Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E95-0023 - KING COUNTY METRO - FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SOUTH WAREHOUSE ADDITION / UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENTKING COUNTY METRO FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SOUTH WAREHOUSE ADDITION UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT 11911 E. MARGINAL WAY S. E95-0023 0 • *s tissfr Axertlo, orETRO De Department of Metropolitan Services • Environmental Planningi King County p p and Real Estate Div 821 Second Ave., M.S. 120 • Seattle, WA 98104-1598 • (206) 684-1165 • Fax (206) 684-1900 vp. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNSRECENN.E Facilities Maintenance SouthJUL ���c Warehouse Addition and UST Replacement Project J COMMUNITY OEVELOPMEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On August 3, 1995, the King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro) issued a determinationof nonsignificance for the Facilities Maintenance South Warehouse Addition and UST Replacement Project. The warehouse project involves constructing a 5,100 square foot addition to an existing 5,000 square foot warehouse on the north side of the Facilities Maintenance South building at Metro's South Operating Base Annex. The new addition will be dedicated to Vehicle Maintenance stores use. • The UST replacement project involves removing and disposing of three (3) petroleum -product underground storage tanks with associated piping and appurtenances, and installing one (1) new, petroleum -product underground storage tank with associated piping and appurtenances, immediately south of the Facilities Maintenance South building. The tanks being removed total 20,550 gallons, while the single new tank has a total capacity of 6,000 gallons. The new tank will be made of double -walled steel and will have corrosion protection, interstitial monitoring and overfill protection and containment. New piping will be steel, Schedule 40, with fiberglasssecondary containment piping; all underground metallic components will be corrosion protected. PROPONENT: King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro) LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: Both projects are located at 11911 East Marginal Way South in Tukwila, Washington, in Township 23N, Range 4E, Section 5. LEAD AGENCY: King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro) The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 18, 1995. DATE: August 3, 1995 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Gregory M. Bush • POSITION/TITLE: Manager, Environmental Planning and Real Estate Division TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 684-1164 ADDRESS: 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 SIGNATURE: �r >�•+""" �� You may appeal this determinatiodto the Executive Director at King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro) - 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98104. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Gary Kriedt at 684-1166 regarding the SEPA appeals procedures. This information is available on request in accessible formats for people with disabilities by calling (206) 684- 2046 (voice) or by calling (206) 689-3413 (TDD). 41142, Recycled Paper ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Facilities Maintenance South Warehouse Addition and UST Replacement Project 2. Name of applicant: King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: King County Department of Metropolitan Services (Metro) 821 Second Avenue, MS 120 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 CONTACT: Gary Kriedt, Telephone: (206) 684-1166 4. Date checklist prepared: July 18, 1995 5. Agency requesting checklist: Metro 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of both the warehouse and UST projects will occur approximately within the same six month period in the spring and summer of 1996. Staging details have not yet been worked out. Proposed schedules for both projects are listed below. Warehouse: 60% Design -- August, 1995 Permit Submittal -- November, 1995 Final Design -- December, 1995 Construction -- April - October, 1996 UST Replacement: 60% Design -- July, 1995 Permit Submittal -- September, .1995 Final Design -- October, 1995 Construction -- April - October, 1996 . 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. However, Metro will be adding a prefabricated sandblasting booth inside the paint area of the Facilities Maintenance South building. Metro determined that project is categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements as. per WAC 197-11-800(3). • 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. In 1984, an EIS was prepared for the construction of the South Operating Base Annex (SOBA); the Facilities Maintenance South building is at the SOBA site. In December, 1995, a Pre -Construction Site Assessment Report was completed by a consultant to determine the presence and extent of contaminated soils -and groundwater adjacent to locations where existing underground storage tanks will be removed. One soil sample near the engine oil tank showed soil contamination above state Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) levels. Some groundwater samples had detectable but small concentrations of hydrocarbons, below MTCA limits. No soil or groundwater samples contained lead. See B.7.a. for additional information. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Permits for the two projects being proposed will be obtained separately. Permits needed are listed below. Warehouse: 'Building Permit, City of Tukwila Land Altering Permit (Grading Permit), City of Tukwila Mechanical Permit, City of Tukwila Utility Permit, City of Tukwila UST Replacement: Land Altering Permit (Grading Permit), City of Tukwila UST Permit for tank removal and installation, Tukwila Fire Dept. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) Notification of Construction permit The Washington State Department of Ecology will be notified of the permanent closure of three existing tanks and the installation of a new tank. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description). The proposal involves two projects at the Facilities Maintenance South building at Metro's South Operating Base Annex. One is a warehouse addition and the other is replacement of underground storage tanks (USTs): Construction of both the warehouse and UST projects will occur approximately within the same six month period between March and August, 1996. The warehouse addition project involves constructing a 5,100 square foot addition to an existing 5,000 square foot warehouse on the.north side of the Facilities Maintenance South building. The new addition will be dedicated to Vehicle Maintenance stores use. 2. • The UST replacement project involves removing and disposing of three (3) petroleum -product underground storage tanks with associated piping and appurtenances immediately south of the Facilities Maintenance South building, installing one (1) new, petroleum -product underground storage tank with associated piping and appurtenances, constructing a fuel island with one dispenser each for fuel, air and water, and remediating contaminated soil. The tanks being removed total 20,550 gallons, while the single new tank has a total capacity of 6,000 gallons. Specifically, the following tanks will be removed: 1 10,000 gallon diesel tank 1 10,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank 1 550 gallon engine oil tank The following new tank will be installed: 1 6,000 gallon unleaded gasoline tank The new tank will be made of steel which will be double -walled and corrosion protected. The new tank will have interstitial monitoring, overfill protection and containment, and Stage I and II vapor recovery systems. New piping will be steel, Schedule 40, with fiberglass secondary containment piping. All underground metallic components will be corrosion protected.. Any contaminated soils above state MTCA cleanup levels discovered during replacement will be hauled to a regional permitted facility for storage, treatment and disposal of petroleum -contaminated soils. Testing determined that groundwater is not contaminated. Drawings for the warehouse and UST projects are attached. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The projects are located at the Facilities Maintenance South building at Metro's South Operating Base Annex, 11911 East Marginal Way South, Bldg. C, in Tukwila, Washington, in Township 23N, Range 4E, Section 5. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site? (approximate percent slope)? The site is flat. c. What general types of soils are found on the site? (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know theclassification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. • • Soils at the site consists of urban fill overlying stream deposits and consolidated glacial deposits. The top four feet of soil, approximately, consists of sandy gravel fill material; soils below that consist of sand, sandy silt, and sandy, clayey silt with an apparent decrease in grain size with increasing depth below ground surface. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.. Indicate source of fill. Warehouse: No filling will be required, but some soil will be removed to accommodate the new structure footing. Approximately 610 square yards of pavement will be removed, 225 cubic yards of earth will be removed and disposed of, and 610 square yards of pavement and building floor will be installed. UST: Fill around the new tank would consist of existing uncontaminated pea gravel or clean imported pea gravel. Where tanks are removed but not replaced, fill would consist of clean excavated material from the warehouse project, if appropriate, or imported clean urban fill material. Contaminated fill material or pea gravel will be removed. No grading will take place. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. No. However, some minor silty runoff from temporarily piled soils is possible during construction; see B.3.C. for details about runoff. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? _ The project will result in no net change in the percentage of impervious surface of the site. The site is currently about 99 percent impervious surface. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No measures are necessary; see B.3.C. for details about runoff control measures. 2. Air What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile emissions, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, exhaust emissions and some dust would result, on a temporary basis, from the operation and movement of gas -and diesel -powered construction vehicles. Dust levels could increase during windy weather. Contaminated soils wouldbe a source of volatile organic compounds after exposure to air (during removal and remediation). Contaminated soils above state MTCA cleanup levels will be hauled to a regional permitted treatment center for petroleum -contaminated soils. Contaminated soils will be handled and hauled in accordance with all applicable local and state guidelines. 4. • • Neither project would result in any permanent increase in emissions to the air. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The closest permanent source of emissions or odor is Highway 599; those emissions would not affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction equipment would have standard emission control devices. Other measures to minimize air quality impacts would include avoiding prolonged idling of construction vehicles, using electric rather than fossil -fuel burning equipment where appropriate, covering temporarily -piled soils, sweeping and removing dust and dirt, and sprinkling dusty areas with water (if permitted). Fugitive dust associated with excavation work would be controlled by wetting excavation areas where soil is dry, if appropriate. Best available controls on potential volatile organic emissions from the removal of USTs and remediation willbe used as specified in the PSAPCA permit. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, or wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes. An unnamed, underground class 2 stream is on the South Facilities site. The stream flows northward from adjacent properties and is piped and channeled on the site approximately ten feet below ground surface level. The stream is exposed in a 100 foot long open storm channel on the site; the channel is covered with arched cyclone -type fencing. At the northeast section of the site, the stream opens into a channel along Highway 599, crosses under SR 599 in a culvert, and flows northward toward the Duwamish River. Surface water runoff from the site cannot enter the channel directly because the stormwater drainage system is completely enclosed. All storm drainage from the site is treated by an oil/water separator. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. 'A map showing the location of the projects and the channeled stream (shown as open channel storm drain) is included in the project design drawings. Please see B.3.D. for details on proposed methods for controlling surface runoff. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge material would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands. • • 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions will be required. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, notelocation on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. The projects do not involve.any discharges of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn and no water will be discharged to groundwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste materials will be discharged into the ground. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this waterflow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater runoff at the site is from buildings and impervious parking lot surfaces. Runoff flows into an underground drainage system, through a coalescing plate oil/water separator, into a stream channel along SR 599; and into a culvert that flows under SR 599 northward toward the Duwamish River. The site's stormwater drainage system is completely enclosed. All storm drainage from the site is treated by the oil/water separator. Flow from floor drains at the site passes through a sand/oil interceptor before it enters the sanitary sewer. During construction of the warehouse and during the UST replacement, a possible source of silty runoff would be soil that has been excavated and temporarily piled; this would only be a problem during rainy weather. Piled soil would be covered and bermed to prevent or reduce possible runoff. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. Under the circumstances expected during construction, waste materials could not enter ground or surface waters. Runoff control measures will be installed, plus the site's stormwater drainage system is completely enclosed and all storm drainage from the site 6 • • is treated by a coalescing plate oil/water separator. However, it is possible that a very heavy rainfall during construction could overwhelm runoff control measures around drainage inlets allowing some silty runoff to enter the stormwater drainage system. If stormwater volume is beyond the capacity of the oil/water separator, silty runoff could enter the adjacent stream. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff impacts, if any: Measures to control surface, ground and runoff impacts could include the following: When appropriate and in accordance with City of Tukwila development codes, straw bales, silt fences or other appropriate methods will be placed around drainage inlets to control the amount of silty runoff entering the local drainage system. When appropriate, piled soil will be underlain with impervious material to control leaching and runoff. Piled soil will also be covered and bermed in accordance with City of Tukwila development codes. Any necessary erosion control measures will be used in accordance with accepted best management practices and City of Tukwila development codes. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs (urban landscaping) grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None. • 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 7 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Small fish. possibly young salmon. have been observed in the contained stream on site b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, woodstove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The completed project will use natural gas for heating the warehouse, and electricity for lighting. The UST fuel dispenser will use electric power. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kind of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy conservation features include building insulation and heating controls. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Warehouse: None. UST: A consultant study was conducted. in 1994 at the UST site to determine the presence and extent of contaminated soils and groundwater adjacent to locations where existing tanks will be removed. The consultants drilled four soil borings and obtained water samples from existing dewatering wells near the USTs. All samples were tested at Metro's laboratory. One soil sample near the engine oil tank showed soil contamination above state. Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) levels; all other soil samples were either below detection limits or had very low concentrations of hydrocarbons, below MTCA limits. Some groundwater samples found detectable but small concentrations of hydrocarbons, below MTCA limits. No soil or groundwater samples contained lead. 8. • Although expected to be minimal, the full extent of soil contamination will not be known until tanks are pulled. A remediation plan will be developed which will be incorporated into the construction contract. During tank removal and tank replacement activities, there would be some danger of exposure to contaminated soil. Principal contaminants are from lubricating oil. The amounts of these contaminants may exceed MTCA levels in some shallow and deep soils. After completion of the UST project, environmental health risks would be minimal. The warehouse project presents no environmental health hazards during or after construction. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Contaminated soil above state MTCA cleanup levels will be hauled to a regional permitted treatment center for petroleum -contaminated soils. Contaminated soils will be handled and hauled in accordance with all applicable local and state guidelines. Groundwater contamination is not anticipated. Fugitive dust associated with excavation work would be controlled by wetting excavation areas where soil is dry, if appropriate. Further controls during construction would include covering temporarily -piled soils, sweeping and removing dust and dirt, and sprinkling dusty areas with water (if permitted). Best available controls on potential volatile organic emissions from the removal of USTs and remediation will be used as specified in the PSAPCA permit. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise in the immediate area includes freeway noise from Highway 599 and transit vehicle operation noise. Those noises do not affect the proposed projects. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. There will be short-term noise from construction equipment and activities during construction. Construction is expected to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction noise could exceed existing background noise levels but is not expected to exceed noise standards for the area and type of activity. There are no sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity. After construction, the projects would not result in additional noise. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction equipment will have standard muffler equipment and will operate during normal working hours and in accordance with accepted standards. • . 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the site is as a transit facilities maintenance base. Adjacent uses are industrial in nature; a Boeing facility is located immediately south of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Yes. Prior to the construction of Highway 599, the site was used for growing produce. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site has a facilities maintenance office and shops building with attached warehouse. d. Will any structuresbe demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned General Industrial (IG2 U/85'). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Same as zoning. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. The site has not been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area. However, part of the site has a piped and channeled underground class 2 stream approximately ten feet below ground surface level. Surface water runoff from the site cannot enter the stream channel directly because the facility's stormwater drainage system is completely enclosed. All storm drainage from the site is treated by an oil/water separator. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The proposed project would not affect the number of permanent employees at the site. j Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. 10 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, orlow-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennae; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The warehouse structure being proposed would be approximately 25 feet tall. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or blocked? The warehouse structure would block the view of Highway 599 from parts of the southeast portion of the site, and would block the view of the Boeing facility from part of the northeast portion of the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The warehouse structure is being designed to blend in with the existing structure. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of Tight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The warehouse structure is not expected to produce any additional glare in the vicinity during daylight hours. The warehouse structure would slightly increase the amount of outdoor lighting at the site. b. Could light and glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation j a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by East Marginal Way South. No new access to the site is proposed. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is served by public transit. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project would not result in a change in the number of parking 'spaces. During construction, however, some employee parking may be temporarily relocated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not. including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 12 No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None. 16. Utilities a. Circle the utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Existing utilities are sufficient, and no new demands on utilities are anticipated. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best ofmy knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Warehouse Addition Projec Manager Signature: Date Submitted: 7 0.7 -lc UST Replacement Projet Manager �l72dtO Signature: (7/Liu2 44211 C� _ Date Submitted: 7/ Z7/9s This information is available on request in accessible formats for people with disabilities by calling '(206) 684- 2046 (voice) or by calling (206) 689-3413 (TDD). 13 S 115TH ST S Du W A H N 5 116TH ST II ll5 117TH ST 10 114 II: PROJECT LOCATION FACILITIES- • MAINTENANCE SOUTH 5 119TH ST • RENTON SOUTH BASE ANNEX • VASHON TU VILA ISLAND d DES MOINE. SOUTH BASE PROJECT LOCATION 11911 E MARGINAL WAY S 5 122N0 ST AUBURN • ALGONA ♦ • .' TACOMA_ PACIFIC •• / KI\C T�►ERc VICINITY MAP o 1 2 3 4 5 HILES 1196' S7' R•.1502.401 L L. 313.19' NCO'20'o8'E p�OB'30 R •µ92.4o4: ' (10.00'R) j L-9.19 22OUTH Rlw 5R 999 SOUTH R/W 1R 799 o y�GLL S' "'~G'�' a Ngj� • LE 393•Gb � /7// I�ACIL-ITI!■ W MAINTRNANc • Proposed Warehouse Expansion 4TORH R2� tJANOteAr Ire.,-tr GowEZ.T TO NA4T . TAIJKS G LL, 4.L10' ssEE HP4 t. RJB •'I3 22rE trU!ruR! DEVRL.DPM7 • 4'GATE. 0 TYr. EA n7 PAS 6.10 or GFtAiJ+.J6(� zo' woo. GAT: LANO5CAPING .PER L-1 20't$ SETBACK %. LI LP0 N B 9' 14' IO' W (224742') REP. PT. FOR DIMEN, ALONG • NDr=50'-Zrw [MW/> PETBAGK Ham: ezaa2v11.41/47-z. Truck rrae Se.L. f: WI 41' 4. 4To¢r✓1 D¢p e.wc Js4 Loading ct•J 6-02 REF. PT. FOR DIMEN. ALONG NO2'-29-2YE -LZ:L-lE. ME.t.1A4 C L/ SETBACK s .,,ern TYPL 2 W"j STO. FLAW '.4 Parking •Access 40-p4E-0101) TO 4 710.dal, SITE PLAN ..,L.l., OECMETHY' STRIPING'& FENG$NQ Traffic Access OO1ACCE35 EASEL, roe <st1.ODULY 5E1JE 2 Auris Fra 44,-1 rO¢ W&TE4Z LIE. Ot.1AIJ.I 10.000 GALLON REGULAR FUEL TANK W/PUMP P-1 550 GALLON ENGINE OIL TANK W/PUMP P-3 10.000 CALLON UNLEADED FUEL TANK W/PUMP P 2 12. X 12' DEADMAN W/ HOLD GOWN STRAPS (TYP) pRFP SHOP 0 • �f. 1 CONF CRFW CHIEF . I 1 I 1 i 1 L DR---�----i • j t -T' ISP I 1' ' 1> r- 1:: 1r CB MH SD . FUEL ISLAND AND TANK AREA PLAN n / CB- EXISTING WASH DOWN TANKS ANO VALVE PIT. TO REMAIN FUEL LEVEL METERS • CHECKLIST: ENVIRO NTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE P RRMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X) STATE AGENCIES )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY )TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT )DEPT. OF FISHERIES ( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( )FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( )FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( )RENTON LIBRARY ( )KENT LIBRARY ( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( )US WEST ( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( )WATER DISTRICT.#75 ( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( )GROUP W CABLE ( )OLYMPIA PIPELINE ( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( )PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( )POLICE ( )FINANCE ( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING ( )PARKS AND ORECREATION ( )TUKWILA MAYOR ( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( )DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE ( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL *SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND *SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION RING COUNTY AGENCIES ( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS ( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT ( )PORT OF SEATTLE ( )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.- SEPA INFORMATION CENTER SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ( )RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ( )VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( )WATER DISTRICT #20 ( )WATER DISTRICT #125 ( )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( )RAINIER VISTA ( )SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( )RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )CITY OF SEA -TAC ( }CITY OF SEATTLE ( )CITY OF BURIEN ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE MEDIA ( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( )SEATTLE TIMES • PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMIT'S SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Applicant Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Include these documents: SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu.'with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Dlstribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper). SHORELINE MAILINGS Notice of Application: Notice of application for a substantial development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 300 feet of subject property, prepare an affidavit of publication, and publish two consecutive weeks with deadline for comments due 30 days after last newspaper publication date. Shoreline Permit: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General Applicant Indian Tribes Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Include these documents: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, if applicable) Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross-sections of site w/structures & shoreline Grading plan Vicinity map SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper) Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper).