Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-FD-39 - GLACIER PARK COMPANY - ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK (BNSF PLAT)
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE PLAT ORILLIA GLACIER PARK BNSF PLAT EPIC -FD -39 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 64 /FINAL DEC LARAT ION OF IGiJIFI CAN CE Description of proposal Orillia Industrial Park Proponent Glacier Park Company Location of Proposal. P 71 Channel and Longacres Parkway North of Renton City limits Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -FD -39 This proposal has been determined to (*eye /not have) a significant adverse im- pact upon the environment. An EIS (4e►/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 Position /Title Date Kjell Stoknes Director,,Office of Community Development COMMENTS: f�. • • CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM 9 November 1977 Kj FROM: F d SUBJECT: Bu lington Northern Plat: Environmental Checklist FINDINGS: 1. Burlington Northern submitted environmental checklist with application for preliminary plat on 30 September 1977. 2. An environmental impact statement for the Orillia Industrial District project was completed by the applicant for the City of Renton in October 1975. This EIS followed a format quite similar to present SEPA guide- lines and was distributed to all applicable agencies and review depart- ments. The scope of the EIS included that portion of -the project which was also located in the City of Tukwila. For the most part, the Tukwila portion was included and mapped in the inventory of Existing Conditions. In addition, many of the anticipated impacts of the project were dis- cussed as to their effect on the entire development site, including that portion lying within Tukwila. Moreover, since the EIS addressed the project at a general level, it is difficult to separate the "Renton portion" of the project from the "Tukwila portion ". 3. The following is a summary of project impacts anticipated in the EIS: a. The topography, geomorphology, and soils will be impacted to the extent of filling /grading which is necessary for site preparation. b. The rate of surface water runoff will increase as a result of the addition of impervious surfaces. The water quality of surface runoff will decrease. c. Virtually all of the site's existing vegetation will be removed due to filling and grading activities except on that portion dedicated to the City of Renton for greenbelt. d. Filling and grading of the site will remove virtually all of the existing wildlife habitat. e. Noise impacts will result from construction activities and eventual development and associated traffic. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 e (206) 242 -2177 Memorandum Kjell Stoknes • • Page 2 9 November 1977 f. Some degradation of ambient air quality will occur as a result of ulti- mate development. g. 50,000 vehicle trips per day are expected to result from anticipated development of the site. The existing transportation network will probably require improvement to accommodate this increase. 4 Burlington Northern was granted a waiver from Resolution #489 by the Tukwila City Council for their fill activities on that portion of the project lying within Tukwila city limits on 20 June 1977. 5. A fill permit has been issued by the City of Tukwila for the area proposed to be subdivided. 6. Six lots are proposed to be created in the preliminary plat of Orillia Indus- trial Park of Tukwila. 7 The total size of the subject site is approximately 72.5 acres, with about 47.5 acres proposed for subdivision (with the remainder proposed for roads or right -of -way for the P -1 drainage channel). CONCLUSIONS: 1. Generally speaking, the EIS which was completed for the Orillia Industrial District in Renton appears to have adequately covered the project's general impacts for that portion of the project proposed to be developed in the City of Tukwila. The information in this EIS is recent (1975) and is still relevent and valid. 2. Until specific development projects are proposed for the Orillia Industrial District Lots, a more specific assessment of projects impacts is probably not possible. 3. Some of the project's adverse impacts will be mitigated through the development process. For example, some vegetation will be restored by landscaping of development sites and so forth. As a consequence, some wildlife habitat will be restored. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS, I recommend that a negative declara- tion be made on the proposed preliminary plat of the Orillia Industrial District of Tukwila. However, it should be noted on the negative declaration that subse- quent, specific developments on the lots will be subject to SEPA review also. FNS /ch BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Office of Community Development 6230 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Satterstrom: Lobby 2 Central Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 625 -6682 October 26, 1977 File: Orillia, WA RE -1400 Part 2 In accordance with your request of October 20, 1977, attached hereto are copies of responses to the Environmental Impact Statement received from the City of Renton regarding Burlington Northern plat of our Orillia acreage. Very truly yours , J. .Gordon apager - Property Management Atts. PRIVATE WILD BIRD SANCTUARY Members of National Wildlife Federation and Bird Friends Society E. F. AND GERTRUD SCHAEFER ► ='`� ' "' � 1412 NORTH 40TH STREET, RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 C411- // aee-1/4-1/14.A%s "J-e12.1- (.2c) ' 7-(1R-M, 9 gcr)—%- 214 . p5e, J7L6-0 , % ,f a t �u� [FAA • /c� = ;-,4 1/4 c7/'�z /�� � �%Z��'_� 72,, £� -e -4 *- '/tel•te-C tk— 4'4 Alt,tar- OF R� ' 4 0 rj) t,,,nre% 0 SEP Q` 440 �I� • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • . RENTON. WASIIINGT(, MUNICIPAL 6UILOING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 95055 • aTb,T/`I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ". RESPONSE TO LAKEVIEW PRIVATE WILD BIRD SANCTUARY 1.. Your reviewof. the Drfat EIS is appreciated. t ! -. ice 2. The—ti_na-1 _EIS `add'resses the impacts of the proposed action - onai.r�q:al i ty, water quality, wetlands habitat area, vegetation, and wildlife.. Seattle - King County Public Safety Building •sCE BERONER, M.D., M.P.H. p,ector of Public Health • I'4 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 583 -2550 Gordon Y. Ericksen, Director Renton Planning Department 200 Nill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Orillia Industrial District Dear Mr. Ericksen: A review of the subject impact statement shows the district wi served by an approved public water supply 11 be adverse environmental health condition is envisioned. sewer. No Very truly yours, BH/m1a RICT �tp E. 150th '88155 HEALTH CENTERS: EAST 15607 Northeast Bellevue - Redmond Road Bellevue 98008 885 -1278 e, Ph.D., M.P.H. ef, Environmental Health Services SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST 3001 N. E. 4th St. Renton 88055 10921 8th A Southwest 228 -2620 Seethe 98146 • • RESPONSE TO SEATTLE -KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH You review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. • James L. Magstadt Planning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Wa. 98055 King County State of Was n John D. Spellman, County xecutive John P. Lynch, Director DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM PLANNING Room 400 King County Courthouse • 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -84(38 7492 a�('FJ�� 1% �-.•FD o ,�G DEP AR' RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Dear Mr. Magstadt: We have received the subject document and submit the following comments for your consideration: 1. The statement is generally well written, particularly relating to the environmental impacts of the proposed action on the physical • : :t; environment. FIcwever, the apparent omission of impacts of the project on ther.cocio- economic environment (ie., primary and secondary land:..use impacts, employment, community facilities, public services, community values, aesthetics, etc.) both on and off -site is not addressed in the document nor is any attempt made to give the reader an indication of how these impacts may be interrelated with the physical environment. Although the impacts of a project this size may have substantial impacts on the ecosystem of the site and adjacent terresterial and avian communities, the living environment of man and the quality of that'environment might.likewise be substantially impacted. : •w 2. There is some concern regarding the apparent conflict with (a) the proviso established in the SCS project that,' "All land not needed or used for commercial- industrial development will be planned and managed for wildlife open -space until such time as it is utilized in additional developments" and (b) the expeditious 'manner in which land must be filled to take advantage of the available source of fill from the County borrow site. These two • objectives appear to bein conflict with each other and interim resolution seems to indicate the compromise of the first objective. 3. The statement documents plans for the construction of temporary drainage facilities to handle surface water runoff. in the eventuality the SCS project is not approved. Permanent solutions however, are either not contemplated or.not. addressed in the statement. 4. Site specific impacts of the grading and landfill operations are well done. Impacts of borrow operations that are located at the County site or other commercial site locations, however, ■ • .Wa! James L. Magstadt September 9, 1975 Two do not directly address the.datifitywide'issue of borrow , ..._ excavation and use of this resource or the environmental impacts of this operation.on-the-heighborhoods adjacent ; to these proposed sites. — „James L. M-7,-. - a I ,-- — 'Plannin L15,,a1ThA4,77cumulative impacts of this project and others like City of Rc,ttcthat may result •or be encouraged by this-aCtion could be ' 200 nill :explored-7to establish a regional perspective of the impact Renton, Waanalysis. Land use issues, water quality issues and the likt may be impacted directly or secondarily as is1111t this RE: Da' atiorcs.;'::: .:•::: = 7 -_-:.:._ -: -".21.',-,-- :.r--- ' — - - - - • 1-7— INDUST3-;_l We hope these comments will assist you in your planning Dear Mr. MactiVities. . , We sincerely • haw= receive f 'comments fcr co- •=. - _..,. . , / .1... The -stater:: -;,-; c----:,nc---=--- ,-7,.1- "0-.NA-?4:44.1',- ,.. _ 41.4. ,........., -_,-.:-.424-f...---...,---:. .-. L ---------- 7 environmeno. -.-.'_--,q,--=- V- z- T: h ,-, •:.-• --::-.-2., r 71- rt:.obe E dmun ds on , -Chief: - project on .t.-...71 c . - - : : T . ) f- ± _ c _ - - - 00r--,7„:_:-. - -.--_. ,...- . a . i i d 7 U s e ` Planning section:- secona- 1 c._.- ...,,.. .....:.--,17:....-.:: r ....- --' .., - .:..... . public ser-alla/amicc:-oy v,---, 0f-r.sit-c. 4c n...7,,z a;..,....:.:„.. ...•____ ..-......._____,_._ made- to c:'..7.cc::: -John.: Lynch ,_-_ Dixe-ctori , -.. ... . .. _ — ... _... ..be interne. -.._ a -.:..e_ -.-.1 Budge t.-__ & P:rogrim— 1a-1-4-fining._ _ • • -• - . impacts cf. .. • .77 ____. con,..-.7.-,.---::..'_,---;7-:, • 7....:-.-.......:_-,-'•:-----. --,- ;-- ---- - ' • - ''' ._....._._ -,...._ -that e:-.-,T; *".C:::.' 71:7-':-..7_ • _7:' ."7" -f. -_- - . ' L. ,1 .a-.: L'S -I. '.::, =E-... E IL:: S :: - - — - - . 2 , .. .•The....*.e• • 1: .a ".:277.-"' . C C.' :^ r-' =-' - 7 "" - -- - '•-• - -' • . ---7 - 7 - _ - (a)• zne :3 r-cA,L...-E--.-...- e.‘i, -.-...a_.:.. ::..-._ -4::-..t..--..:. -:_:-. -_-.:-1,-1.-- :::. -..?•=.-1 7.:.::.--: -•,----:-..-: _ . I _ . pianne::: and :Lan -- v.. __- • _ •manne:-.-• " o: •._•Z :obje-otivez --.• • - - • • • . • resolution a7S-77.-=- _ • • the • E-',C.."; • ID . • P e 7.1 • • e i the - " -"; • • . • • at the -et . • ' MUNICIPAL UUILOING • RENTON: WASHINGTON 98053 • 23S -2SS0. REoPONSE TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM PLANNING . 1. Your review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. 2. Additional explanation of the socio - economic impacts of the proposal have been incorporated into the text. 3. The apparent conflicts between the applicant's proposal and the SCS proviso. to fill land only as it is needed for development have been included in the text and will be reviewed as part of-the City's permit process. • 4. ..In the eventuality that'the SCS project is • not approved, one of the two temporary approaches described on page 13 will be made permanent. This has been clarified•on page 13 of-the text. 5. Information has. been presented regarding'the borrow site which. is situated in King County. Recently a permit was granted for this project by •King County. It is assumed that a thorough study of the Environmental Impacts of the borrow site question was undertaken pursuant to SEPA at that time. However, certain impacts of the borrow operation have been noted on pages 29 and 33 respectively. 6. The regional land use situation has been discussed on pages 14 - 20. The cumulative impacts of further industrial development, degradation of water quality, etc. have been incorporated in the text. • Mr, Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 • Dear Mr, Ericksen:, RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Glacier Park Company • We have reviewed the above subject and have the following recommendations and/or comments: King Cgiipty State of liphington John D. Spellman, County Executive DepartmentofPublicArmks Jean L. DeSpain, Director 900 King County Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 _August 22, 1975 OF. •,. PECHI/ED AUG 9 , # . DEPN. • 1. Page 3, Paragraph 3A - The applicant needs a State Flood Control Zone permit for any work within the proposed Orillia Industrial District. 2, Page 7, Typical Interim Grading Scheme - Where the outlet velocities from the proposed drain pipes ex- ceed three feet per second, rock riprap should be placed on the full channel section for a minimum distance of tenfeet, being five feet both upstrean and downstream from the proposed outlets. 3. Page 13, Paragraph e., Temporary Small Drainage Ditches - The concept of using temporary drainage ditches with restricted outlets appears satisfactory. ,However, •before we would recommend approval of any • drainage system we would require detail drainage coo- putations and plans. M . Gordon Y. Ericksen August 22, 1975 Page two (2) 4. Page 13, Paragraph e., Construction of the SCS P-1 Channel - We recommend, where possible, that this drainage concept be followed. We appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this proposed Environmental Impact Statement. If you have any questions, please feel fry9_,tocontact our office on 344-3874. . 20 E fl1 7 :c 7 WILLIAM B. GI LESPIE Division Engineer Division of Hydraulics WBG • Very truly ours, • • .T.••„:,, aT. P;'>0:z•os---L .•. .-c-11-tcneT - ' aLL • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON. WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 9sOSS • 27$.2»1 RESPONSE TO 'COMMENTS RESPONSE TO KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. Your review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. 2. The need for a State Flood Control Zone Permit is understood by the applicant and has been incorporated into the statement. 3. Drainage computations and rock rip rap around drain pipe outlets have been incorporated into the statement. 'NI awl r. • • • • 410 West Harrison Street, Seattle, Washington 98119 (206) 344-7330 - - N I N • muNlc)pc,L,;„ • August 22, 1975 7..0; ern P=SPfl, rOUTY Mr. Gbrdon ErickS'en, 'Director Renton Planning Dept. 200 Mill Avenue. So.,, 0; the nrafl Renton, Washington 9E05 '--- 4"'• StatE. Sublett: _Glaciei-Paik a Company-Fill and Grade for Orillia Industrial144Fict Draft Environmental Impact 'Statement c.3mDu.zia:lons c-. pricKsen;,7 Dear-Mr. We have reviewed the draft impact statement for the proposed filling and grading at the Orillia Industrial District enclosed with your letter dated August 6, 1975. The transporting of fill material to the site and the grading of the fill should not have a • significant affect on ambient air quality if the control measures indicated in the impact state- ment are used. The applicant should periodically inspect the site after preparation and use the appropriate measures to assure minimal dust generation until either development has occurred or a ground cover has been established. As the statement points out, the site will eventually be devel- oped for industrial use. At this time, it is not possible to assess theultimate air quality impact since neither the extent nor type of industrial use is known. *rmsen St Lre Toll Zenith 8385 f 6'4k. 9." COUNTY 1.-40^tIll Bldg. •Its However, there are two programs administered by this Agency under Regulation I which -require 'the evaluation, on a case-by- case basis, of most new stationary air contaminant sources and indirect carbon monoxide sources. These are the Notice of Construction and Application for Approval procedure under Article 6 and review of larger parking lots and highways under Article 18; the purpose of these programs is to assure main- tenance of air quality. In addition, a program of area-wide air quality maintenance planning is expected to commence this year, in which local planning Agencies will play a major role, for this same purpose. i .4 - IIECTORS t ' torrett Foster. Aiternets for Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; ■.. 44,inton, Mayor Everett; Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayer Bromrirtan: • '1,, r. .: • ■rember at Large: Join 0. Spillman, King County Executive; : . VICE CHAIRMAN: N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish CCuntY• GOICIOn N. Johnston, Mayor Tacoma; Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kafir:, County A. R. Dammkoehier, As Pollution Control OI.ice, Was Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; G. Ericksen, Director August 22, 1975 Page two ~Thank = o . ;::: y u "'°�or the opportunity to comment. FRe: _ _ . • ro -: • Very truly yours, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer By ( J / R. Pearson enior Air Pollution Engineer G PLANNING DEPARTMENT • H NTON, WASHINGTON .r. MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 • 23S -2550 (O' Q- 4rfosE� RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 1. Your review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. 2. Dust control measures will be incorporated into the Special Permit review process. tS . • • . September 5, 1975 Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact statement for the Glacier Park Company proposed fill and grade of the Orillia Industrial District. There is some concern about the loss of the wetland habitat and corresponding loss of wildlife and vegetation in this area. Also, runoff of surface water into the Green River may prove to be a large problem, not only from immediate action but particularly from future development. In general, the draft environmental impact statement appears to be comprehensive and a well-organized document. It should be sufficient to satisfy theSEPA guidelines in regard to procedure. • bj Sincerely, Barbara Jansen. Environmental Review Section J. Evans. Gwettro. J:o•t. I•. ts...19-: 01011.,,,J ■••• • . C. 0 R • ?, 92 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON. WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL OUILOING 0 RENTON, WASHINGTON YROSS • 23S-2$$0 • RESPONSE TO-septcCOMMENTS RESVNSE_ TNO 14-,AS.HIN,G-TON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Piariu.n .Dirc.“.77..-cr 1 tTreSije#.9f-the,Draft EIS is appreciated. Renton., Dear W. . • • • Than y., ou .. . . . . 4 *.In. - _ _ ' _ ....... ........,....._..„•_. ,,........ .i-r.ptl." a-t .s4--a--,-,------ --- ---,---- ---'-- --- ---- :.-.--•---%- -fs,--,----•• • " .-- ''.. • re c..:-- tly..: C....-.1:...1',':..:. L':._-_-......-.:,........,..... ._`•,:.,.s,..-.r.it.-.._.. . . 'There Ls E.fir::-.,._. ---,-..-----.------ ... .. ... . coc.--,rz:.::--:-. •,sc..-..:- -.1-...:;-. - .;......,-,.........._ _ -......,.. -.-.....-.....—........._.,. • ..... runo'f of ,F-- 7' c '-• ''' - .. - --: - - - • - ' • .- ' --"' 'T--.-' •••.' ---- 7:2 - • .1.'arco -----)r.c.-,i r--7. ; r.---,-.. ',..-.,:-....;-- :...-.". 7 :"' : 7;7.:;.-- -: LI t ") •.........-.-"- frora •tuture dsvc.,.:..c-_-:.., • •• . • . . • . • ,ceneral, th,a be compreher...i.-7.-..v.,..-: • PL • I I • • . Lai'.A..1S�i�y'.;±SC.•Y.ii:l ulLt'SN:�A 4.r(`D SLR`" ., DANIEL J. EVANS GOVERNOR. r• -+r wr - f !. f • ROOM 118. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • PHONE 753.6600 OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON 9e^ -04 September 8, 1975 E .tis AS�':a� 1. tour ':rcv .'ea,` of Lie is aTore tir. Gordon Y. Eri cksen, .Planning Director The City of Renton 'Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: As requested, we have reviewed your Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Orillia Industrial District proposed fill and grade. There are 1rnnrta►l fisheries stocks in the Green River and its tributaries, including those in Springbrook Creek, which will be impacted by this action. Therefore, we have a few comments to offer. Existing conditions describing water quality and aquatic organisms ponula- tions are discussed beginning on page 22, and we note that there was only a reference to occasional catches of game fish in Springbrook Creek. This Depart. ment has recent observations of coho salmon production in this drainage, prirar!'" during periods of low stream flow in the lower Green and Duwamish Rivers are severe. Will lowering of the water table at the project site intensify these low -flow water'quality problems? What will be the effect of the additional waste discharge and storm runoff to the Green River? It would be helpful if the final impact statement more thoroughly considered the existing fisheries resources, as well as any areas of potential impact form this development. It is our understanding that the major portion of the filling and gradlrt° is to occur within the next two years, however subsequent development will PV • • teed over a 25 -year span. The large areas of exposed fill material would 11r. Gordon_ September.,,?, : 9)5 ►' ;. 199: —create .,ItletPotenti:a1; for,.storm- drainage: -and ..erosi'on. profilers over a o =of years. Tnvadd'i ti on to_ the- diking and - temporary retention system- -that #mss :ben ropnserl rha5 'consideration ..keen given4,to possible measures of soil stabilization or of introduction olophanti ngs to reduce erosion? Our final. comment deals with the borrow site that is discussed en naae 5. The specific location of the site is not indicate.d,.and there has been virtuall»'°_ .f=a.xdist inn.A3f wtenti_a.1 impact that will occur due to operations and excavation. -:.,!, ,Here .was sno T . *3 r Stater-Ent C.7 the Y" _ ..1'.-po )u I•c t, se'•: _. ` s e t _ no iC. __' _ - Y .7 ,sever. ;. f = -i , . ; _ resource: y 2t- wet', ,,....: _ • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON, WAHHINGTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 • 23S -2SS, RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES ' :1 review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. Ite impacts upon fisheries stock in Springbrook Creek have. been incorporated in the statement. 3. The impacts to fishery populations in the Green River have been incorporated in the statement. '1 4. Consideration will be. given to soil stabilization and erosion control; methods within the City of Renton. Special Permit 'process. The location of the borrow•site has been noted in Figure A. Certain impacts of the borrow activities ,,.,.27 11e been. .noted; in sections on Noise and Air Impacts, •°°p$ s' 29 and 33 respectively. �EPARTMENT OF GAME y,. • Vorth Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504 (iant• . martin,: .Cc.dtlr. ((•.u•nt.tq Glenn (, ith. WI lltrnit ( :dt tidy. ir.. 1 .i',, an: r • .Arthur S. (.n /loto rai lai:ahtyh R'..ticrJr,u molt. T.rc 91.1 Archie t, •%f /!r. p "t'njNbu Director / Carl N. Crouse Aniaant Directors Ralph tr. Lrrr,m lack S. lUarlartd August 29,1975 Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. Ericksen: Your draft environmental impact statement Glacier Park Company Proposed Fill and Grade for Orillia Industrial District - was reviewed by our staff as requested. Our comments follow the report format. Introduction This section refers to the proposed action as granting rezone approvals and permitting grading and filling activities. Rezone approvals aren't specifically addressed as part of the proposed action (page 3). Clarification is needed. The Proposed Action Existing zoning is shown on Figure B (page 4). Perhaps the specific implications of this zoning could be explained and contrasted with those o the requested zoning shown on Figure D (page 19, back). of The primary borrow site and quantities of fill needed are described in this section (page 5). The properties of the fill materials to be used, however are -not discussed. Could such at the site? If so, discussion would berhelpfuls influence degree of impact In reference to temporary drainage plans (page 6), information on the amount of time during which this plan will be employed would be helpful, as would information on measures which will be needed to insure proper maintenance of the system. Will a monitoring program be initiated? We acknowledge your indication that the exact acreage to be left as greenbelt has not been settled (page 10). Perhaps a description of the way in which the greenbelt will be managed should be included in this section of the final draft, if such information is available. • -•.. 1Wr'. Ericksen Ac August 29, 1975 Co■th Two alternate drainag schemes are addressed for the interim period before the P-1 channel is completed. The way they are presented makes it seem that both are feasible means of control (page 13). If so, discussion of these schemes and relative environmental impacts under Alternatives in the final statement seems appropriate. • Gordon Bio-Physical Environment Plannirr.: .cl_ty. of-,. Springbrook Creek is briefly described (pages 21 and 23). If possible 200 t,,flittie. final report should include an assessment of overall impact of the proposed Rentoh,O0elopment on this creek. )ear t. Mr . ;, I You stated, under "Eventual Impacts on Hydrological Conditions", that ., the water table will be lowered (page 22). Are there wells or other *uses ilttJ1C area that might be adversely affected? • - .Propos.if 7 I . i • . The description of bird use (page 27) is brief. Given!the kinds and TiOvri- ''. • a: trt, ,Mixture of habitat present at the site, it seems there would be greater bird • • sv_ use than this section suggests. Often times when extended survey of actual • - • bird use is not feasible, habitat types are used to predict possible use. = . . tn. :-.:,.iThat is, bird use is estimated on the basis of use•known.to occur at habitats Es v;,Du:which are -similar to those at the site in .question. You may wish to consider of tp.;.. ,,expanding this segment,,through use of this or other methods. .. -- The discussion of eventual impacts on biological resources (page 28) e--.states, "In order to be consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan, a tr 7 portion of the wetland in the northwest corner:will be retained as a greenbelt 7,-,:-.,area." We appreciate efforts to mitigate wildlife resource losses associated with the SCS drainage project -- a regional project undertaken in cooperation with local municipalities. Mr. Eri ek-sen = - - August 29, 1975 We feel there is a need to consider this project on its own merits, however:= TCosses of wetlands which will be brought about by the action should be considered'.within this context as well. t„_L= Z_. ._. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity The relationship which loss of habitat at-the site has to the long- term natural productivity -of the site-and surrounding area should be addressed: Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft. We hope our comments will be helpful_ to-you. tns in Sincerely, 7171 =J _. _ THE DEPARTMENT. OF GAME 6tz DE.in .7 - been P}ar, V,C ESD:jb • cc: E: A. Chitwood,-Regional Manager vAgehcies • riDcr-, cr.. Eugene S: Dziedzic, Asst. Chief Environmental Management Division : Off,R�4 • V Y '� PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON, WASHINGTON • MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON. wA5NINGTON 9SOSS • 23S•2Si1 RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GAME 1. Your review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. 2. No rezone action is proposed at this time. Clarif' has been made in the text. However, it can be assumedion that eventual land use will be compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the area. 3. Figure D indicates the applicant's proposed future la use.configuration on the site and not the specific nd zoning. 4.• Th-e properties of fill material are regulated by the Renton Mining, Grading, and Excavation Ordinance. The .fill maLeria.l from the borrow site is considered to be of high quality. 5. Additional information on the drainage system has be incorporated into, the statement. The SCS channel pro- ject has been many years in the planning stages, and it is difficult to determine how long.the proposed temporary, drainage system will be utilized. Should the SCS drainage project fail to be implemented, one of the two approaches for drainage as described on page 13 will be made permanent. Both aches and would ultimately have similarrimac'tsaon water quality of the Green River, which ultimately receives drainage. The problems of the Green River Valley have been noted in the statement. No monitoring m as been mentioned. However, this will be stuied °duri,g the Special Permit review •process. 6. Information on wetland management in the Valley is not available at this time. This might include State and Federal agencies as well as .local of Renton will welcome any government. The City may have on this 'matter. y su 99estions your Department • 6, 7. Further discussion of potential impacts to Springbrook Creek have been Incorporated into the statement. • 8. 'Ther,e_,a;r,e,,,no known wells in the vicinity which would •be a r ' e r t s e 1 y STATT D` : - 9. A detailed study _of the drying effect of the P -1 Channel pro j`ec t airrit a v- rrtu=a- =1 td-e viea_o cot: t iFv Val ley on_ w e t: - land.areas within the Valley is presently tei "ng'under- takert by ` =the; e e'n=torf- :PianniTng ;D:e:parctnlen.t : • tt nrough _a special H.U.D. . f 'rdi 4rari : . • fi i i4 : .. .. 10.• Further ni tio1“©n-=vegetation and plant `communities has,been_added to the statement as appendix material. rlgurc, r 11. The "ponded area ": refers-. tor. the.. weal and; whi ch- wi l 1 be deSignat&dr'a% greenbelt and indicated on`F'igure•D, the generali.ged land use site plan map. 12 . An e x t e ndEe;d 9'i s t' o:fr b i r.d s :w h. i ,c h ,i�ia -y _b.e_ re x.p.e.c ^t;e d. i n -o r near the propo=s'eite kas ,been_ ra;d dedr Ito _th;e; statement= as Appennd`i x .8::. c . r 1t 13. Impacts •:Q'f''th&"-lossrot -w t ;l;arnds-- bye:- t: he: _or o.a_ect are expressedran— p- ages(26 -&rid 14. The reldtionship'of -the ltoss-of: wildlife- habitat to the long termnatural - pr-oductivity,o.f „the site_and_ surrounding area has-beencadded on.page 44: -- 4 LeE�. .U. in or ^a t avai'fc. _ c" az y . - iHIGH.WAY CQIMMISSION .ve* • MUNI 01 HIGHWAYS 7 e Highway Administration Building -,Washington '9E3504 (206) 753 -8005- - PACE T',•:C ' 7 . - .F•urt.-h.e.r 4f, seuss o ir,S8Ptembei -1975. •Cre.e .17ic or p,,-...-••••-,-•; s Dani1.1 1 ..•ii% G.H.AnfIrr.tvs OP 8 • Mr T.. Gord-on" Y.- Ericksen =-- '- :,'''f:' ).,.:-Th :fl trie PlAning- Director - — „ City of_ Renton - s' • Muilicf:Pai: Building ' ` -. ' ' - - - - ' I :- .a- v..„..L, cc,vciz-,...—r, :c tH.,.. • J'q <-, - (01 4,94 zuur MI* Menue" SO... .. _ . - - - . - - Reagii,c W'ealitrigtOn 9i3055-' .-.' .. 1 ' - - City of Renton ,d tak„ LiearT__wer... Orillia Industrial District ePAE_&%/ -11-li.D. funcin:-. gran:. Dear Mr. E4cksen: cn ve.c:eza14 ETIAr 1 0 . Fu,t,nc•- .3: I ..,r, 9niller4a1 :Statement az a:),:ar•ci; 1,.3,--_:-._ .1. Referencen is ,made _to. your. _letter of August, 6-, -,requesting our review of the draStenviiOn-lentzil statement :f0 the- above. proposal.:., : _ _ . '.. . - H,-:,. .:-E. :-.7-f :7 .r- :'.1-,.. • ' • We have completed our revIew and offer the following comments: 12• - '• -- ' ----- '''''r .•;. .:-E -,:ir.:.,E.:-_-::. •. . An „exi...r ...!- 1,,,, ,.: i_...-. ,,I.,, .1.-2 Theapepartinedt- os f :Highways- agrees that:. the; proposal to7-. fifl .. and grade the remaining4C-reage An the Orillia Industrial District, along with future develop- ment to full industrial use, will have a significant impact on the highway .i netnirLk, end in: particular, SR -..5 SR -405cand:. SR t167 as- zecogniied in the state- . ment 'HOWev.er it as,extremely difficult, if not impossible, to .fully evaluate the potential impact Of the development on the highway system, as well as _ 1 4. other, ,enyironmental_ concerns ,.unt4 tho, --actUta tYlies 'of :tetiderit industry are idea - .., - - . C•r. 3 7. ": '- .: - :. li E : 1 1 i. C r ea r,E...., be,-, ZGCC Cr _. ••. The 1974 Average -Daily Traffic volumes shown in the Statement (Figure K) do not agree with the 1974. Annual Traffic Report published by the Department of Highways as follows: DOH Annual ' Statement Volumes Traffic Report Volumes 1-5. - • 60,000 67,500 ( —> 1-405 . 58,000 64,300 1-405. 44,000 53,300 • In addition, the Average Daily Traffic projections shown (Figure L) are not ..: -. SR 167 23,400 26,700 SR 181 14,000 • 13,200 ) identifiable to a design. year 'and do not include total Average Daily Traffic predictions on the highway system.. These corrections and additions will assist in evaluating the predicted impact of the propfAal• Raker Ferguson. Chairman Walla Walla .4. It Parker Howard Sorensen rirginia l, tmoi%. J,ilja Butler Harold 1. Bremerton EM.ftbum brAttlr Cathlwnet Serwtal HIGH • • • • • • • • - „. • -2- — L2September 11, 1975 • :Septe:thei 11 7C" In conclusion, it appears that the proposal to fill and grade the remaining induitridrrs"ife "rOn Farfs-lietiilative basis to attract industry will have a significant impaOrtiodii:feklit4i4:lifghways once development is fully realized. In this respect the i-tidterrid:nir-cfa'rts to discuss possible measures to mitigate the predicted impade-rdri:Vkist-liiiliighways and streets. This impact should be fully consi2cCii&f:p.riiikarte proceeding with the' proposal to commit additional land for rIiffp6s iiiCtlias environmentally sensitive location. of Renton Thank you for the opportunity to review this :inforniatiria:1:il If yci,V4ralid".a criffclu..ds-fions concerning these comments, please contact Mr. R. B. Davidson Of this office. His telephone number is 753-3811. Reference •is _ rus- raft 'environment.F...... .2naye 'comple:ez: our ANDREWS;;;.- : Director of Highways :The .Departl.nen: cf a3rees • acreaFa in the Orillia • men: to full fac.U.s.tr±_L-1 uss. r.: ne_t:worl: ar..2. By; •men:- ex:rEmz.y the potent.ial -other environ.r.ental. concerns, RA/RBD The 1S74 Aver a :raffic cc: 3717; CBcigai-t-- In •dc:Ltic.7., assist a.T..'evalua:.inc • H. R. GOFFss 7e -Assistant Director:for Planning; Research:and State Aid cf '■• 3. • - 4 A OF RATS C) o'2. 3 N 4 'Pro sEr0.. • PLANNING. DEPARTMENT • RENTON, WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL •UILOING .• AENTON.wASMINGTON 98055 • 23S -2SSO RESPONSE TO COltdMENTS RESPONSE TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1. Your review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. 2 Updated highway traffic information has been incorpo- rated in the EIS. 3. Further clarification on the design year will be incorporated in the text. Originally a 20 period was contemplated by the developer (1994�.design However, economic factors will probably extend this period. . Impacts to the traffic system and possible mitigating measures have been added to the document. • !•••• '-_ • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201 Mr. Gordon Y. Ericksen Planning Director City of Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Sir: .September 2, 1975 Thank you for forwardin g your environmental 1 statement to us, relative to Glacier ParkCompanyProposedFillanc dGradeforOrillia Industrial District. In general, the statement recognizes all of the problems and changes in conditions resulting from the proposed action. Several items should be considered for review as they will impact conditions both within and out of the project area. 1. Page 15 The DEIS sets out criteria on wildlife habitat adopted by the. Renton City Council but does not state that these conditions will be met. The only exception is found on page 28, 1st paragraph, where it states, "a portion of the wetland in the northwest corner will be retained as a green belt area ". An added statement that this meets the City Council criteria would seem appropriate. 2. Page 22 -3.c Runoff from the area is proposed to be accommodated by the proposed SCS drainage system. Time of the project is within two years (page 13 -5). Has consideration been given to.hydrologic conditions that will exist if adequate drainage is not provided by dates of this project completion? We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft and hope our comments will be of help to you. If the Soil Conservation Service can be of future assistance to you, please let us know. Sincerely, Galen S. Bridge State Conservationist PLANNING DEPARTMEN • T • Rb :;V'rUN, WA9iIINC3TUN MUNICIPAL BUILDING - RENION,•WASHINGTON 98055 • 215 -1550 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL- CONSERVATION SERVICE 1. Your review *of the Draft EIS is appreciated. 2. The City Council has not made a final decision on the amount of wetland /greenbelt areas to be retained in the Valley within the City of Renton. 3. Clarification of permanent drainage event .the P -1 Channel Provisions in the even added to project is not constructed has page 13 of the statement. • NPSEN -PL -ER V • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS. OF ENGINEERS . PO. BOX- C•3755- SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124 • Gordon Y. Ericksen, Director Planning Department City of Renton 200-ni11 Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 :Dear.:Mr. Ericksen: .:We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement regarding -the Glacier Park Company Proposed Fill and Grade for Orillia Industrial District. We have the following comments. Please refer to paragraph 7, page 14. The Corps of Engineers has Conducted studies which recommend.improving the levees on the Green- Duwamish River. These studies advise that, without such improvements, the:operation of the drainage system pumping plants during high water could cause levee failure and flooding. The statement does not refer to these studies. Thank you for the opportunity.to comment on this statement. Sincerely yours,. FREDERICK WEBER - Acting Chief. Engineering Division ;'' �7- s 4 'o 40 RESPONSE TO _ COMMENTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON, WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 96055 • 23S -2SSO RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 1. Your review of the Draft EIS is appreciated. 2. Reference has been made to the Corps of Engineer studies for flood control of the Green River Valley. •Reference:ES • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE iBOT4E9SuegPaSunsAVAgahalMaiiKEx Ecological Services P.O. Box 1487 Olympia, Washington 98507. Mr. James L. Magstadt City of Renton Planning Department. Renton, Washington 98055 • Dear Mr. Magstadt: 10, September 3, 1975 • ! We have received your draft environmental impact statement titled Orillia Industrial District. Due to a shortage of manpower and other pressing responsibilities we will be unable to review the document. •We are returning the draft for your use in requesting comments from others. _ - 1-.. . Since some of the actions described in the environmental report may • conflict with the programs and objectives of the U.S. Fish and Wild.- :life Service, this letter should not be considered as condonance of the project or actions described in the document. Rather, this letter should be regarded as relating only to the adequacy of the environ- mental impact statement as a full disclosure document. Thank you for • the opportunity to comment on this statement. Enclosure: 1 Sincerely, .J. Norvell Brown Field Supervisor •• ..,, • , • . PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RENTON. WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING. RESPO • RENTON. WASHINGTON 98055 0 235.2SS0 NESE TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1. Your response to the Draft EIS is appreciated. CITY OF TUKWIL.A ENVIRI E1TP,L QUESTIONNAIRE REVIEWORM PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: N rLiL/4A Nov'tiienn p I at 7n-i U4a ttut . Dis- tv�'ct 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) ❑ Building: by: El Engineering: by: 53/Fire: , /92 by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: (reviewer) . . -PERTINENT COMMENTS: 9_1_i4Ltadet-ekia4 1,1e.,_,OgA4h (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 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 ENV I RO•NTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REV I ESO RM PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 13wr4w9-Fo14 Novn ervt Plat' /oh $. a 1w4 it bi l Dist** 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) ❑ Building: by: 53/Engineering: /22—P57--77 by: 4e ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: /1 72 77 (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. PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: CITY Ut IUKWIL.A E dV I RO•NTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REV I ESORM R v`.,r 1, � ,� tiro 1. yen., Pt 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) ❑ Building: by: ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: L� Police: Lt t-'-1 by: L - ��4jJ3 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: �t..'t •! u o'F ��c. v` S w i b J` Q 4-0 S �..- p V ti ova t 7C Q 0...A- v. 1 ,...:.r `I ,rte %, 4 /"c c e.. 1'1{ o c Imo, $ GL— I L, ► •c (TO BE 3. Agency COMPLETED BY THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL) 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 ENVIR4NTAL QUESTIONNAIRE REVIIORM PROJECT NAME: 13IM'�1vtq'hv� Wor`1tuw Pat' PROJECT ADDRESS: JJ DATE ACCEPTED FOR FILING: 1. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: (date) (reviewer) t uilding: Ct3".1-/- %% by: ❑ Engineering: by: ❑ Fire: by: ❑ Planning: by: ❑ Police: by: COz 2. ANY PERTINENT COMMENTS: E.v v I R v M t.' 7- S hat)(-0 t3E 1 M A %3 0 viz o IJ v T C' RE-Aldo/4c_ or S T/1 6-iv,,v % EVA/ o S f N ; ,v 3 T.� �-� T �..� o j: /4tiD.S CA el't. G- f (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. • MEMORANDUM CITY of TUK ILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY OEVELOPM=NT • 21 October 1977 TO: Questions ire Review Departments FROM: Fred S terstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: BURLINGTON NORTHERN PLAT Attached herewith please find the Environmental Check- list submitted by Burlington Northern for their subdi- vision on the east side of the Burlington Northern tracks in Tukwila. Please make every effort to review this questionnaire and return any comments you may have to this office by Wednesday, 2 November 1977. FS /ch Attachment CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST FORI'1 This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: GLACIER PARK COMPANY 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 810 THIRD AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 TEL: (206) 625 -6111 3. Date Checklist Submitted: -1-AWGLIST 1977 e1U . 3Eni11 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK • 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): 72.5 ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRY USES. THE LAND IS LOCATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED. P.I. CHANNEL AND THE LONGACRES PARKWAY NORTH OF THE RENTON CITY LIMITS. THE AREA IS IN TRANSITION FROM FARMING AND OPEN SPACE TO INDUSTRY. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): THE LAND IS ADJACENT TO AND WILL BE MADE PART OF AN APPROVED INDUSTRIAL'PARK DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF RENTON, WA. RAIL SPURS, STREETS & UTILITIES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. JULY 1, 1978 (SPURS, ROADS 8 Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: AND UTILITIES) 1990 -2000 (FULL OCCUPANCY 9 List of all Permits,, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline . permit, etc. YES NO X (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES X NO (c) Building permit YES NO X ■ • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x (e) Sewer hook up permit YES___ NO X (f) Sign permit YES NO X (g) Water hook permit YES NO x k (h) Storm water system permit YES x NO (i) Curb cut permit YES NO X (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES NO X (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES NO X (1) Other: GRADING, HFJ TH DFPT (WATER), DEPT- OF ECOLOGY (SEWER) 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: NO 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: GRADING PFRMIT 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 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? YES MAYBE NO x x Explanation: CHANGES TO THE TOPOGRAPHICAL AND GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE SITE WERE THE CONSEQUENCE OF A VARIETY OF USES OVER MANY YEARS. A PERMIT ALLOWING FILLING AND GRADING TO AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 6 FT. WILL BE SUB- MITTED. WHEN THE WORK IS COMPLETED TOPOGRAPHIC VARIATIONS WILL BE LARGELY ELIMINATED. 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? X x x Explanation: FULL OCCUPANCY OF THE SITE PLUS WORST CASE METEORLOGICAL CONDITIONS COULD CAUSE THE CARBON MONOXIDE STANDARD TO BE EXCEEDED. THREE TO SIX OCCURANCES PER YEAR OF 24 -72 HOURS DURATION EACH, APPEAR TO BE THE MAXIMUM. 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 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? YES MAYBE NO x Explanation: SURFACE RUN OFF FROM IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WILL INCREASE. DRAINAGE WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED VIA THE SCS "P -I" AND THE OLD BLACK RIVER CHANNEL AND PUMPING INTO THE GREEN RIVER. 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: COMPLETION OF THE FILLING & GRADING WILL REDUCE ON SITE FLORA TO THAT CONTAINED IN THE GREEN SPACE LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. 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? Explanation: SEE ITEM 4. 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO _X_. Explanation: NOISE WILL INCREASE WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY BUT WILL NOT REACH LEVELS IN EXCESS OF STATE REGULATIONS. 7. Li_Cht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: LIGHTING LEVELS WILL INCREASE. SPECIFIC AMOUNTS CAN NOT BE DETERMINED IN ADVANCE OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. LIGHTING OF A SPECIAL NATURE OR IN AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THAT USUALLY FOUND IN LIGHT INDUSTRY ZONES IS NOT CONTEMPLATED. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: THE LAND WAS ZONED M-1 ON SEPT. 21, 1959. 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: SUCH NATURAL RESOURCES AS THE SITE CONTAINING, E.G.; MINERALS WILL NOT BE USED. 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: THE PROJECT. IS. NOT DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE /ENCOURAGE ACTIVITIES INVOLVING RISKS WHICH ARE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE MATERIALS OR PROCESSES. EMPLOYED. X x • 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? YES MAYBE NO x Explanation: THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. EMPLOYEES WILL BE DRAWN PRIMARILY FROM THE LOCAL AREA. THE NUMBER OF NEW RESIDENTS APPEARS INSUFFICIENT TO DISTURB THE PRESENT GROWTH RATE. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x Explanation: SEE .ITEM 11. 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: WHEN OCCUPIED THE PROJECT (PLUS THE RENTON PORTION) WILL INCREASE THE DEMAND UPON TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES NOW CONSIDERED MARGINAL TO INADEQUATE. FEASIBLE REMEDIES ARE REGIONAL RATHER THAN LOCAL IN SCOPE. x X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x x • • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: POLICE PROTECTION IS THE ONLY PUBLIC SERVICE IDENTIFIED WHEREIN THE DEMAND CREATED BY THE PROJECT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED BY EXISTING AND PLANNED RESOURCES. 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: TO DATE, A'DEMAND FOR SPACE IN THE AREA BY ENERGY — DEPENDANT TYPE INDUSTRY HAS NOT DEVELOPED.,.. WAREHOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL USES APPEAR TO BE THE GREATEST PRESENT NEED. 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? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: NEW UTILITY SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION IS LIMITED TO DISTRIBUTION /COLLECTION ON THE SITE. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: SEE ITEM 10 X X x X X X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: THE SITE IS GENERALLY LEVEL AND UNOBSTRUCTED. THE APPEARANCE WILL IMPROVE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING. YES MAYBE NO 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: PRESENT RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNI.TIES /PERSON WILL BE DIMINISHED. (SEE ITEM 11) BUT NOT REDUCED IN QUALITY OR QUANTITY. 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his - torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: NO STRUCTURES OR OBJECTS OF HISTORICAL /ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE. CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. GLACIER P rA COMPANY Manager _ PropQrty SeptemhPr 28, 1977 Signature and Title Management -8- Date .VICINITY MAP Scale I= 1/2 mile Total Acreage - 725 acres Number of Lots - 6 Area of Smallest Lot - 50 acres Water - City of Renton Sewer Disposal- Sanitary Sewer to Metro Surface Runoff - Storm Droins, Pped to Springbmok Creek Land Use Classification - Abnufocluring Park- Heavy (Renton portion) Light Industry (Tukwila .portion) 0 100 200 eo0 ROD wigs DESCRIPT /ON The NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 25 -23 -4 together with that portion of the NE 1/4 of the S. W. 1/4 of Section 25 -23 -4 /ying East of the west /ine of proposed P -/ Channel together with that portion of the S.W. 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 25 -23 -4 and of the S£ 1/4 of the NW 1/4 d sold Section 25 -23 -4 lying Southern of the Northerly margin of proposed P -/ Channel and lying Easterly of the Westerly' margin of proposed P -I Channel. twl Bro000Cte Inc Tukwila City Limn ,Temporary CuI -011 -sat � I I III �I � e i - �I �� I I 1 I aolncGe Ditca City CO Renton J SW 3 /s/ St S.W. 34th St GARDNER ENGINEERS. INC. CONSULTING SNGINESNS / iLANNESS / lVIIV[yONi *Inc. I W 4clb W I N BesNlo. Noshingt. NUN T•I.Ona• 1:10111 NaSOM CMA DRAWN BY CHECKED BY I" • 200' SCALE 8 July 1977 DATE PRELIMINARY PLAT BURLINGTON NORTHERN ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL PARK OF TUKWILA F.B. - SHEET OF 1211 JOB NO. • PLANNING PARKS 8 RECREATION BUILDING CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 October 1977 J. J: Gordon Property Management Glacier Park Company 810 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: BURLINGTON NORTHERN PLAT Dear Mr. Gordon: We have distributed your environmental questionnaire to the City's Engineering, Fire, Police, and Building Departments. We are awaiting their input. In the meantime, I would like to request from you a copy of the responses to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which was circulated on the Orillia Industrial District project. We have a copy of the Final EIS but it does not include the comments portion. If you have any comments or questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Fred N Satterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch 6230 Southcenter Boulevard n Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242 -2177 INV BURLINGTON NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Kjell M. Stoknes Planning Director City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa. 98168 Dear Mr. Stoknes: Lobby 2 Central Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 624 -1900 April 29, 1977 Confirming my telephone conversation with you yesterday, I have been advised by both King County and railway personnel that the City of Tukwila was furnished by King County, as early as 1968, a map showing the location of the P -1 Channel, together with instructions that no building permits would be issued in the P -1 area. Glacier Park Company has also reserved the P -1 Channel area from our development plans of property in Tukwila and is not a part of our fill permit application. I have started a study to determine if an area of approximately one to one and one -half acres can be set aside for a permanent wild life habitat in the area discussed west of the Burlington Northern main line trackage and will be able to discuss this with you in more detail very shortly. I presume that you have by now replied to the King County Division of Hydraulic's letter to you of April 19, 1977 concerning our application' for a flood control permit and wish to thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We are very anxious to commence work on the fill program and anything that you can do to keep the ball rolling will be very much appreciated. Very t ly yours, GORDON, Manager perty Management File: RE- 1245 -Part 2, Orillia, Wa. ECEIVED MAY 3 1977 CITY OF iUKWILq MEMORANDUM C TV of UK BLA OFFICE of COrlrA UNIT Y DEVELOPMENT 29 April 1977 TO: SEPA INFORMATION CENTER FROM: Kjell Stoknes, Responsible Official SUBJECT: Burlington Northern Fill Application for Property South of Long Acres. I gave authority by letter to Renton City officials that they could assume the responsibilities under SEPA for the filling of the subject property in conjunction with the larger portion of property in Renton owned also by Burlington Northern. Subsequently, an environmental impact statement was prepared by the City of Renton on the entire parcel, including lands within Tukwila. This, in my mind, satisfies the SEPA requirements. Pursuant to the final environmental impact statement, the following conditions shall be placed upon the fill permit application on the portion of the property within the City of Tukwila. 1. Before filling operations begin, the roadway over which the fill is to be hauled shall be so improved as to prevent the generation of dust beyond a level acceptable to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 2. The issuance of a grading /fill permit is not to be construed as implied approval of any other permits or licenses, including subdivision approval or building permits. Final building elevation may need to be higher than shown on this application. 3. Per City of Tukwila resolution #441, 12 acres is to be left in a natural state or a comparable amount of land in the vicinity dedicated to the City of Tukwila as an area of wildlife preserve. cc: Burlington Northern Fred Satterstrom Al Pieper Stoknes, Responsible Official Date` Z I" 7 ECREAl'ION 27 April 1977 • CITY of FISKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. William B. Gillespie King County Division of Hydraulics 900 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Burlington Northern Flood Control Zone Application. Dear Mr. Gillespie: Thank you for your letter dated April 19, 1977, regarding the Burlington Northern flood control zone application adjacent to and south of Long Acres. We have no concerns whether a flood control permit is issued or not on this property. Our local proceedures give the City review rights when filling, subdivision, or development is proposed. I would request you varify to us what the minimum fill elevation for develop- ment would be on this property since flood control zone permits now, as I understand it, are issued on the basis of the 100 year flood interval assuming the S.C.S. project will not be constructed. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, pll Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development KS /cw cc: Maxpx Bauch ed N. Satterstrom