Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA E03-003 - GALLIANO'S CUCINA - CONSTRUCTION OF 3000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT
GALLIANOS CUCINA 14201 INTERURBAN AVE S E03 -003 • Cizy of Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION TO: David Thorstad, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction All Parties of Record June 20, 2003 This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L03 -017, Galliano's Cucina Restaurant Applicant: David Thorstad, for Mario Galliano Type of Permit Applied for: Administrative Design Review Project Description: Construction of a 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant/deli with drive- through pick -up window Location: 14201 Interurban Avenue South Associated Files: E03 -003 (environmental review), L03 -036 (tree cutting permit) Comprehensive Plan Regional Commercial/Mixed Use Designation Zoning District: Regional Commercial/Mixed Use LI. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously: determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. determined that the project, as proposed, does not require a threshold determination under SEPA because it qualifies as a planned action pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -172, that the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project were adequately analyzed in the EIS previously prepared for the planned action and will implement the conditions and mitigation measures imposed by the planned action . approval. X determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS), or 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • Galliano's Cucina Notice of Decision June 20, 2003 determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions, or determined that the project creates a probable significant environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project. Decision on.Substantive Permit: The Community Development Director has determined that the application for administrative design review for a restaurant does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, subject to any conditions that are set forth in the Decision based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. The following condition was applied: "A pedestrian crosswalk must be added leading from the north parking lot to the restaurant's back entrance to provide safer access for pedestrians." Please note that a tree cutting permit, L03 -036, must be approved that will provide additional landscaping to mitigate for trees removed from the base of the slope. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010. Other land use applications related to -this project may still be pending. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. One administrative appeal to the Planning Commission -Board of Architectural Review of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. If an MDNS was issued, any person wishing to challenge either the conditions that were imposed by the MDNS decision or the failure of the Department to impose additional conditions in the MDNS must raise such issues as part of the appeal to the Planning Commission. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Planning Commission decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, 5:00 .p.m., Monday, July 7, 2003. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. c:mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\NotDec- AdmDR.doc 2 • • Galliano's Cucina Notice of Decision June 20, 2003 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any specific challenge to an MDNS. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Planning Commission based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Planning Commission decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Any party wishing to challenge the Planning Commission decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the Planning Commission Adecision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. The City's decision to issue a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS is final for this permit and any other pending permit applications for the development of the subject property. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 206 -431 -3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Dep ent ofCommunity Development City of Tukwila c:mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\NotDec- AdmDRdoc 3 • City of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Prepared June 19, 2003 Notice of Application mailed to applicant, agencies with jurisdiction May 2, 2003 Notice of Application posted on site May 2, 2003 L03 -017 E03 -003 (State Environmental Policy Act review) L03 -019 (Boundary Line Adjustment) David Thorstad, for Mario Galliano Administrative design review approval for a 3,000 square foot restaurant and deli with drive through pick -up and 48 parking stalls. 14201 Interurban Avenue South Regional Commercial/Mixed Use Regional Commercial/Mixed Use Determination of Nonsignificance Approval with Conditions Carol Lumb, Senior Planner A. Site Plan and Building Elevations B. Landscaping Plan C. Materials Display D. Applicant's Response to Design Review Criteria E. Lighting Fixtures 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Staff Report to DCD Director Gallianb's Cucina Restaurant, L03 -017 FINDINGS Vicinity /Site Information A. Project Description: The proposal is to construct a 3,000 square foot restaurant and deli with 48 parking stalls. B. Existing Development: The site is vacant, with dense vegetation on the hillside that forms the western boundary of the site. C. Surrounding Land Use: The site is located on Interurban Avenue with South 141st Place forming the northern boundary, with office uses on the east across Interurban and a residential house converted to an office on the south. Residential development is located above the site at the top of the slope on 59th Place South. D. Terrain: The terrain is flat with steep slopes on the west. The slope is densely vegetated. The portion of the site that will be developed is flat. E. Vegetation: The slope on the west side of the site is densely vegetated, although most of the slope is not part of the applicant's property. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan to comply with the landscaping code. Some trees on the slope were cleared without a Tree Cutting permit; a mitigation plan will be required with the tree cutting permit. F. Public Facilities: The site is served by Tukwila sewer and water services. Interurban Avenue South and S. 141St Place provide vehicle access to the site. 2 c: \mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Staff Report to DCD Director Galliano's Cucina Restaurant, L03 -017 DECISION CRITERIA The project is subject to Administrative Design Review approval as required by TMC 1 8.26.070. In the following discussion, the design review criteria are shown below in bold, followed by staff's comments. For the applicant's response to the criteria, please see Attachment B. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the ' site. Response: The majority of the site is flat, with steep slopes forming the western boundary. The landscaping plan provides planting materials in the front of the site along Interurban to help screen the parking area. The garbage collection area is located on the north side of the building and is screened by fencing. The height of the building is 24 feet, which is consistent with the office buildings across the street and the building adjacent on the south and fits with the terrain of the site. 2. Relationship of structure and site to adjoining area. A. Harmony of texture, lines and masses is encouraged; B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established neighborhood character; D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: The proposed restaurant is adjacent to a two story single family home that has been converted to an office building; one -story office buildings are located across the street. The height of the proposed restaurant is similar to the other structures in the area. Pedestrians are brought to the front door via a sidewalk from the parking area closest to the building. There is also a sidewalk that brings patrons onsite from the public sidewalk on Interurban. A pedestrian crosswalk will be required to connect the north parking lot to the north end of the 3 c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Staff Report to DCD Director Galliano's Cucina Restaurant, L03 -017 restaurant, which has a rear entrance to the building. This will draw attention for vehicles to the possibility of pedestrians entering the driveway from the parking lot. The site is landscaped on the east side of the property with shrubs and Norway Maple trees to screen the restaurant from the house which has been converted to office use. To ensure driver safety at the site driveways, the driveway onto 58th Avenue South and the northern-most driveway onto Interurban Avenue South will be restricted to a right - in/right -out access only. The southern driveway will have no restrictions on movement. The appropriate on -site signage and c- curbing on Interurban Avenue South and 58t Avenue South will be required to ensure these traffic movements. 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment. A. .Where existing topographic patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced; B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic; mitigating steps should be taken; E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination; G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used; H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: The landscaping plan, Attachment B., illustrates the proposed landscaping for the site. The landscaping plan does not reflect additional trees that will be planted to provide mitigation through a Tree Clearing permit. The Tree Clearing permit is required to address trees on the steep slopes that were removed without a permit. Additional trees will be planted at the base of the slope and in the lawn area adjacent to the parking stalls as mitigation. The applicant is providing two additional feet of landscaping in the front along Interurban. Lawn 4 c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Staff Report to DCD Director Galliano's Cucina Restaurant, L03 -017 . is located on either side of the restaurant along Interurban. The hillside behind the site is located on adjacent property. It is heavily vegetated with trees and brush. Two different types of pole lighting will be used in the parking areas (see Attachment E) with smaller lights mounted on the building and in the landscaping on the front. Most of the pole lighting is nine feet in height, with two poles located on landscape islands in the parking lot 22 feet in height. 4. Building Design. A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings; B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments; C. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportion and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure; D. Colors should be harmonious,.with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view; F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest; Response: The architectural style of the restaurant is "Italian Old World," with stone /river rock on the lower portion of the building facade, tile roof, and arched windows to resemble a cantina. The colors of the Italian national flag, forest green and deep red will be used to provide accents on the building. The windows and front entry-way will be banded with forest green, as will the posts supporting the clear glass coving the front patio entrance. Deep red horizontal bands will be used primarily on the northern side of the building to continue the Italian Old World color scheme. A clear glass covering will be used over the front patio entrance to protect patrons from the weather. The type of light poles selected emphasize the "country/rustic" design of the project. 5 c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\AdmDR -staff rpt.doc • Staff Report to DCD Director Galliano's Cucina Restaurant, L03 -017 5. Miscellaneous structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape; B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Response: Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site: The majority of the site is flat, with steep slopes forming the western boundary. The landscaping plan provides planting materials in the front of the site along Interurban to help screen the parking area. The garbage collection area is located on the north side of the building and is screened by fencing. The height of the building is 24 feet, which is consistent with the office buildings across the street and the building adjacent on the south and fits with the terrain of the site. A pedestrian crosswalk will be required to connect the north parking lot to the north end of the restaurant, where a rear entrance to the building is located. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: The proposed restaurant is adjacent to a two story single family home that has been converted to an office building; one -story office buildings are located across the street. The height of the proposed restaurant is similar to the other structures in the area. Pedestrians are brought to the front door via a sidewalk from the parking area closest to the building. There is also a sidewalk that brings patrons onsite from the public sidewalk. An additional sidewalk will be required to connect the parking area adjacent to South 58th Street to run behind the proposed building on the south side. This will allow separation of pedestrians and vehicles building. The site is landscaped on the east side of the property with shrubs and Norway Maple trees to screen the restaurant from the house which has been converted to office use. 6 c: \mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\AdmDR -staff rpt.doc Staff Report to DCD Director Galliano's Cucina Restaurant, L03 -017 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: The landscaping plan, Attachment B., illustrates the proposed landscaping for the site. The landscaping plan does not reflect additional trees that will be planted to provide mitigation through a Tree Clearing permit. The Tree Clearing permit is required to address trees on the steep slopes that were removed without a permit. The applicant is providing two additional feet of landscaping in the front along Interurban. Lawn is proposed on either side of the restaurant along Interurban in addition to the formal landscaping materials. The hillside behind the site is located on adjacent property. It is heavily vegetated with trees and brush. Two different types of pole lighting will be used in the parking areas (Attachment E) with smaller lights mounted on the building and in the landscaping on the front. Most of the pole lighting is nine feet in height, with two poles located on landscape islands in the parking lot 22 feet in height. 4. Building Design: The architectural style of the restaurant is "Italian Old World," with stone /river rock on the lower portion of the building facade, tile roof, and arched windows to resemble a cantina. The colors of the Italian national flag, forest green and deep red will be used to provide accents on the building. The windows and front entry -way will be banded with forest green, as will the posts supporting the clear glass coving the front patio entrance. Deep red horizontal bands will be used primarily on the northern side of the building to continue the Italian Old World color scheme. A clear glass covering will be used over the front patio entrance to protect patrons from the weather. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the design of the restaurant and the landscaping plan for the site with the following condition: 1. A pedestrian crosswalk must be added leading from the north parking lot to the restaurant's back entrance to provide safer access for pedestrians. Information Item: As noted under the discussion of the project's landscaping, additional trees will be provided under the tree cutting permit, (project file L03 -036) which is still under review. 7 c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\AdmDR -staff rpt.doc STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (425) 649 -7000 February 3, 2004 Mr. Steve Lancaster SEPA Responsible Official City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: Your address is in the uwamish- Green watershed RE: Determination of Non - Significance for Galliano's Cucina (former 7- Eleven #27482 site) Soil Remediation at the intersection of South 142 "d Street and Interurban Avenue South site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SEPA checklist issued January 23, 2004, for the proposed excavation and removal of contaminated soils from the former 7- Eleven #27482 site. We have reviewed the checklist and have the following comments: • Any contractor demolishing or constructing buildings or other structures, foundations, etc., is subject to the State regulatory requirements of designation and appropriate management of any hazardous wastes generated as a result of such work. • Hazardous wastes generated through the use, maintenance, or repair of any construction equipment, vehicles, earth working equipment, paving equipment, etc., are subject to the same regulatory requirements for appropriate management. •' Proper steps to mitigate soil contamination and/or cleanup of contaminated soils are required. • Issues of hazardous waste designation, storage, management, and proper disposal should be addressed as a result of the work proposed in this checklist. A Hazardous Waste permit is not required of this project unless dangerous waste will be received, treated, stored for greater then ninety (90) days, or disposed on site. "Ecology suggests, but does not require, that a copy of this letter be attached to any building/demolition permit for this project." If you have any questions, please call Rachel Best with our Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction (HWTR) Program at (425) 649 -7140. Once again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Rachel Best .: Environmental Specialist. Hazardous`Waste & Toxics Reduction Program RB:§d cc: Julie Sellick, NWRO SEPA #200400523 0 • City of Tgs II Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM January 23, 2004 TO: Interested Parties FM: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official RE: Addendum to E03 -003, Galliano's Cucina Steve Lancaster, Director On May 9, 2003, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the construction of a 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant and 48 -space parking lot. During site excavation work for underground utilities, potentially hydrocarbon- impacted soils were identified. SECOR was hired to conduct a soils investigation. Eight test pits were excavated on September 4, 2003. A total of one groundwater and nine soil samples were collected from six of the test pits. Based on those results, additional site investigation was conducted to define the nature and extent of petroleum impacts on the. site. The additional site investigation determined the presence of a number of chemicals in concentrations greater than permitted by the Model Toxic Control Act. Based on the findings of the investigation SECOR recommended excavation to remove the accessible hydrocarbon- impacted soil. It is estimated that the amount of soil to be removed is approximately 450 cubic yards, which will be replaced with clean soils compacted to City standards. SECOR has provided additional information to supplement the original SEPA Checklist and a detailed Site Investigation Report, which is available for review in the file, E03 -003. After a review of the additional information, I have determined that the original SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance issued May 9, 2003 shall stand. Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official Q.l:alGann'c ('uriria\(:alliann -CFPA Addrndum 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Dept.'Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1. � o-ul HEREBY DECLARE THAT y; 5" Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice t.. Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other UJ'i'l 03— D Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this d a y o f D .,a -n the year 20 Oil - Project Project Name : ('aQit—Lv_S l 14-C- c) , Project Number: en- c3 Mailer's Signature: EDA-(3 Person requesting mailing: P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM -5ez CHEMIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PE. MAILINGS Pay FEDERAL AGENCIES () U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH &WILDLIFE ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. ( ) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV � EPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION " — G.5- 0-4/e- Nom' () OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ? SEC.WL tea✓ SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS ©,s� SAW :01144w: SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION tor r. KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS &REC () K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY () QWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ( ) MAYOR SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR () K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL () K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL () SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: \ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW PL IC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PECTS 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) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part 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 Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -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). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit 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 with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:\ ADMINISTRATIVE \FORMS \CI KLIST.DOC Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 16435 Military Rd. So. SeaTac, WA 98188 David Thorstad 406 So. 289th St. Federal Way, WA 98003 Michael Ricks 14228 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Smooth Feed SheetsTM ptv Ms. Michael Ricks 14228 59th Ave.r.ue Soul' l'ukwila, W Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 164 NE:itary Road Scuth 'eatac, WA 98188 Ms. Michael Ricks\ \. 14228 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 David Thorstad 406 South 289th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 AVERY® Address Labels Ms. Michael. kicks 14728 59th A. >, "or Tukwila, WA .62 4 Gar • n:. `:a •� iii.::` Seat^.; WA ::1 S8 Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 16435 Military Road South Seatac, WA 98188 David Thorstad 406 South 289th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 • Use template for 5160(9 • avid Tnorstad 406 South 289th Street 'edeial Wpy, WA 98003 David Thorstad 406 South 289th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Ms. Michael Ricks 14228 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 „it ibudau �N t- wel `b s; ��'�;� ,• �� r mow® • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 Ms. Maureen Sanchez SECOR 12034 134th court NE, Suite 102 Redmond, WA 98052 ' - SgeuC ' j 0444W• t itiog ah • /� sEC INTERNATIONAL S E C O R INCORPORATED January 22, 2004 Ms. Carol Lumb, AICP Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RE: SEPA Addendum Former 7- Eleven Store 274821 Galliano Property 14201 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, WA Dear Ms. Lumb, www-secor com 12034 134th Court Northeast Suite 102 Redmond, WA 98052 425 372 1600 TEL 425 372 1650 FA( p CoMM 3 1�_ sw EV E�OPMF T Per our conversation last week, I am forwarding the results of the site investigation conducted by SECOR International Incorporated (SECOR) at the above - referenced site (site). A copy of SECOR's Site Investigation (SI) Report is attached with this letter for your files, and includes the results of the soil and groundwater sampling conducted at the site. SECOR is working on this project for 7- Eleven, Inc., a former property owner for the site. As you are aware, the site is currently being developed as a restaurant and associated parking area. The site was formerly 7- Eleven store number 27482 located at the intersection of South 142nd Street and Interurban Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). The 7- Eleven store closed at this location in 1993. During excavation for subsurface utilities, potentially hydrocarbon- impacted soil was identified, and eight test pits were excavated on September 4, 2003. A total of nine soil samples and one grab groundwater samples were collected from six of the test pits. Based on those results, additional site investigation was conducted utilizing direct push (Geoprobe) soil and groundwater sampling methodology to define the nature and extent of petroleum impacts at the site. The key findings of the SI conducted by SECOR are as follows: • Groundwater entered seven of the 10 soil probe locations at 8 -feet bgs. • TPH -G, TPH -D, TPH -O, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and /or cPAHs, were detected at concentrations greater than their respective Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) Method A unrestricted use soil cleanup levels (soil CULs) in soil samples collected from GP -3, GP-4, GP -5, GP -6, GP -7, and GP -8. • TPH -G, TPH -D, TPH -O, and benzene were detected at concentrations greater than their respective MTCA Method A groundwater cleanup levels (groundwater CULs) in groundwater samples collected from GP -3, GP-4, GP -6, GP -7, and GP -8. • Based on the findings of this investigation, SECOR recommends excavation to remove the accessible hydrocarbon - impacted soil. SECOR estimates that the impacted soil volume is approximately 450 cubic yards. In addition, SECOR recommends installation of four R: \Staff17- 11`.74821SEPA addendum letter.doc SECOR International Incorporated groundwater monitoring wells to evaluate hydrocarbon impact to groundwater following completion of the remedial excavation. Based on these findings, SECOR has identified the following SEPA checklist items that require input regarding this new information for the site: Section A, Background, Number 7 — The SI Report is attached with this letter Section A, Background, Number 9 — A Land Alteration Permit will be requested from the City of Tukwila for removal of impacted soils. Section B, Environmental Elements, Earth, e — Based on the results of the SI, it is proposed that approximately 450 cubic yards of impacted soil be removed from the site by excavation. The removed soil will be replaced with non - impacted Class A -1 Pit Run that will be compacted to City of Tukwila requirements. Section B, Environmental Elements, Air, a — Some of the soil being removed contains gasoline - related compounds. However, volatilization should be minimal, as the soil will be direct loaded into trucks for removal, and the work will be conducted during cool weather. In addition, air monitoring will be conducted during excavation site work to ensure worker safety and health. No air impacts are anticipated following completion of the excavation activities. Section B, Environmental Elements, Environmental Health, a — The only potential exposures are to workers at the site during removal activities. However, all work will be conducted by appropriately trained personnel who are equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment, and air monitoring will be conducted during excavation site work to ensure worker safety and health. Environmental health hazards related to impacted soil will be reduced due to the proposed excavation work. If you have any questions or comments regarding the status of the ongoing investigation and proposed remedial action for the site, please contact meat 425/372 -1600. Sincerely, SECOR International Incorporated nchez, L.G. #652 ydrogeologist Enclosure: Site Investigation Report, Former 7- Eleven Facility Number 27482, January 22, 2004 Cc: File R\Staft17- 11l27492 .SEPA addendum letter.doc 2 SECOR International Incorporated William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers /Planners (425) 401 -1030 FAX (425) 401 -2125 e -mail: info @wmpoppassoc.com July 7, 2003 To: Cyndy Knighton Senior Transportation Engineer From: William Popp William Popp Associates Subject: Galliano Cucina Re: Site Driveway Restrictions This memorandum is submitted in response to the City's SEPA determination as it relates to the requirement of implementing C -curb on two of the three driveways. The City, as you know, is requesting that Galliano Cucina north site access driveway to Interurban Avenue and the site access driveway to S 58th St both be limited to right -in right -out with the construction of a C -curb at each roadway. The purpose of this memorandum is to offer alternative mitigating options for the north driveway to Interurban Ave. The April 29, 2003 traffic study suggested implementation of a pork -chop style driveway to restrict left turns out of the driveway. In addition, the study recommended as a simplifying design a right -in only as well. However, the study neglected to consider the impact of this on the drive -thru pick -up window, as it will be nearly impossible for vehicles entering from the south to use the drive -thru given a left - turn in restriction. Given the traffic conditions on the street, the trip generation estimated at the site, and the driveway location, the purpose of this memorandum is to explore an alternative design that only restricts the left -turn out at this driveway. The rationale for this driveway operation concept is discussed below: 1. Preventing left turns from entering the site (at this driveway) will essentially prevent any vehicles coming to the restaurant from the south from utilizing the drive -thru pick -up window. This may result in the diversion of vehicles in and out of private driveways to the north necessary to enter the site, and/or U -turn movements at the Interurban Ave /S 58th St intersection. For example, such diversion movements may include a left turn onto S 58th St from Interurban, a right turn into the auto - electric auto shop parking lot, a right turn out of the parking lot onto Interurban Ave and then proceed south to the driveway. A U -turn movement at the Interurban Ave /S 58th St intersection could result in unsafe conditions, ie., insufficient area for a P- design vehicle to conduct a proper U -turn without conflicts with the eastbound approach 14 -400 Building • Suite 206 • 14400 Bel -Red Road • Bellevue, WA 98007 • • Letter to Cyndy Knighton Re: Galliano Cucina Driveways 7/7/03 Page 2 lanes on the west leg, conflicts with the west leg crosswalk and potential pedestrians, and conflicts with following northbound left turn vehicles. 2. The traffic study concluded that the forecast 2010 northbound thru lane 95th percentile queue during the street peak hour would extend south beyond the north driveway thus it would prevent exiting vehicles from turning left out of the site (to head north on Interurban). Based on this, we have recommended the exit movement be restricted to right -turn out only, albeit off -peak conditions will not be as severe. 3. The forecast 2010 northbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue will not extend beyond this driveway. This queue is estimated to be 53 feet during the street PM peak hour and 60 feet during the noon peak hour. The driveway centerline is located approximately 90 feet south from the northbound left turn stop bar and approximately 100 feet back from the intersection. Based on this, a left turn movement into the site will not fall within the northbound left turn lane queue at the intersection. 4. The traffic study assumed 12 trips (both pass -by and non - pass -by) entering the site from the south on Interurban Ave during the noon peak hour and 9 trips during the street PM peak hour. Assuming half of those trips enter the site at the north driveway (split between the two driveways), the following results are estimated: a) For both peak hour cases (year 2010), the northbound left turn delay turning into the site is 9 seconds per vehicle (sec /veh); LOS A. The majority of this delay would occur when traffic in the southbound thru lanes are moving. Thus, the vehicles in the northbound left turn lane at the signal would be stopped with a red ball indication. b) For both peak hour cases, the 95th percentile queue is essentially zero (0.02 vehicles). Based on this, it is concluded that a northbound left turn into the site at the north driveway would have an insignificant affect on the northbound left turn queue and delay at the Interurban Ave /S 58th St intersection. 5. The signal function for the northbound left turn at the Interurban Ave /S 58th St intersection is a protected left turn phase. The average delay for the northbound left turn is approximately 35 sec /veh (LOS D) for each peak hour case. This delay is estimated not to increase as a result of left turns entering the site. 6. The location of the driveway is just south of the northbound left turn pocket, ie., the left turn lane gore strip is 88 feet long. Assuming a 25 foot inside turning radius for a passenger car, and the driveway centerline is 2 feet back from the end of gore stripe, a vehicle turning left into the site at the north driveway would stop and/or initiate a left turn approximately 27 feet south from the end of the northbound left turn pocket channelization gore stripe. 7. Last and not least, the owner believes the loss of the left turn in will severely diminish the intended use of the drive -thru window and could result in the failure of the business. William Popp Associates • • Letter to Cyndy Knighton Re: Galliano Cucina Driveways 7/7/03 Page 3 Based on the information presented above, we are requesting that the C -curb requirement affecting left turns in to the site at the north site driveway to Interurban Ave be re- evaluated. Left turns entering the site at this driveway are necessary for the successful operation of the drive -thru pick up window. As shown in the calculations above, the impact on the northbound left turn movement at the Interurban Ave /S 58th St intersection is estimated to be insignificant. Preventing left -turns out of this driveway can be effectively accommodated with a driveway raised curb pork -chop design and appropriate signage. I trust that the information presented above is adequate for your review and consideration. Appropriate level -of- service calculations are attached however a design has not yet been drafted to depict a pork -chop that will prevent left turns from exiting the site. Attachments: 2010 Noon and PM Peak Hour LOS calculations at the Interurban Ave /north site access driveway with left -turns in allowed William Popp Associates Cyndy Knighton - Galliano Cucina Page 1 From: "Bill Popp Jr" <bpoppjr @wmpoppassoc.com> To: "Cyndy Knighton" <cknighton @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: Wed, May 21, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: Galliano Cucina Cyndy, I understand that the City's SEPA determination has been sent out. I did not receive a copy and am not sure I was supposed to. Nevertheless, I want to respond, as requested by Mario, to the c -curb requirement imposed on the north driveway to Interurban. My comments are as follows: a.. After re- reviewing the 4/29/03 TIA, I think we may have not given appropriate consideration of the 'successful operation of the business model'. With both of the north driveways limited to right -in, right -out, the pick -up window cannot serve vehicles from the south. Our report concluded that the northbound thru lane queue would extend beyond the north driveway thus for most of the time it will prevent exiting vehicles from turning left out of the site (to head north on Interurban). Thus, our recommendation that the driveway be designed for right -out still stands, plus motorists wishing to go north on Interurban have the option to make a right at the 58th driveway and then left at the signal. However, the TIA continued to suggest the driveway be designed for right -in right -out only. This conclusion was made as a matter of convenience and did not adequately consider the impact this would have on the pick -up window. With right -in right -out at both of the north driveways, the pick -up window cannot adequately serve vehicles 'approaching from the south; unless these vehicles make a U -turn at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave intersection. On page 15, the TIA noted that "left turns into the site which store in the northbound left turn lane may occasionally block use of this lane for vehicles turning left at 58th Ave S." I think it would be appropriate to maintain the right -in right -out for the driveway to 58th. Thus, I did a follow up analysis for the Noon Peak Hour at the north driveway to Interurban, and assumed all of the project trips from the south turn into the north driveway on Interurban (12 trips, both pass -by and non - pass -by). The LOS is A for the left turn and the 95th percentile queue is essentially zero. Thus, while it may be true that on occasion a vehicle turning left into the site may block use of the left turn lane to 58th, it is estimated the occurance will be minimal (up to 12 veh per hour during lunch), the LOS will be A and the queue will be zero. Furthermore, the 95th percentile queue for the 2010 noon peak hour northbound left turn at the signal is estimated to extend 60 feet back from stop bar, whereas the driveway is located approximately 90 feet back. Therefore, at this point I would like to ask you to reconsider the right -in right -out recommendation at this driveway and discuss options. I feel that a 1/2 pork -chop island at this driveway with signing could prevent left turns out while allowing right -out, left-in and right -in. Another option I have is to design this driveway for a one -way inbound only. At this time, I would like to find out your position on this matter. Then we could proceed accordingly. Thank you for your time. Bill Popp Jr. 425 - 401 -2124 William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers /Planners (425) 401 -1030 FAX (425) 401 -2125 e -mail: info @ewmpoppassoc.com TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ADDENDUM for Galliano Cucina Prepared for: Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano Cucina Restaurants Prepared by: William Popp Associates 14 -400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel -Red Rd Bellevue, WA 98007 July 14, 2003 CITY OF CKWIIA jut. Iy91 /3 PERMIT CENTER Do5.- 14 -400 Building • Suite 206 • 14400 Bel -Red Road • Bellevue, WA 98007 Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (7/14/03) Galliano Cucina Introduction The traffic study presented herein is an addendum to the Galliano Cucina Traffic Impact Analysis submitted to the City dated April 29, 2003. The purpose of this addendum is to submit new analysis, rationale, and mitigation options for design and installation of a left - turn-in movement at the north site driveway on Interurban Avenue. There are no modifications to the driveway recommendations at 58th Ave S nor the south driveway to Interurban Ave. Background The April 29, 2003 traffic study recommended that the north driveway to Interurban Ave operate as a right -in right -out only driveway, the south driveway to Interurban Ave be full access, and the driveway to 58th Ave S restrict left turns from entering the site. The recommendation at the north driveway to Interurban Ave suggested a design that included a pork -chop median to ensure right -turn only maneuvers. The City in its' review, also made the requirement that a C -curb be constructed to further prevent lefts in and out of this driveway. Based on the analysis presented in the 4/29/03 traffic study, in particular the length of the northbound queuing, it was concluded that a left- turn-out would not be appropriate. It should be expressly noted that for the left - turn-in consideration at this driveway, the preliminary review and analysis as part of the original traffic study indicated the left -turn- in volume would be very light, there would no level of service concerns, nor significant queuing conflicts with the northbound left turn lane, nor channelization conflicts, nor was there any evidence of significant existing accident concerns. The basis for restricting left - turns into this driveway was based only on the fact there exists a full access driveway 220 feet to the south and to simplify the design of the north driveway, ie., there was no calculation based reason for the left- turn-in restriction. A restriction of left turns -out was recommended based on queue blockage, and as a matter of convenience the driveway was recommended as a right -in right -out. It was also assumed for purposes of presenting a worst case scenario, that all traffic would enter the southern driveway. However, the owner of the project has expressed concern regarding the function of the drive -thru pick -up window with a left- turn-in restriction. The original study did not consider the impact of this left- turn -in restriction on the drive -thru pick -up window. In 4. iii' further review, it would be nearly impossible for vehicles entering from the south (without significant back - and -forth maneuvering on -site) to use the drive -thru given a left -turn in restriction at the north driveway on Interurban Ave. 4/4 4444,%144 Therefore, this addendum to the 4/29/03 traffic study divulges in greater detail the impacts a left- turn -in condition at the north driveway to Interurban Ave. The analysis discusses y 74 William Popp Associates 144ge 2 ` Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (7/14/03) Galliano Cucina the modified project traffic assignment at the project driveways, level of service results at the north driveway with a left turn option, a re- analysis of queue lengths, safety, and an initial driveway design option. They are all discussed below. Traffic Assignment The original report assumed 12 noon peak hour trips and 9 PM peak hour trips would originate from the south and turn left into the south driveway. For this analysis, it was assumed that 50% of those trips would enter the north driveway. Thus, the revised assignment of noon peak hour project trips assumes 6 trips enter the site at the north driveway and 6 at the south driveway. The revised assignment of street PM peak hour project trips assumes 4 trips at the north driveway and 5 trips at the south driveway. None of the other entering trip patterns were changed, nor were any of the exiting trip patterns. It should be noted that approximately 50% of these trips are pass -by trips already on the street system. Level of Service For both the noon and street PM peak hour cases (year 2010 with project), the northbound left turn delay turning into the site is 9 seconds per vehicle (sec /veh); LOS A. The majority of this delay would occur when traffic in the southbound thru lanes are moving. Thus, the vehicles in the northbound left turn lane at the signal would be stopped with a red ball indication and thus the delay realized by the vehicle entering the site will not significantly impede the vehicle turning north at 58th Ave S. Based on this, it is concluded that a northbound left turn maneuver into the site at the north driveway will experience minimal delay and would not have a significant affect on delay for northbound left -turn vehicles at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection. The signal function for the northbound left turn at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection is a protected left turn phase, ie., this movement is stopped when the southbound thru movement is green. The average delay for the northbound left turn at 58th Ave S is approximately 35 sec /veh (LOS D) for each peak hour case in 2010. This delay is assumed not to increase as a result of left turns entering the site. Queuing A queue analysis was conducted for the northbound left turn into the north driveway for both peak hours in 2010. The 95th percentile queue for non - signalized intersections is an output of the Highway Capacity Software. For both peak hour cases, the 95th percentile queue is essentially zero (0.02 vehicles). Thus, it is concluded there will be minimal William Popp Associates Page 3 • • Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (7/14/03) Galliano Cucina blockage in the northbound left turn lane with vehicles turning left into the north site driveway. In addition, given the concerns regarding the inclusion of a northbound left turn at the north driveway to Interurban Ave, the queue analysis conducted in the original traffic study at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection for the 2010 with project noon and street PM peak hours was revisited and fine - tuned. The queues reported were for the northbound and eastbound approaches only. The modifications to the queue analysis are discussed below: • The original analysis was based on the LOS signal timings and assumed a 60 second green time (within a 105 second cycle length) for the northbound /southbound phase. However, due to the fact the southbound left turn volume is much lighter than the northbound left turn volume, the southbound left turn signal green time in general will time -out sooner than the northbound left turn green time. The LOS analysis assumed a 5 second overlap phase where the northbound left and northbound thru run concurrently. Thus, for the queue analysis an additional 5 seconds of green time was added to the northbound thru phase which was not initially included, ie., the northbound thru phase will run 5 seconds longer than the southbound thru phase. • In addition, it is assumed that due to the extremely low volume for the southbound left turn movement, this signal phase will not always realize a signal call. There are only 6 vehicles (street PM peak hour, 2010 with project) and 2 vehicles (noon peak hour, 2010 with project) that are estimated to make the southbound left turn movement. Assuming a 105 second cycle length, there would be approximately 34 cycles during a given hour. Also, assuming there would be one vehicle per cycle, the maximum number of cycles which will realize a signal call would be 6; out of 34. Finally, assuming a minimum green time of 10 seconds each time the signal is called, this would equate to 60 seconds of green time over the course of 34 cycles (or one hour). Therefore, over the course of the peak hour, a green time of 2 seconds per cycle was inputted into the LOS and queue analysis (60 seconds / 34 cycles = 2 sec /cycle). The previous analysis assumed a conservative 10 seconds per cycle for the southbound phase. Thus, for this analysis 8 seconds was transferred from the southbound left turn phase to the northbound thru phase. • All -in -all, the new analysis assumes 73 seconds of green time per cycle for the northbound thru movement. This is derived from adding 5 seconds and 8 seconds to the original green time assumption of 60 seconds. The resultant 95th percentile queue lengths are noted below in Table 1. The complete queueing results are presented in Table 2 at the end of this study. William Popp Associates Page 4 • • Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (7/14/03) Galliano Cucina Table 1 Peak Hour Queuing Estimates a Intersection/Approach 2010 Peak Hour with Project Traffic Avg 95th Percentile Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Noon Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Northbound Left Turn Lane 22 60 (peak case) Northbound Thru Lanes 87 136 Eastbound Left/Thru Lane 26 75 Eastbound Right Turn Lane 16 45 Interurban Ave /north site access Northbound Left Turn 0 0 Interurban Ave /south site access Eastbound Exit Lane (left and right) 0 0 58th Ave S /site access Northbound Exit Lane (right only) 0 0 Street PM Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Northbound Left Turn Lane 18 53 Northbound Thru Lanes 131 198 (peak case) Eastbound Left/Thru Lane 56 110 (peak case) Eastbound Right Turn Lane 33 83 (peak case) Interurban Ave /north site access Northbound Left Turn 0 0 Interurban Ave /south site access Eastbound Exit Lane (left and right) 0 0 58th Ave S /site access Northbound Exit Lane (right only) 0 0 Based on 3,000 gsf It should be noted that the only queue length which was modified from the original traffic study was the northbound thru lane. As shown in Table 1, the northbound thru lane average queue in 2010 with the project is estimated to be 87 feet per lane during the noon peak hour and 131 feet per lane during the street PM peak hour. The 95th percentile queue, which implies that 95 percent of the time this queue will not be exceeded, is 136 feet per lane during the noon peak hour and 198 feet during the street PM peak hour. It should be noted that the maximum queue of 198 feet per lane does not extend beyond the two -way left turn lane channelization. In fact, the maximum back of queue for the 2010 critical peak hour condition is estimated to be approximately 30 feet north of where the two -way left turn lane ends. Refer to Figure 1 for the noon peak hour 95th percentile queues and Figure 2 for the PM peak hour 95th percentile queues. William Popp Associates Page 5 • • Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (7/14/03) Galliano Cucina Safety The northbound left turn lane on Interurban Ave at 58th Ave S is approximately 88 feet long and the deceleration zone between the left turn pocket and the two -way left turn lane is 140 feet. A vehicle turning left into the site at the north driveway would turn at approximately the back of the left turn pocket thus there is more than adequate distance (140 feet + / -) for the taper and deceleration zone. A taper rate of 8:1, or approximately 100 feet for a twelve foot lane, is commonly used in urbanized areas. Steeper rates are sometimes used when it is recognized that peak hour volumes demand longer storage and vehicle speeds are significantly slower. Even with an 8:1 taper, this suggests that a vehicle turning left into the site at the north driveway can utilize the existing deceleration zone without encroaching on the two -way left -turn lane for deceleration purposes. Furthermore, the estimated maximum back of queue for the northbound thru will not cause the vehicles turning left into the site or to 58th Ave S to encroach on the two -way left turn lane. Lastly, the north driveway is located approximately 100 feet south from the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection such that there would be adequate visibility for motorists turning left into the site to see eastbound right turning and westbound left turning vehicles; 57 and 1 vehicles respectively during the street PM peak hour. A left turn in restriction at this driveway may force vehicles wishing to use the drive -thru pick -up window to conduct undesirable movements such as: back - and -forth maneuvering on -site; a northbound -to- southbound U -turn at the intersection (of which there is not sufficient distance without encroachment on the crosswalk); travel up 58th Ave S and make a U -turn at the 58th Ave S/S 142nd St intersection; or divert through private property on the northwest corner of the intersection or the northeast corner. Part of the City's requirement for installing a C -curb on Interurban Ave is to reduce the potential conflict between vehicles traveling north and turning left at 58th Ave S and vehicles traveling south and turning left at the first driveway on the east side of Interurban Ave S south of 58th Ave S, previously referred to as the office park driveway. With or without the project, this potential conflict will exist. The two -way left -turn lane extends approximately 45 feet north from the centerline of the office park driveway after which the channelization marking is a double yellow centerline stripe. Legally, a southbound vehicle cannot enter the two -way left -turn lane until such time the two -way left -turn lane channelization markings begin. The accident history suggests that motorists drive this zone properly. In discussions with the larger jurisdictions of the area (WSDOT, King County, City of Seattle, City of Bellevue) none of them have any current standard design plan that would further delineate the end of a TWTL such as a bullet or nose cone. In all circumstances they recognize that motorists may enter the TWTL early (ie., in the transition zone) and the head -on potential conflicts are recognized as a part of the nature of a TWTL. William Popp Associates Page 6 • • Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (7/14/03) Galliano Cucina Driveway Design The driveway design includes sole use of a pork -chop driveway designed to deter the majority of motorists from turning left out of the site. This proposed design consists of a pork -chop driveway to Interurban Ave with an intersection type access. The pork -chop driveway design consists of a radius driveway entrance and exit (rather than a curb cut ramp). The exiting lane includes an inside and outside radius of 30 feet with a starting lane width of 10 feet (per the site plan) and ending with a width of 12 feet. The exiting approach angle is approximately 45 degrees from a perpendicular approach. The design is based on a P- design vehicle per 2001 AASHTO. A raised island approximately 6'x10' will be located at the edge of traveled way on Interurban to promote the right turn out only movement. The curb radius for vehicles entering the site is 20 feet which allows approximately 15 feet of lane width at the entrance. The design should also include signing to further promote the right turn out only movement. Since this is a radius driveway, the sidewalk is replaced with a 6' wide crosswalk. The design is shown in Figure 2. It is estimated that a commercial driveway design with two curb -cuts, a flared exit approach with a short full height curb between the entrance and exit, and a continuous sidewalk across the driveway will assist the right turn out movement however a C -curb may be required in this case to ensure left turns out are restricted. Conclusions Based on the information presented above, it concluded as part of this traffic study addendum that allowing left turns to enter the north site driveway on Interurban Ave will not create a significant adverse impact. The recommended design for the driveway includes a radius driveway design with a half pork -chop that enforces a right -turn out only movement and allows full access entering. This design is presumed to restrict the vast majority of left turns out from the driveway. A C -curb was proposed by the City to insure left -turns out are prevented and reduce the potential head -on conflicts in the center lane on Interurban Ave between 58th Ave S and the office park driveway. It is the conclusion of this study that the TWTL and transition area is not an atypical situation and motorists come to recognize the potential head -on conflicts within and around TWTL's. William Popp Associates Page 7 Intersection (Movement) Volume Interurban Ave /58th Ave S 200213 PM PK Northbound Approach Left Thru/Right Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 2010 PM PK without project Northbound Approach Left Thru/FFiglit Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 2010 PM PK with project Northbound Approach Left Thru/Right Eastbound Approach Lef/Thru Right 56 1 ante GALLIANO CUCINA - QUEUE ESTIMATES Right Tum on PHF Red Flow Rate Avg Cycle (sec) Green' G/C Ratio Cycles per Hour % Red Avg 0 95% 0 Number 95% 0 per 95% 0 per Avg 0 per (veh) (veh) of Lanes Lane (veh) Lane (ft) lane (ft) 12 0 0.96 13 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.3 0.9 983 0 0.96 1024 105 73 0.695 34.3 30% 9.1 14.1 72 0 0.96 75 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.9 3.8 49 5 0.96 46 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.1 3.1 24 0 0.96 25 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 1130 0 0.96 1177 105 73 0.695 34.3 30 %* 10.5 15.8 83 0 0.96 86 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 2.2 4.2 56 6 0.96 52 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.3 3.3 27 0 0.96 28 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 2.1 1132 0 0.96 1179 105 73 0.695 34.3 30% 10.5 15.8 86 2002/3 NOON PK Northbound Approach Left Thru/Right Eastbound Approach LefUThru Right 2010 NOON PK without project Northbound Approach Left Thru/Right Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 2010 NOON PK with project Northbound Approach Left Thru/Right Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 0 0.96 6 0.96 89 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 2.2 4.4 52 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.3 3.3 24 0 0.9 27 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 1.8 637 0 0.9 708 105 73 0.695 34.3 30% 6.3 10.2 28 0 0.9 31 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.8 2.1 24 2 0.9 24 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 26 0 0.9 29 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 2.1 702 0 0.9 780 105 73 0.695 34.3 30% 6.9 10.9 31 0 0.9 34 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.9 2.4 26 3 0.9 26 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 31 0 0.9 34 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.9 2.4 705 0 0.9 783 105 73 0.695 34.3 30% 7.0 10.9 38 0 0.9 42 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.1 3 26 3 0.9 26 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 from HCS assumptions for signal cycle CUCINAXL2.2010 Queues 7114103 1 0.9 23 8 2 7.1 176 114 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3.8 3.1 1.8 7.9 4.2 3.3 2.1 7.9 95 78 45 47 29 16 198 131 105 83 53 54 33 18 198 131 4.4 110 56 3.3 1.8 5.1 2.1 1.8 83 45 128 33 17 79 53 19 45 15 2.1 53 18 5.5 136 87 2.4 1.8 2.4 5.5 3.0 1.8 60 45 22 16 60 22 136 87 75 26 45 16 William Popp Associates • If 1 BUS PULLOUT man ® ii i= N. EMIR INTERURBAN AVE Year 2010 Noon Pk with Project 95th Percentile Queues (maximum condition) O 2.4 veh. 60 feet, St PM PK ZQ 5.5 veh, 136 feet; St PM PK l°/ 3.0 veh, 75 feet; St PM PK ® 1.8 veh, 45 feet; St PM PK GALLIANO CUCINA SITE 0 25 50 100 SCALE 1 " =50' FIGURE 1: NOON PEAK QUEUES • — j BUSn ® ® ® ® ®I CECE ® Wan astreg embalm INTERURBAN AVE tal•/q TwWa{ATr" T7•wandw Proposed North Driveway Pork -Chop Design Year 2010 PM PK with project 95th Percentile Queues (maximum condition) Q 2.1 veh, 53 feet, St PM PK 20 7.9 veh, 198 feet St PM PK Q 4.4 veh, 110 feet; St PM PK ® 3.3 veh, 83 feet; St PM PK GALLIANO CUCINA SITE O 25 50 SCALE 1 " =50' 100 FIGURE 2: DESIGN OPTION 1 •OWAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY • General Information • Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4!28/03 Analysis Time Period NOON PK _ Intersection Interurban Ave/n. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project Description Galliano Cucina, with project East/West Street: north site access ]North /South Street: lntenrrhan Ave Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments ajor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 6 737 0 0 724 9 • eak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 737 0 0 724 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - — edian Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 onfiguration L r T T TR Uestream Signal 0 _ 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 _ 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 4 Peak -Hour Factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 - T Channelized _ 0 0 .nes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ionfiguration _ _ R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service_ s proach NB SB Wlestbound Eastbound ovement 1 4 _ 7 8 9 10 11 12 . ne Configuration L R (vph) 6 4 (m) (vph) 881 637 lc 0.01 0.01 • 5% queue length 0.02 - 002 Control Delay 9.1 10.7 LOS A _ B • pproach Delay — -- 10.7 • .proach LOS — — - B HC S11N)O Copyright 02000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version tic 0-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency /Co. WIIiam Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Analysis Time Period PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave/n. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 _ Project Description Galliano Cucina East/West Street: north site access North/South Street: Interurban Ave Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Periodlhrs): 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound _ Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 1159 0 0 696 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 1159 0 0 696 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ - - _ 0 - — Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal _ 0 _ 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T _ R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes _ 0 0 0 0 _ 0 1 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SS Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 5 8 C (m) (vph) 905 652 v/c 0.01 _ 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 _ _ 0.04 Control Delay 9.0 10.6 LOS' A B Approach Delay — — 1 0. 6 Approach LOS -- — B HC :C20001v4 Copyright 02000 University of Florida. AU Rights Reserved Version 4.1e • William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers /Planners (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401 -2125 e -mail: info @ewmpoppassoc.com TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for Galliano Cucina Prepared for: Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano Cucina Restaurants Prepared by: William Popp Associates 14 -400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel -Red Rd Bellevue, WA 98007 April 29, 2003 14 -400 Building • Suite 206 • 14400 Bel -Red Road • Bellevue, WA 98007 Traffic Impact Analysis • Galliano Cucina TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 I. Project Description 1 II. Site Inventory 1 Existing Roadway Network 1 Accident Data 3 Transit Service 3 Pedestrian Services 3 III. Project Trip Generation 3 Primary, Pass -by, and Diverted Link Trips 4 Trip Generation Summary 5 IV. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment 5 V. Traffic Volumes 6 Existing Traffic Counts 6 Historical Growth 6 Future Traffic Volumes 7 VI. Level -of- Service and Queuing 7 Level of Service 7 Queuing 10 VIII. Driveway Safety 12 Driveway Volumes 12 Sight Distance 12 Queuing 14 Accident History 14 Summary 14 VIII. Conclusions 15 IX. Mitigation 16 William Popp Associates Page i Traffic Impact Analysis (4/2910) Galliano Cucina Introduction The following report was prepared to identify the traffic related impacts of the proposed Galliano Cucina restaurant on Interurban Avenue in the City of Tukwila. This traffic study documents the project's trip generation and distribution of project trips in and out of the site and to the surrounding street system in accordance with the City of Tukwila requirements. Based on project traffic trip generation, distribution and assignment of both noon and street PM peak hour trips, the city requested the analysis address the project impacts at the following intersections: • Interurban Ave /S 58th St (noon and street PM peak) • Interurban Ave /south site access (noon and street PM peak) • Interurban Ave /north site access (noon and street PM peak) • S 58th St/site access (noon and street PM peak) • Interurban Ave /I -405 WB Ramps /Fort Dent Way (street PM peak) • Interurban Ave /S 56th St/S 52nd St (street PM peak) • Interurban Ave /I -5 NB on -ramp (street PM peak) I. Project Description The proposed restaurant site is located on the southwest corner of the Interurban Ave S/S 141st PI (aka 58th Ave S) intersection. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. The gross area of the building is proposed at 3,000 gsf and will include a drive up window for take -out orders. The site is currently vacant. The proposed site plan will have three driveways; two to Interurban Ave and one to 58th Ave S. The total parking stalls provided on site is 44 stalls. A proposed site plan is presented in Figure 2. II. Site Inventory Existing Roadway Network The major roadways serving the site include Interurban Ave S and 58th Ave S. These roadways are discussed below: Interurban Ave S is a five -lane roadway running north -south along the east side of the site. The roadway is classified as a primary arterial. In the vicinity of the site there are curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides. The sidewalk along the project William Popp Associates Page 1 4TH 57 '1C91 5 3250 53 v 33 :Al/ 6,e 4co / 57 400 4' >41 74. 521TH Pe S \ 13010 •0 t 5 133 SKYWAY 2 PARK.4 • --1;'8THST pi S 1291H of T411200 176. Z1 I eitile4,1kiiii 93 I33RD Ts - 713 1/40 .111,111 10 3400 S 13610 BLACK R RIPARIAN JN S 1477 ST 5900 - 11.41.11NUT PARK LIB FS DENF1 • PARK • " 149TH ENTO S 156111 ST cnrsrvIcw . PARK ' 9 163 90 1090 9 O I • 16419 Ste 27 5 1661H ST i Kt\) HEfoN-ITS 4,00 e=1 5100 17290 51 1 ▪ 51" 17200 PL 1 97306 —.VS7 1- r- 175TH --PO STRANDER ▪ CC # • SOUTHCENIER PLA 26 ( 07 °1:74 0 11.4 ▪ -4— L__ NT ND WEFLAN "RDrNM CORPORA HINKLER DRT 7.400504 /9 PLAZA 176TH SFATTLE 1700 Si. v TR I ND 1- 596046 DR ,f1T1 WETLAN1 WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206 Bellew; WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com VICINITY MAP Figure 1 Galliano Cucina • • • ..... • .. • • ••••-• • ••••.— I -, • • • • • •; • • . ' 11 • ,• -11 a i ■ •, • , , , ,.1 .., ,..--). -ui : p, , r I . .. ....Ln':' 9 Al!,-7!?_/_ .. _ . i %F-''':F.'..1 _ I ; ' - -'-'-'4'i7----- — 1 I 1 — 1 i • • - !--N- rA.1 : 1 11.1-71:: L, — • - • • . , - , • 1 /. • ..,..7-_-____ _ _____r 7.___ .,__,__.._: -.. '...4.-_-_-:. z. • I . a 1 - • • • • t 1- L. i • . . . . 4-..., _ ! -.... -''' .-?,:i tr , . .'y,'„),..-s,"... ..• I. 1 ‘. -,-- 4,-. . '• • 1 - . , i I .. 1 1 1 1 - . / L. • -I. „ • • • - !. a '. 1 i 1 4.-.7,.„'..i 1 ii: j 01 .,..-,". • • - ! --st-;:.,'-.•,.., .- - • • . . . • WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com SITE PLAN Figure 2 Galliano Cucina Traffic Impact Analysis (4/20) Galliano Cucina frontage is 10 feet wide. The speed limit is 35 mph. The roadway also includes street lighting. 58th Ave S (S 141st Pl) is a 2 lane local access street running east -west along the project frontage. The speed limit is 25 mph. In the vicinity of site, there are curb and gutter on both sides, and a 5 foot asphalt sidewalk on the south side. There is a guard rail on the north side. The roadway also includes street lighting. In addition to these two roadways, a brief discussion of the analysis intersections are discussed below: Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S (S 141st P1): This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is three -phase with protected north -south left turns and one side street phase. This intersection is configured as follows: • 3 lane northbound and southbound approaches; left, thru and thru/right. • 2 lane eastbound approach; left/thru, and right. • 1 lane westbound approach; left/thru/right. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs except the north leg. Interurban Ave S/I -405 WB Ramps /Fort Dent Way: This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is four -phase with protected /permissive north -south left turns and split phase operation on the side streets. This intersection is configured as follows: • 3 lane northbound approach; left, thru and thru/right. • 4 lane southbound approach; left, thru, thru and right. High occupancy vehicles (HOV) can turn right from the outermost thru lane. • 2 lane eastbound approach; left/thru, and right. • 2 lane westbound approach; left/thru, and thru/right. There is a pedestrian crosswalk only on the east leg. Interurban Ave S /56th Ave S /52nd Ave S: This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is two - phase. This intersection is configured as follows: • 3 lane northbound and southbound approaches; left, thru and thru/right. There is a bus only lane on the southbound approach. • 2 lane eastbound approach; left/thru, and right. • 1 lane westbound approach; left/thru/right. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs. Interurban Ave S /I -5 NB on -ramp: This is a non - signalized intersection and there is no side street approach. The only movement subject to delay is the southbound left turn. This intersection is configured as follows: • 3 lane northbound approach; thru, thru, and right. • 3 lane southbound approach; left, thru, and thru. William Popp Associates Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/20) • Galliano Cucina Accident Data Accident data was collected for the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection, provided by the City, for the period between 1/1/99 and 11/12/02. The data indicates that there were 12 accidents for that approximate 4 -year period. Four were right angle, 3 were fixed- object, 2 were rear -end, 2 were backing, and one was a sideswipe. The accident rate was calculated to be approximately 0.5 accidents per million vehicles entering, which generally indicates an acceptable rate. Transit Service There is five transit routes in the vicinity of the site all served by King County Metro. These routes include 124, 150, 154, 160, and 163. Route 124 traverses south on Interurban Ave and west on 58th Ave S. The remaining four routes all traverse north and south and Interurban Ave. There is a bus stop with bus shelter on the east side of Interurban Ave just south of 58th Ave S and a bus stop on the west side of Interurban Ave just north of 58th Ave S. There are also two bus stops on 58th Ave S west of the site at the 58th Ave S/S 142nd St intersection. Pedestrian Services There are adequate pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. There is a 5 foot asphalt sidewalk on the south side of 58th Ave S and a 10 foot sidewalk on the west side of Interurban Ave S. As noted above, the signal at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection provides protected crossing of both Interurban Ave and 58th Ave S. The City provided a pedestrian count at the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection for the periods between 7:00 am and 9:00 am and between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. During the AM period, there were 31 roadway crossings by pedestrians on one or more of the intersection legs. During the PM period, there were 34 roadway crossings by pedestrians on one or more of the intersection legs. It should be noted that within these totals, there were 15 pedestrians crossing the north leg during the AM period and 18 pedestrians during the PM period, where there is no crosswalk or pedestrian signal provided for protection. III. Project Trip Generation Trip generation for the proposed project was calculated using trip generation rates obtained from the Sixth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report, 1997. For this site, trip generation rates associated with Land Use Code (LUC) 832, High- Turnover (Sit - Down) Restaurant were used. The results of the trip generation analysis are presented in Table 1. William Popp Associates Page 3 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/20) • Galliano Cucina Table 1 Trip Generation Estimate Restaurant Size Noon Peak b Street PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 3,000 GSF Rate a 19.38 55% 45% 10.86 60% 40% Vol 58 32 26 33 20 13 s Trip generation rates per 1TE LUC 832; High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant. Rates represent vehicle trips per 1,000 gross square feet (gsf). b ITE identifies rates for the peak hour of the site. 1TE does not define this hour, thus it is assumed to represent one hour between 11 am and 1 pm. The street peak hour is assumed to occur one hour between 4 pm and 6 pm. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project (at 3,000 gsf) is estimated to generate a total of 58 noon period peak hour trips (also referred to as the site peak hour in this instance) and 33 PM peak hour trips during the commute peak hour (1 hour between 4:00 to 6:00 pm). It should be noted for discussion purposes only, that vehicle trip generation characteristics were observed at the existing SeaTac Galliano Restaurant for noon and street peak periods. It was found that the resultant trip rates at this site were approximately 28% less for the noon peak and 46% less for the street peak than those presented in ITE. Based on this observation, and assuming this restaurant operates in similar fashion as the existing one, it is concluded that the trip generation estimates presented in Table 1 above represent a conservative estimate of what this restaurant will likely generate. All of the trips presented above in Table 1 represent the vehicle trips across the project driveways, ie., in and out of the site. Due to the retail land use characteristic of the project, it is understood that some of these trips will already be part of the background traffic on the street system. This is discussed more in detail below. Primary, Pass -by, and Diverted Link Trips The basic trip generation estimates presented above (in Table 1) represent the total vehicular trips anticipated to visit the restaurant as opposed to the new trips added to the street system. Because of the nature of the facility, and its' location on a major arterial, it is presumed that a significant portion of the trips generated by the restaurant will already be on the surrounding street network. Thus, to determine the actual outlying project impact, the projected trip generation is stratified into non - pass -by and pass -by trips. These are defined below: • Non - pass -by include two subcategories of trip types, primary trips and diverted linked trips. Primary trips are trips made for the specific purpose of visiting the site. Diverted linked trips are trips attracted to the site from roadways outside the William Popp Associates Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/21k) • Galliano Cucina immediate area of the site and require a diversion from their normal traffic route to stop at the site. • Pass -by trips are trips made as intermediate stops from an origin to a primary trip destination. Pass -by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street that contains direct access to the site. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998, presents pass -by trip percentages for various types of retail land uses. The average pass -by trip percentage for High- Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant (LUC 832) denoted in Table 5.7 (Chapter 5, p. 48) was used for this project. The average pass -by percentage was determined to be 43% based on 12 studies of restaurants ranging from 2.9 ksf to 11.5 ksf; with an average size of 6.4 ksf. This pass - by rate was assumed to apply to both the noon period and the street PM period. Trip Generation Summary Implementing the pass -by rates discussed above, the results of the trip generation analysis are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Tukwila Galliano Cucina Trip Generation Summary Restaurant Size Noon Peak Street PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 3,000 gsf Vol 58 32 26 33 20 13 Pass -by % a 43% 43% Non Pass -by % 57% 57% Pass -by trips 25 14 11 14 9 5 Non - Pass -by trips 33 18 15 19 11 8 ° Pass -by rates based on Table 5.7 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998 As shown in Table 2, the proposed restaurant is estimated to generate during the noon peak hour (aka site peak hour) 33 non - pass -by trips and 25 pass -by trips. During the street PM peak hour, this proposed restaurant is estimated to generate 19 non - pass -by trips and 14 pass -by trips. IV. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Trip distribution patterns used to determine the noon peak hour and street PM peak hour assignment of non - pass -by project traffic were nominally based on existing peak hour turning movement counts at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection as well as traffic William Popp Associates Page 5 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/21)) Galliano Cucina engineering judgment based on surrounding residential and commercial development. The distribution patterns and assignment of pass -by project trips were solely based on the traffic counts at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection. The distribution and assignment of project trips during the noon peak hour are shown in Figure 3. Project turn movement detail around the site is shown n Figure 4 for noon hour conditions. The distribution and assignment of project trips during the street PM peak hour are shown in Figure 5. Project turn movement detail around the site is shown n Figure 6 for street peak hour conditions. As shown in Figure 4 and 6, it was estimated that the majority of the non - pass -by project trips (70 %) will be on Interurban Ave S and 30% of the project trips will be on 58th Ave S. The pass -by component of project traffic is estimated to have a higher percentage on Interurban Ave S (90% during the street PM peak hour and 95% during the noon peak hour) and a lower percentage on 58th Ave S (10% during the PM peak hour and 5% during the noon peak hour). Based on a gross floor area of 3,000 gsf, the restaurant's non - pass -by assignment of project vehicles during the noon peak hour is estimated to be 11 vehicles to /from the north on Interurban Ave and 11 vehicles to /from the south, and 9 vehicles to /from the west on 58th Ave S. The restaurant's non - pass -by assignment of project vehicles during the street PM peak hour is estimated to be 7 vehicles to /from the north on Interurban Ave and 7 vehicles to /from the south, and 5 vehicles to /from the west on 58th Ave S. V. Traffic Volumes Existing Traffic Counts Manual PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected by this consultant at the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection for the noon peak period, and obtained from the City for the street PM peak hour. The noon count was conducted Thursday February 20, 2003, and the City counts were conducted in 2002. The existing year noon and street PM peak hour turning movements are shown in the attached Technical Appendix. Historical Growth The City requires the future analysis conditions to be 2010. The City provided 2010 PM peak hour traffic forecasts at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection and the Interurban Ave /I -405 WB Ramps /Fort Dent Way intersection. For forecasting 2010 PM peak hour and noon peak hour volumes at the remaining intersection scenarios, the City suggested using a background growth rate of 1.4 percent per year. William Popp Associates Page 6 1 1 reen 6 SITE 1 S 144th St 2 / \1A (see Figure 4 for detail of site driveways) xx - project non - pass -by noon peak hour trips WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info @wmpoppassoc.co n NOON PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Figure 3 Galliano Cucina 35% (45 %) LEGEND xx - non- pass -by trips (xx) - pass-by trips xx% - Project Distribution Percentage non - pass -by (xx %) - Project Distribution Percentage pass -by 35% (50 %) NOON PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 58th Ave S WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com NOON PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Figure 4 Galliano Cucina North 3 ----....--, 4, \. , ' \ "8 SITE (see Figure 6 for detail of site driveways) S 144th St 1 xx - project non-pass-by street PM peak hour trips WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd 8206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com STREET PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Galliano Cucina Figure 5 S 144th St LEGEND xx - non - pass -by trips (xx) - pass -by trips xx% - Project Distribution Percentage non - pass -by (xx %) - Project Distribution Percentage 1p pass -by s 35% (35 %) 35% (55 %) STREET PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Mk A i3) 4� th r 2 (2) WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd 8206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com STREET PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Figure 6 Galliano Cucina Traffic Impact Analysis (4/21k) Galliano Cucina Future Traffic Volumes As noted above, the horizon year for the project is requested to be 2010. Thus, all background traffic forecasts represent 2010 conditions. Background traffic volumes and background - plus - project traffic volumes are shown in the attached Technical Appendix. VI. Level -of- Service and Queuing Level of Service Level -of- service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or passengers. There are several quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There are six levels -of- service that are given letter designations from "A" to "F ", with "A" being the best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst, with maximum delay or jammed conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is generally considered acceptable for planning and design purposes, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with freedom to maneuver being extremely difficult. Level -of- service for the existing condition, as well as future conditions, were calculated using the techniques presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The supporting Highway Capacity Software utilized for all calculations is version 4.1b. It should be noted that the analysis of unsignalized intersections utilized the full hour volumes whereas the analysis of signalized intersections utilized the peak 15 minute volumes within the peak hour. In general, full hour volumes are used in the analysis of unsignalized intersections because short-term fluctuations will generally not present major difficulties at such locations. Level -of- service criteria and definitions for signalized and non - signalized intersections are presented in Table 3. William Popp Associates Page 7 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/201) Galliano Cucina Table 3 Intersection Level -of- Service Criteria Level of Stopped Delay Per Vehicle I Service Definition signalized non - signalized A Little or no delay < 10.0 sec < 10.0 sec B Short traffic delays > 10 to 20 sec > 10 to 15 sec C Average traffic delays > 30 to 35 sec > 15 to 25 sec D Long traffic delays > 35 to 55 sec > 25 to 35 sec E Very long traffic delays > 55 to 80 sec > 35 to 50 sec F Extreme delay > 80 sec > 50 sec I Delay; seconds per vehicle The weekday peak hour level of service at the analysis intersection and driveways are presented in Table 4. Note the delay presented for unsignalized intersections represents the delay for the critical approach or movement and not the overall intersection, whereas the delay for signalized intersection represents the overall intersection delay only. William Popp Associates Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/2Ik) Galliano Cucina Table 4 Peak Hour Level of Service a Intersection Approach/ Movement 2002/3 Existing 2010 2010 without with project project a Noon Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S overall b B (12.7) B (13.0) B (13.2) Interurban Ave/ EB right n/a n/a B (10.7) north site access ° Interurban Ave/ south site access d 58th Ave S /site access ° EB n/a n/a B (14.2) NB left n/a n/a A (9.1) NB n/a n/a A (8.6) Street PM Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S overall b B (13.9) B (14.8) B (14.9) Interurban Ave/ EB right n/a n/a B (10.6) north site access ° Interurban Ave/ south site access d 58th Ave S /site access ° EB n/a n/a B (14.5) NB left n/a n/a A (9.0) NB n/a n/a A (9.0) Interurban Ave /I -405 overall D (43.9) D (42.7) 0 D (42.8) WB Ramps /Fort Dent Way Interurban Ave /56th Ave S overall B (10.6) B (11.0) B (11.0) 52nd Ave S Interurban Ave /I -5 NB SB left B (10.9) B (11.9) B (11.9) on -ramp a d Project volumes and subsequent LOS calculations based on 3,000 gsf signalized intersection, representative delay is for overall intersection, (xx) - Delay, seconds per vehicle assumed as right -in, right -out assumed as full access with City planned project; dual northbound left turn lanes As shown in Table 4, all of the intersections are estimated to operate at a satisfactory level of service. Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B during both the noon peak hour and the street PM peak hour, and is estimated to continue to do so in the future with or without the project. The average delay at this intersection is William Popp Associates Page 9 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/211) • Galliano Cucina estimated to increase by 0.1 second per vehicle (s /v) during the street PM peak hour and by 0.2 s/v during the noon peak hours with addition of project traffic. Interurban Ave S/I -405 WB Ramps /Fort Dent Way - This intersection was only analyzed for the street PM peak hour as this was determined to be the critical peak hour. This intersection is currently operating at LOS D, and will likely degrade to LOS E or F by 2010 without improvements. The City is planning to add a second northbound left turn lane and an southbound HOV right turn lane. It is presumed these improvements will be in place before 2010. Therefore, the future LOS analyses include these improvements. The estimated LOS for the future 2010 with or without project conditions is determined to be D. The average delay at this intersection is estimated to increase by 0.1 second per vehicle (s /v) with addition of project traffic. It should be noted that the analysis does not consider the HOV lane. Interurban Ave S /56th Ave S /52nd Ave S - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B during the street PM peak hour, and is estimated to continue to do so in the future with or without the project. The average delay at this intersection is estimated not to increase with addition of project traffic. Interurban Ave S /I -5 NB On -Ramp - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B during the street PM peak hour, and is estimated to continue to do so in the future with or without the project. The average delay at this intersection is estimated not to increase with addition of project traffic. Each of the project driveways are estimated to operate at LOS A or B for the noon peak as well as for the street PM peak hour, for the exiting movements. The analyses assume the south driveway on Interurban Ave S will operate as a full access driveway, and the north driveway on Interurban Ave S and the driveway to 58th Ave S will both operate as right -in, right -out only. A summary of the calculations are attached. Queuing An analysis of queuing for selected movements at the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection was conducted for this study. Queuing was reported for both average and 95th percentile conditions. The 95th percentile queue implies that 95 percent of the time the queue will be equal to or less than calculated, and 5 percent of the time the queue will exceed the calculated queue. The findings are discussed below. At the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection, vehicle queueing was calculated for the northbound and eastbound approaches. This would include the northbound left turn lane, the northbound thru lanes, the eastbound left/thru lane, and the eastbound right turn lane. The calculated queue lengths for the 2010 noon and street PM peak hours with project are presented in Table 5. William Popp Associates Page 10 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/21) • Galliano Cucina Table 5 Peak Hour Queueing Estimates a Intersection/Approach 2010 Peak Hour with Project Traffic Avg 95th Percentile Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Noon Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Northbound Left Turn Lane 22 60 (critical queue) Northbound Thru Lanes 122 184 Eastbound Left/Thru Lane 26 75 Eastbound Right Turn Lane 16 45 Interurban Ave /north site access Eastbound Exit Lane (right only) 0 0 Interurban Ave /south site access Eastbound Exit Lane (left and right) 0 0 58th Ave S /site access Northbound Exit Lane (right only) 0 0 Street PM Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Northbound Left Turn Lane 18 53 Northbound Thru Lanes 184 259 (critical queue) Eastbound LeftlThru Lane 56 110 (critical queue) Eastbound Right Turn Lane 33 83 (critical queue) Interurban Ave /north site access Eastbound Exit Lane (right only) 0 0 Interurban Ave /south site access Eastbound Exit Lane (left and right) 0 0 58th Ave S /site access Northbound Exit Lane (right only) 0 0 Based on 3,000 gsf As noted before, there are two project driveways on Interurban Ave S and one on 58th Ave S. The north driveway on Interurban is located approximately 90 feet from the northbound stop bar, and the south driveway located approximately 310 feet from the northbound stop bar ( + / -). The driveway to 58th Ave S is located approximately 50 feet from the eastbound stop bar. The critical approaches subject to blocking the project driveways are discussed below. The northbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 53 feet during the street PM peak hour and 60 feet during the noon hour. The northbound thru lane 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 259 feet during the street PM peak hour and 184 feet during the noon hour. The findings suggest that the northbound thru lane queue will extend south from the stop bar past the north driveway but will not extend to the south driveway. This would be true for both the noon and street peak hours. The results are William Popp Associates Page 11 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/20) Galliano Cucina also attached in the Technical Appendix. The northbound left turn lane queue however is estimated not to extend beyond the north driveway on Interurban Ave. The eastbound left/thru lane 95th percentile queue is estimated to be estimated to be 110 feet during the street PM peak hour and 75 feet during the noon hour. The eastbound right turn lane 95th percentile queue is estimated to be 83 feet during the street PM peak hour and 45 feet during the noon hour(assuming 10% right turn on red). The findings suggest that the eastbound queue on 58th Ave S will extend west from the stop bar past the project driveway. The results are attached in the Technical Appendix. Also, as shown in Table 5, the vehicle queuing (95th percentile queue) estimated at each of the driveways during either peak hour period indicate approximately zero vehicles queueing. These results are derived from the HCM level of service output sheets. VIII. Driveway Safety The proposed Galliano Cucina restaurant is located on a corner property adjacent to a principal arterial intersection. For that reason, the City has expressed concern regarding the layout of the proposed driveways. As noted in the project description, there will be two driveways to Interurban Ave and one driveway to 58th Ave S. This safety analysis of the site ingress /egress reviews driveway volumes, sight distance, on- street queuing, and accident history. Driveway Volumes The south driveway on Interurban Ave is estimated to be the primary driveway for the site. Including pass -by vehicle activity, this driveway is estimated to yield 30 trips during the noon hour and 20 trips during the street peak hour. The north driveway on Interurban Ave is suggested as a limited access driveway. Including pass -by vehicle activity, this driveway is estimated to yield 13 and 7 trips during the noon hour and street peak hours respectively. The driveway to 58th Ave S is also suggested as a limited access driveway. Including pass -by vehicle activity, this driveway is also estimated to yield 13 and 7 trips during the noon hour and street peak hours respectively. All -in -all, each of these driveways could be considered as low volume driveways with minimal impacts. Sight Distance There are two sight distance parameters generally applicable towards site development. One is intersection (or entering) sight distance (ESD) from project driveways and the other is stopping sight distance (SSD) at the project driveways. Intersection sight distance requirements are the design parameters set forth in order to provide sufficient sight distance for entering vehicles such that they do not impede the William Popp Associates Page 12 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/20) • Galliano Cucina mainline traffic speed and in -turn do not reduce the capacity of the roadway. It should be noted that the intersection sight distance deals with the ability of side street entering and mainline left - turning motorists to see oncoming vehicles with sufficient time to make crossing or entering maneuvers without significantly impeding the flow of mainline traffic. Intersection sight distance thresholds generally allow a vehicle to enter the major street from a side street and attain 85 percent of the design speed before being overtaken by an approaching vehicle. As a result, it is understood that intersection sight distance relates more to driver comfort and roadway capacity rather than safety. The minimum acceptable values for entering and stopping sight distance were obtained from the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2001, Exhibit 9 -55 and Exhibit 9 -58. The findings are presented in Table 6 below. Table 6 Entering and Stopping Sight Distance (ESD & SSD) Intersection Design a Required SD b Measured SD b Speed SSD ESD SSD ESD Interurban Ave /South Site Access looking left looking right Interurban Ave/North Site Access looking left looking right 58th Ave S /Site Access looking left looking right 35 mph 250' 335' >500'c >500'` 35 mph 250' 390' >500' >500' 35 mph 250' 335' >500'` >500'` 35 mph 250' 390' >500' >500' 25 mph 155' 240' 330' 330' 25 mph 155' 280' 50' d 50' d a b d Design speed assumed to be posted speed. Per 2001 AASHTO, Exhibit 9 -55 AND 9 -58. Available sight distance easily exceeds 500 feet. Sight distance line passes through the 58th Ave S intersection. Sight distance measured up to the Interurban Ave intersection. As shown in Table 6, the available sight distance for both driveways accessing Interurban Ave is more than adequate in exceeding the minimum requirements. Based on observations at the site, direct measurements were not taken as it was concluded that the available sight distance would easily be met. The available sight distance at the driveway to 58th Ave S meets both the ESD and SSD requirements for viewing to the west (technically northwest). The available sight distance to the east is available up to the Interurban Ave intersection. In general, sight distance requirements are typically terminated at the intersection on stem -roads of tee - intersections. It should be noted that since the project driveway is only located some 50 William Popp Associates Page 13 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/210) • Galliano Cucina feet from the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection, and 99.9% of the traffic is turning at the intersection, it is reasoned that a design speed of 25 mph is an overly conservative requirement in this instance. Queuing A queuing analysis was conducted above in Section VI. The analysis summarized that at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection: • The northbound approach 95th percentile queue, estimated to occur during the street PM peak, will extend south beyond the north site driveway to Interurban Ave. The northbound left turn queue, estimated to occur during the noon peak hour, will not block the north site driveway. • It is estimated that the south site driveway on Interurban Ave will not be blocked by any queue stemming back from the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection. • The eastbound left/thru lane as well as the eastbound right turn lane 95th percentile queues will extend 110 feet and 83 feet back from the stop bar on 58th Ave S. Both of these queue length estimates will extend beyond the project driveway which is to be located approximately 50 feet from the stop bar on 58th Ave S. A diagram of these queues are located in the Technical Appendix. Accident History Accident data at the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection was presented earlier in Section II. The data indicated there were 12 accidents over the course of approximately 4 years. Of the twelve accidents, 2 were right angle accidents involving vehicles entering the intersection from the west leg, and 2 involved vehicles hitting a fixed object on the west leg; one in the eastbound direction and one in the westbound direction. It is noted that there were no rear -end type accidents on 58th Ave S, which suggests motorists are prepared to stop at the intersection. This also suggests the motorists approaching speeds are appropriate for necessary safe stopping requirement. Therefore, it is rationalized that the potential for accidents occurrences will be minimal based on the assumption the vehicles speeds (85th percentile) will be slow; ie., less than 20 mph. Summary Given the particulars presented above, it is concluded that the driveways as proposed should be designed as follows: • Ingress and egress of the south driveway on Interurban Ave has access to a two -way left turn lane. There are no queues estimated to block the operations of the driveway. There are no queues estimated to or from the driveway and the volume is relatively light. Therefore, this driveway could function with full operation with one lane entering and one lane exiting. William Popp Associates Page 14 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/211111) • Galliano Cucina • Ingress and egress of the north driveway on Interurban Ave does not have access to a two -way left turn lane and the queue extending south on Interurban Ave from 58th Ave S will go beyond this driveway thus preventing vehicles exiting the site to turn left. Thus, this driveway should be designed as to prevent left turns from exiting the site. Left turns into the site which store in the northbound left turn lane may occasionally block use of this lane for vehicles turning left at 58th Ave S. Hence, this driveway should be designed for right -in, right out maneuvers only. One recommended design to achieve a right -in right -out function would be to design a pork -chop style driveway. • Ingress and egress of the driveway on 58th Ave S will be blocked by the queue extending west on 58th Ave S from Interurban Ave. This would create delay for vehicles exiting site, and of particular concern would delay vehicles from entering the site thereby blocking westbound traffic on 58th Ave S. This potential would result in vehicles queueing back into the Interurban Ave intersection. Therefore, this driveway should be designed especially to limit left -in maneuvers. Vehicles exiting the site to the right will have adequate sight distance looking to the left, and for vehicles exiting the sight looking right, sight distance will be limited up to the Interurban Ave intersection. This sight distance limitation should be offset by the fact westbound vehicles on 58th Ave S will have just traversed a low speed curve (between 30 and 50 -foot radius) through the intersection, either left or right. At a minimum, a half pork -chop driveway design should be considered to prevent left turns from entering the driveway. Right turns into the driveway and right turns out should function adequately. VIII. Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis for the proposed Galliano Cucina restaurant project, the following traffic impact conclusions are made: • Based on the ITE trip rates for a High- Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant, the proposed site (based on 3,000 gsf) is estimated to generate 58 noon peak hour trips (considered to be the site peak hour) and 33 street PM peak hour trips in and out of the site. This estimate of trips should be considered conservative since the results of a local observation study of a similar Galliano Cucina in SeaTac indicated the site peak hour rate to be 28% less than the ITE rate, and the street PM peak hour rate to be 46% less. • Since this is a retail establishment, it is logical to assume there will be a significant component of trips already on the street system passing by the site, and subsequently stopping. The pass -by rate was obtained from ITE sources for this type of land use and was determined to be 43 %. Utilizing this rate, of the total trips generated by the site, 43% of the trips are pass -by; 14 of the 33 noon peak hour trips and 25 of the 58 street peak hour trips. Therefore, it is concluded that the project is estimated to generate 33 non - pass -by noon peak hour new trips and 19 non - pass -by street PM peak hour new trips to the surrounding street system. William Popp Associates Page 15 Traffic Impact Analysis (4/2110) Galliano Cucina • Project driveway level of service during the noon and PM peak hour periods are estimated to be LOS A or B. The 95th percentile queue for the driveway approaches are estimated not to be greater than 1 vehicle. • The adjacent signalized intersection (Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S) is estimated to operate at satisfactory level of service with project traffic impacts; LOS B during both the noon and street PM peak hour. • The off -site intersections are estimated to operate at satisfactory levels of service in the 2010 horizon with or without the project traffic. The Interurban Ave /I -405 WB Ramps/Fort Dent Way intersection analysis assumed the City's improvement of dual northbound left turn lanes. • The north site access on Interurban Ave should be restricted to right -in right -out maneuvers only. • The south site access on Interurban Ave should function full access with one lane exiting and one lane entering. • The site access on 58th Ave S should at a minimum be designed such that it restricts left turns from entering the site. IX. Mitigation The City's current impact fee structure is based on a fair -share cost basis for selected projects. In the City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Table 12 (Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs) identifies nine projects , of which 7 are considered completed or paid for. The remaining two projects include: 1. West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard. This project will construct northbound dual left turn lanes at a cost of $250,000. Based on the City's 20 -year forecast of 883 new peak hour trips, the resultant cost per trip is $283. The Galliano Cucina street PM peak hour assignment of non - pass -by project trips indicate 1 vehicle will pass through this intersection. Thus, the project would be required to contribute a pro -rata share in the amount of $283. 2. Interurban Bridge. This project will widen for dual lefts at a cost of $1,250,000. Based on the City's 20 -year forecast of 1,114 new peak hour trips, the resultant cost per trip is $1,122. The Galliano Cucina street PM peak hour assignment of non -pass- by project trips indicate 3 vehicles will pass over this project. Thus, the project would be required to contribute a pro -rata share in the amount of $3,366. Accordingly, the Galliano Cucina Restaurant project would be required to contribute a total pro -rata fair share amount of $3,649 towards the City's transportation improvement program. This fee is based on non - pass -by PM peak hour traffic generated from ITE rates for a 3,000 gsf High - Turnover Restaurant. William Popp Associates Page 16 14 -400 Building • Suite 206 • 14400 Bel -Red Road • Bellevue, WA 98007 J •■s Location Report • 03/06/2003 IReport Period: 01/01/1999 to 12/31/2002 Location: 58 AVE S at INTERURBAN AVE S 12 21 0 (0.00 %) 4/1 (33.33%) 8 (66.67 %) Pagel Totals: 0 0 2 0 3 48 ITE e Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 Table 5.7 Pass -By Trips and Diverted Linked Trips Weekday, P.M. Peak Period Land Use 832 -1-ligh Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant SIZE DIVERTED ADJ. STREET (1,000 SO. WEEKDAY NO. OF TIME PRIMARY NON -PASS- LINKED PASS -BY PEAK HOUR SEATS FEET GFA) LOCATION SURVEY DATE INTERVIEWS PERIOD TRIP ( %) BY TRIP (%) TRIP ( %) TRIP (%) VOLUME SOURCE n/a 5.8 Orlando, FL 1992 150 2 -6 P.M. 68 32 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 5 Casselberry, FL 1992 65 2 -6 P.M. 42 58 n/a TPD, Inc. 168 5.3 Louisville area, KY 1993 24 4 -6 P.M. 37 13 50 1,615 Barton - Aschman Assoc. 169 2.9 Louisville area, KY 1993 41 4 -6 P.M. 27 36 37 3.935 Barton - Aschman Assoc. 150 3.1 Louisville area, KY 1993 21 4 -6 P.M. 29 33 38 2,580 Barton - Aschman Assoc. 250 7.1 New Albany, IN 1993 n/a 4 -6 P.M. 23 54 23 1,565 Barton - Aschman Assoc. n/a 8 Kissimmee, FL 1995 664 2 -6 P.M. 39 21 40 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 11.4 Orlando, FL 1996 267 2 -6 P.M. 43 19 38 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 11.5 Orlando, FL 1996 317 2 -6 P M. 51 20 29 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 4.6 Orlando, FL 1992 276 2 -6 P.M. 37 63 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 5.7 Orlando, FL 1994 308 2 -6 P.M. - 43 57 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 6.2 Orlando, FL 1995 521 2 -6 P.M. 43 11 46 n/a TPD, Inc. Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 43 • • Intersections Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn left onto a two -lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9 -55. Design Intersection Sight Distance —Case B1 —Left Turn From Stop Sight distance design for left turns at divided - highway intersections should consider multiple desi: vehicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine .fight distance for a divided- • hway intersection is larger than a passenger car, then sight di . ance for left turns will need to be c cked for that selected design vehicle and for smaller d-.: gn vehicles as well. If the divided - highwa median is wide enough to store the design v icle with a clearance to the through lanes of ap oximately 1 m [3 ft) at both ends of the - isle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle or left turns is needed on the min • -road approach for the near roadway to the left. In most cases, he departure sight triang for right turns (Case B2) will provide sufficient sight distance for . .assenger car to c .ss the near roadway to reach the median. Possible exceptions are addressed ' the discuss i : of Case B3. If the design vehicle can be store • the median with adequate clearance to the through lanes, a departure sight triangle to t• rig . for left turns should be provided for that design vehicle turning left from the medi• roadway. here the median is not wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure si: triangle should .:.rovided for that design vehicle to turn left from the minor -road approa The median wi• should be considered in determining e number of lanes to be crossed. The median widt hould be converted to equivalent lanes. For ample, a 7.2 -m [24 -ft) median should be con dered as two additional lanes to be crossed in app ng the multilane highway adjustment or time gaps in Exhibit 9 -54. Furthermore, a departure si:'t triangle for left turns from the median roadway should be provided for the largest design vehicle at can be stored on 665 Metric US Customary Intersection sight Intersection sight Stopping distance for Stopping distance for Design sight passenger cars Design sight passenger cars speed distance Calculated Design speed distance Calculated Design (km/h) (m) (m) (m) (mph) (tt) (ft) (ft) 20 20 41.7 45 15 80 165.4 170 30 35 62.6 65 20 115 220.5 225 40 50 83.4 85 25 155 275.6 280 50 65 104.3 105 30 200 330.8 335 60 85 125.1 130 35 250 385.9 390 70 105 146.0 150 40 305 441.0 445 80 130 166.8 170 45 360 496.1 500 90 160 187.7 190 50 425 551.3 555 100 185 208.5 210 55 495 606.4 610 110 220 229.4 230 60 570 661.5 665 120 250 250.2 255 65 645 716.6 720 130 285 271.1 275 70 730 771.8 775 75 820 826.9 830 80 910 882.0 885 Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn left onto a two -lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9 -55. Design Intersection Sight Distance —Case B1 —Left Turn From Stop Sight distance design for left turns at divided - highway intersections should consider multiple desi: vehicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine .fight distance for a divided- • hway intersection is larger than a passenger car, then sight di . ance for left turns will need to be c cked for that selected design vehicle and for smaller d-.: gn vehicles as well. If the divided - highwa median is wide enough to store the design v icle with a clearance to the through lanes of ap oximately 1 m [3 ft) at both ends of the - isle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle or left turns is needed on the min • -road approach for the near roadway to the left. In most cases, he departure sight triang for right turns (Case B2) will provide sufficient sight distance for . .assenger car to c .ss the near roadway to reach the median. Possible exceptions are addressed ' the discuss i : of Case B3. If the design vehicle can be store • the median with adequate clearance to the through lanes, a departure sight triangle to t• rig . for left turns should be provided for that design vehicle turning left from the medi• roadway. here the median is not wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure si: triangle should .:.rovided for that design vehicle to turn left from the minor -road approa The median wi• should be considered in determining e number of lanes to be crossed. The median widt hould be converted to equivalent lanes. For ample, a 7.2 -m [24 -ft) median should be con dered as two additional lanes to be crossed in app ng the multilane highway adjustment or time gaps in Exhibit 9 -54. Furthermore, a departure si:'t triangle for left turns from the median roadway should be provided for the largest design vehicle at can be stored on 665 AASHTO- Geometrresign of Highways and Streets Design vehicle Passeng: car Single -unit uck Combination ck Time gap at design • eed of majo road (t,) 6.5 8.5 10.5 Note: Time g. •s are for a stopp: vehicle. to turn right onto or cr• s a two -lane ighway with no median and grades percent r Tess. The table values require adjust nt as ollows: For multilane high,' . ys: For crossing a ajc road with more than two lanes, add 0. secon• for passenger cars and 0.7 seconds or trucks f. each additional lane to be crosse . and for narro medians that cannot store the •esign vehicle. For • or road approach grades: If t - approach grade is an upgra... that exceeds 3 •ercent, add 0.1 seconds for e h percent rade. Exhibit 9 -57. Time Gap for Case B2-Right Turn from Stop and Case B3- Crossing Maneuver Metric Intersection sight Stopping distance for Design sight passenger cars speed distance Calculated Design (km/h) (m) (m) (m) 20 20 36.1 40 30 35 54.2 55 40 50 72.3 75 50 65 90.4 95 60 85 108.4 110 70 105 126.5 130 80 130 144.6 145 90 160 162.6 165 100 185 180.7 185 110 220 198.8 200 120 250 216.8 220 130 285 234.9 235 US Customary Intersection sight Stopping distance for Design sight passenger cars speed distance Calculated Design (mph) (ft) (ft) (ft) 15 80 143.3 145 20 115 191.1 195 25 155 238.9 240 30 200 286.7 290 35 250 334.4 335 40 305 382.2 385 45 360 430.0 430 50 425 477.8 480 55 495 525.5 530 60 570 573.3 575 65 645 621.1 625 70 730 668.9 670 75 820 716.6 720 80 910 764.4 765 Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn right onto or cross a two -lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9 -58. Design Intersection Sight Distance -Case B2 -Right Turn from Stop and Case B3- Crossing Maneuver 668 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT SUMMARIES AVERAGE WEEKDAY STREET PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersections: • Interurban Ave /S 58th St • Interurban Ave /south site access • Interurban Ave /north site access • S 58th St/site access • Interurban Ave /I -405 WB Ramps /Fort Dent Way • Interurban Ave /S 56th St /S 52nd St • Interurban Ave /I -5 NB on -ramp • 1 Interurban Ave /58th Ave S EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT GALLIANO CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant • extg 2002 PM PK 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background PM PK Project Volumes (3,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project PM PK 72 11 0 7 0 0 0 12 144 2 1 86 4 83 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 4 86 0 0 0 49 56 56 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 12 24 27 968 1112 1114 15 17 17 5 6 6 575 661 668 24 28 28 1722 267 1989 6 9 2004 2 Interurban Ave /south site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2002 PM PK 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background PM PK Project Volumes (3,000 gs1) pass -by non- pass -by 2010 with Project PM PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 0 0 69 0 0 2 3 2 2 5 4 0 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 995 1154 1154 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 694 695 0 0 2 1620 228 1848 10 11 1869 CUCINA.XL2, Rev St PM PK 4/29/03 2002 PM PK extg 2010 Background PM PK 604 1041 36 2 121 20 625 995 2010 Background PM PK 2010 with Project PM PK 694 1196 52 2 139 23 718 1154 2010 with Project PM PK 2002 PM PK ex g 701 1201 55 2 142 23 725 1159 2002 PM PK ex g 2010 Background PM PK 625 995 0 0 0 0 625 995 2010 Background PM PK 2010 with Project PM PK 694 1154 0 0 0 0 694 1154 2010 with Project PM PK William Popp Associates 697 1159 11 0 9 0 699 1163 William Popp Associates • GALLIANO CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant 3 Interurban Ave /north site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT • extg 2002 PM PK 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background PM PK Project Volumes (3,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project PM PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 0 0 69 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 995 1154 1159 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 694 696 0 0 5 1620 228 1848 5 9 1862 4 58th Ave S /Site Access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2002 PM PK 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background PM PK Project Volumes (3,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project PM PK 0 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 121 139 139 0 0 4 0 0 0 36 52 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 34 191 3 7 201 CUCINA.XL2, Rev St PM PK 4/29/03 2002 PM PK extg 2010 Background PM PK 625 995 36 0 36 121 0 0 00 0 625 995 2010 Background PM PK 2010 with Project PM PK 694 1154 36 0 36 121 0 0 00 0 694 1154 2010 with Project PM PK 2002 PM PK ex g 701 1159 36 5 36 121 0 2 00 0 698 1159 2002 PM PK ex g 2010 Background PM PK 00 36 36 121 121 00 2010 Background PM PK 2010 with Project PM PK 00 52 52 139 139 00 2010 with Project PM PK William Popp Associates 00 55 55 143 142 43 William Popp Associates • 5 Interurban Ave /I -405 SB Ramps EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT GALLIANO CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant • extg 2002 PM PK 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background PM PK Project Volumes (3,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project PM PK 59 9 1 58 15 5 5 196. 115 7 2 135 9 68 1 1 2 1 69 8 9 9 389 447 447 98 0 113 113 35 40 40 32 37 38 404 600 600 770 885 887 46 53 53 14 16 16 906 1041 1042 61 70 70 2822 td 332 3379 0 5 3384 6 Interurban Ave /56th Ave S EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2002 PM PK 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background PM PK Project Volumes (3,000 gst) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project PM PK 72 8 1 9 1 0 I 5 98 1 5 93 10 80 1 1 2 3 80 8 9 9 73 82 83 8 9 9 4 4 4 8 9 9 40 45 46 831 929 931 8 9 9 43 48 48 792 885 888 89 99 99 1976 232 2208 0 7 2215 CUCINA.XL2, Rev St PM PK 4/28/03 2002 PM PK extg 2010 Background PM PK 981 861 500 165 456 68 1393 1220 2010 Background PM PK 2010 with Project PM PK 1127 989 710 190 524 78 1601 1538 2010 with Project PM PK 2002 PM PK ex g 1128 993 710 191 525 78 1602 1540 2002 PM PK ex g 2010 Background PM PK 924 911 133 20 153 59 873 879 2010 Background PM PK 2010 with Project PM PK 1032 1018 148 22 171 66 976 983 2010 with Project PM PK William Popp Associates 1035 1020 149 22 172 66 980 986 William Popp Associates • 7 Interurban Ave /I -5 NB Ramps EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT GALLIANO CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant extg 2002 PM PK 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background PM PK Project Volumes (3,000 gsf) pass -by non- pass -by 2010 with Project PM PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 45 18 104 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 478 534 535 384 429 430 150 168 168 882 986 989 0 0 0 1894 223 2117 0 5 2122 CUCINA.XL2, Rev St PM PK 4/28/03 2002 PM PK ex g 2010 Background PM PK 1032 478 0 0 0 534 882 862 2010 Background PM PK 2010 with Project PM PK 1154 534 0 0 0 597 986 963 2010 with Project PM PK William Popp Associates 1157 535 0 0 0 598 989 965 William Popp Associates • GALLIANO CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant 1 Interurban Ave /58th Ave S EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT • extg 2003 Noon Hour 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (3,000 gst) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project Noon Hour 26 3 0 2 0 0 1 2 65 0 0 64 4 29 3 3 1 1 4 1 2 6 7 35 2 2 3 24 26 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 6 24 26 31 633 698 701 4 4 4 2 2 2 629 693 706 35 39 39 1386 141 1527 11 17 1555 2 Interurban Ave /south site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2003 Noon Hour 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (3,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project Noon Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 67 0 0 3 6 3 3 6 6 0 2 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 661 729 729 0 0 0 0 0 0 654 721 723 0 0 3 1315 134 1450 13 19 1482 CUCINA.XL2, Rev Noon Pk Hr 4/29/03 2003 Noon Hour extg 2010 Background Noon Hour 666 664 60 7 52 8 654 661 2010 Background Noon Hour 2010 with Project Noon Hour 734 733 66 8 57 8 720 728 2010 with Project Noon Hour 2003 Noon Hour extg 747 742 71 8 64 9 733 736 2003 Noon Hour extg 2010 Background Noon Hour 654 661 0 0 0 0 654 661 2010 Background Noon Hour 2010 with Project Noon Hour 721 729 0 0 0 0 721 729 2010 with Project Noon Hour William Popp Associates 726 738 15 0 15 0 729 741 William Popp Associates 3 Interurban Ave /north site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT GALLIANO CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant • extg 2003 Noon Hour 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (3,000 gst) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project Noon Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 67 0 0 2 2 2 6 1 2 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 661 729 737 0 0 0 0 0 0 654 721 724 0 0 9 1315 134 1450 9 15 1474 4 58th Ave S /Site Access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2003 Noon Hour 2010 Future Growth 2010 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (3,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2010 with Project Noon Hour 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 4 0 0 3 4 0 52 57 57 0 0 6 0 0 0 60 66 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 11 123 5 13 141 CUCINA.XL2, Rev Noon Pk Hr 4/29/03 2003 Noon Hou extg 2010 Background Noon Hour 654 661 60 0 60 52 0 0 00 0 654 661 2010 Background Noon Hour 2010 with Project Noon Hour 721 729 60 0 60 52 0 0 00 0 721 729 2010 with Project Noon Hour 2003 Noon Hour extg 733 737 60 9 60 52 0 4 00 0 728 737 2003 Noon Hour extg 2010 Background Noon Hour 00 60 60 52 52 00 2010 Background Noon Hour 2010 with Project Noon Hour 00 66 66 57 57 00 2010 with Project Noon Hour William Popp Associates 00 71 71 63 64 67 William Popp Associates IIIII MI HCS2000°' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2002 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2002 Project ID Galliano Cucina - Existing Conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB 1 SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, NI 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 72 0 49 1 0 1 12 968 15 5 575 24 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 0 0 0 9 9 9 10 10 10 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 , G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= - Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 75 51 2 13 1024 5 624 Lane group capacity, c 195 228 232 315 2045 156 1864 v/c ratio, X 0.38 0.22 0.01 0.04 0.50 0.03 0.33 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 40.8 39.8 38.6 34.7 11.0 43.1 11.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 42.1 40.3 38.6 34.7 11.2 43.2 12.0 Lane group LOS D D D C B D B Approach delay 41.4 38.6 11.5 12.3 Approach LOS D D 8 B Intersection delay 13.9 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT MI General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2010 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 83 0 56 1 0 1 24 1112 17 6 661 28 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 0 0 0 9 9 9 10 10 10 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 86 58 2 25 1176 6 718 Lane group capacity, c 195 228 231 315 2045 156 1864 v/c ratio, X 0.44 0.25 0.01 0.08 0.58 0.04 0.39 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 41.2 40.0 38.6 34.9 11.8 43.1 12.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 ' 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 42.8 40.6 38.6 35.0+ 12.2 43.2 12.5 Lane group LOS D D D D 8 D 8 Approach delay 41.9 38.6 12.7 12.8 Approach LOS D D 8 8 Intersection delay 14.8 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM+ Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c • ■ HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2010 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project ID Galliano Cucina - w/Project Conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 86 0 56 1 0 1 27 1114 17 6 668 28 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 0 0 .0 9 9 9 10 10 10 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 _ Min. time for. pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 • _ Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 90 58 2 28 1178 6 725 Lane group capacity, c 195 228 231 315 2045 156 1864 v/c ratio, X 0.46 0.25 0.01 0.09 0.58 0.04 0.39 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, di 41.3 40.0 38.6 35.0 11.8 43.1 12.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 43.0 40.6 38.6 35.1 12.2 43.2 12.5 Lane group LOS D D D D 8 D 8 Approach delay 42.1 38.6 12.8 12.8 Approach LOS D D 8 8 Intersection delay 14.9 Intersection LOS 8 MI N TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information • nalyst BPJ • gency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 • nalysis Time Period PM PK _ Intersection Interurban Ave /n. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project Description Galliano Cucina EastNVest Street: north site access (North /South Street: Interurban Ave Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 1159 0 0 696 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1159 0 0 696 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration _ _ R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service • pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 8 C (m) (vph) 652 /c 0.01 95% queue length 0.04 Control Delay 10.6 LOS B • pproach Delay -- — 10.6 • pproach LOS -- -- 8 HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c wTWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst BPJ gency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 nalysis Time Period PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /s. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project Description Galliano Cucina East/West Street: south site access /South Street: Interurban Ave (North Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 9 1154 0 0 695 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1154 0 0 695 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ — — 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal _ 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 5 0 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Configuration _ _ - LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 9 9 C (m) (vph) 909 388 lc 0.01 - 0.02 95% queue length 0.03 0.07 Control Delay 9.0 14.5 LOS A B pproach Delay -- -- 14.5 pproach LOS -- -- 8 HCS200011v1 Copyright 02000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic TVVO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Intersection 58th Ave S /site access Agency /Co. William Popp Associates Jurisdiction Tukwila Date Performed 4/28/03 Analysis Year 2010 Analysis Time Period PM PK Project Description Galliano Cucina EastlWest Street: 58th Ave S (North /South Street: site access Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 139 4 0 55 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 139 4 0 55 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR T Upstream Signal 0 _ 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 3 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service_ •pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 3 C (m) (vph) 912 /c 0.00 •5% queue length 0.01 Control Delay 9.0 LOS A ■ pproach Delay -- -- 9.0 • pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM+ Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c • HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2002 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /I -405 WB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2002 PM PK Project ID Gallian Cucina Volume and Timing Input EB VVB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, NI 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L T R Volume, V (vph) 59 8 389 98 35 32 404 770 46 14 906 61 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 15.7 3.2 Phasing WB Only EB Only 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 20.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 25.0 G= 45.0 G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 140.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB VVB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 70 157 174 425 859 15 954 64 Lane group capacity, c 248 220 463 494 1705 315 1105 494 v/c ratio, X 0.28 0.71 0.38 0.86 0.50 0.05 0.86 0.13 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.61 0.50 0.39 0.32 0.32 Uniform delay, d1 53.6 57.3 54.3 40.0 23.4 26.0 44.6 33.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.39 0.11 0.11 0.39 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 10.4 0.5 14.3 0.2 0.1 7.2 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 54.2 67.7 54.9 54.3 23.6 26.1 51.9 33.8 Lane group LOS D E D D C C D C Approach delay 63.5 54.9 33.8 50.4 Approach LOS E D C D Intersection delay 43.9 Intersection LOS D mir II w HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2010 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /I -405 WB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 PM PK Project ID Gallian Cucina, Background, Tukwila Forecasts Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB _ SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L T R Volume, V (vph) 68 9 447 113 40 37 600 885 53 16 1041 70 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only _ EB Only 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 20.0 - G= 20.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 15.0 G= 45.0 G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 130.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 81 471 200 632 988 17 1096 74 Lane group capacity, c 267 651 499 770 1573 300 1190 532 v/c ratio, X 0.30 0.72 0.40 0.82 0.63 0.06 0.92 0.14 Total green ratio, g/C 0.15 0.42 0.15 0.23 0.46 0.42 0.35 0.35 Uniform delay, d1 48.8 31.2 49.6 47.4 26.5 21.9 40.8 29.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.36 0.21 0.11 0.44 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 4.0 0.5 7.1 0.8 0.1 11.6 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 49.5 35.2 50.1 54.5 27.3 22.0 52.4 29.3 Lane group LOS D D D D C C D C Approach delay 37.3 50.1 38.0 50.6 Approach LOS D D D D 42.7 Intersection LOS D Niiir MI HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. Wiliam Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2010 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /I -405 WB Ramps Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 PM PK Project ID Gallian Cucina, w /Project, Tukwila Forecasts Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L T R Volume, V (vph) 69 9 447 113 40 38 600 887 53 16 1042 70 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing WB Only EB Only 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 20.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 15.0 G= 45.0 G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 130.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 82 471 201 632 990 17 1097 74 Lane group capacity, c 266 651 498 770 1573 299 1190 532 v/c ratio, X 0.31 0.72 0.40 0.82 0.63 0.06 0.92 0.14 Total green ratio, g/C 0.15 0.42 0.15 0.23 0.46 0.42 0.35 0.35 Uniform delay, d1 48.9 31.2 49.6 47.4 26.6 21.9 40.8 29.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.36 0.21 0.11 0.44 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.7 4.0 0.5 7.1 0.8 0.1 11.7 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 49.5 35.2 50.2 54.5 27.4 22.0 52.6 29.3 Lane group LOS D D D D C C D C Approach delay 37.3 50.2 38.0 50.7 Approach LOS D D D D 42.8 Intersection LOS D Mir HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT i General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2002 PM PK Intersection Interurban/56th/52nd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2002 Project ID Galliano Cucina - Existing Conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 72 8 73 8 4 8 40 831 8 43 792 89 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N -4 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB _ 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= G= G= G= 55.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v • 81 74 20 41 856 44 899 Lane group capacity, c 387 436 438 302 2098 321 2069 v/c ratio, X 0.21 0.17 0.05 0.14 0.41 0.14 0.43 Total green ratio, g/C • 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Uniform delay, d1 24.9 24.6 23.8 7.4 9.1 7.4 9.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 - 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 25.2 24.8 23.8 7.6 9.2 7.6 9.4 Lane group LOS C C C A A A A Approach delay 25.0 23.8 9.1 9.3 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection delay 10.6 Intersection LOS B W HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT W General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2010 PM PK _ Intersection Interurban/56th /52nd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project ID Galliano Cucina - Background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 80 9 82 9 4 9 45 929 9 48 885 99 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N -4 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= G= G= _ G= 55.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 1 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 91 84 22 46 957 49 1004 Lane group capacity, c 383 436 435 261 2098 279 2069 v/c ratio, X 0.24 0.19 0.05 0.18 0.46 0.18 0.49 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Uniform delay, d1 25.1 24.8 23.8 7.6 9.4 7.6 9.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 25.5 25.0 23.9 8.0 9.6 7.9 9.9 Lane group LOS C C C A A A A Approach delay 25.2 23.9 9.5 9.8 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection delay 11.0 Intersection LOS B HCS2000T^t Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic _ HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT W General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period 2010 PM PK Intersection Interurban /56th /52nd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project ID Galliano Cucina - w /project Volume and Timing Input EB \NB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 80 9 83 9 4 9 46 931 9 48 888 99 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N -4 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= G= G= G= 55.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 91 85 22 47 959 49 1007 Lane group capacity, c 383 436 435 260 2098 278 2069 v/c ratio, X 0.24 0.19 0.05 0.18 0.46 0.18 0.49 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Uniform delay, d1 25.1 24.8 23.8 7.7 9.4 7.6 9.7 Progression factor, PF . 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 25.5 25.0 23.9 8.0 9.6 7.9 9.9 Lane group LOS C C C A A A A Approach delay 25.3 23.9 9.5 9.8 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection delay 11.0 Intersection LOS B HCS2000Tm Copynght © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c MII III TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information • nalyst BPJ • gency /Co. Wiliam Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 • nalysis Time Period PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /I -5 NB on ramp Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2002 Project Description Galliano Cucina, existing East/West Street: 1 -5 NB on ramp. /South Street: Interurban Ave (North Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 1 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 478 384 150 882 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 478 384 150 882 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 5 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R • L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N 1 N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized _ 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service • pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L (vph) 150 C (m) (vph) 757 /c 0.20 •5% queue length 0.74 Control Delay 10.9 LOS B • pproach Delay -- -- • pproach LOS -- -- HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information • nalyst BPJ • gency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 • nalysis Time Period PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /I -5 NB on ramp Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project Description Galliano Cucina, Background East/West Street: 1 -5 NB on ramp. North /South Street: Interurban Ave Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 _ 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 534 429 168 986 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 534 429 168 986 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 — — 5 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 , Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 _ 0 Flared Approach N N - Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service • pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L (vph) 168 C (m) (vph) 692 /c 0.24 95% queue length 0.96 Control Delay 11.9 LOS B • pproach Delay -- -- • pproach LOS -- -- HCS2000TMt Copyright 02000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic w w TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information • nalyst BPJ gency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 nalysis Time Period PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /I -5 NB on ramp Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project Description Galliano Cucina, w /project East/West Street: I -5 NB on ramp. /South Street: Interurban Ave (North Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement - 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 535 430 168 989 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 535 430 168 989 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 5 — _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal _ 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 V L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L (vph) 168 C (m) (vph) 691 /c 0.24 95% queue length 0.96 Control Delay 11.9 LOS 8 pproach Delay -- -- pproach LOS -- -- HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c • • MI HCS2000° DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 Time Period Noon PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2003 Project ID Galliano Cucina - existing conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 26 2 24 1 1 5 24 633 4 2 629 35 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 31 27 8 27 707 2 738 Lane group capacity, c 209 231 239 344 2190 172 2009 v/c ratio, X 0.15 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.32 0.01 0.37 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 39.4 39.2 38.8 34.9 9.5 43.0 12.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 39.7 39.5 38.8 35.0+ 9.6 43.1 12.3 Lane group LOS D D D D A D B Approach delay 39.6 38.8 10.5 12.4 Approach LOS D D B B Intersection delay 12.7 Intersection LOS B • HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period Noon PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project ID Galliano Cucina - background conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 29 2 26 1 1 6 26 698 4 2 693 39 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 _ 10.7 _ 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 34 29 9 29 780 2 813 Lane group capacity, c 206 231 238 344 2190 172 2009 v/c ratio, X 0.17 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.36 0.01 0.40 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 39.5 39.3 38.8 35.0 9.8 43.0 12.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 39.9 39.5 38.8 35.1 9.9 43.1 12.7 Lane group LOS D D D D A D B Approach delay 39.7 38.8 10.8 12.8 Approach LOS D D 8 B Intersection delay 13.0 Intersection LOS B IMF HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 Time Period Noon PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project ID Galliano Cucina - w /project conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 35 3 26 1 1 6 31 701 4 2 706 39 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 _ 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 42 29 9 34 783 2 827 Lane group capacity, c 204 231 238 344 2190 172 2009 v/c ratio, X 0.21 0.13 0.04 0.10 0.36 0.01 0.41 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, di 39.7 39.3 38.8 35.1 9.8 43.0 12.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 40.2 39.5 38.8 35.2 9.9 43.1 12.7 Lane group LOS D D D D A D 8 Approach delay 39.9 38.8 10.9 12.8 Approach LOS D D 8 8 Intersection delay 13.2 Intersection LOS B ! TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information • nalyst BPJ • gency /Co. Wi lliam Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 • nalysis Time Period NOON PK Intersection Interurban Ave /n. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project Description Galliano Cucina, with project East/West Street: north site access North /South Street: Interurban Ave Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 _ 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 737 0 0 724 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 737 0 0 724 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service • pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 4 C (m) (vph) 637 /c 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 Control Delay 10.7 LOS 8 • pproach Delay -- -- 10.7 • pproach LOS -- -- B HCS2000TMt Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Nir TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst BPJ gency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 4/28/03 nalysis Time Period noon pk Intersection Interurban Ave /s. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2010 Project Description Galliano Cucina, Background East/West Street: south site access /South Street: Interurban Ave (North Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 12 729 0 0 723 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 729 0 0 723 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 9 0 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 9 0 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 12 15 C (m) (vph) 886 408 /c 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.04 0.11 Control Delay 9.1 14.2 LOS A B . pproach Delay -- -- 14.2 . pproach LOS -- -- B HCS2000TM Copyright ©2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Intersection 58th Ave S /site access Agency /Co. William Popp Associates Jurisdiction Tukwila Date Performed 4/28/03 Analysis Year 2010 Analysis Time Period noon pk Project Description Galliano Cucina, w /project East/West Street: 58th Ave S (North /South Street: site access Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 57 6 0 71 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 57 6 0 71 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T. R L T R olume 0 0 7 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 7 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service • pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (vph) 7 C (m) (vph) 1011 lc 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 Control Delay 8.6 LOS A • pproach Delay -- -- 8.6 • pproach LOS -- -- A HCS200d1-m Copyright 02000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Intersection (Movement) Interurban Ave /58th Ave S 2002/3 PM PK Northbound Approach GALLIANO CUCINA - QUEUE ESTIMATES Avg Flow Volume Turnhon PHF Rate Cycle Green' G/C Ratio per Hour % Red Red (sec) Avg Q 95% Q Number 95% Q per 95% Q per Avg Q per (veh) (veh) of Lanes Lane (veh) Lane (ft) lane (ft) Left 12 0 0.96 13 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.3 0.9 1 Thru /Right 983 0 0.96 1024 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 12.8 18.7 2 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru 72 0 0.96 75 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.9 3.8 1 Right 49 5 0.96 46 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.1 3.1 1 2010 PM PK without project Northbound Approach Left 24 0 0.96 25 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 1 Thru /Right 1130 0 0.96 1177 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 14.7 20.7 2 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru 83 0 0.96 86 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 2.2 4.2 1 4.2 105 54 Right 56 6 0.96 52 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.3 3.3 1 3.3 83 33 2010 PM PK with project Northbound Approach Left 27 0 0.96 28 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 2.1 1 Thru /Right 1132 0 0.96 1179 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 14.7 20.7 2 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru 86 0 0.96 89 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 2.2 4.4 1 4.4 , 110 I 56 Right 56 6 0.96 52 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.3 3.3 1 3.3 83 . 33 0.9 9.4 3.8 3.1 23 234 95 78 8 160 47 29 1.8 45 16 10.4 259 184• 2.1 10.4 53 1.2_591 18 184 2002/3 NOON PK Northbound Approach Left 24 0 0.9 27 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 Thru /Right 637 0 0.9 708 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 8.8 13.8 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru 28 0 0.9 31 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.8 2.1 1 2.1 53 19 Right 24 2 0.9 24 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 1 1.8 45 15 2010 NOON PK without project Northbound Approach Left 26 0 0.9 29 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 2.1 Thru /Right 702 0 0.9 780 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 9.8 14.7 2 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru 31 0 0.9 34 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.9 2.4 Right 26 3 0.9 26 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 2010 NOON PK with project Northbound Approach Left 31 0 0.9 34 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.9 2.4 1 Thru /Right 705 0 0.9 783 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 9.8 14.7 2 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru 38 0 0.9 42 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.1 3 1 3.0 75 26 Right 26 3 0.9 26 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.6 1.8 1 1.8 45 16 1.8 1 2 1.8 6.9 45 173 17 111 1 1 1 2.1 7.4 2.4 1.8 53 184 60 45 • 18 122 22 16 2.4 60 22 7.4 184 122 from HCS assumptions for signal cycle CUCINA.XL2, 2010 Queues 4/29/03 William Popp Associates elt4 BUS PULLOUT S 58TH ST (4) ,,w` { 3) DJall r= 310 INTERURBAN AVE LTC DVV4y GALLIANO CUCINA SITE 95th Percentile Queues (maximum condition) (1) 2.4 veh, 60 feet; Noon PK (2) 10.4 veh, 259 feet; St PM PK (3) 4.4 veh, 110 feet; St PM PK (74) 3.3 veh, 83 feet; St PM PK 5th. CACL•sY • • • City of Tukwila De artment of Public Works To: Carol Lumb From: Cyndy Knighton CC: Dave McPherson Date: May 7, 2003 Re: Galliano's Cucina E03 -003 The traffic impact analysis submitted for the above project on April 30, 2003 by William Popp Associates is adequate. There are no negative impacts to the transportation system under our Concurrency Ordinance and this development is only required to pay their impact mitigation fee: $283 toward the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard project and $3,366 toward the Interurban Bridge project, for a grand total of $3,649. To ensure driver safety at the site driveways, the following restrictions are required: • The driveway onto 58th Avenue S will be restricted to a right - in/right -out access point. • The northern -most driveway onto Interurban Avenue will be restricted to a right - in/right -out access point. • The southem driveway will have no restrictions on movement. In order to accomplish the above restrictions, the applicant will have to install appropriate on -site signage as well as appropriate c- curbing on both Interurban Avenue S and 58th Avenue S. Final placement, length, and other details to accomplish these restrictions will be done as part of the site review. Should you have any questions, please give me ring! \ \tuk2 \vol l\pubworks \cyndy\development review \galliano cucina e03- 003.doc • City of Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 21, 2003 Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 16435 Military Road South Seatac, WA 98188 RE: E03 -008, Environmental Review for Galliano's Cucina Dear Mario: Enclosed please find comments from Cyndy Knighton, the traffic engineer with the City of Tukwila Public Works Department regarding the traffic study completed by William Popp Associates on March 11, 2003. I will fax this letter and the comments from Ms. Knighton William Popp Associates. If there are any questions about her comments, they should feel free to contact her at 206- 433 -0179. We need the information requested in Ms. Knighton's memo before we can complete the SEPA review process. For the purposes of state law, the review clock will be stopped as of today's date until the additional materials are received. If you have any questions, please call me at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosure cc: William Popp Associates (by Fax) Dave McPherson, Engineer, Public Works Department Cyndy Knighton, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department c: \mydocs \Galliano's Cucina \E03- 008.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works To: Carol Lumb From: Cyndy Knighton CC: Dave McPherson Date: April 18, 2003 Re: Galliano Cucina TIA As requested, I've reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted on March 27, 2003 for the proposed Galliano Cucina restaurant on Interurban Avenue S. This study is incomplete. The applicant is proposing to use a different trip generation rate other than that in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Although I am open to alternative trip generation rates should proper justification be presented or no ITE rates available to use, the applicant has presented no compelling reason to apply a rate different than the one in the ITE manual. The statement that the land use code of High - Turnover Sit -Down Restaurant does not apply because it applies to restaurant chains, not individually owned establishments, is not a good enough reason. Simply by building a second restaurant, is not the applicant then making Galliano Cucina into a `chain ?' Further, the study wishes to apply the ITE rates for pass -by and diverted trips to the lower trip generation rates. The reasoning here may be fatally flawed, for if the claim is that a smaller, lesser known establishment generates less trips, would it not also become more of a destination instead of part of a driver's whim? Finally, the ITE Trip Generation Manual solely states that the restaurants in the classification are frequently part of chain, not exclusively. Therefore, the conclusion may be drawn that the locally owned establishments are very much a part of the data supporting this recognized trip generation rate. The study must be redone to either provide much more support to their request for an alternate trip generation rate or apply the ITE rate. Once the new trip generation rate has been completed and assigned, the study must analyze all intersections which are impacted by 5 or more new peak hour trips — entering trips, not simply directional. This current study has not analyzed all the necessary intersections. Future conditions to be analyzed must be 2010, not 2005 as assumed in the report. This is typical for any concurrency analysis — year of opening plus 6 years. A safety analysis must be conducted, not simply a reporting of accident history. Of specific concern is the driveway on 58th Avenue S and how driveway operations may affect safety of motorists as well as intersection operation of 58th Avenue S/Interurban Avenue S. \ \tuk2 \vol l \pubworks \cyndy \development review \tia memos by permit # \e03 -03 gallianos cucina incomplete memo (4-18- 03).doc CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION David Thorstad has filed an application, L03 -017, for administrative design review of Galliano's Cucina, a 3,000 sq. ft. restaurant with 48 parking stalls to be located at 14201 Interurban Avenue South. Permits applied for include: E03 -003, State Environmental Policy Act application, and L03 -019, Boundary Line Adjustment, D03 -104, Building Permit Other known required permits include: Tree Clearing permit Studies required with the Administrative Design Review application include: None. An environmental checklist has been submitted (E03 -003) with a geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendations and a Technical Information Report for storm water. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: E03 -003, L03 -017 and L03 -019 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., Friday, May 16, 2003. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The appeal bodies for the applications vary: the SEPA Application may be appealed to King County Superior Court; the Administrative Design Review may be appealed to the Tukwila Planning Commission and the Building Permit may be appealed to the Tukwila Hearing Examiner. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: 3/21/03 Notice of Completeness Issued 4/08/03 Notice of Application Issued: 5/02/03 c: \Galliano's Cucina\NOA- AdmDR.doc Dept. Of Community Devel.opmen City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTI( 1 • 6..tvo l L_u titk Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Short Subdivision Agenda Determinationof' on-Significancer `.. Mitigated Determination.'of Noi Significance-, Notice of Action Official Notice`. Notice of Appi cation Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Notice of AppllcationJorShoreline: Mgmt. Permit Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this o?. year 20513 03 0 (`i (,(.ttl lyeti a,-( ` -Ft j:_ • Project Name: Project Number: 1_ 0 3 _ U Mailer's Signature: Person requesting mailing: awake/4^l/ P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM i City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 • WA DEPT OF ECOLOGY SEPA REVIEW SECTION P 0 BOX 47703 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -7703 City of Tukwila i Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 Ms. Michael Ricks 14228 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 City of Tukwila 1 Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 David Thorstad 406 South 189th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 > City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 16435 Military Road South Seatac, WA 98188 41 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 19, 2003 Mr. David Thorstad 406 S. 289th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: E03 -03, Galliano's Cucina .. Dear Mr. Thorstad: In order to complete our environmental review of the proposed Galliano's Cucina we need the following information: 1. A traffic analysis /trip generation study is required. The northern driveways are close to the intersection and require detailed information by applicant's Traffic Engineer, prior to review by City Senior Traffic Engineer. The traffic analysis should also discuss any trips that will be generated if a portion of the parking lot will be leased for use by an off -site business. Based on the information in the traffic analysis, mitigation measures may be required. 2. The checklist does not reflect information that this site may contain contaminated soils from a previous use. Please verify if there was a gas station located on the site. If so, what soil studies have been conducted and is soil remediation required? Information from DOE regarding hazardous waste on site (underground tanks, contaminated soils), as applicable should be provided and the Checklist revised as needed to reflect this information. 3. Please provide a site plan from the geotechnical/civil engineer that indicates the location of the 6 test holes dug on the site that are discussed in the geotechnical report. 4. Please provide copies of the storm water detention system design and the TIR report for review. 5. The environmental checklist should be revised to provide the following information: 3.d. Water: describe water quality facilities that will be used for the project. 14.c. Transportation: if a portion of the parking lot will be leased to another business, this information should be reflected in the checklist. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Mr. David Thorstad Galliano's Cucina February 19, 2003 Review of the environmental impacts of this project cannot continue until we have received the items noted above. For the purposes of meeting State mandated time lines, the review "clock" has been stopped as of the date of this letter. The City finds that additional review time will be necessary to process your permit. application because the additional information requested by this letter is needed to complete the review process. The precise amount of additional review time that may be needed will be the number of days between the date of this letter and the submission of the additional information. For your information, the following items will be required when you submit for the . administrative design review of the project or for a building permit: 1. Provide a copy of the private easement/agreement for parking stalls to be leased to others. 2. Provide the TESC plan. 3. Commercial driveways are to be 25' min. and 35' max., plan shows 20'. All plans should be revised to reflect this requirement. 4. Grease Interceptor will be required. 5. The City requires power to be underground per ordinance. 6. Peer review of Geotechnical Report may be required. If required, then shall be paid by the owner. If you have any questions, please contact me at 206 -431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Dave McPherson, Engineer, Public Works Department Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager c: \mydocs \Galliano's Cucina \Thorstad \doc. CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION David Thorstad has filed an application for environmental review for development of Galliano's Cucina to be located at 14201 Interurban Avenue South. Permits applied for include: E03 -003, State Environmental Policy Act Application Other known required permits include: Administrative Design Review, Building Permit Studies required with the applications include: Geotechnical Evaluation/Foundation Recommendations An environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: E03 -003 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., Wednesday, February 26, 2003. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The appeal bodies for the applications vary: the SEPA Application may be appealed to King County Superior Court; the Administrative Design Review may be appealed to the Tukwila Planning Commission and the Building Permit may be appealed to the Tukwila Hearing Examiner. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: 1/17/03 Notice of Completeness Issued: 1/29/03 Notice of Application Issued: 2/12/03 c: \Galliano's Cucina \NotApp.doc • Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, J HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance ,,A4C-o &I,e,t.4'.../ Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Number: 6-03-003 Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Mailer's Signature: Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt i Notice of Action CdJ�,,DG /,,„„„? Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ • FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /o2 day of/Cell-7n the year 20 &__3 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: 6 ,,A4C-o &I,e,t.4'.../ Project Number: 6-03-003 Mailer's Signature: �^ u //1/f19f.e 4_/ i Person requesting mailing: CdJ�,,DG /,,„„„? P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • - r o N . ) i u s , (-A ,1 J1 ray -"Lit 1K. Tuv$..?IL i, 4,24.1 Jc. TN T' t' -17 Q fizfi„v Tu <'IL -., (Y4, lt,Jj TT i7urre, 11 Tul`1l�l1..,1., 4,14 ` I Tel-W-11%17o Ii. I NT rie41 441). -1r1-141-17--/-7i4) 141-z+7 ltr A.11)„-iz TWr7411Ls, 4A, 774/0±?, �T zup I v :l u lsA)ILAt 112..19 Ail)t Tu1474a1L,, 1114$ Ti 1.274 f Tuer01L .,c,ad„ 1eA4O , T� ITS Z: I Lip .2.04, A7. `j2:11-ait? • T N 4- ruNtTA -1 I �' 117 AS., uld/4a1L.,10, * -1 I uNt1- -z. 1L.114N1t-4, ,I%IL42, . 1141210 LA, W.Ak. ibltpe:7 -* it1- -r I+-+a( 4 f. 4r, 11..1PM.IL41 1b14 -miutri7uir 1- 4� 4zz 336590- 1510 -05 OBRIEN TIMOTHY 1421759TH AVE S TUKWILA WA C0478 98188 336590- 1524 -09 LITTLE LISA L +KISNER BRIAN 109999 14082 58TH AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 336590- 1525 -08 HEWITT RAYMOND W 14208 59TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 336590 - 1665 -08 KNUDSON JE 6402 S TUK A WA TH ST #1 336590 - 1880 -07 B.B.N.TRUST 14060 INTERURBAN AVE S TUKWILA WA 3.36590- 1881 -06 FAIRWAY CENTER ASSOCIATES C/0 HALLISSEY R J'CO INC 12835 BEL -RED RD #140 . BELLEVUE WA 336590- 1890 -05 SANFT LOUIE 8 ADOLPH 6120 52ND AVE S SEATTLE WA 809999 98166 872146 98168 119999 98168 600428 98005 691803 98118 36590- 1140 -03 MAC VEIGH BRUCE S 11062 AUBURN AVE S SEATTLE WA 36590- 1145 -08 MAC VEIGH 8 •, S 11062 A N AVE S SEAT WA 336590- 1150 -00 BERNHARD JAMES L 14241 59TH S TUKWILA WA 136590- 1152 -08 GAGH AMRIK S 3005 S 152ND SEATTLE WA 136590- 1155 -05 WHITTEN TODD L 14231 59TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 136590- 1345 -06 , -13y7 - °1 PORTHEN WILMA R 14254 59TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 36590- 1346 -05 DAVIS JOANN W 5906 S 144TH ST TUKWILA WA 36590- 1347 -04 PORTHEN RONA 14254 59 TUKW WA 36590 - 1355 -03 GROSSE ROGER L 14252 59TH PL S TUKWILA WA 36590- 1360 -06 RITTIKAIDACHAR SUPALUK PO 80X 69152 SEATTLE WA 36590 - 1361 -05 269999 98178 2 09999 98178 1078 98188 979999 98188 069999 98168 98168 839999 98168 9N9999 98188 199999 98168 172069 98168 »o7YU—UYU1-00 SOUTH CE TER PROPERTIES INC18.1970. PMB 262 3213 W W ELER ST SEATTLE WA 98199 336590- 1035 -01 GRAND CENTRAL PROPERTIES TUKWILA LLC 14060 INTERURBAN AVE S TUKWILA WA 336590 - 1085 -00 JOHNSON LEO E JR +MARIAN 14210 58TH ST SOUTH TUKWILA WA 221771 98168 889999 98168 336590- 1090 -03 CARSON MARK.M +PATRICIA J 159999 14216 58TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 336590- 1131 -04 STORY RONALD 0 + BARBARA W 835030 5828 S 144TH ST TUKWILA WA 336590- 1095 -08 MOORE KURT J 14222 58TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 336590- 1100 -01 KING DAVID F PO 80X 58928 SEATTLE WA 98168 939999 98168 941064 98138 336590- 1105 -06 MCLELANO- WIESER RICHARD C +H859999 14234 58TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 98168 336590- 1110 -09 EDGAR STEVEN R 1424058TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 336590- 1115 -04 MILLS'WILLIAM S 14250 58TH AVE SOUTH TUKWILA WA 336590- 1130 -05 GARCHA JAVINDER KAUR 5826 S 144TH ST TUKWILA WA 629999 98168 939999 98168 ON9999 98168 02$0- 0007 -04 KNUOSON`JERRY 6402 S 144TH ST #1 TUKWILA WA 0280 - 0033 -02 B.B.N.TR 1406 T ILA WA TERURBAN AVE S 6590- 0715 -00 O•BRIEN DENNIS 0 5725 S 142N0 SEATTLE WA 46590- 0720 -03 RIGDON ROBERT W +ROBIN L 14209 58TH AVE S TUKWILA WA 36590- 0850 -05 TUKWILA LAND CORP 319 S 3RD ST . RENTON WA 36590- 0855 -0 TUKWILA 0 CORP 319 RD ST TON WA •122 98168 322009 98168 4N1761 98168 4N9999 98168 009999 98055 009999 98055 36590- 0865 -08 THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION 903320 ATTN AD VALOREM TAX DEPT CITY PL CTR E / PO BOX 711 DALLAS TX 75221 36590- 0875 -06 BARBANTI MARCO 2027 W CARLISLE SPOKANE WA 36590- 0880-09 TUKWILA INTERURBAN INV CO C/O STRANDER BOX 88636 TUKWILA WA 939999 99205 98188 336590 - 0891 -06 TUKWILA I =-' RURBAN INVEST 800583 PO BO- :8636 TU• ILA WA 98188 336590- 0905 -00 LEAHY ROBERT W +DOROTHY P 709999 5722 S 142ND ST TUKWILA WA 98168 336)90- 1407 -03 METRO L 0 DEVELOPMENT INC 701840 PO BOX 28 TUKWILA A 98130 336590- 1415 -01 SEGALE MARIO A PD BOX 88046 TUKWILA WA 860554 98138 336590- 1420 -04 MASCHMEOT ANTHONY E ABBEY 279800 2326 14TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98144 336590- 1425 -09 MASCHMEOT'AN 2326 1 SE'. E WA VE S E ABBEY 279800 336590 - 1435 -07 HARRIS KENNETH W 14301 INTERURBAN AV S TUKWILA WA 98144 279999 98168 336590- 1440 -00 EBENEZER CHURCH OF GOD IN C449999 PO 6OX 18154 SEATTLE WA 98118 336590- 1445 -05 MCINTOSH KATHY.J +HAWKINS KI089999 2625 SW NEVADA CT PORTLAND OR 97291 .336590- 1450 -07 SIVERTSEN DAVID R 5703 - 230TH AVE SW MOUNTLAKE TERRACE WA 401482 98043 336590- 1460 -05 HARTMAN ESCROW .INC 201271 13028 INTERURBAN AVE S 4116 TUKWILA WA 98168 336590 - 1475 -08 RICKS TIMOTHY B +WARY MICHEL099999 14228 59TH AVE 5 TUKWILA WA 98168 336590- 1490 -09 OBR.IEN TI 1421 ` H S ILA WA C0681 98188 State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(ci.tukwila.wa.us • AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) RECEIVED FEB 12 2003 DE VE OPMENT 1 in I't c) (x, ll c1/1O (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on a�)21v3 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the , other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at /y,0 / _rn /10 (0l/zii AAR 5, so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number £O3-O0 3 . I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. . Applicant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before metric) L I . sy•-es to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as histlytt voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this \7i day of , LA At dv (.4 V . \SSt M Ft: ,r IvoARI. p. OF WAS'° NO Washington residing at Y PUBLIC in and for the State My commission expires on STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan a,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS . PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss RECEIVED FEB 12 2003 uE 0� aP 'ENT The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agers, enginee s, contractors or oth rc representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at /y,0 / at* r ' l 4 %o for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5: Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at - ✓11-14„ .4 (city), j4// (state), on a/ a/7 3 LAa.4A Q`.• ■stty • .. i tlOTA • •H f' ..��. Pua41.c : o Op W 1, \1t (Signature) On this day personally appeared before me ' °`4 `U &jl\ \O to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/t signed the same as his voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. f" •6 (Print Name) j//J 3 /1:4( (Address) seak-)6._ W/! ! O / 3`"X (Phone Number) 2C6e--6 3 -50 5/ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DA 1 OF LJs_■L p NOTARY ' 1 BLIC in and for a tate of W hington residing at `Cit My Commission expires on S- tq _oi` MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Carol Lumb, Senior Planner FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson DATE: February 11, 2003 SUBJECT: Galliano's Cucina 14201 Interurban Ave. South SEPA and Misc. Comments SEPA — E03 -003 1. Project to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report, by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., dated November 12, 2002 and subsequent geotechnical reports. 2. Traffic analysis /trip generation study is required. 3. Contact DOE regarding hazardous waste on site (underground tanks, contaminated soils), as applicable. The environmental checklist should be revised or verified, as follows: A. Background 12. Verify if portion of site is within class 2 and 3 landslide hazard area B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth f. Yes, (describe) h. Add - Construction entrance, straw bales, TESC ponds and other methods per King County Surface Water Design Manual 2. Air a. Add - exhaust emissions from construction equipment b. Add - Emissions from traffic on Interurban Ave. South c. Add - Dust control note on civil site plan sheet 3. Water d. In addition describe water quality facilities, i.e. Bioswales 5. Animals a. birds — The site will remain partially native and is near native areas. Many common species of birds may be on the site on occasion. c. Yes — This area is part of the Pacific Flyway. A primary corridor for migratory bird species. 14. Transportation g. Traffic study will determine if mitigation measures are required. Miscellaneous Comments 1. Provide copy of private easement/agreement for parking stalls to be leased to others. 2. Provide storm detention system design plan and report. 3. Provide TESC plan. 4. Verify if there was a gas station located on the site. If so, what soil studies have been conducted and is soil remediation required. 5. Commercial driveways are to be 25' min. and 35' max., plan shows 20'. 6. Grease Interceptor will be required. 7. Northern driveways are close to intersection and requires detailed information by Developer's Traffic Engineer, prior to review by City Senior Traffic Engineer. 8. The City requires power to be underground per ordinance. 9. Peer review of Geotechnical Report may be required. If required, then shall be paid by the owner. • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor January 29, 2003 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director tA David Thorstad 2 406 South 259th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION RE: Galliano's Cucina, E03 -003 Dear Mr. Thorstad: /UAW 01,110.42A., . -[ 5-16.3 LL16 2-)C, 1o3 Your application for environmental review for Galliano's Cucina located at 14201 Interurban Avenue South has been found to be complete on January 29, 2003 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to prepare and install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. Please call me 3 days prior to installing the notice .board to arrange the pick up of the laminated Notice of Application. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you must return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431 -3661. Sincerely, fA. . 9'u- Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina \Complete.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 1 • MEMORANDUM May 8, 2003 To: Steve Lancaster, Director Fm: Carol Lumb, Senior anner Re: Project File No. E03 -003: Galliano's Cucina Project Description: The project is a proposed 3,000 square foot restaurant with 48 parking spaces. The restaurant may be expanded at a future time an additional 2,000 square feet for a future restaurant with a total of 5,000 square feet. Proponent: David Thorstad, architect for Galliano's Cucina Location: 14201 Interurban Avenue South Date Checklist prepared: 1/12/03 Additional information provided 3/27/03 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Challenges to Document: None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Department of Ecology Recommendation: SEPA Review — E03 -003 Galliano's Cucina April 14, 2003 1 • Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Existing Environmental Information: Geotechnical Report, prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 11/12/2002 Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by William Popp Associates, 3/11/2003 Technical Information Report, prepared by Summary of Primary Impacts: Earth The site is generally flat with steep slopes forming the western property line. The slopes on the site are approximately 60%. The geotechnical report indicates that the soils are moderately dense silty sand with occasional gravels. Three test holes were also dug along the slope face behind the new restaurant building. All three of the test holes yielded similar sub -grade conditions: dense sandy silt grading to dense silty clay at 4" to 8" with dense to very dense weathered, glacially consolidated till (hard pan) at 8" to 32 ". No water was encountered in the test holes and all the hole walls remained vertical and stable — no sloughing or caving occurred. The geotechnical report makes five recommendations for construction of the building. • Air Minor dust and internal combustion engine emissions associated with use of construction equipment will occur only during construction of the project. Best management practices will be required during construction activities to reduce and control dust and air emissions. These practices may include covering soil stockpiles, sweeping or washing paved surfaces, minimizing exposed areas and using construction machinery equipped with standard mufflers. Water The Duwamish River lies to the east of this site across Interurban Avenue South. There are intervening properties between the river and the proposed restaurant location. There will there be no surface water or ground water withdrawals or diversions. No discharges of waste materials to surface waters will occur. Storm water from the building and parking lot will be piped to a bioswale before release into the public stormwater system, as required by the City's storm water regulations. 2 c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina\SEPA staffrpt.doc SEPA Review — E03 -003 Galliano's Cucina April 14, 2003 Plants 1 • The site is vacant and currently contains alder and maple trees, shrubs and grass. The majority of the site will be cleared to construct the restaurant and parking areas. The majority of the existing vegetation on the slopes will remain. The geotechnical report notes that some of the slope trees appeared to be top -heavy and potentially subject to wind toppling and stated that it is essential that the slope trees be evaluated and properly maintained. Unfortunately, 10 of the trees were cut down, most at the base of the slope, prior to an evaluation by an arborist or certified landscape architect. A Tree Clearing permit will be required, after the fact, and replacement trees planted to replace the trees that were removed from the slope. Removal of ivy from existing trees on the slope to improve the health of these trees may be substituted for planting of some of the required replacement trees. Formal site landscaping will be planted on the perimeter and in the parking areas as required by the Tukwila Municipal Code. Animals The SEPA Checklist notes that songbirds have been observed on or near the site. It is likely that other small mammals such as rodents also frequent the project site. There are no known threatened or endangered species on or near the site. Energy/Natural Resources The completed project will use electricity and natural gas for lighting, heating and cooking purposes. The restaurant construction will comply with the State Energy Code. Environmental Health Construction noise will occur during regular hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Construction operations will be required to comply with City of Tukwila noise ordinances. Land/Shoreline Uses The project site is located on the south side of Interurban Avenue South. The zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the site are Regional 3 c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina \SEPA staffrpt.doc SEPA Review — E03 -003 Galliano's Cucina April 14, 2003 • Commercial/Mixed Use (RCM). Commercial land uses are located across Interurban Avenue South and low density residential uses are located to the west behind the site above the steep hillside. The construction of the restaurant is not displacing existing housing — the site is vacant. The restaurant will employ 6 individuals. The project is subject to administrative design review. The Director of the Department will review the proposed design of the building, color scheme and landscaping plan as part of the design review process. Historic /Cultural Preservation There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for national state or local preservation registers on or near the three sites. Transportation The site is served by Interurban Avenue South, a five lane primary arterial that runs north /south on the east side of the site and 58th Avenue South, a two lane local access street that runs east/west on the north side of the site. The checklist estimates that the restaurant will generate 150 trips daily. However, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by William Popp Associates for the project and reviewed the trips generated by an existing restaurant owned by the applicant estimates that the total peak trips will be 60. Peak hour trips occur at noon and in the evening (4 -6:00 p.m.) for this restaurant. The Traffic Impact Analysis estimates that the 3,000 square foot restaurant will generate 42 noon peak trips and 18 evening peak trips. If the restaurant expands in the future to 5,000 square feet in size, the noon peak trips would be 70, with 29 evening peak trips. A review of the traffic study by the City's Traffic Engineer determined that the project will have no negative impacts to the transportation system under the City's concurrency ordinance. The applicant will be required to pay a total of $3,649 in impact mitigation fees. There will be restrictions on turning movements at the site's driveways to ensure driver safety as follows: • The driveway onto 58th Avenue South will be restricted to a right - in /right -out access point; • The northern-most driveway onto Interurban Avenue will be restricted to a right -in /right -out access point; • The southern driveway will have no restrictions on movement. The applicant will be required to install appropriate on -site signage as well as appropriate c- curbing on both Interurban Avenue South and 58th Avenue South. 4 c:\mydocs \Galliano's Cucina \SEPA staffrpt.doc SEPA Review — E03 -003 Galliano's Cucina April 14, 2003 The site is served by five transit routes: Route 124, 150, 154, 160 and 163. Route 127 runs south on Interurban Avenue and west on 58th Avenue South; the remaining bus routes run on Interurban Avenue South. The site will have 48 parking stalls; the project requires one parking stall for each 100 square feet of usable floor area. The gross square footage of the restaurant is 3,000 sq. ft., which would require 30 parking stalls. The parking provided meets the zoning code requirements. Public Services The restaurant, like any commercial operation in the City, will generate an occasional need for police and fire services. Utilities The restaurant will utilize electricity, sewer, water garbage disposal and telephone utilities. All of these services are available for the project. Recommendation Determination of Nonsignificance 5 c: \mydocs \Galliano's Cucina \SEPA staffrpt.doc CHEST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PE. MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ()TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ( ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV ',E),QEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS &REC () K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT 14 TUKWILA LIBRARY )..RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY ()HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ( ) MAYOR SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) HEALTH DEPT • ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR .C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES (FOSTER LIBRARY ( C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 .1.,,VVATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE >4.MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\ADMINISTRATI V E \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () .S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW stetcw vA- Okhx0A--k toutz- bps . PUI1OC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PELTS 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) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part 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 Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -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). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit 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 with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan - Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:\ADMINISTRATI VE \FORMS \CFIICLIST.DOC Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® Ms. Michael Ricks 14228 59th Avenue South J'ukwila, WA 98168 Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina . 164 MM1i:itary Road Scu:h. 'eatac, WA 98188 Ms. Michael Rick 14228 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 David Thorstad 406 South 289th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Ms. -Michael. Ricks .. . 14728 59th Tukwila, WA '=`;':.6:2 . AVERY® Address Labels 1 =[... '`P�i: =rah Seat-p,; 188: • Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 16435 Military Road South Seatac, WA 98188 David Thorstad 406 South 289th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 • avid Tnorstad 406. South 289th Street edet &l• Wpy, WA 98003 David Thorstad 406 South 289th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Ms. Michael Ricks 14228 59th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 ., avv® 1 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: E03-003 Applied: 01/17/2003 Issue Date: 05/09/2003 Status: ISSUED Proponent: GALLIANO, MARIO Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: CONSTRUCTION OF 3000 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND 48 SPACE PARKING LOT. Location of Proposal: Address: 14201 INTERURBAN AV S TUKW Parcel Number: 3365901470 Section /Township /Range: SE 14 -23 -04 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 43.21 c.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 WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by 1414, .13 '1003 The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Pr-146)-zitatu-, A14. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) doc: Miscperm E03 -003 Printed: 05 -08 -2003 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I. LESZ_ /E HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: OM--` /ANDS CUG/KA Notice of Public Meeting Project Number: 5.03-403 Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: L. 4, Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Person requesting mailing: C /4Ro L Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other _ MEMO )E ,' fRoJr' f-icE nro D 3- UO 3 GAc4✓. -,io 'S Cve/�v,-V Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 9" day of -i "Y in the year 20 03 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: OM--` /ANDS CUG/KA Project Number: 5.03-403 Mailer's Signature: L. 4, 4 Person requesting mailing: C /4Ro L P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM • cry of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 8, 2003 Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 16435 Military Road South Seatac, WA 98188. RE: L03 -019 Boundary Line Adjustment at 14201 Interurban Ave. S. L03 -017 Administrative Design Review Dear Mario: I am enclosing a marked up copy of the boundary line adjustment sheets for the property at 14201 Interurban Avenue South. Please note the corrections that need to be made to sheets one and two. I am still waiting for the Affidavit of Ownership from the Southland Corporation. The boundary line adjustment cannot proceed further until we have permission from the current owner to change the property lines, nor can we approve the Administrative Design Review application, L03 -017 for property without the owner's approval. If the Southland Corporation is still the owner at the time we are ready to approve the lot consolidation, then you will need to have a representative from that company sign the mylar as well. We are issuing the SEPA determination on May 9, 2003. I received comments from Cyndy Knighton, Traffic Engineer, and am enclosing a copy for your review. There is a 14 -day comment period on the SEPA. You need to submit a Tree Clearing Permit for review and approval. After that, if we have the permission of the owner (Southland Corporation at this point) we can approve the Administrative Design Review and the Boundary Line Adjustment. If you have any questions, please call me at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, 0/147,t 6<kmo.4 Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures cc: Jack Pace, Deputy Director, Department of Community Development Dave McPherson, Engineer, Public Works Department c: \mydocs \Galliano's Cucina \L03 - 019- corrections.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 i City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano's Cucina 16435 Military Road South Seatac, WA 98188 RE: Tree Removal at 14201 Interurban Ave. South Dear Mario: April 29, 2003 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director As we' discussed on the telephone, today, no trees were to be removed from the proposed site in the sensitive areas (steep slopes) for Galliano's Cucina without the issuance of a tree - clearing permit. While the geotechnical report notes that "...some of the slope trees appear to be top - heavy and potentially subject to wind toppling..." this observation in and of itself was not sufficient to permit the removal of trees from a sensitive area Prior to the City approving any tree removal, you would have been required to provide an analysis from a certified arborist, landscape architect or surveyor on the condition of the trees that were top -heavy and provide recommendations on a course of action. It -could be there would have been another course of action besides total removal of the trees available as an option. To remedy the removal of trees without a permit you must apply for a tree - clearing permit. A permit application is enclosed. If there are additional trees that the geotechnical engineer believes pose a possible hazard, these must be identified in the information provided with the tree- cutting permit. No more trees or vegetation are to be removed from the hillside prior to the issuance of the tree - cutting permit. If you have any questions, please call me at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, 41.11{- l/ C/kui Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning. Supervisor Michael Ricks 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite =100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone: 20o- 431 -3670 • Fax: 20o-J3!-3065 Mar 25 03 12:17p D. Bruce, P.E. IP M.S.C.E., M.B.A. 2 0 6- Ett I V o D w R MAR 2 7 2003 COMMUNITY Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. mAke v4 T ao©3 • p.1 : MAORI O C ALW 0 J DwNEk. • t ONCANSOIU Co I tae . CtvtL 50c t-s SUFTEcr Gootechnical /Civil Engineer G E o -r E C g,N I C A•L. S U P P Ls r•ma 7 P41.. I N ro . aALLIA.x.)04 eocmice 1.4-9.041 t NTvo:g uw tN ' ° s • RePvEEtiCES • PI2o7ECr -PLAius 3Y Is. Yi s-r PeC If7 emit_ 1•UWCPtNSO6.) Co ewe es eo-rcc* . REPo .r Nov. fa, a00 a BT' t.$tuct 4'•g. • "1--r t-1 o L. L o C A- (o U s • TTsr d%Ltr Lo c A•r/o N s A- t, oT TE1a 0» (# E AT'TAC L f' S (+Ell 7 AN Ske'T . 3 !4oLES uG oN S l.o Pe / 3 4foL &S toe Air Po ut41 Pi- rfat) oN19- root- New TESTAUkA-nrr. • TI_ow.o Sou_ COT k MokEST (e- RE-TA(KS 0%16 VJ1kL L : Wks 5NG•43. NoPosEl Lo okrrolJ &C S a MAX PA t.m6 /or Re Alk 1NAL1. AND AP'R.OVSS reoPosos UJfLLI S U -BT -E- r 7? 4N StYg 1�UJ'PFCTl41-1S 7 VEkli ' 7a PoLLowriuc -- .51_014E STA1 I_ITY Sun- 6ttol -tFAttm ewc r`�✓ • RE. STFC-L 'k rotM k Co•JdETt; I► TJ}LIA-not) iCIkI ptC ONE • — f,NPrL . 6.41N G w�T4k SLOPE. r �LEN�tIUG P . CALL, l j QdvsT(ovs. o W kr,L o ff, Wd- L SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 !EXPIRES 12n3/1..B0 3' 1 • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL (206) 546 -9217 • FAX 546 -8442 mar ud 12:17p D. Bruce, P. E. 206 -546 -8442 o p.3 •• • f� 463 � J i u l •I ! I i • / / ?: , ■ I �, i. :I 4 1 ' �' ,v i ,,. � + i I: / / /: / /// • 1'i i Ir/ :, 2011.11l1lf.,1, i'1, • Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer November 12, 2002 Mario Galliano 16435 Military Rd. S. SeaTac, WA 98188 17 Zuus RECERM IJAN COMMON r DEVELOPMENT Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation / Foundation Recommendations Proposed Galliano Cucina 14201 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the Galliano property at 14201 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington. This evaluation. was required due to owner and Architect concerns, as well as City of Tukwila requirements. ,REFERENCES: • Site Survey and Vicinity Map • Architect Site Plan by Dave L. Thorstad • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property is approximately 385 feet (along Interurban Ave. S.) by approximately 125 feet deep (see Survey and Site Plan). Currently (November 2002) the property is not developed. The property contains dense grasses, shrubs and mature trees on the rear (southerly) slope. The majority of the property is essentially flat, with the base -of -slope occurring at the rear (southern) portion (see Site Plan and Lot Layout Map). This engineer understands that a new restaurant is proposed in the central portion of the property with associated parking and landscaping. Visual evaluation of the property revealed • no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks, or any evidence of erosional degradation. • Similar properties along Interurban Ave. S. have been developed with a mix of commercial, multi - family, and residential developments. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546 -9217 • FAX 546 -8442 Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 2 • • The property at the top -of -slope (southerly) has been-developed-with a single - family residence. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test holes were hand dug by this engineer on October 11, 2002. Three test holes were dug in the vicinity of the proposed new restaurant structure. Three test holes were dug on the slope face along the south property line. The rear slope reposes at an approximate 2H:1V declivity. The slope is heavily vegetated with mature trees and bushes. No evidence of any slope instability was observed: no tension cracks, no soil creep, or any evidence of earth movement or drainage problems. The findings of the three structure test holes were similar, namely: 0" to 10" Grasses, roots, and organic silt 1.0 ". to 22" Moderately dense silty sand with occasional gravels 22" to 38" (bottom of test holes) Increasingly dense silty sand grading to sandy silt No water was encountered in any of the three building foundation test holes. All test hole walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. Slope Test Holes: Three soil test holes were hand dug along the southern property line (on slope face) behind the proposed location of the new restaurant building. All three test holes encountered similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 0" to 4" 4" to 8" 8" to 32" (bottom of test holes) Roots, organic silt Dense sandy silt grading to dense silty clay Dense to very dense weathered, glacially consolidated till (hard pan) No water was encountered in any of the three slope test holes. All test hole walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the Galliano property at 14201 Interurban Ave. S. is geotechnically approved for the proposed new restaurant and parking area project, subject to the following: • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • No toe -of -slope excavation or soil cuts, without specific geotechnical evaluation and retaining wall recommendations. (NOTE: this engineer understands that no soil cutting is proposed on the slope face Or near the toe -of- slope). • Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub - section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty -four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground 'surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over - excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over - excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over - excavation and the footing width. For example,.an over - excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three -foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one -third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post- construction settlement of footings founded on competent, Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 4 native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one -half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one - quarter inch. NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over - excavated and backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure Where: Design Value 0.55 350 p.c.f (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON- GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be re- compacted prior to placement of the free-draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth ,pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 5 Parameter Active Earth Pressure* Passive Earth Pressure , Coefficient of Friction Soil Unit Weight Where: Design Value 35 p.c.f. 350 p.c.f. 0.55 125 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or Toads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand - operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free - draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty -five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 6 should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build -up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V. It is important to note that ,sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled.: over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6), inches of one - inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. No groundwater was observed in any of the 6 soil test holes during the fieldwork. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 7 j slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub - grade, 90% below that level 95% Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor). Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 8 Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three - quarter -inch sieve. • The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage problems were evident with the property at 14201 Interurban Ave. S. Currently, storm water runoff flows down -slope (northerly) and migrates into the existing City of Tukwila storm water system in 14201 Interurban Ave. S. It is understood that the new restaurant structure and parking areas will comply with City of Tukwila drainage controls.. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5 -1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. SLOPE SETBACKS / BUFFERS: As stated, the slope behind (southerly) of the proposed new restaurant and parking area is geotechnically stable. There are no geotechnical requirements for any setback dimension from toe -of- slope. Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 9 As stated; no soil cuts or excavations should occur on the slope face or near,the toe -of -slope without specific additional geotechnical investigation and recommendations. (NOTE: This engineer understands that no excavations on the slope or near the toe -of -slope are proposed for this project). Currently, the slope face is heavily vegetated with mature trees and shrubs. • No clear cutting or denuding of the entire hillside should occur. Select tree thinning and select tree removal is geotechnically acceptable, subject to this engineer's on -site recommendations. This engineer observed that some of the slope trees appear to be top -heavy and potentially subject to wind toppling. When trees are blown'down by severe windstorms on slope faces, slope instabilities result. Therefore, it is essential that slope trees be evaluated and properly maintained. As stated, no adverse slope conditions were observed. This engineer understands that the upper development (single - family residences) contain proper storm water drainage mitigation. It is essential that City of Tukwila continue to monitor up -slope residence drainage practices to prevent any uncontrolled discharge down -slope onto the Galliano property. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts • Foundation sub -grade verification • Retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement • Subsurface drainage installation SUMMARY: The proposed Galliano restaurant structure and parking area project at 14201 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Tukwila approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction. I EXPIRES 12/23/ LQY) 1 Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 10 • • GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: At the time of this investigation and report, final project plans were not available for review. As stated in this report, the Galliano restaurant and parking area project pose no geotechnical threat to the property and adjacent hillside, subject to review and inspection by this engineer. Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final project plans to verify compliance with the recommendations of this report. Upon satisfactory review, a geotechnical "Statement Of Minimal Risk" will be issued. CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. • If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. DMB:abj cc: Dave Thorstad, Architect Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer • Section 1 Project Overview I. Project Overview Galliano's Cucina is a re- devlopment project of approximately 1.13 acres of property. The Site currently is vacant. The existing Site contained several commercial businesses along the front 1/3 of the property as surveyed in 1986 and as documented in an aerial photo from 1977. The Site can be broken into two distinct areas. The southerly portion encompasses approximately 8,500 SF of the Site along a steep bank side and will remain undeveloped. The second distinct area is the remainder of the Site, or the northerly portion, which will be developed. The Site is located on the southwesterly corner of 58th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South. In the southerly portion of the Site, site cover consists of young second growth deciduous and coniferous trees with light to dense underbrush. Topography in this area is steep sloping northerly to the low spot. Runoff appears to flow northeasterly towards the Site's low spot, approximately 50 feet northwest of the Site's northeast comer. In the northerly portion of the Site, site cover consists of some existing asphalt with overgrown blackberries and brush. Overall relief across this area of the property is on the order of 4± feet. Site topography is gently sloping towards the Site's low spot as described above. Runoff in the northerly portion of the Site appears to flow from the property lines in towards the low spot. Runoff from the Site flows into a catch basin in the low spot where it is conveyed off -site via a tightline system within Interurban South. The on -site catch basins are directly connected to the pipe conveyance system in Interurban Avenue South. The existing street improvements along the frontages of 58th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South will remain. On -site improvements will include the construction of a new building to house the delicatessen and new parking lot. This section includes the Vicinity Map (Figure I.1), and project's TIR Worksheet (Figure I.2). ait' 70 r. '.‘= Fc.2. • • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET -port ;1.; F?130JECT OWNER AND -PkOjECTs ENGINEER • " Project Owner MAO Oft11(41t0 Address 1 COGS ibtilitN/11 12004 g. Phone 204.243.10ot. Project Engineer tfa101d IMACetttS)K, Company DilfifeaMsve". Co. (he. 2c0.2q1/10, Address/Phone /45-SW I6S1is- f Skieg Partas',.--TYPEOF: PERMIT • APPLICATION. . LI Subdivison 0 Short Subdivision 0 Grading X Commercial O Other Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND • bEtRipTidr■I' Project Name bid CUCi Location Township Range SE N...Section 2..3m 4E 11/ Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS '• LI DFW HPA O COE 404 O DOE Dam Safety LI FEMA Floodplain O COE Wetlands O Shoreline Management O Rockery O Structural Vaults O Other :Parts5,,-,SITE,COMMUNITY:AND,DRAINAGEBASIN;,; . Community Drainage Basin DVMtilti 41, Kivu/ :Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS' O River O Stream O Critical Stream Reach LI Floodplain O Wetlands O Seeps/Springs O High Groundwater Table Depressions/Swales O Groundwater Recharge O Lake 0 Other [yi •steep slopes 501 . ,see Coatedt 24tarao FC I.Z coki • • Soil Type UV Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velcoties 0'501. ± VAlrKI> Set (ec teth Ktport' s 4 t to ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 8• DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE E? Ch. 4 — Downstream Analysis ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION /SITE CONSTRAINT PI Coq aft 9 ' ESG°REQUIREMENTS' MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ❑ Sedimentation Facilities • Stabilized Construction Entrance • Perimeter Runoff Control ❑ Clearing and Graing Restrictions ❑ Cover Practices ❑ Construction Sequence ❑ Other MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ❑ Stabilize Exposed Surface ❑ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ❑ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ❑ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas ❑ Other • • F�I.2 cat. Part :10'::SURFACE WATER SYSTEM Grass Lined Channel ❑ Pipe System ❑ Open Channel ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Wet Pond ❑ Tank ❑ Infiltration ❑ Vault ❑ Depression ❑ Energy Dissapator ❑ Flow Dispersal ❑ Wetland ❑ Waiver ❑ Stream ❑ Regional Detention Brief Description of System Operation 6141 pnrk4111 col' Afrul piped Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility +11914tU systCIK ID Wed to dlthfra 1'A'l. sottia Method of Analysis KCRTS Compensation /Mitigati on of Eliminated Site Storage Eskpi_-� Eletts A2 MKdf fit roc Limitation 'Par STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ .Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other Part 12` `EASEMENTS/TRACTS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Access Easement ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Tract ❑ Other art -4a SIGNATURE.OF PROFESSIONAL :ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. 41441 41 /11°4611/ 3 /5 Signed/Date l =3 IRta circwt4 443 • • Section 2 Conditions and Requirements Summary • • 11. Conditions and Requirements Summary The City of Tukwila has not imposed any specific conditions on this project's development, nor is the site part of a defined planning area (e.g. LID, adopted basin plan) that could impact development. Therefore, improvements need only comply with City of Tukwila development standards. This section includes the SCS Soils Map (Figure II.1). SHEET NO. 10 KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON (DES MOINESQUADRANGLE) :00 r'EET SEATTLE P:l, I.YT. 122 °15' 4! °3D' 190 000 FEET 21; IV DUNCANSON COMPANY, INC. Civil Engineering • Soncying Land Planning /4S SW 155th St, Suite 102 Seattle, Washington 98166 Phone 206.244.4141 Par 206.244.4455 Figure 11.1— SCS Soils Map Scale: N/A Drawn: KAC Job No: 02957 1 • Section 3 Offsite Analysis • 1 III. Off -Site Analysis Task 1- Study Area Definition 8 Maps The Site and downstream drainage system are included as Figure III.1 - Off -Site Analysis Map. The assessor's map for the Site is included as Figure 111.2. This off -site analysis investigates the condition of the downstream runoff conveyance system as prescribed by the King County Surface Water Design Manual (Level 1). Task 2 - Resource Review This section discusses applicable findings from a review of available resources. 1. Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports and Maps - The applicable pages of the Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report and Maps were consulted. The 1987 Lower Puget Sound Basin Reconnaissance Report made no recommendations appropriate to this project or the immediate drainage system receiving project runoff. 2. FEMA Maps - Based on site location and topography FEMA flood plains are not a factor for this site. 3. Other Off -Site Analysis - No other off -site analysis have been reviewed. 4. Sensitive Area Maps - King County's sensitive area maps showed no sensitive areas on or near the site. 5. USDA -SCS Soil Survey Maps - The SCS Soil Survey Map (Figure II.1) indicates Urban Land (Ur) soils on the property. Task 3 - Field Reconnaissance Field reconnaissance was conducted in December 2002 and March 2003. The downstream conveyance system was followed from the Site to its confluence with the Duwamish River. • • Task 4 - Drainage System Description and Problem Screening In essence the Site's natural point of discharge is a 24 -inch storm main line located in Interurban Avenue South. Presently, the Site is connected to the 24 -inch line by an 8 -inch drain out of an existing catch basin. The proposed Project includes connection to the 24 -inch line by tying into an existing catch basin located near the Site's western property corner. Component A — Type I Catch Basin (0'): The site drains to a catch basin located approximately 50 feet northwest of the Site's east corner. The site discharges northeast via Component B. Component B — 8 -inch Concrete Pipe (0 -159: The site's runoff is conveyed under the sidewalk into the Interurban Avenue South right -of -way via an 8 -inch concrete pipe to Component C. This pipe appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component C — Type 2 Catch Basin (159: This Type 2 Catch Basin is located on the 24 -inch storm main line. It should be noted that this storm main line is not lined up with the current gutter alignments. Catch basins, such as Component C here, typically have solid covers and fall in the sidewalk or street area. Component C receives site runoff from Component B above. This catch basin is also a turning point for the 24 -inch main line, where it crosses under Interurban Avenue South. A nearby gutter catch basin is connected to Component C as well as a 12 -inch pipe entering from the northwest. Flow leaves this catch basin through a 24 -inch main line crossing under Interurban Avenue South in a northeast direction. This Component appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component D — 24 -inch Concrete Pipe (15 — 659: Runoff is conveyed under Interurban South via 24 -inch concrete pipe to Component E. No evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component E — Type 2 Catch Basin (659: This Type 2 Catch Basin is located on the northeast side of Interurban Avenue South in a driveway intersection. This CB was not accessible for direct inspection; however, its operation and condition were implied from the upstream and downstream conditions and the 1986 site survey. Runoff enters from the southwest via 24 —inch concrete pipe and discharges to the northwest via 24 —inch concrete pipe. No evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component F — 24 -inch Concrete Pipe (65 — 2409 Runoff is conveyed northwesterly below Interurban Avenue South via 24 —inch concrete pipe to Component G. No evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. • • Component G - Type 2 Catch Basin (240') This Type 2 Catch Basin is located in the turn lane for Interurban Avenue South, on the northeast side of the street. This CB was not accessible for direct inspection; however, its operation and condition were implied from the upstream and downstream conditions and the 1986 site survey. Runoff enters from the southeast and discharges to the northwest via Component H. No evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component H- 24 -inch Concrete Pipe (240 - 340') Runoff is continues northwest under Interurban Avenue South in the 24 -inch storm main line to Component I. No evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component I - Type 2 Catch Basin (340') This Type 2 Catch Basin is located near the northeast corner of Interurban Avenue South and South 141st Place. Runoff enters from the southeast and discharges to the northwest via Component J. This Component appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component J- 24 -inch Concrete Pipe (340 - 400') Runoff is conveyed under South 1415t Place via 24 -inch concrete pipe to Component K. This pipe appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. ComponentK- Type 2 Catch Basin (400') This Type 2 Catch Basin is located near the northeast corner of Interurban Avenue South and South 1415` Place intersection. Runoff enters from the southeast and discharges to the northeast via Component L. This catch basin also receives runoff from the southwest via an 18 -inch concrete pipe, which is the proposed point of connection for the project development. See Components 0 through R below. This Component appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component L - 24 -inch Concrete Pipe (400 - 490') Runoff is conveyed northeast under South 1415` Place via 24 -inch concrete pipe to Component M. This pipe run appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. ComponentM- Type 2 Catch Basin (490') This Type 2 Catch Basin is located near the center of South 1415t Place and it's intersection with vacated Maule Avenue South. Runoff enters from the southwest and discharges to the northeast via Component N. This catch basin appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component N- 24 -inch Concrete Pipe (490 - 630' +) Runoff continues northeast towards the Duwamish river in a 24 -inch concrete pipe. The outfall of this pipe into the river was not directly observed due to dense blackberries on the bank and it may have been below water level. No backwater effects were observed in the upstream catch basin. This pipe run appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component 0 — Type 2 Catch Basin This Type 2 Catch Basin is the proposed point of connection from the Project and is located in South 141st Place near the northwest property comer. Runoff leaves this component via an 18- inch concrete pipe. This catch basin appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component P — 18-inch Concrete Pipe Runoff flows northeast in an 18 -inch concrete pipe under South 141st Place to the intersection of Interurban Avenue South. This pipe run appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Component Q — Type 2 Catch Basin This Type 2 Catch Basin is located near the northwest comer of the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and South 141st Place. Direct inspection of this component was not practical. However, the condition and function was implied from survey information and upstream/downstream conditions. Runoff leaves this component via an 18 -inch concrete pipe. No evidence of existing or potential problems was observed with this catch basin. Component R — 18-inch Concrete Pipe Runoff continues northeast in an 18 -inch concrete pipe and crosses under Interurban Avenue South at South 141st Place. This pipe run connects to the Type 2 catch basin described as Component K above and thereby combines with the 24 -inch storm main line that continues northeast to the Duwamish River. This pipe run appeared clean and no evidence of existing or potential problems was observed. Task 5 — Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems No existing or potential capacity or erosion problems were identified in the downstream drainage conveyance system. Site development should not create or aggravate any problems within this downstream area. Therefore, no mitigation measures are warranted or proposed. 365901460 265.43 n O N "0 sisAI uv 2n-i30 - 'ANddW00 NOSNVONfla 22937M 13 O0M 12900f DUNCANSON COMPANY, INC. Civil Engin:cling • Surveying • Land Planning /45 SW 155th Si. Sidle 102 Seattle, Washington 98166 Phone 206.244.4141 Fax 206.244.4455 Scale: N/A Job No: 02957 Section 4 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design • • IV. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design This project is proposing exemption from the requirement to provide a formal flow control facility per Core Requirement #3 of the KCSWDM. Exemption #3 (Peak Flow Exemption Using Flow Control BMPs) requires the project improvements within the threshold discharge area generate less than a 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site conditions32 100 -year peak flow rate and some additional criteria be met. Part A and Part B show this project generates less than a 0.1 cfs increase and Part D shows this project meets all the requirements of Exemption #3. Part A - Existing Site Hydrology Basin 1E is defined by topographical relief and is delineated on Figure IV.1 - Existing Conditions. The area of the site to be developed is contained within Basin 1E. Basin IE Runoff from this basin sheet flows from the perimeter in towards the low spot. The low spot is approximately 50 feet northwest of the Site's northeast corner. Runoff from the Site flows into a catch basin in the low spot where it is conveyed off -site via a tightline system within Interurban South. In the southerly portion of the Site, site cover consists of young second growth deciduous and coniferous trees with light to dense underbrush. Topography in this area is steep sloping northerly to the low spot. The southerly portion will remain undeveloped. In the northerly portion of the Site, site cover currently consists of some existing asphalt with overgrown blackberries and brush. Existing site conditions as defined by the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual are those that existed prior to May 1979 as determined from aerial photographs (see footnote below). An aerial photo from April 7, 1977 was obtained from Walker & Associates, see Figure IV.la — 1977 Aerial Photo, and existing impervious areas were scaled from the photo. Also, see site survey from 1986 by Harron & Larson Professional Surveyors & Engineers, Figure IV. lb — 1986 Site Survey. Topography in this area is gently sloping towards the Site's low spot as described above. Basin lE encompasses approximately 1.18 acres. Area summaries and KCTRS input parameters are shown on the following pages: 12 Existing site conditions depend on what, if any, land conversion activity has occurred on the site since May 1979 when King County first required flow control on developments adding more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface. IF a drainage plan has been approved by the County since May 1979 for any land conversion activity which includes the addition of more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, THEN existing site conditions are those created by the site improvements and drainage facilities constructed per the approved engineering plans. OTHERWISE, existing site conditions are those that existed prior to May 1979 as determined from aerial photographs and, if necessary, on knowledge of individuals familiar with the area. The intent is to mitigate unaddressed impacts created by site alterations or improvements, such as clearing, which have occurred since May 1979. (Footnote from 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, page 1 -27) a►1 • sow IL : Ithg• 1.1.3=., 't %'t l4: • `it m' • • INTERURBAN AVENUE .S©UTHH (ow .SR 181). • yq.�...1caa Q•05 °48'43 S 43•4013_E v:1 j y'..102.41. iM • � Weal 1414110). �i? olfpilt. 414Y�� ^9,0.ifa •.- — fee .1 14211 Su*. RE.23:E h m X3.20'26" C6 -- �---- -gam -4.: N 43'18'04" MI 99.941M) 100'(P) • `c1.. 1 23 .. 60(/' 0,44 I •• d� lato z a s 3 CC. 2. 4r i• v-c?' b fr ti s S • • I • i. `O V 1� TOY 1 49. 9.97'(M) 50'(P) �T l 4046 Ru •Iu, \� 00,4414 f- 11.114. S42•41'59 "E 59TH AVE. Sb DUNCANSON COMPANY, INC. Civil Engineering • Surveying • Land Planning 145 SW 155th Street, Suite 102 Seattle, Washington 98166 Phone 206.244.4141 Fax 206.244.4455 Figure IV.1 - Existing Conditions Scale: NTS Drawn: KAC Job No. 02957 07_6151- 11; • • Sited aaast.n. = 51, 258 SF J. SAc. I E Ex = iMpevviays. : Scaled &owt 117? Ac.o.a.P NOD fot4 '/z of Os ate c6e,loped 200' Fvorti-Ale, (vo' Depth tf lof Acvelopcd 1-31 Witch s * k ic9igoosF- 0. 361 AL 4-5 Suvvc,9frowt voLf c_kveloprvicht shtt.31 in file oie-viid vit-D-rt) 4tD(A.S --fhb ttc, (Atin.lots(11. Govqlech -11) The -fpclaj frvti'kt_ iVt (Kt:CM/bait as. t C1MS IexviU D. /\W-ES ; .P6vvim15 de,Aivilo-ycesi h Iside (as ,silowiA frofrA. 14111 4614:4 AK( 601,mi/019) TO 1 k_cst- SF = 0. 2.e, 4_4a lkoti Ade,v V tu de,ve,lopcii "TAI OA- (ob611-- (. 0,61 • • KCRTS Basin Runoff Data Input Sheet Project Galliano's Cucina - Deli DCI Job Number 02957 Date 02/24/03 Basin Label 1E Rainfall Region SeaTac Time Step (15 minute or hourly) Till Forest Area 0.28 acres Till Pasture Area Till Grass Area 0.51 acres Total Basin Area 1.18 acres Regional Scale Factor 1.0 Record Type (Reduced or Historical) Outwash Forest Area Outwash Pasture Area Outwash Grass Area Wetland Impervious Area 0.39 acres Basin Label Total Basin Area Rainfall Region Regional Scale Factor Time Step (15 minute or hourly) Till Forest Area Till Pasture Area Record Type (Reduced or Historical) Outwash Forest Area Outwash Pasture Area Till Grass Area Outwash Grass Area Wetland Impervious Area Basin Label Total Basin Area Rainfall Region Regional Scale Factor Time Step (15 minute or hourly) Till Forest Area Till Pasture Area Till Grass Area Wetland Record Type (Reduced or Historical) Outwash Forest Area Outwash Pasture Area Outwash GrassArea Impervious Area Duncanson Company, Inc. 145 SW 155th Street, Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98166 ❑ Tel (206) 244 -4141 ❑ Fax (206) 244 -4455 .L,Ob.41. aM. to . In ' iv*- . p.4: •D. 4.4.111.4. MIA.. ctESsE1 ‘04. /D4 • INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH (aka SR 181) . $ 43.44'13° E 15 ,38385' 1 - -. • :96.7'0' 25L44'OPA 'FiariSa'- NP VICINITY MAP JM. A): / k / i n v• �^ �p ^ Div L fit W I ,. 4? 1 • `` Y'-2/91141 `+f + /' N .43.20' 54W . 9!9.94;(NH. ' 101API , 1 �NAN43 °20'25 °� 122.641Ab ti'�'�� �� 4 10 >, T 4, . AAA .. ,i •. 4iF "� . • 9994iM) 100'(2) - I N 43'18'04 W t Z.5 • ' `4- I i. GG jjjj Z I. • r. ; l N • ` 1~. Qom • o. to Ate. Of I .1- b .T y Z ) .1 43R T ! P�Rf E)✓t LOTS 20 THROUON 22. AND LOT 25, OF BLOCK' 1'5. HILLMAN'S SE 7LE GARDEN TRACTS. *00060ING 10 THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11.01 LATS. PAGE 24. RECORDS' OF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON: EXCEPT THE SOUTHWESTERLY HALF OF SAID LOTS 21.22 AND 25: OINSTRUMENTST O0 RECORDED UNDER NOS. 995857.�999090AA 9882 oomio BY AND CONDENSED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COU9T CAUSE NO. 109001. ;. pARCE,I B . 25T51980.OUNDER RECORDING NO.L8011250722.L8� 1GB D NOVEMEER A ORT ON OF FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: LOTS 23 AND 24, BLOCK. 15. HILLMAN'S SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS, AC DING 70 THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 Of PLATS. PA66 24. RE OS OF KING EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 23 0E10E6.40 KIN6•COUNTY, WASHINGTON: 000NTY FOR R DS BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 995857, 990090. 'AND 988203: AND EXCEPT CAUSE HA TI 209OOONF0R 1.0A0.27 AND 24 CONDEMNED 1N KING C NU SUPERIOR COURT PARCEL CL r THAT PORTION Of LOT 26. BLOCK 15, HILLMAN'S SEATTLE GARDEN TRA S. ACCORDING I TO EWE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 Of PLATS, PAGE 24. R ORDS OF KING COUNTY. VASMINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING Al THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF REIT2 AVENUE. V44 INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH. ANO THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 26: THE .f ALONG THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SA10 LOT IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION.129.4 FEET: THENCE Al RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID 1,01 IN A•• RTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN RAIN STREET. NON SETH AVENUE SOUTH: THENCE ALONG SAID MARGIN OF MAIN STREE1AND ALONG THE MARGIN Of REIT7 AVENUE. NOW INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH. TO 'HI POINT OF BEGINNINGS EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED 70 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING N0. 9882033 AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR C0UR1 CAUSE N0. 700399 FOR STATE ROAD N0. 181. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA. COUNTY OF X1NG. STATE Of WASHINGTON. DENERAL SITj MQ?L1: SITE AREA -.49,072 SQUARE FEET OR 1.127• ACRES. 'NDATED APRIL 23. 190 AT T8:00 A.M .. THE PLATT OF HIUNAN�SN COMPANY OF KS0409 SEATTLE THE BOUNDARY ASURVEYR BY LEOBARD.SCNROETERT P.L.S. PER HIS N HIS 408 RO, 141127 DATED GARDEN TRCTS NAT,.5. 1980. CITY Of TUKV1l'A SNORT PLAT NO:110- 24 -SS, TBE RECORDS OF THE .CITY OF TUKVII.A AND SURVEV5.0f RECORD. • VERT1.CAL DATUM - CITY 01'T8NVILA DATUM. PRO EC1 N NCII I ARK IS TIE INVERT ELEVATION OF SANITARY SEVER MANHOLE 50.8-5 (a S. AND 58TH AVE. S.) ELEVATION - 10.74. UNDERGROUND - THE LOCATION OF 4160166ROUM0 UTILITY SYSIENS.:AS SHORN HEREON. ARE TAEN FROM TH UPON TKHE SURFACE. ALCL LOCA10RE SERVICES LSHOULD EBE CONTACT DR APPEAR PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SUBSUBfACE EXPLORATION. SURVRTOR'S 0ATIPIPATE:, �' o1d�' r' 1 WPSIP.RY ' 46. I1' 10 SOU1HW o tDKPONATION THAT 7H1 SURVEY. 4YIt9l OF UNDER 6IIUDIIRS SIIPERVIWIOR ON. STRU0 JUNE'S. law, tTHP P LT.Sil0W5 2R DPSCNIPT10N1 SRATTBR UAW OF SAID 6TRUR'TURPS TO 2111 P6021222 L . 4401001:155 ARE 24.1513 A IAT,20188 401 NO-01C90A06M06T5 UP. ADSB1KI95 BOIEDI5 2 OR 81 STRUCTURES 20 G . IU iYt RAs SHORN. . .Ijl/ , 9. ' • 4' 7• I '.8417 . \0 S42°41'599EE 4r 4 59TH AVE. S 49.97'1M1 50'(2) VII 481 x\61 L\6• 40x6 f0 -:. /4M.IIlw9 c ya4 -i►+a Asw*r yyMd S • r e.. ��njs�eca�1�I q��girf ..�+,�wJ.i������.. A. I1wX+A+IY 4)49 NA@r1/4 t.,• • gll.OI c9._ • • Part B — Developed Site Hydrology Basin 1D represents the developed conditions for the existing site. Basin 1D is delineated on Figure IV.2 - Developed Conditions. The area of the site to be developed is contained within Basin 1D. Basin 1D Site development will include the re- development of new impervious areas from the delicatessen rooftop and parking lot. The southerly portion of the site that is steep sloping will remain undeveloped. The developed site will be comprised of one basin. Basin 1D encompasses approximately 1.18 acres. Area summaries and KCTRS input parameters are shown on the following pages: • \ r !fi F!C 7,!:AL- !' \.1Li P iiPEET r • .iGli • —PAUl roc. 2..ni` .r 714• +'24.9 TYPE 1. Cl b • 1114.11. EDGE Ar444ALT �a^1 LICNTING VAULT 't't \tl ,11• tar -11 G. I tired) IE CMM1.116.1 l5) DUNCANSON COMPANY, INC. Civil Engineering • Surveying • Land Planning 145 SW 155th Street, Suite 102 Seattle, Washington 98166 Phone 206.244.4141 Fax 206.244.4455 Figure IV.2 - Developed Conditions Scale: 1 " =50' Job No. 02957 oVIS1- 02414 103 II 11 I i I • H &ft/ PYIsiN :51,25e>SF 1.1Q5 III -Dve-ID.- a Conch.tak • 11 . „ i! 4f,K12,:i.Ns 11 bvildit 3poo SF 11 i Pitt4-i vvi____4- 11000 5F 11 22,000 SF " a51 4C,/e-ES 1)ev Hay -hrct,d hiIsde fD velyiftir\ vncleve,lopod rovcst 12-12.S1 SF 0.23 /it It-aS gelmetiAdex of .(t-e. developed 7.11 (9vitG5 ().1-(0.s1)-(o,2.€7)) (:),&1 licKES • KCRTS Basin Runoff Data Input Sheet Project Galliano's Cucina - Deli DCI Job Number 02957 Date 02/24/03 Basin Label 1D Rainfall Region SeaTac Total Basin Area 1.18 acres Regional Scale Factor 1.0 Time Step (15 minute or hourly) Record Type (Reduced or Historical) Till Forest Area 0.28 acres Outwash Forest Area Till Pasture Area Outwash Pasture Area Till Grass Area 0.39 acres Outwash Grass Area Wetland Impervious Area 0.51 acres Basin Label Total Basin Area Rainfall Region Regional Scale Factor Record Type (Reduced or Historical) Outwash Forest Area Time Step (15 minute or hourly) Till Forest Area Till Pasture Area Outwash Pasture Area Till Grass Area Outwash Grass Area Wetland Impervious Area Basin Label Total Basin Area Rainfall Region Regional Scale Factor Time Step (15 minute or hourly) Record Type (Reduced or Historical) Till Forest Area Outwash Forest Area Till Pasture Area Outwash Pasture Area Till Grass Area Outwash Grass Area Wetland Impervious Area Duncanson Company, Inc. 145 SW 155th Street, Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98166 ❑ Tel (206) 244 -4141 ❑ Fax (206) 244 -4455 • • Part C — Performance Standards The following minimum performance standards apply to this project: Flow Control — The Flow Control Applications Map indicates the site lies in a Level 1 Flow Control area that requires controlled release of the 2- and 10 -year storm events. Part D of this report shows this project is exempt from providing a formal flow control facility. Conveyance System — Onsite conveyance system must convey and contain the 25 -year peak flow rate. Section V demonstrates the conveyance system exceeds the capacity required for the 100 - year peak flow rate. Water Quality — The Water Quality Applications Map indicates the site lies in a Basic Water Quality Treatment Area. Part D of this report demonstrates compliance with this standard. Part D — Flow Control System The existing 100 -year peak flow rate was computed to be 0.312 CFS. The developed 100 -year peak flow rate was computed to be 0.358 CFS, which corresponds to a 0.031 CFS increase. The increased runoff is under the 0.1 CFS increase threshold, exempting the project from providing a formal flow control facility. The following set of KCRTS output data ( *.PKS files) represents the time series for both Pre - and Post - Developed runoff. Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:le.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.151 5 2/09/01 0.111 7 1/05/02 0.181 2 2/27/03 0.107 8 8/26/04 0.130 6 10/28/04 0.160 3 1/18/06 0.155 4 10/26/06 0.312 1 1/09/08 Computed Peaks 2:00 16:00 7:00 2:00 16:00 16:00 0:00 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return (CFS) Period 0.312 1 100.00 0.181 2 25.00 0.160 3 10.00 0.155 4 5.00 0.151 5 3.00 0.130 6 2.00 0.111 7 1.30 0.107 8 1.10 0.268 50.00 Prob 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 • • Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:ld.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis 'Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.170 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.343 1 100.00 0.990 0.131 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.202 2 25.00 0.960 0.202 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.195 3 10.00 0.900 0.134 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.180 4 5.00 0.800 0.162 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.170 5 3.00 0.667 0.180 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.162 6 2.00 0.500 0.195 3 10/26/06 0:00 0.134 7 1.30 0.231 0.343 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.131 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.296 50.00 0.980 The following shows this project meets exemption #2 from Core Requirement #3:Flow Control of the KCSWDM. Any threshold discharge area within a proposed project is exempt if the project improvements within the threshold discharge area generate less than a 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site conditions 100 -year peak flow rate, The 100 -year peak flow rate will only increase by 0.031 CFS as shown in the preceding KCRTS data. AND all of the following criteria are met: 'a) If the project is a redevelopment project, flow control BMP's must be applied as specified in Section 5.2, and the project improvements must not significantly impact a "severe erosion problem" or "severe flooding problem ", and must not be located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area, AND The project is a redevelopment project. Per Section 5.2, a perforated stub -out connection is specified for roof runoff. In addition, per Section 5.2, a biofiltration swale is specified to provide some opportunity for infiltration or dispersion prior to discharge from the project site. No existing or potential erosion or flooding problems were identified in the downstream area of this project and the project is not located within a landslide hazard drainage area. If the project is a single family residential project, the runoff..., AND The project is not a single family residential project. For projects other than redevelopment projects and single family residential projects, the new impervious..., AND The project is a redevelopment project The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact per Core Requirement #1. No existing or potential capacity or erosion problems were identified in the downstream area of the basin. Runoff from the site development will be discharged into the existing tightline drainage system and should not create or aggravate any problems within this downstream area. Part E - Water Quality System As noted, the Water Quality Applications Map indicates this site is within an area needing basic runoff treatment. This is accomplished through a biofiltration swale from the Basic Water Quality menu (KCRTS Section 6.1.1). Detention is not required, therefore the water quality design flow is defined as 60% of the developed two -year peak flow rate (60% of 0.178 -cfs = 0.110 -cfs, see Part C above). The biofiltration swale design calculations, including biofiltration sizing and conveyance capacity checks are included in this section. Duncanson Company, Inc. Biofiltration Swale Design This outline follows Section 6.3.1.1 - Methods of Analysis of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Step 1 - Design Flow Rate Storm Event 2 year Design Flow Rate, Qwo 0.110 cfs Step 2 - Calculate Swale Bottom Width SWDM Equation 6 -3: Manning's Equation Manning's Coefficient, n Longitudinal Slope, S Sideslope, Z Depth of Flow, y Base Width, b X- Sectional Area, A Wetted Perimeter, P Hydraulic Radius, R Calculated Flow Rate, Qc 0.200 0.50% 3 :1 2 inches 4.00 feet 0.75 square 5.05 feet 0.15 feet 0.111 cfs enter value enter value enter value enter value enter value enter value enter value feet Note: Adjust base width so the calculated flow rate equals the design flow rate (Qc = Q0) Step 3 - Determine Design Flow Velocity SWDM Equation 6 -4: Qwo/Awo = Vwo Design Flow Rate, Qwo X- Sectional Area, Awa Design Velocity, Vwo Step 4 - Calculate Swale Length SWDM Equation 6 -5: L = 540V ,,,,o Design Velocity, Vwo Design Swale Length, La Step 5 - Adjust Swale Length Design Treatment Width, btop Effective Treatment Area, Atop Actual Length, La Required Treatment Width, bmin Required Base Width, b Actual Base Width, ba 0.110 cfs 0.75 square feet 0.15 fps 0.15 fps 79 feet 5.00 feet 396 square feet 100 feet enter value 3.96 feet 2.96 feet 2.00 feet enter value 02957 Duncanson Company, Inc. • • Step 6 - Verify Conveyance Capacity Storm Event 25 year Design Flow Rate, Q25 0.21 cfs Manning's Coefficient, n 0.027 enter value Depth of Flow, y25 1.31 inches enter value X- Sectional Area, A 0.25 square feet Wetted Perimeter, P 2.69 feet Hydraulic Radius, R 0.09 feet Calculated Flow Rate, Qc 0.21 cfs Total Swale Depth, D 13.31 inches enter value 1.11 Resulting Freeboard 12.0 inches Note: Adjust flow depth and select an appropriate value of Manning's Equation so the calculated flow rate equals the peak 25 -year runoff rate (Qc = Q25) 02957 Section 5 Conveyance System Analysis and Design • • V. Conveyance System Analysis and Design The conveyance system calculations are simplified by demonstrating that the storm drain's smallest component can accommodate the highest anticipated flow rate. The 0.820 -cfs peak rate occurs during the 100 -year event on the developed site, which is summarized in the following KCRTS runoff time series. ,Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:ldwq.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.243 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.182 8 1/05/02 15:00 0.556 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.196 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.331 4 11/17/04 5:00 0.297 5 10/27/05 10:45 0.342 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.820 1 1/09/08 6:30 'Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Peaks - - Rank Return Prob Period (CFS) 0.820 0.556 0.342 0.331 0.297 0.243 0.196 0.182 0.732 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 The data that created this output are identical to those used in flow control sizing except that a 15- minute time series was used. The most restrictive part of the storm drain is the 12 -inch pipe sloped at 0.50 %. Manning's Equation (Q = (1.49= n)ARv3SY2) shows that the 12 -inch CPEP pipe at 0.50% can convey 2.3 -cfs under pipe full conditions, well in excess of the 0.820 -cfs peak flow. Sediment is not expected to be a concern given the small site, the parking lot is paved and there are four catch basins within the parking lot. Due to the small flows, a backwater analysis was not performed. • • Section 6 Special Reports and Studies VI. Special Reports and Summaries The following report prepared as part of this site's development is included in this section: 1. Dennis M. Bruce, Geotechnical Evaluation/ Foundation Recommendations, November 12 2002. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Mario Galliano 16435 Military Rd. S. SeaTac, WA 98188 November 12, 2002 Geotechnical /Civil Engineer Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation / Foundation Recommendations Proposed Galliano Cucina 14201 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the Galliano property at 14201 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner and Architect concerns, as well as City of Tukwila requirements. REFERENCES: • Site Survey and Vicinity Map • Architect Site Plan by Dave L. Thorstad • Site photographs BACKGROUND: The overall property is approximately 385 feet (along Interurban Ave. S.) by approximately 125 feet deep (see Survey and Site Plan). Currently (November 2002) the property is not developed. The property contains dense grasses, shrubs and mature trees on the rear (southerly) slope. The majority of the property is essentially flat, with the base -of -slope occurring at the rear (southern) portion (see Site Plan and Lot Layout Map). This engineer understands that a new restaurant is proposed in the central portion of the property with associated parking and landscaping. Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks, or any evidence of erosional degradation. Similar properties along interurban Ave. S. have been developed with a mix of commercial, multi- family, and residential developments. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN 8 PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546 -8442 Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 2 The property at the top -of -slope (southerly) has been developed with a single- family residence. EVALUATION: In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test holes were hand dug by this engineer on October 11, 2002. Three test holes were dug in the vicinity of the proposed new restaurant structure. Three test holes were dug on the slope face along the south property line. The rear slope reposes at an approximate 2H:1 V declivity. The slope is heavily vegetated with mature trees and bushes. No evidence of any slope instability was observed: no tension cracks, no soil creep, or any evidence of earth movement or drainage problems. The findings of the three structure test holes were similar, namely: 0" to 10" Grasses, roots, and organic silt 10" to 22" Mader $e y flange &iiyi 144.1 will, occasional gravels 22" to 38" (bottom of test holes) Increasingly dense silty sand grading to sandy silt No water was encountered in any of the three building foundation test holes. All test hole walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. Slope Test Holes: Three soil test holes were hand dug along the southern property line (on slope face) behind the proposed location of the new restaurant building. AU three test holes encountered similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 0" to 4" 4" to 8" 8" to 32" (bottom of test holes) Roots, organic silt Dense sandy silt grading to dense silty clay Dense to very dense weathered, glacially consolidated till (hard pan) No water was encountered in any of the three slope test holes. All test hole walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the Galliano property at 14201 Interurban Ave. S. is oeotechnically approved for the proposed new restaurant and parking area project, subject to the following: • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. • Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. • For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. • No toe -of -slope excavation or soil cuts, without specific geotechnical evaluation and retaining wall recommendations. (NOTE: this engineer understands that no soil cutting is proposed on the slope face or near the toe -of- slope). • Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub - section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty -four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over - excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over - excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over - excavation and the footing width. For example, an over - excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three -foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be :designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one -third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post - construction settlement of footings founded on competent, • • Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 4 native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one -half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one - quarter inch. NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over- excavated and backfll conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by_passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Coefficient of Friction Passive Earth Pressure Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. Design Value 0.55 350 p.c.f. We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON- GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be re- compacted prior to placement of the free - draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6 -mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12), feet in height, which restrain level backfill: Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 5 Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure' Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient of Friction Soil Unit Weight Where: 35 p.c.f. 350 p.c.f. 0.55 125 p.c.f. (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. - Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and ;foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand - operated equipment. Retaining. Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free - draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty -five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites • • Mario Galliano ;November 12, 2002 . 1 Page 6f 'should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build -up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations ,regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. 'EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, 'state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a ,height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be 'modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1 V. It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without waming. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS,: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one - inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. . No groundwater was observed in any of the 6 soil test holes during the fieldwork. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed • Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 7 slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or ;removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95% Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub- grade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor). Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 8 Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the ' potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or day particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three-quarter-inch sieve. The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage problems were evident with the property at 14201 Interurban Ave. S. Currently, storm water runoff flows down -slope (northerly) and inigratbs City of Tukwila storm water system in 14201 Interurban Ave. S. It is understood that the new restaurant structure and parking areas will comply with City of Tukwila drainage controls. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5 -1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. SLOPE SETBACKS / BUFFERS: As stated, the slope behind (southerly) of the proposed new restaurant and parking area is cgeotechnically stable. There are no geotechnical requirements for any setback dimension from toe -of- slope. Mario Galliano November 12, 2002 Page 9 As stated, no soil cuts or excavations should occur on the slope face or near-the toe -of -slope without specific additional geotechnical investigation and recommendations: (NOTE: This engineer understands that no excavations on the slope or near the toe -of -slope are proposed for this project). Currently, the slope face is heavily vegetated with mature trees and shrubs. No clear cutting or denuding of the entire hillside should occur. Select tree thinning and select tree removal is geotechnically acceptable, subject to this engineer's on -site recommendations. This engineer observed that some of the slope trees appear to be top -heavy and potentially subject to wind toppling. When trees are blown down by severe windstorms on slope faces, slope instabilities result. Therefore, it is essential that slope trees be evaluated and properly maintained. As stated, no adverse slope conditions were observed. This engineer understands that the upper development (single-family residences) contain proper storm water drainage mitigation. It is essential, that City of Tukwila continue to monitor up -slope residence drainage practices to prevent any uncontrolled discharge down -slope onto the Galliano property. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: • Soil cuts • Foundation sub -grade verification • Retaining wall, or rockery placement • Any fill placement • Subsurface drainage installation SUMMARY: The proposed Galliano restaurant structure and parking area project at 14201 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Tukwila approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction. • FROM : D. Bruce, P., E. En g i r Mario Galliano November 12,. 2002 Page 10 PHONE NO. 206 546 84 Nov. 16 2002 02:13PM P10 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: At the time of this investigation and report, final project plans were not available for review. As stated in this report, the Galliano restaurant and parking area project pose no geotechnical threat to the property and adjacent hillside, subject to review and inspection by this engineer. Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final project plans to verify compliance with the recommendations of this report. Upon satisfactory review, a geotechnical "Statement Of Minimal Risk" will be issued. CLOSURE: The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. l EXP RE3 12123/ 9_0 04 1 . DMB:abj cc: Dave Thorstad, Architect Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer • Section 7 Other Permits • • VII. Other Permits This section does not apply. • • Section 8 ESC Analysis and Design • • !VIII. ESC Analysis and Design Cover measures and construction sequencing have been specified on the engineering plans in !order to minimize erosion. The TESC methods were chosen to best minimize sediment !transport. Erosion control and sediment retention measures, such as filter fences, stabilized construction entrance, and catch basin inlet protectors were selected qualitatively to minimize !off- -site migration of sediment. • • Section 9 Bond Quantities Worksheet IIX. Bond Quantities A bond quantities worksheet will prepared for the final engineering of the improvements. • MARCH 26TH 2003 MARIO GALLIANO LLC 16435 MILITARY RD. SO. SEATAC, WA 98188 (206) 683 -5059 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. ATTN: CAROL LUMB TUKWILA, WA 98188 RE: SHORT TERM PARKING LEASE Dear Carol: Eo 3- 003 RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This letter is in regards to short term parking lease situated at 14201 Interurban Ave So. Since I began this project of opening an Italian deli/restaurant I have received interest from my neighbor at Grand Central Casino to lease up to 20 parking stalls from me for about 3 years. This is simply an interest, there is no agreement or contract. I have sufficient parking as per code, and this potential agreement is in -line with & satisfies requirements as per city of Tukwila codes. I appreciate you consideration of this subject and welcome any comments or questions. Sincerely, Mario Galliano LLC 1- 15- 03 ;11:OOAM ;Dept. of Ecology REVIVED MAR 2 7 2003 ;3604077154 1/ 2 DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON STATE D EPART ME N.T OF EcoLOGY CLEANUP PROGRAM Pt TOXICS Facsimile transmittal TO: iviV'o aul FAX #: u u43- o74 PAGES: (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) FROM: 'GNP SENDER'S PHONE #: (360) 407- 7 2 Ote DATE: i I03 • REMARKS: • kam4 1 - I Hur pi-Lo. fi- t am, Dam Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504 -7600. Toxics Cleanup Program Fax # (360) 407 -7154. If you have problems with this transmission, please call Toxics Cleanup Program Receptionist at (360) 407 -7170 15- 03 ;11:OOAM ;Dept. of Ecology ;3604077154 # • • CHECKLIST FOR PEI WENT CLOSURE OF UNDERGROUM :ORAGE TANK(S) . loeure information is different for individtnitani s;Tl easernse a.separate form for each tank Business Name: Site Owner/Operator. Site Address: Telephone: 7- Eleven Corporation The Southland Corporation 14225 Interurban Avenue S, Tukwila ( 206) 575 -6711 Site Identification (on invoice or available from Ecology if tank was reported): Local dome permit (if any) obtain (Always contact local authoriti Date tank(s) were closed: Tank closure performed by: Company/Individual: Lee Morse General Contractor Telephone: Method of Closure: Removal ® In -Place Closure 0 If closed -in- place. type of fill material used: N/A 002890 ( 206 ) 763 -8956 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS JAN 15 1991 Tank(s) Closed T ID Number (on notification form) Age Size (GaL) Last Material Stored 1 Prem UnI 17 1000 - 5000 Gasoline 2 Prem Unl 1000 - 5000 gasoline 3 Reg 17 10000 - 20000 4 Un f ead 17 10000 - 20000 Gasoline Gasoline If removed. how will the tank(s) be disposed of: Scrap ® Landfill f—' Other otease soecvy Will the tanks be replaced by new underground tanks? Yes El No E NOTE: If YES, you need to submit a notification form for the new tanks. was a site assessment completed? Yes 0 No 0 None required as tanks were removed If yes, was contamination found? Yes C3 No D prior to December, 1989. If yes, was the appropriate Regional Ecology Office Notified? Yes 0 No NOTE: The appropriate regional office of the Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted for assistance if contamination is found (see attached map). Records of the site closure must also be maintained at the site and must be available upon an inspector's request for at least three years after closure. Inspecting Agency. Inspector Name: NOTE This is generally the local fire department or agency enfo (usually involving contamination) it may be Ecology. In Owner's Signanue (or designated representative): Title: Construction Manager Fire Code: in some cases be no inspecting agency. Please return the completed form to: Underground Storage Tank Section Department of Ecology M/S PV-11 Olympia. WA 98504 -8711 Date: 11 -15 -90 Mar 25 03 12:17p D. Bruce, • M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Pe E. ` 20� v'D MAR 2 7 2003 COMMUNITY Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. inikEntPrr ao03 p.1 77, o ki.LLIPiko • b. -"too t-GTpFi fsr • t ONCANSow Co i ‘le . SURTeC•r pwNett. C t%,IL 'ENC3ts Gootechnical / Civil Engineer EO- CE CK,NlCR•L SUPPLEME6JTAL IN�'o. aAt.LI AriJO . CLJCI N i4 S . If90 tNY uweat� q� 'REP FtE6JCE5 • PRorECr -Pc, A141 Y �. 774.0ps-righ P-ecH -r. • CtuItr -Love's 1Y � UPC k14SO� Co J ces eo-rcc* . tee-Po�.r Nov. (a, aooa Br t.13toci ( M. go>rs •LocAZ"cous TI;sr 6Io1.E cA -r(ox) 4.-AE OT ( E 1'\T MC 0'01 "PLAN SkfI: -TS . 3 I4oLE.6 •DUG oIv SL_oPE 3 gofEs & )6 Ar Po(1NAA--rie' i oW rot. NEW -REs-rAUkAir1/417-. TIoLoset TAR.V11J6 LoT Coy- MoLEsT RETP“N tmo WkL eu(ENEp ?goPoseb L.o ekrtoiu a MAY PA1U JPJ6 for RETha. Uv f�l. L Aiii A l'P RoVss TkoPosEh VJfUI S uw-Ecr S'c r (•t)sPECT(OIJ. 7 VE41PY E F'oI.Low(Nc -- S L.or STA1xt LITY Sun - tAlt --$ Pttuc - eA�'ACt`rV - 'RF •STEEL, le r'otM CotJC,t; T6 ( fI-crli-t.Li74T(oo �R.aINptG ' oCINE o . — PINAL 7eit.E1.1t11,16 + WTK . eAl, L, l 67(.1V5-noes, !EXPIRES 121231 ,:901. 1 SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546 -9217 • FAX 546 -8442 LEGAL I{ar. 25 03 12:17p D. Bruce, P.E. 206- 546 -8442 P. 3 / / % % / i / / ' ' / % % / / 1 , William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers /Planners (425) 401 -1030 FAX (425) 401 -2125 e -mail: wepa @seanet.com TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for Galliano Cucina Prepared for.: Mr. Mario Galliano Galliano Cucina Restaurants Prepared by: William Popp Associates 14 -400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel -Red Rd Bellevue, WA 98007 March 11, 2003 RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 DEVELOPMENT E 03- 003 14 -400 Building • Suite 206 • 14400 Bel -Red Road • Bellevue, WA 98007 Traffic Impact Analysis • Galliano Cucina TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 I. Project Description 1 II. Site Inventory 1 Existing Roadway Network 1 Accident Data 2 Transit Service 2 Pedestrian Services 2 III. Project Trip Generation 3 IV. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment 6 V. Traffic Volumes 8 Existing Traffic Counts 8 Historical Growth 8 Future Traffic Volumes 8 VI. Level -of- Service and Queuing 8 Level of Service 8 Queuing 11 VII. Conclusions 13 VIII. Mitigation 14 William Popp Associates Page i Traffic Impact Analysis • • Galliano Cucina William Popp Associates Page 1 17:9e Qi SKVWr? � 1 �`tV S 1257 ST 0 . S PAR411 t 'i IFS t 1_ N)el�1s s qC' -S g _; \'q.� 5 ❑7TH s t2i - l 7110 � �t°i S $1 yl 128TH I 1 68001,„1 .7 I :in'�i721A1 76 /I F 11 S '41(.1 231H'�Pl`r I. = I291N I S \� FI ;1'_; Qi S 1)013 51 2 •'I �� , a �yrS '.CO,yr =rjf\ �Dit jl s rOr .. ?. rJ. /_u_6STONa1µ9- }T__t_71.i.c BUCK' RIVER / .. s 1( •r \ �S •"hO`I3 4M 57 7 !!0 SI Y'�i ci ST 017INS HD • C/jh S 133RD, s I �. FR 713 •r 1 "1:.111 M 53410036TH 136TH S 137714 CRC57 CC78 O ! a ST1 ^ ST S 1415T • 1•142N 142 o.57 144 ` ST 5900 7ul(LNUT PARK LIB FS JN e D ` $i FS s. IR PD 5 1567 ST S1 BUCK R RIPARIAN K' ►1r f ST 627,„ q ��'••.' OENT5 S Ia9TN 5 76 •6 ✓1 PAJX ` \ six STp I�9M - i nlrT N 1J N $ sr ..,' .eafa•�\......'\1\ . t / '< 151 ST � .) J. 152ND ST 23 r--. s lu •. ��� •t �` 1 B FA 3 5..,, -> \ = s 152110 Pi T. �_— °t.- TUKNILA ,, %:VLF j T N L 11 RENTO BTH yj 5 e S 150TH qp q � rn„41r • CRrSTAI: \� ~ S Y ^ ° _160THr - SPRINGS PA.W j q J200 / j'i M ST S t..M „. � ` 5 STIS CRCSNICY j< � i 161551 5 16211 ST �l FAR T 5�1 :L5i L 164TH— 1 7CMIC0(N HEIGHTS `s I INfM $14, C6?1N_248{. _ _57 �!: t 5 5 Halts!. r..L.% 27168TH _ _ ST I e KNIH H E4GL ITS 1s „�!� Si I _� i,� s 7800 i u00 5100 PO 5 172ND ST ▪ II �I 173RD ruick Sall 'CENTER 4 STRANDER i1 175TH ° ST 1 S i 176TH • ST SCAM( 3100 fe IMPORT A SCAM S I771N ST i 'LION MARRIOTi� S 1 ITN ST ( :'. '1' E AIRPORT 'E9f\�\f a a3p0 . s PK 178TH .f\ �a_11787N Silt ` S xn cr-,. M!; 53 -` �,1 iY. s -ir 1; NT NCi REN75 WErUN CORPORA 1119(198 OR 5 PARKWAY PLAZA WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com VICINITY MAP Figure 1 Galliano Cucina ; • -11 • .1; t 'a! f -9. • • . 1.1 . 11- , - a 1 . : • .4 • ' 1; • i I d I ; '" I. I I • •••••,,,L. a i 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1—\'• I • . i Iwt1 ■ -',.-. ,',4 I j Ii!-•: ! i.....-e, leis.... I .......1,...4,,,-r......s • : 71. 1...--../"'.' li ; - - - --- ... ... .1 ..... ...,._-'..7--:—."! • II . • ... . !: I _ -- I I .. - _f 1... ......, .-6 .- . , • s_ '---,...... - • 0 . . • Izt .1; '0. I • t.1 • • :C.41./.. _. ....I! .. I.:. _..L.- _ 4_-,...--.....,;,..-,....-±-...--9,--- ..--,-,.-,-. •_ .. ___71,• . i .. t1 d.' 15.0.c> ' WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com SITE PLAN Figure 2 Galliano Cucina Transit Service There is five transit routes in the vicinity of the site all served by King County Metro. These routes include 124, 150, 154, 160, and 163. Route 124 traverses south on Interurban Ave and west on 58th Ave S. The remaining four routes all traverse north and south and Interurban Ave. There is a bus stop with bus shelter on the east side of Interurban Ave just south of 58th Ave S and a bus stop on the west side of Interurban Ave just north of 58th Ave S. There are also two bus stops on 58th Ave S west of the site at the 58th Ave S/S 142nd St intersection. Pedestrian Services There are adequate pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity of the site. There is a 5 foot asphalt sidewalk on the south_ side of 58th Ave S and a 10 foot sidewalk on the west side of Interurban Ave S. As noted above, the signal at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection provides protected crossing of both Interurban Ave and 58th Ave S. The City provided a pedestrian count at the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection for the periods between 7:00 am and 9:00 am and between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. During the AM period, there were 31 roadway crossings by pedestrians on one or more of the intersection legs. During the PM period, there were 34 roadway crossings by pedestrians on one or more of the intersection legs. It should be noted that within these totals, there were 15 pedestrians crossing the north leg during the AM period and 18 pedestrians during the PM period, where there is no crosswalk or pedestrian signal provided for protection. William Popp Associates Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis • • Galliano Cucina William Popp Associates Page 3 Traffic Impact Analysis • • Galliano Cucina which suggests consistent data with minimal fluctuation. The average car occupancy was determined to be 1.51 persons per vehicle. rFor the street PM peak period, the existing Galliano Cucina restaurant is estimated to yield a PM peak hour (1 hour between 4:00 and 6:00 pm) trip rate of 5.89 trips per 1,000 gross square feet. This local rate is 46% less than the national rate per ITE. Again, it should be noted that for the two days surveyed, the trip rate ranged between 5.56 and 6.22 trips per ksf which suggests consistent data with minimal fluctuation. The average car occupancy was determined to be 1.57 persons per vehicle. The resultant trip rates determined from the local studies tend to confirm what the owner ' William Popp Associates Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis Galliano Cucina Primary, Pass -by, and Diverted Link Trips The basic trip generation estimates presented above (in Table 2) represent the total vehicular trips anticipated to visit the restaurant as opposed to the new trips added to the street system. Because of the nature of the facility, and its' location on a major arterial, it is presumed that a significant portion of the trips generated by the restaurant will already be on the surrounding street network. Thus, to determine the actual outlying project impact, the projected trip generation is stratified into non - pass -by and pass -by trips. These are defined below: • Non - pass -by include two subcategories of trip types, primary trips and diverted linked trips. Primary trips are trips made for the specific purpose of visiting the site. Diverted linked trips are trips attracted to the site from roadways outside the immediate area of the site and require a diversion from their normal traffic route to stop at the site. • Pass -by trips are trips made as intermediate stops from an origin to a primary trip destination. Pass -by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street that contains direct access to the site. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998, presents pass -by trip percentages for various types of retail land uses. While it was argued above that the Galliano Cucina restaurant will generate fewer trips overall than what is presented in ITE for a "high turnover (sit -down) restaurant, it is concluded that the nature of the business will be very similar. Therefore, the average pass -by trip percentage denoted in Table 5.7 (Chapter 5, p. 48) was assumed to appropriate for this project. The average pass -by percentage was determined to be 43% based on 12 studies of restaurants ranging from 2.9 ksf to 11.5 ksf with an average size of 6.4 ksf. This pass -by rate was assumed to apply to both the noon period and the street PM period. Trip Generation Summary Implementing the pass -by rates discussed above, the results of the trip generation analysis are presented in Table 3. William Popp Associates Page 5 Traffic impact Analysis • • Galliano Cucina Table 3 Tukwila Galliano Cucina Trip Generation Summary Restaurant Size Noon Peak Street PM Peak Total In Out Total In Out 5,000 GSF b Rate ° 14.00 50% 50% 5.89 56% 44% Vol 70 35 35 29 16 13 Pass -by % ` 43% 43% Non Pass -by % 57% 57% Pass -by trips 30 15 15 13 7 6 Non - Pass -by trips 40 20 20 16 9 7 a Trip Rate and directional distribution percentages from Table 1 b 5,000 gsf is the ultimate project size. Pass -by rates based on Table 5.7 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998 As shown in Table 3, the proposed restaurant is estimated to generate during the noon peak hour (aka site peak hour) 40'non = pass -by trips and 30 pass -by trips. During the street PM peak hour, this proposed restaurant is estimated to generate 16 non - pass -by trips and 13 pass -by trips. IV. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment Trip distribution patterns used to determine the noon peak hour and street PM peak hour assignment of non - pass -by project traffic were nominally based on existing peak hour turning movement counts at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection as well as traffic engineering judgment based on surrounding residential and commercial development. The distribution patterns and assignment of pass -by project trips were solely based on the traffic counts at the Interurban Ave /58th Ave S intersection. The estimated distribution percentages are shown in Table 4. William Popp Associates Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis Galliano Cucina Table 4 Trip Distribution Summary Roadway Distribution Project Trips Percentage Inbound Outbound Noon Peak Hour Non-pass-by Interurban Ave S north of 58th Ave S 35% 7 7 Interurban Ave S south of 58th Ave S 35% 7 7 58th Ave S west of Interurban Ave S 30% 6 6 Total 100% 20 20 Pass -by Interurban Ave S north of 58th Ave S 45% 7 7 Interurban Ave S south of 58th Ave S 50% 7 7 58th Ave S west of Interurban Ave S 5% 1 1 Total 100% 15 15 Street PM Peak Hour Non-pass-by Interurban Ave S north of 58th Ave S 35% 3 2 Interurban Ave S south of 58th Ave S 35% 3 3 58th Ave S west of Interurban Ave S 30% 3 2 Total 100% 9 7 Pass -by Interurban Ave S north of 58th Ave S 35% 2 3 Interurban Ave S south of 58th Ave S 55% 4 2 58th Ave S west of Interurban Ave S 10% 1 1 Total 100% 7 6 As shown in Table 4, it was estimated that the majority of the non - pass -by project trips (70 %) will be on Interurban Ave S and 30% of the project trips will be on 58th Ave S. The pass -by component of project traffic is estimated to have a higher percentage on Interurban Ave S (90% during the street PM peak hour and 95% during the noon peak hour) and a lower percentage on 58th Ave S (10% during the PM peak hour and 5% during the noon peak hour). Based on a gross floor area of 5,000 gsf, the restaurant's non - pass -by assignment of project vehicles during the noon peak hour is estimated to be 14 vehicles to /from the north on Interurban Ave and 14 vehicles to /from the south, and 12 vehicles to /from the west on 58th Ave S. The restaurant's non - pass -by assignment of project vehicles during the street PM peak hour is estimated to be 5 vehicles to /from the north on Interurban Ave and 6 vehicles to /from the south, and 5 vehicles to /from the west on 58th Ave S. The distribution and assignment of project trips during the noon peak hour are shown in Figure 3. The distribution and assignment of project trips during the street PM peak hour are shown in Figure 4. William Popp Associates Page 7 (7) LEGEND xx - non - pass -by trips (xx) - pass -by trips xx% - Project Distribution Percentage non - pass -by (xx %) - Project Distribution Percentage pass -by 58th Ave S NOON PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 35% (50 %) WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info ®wmpoppassoc.com NOON PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Figure 3 Galliano Cucina S 144th St '60 2 3 (3) (2) 2 (10 %) 30% - (1) 35% (35 %) 3 3 (4) STREET PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (2) ik Abi ) 1(1) —I 2(1) �t LEGEND xx - non- pass -by trips (xx) - pass -by trips xx% - Project Distribution Percentage non - pass -by (xx %) - Project Distribution Percentage pass -by 35% (55 %) WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel-Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com STREET PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Figure 4 Galliano Cucina Traffic Impact Analysis 1111 • Galliano Cucina V. Traffic Volumes Existing Traffic Counts Manual PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected by this consultant at the Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S intersection for the noon peak period, and obtained from the City for the street PM peak hour. The noon count was conducted Thursday February 20, 2003, and the City count was conducted Tuesday April 2, 2002. The noon and street PM peak hour turning movements at this intersection are presented in the Technical Appendix. Historical Growth Level -of- service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and ' the perception of these conditions by motorists and /or passengers. There are several quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There are six levels -of- service that are given letter designations from "A" to "F ", with "A" being ' the best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst, with maximum delay or jammed conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is generally considered acceptable for planning and design purposes, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with freedom to maneuver being extremely difficult. Level -of- service for the existing condition, as well as future conditions, were calculated using the techniques presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The supporting Highway Capacity Software utilized for all calculations is version 4.1b. It should be noted that the analysis of unsignalized intersections utilized the full hour William Popp Associates Page 8 Traffic Impact Analysis • • Galliano Cucina William Popp Associates Page 9 Traffic Impact Analysis • Galliano Cucina Table 6 Peak Hour Level of Service Intersection Approach/ Movement 2002/3 Existing 2005 2005 without with project project a Noon Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S overall b B (12.7) B (12.8) B (13.0) Interurban Ave/ EB right n/a n/a B (10.5) north site access e Interurban Ave/ EB n/a n/a B (12.8) south site access d NB left n/a n/a A (9.0) 58th Ave S /site access a NB n/a n/a A (9.1) Street PM Peak Hour Interurban Ave /58th Ave S overall b B (13.9) B (14.2) B (14.3) Interurban Ave/ EB right n/a n/a B (10.4) north site access Interurban Ave/ EB n/a n/a B (12.9) south site access d NB left n/a n/a A (8.9) 58th Ave S /site access e NB n/a n/a A (9.3) a d Based on 5,000 gsf signalized intersection, representative delay is for overall intersection, (xx) - Delay, seconds per vehicle assumed as right -in, right -out assumed as full access assumed as right -in, with full access out. Interurban Ave S /58th Ave S - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B during both the noon peak hour and the street PM peak hour, and is estimated to continue to do so in the future with or without the project. The average delay at this intersection is estimated to increase by 0.2 seconds per vehicle (s /v) during the noon peak hour with addition of project traffic. The average delay at this intersection is estimated to increase by 0.1 seconds per vehicle (s /v) during the street PM peak hour with addition of project traffic. Each of the project driveways are estimated to operate at LOS A or B for either the noon peak or the street PM peak hour. The analyses assume the south driveway on Interurban Ave S will operate as a full access driveway and the north driveway on Interurban Ave S will operate as right -in, right -out only. The driveway to 58th Ave S was assumed to operate with both left and right turns exiting the site, but with only right turns entering. William Popp Associates Page 10 Traffic Impact Analysis S • Guiliano Cucina ' William Popp Associates Page 11 feet during the noon hour and 105 feet during the street PM peak hour. The eastbound ' William Popp Associates Page 12 Traffic Impact Analysis 0 Galliano Cucina William Popp Associates Page 13 Traffic Impact Analysis VIII. Mitigation • Galliano Cucina The City's current impact fee structure is based on a fair -share cost basis for selected projects. In the City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Table 12 (Mitigation Proportionate Fairshare Costs) identifies nine projects , of which 7 are considered completed or paid for. The remaining two projects include: 1. West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard. This project will construct northbound dual left turn lanes at a cost of $250,000. Based on the City's 20 -year forecast of 883 new peak hour trips, the resultant cost per trip is $283. 2. Interurban Bridge. This project will widen for dual lefts at a cost of $1,250,000. Based on the City's 20 -year forecast of 1,114 new peak hour trips, the resultant cost per trip is $1,122. William Popp Associates Page 14 14 -400 Building • Suite 206 • 14400 Bel -Red Road • Bellevue, WA 98007 PK HR Adj HR END TIME 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM PK HR Adj HR • City /Town: Job: Pk Hr: Tukwila Galliano Cucina 11:30 AM 12:30 PM RIGHT FROM: NORTH THRU LEFT Portion Trucks RIGHT FROM: EAST THRU LEFT Time Portion Trucks TOTAL TOTAL 5 121 2 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 135 0 140 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 165 0 171 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 136 1 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 143 0 156 1 2 0 0 2 0 6 143 1 150 0 3 1. 1 5 0 8 144 1 153 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 158 2 167 0 0 0 1 1 0 33 587 2 622 1 5 1 1 7 0 35 629 2 666 1 1 5 1 1 7 0 RIGHT FROM: SOUTH THRU LEFT Portion Trucks RIGHT FROM: WEST THRU LEFT Time Portion Trucks TOTAL TOTAL 0 115 3 118 0 14 0 6 20 0 1 118 6 125 1 7 0 7 14 0 0 161 3 164 0 1 0 5 6 0- 0 137 5 142 0 6 0 6 12 0 0 147 6 153 0 9 0 7 16 0 4 146 8 158 4 6 2 6 14 0 0 146 4 150 0 8 0 6 14 0 0 113 7 120 0 11 0 1 12 0 4 591 22 617 4 22 2 24 48 0 4 633 24 661 24 2 26 52 0 END TIME 15 Min TOTALS 11:15 285 Time 11:30 300 Start - End hr vol pk hr? 11 :45 365 11:00 12:00 1270 no 12:00 320 11:15 12:15 1335 no 12:15 350 11:30 12:30 1385 YES 12:30 350 11:45 12:45 1361 no 12:45 341 12:00 13:00 1362 no 13:00 321 William Popp Associates INTERSECTION: Interurban Ave. S. /58th Ave. S. PEAK HOUR: 11:30 AM 12:30 PM DATE: 20- Feb -03 SOURCE: WPA PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL LEG VOLUMES 26 52 2 24 Peak Hour Factors: PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME MOVEMENTS 666 35 629 RIGHT LEFT THRU WEST RIGHT LEFT THRU NORTH SOUTH THRU LEFT RIGHT EAST THRU LEFT RIGHT 24 633 4 661 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS DERIVED FROM COUNT From North: 0.91 SB From South: 0.94 NB From East: 0.33 WB From West: 0.76 EB Total 0.95 Percent Trucks & Buses: From North: 0.2% SB From South: 0.6% NB From East: 0.0% WB From West: 0.0% EB 5 1 7 1 William Popp Associates 666 664 60 7 52 8 654 661 26 52 2 24 Peak Hour Factors: PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME MOVEMENTS 666 35 629 RIGHT LEFT THRU WEST RIGHT LEFT THRU NORTH SOUTH THRU LEFT RIGHT EAST THRU LEFT RIGHT 24 633 4 661 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS DERIVED FROM COUNT From North: 0.91 SB From South: 0.94 NB From East: 0.33 WB From West: 0.76 EB Total 0.95 Percent Trucks & Buses: From North: 0.2% SB From South: 0.6% NB From East: 0.0% WB From West: 0.0% EB 5 1 7 1 William Popp Associates TRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:15 PM TO 5:15 PM 58th Avenue 5 36 121 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,722 OUT 1,722 Interurban Avenue S 1,645 604 4 575 1,041 Interurban Avenue S 625 58th Avenue S 1 . 0 1 2 20 12 968 15 995 1,620 58th Avenue S 0 Interurban Avenue S Tukwila, WA HV PHF SB 10% 0.81 NB 9% 0.89 WB 0% 0.50 EB 1% 0.86 INTRS. 9 °/0 0.96 HV = Heavy Vehicles PHF = Peak Hour Factor COUNTED BY: DM DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 4/2/02 REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM DATE: Fri. 5/10/02 WEATHER: Sunny COUNT AT SEATAC GALLIANO CUCINA (FRI 2/28/03; 11:00 TO 1:00) AA MEETING BETWEEN 11 AND 1 AT BANQUET HALL Start Time FRONT DOOR 1 person per car In Out 2 persons per car In Out 3 persons per car In Out 4 persons per car In Out 11:00 2 1 11:05 1 1 11:10 2 2 1 11:15 1 2 1 1 11:20 2 1 1 11:25 1 2 1 1 11:30 3 1 11:35 3 1 1 1 11:40 3 11:45 2 1 2 1 1 1 11:50 1 1 11:55 3 1 1 12:00 2 1 1 12:05 1 1 1 12:10 2 1 1 12:15 2 2 1 12:20 1 2 2 1 12:25 1 1 1 12:30 3 2 1 12:35 1 2 1 1 12:40 2 1 1 1 12:45 1 2 1 1 12:50 1 1 2 12:55 1 6 2 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY Vehicles 18 Persons 18 18 11 7 3 18 22 14 9 1 In Out Total All Vehicles 34 31 65 % in 52% All Persons 51 43 94 ACO = 1.45 CUCINA.XL1, store count noon fri 0 1 BACK DOOR (employee and catering) unknown veh occ (assume 1 per car) In Out 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 min 1 hour interval interval 3 57 3 59 5 60 6 60 5 59 5 61 4 6 5 8 2 5 5 4 5 5 7 3 7 5 5 6 4 9 2 4 0 4 2 4 lit 61 61 59 61 651 • COUNT AT SEATAC GALLIANO CUCINA (TUE 3/4/03; 4:00 TO 6:00) Start Time FRONT DOOR BACK DOOR (employee and catering) 5 min 1 hour interval interval 1 person per car In Out 2 persons per car In Out 3 persons per car In Out 4 persons per car In Out unknown veh occ (assume 1 per car) In Out 4:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 4:05 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 24 4:10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 251 4:15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 4:20 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 24 4:25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 19 4:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 4:35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MR8 4:40 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 21 4:45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 4:50 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 4:55 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 5:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 21 5:05 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5:10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 1 1 5:35 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5:40 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:50 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Up 5:55 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY Vehicles 5 8 2 2 2 0 0 1 Persons 5 8 4 4 6 0 • 0 4 In Out Total All Vehicles 12 13 25 % in 48% All Persons 18 18 36 ACO = 1.44 CUCINA.XL1, store count pm tue 3 2 3 2 COUNT AT SEATAC GALLIANO CUCINA (TUE 3/4/03; 11:00 TO 1:00) Start Time FRONT DOOR 1 person per car In Out 2 persons per car In Out 3 persons per car In Out 4 persons per car In Out 11:00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:30 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:35 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 11:40 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 11:45 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 11:50 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 11:55 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 12:05 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 12:10 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 12:15 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 12:20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:25 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 12:30 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 12:35 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12:40 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12:50 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12:55 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY Vehicles 12 19 7 5 6 1 0 3 Persons 12 19 14 10 18 3 0 12 In Out Total All Vehicle 29 32 61 % in 48% All Person 48 48 96 ACO = 1.57 CUCINA.XL1, store count noon tue BACK DOOR (employee and catering) unknown veh occ (assume 1 per car) In Out 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O 2 O 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 O 0 O 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 min 1 hour interval interval 1 7 7 6 1 4 2 38 0 40 1 47 1 53 1 58 1 58 4 1 4 8 3 2 4 52 51 45 46 49 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 2 4 5 • COUNT AT SEATAC GALLIANO CUCINA (THUR 2/27/03; 4:30 TO 6:00) Start Time FRONT DOOR 1 person per car In Out 2 persons per car In Out 3 persons per car In Out 4 persons per car In Out 4:00 1 1 4:05 2 4:10 1 4:15 1 4:20 1 1 1 4:25 4:30 1 1 4:35 1 1 4:40 1 4:45 1 4:50 1 4:55 2 1 5:00 1 1 5:05 1 1 5:10 1 5:15 1 1 1 5:20 1 1 5:25 5:30 1 1 5:35 1 1 1 5:40 2 5:45 1 5:50 1 2 5:55 1 1 1 PEAK HOUR SUMMARY Vehicles 5 4 7 5 2 0 1 0 Persons 5 4 14 10 6 0 4 0 In Out Total All Vehicles 18 10 28 % in 64% All Persons 32 15 47 ACO = 1.68 CUCINA.XL1, store count pm thur BACK DOOR (employee and catering) unknown veh occ (assume 1 per car) In Out 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 min 1 hour interval interval 2 23 3 25 2 24 1 24 3 26 0 2 3 1 2 1 3 4 2 2 3 2 0 2 3 2 1 4 3 3 1 3 1 055 25 25 26 25 28 281 • 48 ITE • Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 5 Table 5.7 Pass -By Trips and Diverted Linked Trips Weekday, P.M. Peak Period Land Use 832 —High Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant SIZE DIVERTED ADJ. STREET (1,000 SQ. WEEKDAY NO. OF TIME PRIMARY NON -PASS- LINKED PASS -BY PEAK HOUR SEATS FEET GFA) LOCATION SURVEY DATE INTERVIEWS PERIOD TRIP ( %) BY TRIP ( %) TRIP ( %) TRIP (%) VOLUME SOURCE ill n/a 5.8 Orlando, FL 1992 150 2 -6 P.M. 68 32 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 5 Casselberry, FL 1992 65 2 -6 P.M. 42 58 n/a TPD, Inc. 168 5.3 Louisville area, KY 1993 24 4 -6 RM. 37 13 50 1,615 Barton - Aschman Assoc. 169 2.9 Louisville area, KY 1993 41 4 -6 RM. 27 36 37 3.935 Barton - Aschman Assoc. 150 3.1 Louisville area, KY 1993 21 4 -6 P.M. 29 33 38 2,580 Barton - Aschman Assoc. 250 7.1 New Albany, IN 1993 n/a 4 -6 P.M. 23 54 23 1,565 Barton - Aschman Assoc. n/a 8 Kissimmee, FL 1995 664 2 -6 P.M. 39 21 40 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 11.4 Orlando, FL 1996 267 2 -6 P.M. 43 19 38 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 11.5 Orlando, FL 1996 317 2 -6 P.M. 51 20 29 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 4.6 Orlando, FL 1992 276 2 -6 P.M. 37 63 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 5.7 Orlando, FL 1994 308 2 -6 P.M. 43. 57 n/a TPD, Inc. n/a 6.2 Orlando, FL 1995 521 2 -6 P.M. 43 11 46 n/a TPD, Inc. Average Pass -By Trip Percentage: 43 • GALLIANO'S CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant 1 Interurban Ave /58th Ave S EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2002 PM PK 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background PM PK Project Volumes (5,000 gst) pass -by non- pass -by 2005 with Project PM PK 72 4 0 3 0 0 0 1 59 1 0 35 1 76 2 1 1 1 2 3 79 0 0 0 49 52 52 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 12 13 13 968 1027 1029 15 16 16 5 5 5 575 610 615 24 25 25 1722 104 1826 1836 2 Interurban Ave /south site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2002 PM PK 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background PM PK Project Volumes (5,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by .2005 with Project PM PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 38 0 0 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 995 1056 1056 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 663 665 0 0 0 1620 99 1719 7 7 1733 CUCINA.XL2, ST PM PK Turns 3/11/03 2002 PM PK extg 2005 Background PM PK 604 1041 36 2 121 20 625 995 2005 Background PM PK 2005 with Project PM PK 640 1104 38 2 128 21 663 1056 2005 with Project PM PK 2002 PM PK extg 645 1109 38 2 131 21 668 1058 2002 PM PK extg 2005 Background PM PK 625 995 0 0 0 0 625 995 2005 Background PM PK 2005 with Project PM PK 663 1056 0 0 0 0 663 1056 2005 with Project PM PK William Popp Associates 665 1058 7 0 5 0 668 1063 William Popp Associates • GALLIANO'S CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant 3 Interurban Ave /north site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT • extg 2002 PM PK 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background PM PK Project Volumes (5,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2005 with Project PM PK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 38 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 995 1056 1057 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 663 663 0 0 5 1620 99 1719 3 5 1727 4 58th Ave S /Site Access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2002 PM PK 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background PM PK Project Volumes (5,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2005 with Project PM PK 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 1 0 121 128 128 0 0 4 0 0 0 36 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 10 166 4 6 176 CUCINA.XL2, ST PM PK Turns 3/11/03 2002 PM PK extg 2005 Background PM PK 625 995 36 0 36 121 0 0 00 0 625 995 2005 Background PM PK 2005 with Project PM PK 663 1056 36 0 36 121 0 0 00 0 663 1056 2005 with Project PM PK 2002 PM PK ex g 668 1057 36 5 36 121 0 2 00 0 665 1057 2002 PM PK ex g 2005 Background PM PK 00 36 36 121 121 00 2005 Background PM PK 2005 with Project PM PK 00 38 38 128 128 00 2005 with Project PM PK William Popp Associates 00 41 38 132 131 46 William Popp Associates • GALLIANO'S CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant 1 Interurban Ave /58th Ave S EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT • extg 2003 Noon Hour 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (5,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2005 with Project Noon Hour 26 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 26 0 0 25 1 27 4 4 3 3 7 7 35 2 2 2 24 25 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 24 25 25 633 659 665 4 4 4 2 2 2 629 654 668 35 36 36 1386 55 1441 14 14 1469 2 Interurban Ave /south site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2003 Noon Hour 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (5,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2005 with Project Noon Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 26 0 0 3 3 4 4 7 7 3 3 2 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 661 688 688 0 0 0 0 0 0 654 680 686 0 0 4 1315 53 1368 19 19 1406 CUCINA.XL2, Noon Pk Hr Turns 3/11/03 2003 Noon Hour extg 2005 Background Noon Hour 666 664 60 7 52 8 654 661 2005 Background Noon Hour 2005 with Project Noon Hour . 692 691 62 7 54 8 680 688 2005 with Project Noon Hour . 706 705 62 7 62 8 694 694 2003 Noon Hour extg 2005 Background Noon Hour 654 661 0 0 0 0 654 661 2005 Background Noon Hour 2005 with Project Noon Hour 680 688 0 0 0 0 680 688 2005 with Project Noon Hour William Popp Associates 690 694 18 0 14 0 694 702 William Popp Associates • GALLIANO'S CUCINA New Tukwila Restaurant 3 Interurban Ave /north site access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT • extg 2003 Noon Hour 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (5,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2005 with Project Noon Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 26 0 0 3 3 3 3 2 2 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 661 688 694 0 0 0 0 0 0 654 680 684 0 0 10 1315 53 1368 13 13 1394 4 58th Ave S /Site Access EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT extg 2003 Noon Hour 2005 Future Growth 2005 Background Noon Hour Project Volumes (5,000 gsf) pass -by non - pass -by 2005 with Project Noon Hour 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 6 4 4 0 52 54 54 0 0 7 0 0 0 60 62 62 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 5 116 6 16 138 CUCINA.XL2, Noon Pk Hr Tums 3/11/03 2003 Noon Hou extg 2005 Background Noon Hour 654 661 60 0 60 52 0 0 00 0 654 661 2005 Background Noon Hour 2005 with Project Noon Hour 680 688 60 0 60 52 0 6 00 0 680 688 2005 with Project Noon Hour 2003 Noon Hour extg 694 694 60 10 60 52 0 6 00 0 690 694 2003 Noon Hour extg 2005 Background Noon Hour 00 60 60 52 52 00 15 2005 Background Noon Hour 2005 with Project Noon Hour 00 62 62 54 54 00 15 2005 with Project Noon Hour William Popp Associates 00 69 62 61 62 7 15 William Popp Associates _ HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT mor General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 Time Period 2002 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2002 Project ID Galliano Cucina - Existing Conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT, LT TH _ RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 72 0 49 1 0 1 12 968 15 5 575 24 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= .. G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 80 54 2 13 1093 6 666 Lane group capacity, c 197 231 232 344 2186 172 2011 v/c ratio, X 0.41 0.23 0.01 0.04 0.50 0.03 0.33 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, di 40.9 39.9 38.6 34.7 11.0 43.1 11.9 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 42.3 40.4 38.6 34.7 11.2 43.2 12.0 Lane group LOS D D D C 8 D B Approach delay 41.6 38.6 11.5 12.3 Approach LOS D D B B Intersection delay 13.9 Intersection LOS 8 Ilk MI VI HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 Time Period Background St PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S - Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2005 Project ID Galliano Cucina - Background without project Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 76 0 52 1 0 1 13 1027 16 5 610 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= `Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 "Y= Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 84 • 58 2 14 . 1159 6 706 Lane group capacity, c 197 231 232 344 "2186 172 2012 v/c ratio, X 0.43 0.25 0.01 0.04 0.53 0.03 0.35 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 41.1 40.0 38.6 34.7 , 11.3 43.1 12.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k " 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 42.6 40.6 38.6 34.7 11.6 43.2 12.2 Lane group LOS D D D C B D 8 Approach delay 41.8 38.6 11.9 12.4 Approach LOS D D B B Intersection delay 14.2 Intersection LOS 8 III HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 Time Period Street PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2005 Project ID Galliano Cucina - Background plus project (5 ksf) _ Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 79 0 52 1 0 1 13 1029 16 5 615 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, Ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 _ 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G = -5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 88 58 2 14 1161 6 711 Lane group capacity, c 197 231 231 344 2186 172 2012 v/c ratio, X 0.45 0.25 0.01 0.04 0.53 0.03 0.35 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 41.2 40.0 38.6 34.7 11.4 43.1 12.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 42.8 40.6 38.6 34.7 11.6 43.2 12.2 Lane group LOS D D D C B D B Approach delay 41.9 38.6 11.9 12.4 Approach LOS D D B B Intersection delay 14.3 Intersection LOS 8 Nov I/ TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information • nalyst BPJ • gency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 ■ nalysis Time Period 2005 PM PK Intersection Interurban Ave /s. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2005 Project Description Galliano Cucina East/West Street: south site access North /South Street: Interurban Ave Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 7 1056 0 0 665 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 1056 0 0 665 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 — -- Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 2 0 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration _ LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service • pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 7 5 C (m) (vph) 934 461 /c r 0.01 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 0.03 Control Delay 8.9 12.9 LOS A 8 • pproach Delay -- -- 12.9 • pproach LOS -- — 8 HCSI000T^' Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY! General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Intersection 58th Ave S /site access Agency /Co. William Popp Associates Jurisdiction Tukwila Date Performed 3/7/03 Analysis Year 2005 PM PK Analysis Time Period 2005 PM PK Project Description Galliano Cucina East/West Street: 58th Ave S North /South Street: site access Intersection Orientation: East -West Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 _ 6 L T R L T R olume 0 128 4 38 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 128 4 38 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized • 0 0 Lanes 0 1 _ 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 _ 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 3 0 3 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service • pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 38 6 iC (m) (vph) 1466 839 /c 0.03 0.01 95% queue length 0.08 0.02 Control Delay 7.5 9.3 LOS A A • pproach Delay -- -- 9.3 • pproach LOS — -- A HCS2000Tm Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 Time Period Noon PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2003 Project ID Galliano Cucina - existing conditions Volume and Timin • In • ut EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 . 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 26 2 24 1 1 5 24 633 4 2 629 35 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G, 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 31 27 8 27 707 2 738 Lane group capacity, c 209 231 239 344 2190 172 2009 v/c ratio, X 0.15 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.32 0.01 0.37 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 39.4 39.2 38.8 34.9 9.5 43.0 12.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 39.7 39.5 38.8 35.0+ 9.6 43.1 12.3 Lane group LOS D D D D A D B Approach delay 39.6 38.8 10.5 12.4 Approach LOS D D 8 8 Intersection delay 12.7 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 Time Period Noon PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2005 Project ID Ga/liano Cucina - future without project conditions Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 27 2 25 1 1 5 25 659 4 2 654 36 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only , Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= �G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 _ Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 32 28 8 28 736 2 767 Lane group capacity, c 208 231 239 344 2190 172 2009 v/c ratio, X 0.15 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.34 0.01 0.38 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d, 39.4 39.3 38.8 34.9 9.6 43.0 12.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2. 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 39.8 39.5 38.8 35.0+ 9.7 43.1 12.5 Lane group LOS D D D D A D 8 Approach delay 39.6 38.8 10.6 12.5 Approach LOS D D B B Intersection delay 12.8 Intersection LOS B W HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT • General Information Site Information Analyst BPJ Agency or Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 Time Period Noon PK Intersection Interurban Ave /58th Ave S Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2005 Project ID Galliano Cucina - future with project conditions (5 ksf) Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT , Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane group LT R LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 35 2 25 1 1 5 25 665 4 2 668 36 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 18.2 18.2 10.7 10.7 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 Excl. Left NB Only Thru & RT 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 10.0 G= 5.0 G= 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 41 28 8 28 743 2 782 Lane group capacity, c 203 231 239 344 2190 172 2009 v/c ratio, X 0.20 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.34 0.01 0.39 Total green ratio, g/C 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.62 0.10 0.57 Uniform delay, d1 39.7 39.3 38.8 34.9 9.6 43.0 12.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 '1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 40.2 39.5 38.8 35.0+ 9.7 43.1 12.5 Lane group LOS D D D D A D B Approach delay 39.9 38.8. 10.7 12.6 Approach LOS D D B B Intersection delay 13.0 Intersection LOS 13 Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c -TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information • nalyst BPJ • gency /Co. William Popp Associates Date Performed 3/7/03 • nalysis Time Period 2005 NOON PK Intersection Interurban Ave /n. site access Jurisdiction Tukwila Analysis Year 2005 Project Description Galliano Cucina East/West Street: north site access (North /South Street: Interurban Ave Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 694 0 0 684 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 694 0 0 684 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0. Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 0 0 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service ■ pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (vph) 6 C (m) (vph) 655 /c 0.01 95% queue length 0.03 Control Delay 10.5 LOS B • pproach Delay -- -- 10.5 • pproach LOS -- -- B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Copynght ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Right Flow Avg Cycles , Avg Q 95% Q Number 95% Q per 95% Q per Avg Q per % Intersection (Movement) Volume Turn on PHF Cycle Green* G/C Ratio Red Rate Red (sec) per Hour (veh) (veh) of Lanes Lane (veh) Lane (ft) lane (ft) Interurban Ave /58th Ave S 2002/3 PM PK Northbound Approach Left Thru /Right Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 2005 PM PK without project Northbound Approach 12 0 0.9 13 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.3 0.9 1 0.9 23 8 983 0 0.9 1092 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 13.7 19.6 2 9.8 245 171 72 0 0.9 80 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 2.0 4 1 4.0 100 50 49 0 0.9 54 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.4 3.3 1 3.3 83 34 Left 13 0 0.9 14 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.4 0.9 1 0.9 23 9 Thru /Right 1043 0 0.9 1159 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 14.5 20.4 2 10.2 255 181 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 2005 PM PK with project Northbound Approach Left Thru /Right 1045 0 0.9 1161 105 60 0.571 34.3 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru 79 0 0.9 88 105 15 0.143 Right [�. 2002/3 NOON PK Northbound Approach Left Thru /Right Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 2005 NOON PK without project Northbound Approach Left Thru /Right Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 2005 NOON PK with project Northbound Approach Left 25 0 0.9 28 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 1.8 1 1.8 45 17 Thru /Right 669 0 0.9 743 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 9.3 14.2 2 7.1 178 116 76 0 0.9 84 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 2.1 4.2 1 4.2 105 51) 52 0 0.9 58 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.4 3.4 1 3.4 85 36 13 0 0.9 14 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.4 0.9 1 0.9 23 9 34.3 43% 86% 14.5 20.5 2.2 4.2 52 0 0.9 58 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.4 3.4 2 1 10.3 4.2 256 181 105 55 3.4 85 36 24 0 0.9 27 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 637 0 0.9 708 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 8.8 28 0 0.9 31 105 15 0.143 34.3 24 0 0.9 27 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.8 1 1.8 45 17 13.8 2 6.9 173 111 0.8 2.1 1 2.1 53 19 86% 0.7 1.8 1 1.8 45 17 25 0 0.9 28 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 1.8 1 1.8 45 17 663 0 0.9 737 105 60 0.571 34.3 43% 9.2 14.2 2 7.1 178 115 29 0 0.9 32 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.8 2.4 1 2.4 60 20 25 0 0.9 28 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 1.8 1 1.8 45 17 Eastbound Approach Left/Thru Right 37 0 0.9 41 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 1.0 3 1 3.0 75 26 25 0 0.9 28 105 15 0.143 34.3 86% 0.7 1.8 1 1.8 45 17 from HCS assumptions for signal cycle CUCINA.XL2, Queues 3/11/03 William Popp Associates 11/04/02 NUN 1D:L4 rnn L19 ILO ,viy • Order No.: 10072784 Issued by Tranananon Tide Insurance Com COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE TRANSNATION LnNDAnERIcn` RECEIVED 'JAN 17 10031 commumry DT Transnatlon Title Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue Its policy or policies of title Insurance, as Identified In Schedule A, In favor of the proposed Insured named In Schedute A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or Interest covered hereby In the land described or referred to In Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions end conditions and stipulations shown herein, the occlusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations Of the poesy or policies requested. (See the following pages far printed Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B excepdons contained In various policy forms.) This Commitment shall be effective only when the Identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted In Schedule A hereof by the Company. either at the time of the Issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations. This Commitment Is preliminary to the issuance of suds policy or policies of title Insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate 180 days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall be Issued, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to Issue such policy or policies Is not the fault of the Company. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED PROMPTLY UPON REQUEST. Attest: a, 4, Secretary Transnation Title Insurance Company By: COMMITMENT CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS President 1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall Include deed of trust, Must deed, or other security Instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, den, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or Interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown to Schedule B hereof, and shall tad to disclose such knowledge to the Company In witting, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by fallure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or If the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, Ilen, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at Its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from Ilabdlty previously Incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties Included under the definition of Insured In the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred In reliance hereon In undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or Interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated In Schedule A for me policy or policies committed for and such liability Is subject to the Insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulation and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for In favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby Incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified nerein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the company arising out Of Me status of the tide to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. The matters listed below each policy form are expressly exduded from the coverage of that policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs. attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason thereof. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 3/93) Nr.14.01.01; SC No.: H727 • • SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE Order No.: 10072784 AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (10- 17 -92) The logowlre matters are expressly excluded nom the ceveraoa of tints poky and the Compvny will not pay loss or damage, oasts, attorneys' fees or expanses wNdl wise by reason of: (1) Any law, ordinance or government's! regulation (Incwdutg but not refuted to building and zoning laws, ordinance!. or reanimating) restricting, regulating. Prohlbmng Or Mating 10 0) the otxupancy, vie or enjoyment al the l and; (a) the char$( ter. dimension or loation or any knprovenent now or hereafter erected an the land; (lit) separation In ownership or o change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel or which the land 11 er was • part; or (1v) envhmrnentat Protection. Or the wawa of any violation al these laws. ordinances or governmental regulations, eireca to tha anent that a nonce of the enforcement thereof cc a notice of a defect, Ian Or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the pubic records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental pollee power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a mom, Ikn or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the kind has been recorded in the public records at Date of Poky. 2. lbghts of eminent domain unless make of the exercise thereof nos been recorded In the pubkc records at Data of Policy, but not crawling from tdvera00 any taking whidi has occurred prior to Date of Pane/ which would be binding an the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, lien, en umbranaes„'diverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, 'slimmed 01 agreed to by the Insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded M the pubic records at Dated Panty, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed In writing to the Company by the Insured damhant prior to the date the Maned claimant became an Insured under ads pocky; (c) reacting In no loss or damage to the Insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Pokey (except to the tenant that this policy Mares the priority of the been Or the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or to the extent insurance Is afforded hheedn as to assessments for sheet Improventenb under castmcyon or Completed at Date of Posey); or (e) resulting M toss or damage which would not have been sustaned If the insured ddmant had paid woke for the Insured mortgage. 4. Unenfoite1e1Sty or the lien of the insured mortgage because or the MabkRy or haute m tore insured at Data of Poky, or the inability a failure of any subsequent owner of the Indebtedness, to comply was appnabte doing business laws or the state In Wadi the land Is situated. 5. lnvelldlhr or unenforceabelty Of the Oen d the insured mortgage. or dalm thereon, whall orlsos out of the transaction evidenced by the bleared mortgage and 11 based upon usury or any consumer Crtdlt protection or truth- In -lendlng law. 6. Any statutory ben for servic O, labor or matenah (or the dalm of prlotity of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the Nei of the insured mortgage) annng from an lmprovemad or work related to the land which is convected for and commend subsequent to Date of Policy and Is not Wanted le whole or In part by proceeds of the Indebtedness seamed by the Insured mortgage witch at Data of Pepgr the Insured Ins advanced or 1s obligated to advance. 2. Any claret, weklt arises out of the transaction creatlrg the Interest of the mortgagee insure! by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal banlwptcy, state Insolvency, or similar creators' rtgnts taws, that is based on: (f) the transaction Creating the Interest of the enured mortgagee bang deemed 0 fraudulent conveyance Or fraudulent transfer; Or (ti) the subordination of the Interest, the Inwned mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine or equitable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the Intents, of the Insured mortgagee bring deemed a preferentlel transfer except where the preferential transfer resulb from the mutt: (a) to amity record the Instrument of transfer; or (b) or such reandadon to Impart notice to a purchaser row value or a Judgment or nen creditor. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17 -92) The follawing matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy end the Company wan not pay loss or damage. tests. attorneys' tees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) My taw, ordinance or governmental regulation (Including but not limited to building and zoning laws, mamma, or regulations) restricting, 'mutably, prohlblU g or mating to (1) the OCCUpaI CY. use be enjoyment or the land; (0) the character, dimensions or Watson of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (III) a separation In ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any plecd of which the land le or wee a pact or (Iv) environmental protection, or the affect, eny violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a derma. lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded M the pubic records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental pollee power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that s node of the exercise thereof ore notice of a defect, ken or encumbrance resulting from a Uoie00n or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded In the public records et Date of Polley. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise them, hos been recorded In the public records at gate of Policy. but not occluding (ram coverage any tad/1g which has occurred prior to Date Of Policy which would fro binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, dens, encumbrances, adverse Oakes or othor matters: (e) created, suffered, assumed Or "greed to by the Insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the Insured claimant and net disclosed In twang to the Company by the insured d0lmont prior to the date the Insured stalmsnt became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting In no loss or damage to the In$kred claimant; (d) ettedeng or created subsequent to Date or potty; Or (e) reaping to loss or damage whim would not have been sustained If the Insured claimant had paid value for the estate or Interest Insured by Ws policy. 4. Ally claim, which arises out of the tran3acttom vesting In the insured the estate or Interest Insured by Up policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state Insolvency. or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (1) the transaction seating the estate or Interest insured by INC policy bring damned a fraudulent COnveyanee or fraudulent transfer; or (n) the transaction amino the estate er Interest Insured by this pdllcy being deemed • preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the Instrument, transfer; or (b) of sutn recordation to Impart notice to a purchaser for value or a Judgment or Den creditor. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 3/93) LT1SNATION I,nrmAnERIca" COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A Order No.: 10072784 1. Effective Pate: October 28, 2002 at 8:30 AM Commitment No.: 800 - 10072784 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Owner's Standard - General Schedule Rate Proposed Insured: Mario Galliano, presumptively subject to the community interest of his spouse If married Amount $310,000.00 Premium: $1,045,00 Tax: $ 9L96 Total: $1,136.96 3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: The Southland Corporation, a Texas corporation 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto. By Authorized Signature Commitment for Title Insurance NF.14.02.07; SC No.: 1172? Pace 1of7 EXHIBIT A PARCEL A: Order No.: 10072784 LOTS 20 THROUGH 22, AND LOT 25 IN BLOCK 15 OF HILLMAN'S SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1.1 OF PLATS, PAGE 24, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY AUDITOR; EXCEPT THE SOUTHWESTERLY 1/2 OF LOTS 21, 22 AND 25; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN W. MARGINAL WAY, AS CONVEYED BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NOS. 995857, 990090 AND 988203 AND CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 109001; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: LOTS 2 AND 3 CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO. 80 -24 -SS AS RECORDED NOVEMBER 25, 1980 UNDER RECORDING NO. 8011250722, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY WASHINGTON; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF LOT 26 IN BLOCK 15 OF HILLMAN'S SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 24, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY AUDITOR, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF REITZ AVENUE, NOW INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH, AND THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT 26; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION 129.425 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLE TO SAID SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID LOT LINE IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE INTERSECTION WITH SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF MAIN STREET, NOW 58"' AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE ALONG SAID MARGIN OF MAIN STREET AND ALONG THE MARGIN OF REITZ AVENUE, NOW INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH, TO THE PCINT OF BEGINNING; Order No.: 10072784 EXHIBIT A (continued) EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 988203; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 700399 FOR STATE ROAD NO. 181; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 41/ V'{/ vi Mavl. •J. f.v 1,141. LSY I iv . va.c • SCHEDULE B Order No.: 10072784 REQUIREMENTS: Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS: Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Standard exceptions set forth on the Commitment Cover. B. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. Real Estate Excise Tax pursuant to the authority of RCW Chapter 82.45 and subsequent amendments thereto. As of the date herein, the tax rate for said property is 1.78 %. 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES and SERVICE CHARGES, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No.: 3365901470 Year Billed Paid Balance 2002 $1,356.42 $1,356.42 $0.00 Total amount due, not including interest and penalty: $0.0D. Levy Code: 2380 Assessed Value Land: $100,800.00 Assessed Value Improvements: $0.00 (Covers Lots 20, 21 & 22 of Parcel A) 3. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES and SERVICE CHARGES, ag follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No.: Year 2002 3365901480 Billed Paid Balance $ 420.85 $420.85 $0.00 Total amount due, not including interest and penalty; Levy Code: Assessed Value Land: Assessed Value Improvements: (Covers Lot 2 of Parcel B) Commitment for Title Insurance $0.00. 2380 $31,200.00 $0.00 Page 4 of 7 11/04/02 MUIV 15:25 FAX 214 7LU 7014 LANYtKS 111L& • • SCHEDULE B (continued) Order No.: 10072784 4. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES and SERVICE CHARGES, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No.: Year 2002 3365901485 Billed Paid Balance $ 422.20 $422.20 $0.00 Total amount due, not including interest and penalty: $0.00. Levy Code: 2380 Assessed Value Land: $31,300.00 Assessed Value Improvements: $0.00 (Covers Lot 3 of Parcel B) 5. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES and SERVICE CHARGES, as follows, together with Interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No.: Year 2002 3365901505 Billed Paid Balance $ 398.00 $398.00 $0.00 Total amount due, not including interest and penalty: Levy Code: Assessed Value Land: Assessed Value Improvements: (Covers Lot 25 of Parcel A) $0.00. 2380 $29,500.00 $0.00 6. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES and SERVICE CHARGES, as follows, together with Interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No.: Year 2002 3365901515 Billed Paid ` Balance $ 434.29 $434.29 • $0.00 Total amount due, not Including Interest and penalty: $0.00. Levy Code: 2380 Assessed Value Land: $32,200.00 Assessed Value Improvements: $0.00 (Covers Parcel C) Commitment for Title Insurance Page 5 of 7 SCHEDULE B (continued) 7. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:. GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDING NO.: CITY OF TUKWILA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES WITH THE NECESSARY APPURTENANCES THE NORTHEASTERLY 8 FEET OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY 4 FEET OF LOT 2 OF SHORT PLAT NO. 80 -24 -SS 6708050 Order No.: 10072784 8. ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS OR OTHER SERVITUDES, IF ANY, DISCLOSED BY THE SHORT PLAT NO. 80 -24-SS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8011250722. RIGHTS OR BENEFITS, IF ANY, WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDED DOCUMENT(S) ABOVE AFFECTING LAND OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A. 9. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any rights of vendors and holders of security interests on personal property installed upon the land; and rights of tenants to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. Note 1: Note 2: According to the application for title insurance, the proposed insured is Mario Galliano, who will acquire title presumptively subject to the community interest of his or her spouse, if married. We find no pertinent matters of record against the name of said party; however, the Company has been unable to search for and does not insure against matters, if any, relating to the spouse, which matters may encumber the title to the property to be acquired. Evidence should be submitted proving the corporate existence of The Southland Corporation, together with evidence of the identity and authority of the parties to execute the forthcoming instrument. Note 3: The Company requires the proposed insured to Verify that the land covered by this commitment is the land intended to be conveyed in this transaction. The description of the land may be Incorrect, if the application for title insurance contained Incomplete or inaccurate information. Notify the Company well before closing If changes are necessary. Closing instructions must indicate that the legal description has been reviewed and approved by all parties. Commitment for Title Insurance Page 6 of 7 Note 4: • SCHEDULE B (continued) Order No.: 10072784 The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. BLK 15 LOT 20 -21 -22 HILLMANS SEATTLE GARDEN TRS 20 LESS ST & NELY 1/2 OF 21 -22 LESS ST; LOT 2 OF CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO 80 -24 -SS REC. NO. 8011250722; LOT 3 OF CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO 80 -24 -SS REC. NO. 8011250722; BLK 15 LOT 25 HILLMANS SEATTLE GARDEN TRS ELY 112 LESS ST; BLK 15 LOT 26 HILLMANS SEATTLE GARDEN TRS LESS SWLY 129.425 FTTHOF LESS ST HWY 'Note 5: WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING, PLEASE SEND VIA TDS (TITLE DELIVERY SERVICE) IN THE YELLOW RECORDING ENVELOPES WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF THEY MUST RECORD THE SAME DAY, PLEASE CONTACT THE TITLE UNIT FOR SPECIAL DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS. IF THEY MAY BE RELEASED WITHIN 48 HOURS, THEY SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: Transnation Title Insurance Company 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98101 ATTN: Recording Dept. (END OF EXCEPTIONS) Investigation should be made to determine if there are any sewer treatment capacity charges or if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or construction charges for sewer, water or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered In accordance with our rate schedule. Unless otherwise requested or specified herein, the forms of policy to be issued in connection with this Commitment will be the ALTA 1998 Homeowner's Policy, the ALTA 1992 Lender's Policy, or, in the case of standard lender's coverage, the CLTA Standard Coverage Policy - 1990. The Policy committed for or requested may be examined by Inquiry at the office that issued the Commitment. A specimen copy of the Policy forms) referred to in this Commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. enc. $ketch Vesting Deed Paragraphs 7 -8 BRP /rr Commitment for Title Insurance Page 7of7 • SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE (continued) Order No.: 1.0072784 AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE FOR A ONE -TO -FOUR FAMILY RESIDENCE (10- 17 -98) In *Option to the Exceptions In Schedule B, You are not Insured against loss, cosh, attorneys' fees, and expenses resdting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government reputation. This Includes Ordiemees, laws and regulations concerning: (e) building (b) zoning (c) land use (d) enprovements on the Land (e) Land division (1) environmental protection TNS Exclusion does not apply to violations o• the enforcement of these matters 11 notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. MN Exclusion does not Wok the coverage described in Covered AJak 14, 15 16. 17 or 24. 2. The failure of Your existing sttucturos, or any Dart of tttom, to be consvucted In accordance with applicable buadlgg codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes U notice of the violation comets In the Public Records at the Polity Date. 3. The rdgh* to take the Land by condemning k. unless: ((a) a notice of exerdctng the nght appears In the Public Records et the Policy Date: or b) the taking happened before the Policy ate and is binding on You u You bought the land wkhout I:noatnu dew taking. 4. Reeks: ,(a) that are created, agowed, qr agreed to by You, whether or not they appear In the Public records: (b) that are Known to You at ten Policy Date, but not to Us. unless they Dowered N the Pubic Records at the Policy Data; (c) that resuk In no foss to You; or (d) that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not Omit the coverage described In Covered Risk 7, e.d, 22, 23, 24 er 23. 3. failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lade of a dent: (e) t0 any lend outside the area apedne.ily deSMbed and referred to in peregreph 3 of Schedule A; and (b) In sheets, alleys, or waterways that touch the tend. This Exclusion does not Iknit the coverage desalbed In Covered Risk 11 or 18. CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1990 The following matters ere expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' tees or expenses which arise by reason oft 1. (e) Any few, ordinance or governmental regulation (Including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, Prohibiting or relating to (I) the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land; (11) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the londi (la) a separation In ownership ore resale In the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land 1s a was a part; or (Iv) erwlronnental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws. ordinances or governmental regulations, except to tote extent that a notice of tae intermittent thereof Ora notice of a defect, ben or encumbrance resuttlne from a violation or alleged vitiation effecting me lane ass been recorded in the public records at ate of Polley. (b) My governmental poem power net excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice or the exercise thereof or a nonce or a dieted, rkn or encumbrance resitting from a vldaoon or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded In the public records et Date or Polley. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded In the public records at Date 01 Poky, but not excluding horn MMI111ge arty taking which ties occurred poor to Date of Policy which would be binding on the dghts of a purchaser for value without iretwrtedee. 3. Defects, Here, encumbrances, adverse Calms or other matters: (e) whether or not recorded In the public records at Date of Policy, but treated, suffered, assumed or *greed to by the Insured dobnant; (b) not known to the Compose. not recorded in the pubrk records at Date or Posey, but known to the insured dalmant and not disclosed In writing to the Company by the Insured claimant prior to the date the Insured claimant became an Insured under tens polity; (c) feculent in 11010M or damage to me insured clamant; (0) attuning or treated subsequent to Date of Pollw; or (e) resulting to loss or damage which would not have been sustained If the bowed deknar* had pout veer* far the Insured mortgage or for the estate or Interest Insured by this policy. 4. Unenferceabllty of m. Ref of the insured mortgage because of the Inability or failure of Me Insured at Date Of Paley, or use homy or Moue of any subsequent Owner of the Indebtedness, to comply with applcable doing business laws of the state in which the land Is sltueted. 5. Invalidity or UnatfortesOmty Of the Ben or me insured ,nortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by tna insured mortgage and so based upon usury or any consumer credit proted/om or truth -ln- lending law. 7. . Any daem, which a,ses out of the tran:actlon vesting on the Insured the estate or Interest Insured by this policy or the tronsacUen Deanne the Interest 0111. Insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar mews' rights laws. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 3/93) 11 /04 /UZ MUM to :cf rM as% iev Iva.. • • SCHEDULE B STANDARD EXCEPTIONS Order No.: 10072784 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — STANDARD COVERAGE AND CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1. Taxes or assessments which ore not now payable or wNdr arc not shown as wiring hens by the records of any taxing authority that Ievlebl taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result In taxes or assessments, Or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency ar by the public records. 2 Any lads, rights, Interests or darns which are not snoWn by the public records but which could be ascurt 1ned by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted Or persons In possession. or do*ning to be In possession, thereof. 3. Eesunehts. IIeh3 or ena+mbrances, or dolma thereof. which are not shown by the public records. 4. Dlwepandes, conflicts In boundary lines, shortage to area, encroachments, or any other (acts which a correct survey of the land would dladose, and whidl are not shown by the public records. 5. Any Ben, or not to a Ben, for labor, material, services or equipment. or for contnbuomes to employee benefit plans, or Bens under Workman' Compensation Acts. not dtsdosed by the public records. not 6. limited to easema7ts or equitable �vItUOOCS or () water rights claims or title to water , whether a not the m ers excr tt�underr(a, (b). (c) or rights, d Moowwn but the public records. 7. Right of use. control or reguladon by the United States of America In the exerdse of powers over navigation; any prohibition or linitatien on the use, eosspaney or improvement of the land resulting from the rights d Ha public or riparian owners to use any waters wndt may cover the tam or to use any portion or tshe land wnkh is now or may formerly have been covered by water. B. My service, Inatalladen, connection, charges ion, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage eolledNOn or dISpo4bl, or other utilities unless disclosed sus an ehdstng lien bY the public reeoeds. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — EXTENDED COVERAGE 1. Taxes of assessments which Ere not now payable Or *Midi pre net shown as existing (OM by the 1110105 of tiny taxing autharlty that ItvleS taxed Or ttleei nientS an real property or by the public records; Proceedings by a Dualle agency which may result in taxes or assessments. or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 3 Underground easements, Servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3. (a) Unpatcnted minbn* dalms; (b) reservations or grceptiOM In patents or In Alts authorizng the issuance dhereof; (c) Indian treaty Or aboriginal rights, indudmq, but not Welted to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, dalrrhS Or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) ear (0) are shown by the public records. 4. Right or use, control or regulation by the united States of Amerlce In the exorcise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or Ilmitadon on the use, occupancy or improverhent or the land resulting from Me rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which b new Or may formerly have been taverte by water. 5. Any service. Installation. comedian, maintenente or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other uU4exs unless disclosed as an westing Ilen by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10- 17 -98) — STANDARD COVERAGE TM policy does not insure against loss or damago (and the Comment will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which wise by reason of; 1, My fads, rights, interests or dolma which ore not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an Inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons In possession, or claiming to be In possession, Hereof. 2. niscrepandes, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage In area, one ntratment), Or any other fads which a correct survey of the lane would disclose, and which are not shown bY rte pubne reCOrd3. 3. (a) Unoatcntcd mining debris; (b) reservations or exceptions In patents or In Ads authorizing the batten= thereof; (c) Melton treaty or bbOrtglnel rlgntr, Including. but not Bmhed to, easements or equitable servitudes; or. (d) water rights. claims or die to water. whether or not the trotters excepted under (a), (b). (U or (0) we shown by the pubic records. 4. Right of use, control or mauled= by the United States of America In He exercise of power over navigator; men prohibition or limitation On the vat, occupancy or Improvement of the land resulting from tho rights of the 'wale or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the tend which is tow 01 may romnerly have been covered by water. 5. Any service. Installation, connection, maintenance or constrvdloh charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage coBadon or disposal. or other utddes unless disclosed as an'existing Ben by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OP TITLE INSURANCE (10- 17 -98) — EXTENDED COVERAGE This policy does not Insure against loss or damage (and the Company wet not pay costs, attorneys' tees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Underground easements. serWdes or installations which ore not disclosed by the public records. 2. (a) unpatented mining dolma; (0) reservations or excepdorw In potent% or le Acts authorzing the Issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aborigine! rights, including, but net imam to, easements or equitable servitudes: or, (d) water dehts, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a). (b), (1) 0r (4) are shown by the public records. 3. Right of use, control or reguladan ey Inc United states of Amerlca in tho exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or Improvement Of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use ant portion of the land which Is now or may ( ormerly hove been covered by water. disclosed 4. Any swig, Installation, connection, maintenance or constrvcUon emerges for sewer, water, electrtdty, or garbage collection or disposal. or other utilities unless es an existing eon by the public records. Commitment Cover - WA (Reviser 3/93) 1- 18- 03;11:OOAM;Dept. of Ecology ;3804077154 0 2/ CHECK UST FOR PE1•1.NENT CLOSURE OF UNDERGR • OUM ORAGE TANK(S) .. ID:loenre information is different forindividualtanks; p ease use a.separate form for each tank.. l CEVED 'JAN 1 7 2003 Business Name: Site Owner/Operator. Site Address Telephone: 7- Eleven Corporation The Southland Corporation 14225 Interurban Avenue S, Tukwila ( 206) 575 -6711 COMMUNITY DEVFIfDoNT Site Identification (on invoice or available from Ecology if tank was reported): Local closure permit (if any) obtain (Always contact local authoriti Date tank(s) were closed: Tank closure performed by Company/Individual: Lee Morse General Contractor Telephone: Method of Closure: Removal E In -Place Closure 0 If closed -in- place. type of fill material used: N/A 002890 ( 206 1 763 -8956 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS JAN 15 1991 Tank(s) Closed Tank ED Number ion notification form) Age Size (GaL) Last Material Stored 1 Prem UnI 17 1000 - 5000 Gasoline 2 Prem UnI 177 1000 - 5000 Gasoline 3 Reg 17 10000 - 20000 4 Unlead 17 10000 - 20000 Gasoline Gasoline If removed, how will the tank(s) be disposed of: Scrap ® Landfill 7' Other please soocity Will the tanks be replaced by new underground tanks? Yes No u NOTE: U YES, you need to submit a notification form for the new tanks. Was a site assessment completed? Yes 0 No 0 None required as tanks were removed If yes, was contamination found? Yes El No D prior to December, 1989. If yes, was the appropriate Regional Ecology Office Notified? Yes a No 0 NOTE: The appropriate regional office of the Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted for assistance if contamination is found (see attached map). Records of the site closure must also be maintained at the site and must be available upon an inspector's request for at least three years after closure. Inspecting Agency Inspector Name: NOTE: This is generally the local fire department or agency enfo (usually involving contamination) it may be Ecology. In Owner's Signature (or designated representative): Title: Construction Manager Fire Code: in some cases be no inspecting agency. Please return Inc completed form to: Underground Storage Tank Section Department of Ecology M/S PV -11 Olympia. WA 955048711 Date: 11 -15 -90 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila. WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(aci.tukwila.wa.us IP SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECEIVED IJAN.17 APPLICATION' NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 1-t-7W 1 1 . =-��� i 1, 4 I 1i -5i� . zto, JJ 14-� 1 r7i � r � Quarter: Section: j I Township: Range: I ��� ¶' t��•"�� (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City" staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: 1:01.y07 », Address: LJ.Lo 'e7,1 Z Phone: FAX: 447,A1---e"./ Signature: G:MPPHAt \LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 Date: /17/4'.7 FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P-SEPA Planner:' File Number: --" D3 —ova Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: - j Eva, o) 9 Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 1-t-7W 1 1 . =-��� i 1, 4 I 1i -5i� . zto, JJ 14-� 1 r7i � r � Quarter: Section: j I Township: Range: I ��� ¶' t��•"�� (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City" staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: 1:01.y07 », Address: LJ.Lo 'e7,1 Z Phone: FAX: 447,A1---e"./ Signature: G:MPPHAt \LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 Date: /17/4'.7 COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public ' Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted in a later timely manner . for use at the Public Hearing (e.g., revised colored, renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED, TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670 Department of Community Development and 206 -433 -0179 Department of Public Works. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE 311formationdkequired .7►?ay be waived to uriitsii• �.Z.'1,11 d,',::.:^ "t;do.i,,'v r .' gat' "� 4,... ..". i 7,•t:•/,?.,-,-, Rev } gcases,t:upon approval of both P,, ublic., Vorks and a j Planrun r r ,,.. ; ,.. S. < ..... �:.... t c: :lnformatioh : - %n! u r ,Waited ;� -PbWk% Ping t * Office':�Use Oillig( " ` ;?v ' s� ( {�T t1 'e i•'. Y): :4, y , _.t,' .'?". ' &� + °` � ' Comments �c ,Condittons�;a,` , � "?'a "` `�( t� s syi ,s '. " ,.. • ,pl Ft.. .. . ' ,ri, ; ,,x :/r:vy , -., a:.' C:t - APPLICATION FORMS: 1. Application Checklist: one (1) copy, indicating items submitted with application. 2. Four (4) copies of supporting studies with original signatures and license stamp as needed. 3. Complete Application Packet: Six (6) copies of application form and full sizcd plans, one set of all plans reduced to 8.5" by 11" (High Quality Photo Reduction) and other materials and information as specifically listed in Project Description and Analysis, Site Plans, Landscape Plan and Elevations. 4. SEPA Environmental Checklist (6 copies) and fee ($500). ' PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: 5. 'King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject lot. • SUBMIT ONLY IF UNDERLYING PERMIT REQUIRES PUBLIC NOTICE. 6. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners . and tenants (residents .and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. See Public Notice Materials. Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks must be included). SUBMIT ONLY IF UNDERLYING PERMIT REQUIRES PUBLIC NOTICE. A 4' x 4' Public Notice Board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. PROPERTY INFORMATION 7. Vicinity Map with site location. 8: Surrounding Land Use Map for all existing land uses within a 1,000 foot radius from the lot's property lines. . 9. Title Report -- Clearly establish status as legal lot(s) of record, ownership, all known easements and encumbrances. 10. Lot lines for 300 ft. from the site's property lines including right -of -ways. G:V PPHAN\LANDUSE.APPISEPAAPP.DOC. 09/18/02 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND • 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 4.4514...,1A1-'14117 ,41- 14lt -4 2. Name of Applicant: t;701.1-M7 AV Agency Comments RECE VED IJAN 17 2003 COMMurirrr DEVELOPMENT 3. D checklist prepared: Dat l �A�I 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 6. Dofyou have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared; or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 4t. -( � Qi~ I 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. G: APPHANILANDUSE.APPISEPAAPP.DOC. 06/16/00 1 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. u►i--,r711 -1,21 10. 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. 44r1-1 Alt) rAk-A47*147 Lt:cc 11. 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, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed.plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 1 tZt.). 1 A7, 1 7Q�1 /it /tiiryil� 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? G:I APPHANILANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 Agency Comments 2 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one . Flat, r ling, hilly mountainous, other: Agency Comments } b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 2.odC)%, c. What general 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. 41LT4l? iid.�7 t�n1 -� 4 -ti,% d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If sp, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 7p4D . , 41..11 rl rtsit-r7 GAAPPHAN LANDUSE.APP SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/I6/00 3 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If o, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: f'*-41H.47 f71.)/271H/7 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? . If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. HiH 1 M4L 21-W t t'711- � 411,-; h, �►1 1-1 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. G: \APPHANLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 • r • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. Water a. Surface: 1.. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 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. 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 ould be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. G: WPPHANU,ANDUSE.APPISEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 • 4 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. q=;' 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, !,1describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. 17 b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. C7 G: WPPHAN\LANDUSE.APPN.SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 6 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans "the system(s) are expected to serve: c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Agency Comments �'1=__. I� rim I_. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: • G: MPPHAN\LANDUSE.APPISEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: b. What kind and amount of ve etation will be removed or altered? - 72.ei y f7� A �� G/ [ +�� �.�.,r -+ter G= -' c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measu.Kes to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: G:\ APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP'SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 8 Deciduous tree• alde iiaple, pen, other Evergreen tree: fir, ceda , me, other Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of ve etation will be removed or altered? - 72.ei y f7� A �� G/ [ +�� �.�.,r -+ter G= -' c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measu.Kes to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: G:\ APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP'SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 8 • Please respond to al questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Mammals Fish Other Hawk, heron, eagle &Ingbird ther: Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. t�}L? d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. L-.u7N il-�47 .4)-1t71-14/1)--)2/ 4 -, -111. �, , iM-127 G:\ APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DGC, 06/16/00 9 Agency Comments Please respond to al•estions. Use separate sheets as neces•. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List of er proposed measures to reduce or co-itrol energy impacts, if any: Ln i 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. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: G: APPHANLL .ANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC.06/16/00 10 • j. • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 'rt1 F4 _I 1 -- J,� INIZ 11 0.)P4111-. 7 Z,:kV7TPlikp atil i In f I 1 . Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: /•14* 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? , .►47 pri7n7r.2- MAt.... b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. GAAPPHAN ILANDUSE.APP SEPAAPP.DGC, 06/16/00 11 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c.. Describe any structures on the site. tiC* d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 1=741,-1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Agency Comments h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. -12 471r, 146 '1'rcl-P S r G: APPHAN LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 12 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: it DH" 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:: 4-11]-1 ri Lk 2.rne-147 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? GA APPHAN1l ,ANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DGC, 06/16/00 13 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: qatr 10. Aesthetics ' a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: G: APPHAMLANDUSE.APPASEPAAPP.DOC. 06/16/00 14 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? .%Nliff171P-14-1. 171- Lk.,er**) ""',77 r7AP-pi b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? r) c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? fic*Ien' d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 1-iorte. GAAPPHAN LAND USE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 15 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: GAAPPHANILANDUSE.APP SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 16 ti Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. t legal ;ism b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? bQ Hbw many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the • prgjcct eliminate? • 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). 1:7 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. ' h G MPPHANU,ANDUSE.APPISEPAAPP.DOC, 06/I6/00 17 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. "7z7/ Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 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. L7 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ‘ect gat raI`gas %water cause serer ele ho aiitary. jvcoPrAptic system other: G: APPHAN\ LANDUSE .APP1SEPAAPP.DOC.06 /16/00 18 Agency Comments . Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: _.;. • , (44, b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. - • t- 4 _ 7L:•I ei 4.11 AI+ C. SIGNATURE Agency Comments . r The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: (NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). GAAPPHANNLANDUSE.APIASEPAApp.DOC, 06/16/00 19 • City of Tub. ESA Screening Checklist Date: City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist JAN 17 2003 COMMUNITY DEtitLUNnntNT Applicant Name: t7W1-7) l t7 THC:$274P51,17 Street Address: 1-b1.47 h', 161'141 /, City, State, Zip: r 4`.01)/()A, I , Telephone: Zl7• DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. January 25, 2001 1 City of Tube ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any. excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal,Code (TMC); Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue. to Question 2 -0 ` ' • 'E3;:tontinue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) "'` ... . ......,, . -2=0— Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be , . removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter, 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. ' �' NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 ,.,.. YES - Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) _ .. "., .. -3=0- Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 . ontinue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) . -4=0- • Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response, NO - Continue to Question 5 -0 YES - Continue to Question 5 -0 . -.5-0-- Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 6 -0 - YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 January 25, 2001 Part A (continued) City of Tu ESA Screening Checklist 4$- Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce: an aesthetic effect 'appropriate for the use of the land (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zonirig.Code, Page 18- • 13).. For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn. or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO.- Checklist Complete - YES - Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to • construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and.top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. . NO - ontinue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the; Green/Duwamish . rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in 5 increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil'or earth. 'If your 7 project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answerYes to this question. .If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site, or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -3 YES - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) ,7 V! - ontinue to Question 1 -4 January 25, 1001 • City of TukweESA Screening Checklist Part B (continued) 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by . allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface' and does not include' . the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue, to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) • • ontinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 —2=2— Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self- supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast - height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. . NO - Continue to Question 2 -3 ;, ..ti YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 • • •2=3• . Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water. mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. . NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 , ,' YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 -2-4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 -2-5— Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) January 25, 2001 City of TukiESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited:to, ' construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled Maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes 'answer. , 3 -1 .• . Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a,watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or,Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream; and bed means the • stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream..This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response., NO - ontinue to Question 3 -2 - YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to,the -: • Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" , . , flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that ,.;; allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of naturalwatercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -3 YES ontinue to Question 3 -3 ` '• -1:'f. ' . 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. 0 - ontinue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3 -4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a t. watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose-of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of amaintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - ontinue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 January 25, 2001 City of TukwESA Screening Checklist Part D (continued) 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection . to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle ,appropriate response. C.: O Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. (NO continue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) January 25, 2001 6 BUS PULLOUT 169 G 6vv10 52 INTERURBAN AVE ' GALLIANO CUCINA SITE T • SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP DAVID THORSTAD >I�t REGISTERED ARCHITECT ID L�ThORSTAD STATE OFIMASHINGTO t REGISTERED ARCHITECT ID L NSTAD STATE Of ASHINGTO 11-4-reaupeni,-; AVE. riff... �irCTC STAVHYL07 •N)VA•UfcE1 VANCOU'/".aL J4,1;jC' 37 PFZE55,-,S 5LR•APE2ViRFr15 GLJ'JC1a, ;:("!.171.245 J6PCNic4. V ?LLr, !2o:e 2 • • ! f_`.1 ; +1.,TO- t1.]- FILLFERA'.1 I•LI NO -CRT 'j1 30 GXI'�T• STREET �Y.CLU� CALI.e27-4\1•14. .P- E•SiPIriF" r YWCA ,i I NOP- 43 AZAL.F. L 2Y ?AWN Cuo24.15 ThUG4 CANA.0eN -51 S 3 dSAtk011'G. NE.2vO�.a 2? 3 - 112cT.03 ?AP4`!LO`. U' -UI ' ..VANCGUVert JAO° 1? /-- W45:.1N6'Cl.1•4 FILIFCRA • EXt`im- c Q- ST2eeT T2Ee5.w/ - J rtbN GeA1E:5 LN e5LL . SI oesioALIC - TYP• u111L�.._M I11O.[ 110 F • > >ks a.•v VIP11r..., Ilerrtidit 'Aft"' .-.411L-741111 r 11 Aral GLCIE2.I_ :. tcUMUMe IiiNa- C.CzIHSON lb'' prrtn:lu4 Lau cra. •4t.Ft. 2ny 1. q PUT_ : : :JAFVT-CI-GA 5_' _.ti2v-J bZ4LE4. KURUME HLh10.• CRIMSON. :IF, PRUNUS LW1<GCEG elLi'On LUY.KeN21 cY.r4us +�i LEGyAJLA .f?Efi �'3 C -CorONEA5re2,:irc irAsr..,IS;_. 22UFU :.GERACIF 1?- 6. ..KP4PrE12 ." Ve5UVIU5 2-N _OE..QF: ML rJ.1•Al4 RE2-N O°aA.34 prus :�G L.AJr x.:PJ ASUS PBUi`IU"CE265iF.ERA,KRAUTt:R Vr$i)VLVE 2 .MINOi2. 24. MQD.V i.:64- COr L C2C, l� • RLIDLNI NG• 5j% .: uKA .TiSIOKr Ns' LP•URGCER!vLA .O.iTO,LL YKEN TOE of hLOPE / LVL'ih.T I GHUM MUNTUM- 17 —/ EXIST. STETS SCOFE - XIST• KANONIA A4;)IcCLIL)fA�' SWPE .t VEGETATION '.WI 441W AuLTNCRIt ,L!-IALLOri .3F, LJ1.41.3I5TUi2 1:? =PIZE IINAT-LY.- Wi ll...ERG';LEAr- MAPLE.. TYP. I ,11, Zo'- o _V18U2NUIv1 TINUS COUPACTUM 15 ACE2: PLATANCLAES COLUMNAR.Ev. J4eouICA_.Ma,_GLOLO5T21KE - T!- il7J7a..i tCIa+TA 1 NcA" MLNOe: .3o • GAL L I 4NCYS C 0 Ly 7 vo 7 as 1 '°.3 ILA Gl t? • z?N. ,� I0 a..� 2 0 1• 1,C i iA 4//_ • g i �E� /W u uN S u p n� N (1 Oar o A g`J ON '. E E Al N co N • Psuans8Y umptloA Elevation Datum NAVD.. Brass pin in concrete filled plpe in monument case 'Intersection So. 144th St. & 59th Ave.. So. . Elevation w 174.18 feet • 93/94 - Aerial Control Project for the .CIty of Seattle . 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION .. LOTS 20 THROUGH 22, AND LOT 25 OF BLOCK 15. HILLMAN'S SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 24. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE SOUTHWESTERLY HALF OF SAID LOTS 21, 22 AND 25: AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN WEST MARGINAL WAY, AS CONVEYED BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO'S. 995857, 990090 AND 988203 AND CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 109001. AND LOTS 2 AND 3 OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO. 80- 24 -SS, RECORD NOVEMBER 25, 1980, UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8011250722: - AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 26, BLOCK 15, HILLMAN'S SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 24, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF REITZ AVENUE, NOW INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH, AND THE SOUTHEAST UNE OF SAID LOT 26: THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEAST UNE OF SAID LOT IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION 129.425 FEET: THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHEAST UNE OF SAID LOT IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN. OF MAIN STREET. NOW 58TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE ALONG SAID MARGIN- OF MAIN STREET AND ALONG THE MARGIN OF REITZ AVENUE, NOW INTERURBAN- AVENUE SOUTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY GEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 988203; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION- THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 700399 FOR STATE ROAD NO. 181. .. 0 mA1, E Eri wcN Orel 9 i u \!b bey • \\`PsJg J • r oO \ \h ,� ,a. � t3il ti \Pi moo. ° d o se / II GRAPHIC SCALE at e • ( IN PE6T) 1 Inch - 20 ft. LEGEND . Concrete .Monument in Case Monument Tack. in Lead or- Nail & Disk Bronze plug Set rebor w /cop (123604 Found pipe or rebor Hydrant Power. pole Deciduous. Tree - 0 Evergreen Tree II Catch Basin pd Gas Valve Water Valve sewer manhole ® storm drain monhole wd❑ . water meter —S— sewer tine 9 — gas line — w — water line —SD— store drain line G--0 power pole w /light 8072 G 3'dio. decid. trees The location of uts(tles as sh0.. serving the. subject property have been taken fr.. public records. We cannot Certify to their ccuracy and/Or Completeness. Before ,w caencep construction involving excavation or removal of costing .structures. Cod locating Ice or underground 1 -800- 424 -5557 For tarty. locations. . f to for this survey was obtained by dirt field �s� ts. Angular and linear relationships direct .d with a Ps second theodolite and electronic dlstance nepsurap device, supplemented by a steel tape. . Contours as Inc.,, hove been interpolated . bet.een spot..l.vations, • ual ground face y very. . This svvey has been prepared-For the .x,luswe use of parties whose ▪ s appear hereon only, and apes not extend to any alined third. pontes without express recertification by the land surveyor. . DESCRIPTION I5 0 Marco Golliano 16435 Military Rood So. SeaToc, WA Schroeter .Land ie Surveying PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS P. Box 813, S.ahur.t, Washington 98062 (2061 222-6621 fa% (2861223 -9679 DATE (FIELD) 12/10/021 DATE (OFFICE) 12/23/02 Imo J at : Poo .....r,.� ..., no, ..,