Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-40 - SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITSALLAND AUTO TRANSPORT EPIC -FD -40 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL IDECLARATIOil OF €';11#1,1KIE/NON— SIGidIFICAJCE Description of proposal Conditional Use Permit Proponent Salland Auto Transport Location of Proposal. South 134th Street near South .133rd Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -FD -40 This .proposal has been determined to (L .... /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 Position /Title Date Kiell Stoknes Director, Office of Community Development 13 November 1977 Signature [�,(;,(�(�— ��)..•� COMMENTS: CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM 14. November 1977 TO: Kjell S knes, Responsible Official FROM: Freo�batterstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: Selland Auto Transport Environmental Questionnaire The following is a short chronology of the process of the environmental questionnaire submitted for the Conditional Use Permit (Selland Auto Transport, Inc.): 1. Environmental checklist accepted by the Planning Division for con- ditional use permit to locate a truck terminal in an M -1 zone. 2. More information was requested by the Division on 20 October 1977, pursuant to WAC 197 -10 -320 (2.c) and 197 -10 -330 (1.a). 3. Applicant submitted revised environmental checklist which responded to all points suggested by above letter, 4 November 1977.: FINDINGS: 1. Both filling and grading will be necessary to accommodate the pro- posed terminal facility. 2. The project soils consist primarily of alderwood soils. A portion of the site has been previously filled with an industrial or man -made pro - duct. Some of this latter material may have to be removed in order to accommodate heavy structures. 3. The movement of trucks and other vehicles will contribute to the air emissions in the vicinity. 4. Surface runoff from the site will be increased due to the addition of impervious surfaces on the site. This runoff will be diverted to the ditch along the front of the property. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -2177 Memorandum Page 2 Kjell Stoknes 14 November 1977 5. Development of the site will necessarily displace most of the vegetation on the lower portion of the site. Depending on final grading plans, the vege- tation on the upper portion may be affected as well. A 50' landscaped or "natural" setback is proposed on the west end of the property. 6. Displacement of vegetation will also directly reduce wildlife �n the site. 7. The applicant states in the environmental questionnaire that the expected noise levels of the proposed facility would be similar to those contemplated by Yellow Freight Systems (SEE, EPIC -FD -17 for discussion of noise impacts as predicted by Yellow Freight Systems). 8. The proposed facility will not operate during the night. Minimal yard lighting in storage areas will be required. 9. The proposed facility is consistent with current zoning but requires a hearing prior to operation. The site is located across South 135th Street from a single - family residential area (located in the county). To the south is a light industrial plant; to the north is a vacant lot; and to the east is a paint wholesaler and a tow yard. These other industrial uses do not require a public hearing prior to operation. 10. The proposed facility will generate additional vehicular traffic on roads in the vicinity, primarily South 134th Street. It is expected that approxi- mately 114 vehicle trips per day will result; 48 of these are expected to be truck trips. 11. The proposed facility will have an effect on police and fire protection ser- vices, as well as utility services. 12. Development of the site will constitute a modification of the view presently enjoyed by residents of the hillside to the west. However, the proposed facility will not obstruct the view available to these residents nor inter- fere with the view open to the public. 13. The size of the site is approximately 3.76 acres, or 163,800 square feet. Two buildings are proposed; a shop building (4500 sq. ft.) and an office (3060 sq. ft.) CONCLUSIONS: 1. The scale of the proposed development does not appear to be significant (3.76 acres). 2. There appears to be only insignificant impacts to earth, air, water, flora, fauna, light /glare, natural resources, circulation, public services, energy, utilities, human health, aesthetics, risk of upset, population, housing, and historical elements of the environment as a result of the proposed action. • • Memorandum Page 3 Kjell Stoknes 14 'November 1977 3. The results of the noise study completed for the Yellow Freight System pro- posal, and incorporated by the applicant as a part of this environmental checklist, indicates that the ambient noise level in the area will not be significantly affected by the location of a terminal facility on this site. However, it is pointed out in the same study that some peak noise events will be identifiable which emanate from the proposed site. Analysis of this point reveals that these peak noise events will probably be fewer since Selland is a daytime operation and Yellow Freight was a 24 -hour operation (and the quietest time is in the evening when noise events are more identifiable). 4. The anticipated impacts of the project on land use in the area are probably the most unpredictable and uncertain. The property is zoned M -1, Light Industry, and terminal facilities are allowed but do require a public hearing because of their unique characteristics. The public hearing allows the public to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Whether this terminal facility will even be allowed to locate here is a matter of city policy; and the question of whether it would attract other similar types of activities if allowed to locate here is also a matter to be determined by city policy, since each proposal would be required to have a public hearing. Therefore, this land use question is probably more a matter of policy than environmental impact. 5. The potential pollutional aspects of the proposed facility appear to be in- significant. FINDINGS: Based on the above FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS, I recommend that a negative declara- tion be issued on the Selland Auto Transport conditional use permit. PARKS Z RECREATION CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 October 1977 Richard 0. Selland Selland Auto Transport, Inc. 5622 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: TRUCK TERMINAL IN TUKWILA Dear Mr. Selland: This office has just completed an initial review of the environ- mental questionnaire submitted. for the abovementioned project. Except for a single question under Transportation /Circulation impacts, you have indicated that your project will have no im- pact on any of the other elements of the natural or human envir- onments outlined in the checklist. Realistically and logically, however, commen.sense tells us that many impacts will occur to the environment as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, pursuant to WAC 197 -10 -320 (2.c) and 197 -10 -330 (1.a), this office requests that you provide us with explanations of the following "No" responses on the checklist: Earth Air Water Flora Fauna. 1 (a) 2 (a) 3 (b) 4 (a) 5 (a) 1 (b) . 2 (b) 3 (d) 4 (c) 5 (d) 1 (c) 3 (e) 1 (e) 3 (f) 3 (g) Transportation /Circulation 13 (a) 13 (b) 13 (c) 13 (d) 13 (f) Public Services Utilities 14 (a) 14 (b). 14 (e) 6230 Southcenter Boulevard © Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242 -2177 16 (a) 16 (c) 16 (d) 16 (e) 16 (f) Richard 0. Selland Page 2 Selland Auto Transport, Inc. 20 October 1977 In addition to the above, what are the expected noise impacts of the truck transport operation? What will its overall impact to the ambient noise level be? Do you expect the noise levels to adversely affect the surrounding residential neighborhood? Why or why not? What type of lighting is proposed for the pro- ject? Will the lighting of storage yards during the night ad -. versely affect the surrounding residential area? If so, what precautions can be taken to curb this effect? Since we,cannot.process the conditional use permit without first completing the environmental review, and we cannot complete the environmental review without the above information, your timely response to the points enumerated above is crucial. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call. ectfully, ,elork4m Fred N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch at c50 R.R. TIDINGS INC. DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTORS F !axe. L. t.•• 518 $ 30* 4. 30,,,, '4 T "5 I 0 • tea, 0rt 3..■•• N 40 I7 E 359 99 .3 N - - . r " 0'2 1 • '•‘• IT N, t • . - „ Ic. 10 1 . 11 • 11- to 26 s 11.- 13 ; vi - 4•- 90' $ 401117' W 827.73' r • 36-0' .11 f7 t" Jiro 7 J--ro 0 /6 5 s-rti 3.7& Acre.) /• • v '; I\ 4 • • , 1 .4-/, 4. • 0 ' t • . 2 • 4 , J M. South I54 to t.° TRANSPORT 1 IGN BUILD CONTRACTORS s.0 0 I i 1 FeNC E CONTE `, - RADIO CONT 80L ELECT WM CRERNTOIL ; + 1 I 3t, 1 1 i it 1- LEGAL DE SCRIPTION Tnt portlier, o' ta•tt 1,, fazt4.1. -.4.:1•■■ 1,0043 •,CC•4.01 40 •rat •••00•01,4 0' ,1.t,. ;•W 4144: , C:11441:o3 444 4% -4.. 4...1.• .1 (b. NW. ..,tgrly r7.••••1? 4•10 tri(t 0 &Ad rtr,or, t t3-1. 1.• ••11 4,40 ••tt 77. to Int of 34 • • 37) 'art, 1.• 5, rt.,. 1.4,4 14 1, c• tNe-cr n..;••t •+:. cot: •■0• 0t .0 '1,1y IS., 2 : . err, • les*, to t, ontt ^nrt:m•:.• roromr ;It • 43 ,•• AI. Porl...,01•••1, bc,c41••-• :61.14•11Ct •-• .1. • .4.1n4itte•Ir A.? ,404 t,:tt to. t,ettLe tt,t1 4.?"' 1:' •••1: atorq %,:uttnvit•41,.. tow 44• 47 4,.14 s( tor.", mr ,s1, 10•,.. 1.; cy .74 —.11 ft. Cu 1144. tf4M ootnt of bo;trwtol. 214..044 to 14 :1 •., t1n3 ... oft. 9- o4. 77 JOG N. 977- 4 P P.R. TYDINGS INC. DESIGN BUILD CONTRACTORS 1 4II••••■■•■• N G' • • • et I, t4 ■1444.4.1.tl'IM •LA_ • I f4411,4• v a G(T. fO' PLAN OFFICE ./ • PROJECT: AUTO TRANSPORT OESIGN.BUILO CONTRACTORS 2 0.1• 9 14- /7 JOB No 977.4-P ."-•••••••• •• • • • 0 0 t� 0 rrt 0 2 0 c 0 St1013VW1NO3 ; ; F • ' -rmits, ' T • - / ,44 it:414 3.&;;VedIA DESIGN•BUILO CONTRACTORS s '-o•• ; z s L;c2 . • 72Lg. .. • t 12 PROJECT% SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 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: Sel'Tand.Auto:Transport, 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 5622 1st Avenue Seattle, WA 98108 • (206) 767 -5960 Date Checklist Submitted: November 4, 1977 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Planning Commission, 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 accurate understanding of its scope and nature): General Office & Maintenance Facility for the above 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): Property is partially improved with minimal clearing & sitework. See attached site plan for details of proposal. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Februa - March 1978 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 X NO (b) King County Hydraulics_ Permit YES X NO__ (c) Building permit YES X_ NO 1 • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit (f) Sign permit (g) Water hook up permit (h) Storm water system permit * (i) Curb cut .permit (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: Major storm drainage problems have to be resolved. YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO Owner is aware of same. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Not at present. 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) YES MAYBE NO 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? X (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ (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 Attachments. 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 facility 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 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 eaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? -3- X X 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? (1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? Explanation: . 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: 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? YES MAYBE NO X 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: Per attached sheet. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: The proposed facility will not be operating during night time hours and consequently will require no more than minimal yard. lighting. The floodlights will be shielded to eliminate glare to residences. YES MAYBE NO 8.. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: Lite of the proposed site as a maintenance, storage and terminal facility is consistent with the industrial development which has occurred on adjacent lots and the transitional character of the general area. The area has been zoned and improved in anticipation of industrial development. 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: X 11. Population. Explanation: Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result (a) (b) Generation of additional vehicular movement? 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. in.: 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO X X (f) Other governmental services? YES MAYBE NO 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? (b). Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: 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: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: 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? YES MAYBE NO X Explanation: Development of the proposed site will constitute a modification of the view available:. from the hillside to the west. However, said modification will not obstruct the view. At present, the site is partially filled but not maintained for aesthetic purposes. Landscaping will provide an, aesthetic buffer between on-site activities and adjacent areas. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities ?. 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 or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. *f:4_,Aa 141 MO Signature and Title Date I. 6. Nature and Brief Description of Proposal: The proposed project is a maintenance, storage and administrative terminal consisting of: a 3,000 sq. ft. office building and a 4,500 sq. ft. maint- enance and repair facility. The balance of the property to be used for trailer and tractor parking and employee parking. The facility will be set back 100 feet from the front lot line. The portion of the site used as a terminal 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 the Proposal: The proposed site is located in close proximity to the interchange of I -5 and S.R. 599, 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 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. 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 galcial 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 via a pipe 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 aquifer will occur. 6. Noise: 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 Environmental 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 fora 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 terms "environmental noise" as used in most noise regulations means the intensity, duration and chracter 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, L90 = 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 measurementsmore 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 -73) *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 be 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:,; =. >, 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 . Leg L90 54 55 L50 58 63 L10 65 66 L1 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. noise emanating from the property line should also be in compliance 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 environment. However, some peak noise events will be identifiable in the area. 13. Transportation /Circulation: 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. FIGUPIE 2 *Ira f " ro. • • u! 0 LL • LEGEND VACANT RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL LIGHT ' INDUSTRY WILSEY & HAM FIGURE 4 r A :..t•M ' i l I'cv 'cv 7 p Received From��Q� LL� Date e .-LA....�il9 ~7 7 a.ccou;.- AMT. of ACCOUNT �0t_a 111 d2 Dollars $--- al „.trs._.J e aa,,_,a,i 1 - -J exams a.a.fpn