could be dealt with at the public hearing. FNS /cw • WILSEY&HAM,iNc. Earl P. Wilsey (1892 -1957) SUITE 1431, ONE WASHINGTON PLAZA • TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 • Telephone (206) 572 -9980 • Cable "WHINT" James H. Crippen Associate April 22, 1977 File No. 3- 2506 - 0101 -80 City of Tukwila Planning Department Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Gary,Crutchfield RE: YELLOW FREIGHT PROPOSED TERMINAL Dear Gary: Following our recent conversations we are attaching for your consideration two (2) sets of preliminary site plans with four (4) copies of an environmental checklist for the proposed Yellow Freight Systems terminal and a $50 application fee We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you at your convenience if additional input is needed by you or your staff in making your determination of environmental significance. Very truly yours, ILSEY & HAM, INC. James H. Crippen Associate Enc. JHC:jb cc: Mr. Pat Daniels Yellow Freight Systems engineering • planning surveying • environmental analysis • mapping • systems 81(808 .- • CITY OF TUKWILA Ili E dV I R(U� 1ENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REV I E4, FORM PROJECT NAME: Yew W-iq Ivf 61(4%0 PROJECT ADDRESS: 42" N out b. M5 NYWt DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: AphN 25i 1411 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) B"Building: 8,/q77 by: ❑ Engineering: v by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 3. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 4. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, Phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986. CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME: �(�lt-1 - S1S n-,S PROJECT ADDRESS: 4p.t2.9 4i 4 S. M.- DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: . 5 4PtL 7 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: ❑ Building: by: ©'Engineering: °a'% 9,�c, 77 by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: (date) (reviewer) 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: PPS 21 <UF'rl OF A j- cry on a_ iu -r. GLA % OS.0 - ocx2. -SS,.- O -- s 1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 3. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 4. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, Phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986. CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official... previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Republic Freight System, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Yellow Freight System 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 10990 Roe Avenue, Overland Park, Kansas 66207, 913/383 -3000 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City. of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: N/A 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an ac- curate understanding of its scope and nature): See attached sheet. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, in- cluding any other information needed, to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal): See attached sheet. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: September 1977 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. (b) King County Hydraulics Permit (c) Building permit YES • NO X YES NO X YES X NO • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO X (e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO Sign permit YES NO X (g) Water hook up permit YES X NO (h) Storm water s stem •ermit YES X NO (i) Curb cut permit YES X NO (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES X NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES X NO (1) Other: .k Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: At some future date the need may arise to increase the dock size. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: /A I1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required iII.4.#11 . Earth. W;yll th pro�osa es�lt in: 1 C Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic suhstrilctures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover -. ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -2- LASlAYBE NO X X (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: See attached sheet. .2. Air.. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable. odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: The movement of trucks and other vehicles associated with the freight terminal will not constitute a significant source of emissions in the area, particularly in light of the volumes of traffic passing nearby on I -5 and S.R. 599. YES MAYBE NO X x X Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? -3- • X X • • (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail - able for public water supplies? Explanation: See attached sheet.:. 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: Most of the site has been previously filled, with the exception of the steep slope adjacent to S. 135th. A limited strip of native vegetation occurs at this location which consists primarily of red alder, big leaf maple and siouler willow trees. YES MAYBE NO X 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) .Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife . habitat? X Explanation: Some habitat, of limited value, may be removed, which will reduce opportunities for birds and small mammals. 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: See attached sheet. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: The proposed facility will be operating during nighttime hours and . consequently will require use of floodlights. The floodlights will be shielded to eliminate glare to residences. See Figure 5. 'The floodlights will constitute an additional source of light in an area already well lit due to the proximity of freeway lights, etc. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: Use of the proposed site as a truck freight terminal is consistent • • with the. industrial development which has occurred on adjacent lots and the transitional character .of the general area.,.See Figure.4. The area has been zoned and improved in anticipation of industrial development. i 9. Natural Resources. Will the .proposal result in:'. (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: N/A 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. does not transport hazardous materials. X • 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods.? . (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See attached sheet, YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: %��vFs oA (a) Fire protection? NO E� P (b) Police protection? gr (c) Schools? Pet-/* (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ie19.Jes X X X YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X Explanation: Increased vehicular traffic will cause a proportionate amount of wear on public roads. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Explanation: N/A . 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for . new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:. (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water ?. ri A (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e). water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? X X X X X Explanation: The proposed project can be accommodated by the existing utility systems. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: N /A. • • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? YES MAYBE NO X Explanation: Development of the proposed site will constitute a. modification of the view available from the above hillside, but will not obstruct it. At present the site is partially filled, but is not maintained for aesthetic purposes. The proposed truck terminal will be a modern, well- maintained facility. Land- scaping will provide an aesthetic buffer between onsite activities and adjacent areas. 19. Recreation.. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? X Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result. in an alteration of a signifi- cant- archeological or his- torical site, structure,, . object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. • It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation o willful lack of full disclosure on my part. 7f- (Signat -8- Date 22 /9'77 CITY OF TUKWILA • ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEW FORM PROJECT NAME: %1MW V,GI j W2111440 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4ZK'A Av'e4t�I.t/ M14. b. 05" e't. DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: Av11 15/1411 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) ❑ Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: by: ❑_,ire: U Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 3. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental effects. The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ- mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit. More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature and Title of Responsible Official Date 4. Applicant was notified of decision on: by by Date Staff Person Letter, Phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 986. NOISE SIMULATION TESTS YELLOW FREIGHT PROPOSED TERMINAL A series of noise readings were taken at the proposed site of the freight terminal to simulate the approximate conditions that may occur when the terminal is in operation. Noise readings were taken with a Quest 215 Type 2 sound level meter and calibrated with a Quest CA -112 sound level calibrator. Readings were taken between 10 - 11. AM on May 25, 1977. Weather was sunny and winds southwesterly at 5 - 8 MPH occasionally gusting higher. In the first test a series of readings were taken to simulate the sound of metal against metal as if a ramp were dropped or hit the side of a truck or the dock. To accomplish this, a hammer was struck against an actual metal ramp while noise readings were taken at various distances from the location shown on the map. In the second test a diesel truck was run at 1,500 rpm to simulate truck noise. The results are shown on-the table below. Distance from Source (feet) NOISE SIMULATION TESTS dBA Hammer Test Truck Engine Test 50 92 70 100 87 64 150 83 60 200 77 59 250 74 * . 300 72 350 68 400 65 *Sound reached background noise levels and could not be distinguished as an individual contribution. These readings show the maximum noise levels expected from the source with no barriers. In the hammer test the steel plate was repeatedly struck and the maximum reading observed. The duration of the noise was normally one .second. There was an instantaneous burst of noise which dropped immediately back to background within two seconds. The location and orientation of the building will attenuate these noise levels substantially. • • From the same noise source an additional set of readings were taken at Site 2, adjacent to the homes behind the site. The hammer test showed a maximum level of 68 dBA with most impacts about 64 dBA. The diesel truck was then revved up to simulate passing through the gears. From that distance the noise of the truck was barely perceptible and did not affect the noise meter. Readings remained at less than 60 dBA. Additionally during the truck engine test,another truck passed by on the Interstate 5 freeway at 62 dBA and was clearly discernable to the noise meter while the diesel revving up on the site was not. CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official . previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Republic Freight System, Inc.., a wholly owned subsidiary of Yellow Freight System 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 10990 Roe Avenue, Overland Park, Kansas 66207, 913/383 -3000. 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: N/A 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an ac- curate understanding of its scope and nature): See attached sheet. . 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, in- cluding any other information needed, to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal): See attached sheet.' . 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: September 1977 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. (b) King County Hydraulics Permit (c) Building permit YES NO X YES NO X YES X NO (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES 'X (e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO (f) Sign permit akIssvrNe E-2ti w'L-L A)VeKII► YES X NO '-- (g) Water hook up permit YES X NO (h) Storm water system 'permit.* YES X NO (i) Curb cut permit YES X NO (j) Electrical permit (State•of Washington) YES X NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES X NO (1) Other: H face Sia Rra flu pt2OR WE-10 CiE X01-1 &�0— 010o2 VS �} W oF- 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: At some future date the need may arise to increase the dock size. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro - posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: N/A II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -2- YES MAYBE NO X X X (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? i (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: See attached sheet., 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? De €oS 3t coa,c k- j (z��oly of= yluckCS t t' A2 . (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally ?. YES MAYBE NO X• X Explanation: • The movement of trucks and other vehicles associated with the freight terminal will not constitute a significant source of emissions in the area, particularly in light of the volumes of traffic passing nearby on 1-5 and S.R. 599. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? • (f). Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground. waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? -3- X X • • (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail - able for public water supplies? Explanation: See attached sheet. 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES MAYBE NO (d). Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: Most of the site has been previously filled, with the exception of the steep slope adjacent to S. 135th. A limited strip of native vegetation occurs at this location which consists primarily of red alder, big leaf maple and siouler willow trees. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:• (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife _ habitat? X Explanation: Some habitat, of limited value, may be removed, which will reduce opportunities for birds and small mammals. YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? 'X Explanation: See attached sheet. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: The .proposed facility will be operating during nighttime hours and . consequently will require use of floodlights. The floodlights will be shielded to eliminate glare to residences. Figure 5,. The floodlights will constitute an additional source of light in an area already well lit due to the proximity of freeway lights, etc. 8. Land Use. Will the'proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? X Explanation: Use of the proposed site as a truck freight terminal is consistent with the industrial development which has occurred on adjacent lots and the transitional character of the general area. See Figure 4. .The,area has been zoned and improved in anticipation of industrial development. i 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: N/A 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? • X. Explanation: Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. does not transport hazardous materials. • • 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 13.. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e)... Alterations :.to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See attached sheet, YES MAYBE NO 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X /Explanation: Increased vehicular traffic will cause a proportionate amount V of wear on public roads. 1 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? . Explanation: N/A 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas ?, (b) Communications systems? (c) Water ?. (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e). Storm water drainage? 5--E 2kFLJNO (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: The proposed project can be accommodated by the existing utility systems. X X X' X X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea -' tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: N/A c;DtRivl LA NYE L%-) 1-11WE 10 BE iivTiA Lk-e0 /MOM Y i 1v (D C>VIACIA O ) S - 1Z41 To a_hyi kS9g. =7- X • YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? X Explanation: Development of the proposed site will constitute'a modification of the view available from the above hillside, but will not obstruct it. At present the site is partially filled, but is not maintained for aesthetic purposes. The proposed truck terminal will be a modern, well- maintained facility. Land- scaping will provide an aesthetic buffer between onsite activities and adjacent areas. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? X Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation of willful lack of full disclosure on my part. I. BACKGROUND 6. Nature and Brief Description of Proposal: The proposed project is a freight terminal consisting of: a dispatch office, loading docks with a capacity for 36 doors, truck turnaround space, and parking for trailers, tractors and employee automobiles. The total building size will be 50 feet by 215 feet. The dispatch office will be located at the front of the building and will be 30 feet deep. See Figure 1. The facility will be back 200 -250 feet from the front lot line. * The front portion of the site will be reserved for sale to another potential industrial user. The portion of the site used for freight terminal purposes will be attractively landscaped. Landscaping toward the rear of the site will also serve as a buffer for adjacent residential areas and to mitigate the effects of sound and light emanating from the site. 7. Location of Proposal: . The proposed site is located in close proximity to the interchange of I -5 and S.R.5 99, in an area which has experienced development in recent years and may be considered in transition from residential to industrial uses. Residential uses occur on the hill above the site to the west and to the south. The residential area consists primarily of older homes, many of which were established prior to the construction of the freeways. The location of the site and the area which has been studied for potential environmental effects is shown in Figure 2. 0 1 , ��, O ' - ' O (Iv N NO S cZIn L R.)t2 -PO\M-Te \AA-0. ao-ssi-rti )9-sN Au:ELI -7 oR Da\ ? a W M ` <,09 N, Ode qT K la .TRAILER/ 1641%. KING • ASPHALT PAVEMENT •'=CONC. BLAB • • LOADING DOCK t µIlium :GONG. _SLAB ASP1 -1ALT PAVEMEr.1T 50 0 50 100 FT.': WILSEY & HAM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 1 SITE PLAN WILSEY & HAM FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth: The site is relatively flat on the northeast side, which fronts on South 134th Street and then slopes rather steeply towards South 135th. The project site soils consist primarily of alderwood gravelly sand loams, the most common glacial till soil of the Puget Sound region and possibly some clay and /or peat areas. These soil types tend to experience ponding'in the winter. Much of the flatter portions of the site have been previously filled. Due to the topography and soil types present, both filling and grading will be necessary to accommodate the proposed freight terminal. 3. Water: The proposed site is located in the lower portion of a small 700 acre drainage basin. There are several small streams near the site which drain to the Green River in artificial drainage channels and culverts. Although no distinct streams are located on the site itself, some water does drain across the site from the hill above. The soils in the vicinity of the site make a moderate contribution in terms of recharging the underlying aquifer. Development of the site will require diverting the drainage flows v to the ditch along the front of the site. Runoff .from the site'will be increased and an imperceptible reduction in water available to the underlying ul•fer: will '.occur.. 6. Noise: U2 0 rre,ti tS C�/ ZC. Ci , S�� PUSS (lain ) 439s ; L k Regulations and Criteria for Evaluating Noise The State of Washington has regulations designating the maximum permissible environmental noise levels which may be emitted from, and received by, different classes of land. (W.A.C. 173 -60 "Maximum Envrionmental Noise Levels. ") The applicable portion of these guidelines specify that noise shall .not emanate from a class of land such as an industrial area which causes in excess of 60 dBA in a residential area. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., noise levels shall be reduced by 10 dBA for receiving residential areas: In addition, at any hour of the day or night, the noise limitations may be exceeded for a receiving property by no more than: (i) 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in any one hour period. (ii) 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any one hour period. (iii) 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one hour period. The term "environmental noise" as used in most noise regulations means the intensity, duration and character of sounds from all sources. In terms of a simple and practical measurement, environmental noise means the long -term average sound level for a given recording period (or technically, the equivalent sound level abbreviated to leq). Measurements of long -term average sound levels will not directly exclude very high noise levels of very short duration, rather, they are reflected in the overall average. In addition to long -term average sound levels, noise may be measured over much shorter periods in order to evaluate peak noise events. For example, a long- term average of a 60 decibel (dB) sound level over a 24 hour period might include peak sound levels of 110 dB, but such an event might be less than a couple of seconds in duration. Short- term noise levels are noted by the percent of the recording period over which they occur; i.e., L10 = 10% of the recording period, Lgo = 90% of the recording period, etc. Several versions of long -term average sound levels are used to measure sound, "A- weighted" (dBA) or "C- weighted" (dBC). The difference between the two is that the A- weighted measurements more closely approximate the way the human ear would perceive the relative noisiness of common sounds by discriminating against sounds at low frequencies; while C- weighted measurements do not discriminate against any frequencies. All of the sound levels discussed in this analysis are A- weighted (dBA). • In order to show a frame of reference for the subsequent noise analysis, the following chart lists typical noise levels from common sources at close range: dBA Source 30 -40 Refrigerator 55 Window air conditioner 60 Conversational speech 65 Dishwasher. ' 70 Automobile 75 Drill, average traffic, 80 Garbage disposal 85 10 HP outboard at 50 feet 90 Heavy city noises 95 Power mower, inside a jet airplane . at take -off -100 Jet aircraft passing overhead 115 Jet aircraft. (500 feet overhead), . four piece rock band Existing Community Noise Levels Noise levels were sampled at three locations within the vicinity of the site (see Figure 3). Daytime noise readings were taken from 7:30 - 8 :30 a.m. in order to include noise generated by the morning peak hour traffic. Night- time noise readings were taken from 11:30 p.m. - 12:30 a.m. The following noise levels were derived: Existing Noise Levels (dBA) Site 1 a.m. p.m. Site 2 a.m. p.m. Site 3 a.m. p.m. Leg . (62)* (60) (63) L90 62 55 56 • 56 59 63 L50 65 57 59 60 62 64 L10 70 62 66 63 66, 65 L1 (75 =76) (75 -78) (75 -78) *a.m. and p.m. Noise levels in the area are influenced by traffic volumes on S.R. 599 and. I -5; frequent truck movement along South 133rd and South 134th either approaching or exiting the freeways; and air traffic associated with Boeing Field. In general, the noise readings obtained indicate that the area is relatively noisy for residential purposes. A typical residential suburb might experience noise levels of 45-55 dBA with a 10 dBA reduction at nighttime. In the vicinity of the project site nighttime noise levels may reduced-by only an average of 4 -5 dBA. The long -term average sound levels are high due to the frequency and constancy of moderately noisy vehicular and air traffic rather than isolated peak noise events. Although monitoring site #2 is further away from vehicular traffic, this location does not show a very significant reduction in noise. This lack of noise reduction appears to be due to the slope of the ground, which carries sound upward. Probable Noise Impact . In order . to evaluate probable noise impact of the proposed freight terminal on the adjacent neighborhood, noise sampling was conducted at .a substantially similar facility in Seattle, which is also owned and operated by Yellow Freight System, Inc. Sampling was conducted during the early morning when truck loading operations were taking place in order to measure the noisiest expected activities. Noise producing activities included use of loading dock equipment, the impact of loading ramps and truck idling. The following values were obtained:. . dBA Existing Dock Activities Idling Truck Leq. L90 54 55 L50 58 63 L10 65 66 11 - 75 75 In comparing these values with those characteristic of the neighborhood in general, it is apparent that anticipated long -term average sound levels generated from the proposed facility should not significantly alter the existing character of the noise environment and will be masked by other activities in the area. The above noise readings were taken at relatively close range (within 50 feet) and can be expected to attenuate with distance. Thus, noise emanating from the property line should also be incompliance with the Washington State regulations. Anticipated short -term noise levels also appear comparable to short-term noise levels experienced in the vicinity. However, since the existing short - term noise events are not likely to coincide with short -term noise emanating from the facility, such sounds are not likely to be masked by background noise. In other words, if a sound measuring 75 dBA is produced at the site for a.few seconds while the background noise is only 55 dBA, it will be identifiable. It should be noted that peak noise events presently occur in the area which reach 75 dBA or more. . • In sum, the proposed facility should be in compliance with the Washington State noise regulations, and will not constitute a departure from the existing noise envrionment. However, some peak noise events will be identifiable in the area. 13. Transportation /Circulation: Approximately 11 tractor - trailer units and 4 straight trucks will be loaded between the hours of 12 p.m. midnight and 8:00 a.m. These trucks will then be dispatched for deliveries between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Freight bound for locations outside of the Pacific Northwest will be loaded between the hours of 4:30 and 6:30 and subsequently dispatched. All parking needs for trucks and employees will be met onsite. The relatively small volumes of traffic will coincide with peak hour traffic. The arterials in the vicinity of the project can easily accommodate the anticipated traffic. Traffic hazards will be proportionate to the relatively small increase in truck traffic. FIGURE 3 NOISE READING LOCATIONS . LEGEND VACANT RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL LIGHT INDUSTRY 11111111111 . WILSEY. S. HAM FIGURE 4 LAND . USE TYPE "H" FIXTURE 1 cOMPLETE W/ POST PTOR , SRAOKETs, Gf.- E Si--11 =1 LD, ETC- 1 LT IaOWKI AS RE451/D. GoNDUIT TO' COIJTACT OR. IETA1 L (TYPICAL-) I.IOT To SGALE DOOR. MULLION b.7 ' 'L� ®cam) of POE 2 U1 , . �° Di (2 l VISI G1L1 l 1—x01)1 ti K, IITCS eE :f tN i zb12, WILSEY & HAM. FIGURE 5 BUILDING LIGHT DETAIL <�'A7P o EB PA RA", N i fuJ'uRe CrrAied 319.2.r.- DATE . DEVI ®ION FREIGHT SYSTEM TUcKWIl_A (.Kurt COUNTY) WASI4INGTON :., .µ. 9 a,+ rB'dtw tea % YELtOW FREIGHT SYSTEM 1 11. iI 11 11 II II II 11 G • • ird •:1.`. A • 0 it � II tt,r, •t. 0 z I I .1 • td MOTOR : FREIGHT TERMINAL 1 34' STREET TuCKW1LA (KING': co...no WAS H1NToN SYM DATE REVISION BY