HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E97-0021 - HOME DEPOT - SUBDIVISIONHOME DEPOT
SUBDIVISION DIVIDING
LOT CREATED BY
RECENT SHORT PLAT
6810 S. 180T" ST.
E97-0021
•
AFFIDAVITOF
I, SLv i A McMMi,J..-erd
LI Notice of Public Hearing
LI Notice of Public Meeting
LI Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
O Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
LJ Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
Determination of Non-
significance
JJ Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
0 Notice of Action
Official Notice
0 Other
0 Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on .g."2-°-9-1
E� RTACN Ep�� t-EE�TS�
Name of Project lAome—
File Number `-- 1� -0D-14
Z
Signature
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
PRELIMINARY PLAT - SUBDIVISION TO FURTHER DIVIDE A
LOT CREATED THROUGH A RECENT SHORT PLAT ON THE
HOME DEPOT SITE
PROPONENT: HOME DEPOT
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS: 6810'S 180 ST
PARCEL NO: 362304-9074
SEC/TWN/RNG:
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E97-0021
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c).
This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
**:*****k***k**k•k•k•*****;*•k*•kkkk•kkk*****•**k*****:k*kkkkkk•k:kk*kk*****kk•k•***•k**k**
This determination is final and signed this 1- 41" day of A %,Nt
199'1.
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the
Department of Community Development.
Memorandum
TO: Jack Pace, Planning Manager A to
FROM: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner
RE: SEPA - Home Depot Subdivision L97-0041
DATE: August 18, 1997
Project File No. E97-0021
Project Description:
Subdivision of a parcel created in a previous short plat for the purpose of constructing a Q Lube
franchise.
Agencies With Jurisdiction:
None.
Comments to SEPA Checklist:
None.
Summary of Primary Impacts:
1. Earth - The site is flat, soil is stable and there is no danger of erosion.
2. Air - Only a marginal increase in air pollution from automobile exhaust is expected from this
action.
3. Water - Runoff from the site will flow into the storm sewer and not drain to the Green River. No
negative impacts are expected.
4. Plants - No significant vegetation will be lost due to the project.
5. Animals - No endangered or candidate species are known to be on site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources - At the time of development the project will require energy for
construction and operation, and for vehicles coming to the site.
7. Environmental Health - Noise levels may increase marginally at the time of development.
8. Land and Shoreline Use - This project will not have any impact on the Green River shoreline.
• •
9. Housing - The proposal will not result in a change to the housing supply.
10. Aesthetics - The proposal is not subject to BAR design review and standards.
11. Light and Glare - The proposal should not generate significant amounts of additional light and
glare.
12. Recreation - The proposal will not adversely affect recreational facilities.
13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The site is not known to have any historical or cultural
significance.
14. Transportation - A traffic study was completed for this project which shows only minor impacts
from the development.
15. Public Services - The project should not have a significant impact on public services.
16. Utilities - Utilities are available on site.
Recommended Threshold Determination:
Determination of non -significance.
m
co
t2(1 ,13
sr
0 125 250
503
'T9.3N
(sE now 5n
spgriamook
ateljetu
36
1 t
rgrt
IPSO Or KC./4401100400R07�•LONO Or 51.1.147
•
GREEN RIVER
elm OAS .00,7.4...;:44-
•
la36^ml`L 5.',OD5
50 6*1:04
502151 4841
Lot B to be split
LOT 0
4.26 K
CITY Or 1U0466
s sus.tl4
.- \-
1441E Part Or 6021.166
coypu( or 085040rr YIR Deas
REC. 14> 6215445 8 6215444
[0,315,1... Rwlm. W
• Se WC RWA0A0 fA4LOrr-
REC. .0. 140110552 f 240/51
•
• . RR�>ZR) t
n- mare'
(R) t-1".)
r - 15.48
C. 1rr2'tl'
LES RECORD Or SWAY
(8) REO. Ne. 640104600
(4)
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT
5106
Barghausen
Consulting Engineers,Inc.
CAA bit I. 5 .. I.r rr..rWeftuearm Sod=
tin 6R6s Y w 0Q
tlsrls (ap 41+55 he On al -Wit
3 OF 3
• •
Ms. Alexa Berlow
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
July 3, 1997
CITYECEIVED
F TUKWILA
JUL 031997
PERMIT CENTER
RE: Preliminary Plat Application for the Property Located at 6810 South 180th, Tukwila, Washington
Our Job No. 5109
Dear Ms. Berlow:
On behalf of Home Depot USA, Inc., Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., respectfully requests that the
City of Tukwila initiate review of the above -referenced application. Approval of this application will allow
Home Depot to divide Lot B of the City of Tukwila short plat L94-0055 into two building lots. We have
enclosed the following for your review of this preliminary plat application:
1. Preliminary plat application form.
2. Check in the amount of $1,275 for preliminary plat fee.
3. Six copies of the SEPA environmental checklist.
4. Six copies of Sheets ,1 through 3 of 3 of the preliminary plat.
5. One 8 1/2 by 11 -inch reduction of each sheet.
6. One copy of recorded City of Tukwila short plat L94-0055.
7. One copy of the geotechnical engineering study.
8. One copy of the trip generation analysis.
9. One 500 -foot radius map.
10. Two sets of mailing labels.
11. One 1,000 -foot radius land use map.
Please note that the Sewer and Water Certificates of Availability have been omitted at the request of the City
of Tukwila Public Works Department. The enclosed materials comprise a complete application. However,
if you require additional information or have questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact
me at this office.
Si ely
Ellingsen
roject Planner
JE/kn [5109C.057]
enc: As Noted
cc: Mr. Michael Okuma, Greenberg Farrow Architecture, Inc. (w/enc)
Mr. Glenn Amster, Lane, Powell, Spears, Lubersky (w/6 copies)
Mr. Jay S. Grubb, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (w/enc)
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
•
Control No. i-97° I Q
Epic File No. E 17 4'
Fee Receipt No.
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
OUR JOB NO. 5109
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Home Depot Preliminary Plat.
2. Name of Applicant:
Home Depot USA, Inc.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
c/o Greenberg Farrow Architecture, Inc.
15101 Redhill Avenue, Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92780
Attention: MichaelOkuma
Engineer: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 - 72nd Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Attention: Jay S. Grubb, P.E., Vice President
Phone: (425) 251-6222
Attorney: Lane, Powell, Spears, Lubersky
1420 - 5th Avenue, Suite 4100
Seattle, WA 98101-2338
Attention: Glenn Amster
Phone: (206) 223-7000
4. Date checklist prepared:
June 1997
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila
CITY OF TIUKWILq
JUL 031997
PERMIT CENTER
-1- 5109.009 ]JE/sm/kn]
•
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Upon completion of the City's platting process and specific development applications for the
resulting lots, construction will begin.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
None related to the proposal.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
• Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by: Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., dated June 3, 1997.
• Trip Generation Analysis prepared by: The Transpo Group, dated February 25, 1997.
• Shoreline permits for the Home Depot and, most recently, the Price Costco optical building on
Lot D of the Home Depot short plat have been processed and approved by the City of Tukwila.
Please reference City Case No. L96-0045.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
A development application for Taco Time on proposed Lot 1B is currently within the City of
Tukwila Commercial Review process.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Federal:
None.
State:
None.
Local:
City of Tukwila Preliminary Plat
City of Tukwila Final Plat
-2- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your
proposal. and should not be summarized here.
Divide Lot B of City of Tukwila Short Plat No. L94-0055 (0.84 acres) into two building lots. Lot
1B will be approximately 22,712 square feet, and Lot 2B will comprise the remaining 13,971 square
feet.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township,
and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you
are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications
related to this checklist.
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., King County, Washington.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy
Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Yes, the northeastern portion of Lot B extends approximately 60 feet into the City's Shoreline
Overlay Zone. This area is currently developed. No property line alterations are proposed for the
portion of property within the Shoreline Overlay Zone.
-3- 5109.009 [JE/sm/knl
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
The site has been developed and is utilized for parking and circulation as well as
landscaping for the Home Depot development on the adjacent parcel.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
0 to 2 percent.
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.
Please see attached Geotechnical Engineering Study, Appendix I.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
There are no surface indications of unstable soils on site. There is no history of
unstable soils in the immediate vicinity of the site.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
None related to this application.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
Not applicable.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Not applicable.
-4- 5109.009 [JE/sm/knl
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any:
Not applicable.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate
quantities if known.
The anticipated commercial development of the resulting lots will generate
emissions to the air from service and patron vehicles entering and exiting the
site. We anticipate that an increase in emissions to the air will be negligible.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,
if any:
None related to this application. We anticipate that any necessary measures to
reduce or control emissions to the air will be proposed by specific development
applications for the property.
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.
The Green River ordinary high water line is located approximately
140 feet east of the northeast corner of the site.
-5- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described water? If yes, please describe and attach available
plans.
No.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed
in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area
of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known.
Not applicable.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location
on the site plan.
No.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the types of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge.
No.
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.
No.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.).
-6- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems,
the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
None. The property is served by City of Tukwila sanitary sewer. Any
commercial development of the property will utilize the existing sanitary
sewer system for domestic sewage disposal.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where
will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,
describe.
None related to this proposal. Runoff is currently managed through a
private storm sewer system that discharges to the existing public storm
system within the adjacent right-of-way. Specific development
applications will address stormwater conveyance design in accordance
with applicable standards.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
None related with this proposal.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
None proposed.
4. Plants
Landscaping associated with the Home Depot development includes trees, shrubs,
and ground cover.
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
-7- 5109.009 [JE/sm/knj
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
_ 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 vegetation will be removed or altered?
None related to this application. Please refer to specific development
applications for proposed site modifications.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve
or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
None related to this proposal.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds an animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other
_ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other
_ fish, bass, sahnon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Unknown.
-8- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None proposed.
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.
Electric and natural gas services are immediately available. We anticipate that
a combination of these services will be utilized to meet commercial development
needs on this site.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
None.
-9- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
None are proposed.
b. Noise:
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project
(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
The only audible sound in the area is traffic noise from vehicles traveling
on the adjacent streets and into the Home Depot facility.
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.
Upon development of the property, commercial activity will generate
vehicle noise during normal business hours.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
None with this application. However, any required landscaping associated
with commercial development along the perimeter of the property will
assist in the attenuation of noise.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Commercial.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Not within the last 10 years.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The site is vacant of inhabitable structures.
-10- 5109.009 [JE/sm/knl
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Not applicable.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
TUC (Tukwila Urban Center).
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation for the site?
TUC (Tukwila Urban Center).
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
Urban.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
Yes, approximately 60 feet of the northeast corner of the site lies within the
City's Shoreline Overlay Zone. No boundary line alterations are proposed
within this area.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
Employment will be determined upon development of the site.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Not applicable.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
-11- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
Not applicable.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
Not applicable.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
Not applicable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
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?
Not applicable.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Not applicable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
-12- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
Not applicable.
b. Could light or glare from the fmished project be a safety hazard or interfere
with views?
Not applicable.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Not applicable.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
12. Recreation
a. What designation and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
The James Christensen Trail that follows the Green River is located 100 feet to
the east of the site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None are warranted by this application.
-13- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or
local preservation registers to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None known.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
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:
The site fronts South 180th Street. Access to the property is from James
Christensen Road (private access) and from within the Home Depot parking
area.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project eliminate?
Specific development applications will address parking provisions.
-14- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Please see Trip Generation Analysis, Appendix II.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
No.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,
if any:
Not applicable.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natural gas, water,
refuse service. telephone. sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
-15- 5109.009 [JE/sm/knl
• •
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utilities providing
the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity which might be needed.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I under-
stand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE
-16- 5109.009 [JE/sm/kn]
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way). Suite 16
Bellevue. WA 98005
(206) 747-5618
FAX 747-8561
Taco Time
3300 Maple Valley Highway
Renton, Washington 98058
Attention: Jack Love
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Taco Time Restaurant
6810 South 180th Street
Tukwila, Washington -
Dear Mr. Love:
June 3, 1997
JN 97186
We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for a Taco Time Restaurant to be
constructed in Tukwila, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface
and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for
general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. You
authorized our work by accepting our confirming proposal, dated May 22, 1997.
The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with test pits that
encountered stiff desiccated organic silt in the upper 2 to 2.5 feet, overlying medium stiff to soft silt
and sandy silt. Continuous spread footings may be used to support the planned building,
however, the desiccated organic silt layer should be removed from the building footprint and at
least 2 feet of structural fill placed under footings. At least one foot of structural fill should be
placed under floor slabs. We also recommend one foot of structural fill under new pavement
areas. A geotextile fabric should be laid over the exposed native soils prior to placing all structural
fills for pavement footing and slab areas.
The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact
us if there are any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance during the
design and construction phases of this project.
A f -
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
James R. Finley, Jr., P.E.
Principal
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JUL 031997
PERMIT CENTER
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Taco Time Restaurant
6810 South 180th Street
Tukwila, Washington
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for
the site of the proposed Taco Time Restaurant in Tukwila, Washington. The Vicinity Map, Plate 1,
illustrates the general location of the site.
Development of the property is in the planning stage, and detailed plans were not made available
to us. The site plan provided to us depicts the general footprint of the building and paved areas.
We anticipate that the building will be a one-story, slab -on -grade structure encompassing about
2,300 square feet.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The subject property is a vacant building lot situated several hundred feet south of the Home
Depot store. It is a triangular shaped area of well-maintained grass and shrubs, surrounded on
the north, east and west sides by drive lanes in the Home Depot parking lot, and by South 180th
Street on the south side. Most of the site is flat except along the east and south sides where .the
ground rises several feet to South 180th Street and the east entrance into the Home Depot
parking lot. rAn electrical trunk line crosses the northeast corner of the property from southeast to
northwest at a depth of about 3.5 feet. Other utilities may also cross the property.
Subsurface
The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two test pits at the approximate locations
shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the
proposed .construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the
subsurface -conditions revealed during excavation, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and
the time and budget constraints.
The test pits were excavated on May 28, 1997, with a rubber -tired backhoe. A geotechnical
engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained
representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils
were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3
and 4.
The upper 2 to 2.5 feet of soil consists of topsoil and brown, stiff, desiccated organic silt with some
sand and gravel. The organic silt is underlain by gray or tan, medium stiff silt with some sand
which becomes generally soft and wet at a depth of about 7 feet. Soft gray clay was found at a
depth of approximately 12 feet in the southernmost test pit.
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
JN 97186
Page 2
The final Togs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification
lines on the Togs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration
locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can
vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the
locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are
interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of
backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the
test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with
structural fill during construction.
Groundwater
No groundwater seepage was observed in either test pits although wet soils were encountered in
both test pits at a depth of approximately 7 feet. However, the test pits were left open for only a
short time period. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and
other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found between the near -surface,
weathered soil and the underlying denser soils and in more permeable soil layers.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the observations made during our site visit and explorations, it is our opinion that the
proposed Taco Time Restaurant is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The
existing organic silty soils should not be relied upon to support foundations or slab -on -grade floors.
The proposed building can be supported on continuous conventional foundations that bear on at
least 2 feet of structural fill. Independent footings should be avoided wherever possible, as they
will tend to settle differentially relative to the surrounding structure. The floor slab should be
constructed over at least one foot of structural fill. However, we anticipate that in order to remove
the organic silt layer, the entire building footprint will require overexcavation of 2 to 3 feet below
existing grade. The structural fill pad should extend at least 2 feet beyond the outside edge of the
footings.
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that
the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a
plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may
include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical
constraints that become more evident during the review process.
Conventional Foundations
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing
on structural fill placed above the native medium stiff silt soil after removal of the desiccated
organic silt upper soil unit. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural
Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath
structures. We recommend that footings be continuous and that individual spread footings be
avoided if possible. Footings should have minimum widths of 12 inches. They should be
CiLOTECI 1 CoNSU1..TANLS. INC.
•
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
• •
JN 97186
Page 3
bottomed at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for frost protection.
The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment
depths are required.
The following allowable bearing pressure is appropriate for footings constructed according to the
above recommendations.
Allowable
Bearing Condition Bearing Pressure
Supported on structural fill placed 2,000 psf
above native soil
Where:
psf is pounds per square foot.
A one-third increase in the above design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-
term wind or seismic Toads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -
construction settlement of footings founded on structural fill up .to 5 feet in thickness, will be about
one to 2 inches, with differential settlements on the order of one inch in a distance of 50 feet along
a continuous footing.
Lateral Toads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and
the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the
foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against
relatively level, undisturbed s'oil, or surrounded by level, structural fill. We recommend using the
following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: .
Parameter' Design Value
Coefficient of Friction
Passive Earth Pressure
0.40
300 pcf
Where:
1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot.
2. Passive earth pressure is computed
using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading,
when using the above design values.
Seismic Considerations
The site is located within Seismic Zone 3 as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1994 Uniform
Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1994 UBC, the site soil profile is best
represented by Profile Type S4. The site soils are potentially liquifiable during a significant
GEOTECII CONSULTANTS. INC.
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
• •
JN 97186
Page 4
earthquake. However, the use of a structural fill pad and the relatively Tight foundation Toads
should mitigate the effects of seismic liquefaction on the structure.
Slabs -on -Grade
The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop structural fill placed over the
native, medium stiff silt. The upper layer of desiccated organic silt should be removed prior to
placing structural fill. A geotextile fabric should be used between the native silt and the structural
fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or
underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with
select, imported, structural fill.
All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a
minimum 4 -inch thickness of coarse, free -draining, structural fill with a gradation similar to that
discussed later in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. In areas where the passage of
moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6 -mil plastic membrane,
should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine -grading process
to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce
shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process.
We recommend placing concrete slabs over at least 1 foot of structural fill to provide more uniform
support for the slab where the subgrade is soft or settles more rapidly than the surrounding
ground. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control
and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction.
Saw cuts or preformed strip joints used to control shrinkage cracking should extend through the
upper one-fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints depends on the slab
shape and the amount of steel placed in it. Reducing the water -to -cement ratio of the concrete
and curing the concrete, by preventing the evaporation of free water until cement hydration
occurs, will also reduce shrinkage cracking.
Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls
Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls that
restrain level backfill:
Parameter
Active Earth Pressure*
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Design Value
35 pcf
300 pcf
0.40
130 pcf
Where:
1. pcf is pounds per cubic foot.
2. Active and passive earth pressures are
computed using the equivalent fluid
densities.
GEOTECIL c0NsUI:I'ANTs, INC.
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
For restrained walls that cannot deflect
at least 0.002 times their height, a
uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf
times the height of a wall should be
added to the above active equivalent
fluid pressure.
JN 97186
Page 5
The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only.
We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above
recommended values to design the walls.
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or Toads, such as vehicles, will be placed behind the
walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil
pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall
dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth
pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by
adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls
within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional
lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assumes that the backfill
will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches.
Excavations and Slopes
No excavated slopes are anticipated other than for utility trenches. However, excavation slopes
should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations.
Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there
are no indications of slope instability. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296,
Part N, the soil type at the subject site would be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut
slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1
(Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. Excavation
into the wet soils below a depth of about 7 feet will require shoring and dewatering.
The above recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at
other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for
a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities.
Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut
slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for
instability. Please note that the wet silt and sandy silt soils can cave suddenly and without
warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger.
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should
not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow
uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed
slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve
the stability of the surficial layer of soil.
GEOTECIL CONSUL] ANTS, INC.
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
JN 97186
Page 6
Drainage Considerations
We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of footings, where (1) crawl spaces or
basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade
does not slope downwards from a building. We do not anticipate that foundation drains will be
required for this structure. Drains if required, should also be placed at the base of all backfilled,
earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1 -inch -minus,
washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or
similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the
bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. Drainage should also be provided
inside the footprint of a structure, where (1) a crawl space will slope or be lower than the
surrounding ground surface, (2) an excavation encounters significant seepage,- or (3) an
excavation for a building will be close to the expected high groundwater elevations. We can
provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation
and foundation construction.
All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. For the
best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains.
Wet soils were observed at a depth of about 7 feet during our field work. If seepage is
encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage
ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow
connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation and 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. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the building
should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved.
Pavement Areas
All pavement sections may be supported on 12 inches of structural fill placed over native soils.
The filled subgrade must be in a stable, non -yielding condition at the time of paving. Geotextile
fabric should be laid over the excavation floor prior to placing structural fill. We recommend using
Supac 5NP, manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company, or a non -woven fabric with equivalent
strength and permeability characteristics. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions
are encountered, 12 inches of granular, structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very
soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech
Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction
of structural fill beneath pavements are given in a later sub -section entitled General Earthwork
and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and
stability of the underlying subgrade.
The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt
concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt -treated base
(ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB
GEOTECH CONSUL: rANI'S, INC.
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
• •
JN 97186
Page 7
or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas
with truck traffic.
Where the subbase is composed of silty, water -sensitive soil and irrigated landscaping is adjacent
to and at an elevation higher than the pavement, we suggest installing perimeter drains to
intercept the water that would otherwise saturate the pavement subbase. The pavement section
recommendations and guidelines presented in this report are based on our experience in the area
and on what has been successful in similar situations. Some maintenance and repair of limited
areas can be expected. To provide for a design without the need for any repair would be
uneconomical.
General Earthwork and Structural Fill
All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil,
and other deleterious material. The desiccated organic silt should be removed from the building
area prior to placing structural fill. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with
any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as
landscape beds. We recommend laying a geotextile fabric such as Supac 5NP, manufactured by
Philips Petroleum Company, or a non -woven fabric with equivalent strength and permeability
characteristics, prior to placing structural fill in building or pavement areas.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or
foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. 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 that results in the greatest
compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill 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 selected, the compaction
equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness
should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not
compacted to specifications, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates
the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents
recommended relative compactions for structural fill:
Minimum
Location of Fill Placement Relative Compaction
Beneath footings, slabs, 95%
or walkways
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements
Where:
95% for upper 12
inches of subgrade,
90% below that level
GEOTE.CH CONSULI'AN fs. INC.
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
• •
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).
JN 97186
Page 8
On-site soils are not suitable for structural fill, including utility backfill in structural areas. All fill will
need to be imported, with on-site soils being suitable for reuse only in non-structural areas, such
as landscaping.
Ideally, structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil
with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No.
200 sieve should be measuredfrom that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil encountered in
the test pits is representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions
encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations,
we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our
recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on
construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits.
Subsurface conditionp can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions
frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is
recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such
potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Taco Time and its representatives for
specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on
observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our
conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current
standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No
warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to
construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the
contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in
our report for consideration in design. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the
project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide
geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm
that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate
whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans
and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface
conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
• •
Taco Time
June 3, 1997
JN 97186
Page 9
not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or
agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the
contractor.
The following plates are attached and complete this report:
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan
Plate 3 Test Pit Logs
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we
may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us.
JRF/MRM:mmm
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
`EXPIRES 81 17 / 17
James R. Finley, Jr., P.E.
Principal
Marc R. McGinnis, P.E.
Associate
GEOTECI-1 CONSULTANTS. INC.
7
S GRAD,
S REN TON VILLAGE PL
ry! W
U t i S
ST
S 16TH ST
Race
"OR b MINCLER I B!VO
'""a COm 1TJT _uPW1aoA
'EMERGENCY '.
CENTER
TASANQ�R�
H
S 'BATH ST
.N
1911TH ST
1V
194TH ST
BOEING AEROSPACE
CENTER '
_IS E200Twysl STj
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
Job No.,
97186
Dort, 1 cogged By:
JUNE 1997
TP -2
PROPOSED
TACO TIME
BUILDING AREA
TP -1
S 180th STREET
LEGEND:
APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN.
68XX-S 180th STREET
TUKWILA, WA
Job No. 1
97186
Dale:
JUNE 1997
Pole:
2
4q.1 494-
Go
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
`'1
TEST PIT 1
Uscs
Description
ML
1111 roll J
ML
HO
Tandesiccated to brown, organic SILT with sand, dry, stiff,
Gray SILT with sand, moist, loose
-becomes wet and soft
-becomes clayey
Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet below grade on May 28, 1997.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
Heavy caving observed below 7 feet.
TEST PIT 2
USCS
Description
MLS;;
Tan to brown, organic SILTwith some gravel and &
dry, stiff, desiccated
.2::
ML
Gray SILT with sand, low plasticity, moist, medium-
-becomes brown with trace organics, stiff
-becomes wet and soft to medium -stiff
-becomes gray and sandy
nd,
stiff
Test pit terminated at 12 feet below grade on May 28, 1997.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
Encountered power lines in conduit at a depth of 3.5 feet.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
TEST PIT LOGS
68XX SOUTH 180th STREET
TUKWILA, WA
Job No:
97186
Date:
MAY 1997
Logged by:
DBG
Plate:
3
06/25/91 14:37 FAA 206 747 3688
1KANSYU Group !OUL
Transportation and Traffic Engineering •
PLANNlN6.DESIGN •
CC% 1111.4
EjsoA1 The
Transpo
Group
MEMORANDUM
TO: Glenn Amster
FROM: Jeff Schramm
Kurt Gahnberg
DATE: February 28, 1997
TG: 97850.00
SUBJECT; TUKWILA HOME DEPOT SITE
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON & IMPACT FEES •
Based on your request, we have calculated the trip generation for the retail pads on the
Tukwila Home Depot site. We also looked into traffic impact fees. You can use this
information as background for your pre -application meeting with the City of Tukwila on
March 5th.
Trip Generation Comparison
We understand the current proposal is simply to short plat one of the two original pads on
the Tukwila Home Depot site. Doing so will allow Taco Time and Q -Lube to locate on one of
the pads; Les Schwaab is close to opening on the other pad. This analysis compares the
trip generation associated with the proposed pad uses to the trip generation estimates for
the pads assumed in the December 1992 traffic study for the entire site (Entranco).
As shown in Table 1, the proposed uses are forecast to generate fewer new daily and PM
peak hour trips then were anticipated in the 1992 study. Daily trips at the driveways
would be slightly higher than previously documented, however, their impact on the street
system would be Iess, since a higher proportion of the fast-food trips (Taco Time) are
generally pass -by trips. A more detailed table of calculations and assumptions is also
attached for reference.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
J U L 0 3 1997
PERMIT CENTER
W-i2»W WEMt
The TRANSPO Group. Inc. 14335 N.E. 24th Scree? Suit,. aenootna �._
, 06/25/91 14:37 FAX 206 747 3688 TRANSYO Group
• •
GIenn Amster
February 28. 1997
Page 2
Table 1, Tri Generation Com arison -Tukwila Home De t Retail Pads
Comparison Case Average Daily Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
1992 Traffic Study
Driveway Trips 2,253 • 204
Net New Trips 1,6.90 152
Proposed Uses
Driveway Trips 2,320 158
Not New Trips 1,430 98
Difference
Driveway Trips + 67 - 48
Net New Trips -260 -54 •
' Net new trips represent total driveway trips fess pass -by trips.
tj 003
The
Transpo
Group
Based on this trip generation comparison, no new impacts would be expected above or
beyond those previously used as the basis for approval and mitigation of the total site.
including the Home Depot.
Impact Fees
We performed a preliminary review of Tukwila traffic impact fees. and found that under the
city's Ordinance No. 1769 (shown in Attachment 2). traffic mitigation exists under section
9.48.070 (Traffic Studies & Mitigation). Fairshare mitigation fees are based on a cost per
trips basis for specific area and corridors provided in the Transportation Element of the
Capital Improvement Plan. Unfortunately. we could not identify a specific fee program from
the ordinance. Apparently, Ron Cameron oversaw the calculation of traffic impact fees for
development on a case-by-case basis in some context of the City's ordinance. However.
since Ron has now gone to the City of Woodinville. current transportation staff at the city
were unable to specifically identify their impact fee program at this time.
Attachments: Trip Generation Comparison
City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1769
IZ19R4195OiW1NeW
06/25/91 14:37 FAX 206 747 3688
TRANSPO Group Lei004
• •
Attachment 1
Tukwila Home Depot Trip Generation Analysis
Trip Generation Summary from Entranco Traffic Stud
Dece
. Land Use No. 820 Retail Shopping Center
Units: 1000 gsf
Amount: =it :4. 04;
Daily
PM Peak to
PM Peak Out
PM Peak Total
Trip
Rates
Total
Trips
Pass -By Trips (25%1
New
Trips
159.800
50%
50%
14.500
2253
102
02
563
26
a
52
1690
76
76
152
204
TRANSPO's Trip Generation Summary for the Retail Pads
(Assuming Trip Generation Characteristics for each separate use
Land Use No. 848 Tire Store Les Schwab Tires
Units: 1000 gsf•
Amount . ;1250`0:
Trip Total
Hates Trios
- New
Pass -By Trjps (25%) 7r� lo.
Daily (10 X PM Peak)
PM Peak In
PM Peak Out
PM Peak Total
51300 640220
42% 27
58% 37
5.130 64
420
8 19
8 29
16 48 •
Land Use No. 840 Automobile Care Center Q -Lube'
Units: Service Bays
Amount:'` 220,4 f.;
.
Trip Total
Daly Pass -By Trips (40%) New
&tea Trios
PM Pass-Bv Trio215.0%1 TriDS
Daily (Estimated)
PM Peak in
PM Peak Out
PM Peak Total
40.000 80
46% 6
54% 6
6.000 12
30 50
3 3
3 3
6 6
Land Use No. 834 Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window Taco Time
Units: 1000 gsf
Amount: titIt2`; 0' ;!; ^;
Trip
Rates Total Trios
Daily Pass -By Trips (40%) New
pm Pass -By Trios (47%1 Trios
Daily
PM Peak In
PM Peak Out
PM Peak Total
710.080 1600
52% 43
48% aa
36.560 82
640 960
20 23
18 21
38 44
Summary of Total Trip Components for Separate Uses
Daily Total PM Peak Hour Trips (New & Pass -by)
Trp Component Trips In
Pass -by Trips 890 31
New Tricia 1430 455
Total Trips 2320 75
Out
29
53
83 158
Total
60
M:\971978501TR I P G E N
File: TRIPGEN.XLS 3/3/g7
06/25/91 14:37 FAX 206 747 3688
ACME\JT
TRANSPO Group
City of Tukwila
Washington
Ordinance No. 1 7‘ 171
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, IMPLEMENTING THE LAND USE
PERMIT CONSISTENCY AND CONCURRENCY
REQUIREMENTS OF RCW CH. 36.70A, ADDING
NEW CHAPTERS TO TTTLES 9, 14 AND 18 OF THE
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING
CHAPTERS I8.66 AND 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL. CODE, REQUIRING A
DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH
ADOPTED PIANS, LAWS AND POLICIES FOR ALL
• PERMIT APPLICATIONS, ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE WHET
ADEQUATE UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES ARE AVAIL ISLE TO SERVE NEW
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION
OF MITIGATION CONDITIONS, AMENDING
STANDARDS FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMITS, SUBDIVISIONS, AND ADOPTING
STANDARDS FOR. THE EXPANSION AND
ENLARGEMENT OF CERTAIN UNCLASSIFLED
USES.
WHEREAS, RCW ch. 36.70A requires that no land use permit applications be
approved until a determination has been made that the application is consistent with and
carries out the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations and other
applicable laws and regulations, and
WHEREAS, RCW ch. 36.70A requires that the City implement procedures to
assure that utility and transportation capital facilities necessary to support new
development are provided in a manner which is concurrent with the occupancy and use of
new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to provide more specific standards for the
review of certain land use permits, -
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Statement of Purpose
3
CHAPTER 1- STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF PERMITS
3
Section 1857.010 Determination or Consistency with adopted Plans and Regulations - Type 1
and 2 Decisions
3
lQ 005