Loading...
7601 OLYMPIC VIEW DR.PDF11111111111111 12633 7601 OLYMPIC VIEW DR STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS LARRYS.NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890-19y_ February 20, 1990 Kenneth W. Kirkpatrick Contracting Officer, Design & Construction Branch Seattle Facilities Service Office, USPS PO Box 5000, Kent, Wa. 98064-5000 SUBJECT: Perrinville Station - USPS Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR We have received your letter of January 25, 1991 and appreciate your statement that the Postal Service is willing to voluntarily comply with State and local laws concerning building codes, permits, environmental requirements, etc. I need to enquire about the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review for the proposed Post Office at the Perrinville location. Has there been a finding that the proposed office development will not be significant, or if no determination has been made, do you intend to make a NEPA determination? The City and the State Department of Wildlife wish to receive formal notification of action regarding the NEPA review process. Environmental mitigation will be required to protect the stream. We are excited about the design possibilities for maintaining the stream and ravine and are willing to work with the architect on design alternatives. Architects around the country are winning design awards by designing buildings that bridge ravines and streams or are otherwise designed to be sensitive to the environment. The Perrinville Post Office could be such a site where a post office building could be designed to either bridge the ravine or designed around the ravine and provide public outlooks to the stream and ravine. This site offers an opportunity that could bring national attention for innovative and environmentally sensitive design. As we have stated in our previous letter, the Post Office proposal should comply with all City and State laws, including but not limited to: Uniform Building and other Construction Code requirements; design review; State Hydraulics Permit review for the stream; State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review; Conditional Use Permits for the use and for grading, if over 500 cubic yards; and any other applicable State or local permits or regulations. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • We look forward to working with you in your design to avoid impacting the stream, and we will be happy to assist you by providing all the necessary forms and whatever pertinent information we possess. Sincerely, nlrok - ii Ed Somers Associate City Planner Mr. Carter Hart Hewitt.Isley 400 Doyle Building 119 Pine Street Seattle, WA 98101-1511 POSTOFF2/TXTEJS62 CURT SMITCH Director STA7�o^ O°R E ET o f` _ N _s 0 Ohl rein ��~ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE KC 2 6 1990 ENGINEERING 16018 Mill Crcck Blvd.. Mill Crcck, WA 98012 Tcl. (206) 775-1311 December 20, 1990 CSA Dick Nelson P. 0. Box 5000 Kent, Washington 98064-5000 RE: PERRINVILLE POST OFFICE STATION ON UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO PUGET SOUND (PERRINVILLE CREEK) IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY Dear Dick: You have asked me to comment on this project as a result of our field review of the project site. The part of the project that directly relates to the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) is the proposal to culvert a 150 foot portion of Perrinville Creek and 100 feet of a tributary to Perrinville Creek. The Department of Wildlife discourages the tightlining of streams even though this section of the creek does not support fish. A 48 inch by 150 foot concrete culvert has been installed downstream from.your project site which is a barrier to fish migration. During a recent electrofishing survey of this stream, we found cutthroat trout up to eight inches just below the 48 inch culvert and we also found coho salmon below the culvert on Talbot Road. We walked the stream below the site to the Sound. We observed excellent fish habitat in the upper reaches. As we proceeded downstream and the gradient changes, the impacts of the effects of stormwater become evident. The channel becomes deeply incised along with slumps and slides in the predominately sandstone banks. There are numerous adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources that would result"if this stream were placed in a culvert. This stream section would cease to function as a biological connection to downstream areas. There would be direct loss of leaf litter input from the deciduous trees. Leaf litter and other organic materials provide a base for the food chain that includes bacteria, aquatic insects and fish. Aquatic insects and terrestrial insects that fall off trees and shrubs from upstream areas provide an important source of food for fish. In addition, an open stream channel will store more water than a culvert and dissipate energy which may help to lessen erosion problems downstream. The densely vegetated riparian area along this stream will be removed and will result in a loss of habitat for songbirds and small mammals. 3 Schneider to Nelson December 20, 1990 Page 2 As you can see, even though this area does not support fish and it has been impacted by previous activities (filling, dumping of refuse, etc.), it still plays an important ecological role. We would recommend -that this stream not be tightlined, which is the same conclusion as the report written by Ebasco Environmental regarding this project. If you proceed with this project, we would require some form of mitigation for loss of this stream. Some of the mitigation . ideas that we discussed during the field -review include: removing the culvert downstream from the site and recreating the stream channel, building a detention pond where the downstream culvert is located that could detain a five year storm to a two year release rate. We would be glad to review any other ideas for mitigating the impacts of this project to fish and wildlife resources. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide early input into this project. A Hydraulic Project Approval will be required from the Department of Wildlife for this project. -If a Corps Notice is issued by the Corps, we can use the notice as a Hydraulic Project Application for'this project. In addition, NEPA and/or SEPA documentation will be required before we can issues an HPA. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 206-774- 8812. Sincerely, Philip Schneider Habitat Biologist PS:ks c: Jim Walker Ted Muller Tony Oppermann �M ATES VOSTAlUNffED5ERV1C£ UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Seattle Facilities Service Office P.O. Box 5000 Kent, WA 98064-5000 Janaury 25, 1991 Ms. Mary Lou Block Manager, Planning Division 2S0 5 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020-3181 Subject: Edmonds, WA - Perrinville Station Dear Ms. Block: STREET FILE JAN ptOWN& OLFT.. Mr. Hart of Hewitt-Isley has requested that we reply to your letter of November 19, 1990 concerning the USPS Perrinville Station project.. We have reviewed your correspondence with our legal staff and consistent with their comments, offer the following response. The Postal Service policy is to comply, as far as possible, with state and local laws concerning building codes, permits, environmental requirements, etc., but, as previously.stated, it is not legally required to submit its plans to design review by local authorities or to obtain building permits. It is the practice of the Postal Service to obtain suitable zoning of property that is acquired for postal construction, but this compliance is voluntary and is not the result of any legal obligation. The Postal Service is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States (39 U.S.C. Sec.201). It is mandated to provide prompt, reliable .and efficient postal services and, in so doing, has been specifically authorized by Congress to acquire real property and to.construct, operate and maintain buildings and improvements on that property (39 U.S.C. Sections 101, 401 (S), (6). The activities of the Postal Service are not subject to local regulation. United States Postal Service v. City of Pittsburg,Cal., 467 F. 979 Supp. 1080 (N.D. Cal. 1, affirmed 661 F 2d 783 9th Cir. 1981 Grover City v. United States Postal Service, 391 F. Supp. 982 (C.D. Cal. 1975 ; see Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. United States Postal Service, 487 F. 2d 1029 D.C. Cir 1973). This freedom from local regulation derives from the Supremacy Clause of Ariticle VI of the Constitution as described in cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 31S (1819), Johnson v. Maryland, 2S4 U.S. 51, S5 1920), United States v. City of Chester, 144 F. 2d 415 3rd Cir. 1944), and Leslie Miller, Inc. V. Arkansas, 3S2 U.S. 187 (1956). Ms. Mary Lou Block Page 2 The Postal Service has generally been able to comply with zoning and building code requirements to the satisfaction of local governments. In the few instances where the Postal Service could not reach an agreement with local officials and litigation was necessary, the Postal Service has been successful in obtaining determinations that its projects are not subject to local governmental control and that it is not required to obtain building permits from local authorities. See, for example, United States Postal Service v. City of Bedford, TX, Civ. No. 4-86-732-B (N.D. Tex September 22, 1986 ; Township of Middletown v. Northeast Regional Office, United States Postal Service, S08 F. Supp. (N.D. Ca. 1980). In the area of environmental concerns, the Postal Service complies with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 and Executive Order 12372, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, including Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 11514. See 39 C.F.R. Parts 775, 7761 and 778. During the design process the Postal Service has examined all alternatives for siting and has concluded that, based on our site requirements, the existing conditions and the efficient use of the property the subject steam must be redirected as indicated on the drawings dated September 19, 1990. The Postal Service has received the 60o submittal from the architect and will be most willing to conduct a second design review or a discussion of alternatives with the City. Please contact the Project Manager, Richard Nelson at 656-4341 if additional information is desired. Sincerely, 4em e t h W. K i r patr "Contracting Officer Seattle Facilities PO Box 5000, Kent, WA Telephone 656-4312 cc: Hewitt-Isley sign $ Construction Branch ice Office, USPS 98064-5000 Y 8 9 0- 19 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CITY OF EDMONDS OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNER E CG E j V E: 447-7000 FAX: 447-2015 FEB 1-2 1991 FNGINEERING February 12, 1991 STREET FILE Mary Lou Block, Peter Hahn W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorne6.adr Post Office Property NEPA Review LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR We have reviewed the letter forwarded to you from the Post Office regarding the City's lack of regulatory authority --that is, its inability to require building and other permits for the Post Office. The law which they cite is good law but begs an important question. Among the cases they cite are cases involving situations in which a federal agency (the Post Office) has found that their action is not environmentally significant and therefore has not followed the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). NEPA procedures would be applicable to any action which has environmental significance. In other words, they do not have to follow our process or adhere to state SEPA mitigation bindings but are subject to NEPA. As the responsible entity, they conduct their own environmental review. In discussions with Mary Lou, it appears that the City has received no formal notification of action regarding the NEPA review process. This implies that there has been a finding that this action is not environmentally significant. If the City and the State wish to require environmental mitigation with regard to the stream, my suggestion is that you immediately initiate a letter to the Post Office inquiring regarding the status of NEPA review. If the Post Office found that the action is not significant or refuse to follow through with NEPA review, the City and state's option is to pursue injunctive relief in federal court. Given that the majority of the headwaters of this stream would be underneath a large parking lot with all the environmental impacts that it would cause, this seems on the surface to be a good case to pursue. I suggest that the City work in conjunction with the State if it intends to pursue litigation. Unless the City is prepared to resort to litigation, given the Post Office's posture, there is no other remedy available to 2100 Westlake Center Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue. Seattle. WA 98101-1686 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 - Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan you. I suggest this matter be reviewed with Council to see if litigation will be authorized. WSS/klt cc: Jeff Palmer Members of the City Council WSS53090M/0006.150.094 890. 199 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction:/ C 'gqj L_,).A6t 1- / B. Type of Work (be specific) (., V(,t,C+•+t ✓tt� C. Contractor: l OO NSI-. 1 `/ Contact: 1^11 Q Mailing Address: 1'77.6) ZOEYE-N 1z;'F-, Phon 904 tic? N • iN . q 'L State License #: 12CT in I Z L Liability '.Insurance: _ Bond: .$ yr D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project Utility. (PUD, "GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: OA. INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : Yes ❑No G. Size of Cut: /,3 H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ AND��' t . INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees -to hold the City of Edmonds hatniless fr?Pinjuhh--images, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeen, that may be.mnde against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments -or employ- ees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs; and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A'PERIOD QF ONE YEAR FOLL04INd -7-H. iF.4NAL INSPEC77ON AND ACCEPTANCE OF.THE WORK. E'S77MA7ED RESTORA 77ON FEES WILL BE HELD UN77L THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH 77ME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Department- Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion.-71�0220 Restoration is. to. be in accordance.with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. ` Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City'Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved. material prior to the end, of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above s ements and understand the permit re uirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all times r ' spection rposes. Signature: Date: /11_11 -Z? — 91?1 ontractor or A t f CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK CE . Engrg. Div. 1991 .. .. i � T _ .. � 1- \- ._� � .. .� �!'.. �����.. uLn .vli^ ._11. "' - . -\.s .'� ♦�.Jw.' f•' ✓ .. FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund I I I - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments• Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION 0 YES 0 NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved. By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: eng. um ju i. 42 i11QlN� : r- G�'c .*,.�:s.��..,,r,i,tau$'�ti�.F+rYr'^fy,,.rvr•a&'Ytir+`J.:e`Lo....y:,P-r�tc�..r•a•a.-R'.rP.......r-•'-•:°wvti;,;...�, �4 .xJ.w''cJ.g; { FILE STREET JON2. ri �a �ci PUB 92.. ` CITY' OF EDMOI�D�c WORKS DEPT. SIDE SEWER PERMIT 1890 190 ... PERMIT,�fa v�J Address of Construction: Property Legal Description (Include all easements): . � LYNNWpDp I.IN>` Owner and/or Contractor: U S �aS fk`- Ste/i�C %'KA- _g*V CtyVS`T?2uc7-1 0.0 -72vL State License No. "K&RNA<--i1OS? S1'-- Building Permit No. ❑ Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial. Public - Invasion into City Right -of -Way: 1�r No ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property: K No ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. 6 /ZS/�Z Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3!90 °z H w z R . o U o Z Z a pq r H z 0 oe H o O H O H °" O a V A A d P Q w O z OV a z ll) A c� i �a nnQ' Q l� w A as � O a I I .►- — — ' a•A ji 3 Q w X LO 0 0 0 a