Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA E95-0029 - SABEY CORPORATION - OXBOW CORPORATE PARK HARD SURFACES EXPANSION
SABEY CORPORATION EXPANSION OF HARD SURFACES AT OXBOW CORPORATE PARK 10730 W. MARGINAL WAY S. E95-029 MEMORANDUM TO: John Jimerson via Joanna Spencer FROM: Phil Fraser DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: U.S. Postal Service Office Plan Submittal [stamped: received 5/10/96] Plan C1-4 - Site Demolition and Erosion Control - North RCCEIIVED JUN 0 6 1996 DEVMMUTY ELOPMENT Comments: Remove straw bales from P.A.L. Creek. This creek has been determined by State Department of Fish and Wildlife [Phil Schneider] to be a fish bearing stream. All desiltation and water treatment/erosion controls tributary to this stream to be located upstream of P.A.L. Creek. Provide water quality erosion controls [i.e. filter fabric/straw bales at new CB's] in parking lot prior to discharge flows into downstream drains. Applicant should contact State Department of Fish and Wildlife to see if they will issue HPA for project. If required, compliance to conditions of States HPA is a condition to issuance of City's Land Altering and Drainage Permits and/or or approvals. Plan C1-5 - Site Demolition & Erosion Control - South Comments: Existing drain swale facility is not most appropriate facility to use as desiltation facility. Suggest locating water quality erosion controls [i.e. filter fabric/straw bales at CB's] in parking lot prior to discharge flows into downstream drains. Plan C1-8 - Grading & Drainage Layout - North Comments: Proposed Culverts to be minimum 12" diameter RCP pipe and inverts fish passable. Request middle driveway culvert to 27th Ave S be replaced unless in good condition, at appropriate elevation and fish passable. [Condition of pipe to be determined by City's Inspector]. Provide Concrete Driveway aprons for new driveways per City Std. to 27th Ave S. Plan C1-9: Comments: Reconstruction of bioswale in deep depression requires removal of sufficient trees to allow bioswale sod growth. Tree removal needs approval from DCD relative to Shoreline regulations. Require calculations for coelessing plate o/w separator. Provide Concrete Driveway aprons for new driveways per City Std. to 27th Ave S. CITY Y OF Tut•::!4'I9-p DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A SHORELINE PERMIT TO ALLOW PARKING AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR 220 TRUCK TRAILER AND CATS SPACES. PROPONENT: DOUG GARDNER LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 107.30 WEST MARGINAL WY S PARCEL NO: 042.304-91:52 SEC../TWN/RNG: 4/23/4 • LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E95-0029 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 4' .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. `e 41k:4:t•k:4:4-k•k•k•k•k:k•k•k:i•kk•k•kk•k:4:4kk•k•kk•k•k•kk•k•k•k•k•k•k********k-kk•k•k•k•k•k•kk:4•k•k•k•k•k•k:4•k*•kk•k•k:i; ** This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). comments must. be submi tted by 2-011_114, me lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster Responsible Official City ty of Tukwila, (206) 431-3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Sr 1956 You may appeal this determination to the City C1eri:: at City Hall, 6200 .Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for. SEPA appeals 'are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. AFFIDAVIT Sjwi A- /V1�/�l`ua�-��1 J Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Public Meeting fl Board of Packet ❑ Board of Packet 0 Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: []Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit Determination of Non- significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Other Other was .ma d to each of the following Name of Projectu)( 3 *.I — L 6 PS File Number e -q5 - OD2-q addresses on APRT L ' Ato . SignatureSU .C1/4 B CYY\ ' ) 1 1 • • CITY1 TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 TO: Li N Not DATE: 1 a TITLE: FROM: el 14 A M. COMPANY: S'All-7--e- ---nme.„‘, TITLE: DEPARTMENT: _,„„„, ,_.,„ DEPARTMENT: b•C.,..6 FAX NO. (9i\ NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMUTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: , • 2 - SENT BY (INITIALS): NV.VeCoff.V.WeiWerWAVAVAOWAV.41.4./.44:4:VoiWeVeX4:0140W 0 LIKbA , Pu,_B LAS I-4 0 NI Ntotaiol ,A pg 1 C6 -/IN 1'016. 1C-kp1/4w4_ IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: —1 :Ccoeo.;:•$,,x4/,‘e,.44.:•‘,,..-.,;:•Z • • • • • • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPME1VT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Office: (206) 431-3670 06/15/90 CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A SHORELINE PERMIT TO ALLOW PARKING AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR 220 TRUCK TRAILER AND CAR SPACES. PROPONENT: DOUG GARDNER LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 10730 WEST MARGINAL WY S PARCEL NO: 042304-9182 SEC/TWN/RNG: 4/23/4 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E95-0029 The City has determined that the proposal 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. *************************************************************************** This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). comments must be submitted by 2-0, Cj . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster, Responsiblefficial City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 c: I19(7 DaAfr.di e You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than l0. days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. .•• TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT TUK (APR 05 '96 11:44AM) DCD/PW THE FOLLOWING FILE(S), ERASED FILE FILE TYPE OPTION 008 TRANSMISSION (AUTO) TEL NO. PAGE RESULT 9* -4642582 02 OK ERRORS .. 1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) BUSY 3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , 611 -VIN APOIlLuGL-CA hereby declare that: IN -4S ❑ Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non- ignificance L1 Notice of Public Meeting 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Board of Adjustment Agenda []Determination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda E Notice of Action Packet []Planning Commission Agenda ❑Official Notice Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda fl Other Packet []Notice of Application for []Other Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on APRIL 5 ,-ICo /M -R.)4 E-) .11e.._• Name of Project O' i33 ' J � ��J Signature File Number DO2q CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 Department of Ecology Environmental ReviewSection PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 Department of Ecology Shoreline Permit Review Section 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 b TO: Muckelshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98002 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 11 TO: Washington State Department of Fisheries & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Blvd. Mill Creek, WA 98012 iT an Development John Beal 742 South Southern Seattle, WA 98108 ur, y Development Doug Gardner Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue. West - Suite 33C Seattle, WA 98119 CHECKLIST: ENVIR`NMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X) WASHINGTON 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 PERMITS 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 D- etermination (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). TO: FROM: RE: DATE: • Memorandum Jack Pace John Jimerson SEPA - U.S. Postal Service April 2, 1996 Project File Nos. E95-0029 Project Description: The site is located at 10730 West Marginal Place South. The applicant.is Sabey Corporation, however, the building owner and user if the property will be the United States Postal Service. The entire project consists of: 1. Paving the north and northwest sides of the existing building; 2. Adding 220 vehicle and trailer parking spaces and eliminating 58 existing parking spaces; 3. Create a paved truck loading area at the south end of the building; 4. Landscaping 'along the perimeter of the new paving and providing a bioswale along the top of the bank of the Duwamish River; 5. Change use of the building from airplane mfg. to mail processing; 6. Adding new driveways to site from West Marginal Place South. Since this is a Federal project, it is exempt from most of the City of Tukwila permits. However, it is subject to a shoreline permit of limited scope. According to attorney Bob Johns, retained by DCD, our review of the shoreline permit is limited strictly to impacts on the natural environment. This review is concerned only with impacts related to the shoreline permit. Agencies With Jurisdiction: Ecology Shorelands Division. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Comments to SEPA Checklist submitted August 31, 1995: Page 3, No. 10: The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit includes a shoreline variance. • • Page 5, No. 1(f): With the removal of vegetation and regrading of areas, erosion could occur. The applicant has already installed erosion control fences. Page 8, No. 3 (c) (2) : Various pollutants from vehicular fluids could enter into storm water. Page 8, No. 3(d): In addition to the bioswale, there are three oil water separators that the new paving will drain into. Page 11, No. 8(c): There are three large buildings on the site which were previously used for manufacturing and office purposes. Page 12, No. 8(g): The site is located in the URBAN Environment. Page 14, No. 12(a): The King County Trail Plan includes a bike/pedestrian path along the west frontage of the site. Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth -- The site is level and there will be no impacts. Grading will occur on the portions of the site that are substantially level, the river bank will not be altered. 2. Air -- Temporary dust during construction can be expected. The surrounding uses are industrial and not especially sensitive to dust impacts. Delivery trucks and employee vehicles will also generate emissions. 3. Water -- There will be an increase in vehicular fluids entering the storm water. Storm water will be treated by oil/water separators and a bioswale before being released into the Duwamish River. 4. Plants -- Existing vegetation will be eliminated including wild grasses, shrubs and trees. No endangered or candidate species are known to be on the site. Urban landscaping will be provided along the perimeter of the parking. 5. Animals -- Habitat for small animals will be eliminated. There will be no impacts on the fish habitat in the River. No endangered or candidate species are known to inhabit the site. 6. Energy and Natural Resources -- Construction and operation energy needs will not result in a significant impact. 7. Environmental Health -- Environmental health impacts are limited to the normal exposures that may occur during construction and operation of the facility. 8. Land and Shoreline Use -- Project does not significantly change the appearance, or use characteristics of the use of the site. The river bank will not be altered. • • 9. Housing -- Existing or planned housing will not be affected. 10. Aesthetics -- The project will increase paved. area. 11. Light and Glare -- There are no sensitive uses in the vicinity that would be affected by security or vehicle lighting. 12. Recreation -- The future King County trail will be located on the west side of the site, parallel with West Marginal Way S. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation -- There are no known historical or cultural resources on this site. 14. Transportation -- The project will generate minimal traffic during construction. A traffic analysis indicates that peak traffic impacts will be reduced by the change of use from manufacturing to mail processing. 15. Public Services -- The project is not likely to generate substantial increase in demand for public services. 16. Utilities -- The project is not likely to significantly increase demand on the utility systems. Recommended Threshold Determination: DNS FROM :CORP GOVT AFFAIRS BOE/AVG TO December 6, 1995 Jack Pace, Director Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 2064313665 199 2-07 ..vmpany P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 17:.23 #696 P.01/01 Dear Jack, Per our conversation on Monday, I have researched the Issue of traffic mitigation cost associated with Boeing's programmatic EIS and the Sabey Corporation. Our records indicate that negotiations with Sabey Corporation and a subsequent contract provide that Sabey is not responsible for any traffic mitigation costs associated with the EIS process. Boeing's accepting traffic mitigation costs is specific to Sabey Corporation only. Please feel free to contact this office if you have additional questions regarding this issue. I can be reached at 544-0182. Sincerely, Elizabeth J. Warman Manager, Local Government Affairs - Puget Sound cc: Terry Lewis Jeff Zahir RECEIVED DEC 07 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 09/21/95 16:03 FAX 206 282 9951 SABEY CORP. 2002/003 1.0 SABEY CORPOR.4fION September 21, 1995 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Att: John Jimerson RE: Shoreline Permit Oxbow Corporate Park Dear Mr. Jimerson, Per our conversation I have attached the applicable section of our ground lease that addresses the issue of improvements (see Exhibit A ). The term of our ground lease is 45 years from the commencement date which was June 1, 1987 and will continue until May 31, 2032. According to paragraph 10 Sabey Corporation may at any time construct improvements of any kind, provide they are in accordance with applicable regulations and requirements of governmental authorities. There is no requirement for the owner to sign on any permit application. If you or any staff members have any questions on the submittal package please contact me at (206) 281-8700. Sincerely, Phil Birk Director of Construction Sabey Corporation cc: John Lang, Sabey Corporation Architecture Group Douglas N. Gardner, Senior Project Manager RECEIVED SEP 2 21995 A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPA'Y COMMUNITY 101 afiott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle. WA • 98119.208/281-H '00 • Fax: 206/282-995/EVELOPMENT 09/21/95 16:03 FAX 206 282 9951 SABEY CORP. a003/003 1 E/A;6,./- .9 • non-compliance, Lessee shall pay all costs of testing and compliance, including, without being limited to, reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys, consultants and testing agencies, and all other costs of cleanup of the Premises. If Lessee at any time receives a report or letter from the State of Washington Department of Ecology or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concerning the condition of the Premises, it shall forthwith provide Lessor with a copy thereof. 10. improvements. The Lessee, at its expense, may at -any time construct improvements of any kind on the Premises, in-' eluding filling or grading, provided those improvements are constructed or altered in accordance with all applicable regu- lations and requirements of any governmental authority having jurisdiction thereof. All such improvements as are made may be modified, removed or relocated by the Lessee at any time, provided that during the last two (2) years of the initial Lease term (unless and until Lessee exercises its option to renew) and during the last ten (10) years of the extended term, if any (subject to the provisions of paragraph 16), no buildings or other improvements shall be removed or altered unless replaced or renewed with improvements of comparable value. At the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, all such improvements shall become the property of the Lessor and shall remain in and be surrendered with the Premises as a part thereof without payment therefor. 11. Acceptance and Care of Premises.. Lessee acknowledges that it has thoroughly examined the Premises, and that it accepts the same in their present condition and waives all, claims of any nature thatfa;may arise therefrom. The Lessee covenants and agrees that all buildings and improvements now upon the leased Premises or thereafter constructed thereon shall be kept, both inside and out, in good condition and repair at - 14 - RECE VE SEP 2 2 1995 COMiviuld1 i 7 ®EVELOPMEN T Control At Epic Fil _ o. (:q,5'*00Q,9 Fee:$ 325 Receipt No._ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AUS 3 11995 A. BACKGROUND COviivUJI\3i o Y DEVELOPMENT 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Expansions of hard surfaces at Oxhnw Carp Park 2. Name of applicant: Sabey Corporation 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Doug rartlriar, /�� � ��h 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330, Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 281-8700 4. Date checklist prepared: August 25, 1995 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction: January 1996 - June 1996 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Sabey Corporation's letter to Washington State Dept. of Fisheries dated 12/94 (attached as Exhibit "A") Dept. of Energy letter re: Prior Shoreline Permit Variance 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. No -2- � 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City:of Tukwila Public Works Permits 11 City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Deve 1pment . 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. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Hard surface area. for 9,000 lb. wheel load and adequate truck access at adjacent building. Proposal also includes extending paving along the west portion of the property for truck trailer access and parking with landscaping as required along shoreline. 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...su.bmitted with any.permit applica- tions related to this checklist. Oxbow Corporate Park, 10730 W. Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA Quarter: S.E. Section: 4 Township: 23 *-Range: 4 See attached plans 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No -3- ~TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT• B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle ore): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, Flat with exception of river bank slopes. •Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 45 degree river banks c. Whatgeneral types, of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Mixture of sand and clay d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None Known e. Describe the purpose, -type, andapproximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimal grading to align •truck:' access with dock height. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt'or buildings)? 70%± -4- • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed -measures .to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control plan will he develnpad (i.e. silt fence and Strew ha1Ps) 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project . is. completed? If any, generally describe - .and, give- approximate quantities if known:- Some nownSome dustand exhaust during construction - b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None Proposed measures to reduce, or control emissions or other impacts to'air,`if any: Normal dust control measures during construction 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Isthere any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and, seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?- If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes - Duwamish River flows into Puget Sound (Elliott Bay) -5- • 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 - New hard surfacing, , landscaping, bio -infiltration (see,attached plans) 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. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No AlVvaluation for IIPAgency Use Only 5) Does the proposal lie within a' .100 -year" floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. See Note 10 on ESM drawing Sheet 1 of:. 1, attached. 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 -6- glbvaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into. the:ground:'.from septic tanks or, other sour- ces-, .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. None c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the .source of. runoff (including storm water.-) and..me.thad of.-co_llectionand disposal,.. if any (inca.ude quant:ities,..:if known)..: Where mill this water- flow? . Will this. water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Water will flow from hard surface into existing retention system into new bio -infiltration Swale prior to being released int Duwamish River and ultimately Puget Sound. • • 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No illEvaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed measures to reduce. or control .surface,. ground;..and runo.ff:.water.• impacts,- if any:. Retention s.ystem:and..bio—infiltration:swale .existing. 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 shrubs x 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 : blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grass and blackberries 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: Landscaped.(see attached plans) 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:: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Ducks mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: •Evaluation for Agency Use Only List any threatened or endangered species known :to be on or near the site. Applicant has requested this information from Washington State Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife. c. Is. the site, partof.• a migration, -route?,.. If so; explain. No known migration route at the site. _ Periodic salmon spawning route at adiacent Duwamish River. .- d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None -9- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, color) will be used to meet the - completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical will be used for parking. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energyconservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 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. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or. control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None Necessary. -10- glIfvaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associ-ated with the project on a short,- term:or a long-term,basis:(for example:• traf- fic, cons.tructlon,..,op:er,atioa, o.ther)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal noise associated with construction. Working hours are typically from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. Long term hours unknown. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Generally industrial and business development parking,street right -of -way, -.some vacant industrial.` and industrial storage. . 1 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Unknown c. Describe any structures on the site. None -11- d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Nn e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M2 - Heavy Industrial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the Site? M2 - Heavy Industrial g• . Evaluation for Agency Use Only If: appa:icable,.. what, i.s, the current shored ine master. program:.destgn.at.iow:of they site?.. Unknown. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Reside - none. Work - unknown Approximately how many .people would . the coinpl eted project displace? None: k. Proposed.. measures., to::.avoid: or reduce- displacement impacts:,:. if: any,: None. . Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Work with agencies �o insure compatibility with all zoning and land use requirements. -12- 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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 eli- minated?, Indicate.. whether. high;. middle, or• low - None ow - None: Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics What is,, the tallest height of •any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Along the river would be landscaped. Southwest property would be cleaned up. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None -13= • '''Agency for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?, Site lighting - night time b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light 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 designed :.-and '.: informal: r.ecr.eational'. oppor- tun.ities are in the.•...immediate..,vicinity?. Fishing,running:. track - 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 -14- . ("valuation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed 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, arch-aeological,: 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 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing .street .system. Show on site plans, if. any. S. 102nd. Avenue,. 27th. Avenue,,: West :MarQinal Way South,. and East. Marginal. Way.. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Closest site ± 1,000' at East Marginal Way. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 66 ± automobiles and 68± trucks None eliminated.: -15- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. Unknown. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Unknown Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if .any: None, transportation to site.and adjacent building: most likely to be significantly less than prior occupant. 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- 16. Utilities a. Ci utilities currently vailable at the site: refuse service, is system, other. • AllEvaluation for .Agency Use Only b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,. the .utility providing the service, and the general. construction activities .on, -:the site. •o.r. in the .immediate: vici:hi.ty. which. might be needed.. Electricity.- Puget Power, Natural Gas - Washington Natural Gas Telephone - U.S. West Water -.City of Tukwila Sewer - ValVue Sewer District C. Signature The above answers are true and. complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to mak_ its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE. CONTINUE TOTHE NEXT. PAGE. -17- ''TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT• . SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS Evaluation for Agency Use Only -The-objectives and -the -alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What -are the:object.i:ve(s)- of the. proposal? To improve. site access.for..loading and.dock access.. Expand `automobile:,:. .truck::and-.trailer. parking.:. . 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Due to the pre-existing conditions of the site and adjacent buildings, there are no alternative means except demolition of buildings and total redesign ot the site. This would create a potentially negative impact on natural resources, the environment, and the economy. . Please_compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course.of...action: Alternative means not viable.. Preferred course of action per.this proposal. -22- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. .Does. the proposal conflict .with policies of. the — 1: -Comprehensive Land Use Policy, Plan? If so, what poli- -. 'cies of the -Plan? Unknown Proposed:srieasures to. avoiA :or reduce..the conflict(s).. are':. None'. -23- • . e City 'of TukwilaJohn W. Rants, Mayor ?s Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 31, 1995 Sue Younger United States Postal Service Facilities Service Office 225 North Humphreys Boulevard Memphis, TN 38166-0310 RECEIVED J U N - 2 1995 PUBLIC WORKS RE: Environmental Assessment Processing and Distribution Center for Seattle, WA Dear Ms. Younger: The City of Tukwila has reviewed the Environmental Assessment prepared for the proposed processing and distribution center and offers the following comments regarding the Oxbow site. The property is located within the Duwamish Corridor for which a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the various Boeing facilities in the area, including the facility in question. If Boeing vacates this building, the owner of the property will be responsible for paying their fair share of the mitigation. The mitigation is due from past environmental work and was brought forward in the programmatic EIS. Mitigation projects related to this site include reconstruction of Highway 599 on-ramp and construction of the Pacific Highway Bridge. The percentage of the mitigation assessed to this particular site has not been calculated. The EA notes that a shoreline permit would be required for improvements within 200 feet of the Duwamish River. In addition, the use is classified as a "Truck Terminal" in the Tukwila zoning code and therefore would require a conditional use permit. Page 3 For the Oxbow, biofiltration and meeting King County Surface Water Design Manual Standards will be required. Upgrading existing oil water separators to coalescing plate separators or biofiltration are required of lots where redevelopment is occurring. Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) reinforces this requirement. Page 4 Assessed valuation being removed. While the general 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 a Tukwila, Washington 98188 m (206) 431-3670 • Fax• (206) 431-3665 Postal Service Page 2 services provided by the City will not change, there would be a significant impact in the loss of property taxes to the City due to removing the assessed valuation of the Oxbow properties. Pg 20,21 Comparative Matrix of Alternatives. Service will not change but tax revenues funding those general services will decrease by removing the site from the assessed valuation. Relocation of employees, businesses, and residences attributable to moving from Seattle to Oxbow will have several impacts: The Seattle site has substantially more transit service than East Marginal Way South and has a one block walking distance from the bus stop compared to six blocks for the Oxbow; this will substantially affect employees who commute by bus. The close proximity of the bus service to the Seattle CBD and 4th Avenue transfers provides a higher level of service that will not be available at the Oxbow site. There's substantially more adjacent employment at the Seattle site than at the Oxbow. Carpool and vanpool capacity will be substantially less at the Oxbow. Bike and pedestrian commuting will also be reduced. The modal transportation options for postal service users/patrons will be reduced as well by the Oxbow site. Energy requirements. States NO impact for the Oxbow site, however, the increased delivery service mileage, employee vehicle mileage, and user/patron vehicle mileage. will have measurable increases in total fuel usage and emissions. These should be quantified and considered in the decision making process. The six mile relocation to the Oxbow is noted to result in an increase of daily operational miles but does not clarify how large of an increase will occur. Pg 22 Fish and Wildlife. "Runoff collection, detention, and treatment is to be coordinated with the Muckleshoot Tribe" is stated. This will be a requirement of the City tenant improvement approval process. A Fish & Wildlife Hydraulic Permit may also be required. Pg 22 Relocation of Employees. It is .stated that trip reduction will be accomplished through carpool and Postal Service Page 3 vanpool; see previous comments that it appears the relocation will reduce carpool and vanpool opportunities. Pg 33 It is stated that no development would occur within 50 feet of the shoreline. The top of bank would have a trail connection between the Boeing trail along the river to the north and the King County trail on the southwest. Pg 34 & 35 Tukwila's loss of $99,591 (of the total 373,571) would not be offset while the police, fire, public works and other services funded with these revenues would continue and could be expected to increase with a change from a private property manufacturing plant to a "public" post office processing and distribution center. Pg 38 Site 2 trail completion. Construction of the portion of -the planned trail along the river on the site would be required. Pg 44 Scheduled traffic improvements. Improvements to East Marginal Way South are planned for 1996, with the bridge improvements scheduled for 1997. Construction of the SR599 on-ramp is not currently scheduled. pg 52+ Storm water, as previously mentioned,will likely require upgrading oil water separators to biofiltration or coalescing plate separators with tenant improvement plan review/permits. Water will be transferred from Seattle to Tukwila service in accord with the East Marginal Way Transfer Agreement; tenant improvement permit applications will determine any changes needed forthe service change. If you have any questions on these comments, don't hesitate to call John Jimerson at (206) 431-3663. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster Director cc: Ron Cameron / [ / '\ / / \ / / \ / / \ \ A PORTION OF THE SE 1/.. OF SECTION 4, TWP. 23 N.. ROE 4 E. WM / n WKS 1 T.BO` LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTW1CATE .. 4001 a sc..r 2•02.wt14M fywq 4404 •0420 4.0 NO Tall ZOOM:tlgw..+n'»-)_Tor°W.wel wv� whim gra 4 .[-10004.000 046nM..n.OA,N1.74.00.l MLR s /1 od ar Cob T.B.M. CIO. 13 111.0 061 1.01.10 101.4 08//7/!5 DAGO 146. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS men . O.w1.w1.0w4111..o1.1•.w.[.n..". ,, . RD SR. a. 0.451 'AGO. 1.60 wrap O. ' M 1021„[)1„ OA OF 6066 10 x. 0...Cw0. n2.i a 0.11C2..1r.01.M, t nri1 • 1. .101.610.g..110061664.11=00 TO•W» PC. V rn CMS rtcr r.u., . „»yi L 10.11 60. • w o+rvi Ii 1563 Cn A ............... 1277 9.63 11.58 • • VICINITY MAP NO SCALE D -a-1 ❑ 5D 11 10.68 \ 10.20 9.95 9.80 10. 0 3J. AQW Ute 1p W�19 ap04toor *KV 3.9 5.1 50 SD 160 161 10.3 Cr =NC 55 ��.�._ _>_���+ � '_MS6'*t „, 105.8 0.17111 snrcntt tail " — _��v'r 3.9 1a� f.'E.0 5 53 DU W AMISH RIVER —3T SABEY aoap�oxrnioiv ARCHITECTURE GROUP Caaurxrs REHSIONS 30 AUGUST 95 ISSUE DAM OM Owl. am ealo, pawl. iWm. ala yin.. ass am6me ...- mere __m 8 w .88 Cm*_ UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE SEATTLE P&DC OXBOW1 CORPORATE PARK Seattle, Washington 0948.11 1171E: SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHORELINE PERMIT P8QIELT 8010809: 4101 08489 81: BOB CHECKED 90: RHS SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SDP -0.0 SCALL 'A� PLOT DATE PLOT TIME 1�=4�=�� 0 1010 A0 70 100 150 08/30/95 2:20 pm RANT UST ,ciyntrYr2W. Ju/ / a+7V2:#7 /7 A;R• I%1 z 'ky//4. / 9v.1/Orr 'woo /2' eohA Bt'9 24 fTA'"4! Ny7s '/7w!4' / LoearomlJ• ?II// 9t'8 479r/47VZ .V a / DGt Ar- Hylreuexle 7 A;er IzanM ' /Jad tra/X6r' ; IJCd Te..fror enfFeI'z as/. A! $ t'tGr1L/a' fr/ //X ' f -f , x' / friffrx Ng 41 fz"►c OG. O TREE PUNNING DETAIL jl _- __c_____ ------ ='____ ' -f ' x] 111 I I 1 �(�� � TT' 12 15.36 15. E6 .,.• 404 040 • i .17.6 .17.2 5.e 06.3' .lE.l .16.1 Cri Y 1.7..6 •Ot :, J� N 16.E. 6'Fy 9 i� Ivo I5° Loop 11O .-- 00.0""". 4,5' '"It -i �-- 16.' / IDff7i/'RCr G �� �V�/�G"IAf,A7 W// n LK:L7J[7Lr�,rr. Weal: //.ti/u/es • COlfA'ui2ze • A/der' • wi/.onr • 04417 479/:40 i5 t.= X \ X 'X t ‘ . sottw., � 1 1 auv,u SEeK.LE DU W AMISH • R IVER 1,1111111•41....4.10—.. EVASICOG ISSUEy� 24 AUGUST 95 IN -.•,.• — .r r.r ..r, ,.r — .r -- 64.1 ice.r.— SEATTLE !Pam OXBOW CORP1RATE PARK Seattle, Washington m,Aw1c 11TIF: SHOREUNE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHORELINE PERMIT FILL Q\CAOkOI®011'k7RASM016 a• ROI: • PRO CT 111.11MEIE 4101 7979•61 M: KL OQK1D Pr: RHS CANING 10.411304 SHORELINE LANDSCAPE PLAN SLP -0.0 11=40-0 0 10 20 40 , 20 100 120 PLOT DATE PLOT TOE 08/24/95 4:59 pm ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON March 1995 Prepared for: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI Facilities Service Office 225 North Humphreys Boulevaz Memphis, TN 38166-0310 Prepared by: Anderson-Kolva Associates, Inc. W. 421 Riverside Avenue, Suite 902 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 458-5517 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 2 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5 A. Existing Conditions 5 B. Reasons for the Proposed Action 5 C. Proposed Action 5 IV. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 18 A. No -Action Altemative 18 B. Proposed Action 18 V. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS 23 c' A. Physical Environment 23 1. Topography 23 2. Geology/Soils 23 3. Hydrology/Water Quality 28 4. Prime Farmland 29 5. Undeveloped Natural Areas 30 6. Paleontological, Archaeological and Historical Sites 30 7. Fish and Wildlife 31 8. Botanical 32 B. Cultural Environment 34 9. Local Employment, Economics, and Public Welfare 34 10. Land Use and Zoning Pattems 35 (� (1 Traffic 39 Transportation 46 13. Noise 47 14. Air Quality 49 A5. Population Trends and Housing 50 Relocation of Employees/Residences/- Businesses 50 17. Community Services 51 Flo F 18. Utilities 52 19. Energy Requirements 54 C. Postal Environment 55 20. Postal Service and Delivery Service 55 21. Working Conditions and Operational Productivity 55 VI. MITIGATION MEASURES 57 REQUIRED PERMITS 59 NOTES 61 APPENDIX A: INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW 65 APPENDIX B: STATE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW 66 APPENDIX C: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION 68 I. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to satisfy requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It conforms with the Environmental Procedures Handbook RE -6 of the United States Postal Service which provides the detailed procedures necessary to implement: - the National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (347R55978) issued by the Council on Environmental Quality; - Exec?tive Orders 11988 and 11990 on floodplains and wetlands; - the President's letter (2 August 1979) for protection of wild and scenic river systems; - Postal Service policy issued through Management Instruction AS - 510 -82-8, subject to NEPA implementing procedures. In 1990 the Postal Service Board of Governors approved the "Seattle Area Plan" to address the space deficiencies in the Seattle area. The proposed action, to implement Phase III of the Seattle Area Plan, is the construction of a new Seattle Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) at one of two locations: (1) on USPS -owned land at the northwest corner of South Stacy Street and 3rd Avenue South, north of the existing Seattle General Mail Facility (P&DC); and (2) at the Oxbow Corporate Park in the city of Tukwila. Site 1, the USPS -owned site, which is bounded by the Seattle Processing & Distribution Center (P&DC) [formerly Seattle General Mail Facility] on the south, 3rd Avenue South on the east, South Walker Street (vacated west of 3rd Avenue South) on the north and the BNSF Burlington Northern main line on the west, contains approximately 222,327 square feet (5.1 acres). The site consists of a rail spur, the former VMF building, and USPS employee and truck parking lots. Site 2, the Oxbow site, is generally bounded on the south and east by the Duwamish River, the west by the West Marginal Way South/Highway 99 freeway, and the north by 102nd Avenue, South. It includes two buildings totaling 521,000 square feet and asphalt parking lots on a site of approximately 30 acres. This analysis evaluates the potential environmental impacts of building the project at either of these sites as well as the No -Action Alternative of not taking the proposed action. Information contained within this document will be used by the Postal Service during the evaluation of the proposed project. Anderson-Kolva Associates, Inc. certifies that it holds no financial or other interest in the outcome of this project. 1 II. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Mail processing for the Seattle area presently takes place at the Seattle General Mail Facility (P&DC) at Third Avenue South and Lander Street. This facility is overcrowded and does not have the space necessary to meet ten- year requirements per the corporate automation plan. In addition to .the No -Action alternative, two alternatives for construction of the P&DC are being considered. They include: Site 1, a USPS -owned site, is adjacent to the north of the Seattle General Mail Facility (P&DC) with 3rd Avenue South on the east, South Walker Street (vacated west of 3rd Avenue South) on the north and the Burlington Northern main line on the west. It contains approximately 222,327 square feet (5.1 acres). The site consists of the former VMF a rail spur, and USPS employee and truck parking lots. A new building would be built, either separate from or attached to the north of the existing Seattle P&DC. Site 2, the Oxbow site, is generally bounded on the south and east by the Duwamish River, the west by West Marginal Way South and the north by South 102nd Street within the city of Tukwila. It includes two buildings totaling 521,000 square feet on a site of approximately 30 acres. The existing buildings, built for the Boeing Aircraft Company, would be remodeled and adapted for USPS use. This environmental analysis indicates that the proposed action would not have a significant impact on the physical environment. Site 1 is presently developed as a parking area for USPS and USPS -employee vehicles and includes the former VMF. It is zoned for industrial use (General Industrial) . Surrounding land uses are industrial and commercial. The existing P&DC and Terminal Station are aligned south of the site, and a recently completed VMF/ Parking Garage is one block southeast. Site 2 is within the city of Tukwila and zoned for industrial use as are the surrounding properties to the north and east. Existing houses adjacent to the south of the site will be removed and a park associated with the Green River Trail will be developed. Single-family houses are west, across the West Marginal Way South/Highway 99 freeway. The park is adjacent to an important Muckleshoot cultural site that is associated with the Duwamish River and may overlap into the south corner of the site. Site 1 has good area -wide traffic access via 4th Avenue S. and S. Lander Street; the intersection operates efficiently at level of service (LOS) C. Fourth Avenue South is a principal transit route; a stop is at the northeast corner of Lander Street. The project will not alter existing turning movements associated with USPS employee and VMF operational traffic. Site 2 lies between Highway 99/West Marginal Way South and East Marginal 2 Way South; 102nd Avenue provides access between. East Marginal Way intersects with the Boeing Access Road which has an interchange with I-5 within one mile of the site. The "humped" deck of the 102nd Avenue bridge across the Duwamish River would be rebuilt to a flat grade to allow truck traffic, prior to USPS purchase. Traffic improvements planned for the Oxbow area include widening of East Marginal Way South (1995), Highway 599/Pacific Highway South intersection (1996-97), and Duwamish River Bridge (1996-97). These projects would improve traffic to LOS D along the Boeing Access Road, and LOS C along East Marginal Way South. All utilities are available to both sites. Development of Site 1 may require upgrading of the combined sewer/storm water system, and would require replacement of the existing storm water collection system and use of on-site detention with controlled release. Also, a sewer line that serves the property adjacent to the site's northwest corner may have to be rerouted. All Site 2 preparation work for parking lot and maneuvering area expansion and for bridge deck replacement will require controls to prevent soil and construction debris from entering the Duwamish River. Additional storm water facilities to handleparking lot runoff should include oil separation and the use of grass swale detention basins prior to river discharge. Community services are available to both sites. No problems are expected relative to police or fire protection. Site 1's upper soils consist of imported fill material. A site-specific geotechnical evaluation has been conducted to determine foundation and structural design criteria for future construction. Past analysis of the soil and ground water samples indicated low concentrations of various total petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (below State Department of Ecology cleanup guidelines). The former VMF leaking tank site is presently being remediated. Methane was also encountered during soil borings, and a plan will be developed to provide venting as necessary. Site 2 is also on a site that has been filled and graded. The existing buildings were constructed in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical report by using a combination of spread footings and pilings; no building settlement or soil instability is evident. Site 1 and Site 2 soils have a potential for liquefaction during an earthquake, thus design should (or should have for Site 2) incorporate appropriate structural measures. Site 1 is not within a flood hazard area, natural area or shoreline, nor does it contain wildlife or fish habitat. Site 2 is outside the 100 -year flood elevation except for a 10 -to -20 -foot fringe along the Duwamish River. The site is within the Urban Shoreline 3 designation of the King County Shorelines Master Program, presently administered by the city of Tukwila. The Urban designation allows commercial and industrial uses with a 50 -foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the river. Any work within 200 feet of the OHWM will require a Substantial Development Permit from the city. This would include expansion of parking and rebuilding a lower, flat deck on the Boeing/South 102nd Street Bridge. Construction of additional parking waterward of the existing building, which is set back 200 feet, may require a Shoreline Variance approval by the city of Tukwila, since the shoreline ordinance requires parking lots to be landward of shoreline buildings. The Duwamish River, which forms the southeastern boundary of Site 2, is an important habitat for salmon. It is also a "Usual and Accustomed" area of fishing for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Replacement of the Boeing /South 102nd Street Bridge would require coordination with the Tribe and permits from the U.S. Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers, the State Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology, and city of Tukwila. Any construction within the shoreline would need to ensure that sediments and construction debris did not enter the River. Furthermore, construction would be scheduled to avoid conflict with salmon migration and tribal fishing. Both sites are in a non -attainment area for PM 10, but no violations have been measured for the past three years; the Seattle area is also non -attainment for carbon monoxide and ozone. An general air quality conformity analysis (of direct and indirect sources) may be required for redevelopment of Site 2. The primary noise source affecting Site 1 is rail traffic along the Burlington Northern tracks just west of the site and automobile/truck traffic along 4th Avenue South. Since the area is industrial, no sensitive noise receptors will be affected by on-site operations. Site 2 is within the Boeing Field 65-70 Ldn noise contour which will have no adverse effect on the project. Other noise sources include automobile and truck traffic along West Marginal Way South/Highway 99 freeway along the west side. The site is zoned for industrial use, and the nearest sensitive receptors are single-family houses, 500 feet west along a bluff on the west side of West Marginal Way South. The assessed valuation of the Oxbow property would be removed from the tax rolls if purchased by the USPS. This loss, however, would be at least partially offset by the value of the existing GMF property if made surplus and sold. The shift of Postal Service operations from the existing GMF in Seattle 5.6 miles south to Tukwila will result in a change in delivery routes/ - schedules (net increase in en route times), and in postal employee commute patterns (both private vehicle and transit). No significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed action. Therefore, it is recommended that the Postal Service issue a Finding of No Significant Impact, and thus not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 4 to support the automation and to increase processing and distribution efficiency. Floor area is also insufficient to provide space for automation equipment to improve Seattle City mail processing and to meet the Corporate Automation plan. The P&DC would improve work environment and delivery service. The additional P&DC building area would free up space and aid the P&DC in meeting its ten-year space requirements. C. Proposed Action The proposed action is the construction of a Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) for processing of destinating mail for Seattle City mail. The proposed project will consist of remodeling the existing P&DC and building an annex of approximately 175,000 square feet. It will provide space for automation equipment such as bar code sorters and flat sorters to meet the USPS Corporate Automation Plan. 5 y n V APPLE COVE PT K•ingslon e " e ▪ roniono-- uquemish NI mama. Indianola Old Aon House (SAGA Historical Sire) ad n 3400450E PT TAT BAINBRIDGE STATE PARK 71.; Ltle Pt Rd BAINBRI Novel Res ea Ra ISLAND ether S iter Saner, Bay Winslow Westwood n melanoma PT PT AAAAAAION I Y• Edmonds pY. • EDWARD' F�% n Wood t PT waLLa • Mao.) Raa R • llingbay 10100 PT enitou Beach Fernald! i1 wool PT Richmond Beach 76 er 1 t WOOdi Edaaoedr CmloMrly College." LL T... 72 �n S1 SW� �W y. '72 1 .t' T 'Bt'" Richland Highlands Innis Ardis SA The Highland GOLDEN GARDENS PARK • 1 1, • TEOMALT PT WINO PT 'Cie:wade NW CARKEEK PARK Ricnmono E Beech Ra 4 Ronald Community 10'Col. 145!6, 7.] � Z min� Nweoln3 3 r3 << z a' 4=N W 65th F1ANW • YI 1- it61h sa, 1.7214 1+E4 Et ` tiE $1474 Sheridan 16 c Beach St fir• 2.7 Sanitarium 04E1455 St NE 125th S1 .7, Alde.Wood 6 Manor 21 1.311. 0.5 Stl._ I.0 63011. a a 4.5 R Kennard Corner 2Cet s0a?o Conlon P itd 146. annmore e,p*a 1 ll•7PZU9 Nig 99 2 ,. SNE 769,.'1 os:n St< 0 C v N< tette .U`r 5.1 51 WOODLAND v n St•PARK 5, 5t 44 2.2 3f NE NMI > Wlv 12; t /X ra, 7. 1.3 15 lz Manw2a (i�3? J1 N45thSt 5.4 ! 3J E 110661 Lake Forest s. i. `a Park• iz 9ary'.< Sulancir a o 06 5.1 of the of the Nonhw ri N E $ 132nD ▪ W 4 Z 5 .4' . e op 9.0 z 3400 11• < - -.75th ▪ NE L C< St AaCOP7�1Y00Rvr 5AVENNA N Efa(h.. cKu c St ` �R2 IR N E 45111514 ;la1�R'39 < 4< Seoul <' i m W Drarus 5l <2 N 46 h St 3.0 54.0 SP Nat'l Oceanic a Atmospheric dmin (UC) NE t2 C S O 3 -. MNlby 712tn 5t $ E Tut Come. 1S 5t 5 E 0 SI 1. 0 see 12.0 4 e . =eica _. S$RNDM�I,iIL .CS KING I cc X4z waao, eiIle.DuvalI NE 11511. S1 invllle NE 14511 SI NE1 7.1 e4 rkland ARK WON ATE C r0' 4' Uai: of oro ington Yarrow 6:''i, �a,WI ,” u. Hunts0100 Y' O.. /.3 Point • ` w4 2.6 • LL-' v ROREER \< z1.0 l6 .. (Iq:iP Nosh Roro',1r� `__-_JC` . © f W < )I • Ar6orelum IR,paf' rl . Clyde .65 w h z� y ) < a aaswasfiinalon `Z' Hill! P��� � � ewe E .y / ea Sana' Sr11s4 51 E E m Unto 5I Ni. E BI st ' Seattle 1.i Medina_ 6&1.06 �2 Y V �Z9< E 4 Cherry St Yealer a' W4v Pou6c g T3if College �< I \> ....,00,•° s+ Ge., d 5' - \ r7 p4 D 4 2 --2,4;;S:::: .7� Lav 0.c) JIL/1f T .1•�e st 5's! 5 w I Den.t` J / I 1.8 Eaeleaa4 1 - --_ ��� �� Ig 5 1.l U I LYnrppd _ ..LRgP SEArr 4a' NEE = a. Canter .�, ' - - _ YA;r7ry ATE i Jacuon St Beach : SITE 1 , - < MERCER MAW) IRK Po Blakely = .,'j N PT \� / ORT URD .iii P - "7.. ` FLOATING wHiTgv- - -PT STATE PARK Coo 0.0 P RT.1 41 `- CI. J0 OlOvga ''. JR4 so Ey,. ALKI BE.. _ .RIDEe diet.'" 'Fort Ward PARK / N ,PAH 1 CGC n - i [04.34404 !'< `\. RE:,00ATLbN r N � l5 = , `I .U3. Novel PT pt atWlt< _ I RJI I am* tl 764.5'1 LAKE `,'� S.‘o^-!. - ><V,' <m' 45'12 51 VASNINGTDN /U S;40:411 -.� 4I ALKI PT � - ,...,T - I \. PARK ' aS•NS PT _ Of .0• 5) _ 10 /Waterman; = lZ •5 1ET�pK50 SGenessee S! '--- Y \S w 'l .5. A :0- }i ,-SEWARD \ Csumaian .p e 1 `PARK , da1tn T1 �eo,1 1j a� v a p u`I' J/ R 01\ • %swan 6...+7's •. sE riLE aka �_ \•?, a (^vim L ql. L ) LINCOLN :/ 6 0aS' '•. PARA 51 Y- �1' PT i 12.1 , 5.� i �sw 0 - eanonn s w- ' ' 4a<ARKWAT _ ,_- ORCHA50 ., PT Manchester 1 SLAKE 1 MARINE Ad ST PK Colchester i 0 Co1DY_ / 154.4040 rJ la Village WILLIAMS ufh fEMJ+{Lggy BRACE PT /V ABNOM. PT UTN W ONT14 / 1/ ` `5 shoo Neisnts 004.00460 07 ijaanne. / % a` r 0.61Ctw./a5/ , WI.. / t:eoari .et \ Pan / . tis (; : "5T 3 ',yam • ) f \ % E- • alwo.t%, cor4w O' 5 A IS". 56 S" !Caw Se t`5,- / 1, , 1 VachonT ; ) . T VASHON• ,i1 j•.e..6.0...' '\ L el < - \ I S4:a,- 5. o.«.. 1 J i't se 74,.^ 5: F. ‘1 PT +d / 1 .. ISLAND ••� anon ,Euispon • : A _ N l enter 1 - /$ 7C• 'n 5: = in . �e M e_1 4e P? l lc 1 a� _ < s 4,6c4.-156 o S W506tP �' l6 sN s.2 6:61^ St c WENS VELD NTT. White Center •Seahurst3lEne�t C PT PU LLT '9:' • Normandy''1. Park' of t a 4.6 s 5 7 16 Rive Riverton ights 1.7 --- s[.tTl1 'KInA iir- _lr-,d• 5: 2. c~e 4 L 2 �E .5 Saw rou- st ver INE 'p1n 5 4_St ... JRIDLE 4RAILS ST PK A N Redm hid cld k so Y, ART CO PK 4. 4. R 2.r' St61 s'�. tn 0 a�,l St 1\ 5 \ 9 Comm Col SE Ton 311 Balua� r1. eOLIJYVIE, rti Q R IEI1 15 0.9 a �.. Mercer Island 2.B Kennyde e' Os. 4 1.1 SITE 2 qr' s1K 4ost.. it 0.6 u. SI •▪ tlY 0.9 2 s'- 1761•. s s 1.7 Fictoil. \ W i .00.i bac n 23 J 041 I a ! Newport Histop< Hill lI 5 "4' 51_Hewaat4\gi�t NI` [69'4 s..,Q SE68-55; !\CDN Creek ®' 5 E 60th 5, aril E 2 art, liwaton )30004. 01 a , Renton X. ! ,-. ! 10 /CD kwila 0.7 ALP 1.7 14 CD kong Roo. • Pare Trott . ]ra 6"J Or Coalfield A. -9 .2 26 , COlmae leen aJA •04. S [26. 6 5' 4 s . Meplerood j ^--� - 5 E /o".• A.7 S36,9 s, / m:Y ,,,Pt•n9 Score ,C MAPLE vAllE s1 19a Regional Area 4' N 1 Inch = 200 feet t!!;41 SITE 1 ;. ..•'' Had. Tuteen ms K: it Puget Park MIL :1U `,a 8.4' dim nu m I m111 fh:fel' ritio ; , 1 ... -bid)li Pt %'IcZtriliiiii t '*„ . $.v... Mem • r. . iini 6». '-711 MO a ,;.� X1111111 ■ vitli tom us llikl"' gr 0 II { "g' llal � MAIIin■ _, \:mss 11HIP ,.s _ ■tC��ivi■: Mil =mim,Mmi intillii- 'LI . - -PILwilatt I Mg E1" 1111- \�` 53 MP 11 \ a l — `1Y Yvan ill 4"- \ k `z Vie. ' • . Ji ,r 5' 1-\� ! 11111 ■1111 , _•, ,_ . IIIbill ! , �' ;1,� I TIENT 11IU . ' rE f`•..: ii1:11r1W X31 �. e \+\\is1`/J2 iuuui; Rt '. r jet . •' :'. III } '�t`1 �,: .-, t ■ 1 , ply,,,..- _•,•..r.1..1‘;‘,_.,,.. IIII1kaiI%t111 _' �:' vI1 1r1111P• \ 11 .:a I.Y:.. E111 Ste J.n�.. can't aaub SITE 2 Site 1 and Site 2 Locations 1 N 1 Inch = 200 feet 7 •mmoimiN -■R HENN 2501 141 EIIiMhIIIllLWflIMU 11111WIMIRE: r !1 111 1 � �:at !r 0 0•.• 1 1 L 1 - 14 1 r i+1. � i 'N�i11111111111111111111111111h Ili 11111111111 0 1000011111 i .1111111111111 II 10111111 1 111111111111101001III�IVI 11111 iiiiIi1IiillIl100�ll0ryulul 1111. II�JIIfIIfYlNllllll 0 0 0 WALKER ST 19 e. -'‘ ------- f I8•� 9 113 11 :SC zzss S. STACY ST. vj W W cc M 3 i c - T I a 1.2_ • I i _1D vi 1 I "4 PRT - • 21 >- 2c S.�BAYVIEW�S I ._ Seattle. P&DC• ITE ' MINAL STATIO-N, r s1 1 1 is] - - --- 1 -•l S. LANDER ST. Site 1 and Vicinity N 1 inch = 200 feet Ms„..?...;:z3AR • „ „ % • .. • ' ' • • „....•,:•• ' • •••• s'y % • • • • . . • .. •••-••••:•.'?•••• SITE 1 - VMF and Approach to Site Via Stacy Street (View to West from 4th Avenue South) Photo #1 SITE 1 - Eastern Boundary of Site and USPS Parking On 3rd Ave. So. (View to North from 3rd Ave. South and South Stacy St. Intersection) Photo #2 9 SITE 1 - Typical View of Parking Lot (USPS Vehicles, West Side) (View to North) Photo #3 SITE 1 - South Boundary of Site North Side of VMF (View to East) Photo #4 10 w, • \NN- 4,,zAss • • • N, • • SITE 1 - Western Boundary of Site (View to South) Photo #5 • ••\•,x,:•:•:•:•x•:••:,. . • . .... .„ , ........ SITE 1 - Western Boundary of Site (View to North) Photo #6 11 • .4 • • 497•••• • • • • • • • ;:: ••••• 4.71 • 251 • • , . U.S.P.S. SITE: '' .;..;- • ' PARKING FOR LEGEND: , )1.• —pRoposED.. — . —.2....:, 1 - ..„' • A. .....- .. ....r,,,,, / PROPEZIY_ • _ „ "...-'-'• -' " 1 o • Bman, - , , , . , .••_. . • _.. % y i , r „„ , / • '•,* / • L • • L / SM.= / ' NORTHRIND WHIR PARC 13083NO ACCESS ROAD . To —) Site 2 - Oxbow- Site Plan Aerial Photo - Oxbow - Site 2 N SITE 2 - View to Northwest Boeing Access Bridge, South 102nd Street Photo #1 SITE 2 - View to Southwest: North Side of Building 252 Photo #2 14 • SITE 2 - View to Southeast Along West Side of Building 252 and Along Seattle P&L Right -Of -Way Photo #3 SITE 2 - View to Northeast Along East Side of Building 250 Photo #4 15 SITE 2 - View to North Along West Boundary of Site (From South Corner) Photo #5 SITE 2 - View to East Along South Boundary (From South Corner) Photo 16 16 SITE 2 - View to North At South Corner of Building 250 (From South of Power Right -Of -Way) Photo #7 W. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES The U.S. Postal Service is considering two alternatives for the expansion of the mail handling capability in the Seattle area and a No Action Alternative. The first is construction of a new Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) Annex north of the existing Seattle P&DC. The 175,000 square foot building would be constructed at the northwest corner of South Stacy Street and Third Avenue South on a 222,327 square foot site owned by the Postal Service. The building would either be a free-standing annex or be extended from the existing P&DC, which would be renovated in either case. The second is purchase of an approximately 30 -acre site within the Oxbow Corporate Park in the city of Tukwila. The two existing buildings, containing approximately 521,000 square feet, would be renovated and reconfigured for USPS operations. The existing operations taking place at the P&DC complex would be shifted to this site. The proposed project has been evaluated using physical, cultural, environmental and postal factors. These factors include site configuration, service systems, utilities, land use/zoning, transportation, and other relevant data. A No Action Alternative This alternative would maintain the existing site in its present situation. The space deficiencies in the P&DC would remain, and the continued automation of Seattle City mail processing would be delayed. B. Proposed Action The proposed project would either: provide the Postal Service with approximately 175,000 square feet of new building space adjacent to the existing P&DC, on Site 1; or shift the functions performed at the P&DC to the buildings in the Oxbow Corporate Park, on Site 2. In conjunction with the construction of the Annex on Site 1, the existing P&DC will be rennovated. This would correct deferred maintenance and increase the size of the floor area from 340,696 to 386,603 square feet. The lack of room for expansion and operational deficiencies at the existing P&DC, where Seattle City mail is now processed, justify the proposed action. Construction of the project on Site 1, adjacent to the existing P&DC, would allow the Seattle City mail processing to move to a new building, which would include automation equipment in accordance with the Corporate Automation Plan. This would also free up space in the P&DC to meet its expansion requirements. The project would result in a shift of personnel between the two facilities (without the addition of new employees). r* ld not increase traffic flows or change off-site trafficpatterns. Mc�vin_g the 18 P&DC operations to Site 2 would require reconfiguration of the existing buildings and site, shift P&DC personnel 5.6 miles south to a new location, alter existing routes, and vacate the existing P&DC. The following matrix includes the No -Action and Proposed Action alternatives. Following the matrix is a table showing potentially significant impacts and potential mitigating measures. 19 COMPARATIVE MATRIX OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative No ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Action Site 1 Site 2 A. Physical Environment 1. Topography N N N 2. Geography/Soils (i) Characteristics N N N (ii) Presence of faults or joints . N N N (iii) Subsurface conditions N N M1 3. Hydrology/Water Quality (i) Local groundwater N Mml Mml (ii) Presence of faults or joints N N N (iii) Floodplain/wetlands N N N (iv) Wild & scenic rivers N N N 4. Prime Farmland N N N 5. Undeveloped Natural Areas N N N 6. Historic/Archaeological (i) Archaeological N N N (ii) Historic places and sites N N N 7. Fish/Wildlife (i) Alteration of habitat N N N (ii) Rare or endangered species N N N 8. Botanical (i) Alteration of habitat N N Mm2 (ii) Rare or endangered species N N N B . Cultural Environment 9. Local Employment, Economics, and Public Welfare (i) Economic activity/employment N N N (ii) Taxes N N MP (iii) Real property disposal N N MT (iv) Other N N N 10. Land Use Patterns (i) Residential development and aesthetics N N N (ii) Industrial potential, etc. N N N (iii) Parks & recreation N N N 11. Traffic (i) Traffic and congestion N N N (ii) Safety N N N (iii) Accessibility and parking N N N 12. Transportation (i) Public N N N (ii) Private N N N 13. Noise (i) Traffic N N N (ii) Exterior postal operations N N N (iii) Sensitive receptors N N N 14. Air Quality N N N 20 Alternative No ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Action Site 1 Site 2 15. Population Trends and Housing N N N 16. Relocation of Employees/ Residences/Businesses N N MP3 17. Community Services (i) Food N N M4 (ii) Medical N N N (iii) Fire Protection N N N 18. Utilities N N N 19. Energy Requirements & Conservation N N N C. Postal Environment 20. Postal Services (i) Retail N N N (ii) Post office box N N N 21. Delivery Services N N MP5 22. Working Conditions N N N 23. Operational Productivity N N N Notes: Letters designations under alternatives refer to the following classifications: (B) Beneficial; (N) None or Negligible; (M) Moderately Adverse; (S) Significantly Adverse. These are followed by an indication of (T) Temporary or (P) Permanent effect. An (m) designation is used to indicate that an adverse impact can be mitigated. 1. The soils for both sites are fill and have a potential for liquefaction during an earthquake. Proper structural design would mitigate potential hazard. 2. If the bridge deck, and especially the pilings are replaced, disruption to salmon migration/and fishing activities of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe could occur. The best months for construction with the least disruption to fishing are February through May. Coordination with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine specific construction dates is necessary. 3. Work location and the operational center for USPS Seattle operations would be shifted approximately six miles south. 4. Three restaurants within one-half block of the existing GMF would lose the business of relocated USPS employees. The nearest restaurant is approximately one-half mile from the site, requiring a 15-20 minute walk for USPS employees. This could result in employees unable or unwilling to use the restaurant because of time or physical constraints. However, these conditions could possibly change depending on the future use of the existing GMF and/or the addition of new restaurant facilities closer to the site. 5. Shifting the facility approximately six miles south would result in a net increase in operational miles driven daily. Schedule adjustments would be required. 21 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT IMPACTS MITIGATION _ MEASURES Soils Site 1 Liquefaction during earthquake. Shallow groundwater. Methane pockets beneath site. Oil/gas in soil and groundwater. Structural design to consider liquefaction. Plan to vent methane if necessary. Coordinate cleanup with Ecology. Site 2 Liquefaction during earthquake. Structural evaluation prior to site acquisition. Hydrology: Flood lain / Wetlands /Stormwater Ten to twenty foot fringe of Site 2. shoreline within a 100 -year flood zone. Pervious paving; Detain runoff, treat by oil separation and/or grass swale Historic / Archaeological Site 2 Duwamish River-Muckleshoot tribal fishing adjacent to site. Consult Tribe and State Historic Preservation Office. Fish / Wildlife Site 2 Duwamish fish habitat/ Muckleshoot treaty fishing rights. Standard runoff, erosion, and siltation control. Pervious paving. Runoff collected, treated, detained. Grass swales. Coordinate with Muckleshoot Tribe. No new in - water structures. Land Use: Shorelines Master Program and Parks / Recreation Site 2 Possible construction of recreational trail along shoreline per Boeing redevelopment plan. Parking lot expansion and bridge replacement within shoreline boundary. _ City of Tukwila may require completion of trail as condition for approval of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Possible Variance for parking lot. Traffic Site 2 Reconstruction of the South 102nd / Boeing Access Bridge. Coordinate with Muckleshoot Tribe, U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Tukwila. Relocation of Em loyees Site 2 Work location shifted 5.6 miles south of existing GMF. Trip reduction through car/van pool & transit Postal Environment - Operational Productivity Work and operational location relocated 5.6 miles south of existing GMF operations. Readjustment of routes; integrate schedule with VMF wash/fuel/maintenance Site 2 22 V. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS A Physical Environment 1. TOPOGRAPHY a Existing Conditions Site 1 is flat, level, and at the same grade as the adjacent properties. With elevations ranging from 7 to 10 feet, the site slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest. Site 2 was filled, and graded essentially flat in the preparation for the existing buildings, driveways, and parking areas. Finished site grade along the parking lot perimeter ranges from 17 feet along the southeastern boundary to 15 feet along the northwestern boundary. The Duwamish River forms the southeastern boundary of the site. An access road (27th Avenue), between West Marginal Way and the west side of the site, is two to four feet below site grade. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action The development of the proposed project on Site 1 will not significantly impact topography. Adaptation of Site 2 for USPS use will require excavation for approaches to loading docks; impacts will be insignificant. 2. GEOLOGY/SOILS a Existing Conditions According to the "Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity," (Waldron, 1962) Site 1 and surrounding area is composed of fill. Geotechnical and ground water studies of the site were completed in 1991 and 1992. (Earth Consultants, 1991; Dames & Moore, 1992). Site borings indicate 10 to 15 feet of upper fill consisting of intermixed loose to dense silty sands, underlain by very soft to soft native clay and clayey silt from about 15 to 25 feet beneath the surface. Beneath the soft silt layer is dense native sand with occasional inter bedded sandy silt and/or silty sand lenses, to the 23 boring depth of about 70 feet. (Earth Consultants(1991) The borings also encountered ground water at a level of 3 to 6 feet below the surface. The level is not static and varies with the season, precipitation, storm water runoff, and, most significantly, the tide. (Earth Consultants, 1991) Site 2 has a geology established by the regional bedrock structure, glacial erosion and deposition, and fluvial deposition by the Duwamish River. Surface soils consist of sands approximately 6 to 8 feet thick, deposited during dredging of the Duwamish River. According to the Geotechnical report, (Geotech Consultants, 1987) it appears that the original level of the site was within a flood zone at an elevation of 8 to 10 feet. Since the site is a former river meander, soil conditions are quite variable with sand, silts, and organic materials. The loose sands are moderately compressible while compressibility of the silts is moderate to high; thus there is potential for building settlement. Ground water was encountered at 3 to 6 feet beneath the site's surface. Again, this water level varies with the season, rainfall, and tides. The geotechnical report recommended introduction of fill material, compaction, and types of pilings, footings, foundations, and floor slabs. Presumably the two buildings, which have been built on a combination of spread footings and pilings, were designed in accordance with specific recommended geotechnical criteria. A brief visual inspection of the buildings did not reveal floor or wall settlement. (AKA, 1994) The Seattle area is in a Zone 3 seismic risk area (Seismic Risk Map of the United States). Zone 3 is defined as an area where major damage may occur during an earthquake episode. It corresponds to Intensity VIII and higher on the Modified Mercali Intensity Scale. According to Washington State Earthquake Hazards (1988), the Puget Sound region has historically experienced the state's largest and most frequent earthquakes. (Noson, 1988) The geotechnical report for Site 1 indicates that the underlying fill and alluvial soils are subject to liquefaction during a severe earthquake. Liquefaction occurs when fine grained, cohesionless soils below the water table temporarily lose their strength during severe ground shaking and go into temporary suspension. (Dames and Moore, 1992) Site 2 is shown on the King County Sensitive Areas Folio (1990) as having severe risk potential for damage resulting from "seismically induced settlement or soil liquefaction." The Postal Service owns Site 1 and had previously leased it since the mid - 1970's. A review of the state Department of Ecology's (Ecology) underground leaky tank, Affected Media and Contaminants Report, and Site 24 Register indicates the status of the leaking tanks at the former VMF (replaced in the late -1980s) as "in progress." (Ecology, 1994) Closure documentation has been submitted to Ecology and a reply is pending. (Hanna, 1995) Soil borings during the site geotechnical investigation encountered methane gas. Specific follow-up conducted in 1992 determined that methane was present under large portions of the site, with the highest concentrations in the eastern and southern portions. The report stated: "The source of methane gas does not appear to be landfill material, and is interpreted to be derived from organic material in the former tidelands (over which the site was created by fill)." The report also indicated that "...one boring encountered petroleum product at a location approximately 40 feet north of the former VMF." (Earth Consultants, 1992) A limited Phase I environmental inspection of Site 1 (P&DC Site) was conducted in December 1989. Although the report indicated some staining on the site (some related to existing Postal Service activity and some related to runoff from an adjacent site at the northwest corner), it stated: "Based on the historical information, there does not appear to be substantial environmental concern associated with this property as a result of past uses or adjacent property operations." (HartCrowser, 1989) During a site inspection in September 1990, stained ground was observed outside of the fence at the northeast corner of the employee parking area. Concrete foundation remnants suggested that an above ground storage tank may have been there. Subsequent inspection indicates that clean soil has been graded over the area, but no record of cleanup is available at Ecology. (AKA, 1994; Peck 1994) A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment completed in October 1990 indicated low concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons and halogenated and non -halogenated volatile organic compounds in soil and ground water samples; however, all levels were below the Department of Ecology's proposed clean-up standards. The following addresses are on the Ecology Leaking Underground Storage Tank List: 1961, 2200, 2201, 2255, 2214, 2401 and 2461 4th Avenue South as being "in process" of cleaning up leaking underground tanks. These sites are within one block of the site and the P&DC. (Ecology, 1994) The Affected Media and Contaminants Report lists the following sites: Mobile Truck Service at 2214 4th Avenue S.; Pacific Chemical and Cleaning Co. at 2200 4th Avenue S.; and Pacific Iron and metals at 2230 4th Avenue S. (Ecology, 1993) The Pacific Chemical and Cleaning Co. is also on the USEPA CERCLIS List 8 Site/Event Listing (U.S. EPA, 1994) as "No further remedial action planned." None of these sites is on the current Hazardous Sites List. (Ecology, 23 August 1994) 25 A hazardous substances survey was conducted for Site 2 (Oxbow Site) prior to construction of the existing buildings (Geotech Consultants, 1987). Based on aerial photo review, interview, soils samples, and observation during site preparation, the report "found no indication of contamination of toxic or hazardous substances as defined by US EPA." Interviews with the Tukwila Fire Department (Alderson, 1994) and Ecology (Cargill, 1994) did not indicate any spills or problems. The Leaking Underground Tank List (Ecology, July 1994) indicates tanks at the following business addresses within one-half mile of the site have been cleaned up: 10710, 11004, 11000, and 11180 East Marginal Way S. Clean up of a gas station at 10805 East Marginal Way S. is in progress. The Affected Media and Contaminants Report lists the following sites within one-half mile of the site: Northwest Auto Wrecking at 10230 E. Marginal Way S. and Yellow Freight Terminal at 11231 E. Marginal Way S. (Ecology 1993) Boeing Plant No. 2 (one mile north of site) is listed on the Hazardous Sites List as a "Rank 1 Independent RA" (high priority remedial action). (Ecology, 1994) No other nearby sites are on this list. According to a Boeing report, hazardous materials were used in its manufacturing from 1987 through 1994. Such materials were controlled by Boeing's Hazardous Materials Management Program which was put in place in 1991. Previous to that, hazardous materials were stored in drums or containers in hazardous materials storage sheds or within buildings. No spills or other incidents involving releases of these materials have been reported. Building 250 was used primarily for manufacturing of composite aircraft parts, riveting and assembly, wire bundle assembly, tool fabrication (plaster and plastics), metal decal fabrication, and small parts painting. A paint spray booth used to paint small airplane parts used dry filters to capture paint particles. The metal decal shop used developers, fixers, and a small self contained vapor degreaser for metal decal production. Freon was used in a riveting machine for cooling. Wiping solvents, sealants, and potting compounds were manually applied to parts. Resins were used to build composite tooling. All hazardous waste generated was accumulated in 55 gallon drums or 5 gallon cans. Building 252 was used for aircraft parts assembly, small parts painting, waterjet metal cutting, tooling fabrication (plaster and plastics), R&D Chemical Etching (Chem Etch), and welding. A wood shop was also in the building. Hazardous materials were stored in cabinets and drums within the building; they included paints, solvents, resins, and adhesives. Except for the Chem Etch, waste was handled as above. Chem Etch initially used a portable Baker tank in the parking lot to store rinse water which was later discharged to the sanitary sewer. Concentrated chemicals used in the Chem 26 Etch --cupric chloride/sodium chloride, corrosive photo resist stripper -- were returned to 55 -gallon drums after use. Dry filters captured paint particles from two spray booths. Portable hazardous materials storage buildings with secondary containment systems are on the west side of Building 252. The 55 -gallon drums and 5 - gallon containers were stored here until shipped off-site for disposal. No underground tanks are on-site, but a 500 gallon above ground reserve fuel oil tank is within a concrete secondary containment berm in the boiler room of Building 253 (mechanical room at north end of Bldg 250). (Boeing, 1994) No PCB transformers are on-site. The buildings were built in 1987 and thus should not have used asbestos containing materials or lead based paints for building construction. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action Regardless of whether the project is built or not, Site 1 will require remediation for known leaks from removed underground tanks per state and federal guidelines if contamination is at cleanup levels. (2) Proposed Action Development of the proposed project on either site will not significantly impact the geology or soils. The geotechnical report for Site 1 indicated that shallow ground water will impact subterranean construction as well as the potential for soil -metal corrosion and liquefaction induced subsidence. It was recommended that a pile supported structural floor slab be constructed. Structural design must also consider the potential for liquefaction and lateral loads during an earthquake. (Earth Consultants, 1991; Dames and Moore, 1992) Site preparation for the site should account for the methane revealed during on-site testing. Furthermore, remediation plans for presently unknown contaminants may need to be developed if encountered during site preparation. Site 2 is developed with buildings and asphalt driveway and parking areas. Additional parking area may be developed south of the existing pavement. Soils would be excavated to provide ramp approaches to loading platforms. Prior to site acquisition, a structural evaluation should be made with additional soils investigation, if warranted, and buildings should be inspected for hazardous/toxic materials. If such materials are present, cleanup should be completed by the property owner prior to USPS acquisition. 27 3. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY a Existing Conditions Site 1 has no surface waters on or near, nor is it within a 100 -year flood hazard zone. The East Waterway of the Duwamish River is approximately one-half mile east of the site. No identified ground water aquifers are beneath the site or in the immediate site vicinity. During an on-site study, shallow ground water was encountered at a depth of approximately 3 to 6 feet below the surface. The local ground water gradient is variable with direction of flow ranging from southerly to easterly. There were low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and halogenated and non -halogenated volatile organic compounds in soil and ground water samples. However, all levels were below the Department of Ecology's clean- up standards. Ground water and soil contamination from leaking underground fuel storage tanks at the VMF has been remediated and closure documentation has been submitted to Ecology. Site 2 is within an oxbow of the Duwamish River which forms its southeastern boundary. The Duwamish River is part of a 483 -square -mile watershed with an average annual flow of 1,530 cfs that discharges to Puget Sound, approximately six miles north of the site. It begins at the confluence of the Black and Green Rivers, and is considered a salt -wedge estuary. Tides influence the river over its entire length. (Department of Metropolitan Services, 1994) The original watershed and drainage has been dramatically reduced over time because of filling, dredging, diking, and urbanization. (Tukwila, 1992) In spite of its use as an industrial corridor, the State Department of Ecology (Ecology), has given the Duwamish a Class B, or good, water quality rating. The Duwamish River and Waterway are included in the 'Water -Quality Limited Water Bodies" list in Ecology's 1990 Statewide Water Quality Assessment (303[B]) Report. Water quality has been degraded by past and present industrial discharges and storm water discharges to the river. Water in the estuary frequently exceeds standards for coliform bacteria, temperature, and some metals. Current discharges include untreated storm water and untreated sewage overflow from combined storm systems. (Tukwila, 1992) The Duwamish River fringe is within the 100 -year flood zone, designated zone AE. This area is a floodway with a flood elevation of 9 feet which intrudes an estimated 10 to 20 feet into the site. (FEMA, 1989) Developed site grade along the southeastern perimeter is 16 to 17 feet. 28 b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action If Site 1 contamination is at cleanup levels, remediation per federal and state guidelines may be required whether the project is built or not. (2) Proposed Action Development of Site 1 will not affect surface or ground water quality or quantity. The impervious area would remain approximately the same; vehicular contaminants from parking lots and driveways would be controlled by oil/water separators or other appropriate stormwater treatment facilities. Although Site 2 is bounded by the Duwamish River, it is not expected that the proposed project would adversely impact water quality or quantity. Work on the "hump backed" bridge would be coordinated with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Department of Ecology, and city of Tukwila. Work would be timed to avoid impact to fish migration. It would also be controlled to avoid spilling of construction materials into the river. This would be accomplished by use of siltation fences, settlement basins, and control of site runoff. Construction of the additional parking area should provide appropriate stormwater treatment per King County and city of Tukwila stormwater management guidelines. Such mitigation could include use of "grass-crete" to minimize new impervious surface, and biofiltration swales for stormwater detention, oil separators, or other practices to improve quality of runoff that might discharge to the Duwamish River. Additionally, "basin -wide" stormwater management would require coordination with Boeing and the city of Tukwila. 4. PRIME FARMLAND a Existing Conditions Site 1 is within the City of Seattle, zoned for industrial use, and predominantly covered with asphalt parking lots. Site 2 is within the City of Tukwila, zoned for industrial use, and predominantly covered with asphalt parking lots and buildings. Neither site contains prime farmland. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None 29 (2) Proposed Action None 5. UNDEVELOPED NATURAL AREAS a Existing Conditions Site 1 is predominantly covered with asphalt parking area, surrounded by industrial land uses, and is not designated as an undeveloped natural area. Site 2 is also a developed industrial site, but it is along the shoreline of the Duwamish River. A narrow fringe (less than 50 feet) along the shoreline consists of various shrubs and trees, primarily blackberry. Although the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance classifies the Duwamish Waterway as a Class 1 stream, the city of Tukwila, since annexing the area, administers the King County Shorelines Master Program (until updating its own) and does not apply the sensitive area overlay and setback. (Pace, 1994) (The ordinance requires a 100 foot buffer from the ordinary highwater mark plus an additional 15 foot building setback from the edge of the stream buffer (total of 115 feet) in which no development is allowed.) Therefore, the Urban Shoreline Environment building setback of 50 feet would be the minimum setback required by the city; but parking may be controlled by existing building setbacks are 200 feet from the ordinary highwater mark. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action Development on Site 1 would not affect undeveloped natural areas. If additional parking on Site 2 is constructed away from the immediate river bank and blackberry hedge along its edge, no adverse impacts are expected. By remaining outside the 50 foot shoreline building setback, no intrusion into this vegetation will occur. 6. PALEONTOLOGICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC SITES a Existing Conditions Site 1 consists of asphalt parking areas, a rail spur and undeveloped land. Neither the existing P&DC or former VMF buildings are of historic 30 significance. (The State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concurred with a previous USPS determination of no effect on a formerly proposed project on this site - letter is in Appendix B). Site 2 consists of two five-year-old manufacturing buildings on a site of approximately 30 acres. Within an oxbow of the Duwamish River, with the exception of approximately five acres in the southern corner and a 200 -foot strip along the shoreline, the site is over covered with asphalt and buildings. The Duwamish River is an important cultural feature to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. (Tukwila, 1992; Lozano, 1994) Adjacent to the southern portion of the site is a rock outcrop which forms a rapids in the River during low tide. Before the Duwamish was rechanneled, this was the first upstream Tribal fishing location. (Malcolm, 1994) Cultural resources associated with this fishing could be on the southern corner of the site. b. Impacts (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action None for development of Site 1. Prior to construction of the parking lot on Site 2, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe should be consulted to determine if any cultural resources exist on the site; and, if they do, their significance to the Tribe and potential mitigation. If cultural resources are uncovered during construction, work will be halted in the affected area, and the significance of the find determined by USPS in consultation with the SHPO pursuant to 36 CFR 800.11 of the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations. 7. FISH AND WILDLIFE a Existing Conditions Site 1 is predominately covered with asphalt, surrounded by industrial uses, and provides no fish or wildlife habitat. Site 2 is bounded on the southeast and east by the Duwamish River which is given a Class B, or "good" water quality rating by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Although past and present urbanization, and particularly the river's use as an industrial waterway, has severely affected the quality of the water for habitat, the Duwamish estuary continues to serve as a feeding, rearing, spawning, nesting and corridor for plants, animals and fish. Muskrat, Norway rat, raccoon, river otter, and Townsend vole are most likely to be observed within the occasional bushy areas along the shorelines. Ducks, gulls and songbirds are common; hawks, herons, and eagles have 31 been observed. The Duwamish estuary serves as migration route for all anadromous fish entering the Green River system. It is also a transitional area between fresh and salt water, and also a rearing area for Chinook and chum salmon. Trout also spend time in the lower reaches before migrating to sea. (Tukwila, 1992) The Duwamish/Green River system historically and presently is one of the most important river system in the Muckleshoot Tribe's Usual and Accustomed area of fishing. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, a federally recognized tribe, holds federally guaranteed treaty rights to fisheries in the Duwamish Corridor. Per litigation, the Courts have held that the Corps of Engineers cannot issue permits for construction and operation of a facility without consent of either Congress or the Tribe if that facility would eliminate a portion of the Tribe's Usual and Accustomed area of fishing. (Tukwila, 1992) b. Impacts / Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action Development of Site 1 would have no adverse impacts to habitat. The following potential impacts to the Duwamish River habitat could occur with development of Site 2, but all can be mitigated: Soil excavation and grading should be planned and conducted so that no silt or other pollutants are allowed to be carried by storm water into the Duwamish River. Pervious paving material such as "grass crete" should be used for parking lot expansion to maximize storm water absorption. Runoff from impervious surfaces should be collected and treated either by oil separators/grease traps or by detaining water in grass swales before discharge to the Duwamish River. Prior to design and construction, coordinate with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and State Department of Fish and Wildlife to agree upon mitigation and to set a construction schedule to minimize impact to fish migration and fishing. If existing pilings are to be replaced, the Department would request that no creosote -treated pilings be used. Furthermore, the Department and Tribe would prefer no in -water structures. (Robel, 1994) 8. BOTANICAL a Existing Conditions Site 1, with the exception of scattered shrubs, blackberry bushes, and trees 32 and grass along the perimeter of the fence, is covered by asphalt with areas of gravel (east side). Site 2, is along the shoreline of the Duwamish River. With the exception of the area within the 200 -foot shoreline boundary and the southern portion of the southern corner, the site has been cleared of vegetation and covered with asphalt and buildings. Landscape materials including trees, shrubs, ivy, flowers, and grasses have been planted along the perimeters of the buildings and site, and within islands along the driveway and parking areas. The undeveloped portion of the site has been filled and graded and is overgrown with various introduced species including alfalfa, tansy, grasses, thistle, scots broom, and other species. Blackberry thickets and sporadic alders create an impenetrable hedge along the Duwamish shoreline. The King County Sensitive Areas Folio (December 1990) shows two areas of wetlands on the Oxbow site. They were identified as l lb and 12b, with b indicating wetlands mapped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, but which have not been field verified. The locations of these wetlands are presently over covered with parking lots and buildings. The Folio also indicates "open water" within the Duwamish along the southern corner of the site. Cattails along the 27th Avenue roadside ditch are probably supported by site and road runoff. No rare, threatened or endangered plant species are known to be on Site 2. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action Landscaping species would be introduced to the project sites per an overall landscaping plan. Native species should be used wherever possible. Adapting Site 2 for USPS use may result in the development of asphalt driveways, maneuvering areas or parking lots within the existing 200 -foot shoreline boundary, but in no case should be closer than 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Approximately five acres of previously -graded land that is presently covered with various introduced species will be paved if the parking area is expanded to the south corner of the site. The area between the 50 -foot line and the river's edge would remain in its existing state. The undeveloped southern corner of the site may be cleared and over covered with asphalt paving. No parking area will be constructed within the 50 -foot shoreline setback area. 33 B. Cultural Environment 9. LOCAL EMPLOYMENT, ECONOMICS, AND PUBLIC WELFARE a Existing Conditions Seattle is the seat of King County and the state's largest city with a 1990 population of 531,900. Seattle's primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA, which includes King and Snohomish counties) had a 1990 population of 2,183,900. The PMSA has a large and diversified labor force. Trade, services, manufacturing and government are the major employment sectors of the Seattle area. The estimated 1993 non-agricultural wage and salary employment for the Seattle PMSA is 1,144,200, with an estimated unemployment rate of 5.0 percent.. (Seattle Chamber of Commerce, 1994) Site 1 is currently used for activities related to the VMF, postal vehicle and employee parking, and has no directly associated employment activities. Approximately 1,681 persons are employed at the P&DC. (USPS 1994) Site 2 is located in the city of Tukwila, which had a 1990 population of 14,650. The primary metropolitan statistical area of King and Snohomish Counties had a 1990 population of 2,183,900. The 1993 non-agricultural wage and salary employment for Tukwila was 41,748, with the primary employment sectors being aircraft manufacturing (Boeing Company), grocery -general merchandise, and transportation (Tukwila Chamber of Commerce 1994). The two buildings comprising the site were occupied by Boeing manufacturing operations, but program reductions have resulted in their vacation. An estimated 1,750 employees worked in the buildings. For purposes of relative comparison, value of the buildings the USPS -owned P&DC and land (Site 1) is $11.3 million, and the VMF/Parking Garage is $5.78 million. Since the USPS -owned property is exempt and not on King County's tax rolls, it provides no taxable revenue to King County or the city of Seattle. The value of the Site 2 Oxbow buildings, which are on the tax rolls, is estimated at $32 million (excluding the land). (The assessed value of both sites will be based, per County Assessor's policy, on the market or sales value of the properties.) Based on a levy rate of 11.76409 within the city of Tukwila, the tax revenues generated would amount to $376,450 annually. b. Imp acts / Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action The proposed action is not expected to impact existing USPS employment. 34 If the project is developed on Site 1, existing employees would be allocated between the P&DC and the adjacent P&DC annex. If Site 2 is selected, the property would be removed from the property tax rolls, resulting in an estimated loss in tax revenues of $373,571 on a projected market value of $32.0 million. On the other hand, the existing USPS P&DC (Site 1) property would be surplused, sold, and eventually returned to the tax rolls. If the VMF/Parking Garage is retained by the Postal Service and only the P&DC is sold at a market value of $11.3 million, $125,937 in property tax revenue would be returned to the County and city of Seattle tax rolls. Projected Change in Property Tax Revenue Tax District City Site 1 Levy Site 1 Revenue 3.20312 School District 1.72544 Site 2 Levy Site 2 Revenue $36,195.00 3.11222 -$99,591 .00 $19,497.00 1.72544 -$55,214.00 Consolidated 5.96643 $67,421.00 EMS 0.2499 $2,824.00 5.96643 0.2499 Library Total 11.14489 -$190,926.00 -$7,997.00 0.6201 $125,937.00 11.67409 -$19,843.00 -$373,571 .00 Notes: Site 1 is within city of Seattle; Site 2 is within city of Tukwila If Site 2 is developed, the work location of the 1,681 USPS personnel at the P&DC would be shifted approximately 5.6 miles south. These employees would also shift from the city of Seattle to the city of Tukwila. It is estimated that 25 to 30 percent of the USPS employees patronize the restaurants in the Fourth and Lander area. This business would be eliminated until the P&DC building was reoccupied. Although there are restaurants at East Marginal Way and 102nd, they are approximately one-half mile from the Oxbow buildings which is a ten minute walk each direction. This would preclude patronage during breaks or lunch (30 minutes). 10. LAND USE AND ZONING a Existing Conditions Site 1 is in an industrial area, approximately one mile south of Seattle's downtown core. The general land uses of the area are industrial, commercial, and transportation. Land uses immediately surrounding the site include the following: South -- the USPS General Mail facility; west of the P&DC, railroad tracks; and east of the P&DC, restaurants, general commercial, and gas station uses; 35 West -- the Burlington Northern railroad right of way (four main tracks and spurs) with warehousing adjacent to the tracks and manufacturing/ - fabrication and distribution uses beyond. Opposite the northern portion of the site is a warehouse and trucking firm between the site and the rails; East -- beginning at the south end is a METRO maintenance facility, animal hospital, steam cleaning supply and service, auto repair and gas station. Across 4th Avenue South is a service station and Pacific Iron and Metals (metal salvage); North -- across the vacated Walker Street right of way opposite the site is the Burlington Northern railroad yard. Northeast is a Budget truck rental office and yard and northwest is a trucking/rail warehouse and yard. The site and surrounding properties are zoned IG 1 /85, General Industrial 1. There are no minimum lot requirements or yard (set -back) requirements. The maximum building height is 85 feet, but a floor area ratio (FAR) governs the relationship of site coverage and building height. The gross floor area of any structure shall not exceed two and one-half times the area of the lot. Within all industrial zones all gross floor area below grade and all gross floor area used for accessory parking are exempt from FAR calculations (City of Seattle Zoning Ordinance, 1990). Off-street parking requirements are provided by Chapter 23.54.15 of the Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code. For uses not specifically defined in the code, final determination regarding the number of required spaces is made by the city Plans Examiner. The Seattle Land Use and Zoning Department, however, indicates that since there is no Postal Delivery Distribution Center defined in the Zoning Code, the most equivalent use would be defined as a warehouse, with parking requirements of one space per 1,500 square feet of floor space (the first 2,500 square feet are exempt). Additionally, the Zoning Department indicated if there is public traffic, that portion of the building used to serve the public would be defined as retail sales and service, with a parking requirement of one space per 350 square feet of floor space. Parking for the P&DC and Terminal Annex was recently completed at the VMF/Parking Garage at the northeast corner of 4th and Lander. Site 2 is at the northern edge of the city of Tukwila in the Oxbow Corporate Park. The developed site is along the Duwamish River at the west edge of the Boeing industrial area. The following uses surround the site: North within the oxbow --industrial uses, parking lot, Boeing recreational center; West across West Marginal Way South --single-family houses on a bluff 36 overlooking the highway, 500 feet away; South --vacant single-family houses (will be removed to develop King County Park), Duwamish River and industrial and office uses; East across Duwamish River --commercial and industrial uses along both sides of East Marginal Way. A 200 -foot wide high voltage electrical transmission corridor crosses the southern edge of the currently developed site. This area is presently used for parking and driveway area per an easement agreement with Seattle City Light. The city of Tukwila Zoning Code classifies the Oxbow site as Heavy Industrial, M-2. Maximum height is four stories and 45 feet, with a twenty- five foot front -yard setback and a five foot rear yard setback. Because the site, however, is along the shoreline of the Duwamish River, additional shoreline setbacks apply (See Shorelines, below). Required landscape areas are 15 feet for front yards in an M-2 zone. Off-street parking requirements for industrial buildings are 1 space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Since Site 2 is along the Duwamish River, it is subject to the Shorelines Master Program. The City of Tukwila is in the process of updating its Shoreline Master Program, expected to be completed in 1995. In the interim, Tukwila administers the King County Shoreline Management Master Program. The Oxbow Shoreline, 200 feet inland from the ordinary high water mark, is designated as Urban which allows commercial and industrial uses. Non -water related commercial and industrial uses must maintain a shoreline setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The ordinance also provides that associated parking must be upland from the building. Because the existing building is set back 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, this setback may also apply to future parking area. (Mitchell, 1994) Although King County classifies the Duwamish River as a Class 1 stream and its Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 -foot buffer and a 15 -foot setback for uses along a Class 1 stream, the city of Tukwila has not adopted the sensitive area overlay. At this time the city requires only the 50 -foot shoreline setback and considers only the bank itself as a sensitive area. (Pace, 1994) Site 2 is within the area covered by Boeing's Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Plan (1992). The plan proposes improvements to public access along the west side of the Oxbow shoreline, south from the Boeing South 102nd Street Bridge to the south east corner of its existing parking 37 lot. This would include a 12 -foot -wide bicycle/pedestrian trail and shoreline viewpoints. It would link along South 102nd Street to the Green River Trail and other Boeing Trail improvements. (Boeing, 1992) b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action The Site 1 property would remain in its existing use for outdoor vehicular storage and employee parking. The Site 2 property would be become vacant until occupied by another user. (2) Proposed Action The proposed action at Site 1 would result in the construction of a Processing and Distribution Center consistent with existing zoning. This would displace existing USPS parking and the former VMF building. It is also possible that the rail spur which splits the site would be shifted to the east side of the site. No conflicts with surrounding uses are expected. Site 2. The proposed project is consistent with the present city of Tukwila zoning. No land use or zoning conflicts are expected. Depending on the interpretation of the Shoreline Regulations, a variance may be required in order to allow parking to be constructed shoreward of the existing building. In any case, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be required, along with a design review with the city of Tukwila Planning Department for any work within the 200 -foot Shoreline Boundary. (Mitchell, Pace, September 1994). Since Boeing would no longer control the Oxbow property, the construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian trail may not be completed. The city, however, may require completion of the Trail as a condition for approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (Williams, 1994). Since it is Postal Service policy to comply to the extent feasible with local zoning, even though exempt, negative land use and zoning impacts will be minimal. 38 11. TRAFFIC a Existing Conditions Site 1. Major north -south access through the Seattle area is provided by Interstate 5 (located approximately one-quarter mile east of the site). Interstate 90, approximately one mile north of the site, is an east -west freeway linking Seattle to points east. The site is bounded on the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad, on the east by the 3rd Avenue South right of way, on the north by the vacated Walker Street right of way (Walker extends between 3rd and 4th avenues), and on the south by the P&DC. Description of Local Traffic Circulation Access to the site is from 3rd Avenue South, a local access street. South Stacy Street which, in the site vicinity extends only between 3rd and 4th avenues, provides access from the site to 4th Avenue South. It also provides access to the new VMF and parking garage at the northeast corner of the Lander Street and 4th Avenue intersection. Fourth Avenue South provides access to the regional transportation network including Interstate 5 and the Alaskan Way Freeway (approximately five blocks west) via Spokane Street (one-quarter mile south) and Dearborn Street (one mile north). Fourth Avenue South is a principal arterial (three lanes northbound, center turn lane and two lanes southbound with parking along both sides). Lander Street, a minor arterial (two lanes each east and west with a center turn lane) provides east/west access between First Avenue South and Airport Way. On -street parking is allowed along both sides of 4th Avenue South and Lander Street. Immediately west of the P&DC, Lander is crossed by the Burlington Northern main line and spurs; frequent delays occur from rail traffic. The intersection of 4th Avenue South and Lander Street is signalized with left turn pockets in each direction. A green arrow is provided for both the northbound and southbound lanes of 4th Avenue South. Access from Stacy to 4th is controlled by a stop sign. Traffic Counts Traffic flows along the segments of 4th Avenue South and Lander Street in the site vicinity are relatively heavy, but within the capacity of the system. Average weekday traffic (AWDT) counts (1993) for 4th Avenue South, north of the Lander Street intersection, totaled 25,992 in both directions. The northbound component was 13,372 and the southbound component, 12,620. The morning peak, generally between 0715 and 0830, was 938 northbound and 700 southbound. The afternoon peak, generally between 39 1515 and 1700, was 1,182 northbound and 1,200 southbound. (Seattle Engineering, 1994) The 4th Avenue South segment, south of the Lander Street intersection, had a count (1993) of 25,717 in both directions. Of these, 13,657 were northbound and 12,060 southbound. The peak hours were the same as the, segment north of Lander Street and the counts were as follows: morning peak --1048 northbound and 665 southbound; afternoon peak --1,132 northbound and 1,182 southbound. (Seattle Engineering, 1994) Although the available traffic counts for South Lander Street cannot be directly correlated because they were taken during somewhat different time periods, they do, however, represent typical traffic volumes. The counts west of the 4th Avenue intersection are as follows: westbound AWDT - 7,203; AM peak- 437; PM - peak 635 (4/93); eastbound AWDT - 8,075; AM peak - 485; PM peak - 686 (4/93). The counts east of 4th Avenue (listed as west of 6th Avenue) are as follows: westbound AWDT - 5251; AM peak - 336; PM peak - 467; eastbound AWDT -6,521; AM peak - 429; PM peak - 550 (4/93). (There is some variability in counts related to seasonal and other factors.) (Seattle Engineering, 1994) South Lander Street, immediately west of the P&DC, has at grade crossings with several rail lines. Each day, thirteen Amtrak trains, and ten to twenty freight trains cross this intersection. (Transpo, 1992) The Postal Service has been operating from the P&DC since 1955 and the rail crossings have posed no significant constraint. Level of Service at 4th and Lander A 1987 traffic study for the McDonald's restaurant on the southwest corner of South Stacy Street and 4th Avenue South indicated that left turn movements from eastbound Stacy to northbound 4th for the noon and PM peak periods would deteriorate to LOS F at completion. The shared left and right turns from westbound Stacy to 4th Avenue are LOS D in all cases. The remaining turning movements associated with the intersection were at LOS A (free flow). The study concluded that no traffic signal was warranted at the Stacy Street/4th Avenue intersection even with McDonald's completed. (Entranco, 1987) The City of Seattle Traffic Engineering Department indicate that the traffic conditions discussed in the McDonald's report are still valid (Robertson, 1994). A 1992 traffic study indicated that the South Lander Street/Fourth Avenue South intersection operates at Level of Service C for all directions, except that southbound is at LOS D. (Transpo, 1992) Existing USPS Traffic at P&DC The existing Terminal Station (south of P&DC, across Lander Street), P&DC 40 and VMF generate employee and operational traffic that is included in the existing counts. Presently, this traffic uses South Lander Street or 4th Avenue South (or both) for area -wide access to these facilities. From these streets, direct site access is via South Stacy Street and 3rd Avenue South. The site is at the north end of Third Street. The three facilities operate under a 24-hour schedule with three basic shifts. The report and departure times are staggered and generally correspond to the major shifts. The following table displays the approximate number of employees with corresponding reporting and departing times. It might be noted that these figures account for_total USPS employment at these facilities, nor do they factor out employees using_public7 transit (approximately -eleven -percent based on recent survey)_and carpools. The-typical-system-wide-morning-peak—traffic period is 7:30 to 8:30 AM. Between the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 AM, P&DC employees generate in the range of 99 to 109 trips inbound and 100-200 trips outbound. The typical system -wide afternoon peak traffic period is 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Between 4:00 and 6:00 PM, P&DC employees generate approximately 125 inbound and Distribution of USPS Employee Traffic GMF/P&DC Arrive 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 6-6:45 AM 7-8:00 AM 11:15 AM Depart # Employees 11:30 PM .................... Noon 6 2-3:15 PM 3-4:00 PM 7:45 PM 160-170 122 99-109 9 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3-4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM Midnight Total 9:30 PM .................... 10:30 PM 11:00-midnigh 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 6:00 AM 40 200 154 7:00 AM 100 20-25 300 100-150 8:00 AM 50 1360-1435 VMF/PARKING GARAGE Arrive Depart 1:45-4:00 AM 5:20-6:00 AM 7:30 AM # Employees 9:45 -Noon 1:20-2:00 PM 3:30 PM 9:00 -Noon -8:00 PM 23 7 29 21 1:30-2:30 PM 9:30-10:30 PM 5 3-4:00 PM 11:00-midnigh 10:00 PM 11:00 PM Midnight Total 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 11 4 11 1 112 Note: Bold times coincide with or overlap Peak Hour traffic flows The P&DC also generates operational traffic consisting of highway routes and collection routes. The highway routes consist of 40 daily trips by nine -ton trucks and 30 daily trips by tractor -trailers. These trips are spread 41 throughout the day and generally coincide with peak on -station -activity, late evening and early morning. (Hines, 1994) Assumingt fifteen per-cen`f3 the trips occur during the-peakkAM -ands ten percent-dunng�fhe PM -hours? 6 trips by nine -ton trucks Land -5 -trips by tractor -trailers would be generated in the AM peak, with 4 trips and 3 trips, respectively for the PM peak. Seattle collection routes consist of 18 parcel post/VIMS and 18 night collection routes. These routes generate between 81 and 94 trips from the P&DC facility. Approximately 42 trips per day are generated by special delivery routes. Of a range of 123 to 136 trips per day, about 40 trips depart or return to the P&DC during the morning peak traffic period and 38 trips depart or return during the afternoon peak traffic period. Additionally, miscellaneous trips related to special delivery can range from 8 to 20 trips per day; and during the three week Christmas mailing period, 15-20 extra trips per day are needed to collect mail from various collection points. (Shiner, 1994) In addition to these employee trips, the VMF generates another 80 or more trips on a non-scheduled 24-hour basis. <The P&DC does not provide post office ,box or customerretail_services7 Site 2 Access and Local Circulation Site 2. North -south access is via three major routes. Immediately west of the site is State Route 99/West Marginal Way South, a four lane freeway, which provides direct northbound entry and exit. Immediately to the east is East Marginal Way South, a five -lane principal arterial between South Michigan Street and Carleton Avenue South with two travel lanes in each direction and a two-way left -turn center lane. The roadway becomes six lanes south of Carleton Avenue South with three northbound travel lanes, two southbound lanes, and a center two-way left -turn lane. Interstate 5 is approximately one mile east via South 102nd Street, East Marginal Way and the Boeing Access Road. Airport Way South is located between East Marginal Way South and Interstate 5, and provides access to and from the Boeing Airfield. Access to Site 2 over the Duwamish River is via South 102nd Street and the Boeing access bridge. This two-lane local access street links East Marginal Way and West Marginal Way. Access from 102nd to West Marginal Way is northbound only. To reach southbound lanes, the 14th Avenue South interchange, one mile north, must be used. A signal . at East Marginal Way allows traffic from South 102nd to merge into northbound lanes or to turn left from East Marginal Way to wesbound South 102nd. An additional route provides free right turns to southbound East Marginal Way. East Marginal Way, in turn, has a signalized intersection with the Boeing Access Road -- through and left turns to facilitate flow to the I-5 interchange, Airport Way 42 and other major arterials. A local access road, 27th Avenue runs between West Marginal Way and the site to provide access to a future park south of the site. Boeing Operations and Traffic Characteristics Traffic volumes in the area are heavily influenced by Boeing operations; thus, the AM and PM peak -period volumes can be considerably higher in relation to total daily traffic. Furthermore, the peak periods are spread over several hours due to the staggered shifts that the Boeing Company has instituted to reduce impacts on the transportation system. Peak -hour traffic is also highly directional. In the AM peak, 75 percent of the traffic on Pacific Highway South is inbound to the Duwamish corridor, and during the PM peak, 80 percent of the traffic is outbound. The Boeing facilities' AM peak generally occurs between 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM, while the non -Boeing AM peak of the area roadways is from 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Boeing facilities' PM peak is between 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM, and the system peak is from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. In general, Boeing facility's PM peak represents approximately 11 to 14 percent of the total daily traffic in the project vicinity, while the system PM peak represents 9 to 11 percent. Traffic Counts and Level of Service Traffic counts (AWDT) for East Marginal Way South, south of South 96th Street, total 21,203; 10,677. southbound and 10,527 northbound. Pacific Highway South, north of 139th Street, total 19,050; southbound, 8,865; northbound, 10,165. Counts on the Boeing Access Road east of East Marginal Way, total 37,179, 17,717 eastbound, 19,462 westbound. (Tukwila, 1994) The Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment FEIS indicated that West Marginal Way South, East Marginal Way South, and the Boeing Access Road were estimated at LOS D. Pacific Highway South was estimated at LOS E. (Tukwila, 1992) The recent traffic counts indicate an increase in traffic along the Boeing Access Road over the AWDT in the FEIS, and a decrease along East Marginal Way. On the regional roadway system, I-5 has the highest volume of traffic in the project vicinity, carrying approximately 174,800 vpd north of South Boeing Access Road. It presently operates at LOS F during peak commute periods. Traffic volumes on major facilities have been increasing from 1.5 percent to 4 percent per year over the past 5 years (1992). Traffic on these facilities is predominantly northbound during morning peak periods and predominantly southbound during afternoon peak periods. The Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Draft Environmental 43 Impact Statement (Tukwila, 1992) indicates that with the reconfiguration of Boeing facilities and employment (to decrease from historic levels), levels of service (LOS) would remain unchanged for most roadway segments. However, the LOSs of several road segments are expected to decline as a result of an anticipated 1.5 percent increase in background traffic. Mitigation measures include implementing an aggressive transportation management program (TMP) and/or by fair -share contributions to street and transit improvements. The Boeing Company has proposed a TMP that includes a transit subsidy and ride share (car pool and van pool) support. Potential Oxbow Area Street Improvements Additionally, the Final EIS recommended several system improvements that are presently being implemented by the city of Tukwila. These include revisions to the SR 599 southbound on -ramps at Pacific Highway South, constructing additional lanes on the Pacific Highway South/Duwamish River Bridge, and additional lanes on East Marginal Way South, south of the South Boeing Access Road. The Marginal Way South widening is slated for 1995, and the widening of the bridge and improvement to the SR 599 ramps are planned for construction in 1996-97. (Cameron, 1994) Traffic Generated by Boeing Oxbow Operations Buildings 250 and 252 which are included in the Site 2 proposal, housed approximately 1,750 employees when used by Boeing manufacturing operations. (Birk, 1995) Of these employees, it is estimated that 80 percent, or 1,400 worked the first shift. It is also estimated that 87 percent of the employees used single -occupant vehicles to commute to work; thereby resulting in 1,218 automobile trips inbound during the 6:30 to 7:30 AM Boeing peak commute period and 1,218 outbound each day during the 2:30 to 3:30 PM afternoon peak commute period. (Boeing, 1992) Truck traffic was generated by the operations but no counts are available. The Boeing EIS indicates truck traffic at 10 to 15 percent of employee trips, or 140 to 210 trips corresponding . to the first shift. b. Impacts/Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action If Site 1 is developed, the arrival/departure times and corresponding number of employee trips shown on the preceding table and the operations trips should not change as a result of the proposed action. Existing employees would be shifted from the P&DC to the P&DC Annex without a 44 corresponding increase in trips or change in off-site traffic patterns. Therefore, existing level of service in the site vicinity will not be adversely impacted as a result of the project. It is not expected that redeveloping Site 2 for USPS use would result in traffic congestion or deterioration in level of service. The estimated 1,750 Boeing employees that worked on the site generated an estimated 1365 commute trips per day. First shift accounted for 1,218 automobile trips inbound during the 6:30 to 7:30 AM Boeing peak commute period and 1,218 outbound each day during the 2:30 to 3:30 PM afternoon peak commute period. Projected traffic generation by USPS employees during_peak_hours is substantially lower than historic levels. Assuming -an 11.7 percent transit use by USPS employees, total daily traffic is estimated-to—range—from 1200 to 1270 trips per day with ,peak hour trips are shown on the following table. Projected USPS Peak Hour Employee & Operations Traffic at Site 2 Employees Operations Peak Traffic Periods Inbound Outbound Collection Rtes Highway Rtes AM Boeing Peak 6:30-7:30 90-100 125-175 20 in/17 out AM Non -Boeing Peak 7:30-8: PM Boeing Peak 2:30-3:30 65-95 50 20 in/20 out 12 11 350 147 11 in/12 out 6 PM Non -Boeing Peak 4:30-5:30 50-75 10-20 16 in/22 out 7 Thus the peak traffic would be signficantly reduced from previous use and total traffic would be less than the total Duwamish corridor traffic projected by the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS upon which traffic mitigation was based. If Site 2 is developed, the work and operational location would be approximately 5.6 miles south of the existing P&DC operations. This shift moves operations further from the bulk of the existing 22 stations_sery ed by the P&DC. This would require readjustment of schedules of some 39 parcel post collection routes because of longer -en -route times (an estimated 85 percent of these routes are_north of the_P&DC). Because of staging requirements, 5 minute delay in delivery can], for example, result in -a-_-152 -_20 minute processing d'elayjIn addition, the majority of other collection and highway routes-whrch have destinations north of the existing location would have an increase in trip miles. Finally, the P&DC vehicles would be separated from the Vehicle Maintenance Facility and Parking Garage, thus increasing trip lengths for maintenance, washing and fuelings. An evaluation of potential route and schedule changes should include assessment of potential for consolidation of VMF-related trips where possible. Development of this site would also require reconstruction of the existing South 102nd Street/Boeing Access Bridge which is presently substandard. This would provide a single route to East Marginal Way South. A second route to West Marginal Way South northbound is also available. 45 12. TRANSPORTATION a Existing Conditions Public transportation in Seattle is provided by METRO Transit which provides bus service within the Seattle metropolitan area. Fourth Avenue South is classified as a Principal Transit Street with a stop at the northeast corner of the 4th Avenue South/Lander Street intersection. Approximately thirty-five routes utilize this stop and the transit corridor immediately east. Service is available seven days a week. Weekday routes run with headways of 15 to 60 minutes (depending on route) between 0530 and 0130. (Metro, 1994) USPS policy is to encourage employees to use car pools, van pools, and public transit. A recent survey indicates that 197 of 1,682 (11.7 percent) employees used Metro Transit. (Woo, 1994) Site 2 is not directly served by transit, but stops are along East Marginal Way, approximately 2,000 feet northeast (7.5 minute walk). Approximately nine routes service the Boeing industrial area along Marginal Way. Destinations include Federal Way, Des Moines, Renton, Tukwila, Sea -Tac Airport and downtown Seattle. Service is available seven days a week. Weekday routes run with headways of 15 to 60 minutes (depending on route) between 0530 and 0130. (Metro, 1994) The Seattle area is served by the Sea -Tac International Airport, located approximately ten miles south of Site 1, and four miles south of Site 2. The airport is served by major regional, national and international passenger and cargo carriers. Union Pacific and Burlington Northern (BN) as well as other carriers provide rail service in the Seattle area. A BN spur presently provides access to Site 1. Passenger service is provided by AMTRAK which presently uses the spur bisecting the site for switching. One car of mail arrives each day via AMTRAK. (Hines, 1994) The Duwamish River is considered by the US. Coast Guard as a navigable body of water. Although the turning basin and southerly limit of ship and barge traffic is north of the "hump -backed" bride of South 102nd Street, the Coast Guard maintains permitting jurisdiction for projects involving the river. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action Development of Site 1 may result in realignment of the AMTRAK spur to the 46 east side of the site. Site and building design will require coordination with the railroad. The northerly employee parking lot would be displaced, thus increasing walking distance by approximately 600 feet (2.2 minutes). Because Duwamish navigation ends downstream from the Boeing/ 102nd Street Access Bridge, the lowering of its deck for Site 2 development will not affect navigability of the Duwamish River. Approximately 197 of the 1,681 USPS employees at the P&DC use Metro Transit. These riders would be required to change transit routes and commute patterns. The walking distance for transit users would increase from one block to approximately 2,000 feet (7.5 minute walk). The continued use of transit by USPS employees will depend on direct route availablity and convenience of transfers if required. Thus, the impact to individual employees or total ridership cannot be assessed without individual survey. It is also projected that four truck trips per day will be required to haul AMTRAK mail between the existing P&DC terminus and Site 2. (Hines, 1994) 13. NOISE a Existing Conditions The noise environment of Site 1 is typical of an industrial, transportation, and warehouse setting. The primary noise source is rail traffic along the corridor bounding the western side of the site. Vehicular traffic along 4th Avenue South, 3rd Avenue South and South Stacy Street, and the trucking yard opposite the northwest corner of the site are also sources of noise. Noise generated on site from vehicular traffic (postal employee parking lot, tractor and trailer and other postal vehicle parking, and parking for vehicles to be repaired or serviced) is consistent with the surrounding environment. There are no sensitive receptors in the site vicinity. The city of Seattle has a noise control ordinance. This ordinance regulates the maximum permissible noise levels that may be emitted from a property and received by an adjoining property. For properties within an industrial district, the maximum permissible sound level is 70 decibels (dbA). This would apply to the site and surrounding properties. The noise environment of Site 2 is typical of an industrial setting. The primary noise source is from traffic along the West Marginal Way South/Highway 99 freeway. Additionally, the site is within the Boeing Field 65-70 Ldn noise contours projected for Year 2000. (Ldn is the Day -Night 47 Noise Level or average A -weighted sound over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.) (Tukwila, 1992) Federal Interagency Committee guidelines for land use planning and control (1980) indicate that the 65-70 Ldn noise zone is acceptable for the proposed use. Sensitive receptors include single-family houses approximately 500 feet to the west across the West Marginal Way South freeway. Houses immediately south of the site will be removed for construction of the King County park. The noise ordinances of King County and Tukwila establish maximum environmental noise levels that cannot be exceeded in any 1 -hour period from a property and received by an adjoining property. The maximum permissible noise levels are similar between the two jurisdictions. For properties within an industrial district, the maximum permissible sound level is 70 decibels (dbA). This would apply to the site and surrounding properties. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at airports and are directly related to flight operations are exempt from the provisions of the noise ordinances. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action Site 1. The proposed action will not affect the existing noise characteristics of the site vicinity. Site 2. If the area south of the existing buildings and parking area is used for parking, the proposed action would extend noise associated with postal vehicle and employee traffic adjacent to the proposed park. Noise levels generated by starting automobiles, trucks and diesel tractors, and slow moving vehicles (less than 30 mph) within the parking lot and along the driveways is expected to be less than 60 decibels during activity periods such as shift changes. As noted above, the site is within the Boeing Field 65-70 Ldn contour. This contour includes the area in which the parking lot would be constructed and northern portion the park. Construction should be limited to between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, or as required to meet the nighttime limitations specified in the city of Tukwila Municipal Code. 48 14. AIR QUALITY a Existing Conditions Air quality in the Seattle and Puget Sound area is monitored by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). The closest monitoring stations operated by PSAPCA and the Department of Ecology are in downtown Seattle and at the corner of 5th Avenue and James Street. Both sites are within non attainment areas for particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and ozone, although ozone is monitored only in outlying areas where it is deemed a problem. The levels for both the national primary and secondary PM10 standards are 150 micrograms/cu. meter for a 24-hour average and 50 micrograms/cu. meter annual geometric mean. The closest monitoring station for PM 10 is on East Marginal Way north of Boeing field. There have been no exceedences of the PM10 standards in the last three years. The primary source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. The level for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million (ppm) for an 8 -hour average and 35 ppm for a 1 -hour average. The closest monitoring stations are at the corner of 5th Avenue and James Street and in the Southpark area at 723 S. Concord Street. There have been no exceedences of CO standards recorded at these stations in the last three years. (Knechtel, PSAPCA, September, 1994). b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action The proposed project at either Site 1 or Site 2 is not expected to affect the existing air quality situation either in the immediate site vicinity or in the air quality basin. In either case, trip management programs to reduce the use of single -occupancy vehicles would reduce total emissions. Expansion of the existing facility (Site 1) will not result in the addition new vehicular traffic to the project vicinity; nor will it require improvements to the traffic circulation system. The redevelopment the Oxbox property (Site 2) is a replacement of the traffic generated during its use by Boeing, but at a slightly lower level for total daily traffic. Peak traffic would be 50 to 75 percent less than historic levels. The traffic impacts of the entire Duwamish redevelopment corridor were evaluated in the Boeing evironmental impact statement in 1992. The 49 emissions burden analysis concluded that the carbon monoxide (CO) ambient air quaility standards would not be threatened by the proposed action. It projected that weekday project area CO emissions would be reduced from the 1991 level of 19.2 tons to a range of 13.9 to 14.8 tons for the year 2002. Proposed mitigation to improve traffic flow was based on those levels. The proposed USPS use of the site would generate slightly less daily traffic than the use that it is replacing. Although it would not add new traffic to the regional transportation system, the potential increase in USPS operations travel distances would increase total vehicle miles traveled. Construction that involves the former VMF building and the P&DC in the development of the project on Site 1 will be proceeded by asbestos abatement. Removal should follow PSAPCA Regulation III, as well as Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) procedures. During site preparation for either Site 1 or Site 2, PSAPCA guidelines for reduction of dust emissions will be followed. Per 40CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93, a conformity evaluation may be required for development of the project on Site 2. The would involve an analysis of direct and indirect emissions of USPS operations on the site to determine conformity with the State Implementation Plan. Such analysis of potential emissions should be completed by an air quality specialist. 15. POPULATION TRENDS AND HOUSING a Existing Conditions Both sites are in industrial areas of Seattle and Tukwila, respectively, therefore, neither housing nor population will be affected. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action None 16. RELOCATION OF EMPLOYEES/RESIDENCES/BUSINESSES a Existing Conditions There are no residences or businesses on either site. The P&DC and employs approximately 1,681 persons. 50 The existing buildings 250 and 251 will be vacated by Boeing regardless of the proposed action. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action If the project is developed on Site 1, no employees will be relocated as a result of the proposed action. Employees would be allocated among the existing and new facilities in the P&DC complex. If the project is developed on Site 2, USPS employees will shift to a new work location approximately 5.6 miles south of the present one. This will result in a change in commute patterns, but is not expected to require a change of residence. 17. COMMUNITY SERVICES a Existing Conditions Law enforcement for Site 1 is provided by the Seattle Police Department, based in the Municipal Building in downtown Seattle. In addition, the Postal Security Force is responsible for enforcement and protection of the P&DC and VMF, and would be responsible for the proposed P&DC. Fire protection and emergency medical services for Site 1 are provided by the Seattle Fire Department. The nearest stations are No. 10 at Second Avenue South/South Main, and No. 14 at 3224 4th Avenue South. Response time is four minutes. The stations are equipped with engines, ladder trucks, and aid cars. Station No. 10 has a hazardous materials spill response unit. (Seattle Fire Department, 1994) Law enforcement for Site 2 is provided by the Tukwila Police Department, based in City, Hall at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. In addition, the Postal Security Force would be provide security. Fire protection and emergency medical services for Site 2 are provided by the city of Tukwila Fire Department with the mutual aid of the city of Seattle and King County. The nearest stations are No. 54 at 4237 South 144th and Station No. 53 at 12026 42nd Avenue South. In addition to engines, an aid car and ladder truck and are available from two other Tukwila fire stations. Response time is 5-6 minutes. The buildings are equipped with sprinklers, 51 hydrants surround the site, and fire flow is good. (Alderson, 1994). The Seattle area has several major hospitals which provide a full range of medical services. Fast food restaurants are immediately southeast of Site 1. Two restaurants are along East Marginal Way South, within one-half mile of Site 2. b. Impacts/Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action A full range of community services is available in the vicinity of the sites and Seattle area. No problems with service delivery are expected, nor will the proposed action affect community service provision. 18. UTILITIES a Existing Conditions The following purveyors provide utility services in the Site 1 area: water, sewer, and storm water - city of Seattle; electricity - Seattle City Light; natural gas - Washington Natural Gas; and telephone - US. West. (1) Water -- Twelve -inch mains are along 3rd and 4th Avenues South. The line in 3rd Avenue extends between Lander and Stacy streets. (Seattle Water Department, 1994) (2) Sewer -- A 24 -inch combined sanitary/storm water main is along the center of 3rd Avenue South. A sanitary sewer which serves the property adjacent to the northwest corner of the site crosses the site and discharges to the line in 3rd Avenue. An 84 -inch main extends along the centerline of Lander Street (also combined). (Seattle Sewer Department, 1994) (3) Storm water -- A system of catch basins and storm -water lines presently drain the site and discharge to the combined line in 3rd Avenue. According to the Seattle Engineering Department, on-site detention with controlled release to the system will be required for storm water disposal in the event that the P&DC is developed. (Seattle Sewer Department, 1994) (4) Electricity -- Three-phase power is available via overhead lines along 4th Avenue South. An overhead line also serves the property northwest of the site (via a private road from Holgate Avenue). (Seattle City Light, 1994) 52 (5) Natural Gas -- A 6 -inch line is along the west side of 4th Avenue South and extends west to 3rd Avenue along Stacy Street. (Washington Natural Gas, 1994) (6) Telephone -- Service is available to the site and no conflicts are expected. (US. West, 1994) Site 2 is serviced by the following utilities: water - City of Seattle; sewer - Val Vue Sewer District (Tukwila); storm water - on-site detention; electricity - Seattle City Light; natural gas - Washington Natural Gas; and telephone - US. West. (1) Water -- Water is supplied to the site via a 20 -inch main along West Marginal Way South. A 12 -inch main feeds links this main to the 8 -inch ductile iron system serving the fire and domestic flows of the site. (Seattle Water Department, 1994) (2) Sewer -- Sewage generated on-site is pumped by the oxbow pump station (northeast side of building 250) via a 6 -inch force main across the Duwamish River to an eight -inch main along the west side of East Marginal Way South. (Val Vue Sewer District, 1994) (3) Storm water -- A system of catch basins and storm -water lines presently drain the site and discharge to a detention basin on the north side of the site. Overflow discharges to the West Marginal Way drainage swale. An oil separator treats the water prior to discharge to the basin. (Grading and Storm Drainage Plan, 1987) (4) Electricity -- One 240KV transmission line and four 26KV feeders are located on Marginal Way, two on the east side, two on the west. The feeders cross the site southwest of the buildings within a 200 -foot easement. These lines feed to the Duwamish substation on 96th Street, approximately six blocks away. No backup substations serve the site (Whitcomb, 1994). The site is served with three-phase power. (5) Natural Gas --A 4 -inch high pressure main runs along the South 102nd Street access bridge from East Marginal Way South to the site. (Washington Natural Gas, 1994) (6) Telephone -- Service is available to the site and no conflicts are expected. (US. West, 1994) b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None 53 (2) Proposed Action With the exception of storm water disposal for Site 1, service with capacity is available to both sites. Development of the P&DC is not expected to adversely impact area -wide utilities provision but coordination with utility purveyors should be initiated as soon as possible. Potential items that would require resolution to develop Site 1 include the sewer line serving the off-site property to the northwest (possible rerouting), and the potential reconstruction of the combined storm water and sewer line along 3rd Avenue South. In addition, future storm water control would require on-site detention with controlled release (and Drainage Control Plan). For Site 2, the existing storm water system should be evaluated to determine if capacity is available for expansion of the parking area. If not, new facilities will be required. This may include a combination of on-site detention, oil separation, and grass swales, and use of pervious surface material such as "grass-crete." Performance and maintenance status of the storm water system and the sewage pump station should be evaluated. Washington Natural Gas should be consulted prior to reconstruction of the South 102nd Street access bridge regarding the existing gas main. 19. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS a Existing Conditions Site 1 is used for USPS -vehicle storage and USPS -employee parking. Electrical energy is consumed for yard area and parking lot lighting. Site 2 includes two buildings, totaling approximately 521,000 square feet. Electrical energy is consumed for parking lot and building lighting. A natural gas-fired boiler provides heat. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action Construction of the P&DC would follow the guidelines provided by USPS RE&B Bulletin DC -81-16, "Energy Conservation in New Building Design." 54 C. Postal Environment 20. POSTAL SERVICE AND DELIVERY SERVICE a Existing Conditions Site 1 is used by the Postal Service for storage and USPS -vehicle parking (spaces for approximately 32 trailers, 11 tractors, 118 other USPS vehicles) and employee parking associated with VMF and P&DC operations (163 employees). The former VMF building, immediately north of the existing P&DC, is temporarily being used for equipment staging. The recently completed VMF/Parking Structure is at 4th and Lander. Seattle City mail is currently processed in the Seattle P&DC, immediately south of the former VMF building. Special Delivery/Night Collections are housed in the existing facility. Routes operating from the P&DC include: 28 collection routes, 19 parcel post routes, and 13 special delivery routes. No retail services are provided in the facility. b. Impacts/Mitigation (1) No Action None (2) Proposed Action Since a new VMF/parking garage has recently been completed at South Lander Street/4th Avenue South, the development of the proposed P&DC on the existing site will not affect available parking capacity for the USPS. Since 85 percent of the mail volume dispatched has a destination north of the P&DC, the trip length for each of the 20 routes transporting this mail would increase by 5.6 miles if Site 2 were developed. (Woo, 1994) 21. WORKING CONDITIONS & OPERATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY a Existing Conditions The Seattle General Mail Facility (P&DC) is overcrowded and does not have sufficient space to provide ten-year space requirements. These constraints preclude deployment of additional automation required to increase mechanized automated distribution of Seattle metropolitan area mail. They also impact full processing capability of newly deployed Remote Bar Coding System (RBCS). 55 As mentioned, the project site is used by the Postal Service for parking and storage. b. Impacts /Mitigation (1) No Action Working conditions and operational productivity would continue as they are now. The P&DC would continue to be overcrowded and no new floor area would be available for processing equipment for Seattle City mail routes. (2) Proposed Action The proposed P&DC renovation and expansion is intended to provide a more manageable and positive working environment and to meet the growing demand for services. The project concept is to automate and increase efficiency of mail processing for the Seattle City routes. High voltage electrical transmission lines are along the south side of buildings 250 and 252 on Site 2. The lines come within 80 feet of the southwest corner and 200 feet of the northwest corner of Building 250. Building 252 is 200 feet from the lines. Various studies have been conducted regarding the health effects of living or working near such facilities. Based on review of a 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report which summarized studies to date and a 1994 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) report on research into health effects, there is no conclusive evidence that Electro Magnetic Force fields (EMF) cause ill effects to human health. Since there remains a belief that EMF affects human health, on-going research is being conducted in the attempt to identify impacts of power lines and other electrical equipment. The strength of the EMF field decreases as the distance from the lines increases. According to BPA, the mean electric field (kV/m) for a 230 kV line is 1.5 kV/m at 50 feet, 0.3 kV/m at 100 feet, and 0.05 kV/m at 200 feet. Corresponding mean magnetic fields (mG) are 19.5 mG at 50 feet, 7.1 mG at 100 feet and 1.8 mG at 200 feet. Several states have developed standards and guidelines for EMF. The maximum electric field strength at the edge of the right of way ranges from 2 kV/m to 3 kV/m, while the magnetic field strength ranges from 150 to 250 mG at the edge of the right of way. The strengths to which employees within the buildings would be exposed are considerably lower than these guideline maximums. Again, no Federal health standards have been developed for EMF. In any case, outdoor employee lunch areas should be placed away from the lines. Location of the facility at Site 2 would increase driving distances and driver time for a majority of the collection and highway routes. Separation from the VMF/Parking Garage would also increase driving distances and driver time for washing, maintenance, and fueling. 56 VL MITIGATION MEASURES • Issues that should be addressed in the development of the Processing and Distribution Center include the following: Site 1 - Existing P&DC Coordinate easement and routing of sewer line serving the property adjacent to the northwest corner and coordinate with the railroad for realigning the AMTRAK spur. Incorporate energy conservation features in building design where. feasible. Follow PSAPCA guidelines for asbestos abatement. Site soils have potential for soil liquefaction during an earthquake; thus, structural design must be in accordance with recommendations of geotechnical engineering study. Prior to site preparation, a plan for soil methane venting needs to be developed. Additional assessment and remediation of the petroleum fuel soil and groundwater contamination of the site may be needed. Use standard runoff, erosion, and siltation control during construction per Puget Sound Storm Water Manual guidelines. Oil separators or grass swales or both should be used to treat runoff from parking lots. Use standard dust control per PSAPCA guidelines during site preparation and building construction. Reduce commute trips through car pooling, van pooling, and use of transit. Site 2 - Oxbow Corporate Park The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe should be contacted before expanding the parking lot into the southern corner of Site 2; Notify Historic Preservation Office if archaeological resources are found during excavation. Coordinate with Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Army Corps of Engineers for bridge replacement, with seasonal schedule to minimize impact on salmon migration and Tribal fishing, and to minimize impact to water quality. Construction work on or near the Duwamish River should incorporate standard silt and sediment control and avoid discharge of debris to the river. Use materials materials such as "grass crete" to reduce total runoff from 57 addition of new parking lots. Storm water should be treated by oil separation or biofiltration or both prior to controlled release to the Duwamish River. Evaluate the existing stormwater system to assess capacity and ensure compliance with King County and Tukwila regulations. Coordinate with utility companies for service and design requirements, and especially Washington Natural Gas for bridge deck replacement. Evaluate the capacity and maintenance status of sewage pump station prior to acquisition. Site soils have potential for soil liquefaction during an earthquake; thus, the building structural design and construction should be evaluated. Incorporate energy conservation features in building design where feasible. Reduce commute trips through car pooling, van pooling, and use of transit. Also integrate operations and VMF maintenance/wash/fueling schedules to the degree possible to reduce vehicle trip miles. Construction should be limited to between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, or as required to meet the nighttime limitations specified in the city of Tukwila Municipal Code. An analysis of potential emissions should be completed by an air quality specialist to determine if a conformity evaluation is necessary. 58 VII. POTENTIAL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Site 1 Existing P&DC City of Seattle Demolition Grading/drainage Potential NPDES Permit Mechanical/Electrical/Building permits Street Vacation for 3rd Avenue South Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Asbestos removal Compliance with Regulation 9.15 to control construction dust Air Pollution and Generating Control Equipment (Boiler) Permit if boiler is larger than 10,000,000 BTUs. King County Connection for Natural Gas Site 2 Oxbow Corporate Park US Coast Guard (bridge construction) Bridge Permit Amendment US Army Corps of Engineers (bridge construction) Section 10/404 permits for work in wetlands Nationwide 3 permit for replacement of existing structure Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (bridge Construction) Coordination with if Bridge pilings are to be added or replaced, and if deck size is to be increased Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (bridge Construction) Hydraulics Project Approval for work over or within the Duwamish River. Washington State Department of Ecology (bridge construction) Water quality Permit Determination of consistency with Coastal Zone Management Plan Determination if General Air Quality Conformity anaysis is required Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Compliance with Regulation 9.15 to control construction dust 59 King County Connection for Natural Gas City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for bridge and any construction within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Duwamish River. Potential Shoreline Variance if parking is developed shore ward (within 200 feet of river bank) of the existing building. Change of occupancy/use Grading/drainage Potential NPDES Permit Mechanical/Electrical/Building permits 60 NOTES Alderson, Mike. City of Tukwila Fire Department. Telephone interview. 13 September 1994. Anderson-Kolva Associates. Site Investigation. August, 1994. Babik, Mike, USPS, Interview, 5 September 1990. Bhang, Preston, Lt. Seattle Fire Department. Telephone Interview. September 1990. Boeing. "Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal/Design Guidelines." May 1992. --. "Hazardous Waste Management Plan." Letter Myrna L. Brune to Phil Birk. 19 August 1994. Bonneville Power Administration. "Electric Power Lines Questions & Answers on Research into Health Effects. 1994. Cameron, Ron, Tukwila City Engineer. Telephone Interview. 20 September 1994. Cargill, Dan. Washington State Department of Ecology. Telephone Interview. 15 September 1994. Carman, Randy, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone Interview. 15 September 1994. Chase, Beth, City of Seattle Preservation Office (6 September 1990); Garfield, Leonard. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, correspondence, 1 October 1990. City of Seattle Engineering Dept. "Traffic Count Summaries." April, 1993. City of Seattle. "Industrial Code (Zoning Ordinance)." February 1990. City of Tukwila. "Zoning Code." August, 1993. Earth Consultants, Inc. Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment Preliminary Soil and Groundwater Study. 15 October 1990. Ecology. "Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites." 11 July 1994; --. "Site Register - Hazardous Sites List." 23 August 1994; --. "Affected Media and Contaminants." [Hazardous Waste Investigations & 61 Cleanup Program] 8 January 1993. Entranco Engineers, Inc. "Traffic Impact Study For McDonald's Restaurant 4th Avenue South/South Stacy Street Seattle, WA." December 1987. Gaskill, Alton. Seattle Permit Department. Telephone Interview. 22 September, 1994. Gossett, Jack, United States Army Corps of Engineers. Telephone Interview. 14 September 1994. Hines, Robert A., Manager, USPS Transportation and Networks. "Seattle P&DC Transportation Costs Baseline vs Alternative." 12 October 1994. HartCrowser. "Preliminary Environmental Assessment, Glacier Park Company, Third Avenue South and South Stacy Street Property, Property Sequence No. 972, Seattle, WA." 19 December 1989. IULS. Site Investigation. 5 September 1990. Knechtel, Boyd, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Telephone Interview. 12 September 1994. Lozano, Mike, King County Parks and Recreation Department. Telephone Interview. 20 September 1994. Malcolm, Rod, Muckleshoot Tribe Fisheries. Telephone Interview. 20 September 1994. METRO Transit route maps. 4 June to 9 September 1994. Mitchell, Mark, King County Planning Department (Shorelines). Telephone Interview. 14 September 1994. Noson, Linda L, Anthony Qamar and Gerald W. Thorsen. Washington State Earthquake Hazards. (Washington Division of Geology and Earth Services Information Circular 85). 1988. Pacheco, Walter, Muckleshoot Tribe Community Services Coordinator. 20 September 1994. Pratt, Austin, Corps of Engineers. Interview. 14 September 1994. Robel, Joe, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone Interview. 15 May 1994. Robertson, Jim, City of Seattle Plan Review. Telephone Interview, 12 September 1994.. 62 Sabey Corporation. "Oxbow Corporate Park." July 1994. Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Telephone Interview. 7 September 1994. Seattle Sewer Department. Interview. 5 September 1990. Smith, Mark, USPS, Interview, 18 September 1990. Stryon, Tim, U.S. West. Telephone Interview. 18 September 1990. The Transpo Group, Inc. "Traffic Impact Analysis for Home Depot SODO Center, Seattle, WA." 23 March 1992. Tukwila City Hall, Records Department. Telephone Interview. 13 September 1994. Tukwila Department of Community Development. "Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)." May 1992; and "Final EIS." April 1993. Tukwila Police Department. Telephone interview. 13 September 1994. Tukwila Public Works Department. Traffic counts. 1990-1993. U.S. EPA. "CERCLIS List-8 Site/Event Listing." 8 September 1994. --. "EPA Regional 10 FOIA Report [hazardous material handlers)." 8 September 1994. --. "Questions and Answers About Electric And Magnetic Fields (EMFs)." December 1992. US Postal Service. "Facility Planning Concept: Seattle P&DC." 9/94. Val Vue Sewer District. Telephone Interview. 16 September 1994. Vining, Rick, Washington State Department of Ecology. Telephone interview. 14 September 1994. Washington Natural Gas, Jim Gooch, Service Representative. Telephone Interview. 21 September 1994. Whitcomb, Al, Seattle City Light. Interview. 14 September 1994. Williams, Don, City of Tukwila Parks and Recreation Director. Telephone Interview. 16 September 1994. 63 Woo, Glenn, USPS Seattle P&DC Engineer, Telephone Interview. 21 September 1994. 64 APPENDIX A INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW Intergovernmental Review Notices are on file at the USPS Facilities Service Office in Memphis. 65 APPENDIX B STATE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW Review of Site 2 Oxbow Corporate Park is on file at USPS Facilities Service Office in Memphis. 66 ' CHUCK CLARKE Director � STATfs 4 1889 t STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 111 West Twenty -First Avenue, KL -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-5411 • (206) 753-4011 • SCAN 234-4011 October 1, 1990 Mr. Jim Kolva Institute for Urban and Local Studies Eastern Washington University West 705 First Avenue Spokane, WA 99204 Log Reference: 11113 -F -USPS -02 Re: Seattle, WA - Vehicle Main- tenance Facility Dear Mr. Kolva: Thank you for notifying us of the Postal Service's proposed acquisition of vacant land at Fourth Avenue South and South Stacy Street in Seattle. In our opinion, there are no properties located at or adjacent to the site that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If I can be of further assistance, please call me at (206) 586-2901. dmo Sincerely, Leonard T. Garfield / Preservation Programs Coordinator APPENDIX C AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION On file at the USPS Facilities Service Office in Memphis. Exhibit "A" y y * MEMORANDCM * * * TO Candy Reynolds US Fish and Wildlife Service 3704 Griffin Lane SE, Suite 102 Olympia, .Wa. 98501-2192 DA:1'h:: ')paz-- FROM: Phil Birk DAS Construction 1012 Elliott Ave W. Suite 330 Seattle, Wa. 98119 RE: Request for Endangered Species list Z-71( 77/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Per our conversation we are submitting for permits to do some renovation work on an existing bridge over the Duwamish River in Seattle. The bridge is privately owned and there will be no Federal funds involved in the project. Please provide a list of endangered.or..threatened_ species known .to.be.present;in the project area. A Vicinity: map: is 'attached:: Thankyou. v t't 15,4.51. 5 • 1 In — OINtS AV- - `41F.1.39,4 AV 555:!ti Pum- usr ' '/ : �t- ;?,X.;/.:��tG,: }T.y;.i(/:' % vy,: t? li:.ri .'! <:r.:••- O !M/ .2 gdzii Mow' ' Ila/x4' / :.Omtwr49 S2 FTIu 1p/479/ N.(!r%$ a7j / C' jk J fir ✓` 'ma )343 7 .Y.cr 17{4d747/ I AtA C.%s.7' / :4/ viercer glap `lapwe rltwLa frickx Here .':frter1C : v, ,Z'Y,f ' f-vians Flint /7w 4v/-- f0 . c/n�n OXBOW CORPORATE PARK Seattle, Washington ' wIh a.,cr ¢rcJ y, 'ova re cum nnw. «mm.... • 0: ,mm,I.,w,o SI, . . .;;nrw1a.g.' • .um ;.'°",..u..:'.'u'".'.' a'L..713.3. ' : w wv.mw . It un a .,. zn.vw p w .. .♦u . MAW LOOM twm o ww nw.n e • SPA DIOS wx n w3 .. iNw.o. a.+,.mo%vawu4 1" w :=4.111 r, "°•F°"•o7117m m. swlva+w '0„i403130111, wn w a« vro.vrH.nru..auem 3.0041 o, 13.114"1“ • • • • • Itasil not - mus•to , I.. $1111 Ora xstworna 'Ns . • L arr• Es/amour ow KOILLZ01.11 'hi a•oprapi aunt,' ht town a S1 39•11 h•1 AO Ohl., SPONVO./ OW 0010403 MID 111 01.1210hS II 4=161'4 g=3,V.LIXV•rtIRLVolf, =cit. s'""nrolsr ., n w w li lull 6u.o �nwu,.M, �uu ..r.n w wl w oow•,sn rnn p ®Iw�'Mu wlef 14w11u..vnx l'1]rumw4.1 w>5�p1 ' .wv.a W l<'.`Vi.i Wo w a•v uW� bwp I• . moo yy 1i r:111 POISSOI 11i o X •• O .ne •,u..u.. Tw • S310N • .m . Aom itn ..nw.n., ,. w• na•u, ,n.....,.n wow. 0 o CN3031 TIM 90100.10 A. BL ONIOLns 11:02i Ca 191M 1 saAMC. hi, 44041 10l talth•Ph holt 11•• A• :,i noJO s, ' . m ,n..l,rm., • hilhOOS ....017=1 A,.r.Alwort sor. rout., sulcrr rye err. S011010•00111 . 110 P. OP. CPT uu .. mi 10.1 .1111 PUMP MS Oh Oh". WPM 411.0914 31.1 1401 I 1•41 w ..w T"Oh'• h, . OM VISA.. 'OlSVOI nam s. 31%01311833 s.ao,unans awn • suo.: . ' athe :'o1 ,., wr:."or.,•wr.,.wuww.w wv „.n 'aranta'unfi ;tr. SNOU 'W3S3O 111031 • • 'W M "3 4 '3011 `N EZ 'dMJ '4 NOLL038 AO V/l 36 3H1 AO I1 tJ Od V 7 N ry. 41f • 4 trlV-CtY [00L1 ,3,46.d wove NOIDNIHVV - %WA 1V/13034! aaie os 3nN3nY. yl• •:Oo.t V'. ` ' v NOIONIHSVM . H A3n.21f1S 1V01HdVaJOd01. lVllaVd ONb' A3A21nS 31111 oNb'"i WSOV/V1lV uNnoo 9NI - - 311S . M - , . a l .1: 1 I (tjgJ�VV7 . • o 11 NoilvaodaoO A 9YS . oil WS3 'ova re cum nnw. «mm.... • 0: ,mm,I.,w,o SI, . . .;;nrw1a.g.' • .um ;.'°",..u..:'.'u'".'.' a'L..713.3. ' : w wv.mw . It un a .,. zn.vw p w .. .♦u . MAW LOOM twm o ww nw.n e • SPA DIOS wx n w3 .. iNw.o. a.+,.mo%vawu4 1" w :=4.111 r, "°•F°"•o7117m m. swlva+w '0„i403130111, wn w a« vro.vrH.nru..auem 3.0041 o, 13.114"1“ • • • • • Itasil not - mus•to , I.. $1111 Ora xstworna 'Ns . • L arr• Es/amour ow KOILLZ01.11 'hi a•oprapi aunt,' ht town a S1 39•11 h•1 AO Ohl., SPONVO./ OW 0010403 MID 111 01.1210hS II 4=161'4 g=3,V.LIXV•rtIRLVolf, =cit. s'""nrolsr ., n w w li lull 6u.o �nwu,.M, �uu ..r.n w wl w oow•,sn rnn p ®Iw�'Mu wlef 14w11u..vnx l'1]rumw4.1 w>5�p1 ' .wv.a W l<'.`Vi.i Wo w a•v uW� bwp I• . moo yy 1i r:111 POISSOI 11i o X •• O .ne •,u..u.. Tw • S310N • .m . Aom itn ..nw.n., ,. w• na•u, ,n.....,.n wow. 0 o CN3031 TIM 90100.10 A. BL ONIOLns 11:02i Ca 191M 1 saAMC. hi, 44041 10l talth•Ph holt 11•• A• :,i noJO s, ' . m ,n..l,rm., • hilhOOS ....017=1 A,.r.Alwort sor. rout., sulcrr rye err. S011010•00111 . 110 P. OP. CPT uu .. mi 10.1 .1111 PUMP MS Oh Oh". WPM 411.0914 31.1 1401 I 1•41 w ..w T"Oh'• h, . OM VISA.. 'OlSVOI nam s. 31%01311833 s.ao,unans awn • suo.: . ' athe :'o1 ,., wr:."or.,•wr.,.wuww.w wv „.n 'aranta'unfi ;tr. SNOU 'W3S3O 111031 • • 'W M "3 4 '3011 `N EZ 'dMJ '4 NOLL038 AO V/l 36 3H1 AO I1 tJ Od V 7 N ry. 41f • 4