Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L92-0047 - TURNER HOWARD - COMPUTER CITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
L92-0047 227 ANDOVER PARK EAST COMPUTER CITY SUPERCENTER SEPA CRITICAL AREA SENSITIVE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) August 28, 1992 Howard Turner, AIA 2115 NE Park Road Seattle, WA 98105 City of Tukwila NOTICE OF DECISION RE: Notice of Decision by the Board of Architectural Review File Number: L92 -0048 (COMPUTER CITY) John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved the project's design as presented on August 27, 1992. The BAR also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated August 17, 1992. Any changes to the specific design approved by the BAR will require BAR approval. Minor, incidental changes may be administratively approved by the Director of Community Development. The decision of the Bar is not final until the appeal period has elapsed, which is ten calendar days after the above date of the decision. Appeals must be filed in writing to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.ra. on the final day of the appeal period. Where the final day of an appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday the appeal period will be extended to 5:00 p.m. on the next work day. If you should have any questions regarding this project please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Vernon Umetsu Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter.Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431.3670 • Fax (206) 431.3665 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) THE PROPOSAL IS TO REMODEL AN EXISTING OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE OF 28,000 SQUARE FEET INTO A SMALLER RETAIL BUILDING OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET. PROPONENT: HOWARD R. TURNER LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS,'IF ANY. ADDRESS: 227 ANDOVER PK E PARCEL NO: 022320 -0020 SEC /TWN /RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L92 -0047 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. The. Conditions to this SEPA Determination are attached. Tils DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by AUG US "T a 1j` g The lead agency will not act on this proposal for f5 days from the date below. Qe Q l CK Res - L zit 871 AZ, L. Rick Beeler, Responsible Official Date City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You niay be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for Computer City at 227 Andover Park East, L92 -0047 August 12, 1992 MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED TO ADDRESS IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE SEPA CHECKLIST. 1. Provide a six foot wide easement along Strander and Andover Park East for the sidewalk. 0 y Nt:'a_A: �qd? 1908 John W. Rants, Mayor August 27, 1992 Mr. Howard Turner Turner and Associates 2115 N.E. Park Road Seattle, WA 98105 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director RE: SEPA File No. L92 -0047 (Computer City) Dear Mr. Turner, B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 16. Utilities. Mitigating Conditions Pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 340(2), I have received additional comments from the Tukwila Public Works Dept. regarding project impacts to the City water system (attached). Based on this new information the environmental checklist for SEPA File No. L92- 0047 (Computer City) is hereby further amended as follows: The existing conditions for the water system is amended to reflect the Tukwila Public Works Dept. Memo of August 17, 1992 (attached). Additional mitigation is required as a result of the revised evaluation of project impacts to the water system. The following additional mitigating action is required. 2. The property owner shall agree in writing to participate in, and pay a fair share of, a local improvement district for up- grading water lines in this area. The written agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director and shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. This mitigation requirement makes participation mandatory. However, a calculation of fair share may be protested as provided at the time of improvement district formation. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 .; Sincerel Alternatively, you may submit engineering calculations to establish the size of a new water line needed to fully mitigate project impacts, and install it per City design specifications during the building construction phase. This determination may be appealed per TMC 21.04.250. Please feel free to contact Vernon Umetsu at 206-431-3684 if you have any questions. L. Rick Beeler, SEPA Responsible Official cc .. Po'isC,(c. (., /1>e s'encYt attachment TO: Vern Umetsu OM: Pat Brodin M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 17, 1992 SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT - Water Requirements; Computer City Background - what, where, when, why Computer City is Proposing to convert 28,000 square feet of ware- house to 25,000 square feet of retail space. The net effect will be about 5000 square feet of original office space expanded to 25,000 square feet of retail. There is currently an 8 -inch water main in Strander Boulevard. Issue Analysis - alternatives, costs, impacts The Water Comprehensive Plan analysis shows that the Strander line should be upgraded from an 8 -inch to a 12 -inch water main to meet maximum velocity standards. Previous tests in this vicinity have shown that 3000 gallons per minute can be available on the 8 -inch line under average daily demand. While flow and pressure meet our requirements, velocities in the smaller 8 -inch lines ex- ceeds our minimum standard of 10 fps. The 10 fps is also used as a guideline in the Skyway Critical Water Supply Plan and is en- dorsed by the WSDOH. Velocities that exceed 10 fps create exces- sive water hammer bringing about pressure surges which inadvertantly set off local sprinkler alarms and can damage valves and thrust blocks. Reducing the square footage and changing the use does not lower the water consumption in this case. As shown on the attached sheet Wajax Pacific Fire Equipment warehouse with 28,000 square feet uses 9.13 GPD per 1000 sf and The Office Club retail store nearby with only 24,990 square feet used 48 GPD per 1000 sf for the same sample period. Other similar uses are the Bon Warehouse using 10.7 GPD per 1000 sf and General Electric's warehouse at 18.3 GPD per 1000 sf while Southcenter Mall uses 211 GPD per 1000 sf. The change in water use from 10 GPD /1000sf to over 40 GPD /1000sf is what will happen. An increase in the maximum in- stantaneous demand resulting from new development and changes in use will also increase the pipe velocities. Recommendation No new system improvements will be required at this time but a no- protest agreement is needed for the future pipe size increase on Strander Boulevard. PB:PAB2:VERN MEM.doc WAJAX PACIFIC FIRE EQUIPMENT Att (ccf) (gal) DATE READING CONSUMPTION GPD /1000 SF GPD 11/30/1990 12/31/1990 01/31/1991 02/28/1991 03/31/1991 04/30/1991 05/31/1991 06/30/1991 07/31/1991 08/31/1991 09/30/1991 10/31/1991 11/30/1991 12/31/1991 01/31/1992 02/28/1992 03/31/1992 04/30/1992 05/31/1992 06/30/1992 07/31/1992 AVERAGES THE OFFICE CLUB, INC. DATE 10/31/1990 11/30/1990 12/31/1990 01/31/1991 02/28/1991 03/31/1991 04/30/1991 05/31/1991 06/30/1991 07/31/1991 08/31/1991 09/30/1991 10/31/1991 11/30/1991 12/31/1991 01/31/1992 02/28/1992 03/31/1992 04/30/1992 05/31/1992 06/30/1992 07/31/1992 AVERAGES 2071 10 7480 2081 10 7480 8.6 241 2090 9 6732 7.8 217 2100 10 7480 9.5 267 2109 9 6732 7.8 217 2120 11 8228 9.8 274 2130 10 7480 8.6 241 2148 18 13464 16.0 449 2162 14 10472 12.1 338 2175 13 9724 11.2 314 2186 11 8228 9.8 274 2204 18 13464 15.5 434 2214 10 7480 8.9 249 2223 9 6732 7.8 217 2233 10 7480 8.6 241 2243 10 7480 9.5 267 2254 11 8228 9.2 257 2264 10 7480 8.9 249 2270 6 4488 5.2 145 2275 5 3740 4.5 125 2279 4 2992 3.4 97 10 7765 9.13 255 dqo 51 : (ccf) (gal) READING CONSUMPTION GPD /1000 SF GPD 7075 174 130152 7201 126 94248 7269 68 50864 7307 38 28424 7395 88 65824 7402 7 5236 7512 110 82280 7644 132 98736 7792 148 110704 7822 30 22440 7866 44 32912 7903 37 27676 7945 42 31416 7968 23 17204 7977 9 6732 7987 10 7480 7998 11 8228 8006 8 5984 8015 9 6732 8043 28 20944 8069 26 19448 8091 22 16456 54 40460 125.7 65.7 36.7 94.1 6.8 109.8 127.5 147.7 29.0 42.5 36.9 40.6 22.9 8.7 9.7 11.8 7.5 9.0 27.0 25.9 21.2 3142 1641 917 2351 169 2743 3185 3690 724 1062 923 1013 573 217 241 294 187 224 676 648 531 1189 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS AMENDMENT TO SEPA CHECKLIST FOR COMPUTER CITY (L92 -0047) August 12, 1992 This checklist including the attached traffic study by David Evans and Associates dated June 11, 1992 is hereby amended: 3. Water a.6: A stormwater system, designed to City of Tukwila standards, will convey surface water to the City stormwater system. No surface water will be directed to the sanitary system. 16. Utilities b: Sewer will be provided by the City of Tukwila. Water will be provided by the City of Tukwila. Note: The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Water Plan identifies a deficiency in the water system in this area. Telephone to be provided by GTE. Power to be provided by Puget Power. The Traffic study by David Evans Associates which was submitted with the Checklist and is a part of the environmental information supplied by the applicant is hereby amended as follows: A. The description of Andover Park East is corrected to reflect the left turn pocket and median strip extending from Strander Blvd. to a point north of the existing property line, as described in Tukwila Public Works Dept. road plans. This channelization limits existing driveway access to right -in and right -out movements only and would similarly constrain turns from the proposed driveway. B. The description of Strander Blvd. is corrected to reflect the median strip extending which currently prohibits left turn movements from the property's existing driveway, as described in Tukwila Public Works Dept. road plans. This median strip extends east -west along Strander for a distance which would limit the proposed new driveway to only the existing right turn movements. C. Full access to driveways on Strander Blvd. would be allowed upon completion of road widening project, which would provide a two way left turn lane, and a determination by the City Engineer that allowing full access could be accomplished without degrading surrounding intersection LOS below City Standards. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mark Cross FROM: Phil Fraser DATE: 7/31/92 SUBJECT: Computer City, 227 APE (L92 -0047 & L92 -0048) - Enviornmental Review Public Works provides the following comments responding to the enviornmental checklest for Computer City: Page 6, Par. 3. a, 6) - The answer given is incorrect. Surface water will not be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. Change 4th line by deleting the phrase: "...and sanitary sewer system... ". Also, add: Oil /water separators and biofiltration (where possible) to be included in the surface water design. The description of existing conditions one page 1 of the Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Computer City dated 6/11/92 by DEA needs to be modified to reflect the south bound left turn lane on APE precludes northbound lefts and restricts the Computer City driveway to a right in /right out only. Similarly, the existing conditions of Strander Blvd need to be revised to identify the existing median strip and east bound left turn pocket which restricts the two Strander driveways to right in /right out only. Full access by driveways on Strander Blvd would be allowed upon completion of road widening project which provides a two way left turn lane and a determination by the City Engineer that allowing full access could be accomplished without degrading _surrounding intersection LOS below City standards. The developer will enter into an agreement with the City to combine driveways with the property to the north at such time as the property to the north comes in for new or substantial redevelopment and participate in 50% of the relocation costs. Under Traffic: Widen Strander Blvd & Andover Park East 2 -1/2' through relocation of the curbs & gutters along with associated relocations of light poles /utilies is required to mitigate future street widening and resritping of APW and Strander Blvd. The increased peak traffic by this development increases delay; the 2 -1/2' widening to provide wider lanes will mitigate the increased traffic affect. Mitigations oulined in the Traffic Impact Study (refer to Section V. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION, Page 8) to be included in the mitigation of the action proposed in the environmental checklist. . MEMORANDUM TO: DEVELOPMENT FILE: PRE — APP028 -91 — COMPUTER CITY FROM: PHIL FRASER, SENIOR ENGINEER DATE:. 12/12/91 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS .A1 END THE PRE — APPLICATION FORM FOR PUBLIC WORKS: 1. A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS REQUIRED. COPY OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT CHECK —OFF LIST IS ATTACHED (�;'. �U> >��� ti�-�T� ��`'�t Nv' J- L'J'(U O 2. PER FIRE MARSHALL NICK OLIVAS, FIRE ACCESS AROUND BUILDING IS NOT ADEQUATE. SEVERAL QUESTIONS AS TO ACCESS FOR WESTERLY BUILDING, USE OF RR EASEMENT FOR ACCESS, STATUS OF RR EASEMENT, AND NARROWING OF ACCESS DRIVE BETWEEN BUILDINGS WITH PARKING NEED TO BE DISCUSSED WITH FIRE DEPT. 3. A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR ACCESS /SAFETY AND FOR THE "DELTA" CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION FROM CURRENT WAREHOUSE USE TO RETAIL USE WILL BE REQUIRED. CONTACT RON CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER AT 433 -0179 FOR FINAL SCOPING OF THIS STUDY. ELIMINATION OF LOT LINE AND COMBINED TRIP GENERATION WITH NEW USE NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED.AIc�. 4. A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED. MITIGATIONS RESULTING FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY MAY BE CARRIED OUT AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT OR POSSIBLY, WITH CITY'S APPROVAL, BE PUT INTO THIS AGREEMENT. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS WILL BE IN THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT: A. AGREE TO NOT PROTEST DEFICIENCIES IN WATER SYSTEM IN STRANDER BLVD., ETC. AS IDENTIFIED IN CITY'S MOST CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN (CONTACT PAT BRODIN, SENIOR WATER /SEWER ENGINEER AT 433 -0179 FOR THIS INFORMATION). B. IN FUTURE, COMBINE MOST NORTHERLY ACCESS WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP TO THE NORTH ON A.P.E. AT TIME OF NORTHERLY PROPERTY OWNER'S REDEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING THAT SUCH DRIVE WAY CONSOLIDATION PROVIDES IMPROVED ACCESS /SAFETY AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION. C .D o / Co / / v-- t V A / W .. CITY'S POLICY 'S TO HAVE AS FEW DRIVEWAY ziCC ESS POINTS TO CITY'S TRA_ IC CORRIDORS AS POSSIBLE L 5. WIDEN STRANDER AND A.P.E. 2 -1/2' THROUGH RELOCATION OF C/G AND ASSOCIATED LIGHT POLE /UTILITY RELOCATIONS ALONG WITH ANY ASSOCIATED DEDICATION OF R /W. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR STREET WIDENING AND RESTRIPING OF A.P.E. AND STRANDER BLVD. 6. PROVIDE EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK. THE WIDTH OF THIS SIDEWALK TO BE PER THE CITY'S SIDEWALK ORDINANCE. THE FINAL LOCATION OF SIDEWALK TO BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY ENGINEER, RON CAMERON 433 -0179. SIDEWALK TO BE EXTENDED TO ENDS OF PROPERTY AND TO MOST REASONABLE CONNECTION POINTS. 7. WATER ANALYSIS TO ASSURE NEEDS OF DEVELOPMENT ARE MET WITH AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY TO CRITERIA OF PUBLIC WORKS, FIRE MARSHAL AND INSURANCE UNDERWRITER SHALL BE PROVIDED BY YOUR ENGINEER. 8. CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL BE FOLLOWED (AVAILABLE THROUGH ARLINE 433 -0179) 9. CITY'S UNDERGROUNDING ORDINANCE WILL BE FOLLOWED. 10.DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASS?'TLY SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR 11. CITY' S FLOOD ORDINANCE SHALL BE FOLLOWED AS PART 12. DEVELOPER IS REQUESTED TO INCLUDE BIOFILTRATION DRAIN SYSTEM. 13. CHECK WITH DON WILLIAMS, RECREATION DIRECTOR, 433 -1843, FOR ANY FUTURE DEDICATIONS OF TRAIL ALONG RR EASEMENT AREA. 14. FOLLOW 1/1/90 F.C. DESIGN MANUAL FOR DESIGN /DETENTION. 15. HANDICAPPED ACCESS RAMPS FOR SIDEWALKS ALSO NEED TO BE SHOWN ON PLANS. WATER SYSTEMS OF APPLICATION. IN RETROFIT OF 16. ACCESS POINT AT STRANDER BLVD. TO BE MOVED BACK INTO PROPERTY TO PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM POTENTIAL ACCESS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY AND ALLOW NORMAL APRON (SEE CITY STREET AND ROADWAY STANDARDS, PLAN R -7. 3ITY OF TUKWILA ).E.- OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (+Li ADDRESS 2_2_7 7 4vaotiev- - / DATE TRANSMITTED / STAFF COORDINATOR /,./ t/a 5 5 I TEM Date: • ) 1 •--./ ' 17 L — (74 • CX)6 7 ,_\ ,. - • r••-^^ kj. EPIC: COMMENT DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED Comments prepared by:, :Poilavcsi RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7//7/ 6 7 , ..., :a.ti ",:,..... 04; r10 r.. i,i.T..7- ,i n6.1c.,..ti.,.Q6;?..r,?...cs..r-,.....12s...1. :::\„?6'1::.!6.efcfieeti.9d::4i61.6;drht'6;6171:4:1h:r:::PeSCCJ516.''':;;Cdt.:::::112:L'ie711a4. 1:"rl.:a.'l ite1°I. PI E.::.7.;;1-::17; ... ..':',:..,.:::::. ,:.',. f :' .: . . ' * : :::: ' ,;.;i: % :,:: * .r i',::„ :.:. : ..:.:.:„ . ..:, . 6 " : : . . . r i \i r 6 6 6 4 M . : b P ! j r ) 1 . - 0 . . . . . a . . . . i e - - . . . . - , , . . : i i . - 1 . . . e . . . ' . 1 i : - 1 p : P % . ; . 2 . . . . o . . . . . a : b ° 1 s 0 1 1 : 1 6 . . . . . 1 h . . i. ' - J.: : ** P . , 1 5 - . 6 n . . i 1716 P " D 6 : 1 1 1" e 6 . t ; t6 ..:''. 6.Li c' 161; • .00 ...' a P 9 § .. 0T . ' ,,. ::" OO . Merits: g ardjhb• i ' Oa iri a ci i O.,:tV) o::. ..! afini:n it rro ;Si O ii Bciafd ci6 nbil::::Sh dui d :56:1'Sbbiitbd:in:Jrie••ton . ....:::.:.M:::::i:::;' , ..:g: - ::::::;::: . :::1::::::!1::•R::::::::§:::;::::::::::::::;:i•g:•;:::::: , •::::•:: , :::•:::.: 7, 1::' . ..:::':' , :::::••:' • ' "••••••••::: f '..i . : : ' ,. i:i..,;:.?i:: - .. , :::: : ' , .... , ::. : : , ..s: . ! ..., ..::: . .:: -:„ : :: : :: : , : :c : :J. i ....::: - ..........::: . : . .. :: :, : :: : .... ::: .:1.i.: : :,, :. ...,...,.,... ::::: ,..:: .:: :.:: : :i:::.:::......: . : ; :,: : :. : . : ::„.1.:;i:,.1:.:.:....„. • • G r~ r l -( 1- ‘21 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY d \S t1/4 •'v FOR 1tiE PROPOSED — : • • • COMPUTER CITY CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Prepared for BSW Architects, Inc. BSWA0001 Prepared by DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98005 June 11, 1992 ,I:• • EXPIRES 7/25/ �. � TABLE OF CONTENTS Ent I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 A. Street/Highway System 1 B. Traffic Volumes 3 C. t Traffic Flow Performance 3 IV. FUTURE CONDTTIONS 6 A. Traffic Generation and Distribution 6 B. Future Level of Service 8 C. Project Access 8 V. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION 8 APPENDICES LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Level of Service Criteria 6 Table 2: Trip Generation Summary 7 Figure 1: Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes - Mid -day 4 Figure 3 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes - PM Peak 5 Figure 4: Trip Distribution and Generation - PM Peak 9 I. U. • INTRODUCTION PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION M. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Street/Highway System This analysis has been prepared to identify the traffic impacts of the proposed Computer City retail store located in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. The proposed project will be located to the northwest of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Fast. The planned 1.5 acre site is currently the location of a warehouse with an attached office. Figure 1 shows the project site and vicinity. The proposed Computer City will contain 24,596 square feet of retail space with 64 parking spaces provided on site. The proposed project will replace a 26,700 square foot warehouse with an attached 2000 square foot office. r The project will be accessed by two driveways. One driveway will be off Andover Street East and the other off Strander Boulevard. Andover Park Fast is a north -south two-way road with 12 foot lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and a 35 mph speed limit. North of Strander Boulevard, the street is four lanes with a center turn lane. South of Strander Boulevard, Andover Park Fast is four lanes. Strander Boulevard is a two way east -west street with five 12 foot lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and a 35 mph speed limit. City of Tukwila staff identified the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Fast as critical in terms of potential impacts by the proposed project. This intersection is signalized with left turn pockets on each legs. Robinson ' • Point Zenith Corn mu nr Saihrater m in-of Federal Lale Way 192 MD Pe n.:Are Lake DAVID rfiK3 LICD A93041412l. 111C. B. Traffic Volumes 3 The intersection of Andover Park Fast and Strander Boulevard was counted by David Evans and Associates, Inc. on May 6, 1992 during mid -day (12:00 to 1:00 PM) and during the PM peak (4:00 to 6:00 PM). These traffic volumes were used to calculate existing levels of service (LOS) and to analyze the effects of project trips on the critical intersection and at the project driveways. Existing PM peak and mid -day traffic volumes are shown in Figures 2 and 3. t C. Traffic Flow Performance LOS determination for existing and future traffic conditions were completed using the methodology described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and Support Software developed by FHWA and the TMODEL2 Corporation. Level of service analysis represents combined consideration of roadway ,traffic volumes and operational characteristics. The result is a description of a street's ability to successfully carry the traffic imposed on it. Level of service for signalized intersections is explained according to delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15- minute analysis period. Calculating delay is complex because it depends on multiple variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio and the volume /capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. The methodology used for calculating the LOS at one -way and two -way stop - controlled intersections is based on the concept of "reserve capacity ". The reserve capacity concept is applied only to an individual traffic movement (or shared -lane movement). Once the capacity of all individual movements has been calculated and their LOS determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement with the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. This is particularly true in cases where the most critical movement serves a very minor percentage of the total traffic entering the intersection. Past experience 1 -5 178TH ST. 9€ DAVID EVAN'S AND AMOCJLTTS. DC. 1 -5 180TH ST. S.W. FIGURE 2 Existing Mid -Day Traffic Volumes 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 1 -5 I -5 DEM DAVID VANS AND AS3001173, DK. .•. 180TH S7. S.W. FIGURE 3 Existing PM -Peak Traffic Volumes 5 t Signalized Unsignalized Level of Service Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) Reserve Capacity Expected Delay Minor Street Traffic A B C D E F < = 5.0 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 60.0 > 60.0 > = 400 300 -399 200 -299 100 -199 0-99 w Little or No Delay Short Delays Average Delays Long Delays Very Long Delays * with the unsignalized analysis procedures indicates that this methodology is very conservative and that it tends to over - estimate the magnitude of any potential problems. Therefore, the result of any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. The LOS criteria used for this analysis is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual The intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park E. currently operates at LOS D for both the mid -day (33.49 second delay) and the PM peak (33.19 seconds delay). The Appendix contains all the LOS work sheets. IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS A. Trip Generation and Distribution Peak -hour trips generated by the proposed development were estimated using trip generation statistics from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Im), Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Section 816, Retail Store. Trips from the existing facility were 6 calculated using Section 710, Office and Section 140, Warehouse. The rate are shown in the appendix. The trips generated by the existing facilities on the site were subtracted from the trips generated by the proposed project to estimate new trips. The new trips were then adjusted to remove pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips attracted from traffic passing a site. The ITE manual estimated pass-by trips for a facility of the size of the proposed project to be about 51%. The calculations are contained in the appendix. The results are summarized in Table 2. The appendix contains the trip generation rates. TABLE 2 7 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY P.M. Peak PM peak-hour trips to and from the subject development were distributed based on existing travel patterns, previous traffic studies, and knowledge of residential and Figure Enter Exit Total Existing Land Use Warehouse - 26,700 sf Office - 2,020 sf 9 22 31 Proposed Land Use Retail Store - 24,590 sf 59 59 118 Total New Trips (Existing Minus Proposed Trips) 50 37 87 Pass-by Trips (51%) ... 25 19 44 TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS (New Trip Minus Pass-By Trips) 25 18 43 calculated using Section 710, Office and Section 140, Warehouse. The rate are shown in the appendix. The trips generated by the existing facilities on the site were subtracted from the trips generated by the proposed project to estimate new trips. The new trips were then adjusted to remove pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips attracted from traffic passing a site. The ITE manual estimated pass-by trips for a facility of the size of the proposed project to be about 51%. The calculations are contained in the appendix. The results are summarized in Table 2. The appendix contains the trip generation rates. TABLE 2 7 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY P.M. Peak PM peak-hour trips to and from the subject development were distributed based on existing travel patterns, previous traffic studies, and knowledge of residential and Figure employment centers. The project trip assignment and distribution are shown in Figure 4. B. Future Level of Service The LOS of the critical intersection with project trips is LOS D (33.27 seconds delay) during the PM peak. The addition of project trips to the intersection does not change the LOS. C. t Project Access Levels of Service were calculated for the project access driveways during the PM peak. The driveway on Andover Park Fast, if stop controlled, will operate at LOS D. The driveway off of Strander Boulevard will operate at LOS E. V. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION The following is a summary of the LOS calculations. Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Fast Existing mid -day LOS - D [33.49] Existing PM Peak LOS = D [33.19] PM Peak with Project - D [33.27] Driveway off Andover Park Fast PM Peak With Project - D (left turns from driveway to Andover Street E.) Driveway off Strander Boulevard PM Peak With Project - E (left turns from driveway to Strander Boulevard) PM Peak With Project - D (left turns from driveway to Andover Street E.) The proposed project will not impact the critical intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Past During the PM peak period the intersection is LOS D with or without trips from the proposed project. 8 , 1-5 ks. DATED KVAK3 AND AZDOCILITS. DOC FIGURE 4 Project Trip Distribution PM Peak On -site, DEA recommends that the developer install stop signs designed to Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards at the project access driveways. As requested by the City of Tukwila, the project proponent should plan on moving the driveway at Strander Boulevard approximately 30 feet to the west to provide access for the adjacent property and to provide room for an apron which will meet City of Tukwila's roadway standards. DEA recommends that the driveway on Andover Park Fast be moved approximately 40 feet to the north to improve access for trucks and emergency vehicles. The proposed project site is required to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. As required by the City, all walls of the proposed project have to have be within 150 feet of a location in which a fire truck can be parked. DEA has checked the proposed site design and determined compliance with Tukwila requirements. The proposed site design will allow emergency vehicles direct access to the south and east sides of the building from the parking lot. All parts of the north side of the building are within 150 feet from the project driveway on the northeast corner of the site. The western edge of the building will have a bay provided for fire truck access. The trucks can back into the bay from either Strander Boulevard or from the project's parking lot. The project proponent will be required to construct frontage improvements. DEA recommends that the proponent pay their fair share of a developer agreement along Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East A easement should be provided for a sidewalk with the width of the easement and sidewalk as specified in Tukwila's sidewalk ordinance. The sidewalk should be constructed so removal of existing trees will not be necessary. 10 APPENDICES t SATURDAY SUNDAY COMPUTER CITY SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 24.59 TH. GF; . S Q . FT . OF GENERAL MERCHAND I C:E DRIVEWAY VOLUMES - 5/19/92 24 HOUR 7 -9 AM PP; HOUR 4 -6 F'M P}( HOUF: TWO -WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT AVERAGE WEEKDAY 0 0 0 59 24 HOUR PEAK HOUR TWO -WAY VOLUME ENTER E X I T 0 0 C? 0 c:? Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. TRIP GENERATION BY M I CROTR'ANS 59 • 5/19/92 .•..•..•»_••.•..•.•.,..., •..,••.••- ..,,.........,.,,.... Figure VII-1A: Shopping Center Pass -By Trips (Weekday, P.M. beak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Average Pass -By Trip Percentage vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic 70 60 40 30 20 10 Number of Studies: 45 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 326 Data Plot and Equation x x x x x 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 600 900 1000 1100 1200 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area x Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = - 0.341 Ln(X) + 5.376 R = 0.34 Institutc of Transportation Engineers INPUT WORKSHEET Intersection:ANDOVER & STRANDER Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:PMPEAK Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS t IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths 3.Movements by lane 4.Parking locations 5.Bay storge lngths 6.Islands 7.Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY Ap Grd. o HV pr ( %) EB +0.0 4.0 WB +0.0 3.0 NB +0.0 2.0 SB +0.0 1.0 Grade: +up, -down HV:veh. > 4 whls Nm:pkg.maneuvers /hr PHASING D I A G R A M Tim- ing (N) - 111 NORTH G= 4.9 Y +R= 3 Ptmd /Act A - )()Sy JG L A N N N N G= 8.9 Y +R= 3 A DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES [ 598] SB TOTAL 1 1 < v > 90 249 259 [ 714] E/B TOTAL CONDITIONS Adj . Pkg•. Lane Y/N Nm 1- 12.0'- LT- - -^ 1- 12.0'-- TH - - -> 1- 12.0'- RTH - -v> 0 0 0 0 Nb:buses stopping /hr PHF:peak -hour factor Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds /hr OR ^ G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 A 47 -> 522 v 145 Buses . (Nb) ^ 0 0 0 0 * * * * *> * v G= 35.6 Y +R= 3 ANDOVER PARK N/S ST. A 1 1 1 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 RTH TH LT < 1 > v v PHF 0.92 0.84 0.90 0.91 < ** * * A G= 26.7 Y +R= 3 Date:MAY 12 1992 Area Type: CBD XOther < 1 > LT TH RTH 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 1 1 1 Cnf . Ped (pd /hr) 10 10 10 10 Min.Timing: min.green for pedestrian crossinc Arr.Type: Type 1 -5 G= 4.9 Y +R= 3 A 117 ^ 430 <- [ 696] -WB TOTAL 149 v < ^ -- RTH - 12.0' -1 <--- TH-- 12.0' -1 v---LT-12.0'-1 STRANDER BLVD E/W STREET 449 330 <A> 255 [1034] N/B TOTAL Pedstrn Button Y/N Mn.Time OR Y Y Y Y 18 18 18 18 G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 A , Portland, Oregon Arr. Type 3 3 3 3 G= 31.‘ Y +R= A Protected turns: * * * *^ 0000^ 1 Permitted turns: + + + +^ Cycle Length 130 Se, Intersection:ANDOVER & STRANDER Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:PMPEAK Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA LANE 3 GROUP v/c Ratio 1 2 X Ap My A 0.814 EB 0 0.814 A 0.814 WB 0 0.545 A 0.814 NB 0 0.814 A 0.814 SB 0 0.478 0 First Term Delay Second Term Delay 4 Green Ratio g/C 0.037 0.274 0.129 0.366 0.266 0.299 0.206 0.239 5 Cycle Length C (sec) 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 LEVEL -OF- SERVICE WORKSHEET 6 Delay dl sec /veh 47.21 33.53 41.87 24.84 33.96 32.08 37.44 32.32 7 Lane Group Cap,c (vph) 63 935 217 1255 451 1008 350 821 8 Delay d2 sec /veh 35.20 3.94 13.95 0.39 7.58 3.68 9.42 0.35 Date:MAY 12 1992 Area Type: CBD XOther' 9 Prgrsn Factor PF T.9 -13 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 10 Lane Gp Delay sec /veh (6 +8) * 9 82.41 31.85 55.82 21.44 41.54 30.39 46.86 27.77 Tot.Delay &LO: 11 12 1: Ln Apprch Ap: Gp Delay LOE LOS sec /veh Tb_ 9 -1 9 -= F D E C E D E D 35.02 28.51 33.84 35.81 Intersection Delay 33.19 sec /veh, Intersection LOS D Table 9.1 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -[ * ** = PROTCTD, + ++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD) AVID EVANS ASSOCIATES , Portland, Oregon , using NCAP by PSI D D D D INPUT WORKSHEET :Inter sec t i c In : ANDOVER °< STRANDER : Analyst : EDM TimeF'er iod Anlyzd: PM PROJECT Area Type: C :LSD XOther :F'rc1.ject NI_I.I_OMF'UTEF CITY C :ity /State :TUKWILA :IDENTIFY IN DIACF:AM : 1 . Vc11 umes :':.Lane =.lane widths :3. Mc lvement s by lane :4.F'arkinc locations 15. Bay stclrge lnaths :6. I_1ands : 7 . r'L:s stops :TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY :Ap:Grd.: ;'. HY $ 1 1 1 1 :EB :--o.0: 4.0 :WB: +0.0: 2.0 :NB: --o.o: 2.01 : SB: +0.01 1.0 1 1 : )3 r i d e: +u p. -d c'w n :HV:veh. > 4 whls :Nm :pkg.maneuvers /hr :PHASING D .. A A M ; 1 1 :Tim- : G= : inn : Y +F:= 1 1 : F'tmd/Act : : Protected 1 DAVID EVANS A : -.a'..•... y. X :VOLUME AND 'EOMETRICS . 4.91 Ij= 3 1.. R .J I r + = .. AgSOCIATES N : N : N : N : OR C 602] SB TOTAL > . : 90 251 2611 C 7163 E/B TOTAL CONDITIONS Ad.j . F'}: :g . Lane Y/N 1 Nm f.) f. - ) 8.91 I j = 3 1 { +R _ 1 A : turns: * ***' oo _,^ 1 -1'2. 0' - LT - - -" A 0.01 145 : 47 : Buses : (Nb ) 1 1 0) t :) 2: Y +F:= 1 !ANDOVER F'AF :K N/S ST.: 1 1 1 : 12.0 : 12.0 1 12.0 RTH TH LT v v A : air: :r :Y +R= 1 LT 12. 1 Date: MAY 12 1992 TH F :TH : r) 1 1' 12.0 : 1 1 A : 117 <'--RTH-12.0'-1 v---LT-12.0r-1 PHF ::n f.F'ed: F'edstrn Button: Arr :(pd/hr): Y/N :Mn.Time: Type 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 0.92 1 10 Y 18 : 0. 84 : 10 Y : 18 0.90 1 10 : Y 1 13 0.' : 10 : Y : 18 Nb:buses stopping /hr Min.Timina: min.areen for PHF: peak-hour factor pedestrian 1=rclssi c C :nf.Peds :C :nflctna pads /hr Arr.Type: Type 1 -5 1 1 1 * 1 •• 1 I 1 1 G= 26.7: )3= 4.9: I_i= S: Y +F := 3: Y +F:= 1 1 OR I x x 1<***). 1<** : V : v : Permitted turns: + + + +'"' : Cycle Length 130 Portland, Oregon .. 435 <- C 7013 -WB TOTAL 149 v STRANDER BLVD E/W STREET 452 330 <".> 255 C1027] TOTAL 1 -__ _____ /-- ----------------------- _' ° V� :IntersectionzANDOVER & --~�ANDER kleete:MAY 12 1992 � |Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:PM PROJECT Area Type: CET XOther| :Project No.COMPUTER CITY City/State:TUKWILA | - | LEVEL-OF-SERVICE'WORKSHEET ____ First Term Delay | Second Term Delay |Tot.Delay_& LOS LANE | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11| 12 | 13 GROUP| v/c | Green| Cycle| Delay | Lane| Delay |Prgrsn|Lane Gp| Ln| Apprch|Apr 1 Ratiol RatiolLengthl d1 |Group\ d2 |Factorl Delay | Gp\ Delay |LOS 1 | 21 X | g/C : C (sec/veh|Cap,c|sec/veh| PF |sec/veh|LOS|sec/veh|Tbl Ap|Mv| | (sec)| |(vph)| |T.9-13|(6+8)*9|9-11 19-1 ==|==| 1 | 1 1 1 1 | |---| | - | Al 0.814| 0.037| 130.0| 47.21| 63| 35.201 1.00 82.41| F | EB| 01 1).817| 0.2741 130.01 33.561 9351 4.04\ 0.85 \ 31.96� D � 35.12\ D | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | 1 Al 0.814| 0.1291 130'0| 41.87| 217| 13.95| 1.00 | 55 E | | WB| O| 0.5501 0.366| 130.01 24.891 1255| 0.401 0.85 | 21.50| C | 28'51| D % � � \ \ � ( | | \ | | | 1 1 1 1 1 | | | 1 | | A: 0.814| 0.2G6| 130.0| 33.96| 4511 7.58| 1.00 | 41.54| E | | NBI O| 0.8171 0.2991 130.0| 32'12| 1008| 3.76| 0.85 . 1 30.501 D : 33.90| D . 1 . , , , . . . . . . | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 | 1 | A| 0.820| 0.2061 130.0| 37.49( 350| 9.82| 1.00 : 47'311 E | | SB| O| 0.430| 0.2391 130.0: 32.34:. 821: 0.36| 0'35 | 27.791 D : 36.02| D | | \ | � | � | | !Intersection Delay 33.27 sec/veh, Intersection LOS D. Table 9.1 :LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-[*** = PROTCTD, +++ = PERMTTD, 1 |A ^ | 0 | * | **** ****> * v . DAVID EVANS ASS�CI�TES , using NCAP by PSI ��� Portland, Oregon =PROTCTD & PERMTTD]| 2 T C Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 823-1821 A 1564 Strander Blvd 850 714 Turning Movement Diagram 598 543 1577 Prepared For: David Evans & Associates 613 1034 Intersection: Andover Park E. Strander Blvd EB Location: City of Tukwila WB Date of Count: Wed 5-6-92 NB Peak Period: 4:30 P - 5:30 P SB Checked By: ZMM Intersection 117 430 149 Strander Blvd %HV PHF Check In: 3042 Out: 3042 4% 3°/0 2% 10 /0 0.92 0.84 0.90 0.91 2% 0.93 696 1036 1732 Time Interval From North on (SB) Andover Park E. From South on Andover Park (NB) E. From East on (WB) Strander Blvd From West on (EB) Strander Blvd Interval Total Ending at 1034 if. S R T L S R T L SR 0.91 T L S R 3:45 P 5 41 46 , 16 6 89 103 72 4 27 99 30 7 16 111 36 686 6 44 75 22 4 39 70 35 7 48 81 41 3 16 110 28 609 4:00 P 11 85 121 38 10 I 128 173 107 11 75 180 71 10 32 221 64 734 3 62 67 25 4 50 114 63 10 41 99 35 6 12 132 34 4:15 P 14 147 188 63 14 178 287 170 21 116 279 106 16 44 353 98 547 1 38 61 8 7 33 62 41 10 38 95 20 5 15 112 24 4:30 P 15 185 249 71 21 I 211 349 211 31 154 374 126 21 59 465 122 814 0 68 76 21 7 85 131 61 5 36 114 31 2 10 142 39 4:45 P 15 253 325 92 28 296 480 272 36 190 488 157 23 69 607 161 773 1 65 72 24 7 71 96 45 4 44 125 38 8 11 136 46 5:00 P 16 318 397 I 116 35 367 576 ., 317 40 234 613 195 31 80 743 207 770 2 71 60 25 2 87 119 82 7 35 96 29 5 15 124 27 5:15 P 18 389 457 141 37 454 695 399 47 269 709 224 36 95 867 234 685 3 55 41 20 3 87 103 67 2 34 95 19 10 11 120 33 5:30 P 21 444 498 161 40 541 798 466 49 303 804 243 46 106 987 267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00P o I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey 21 444 498 161 40 541 798 466 49 303 804 243 46 106 987 267 5618 Total 6 1 259 1 249 _ 90 19 1 330 1 4491 255 18 _ 149 l 430 1 117 25 1 47 1 522 145 3042 ,Approach 598 1034 696 714 3042 %HV 1% 2% 3% 4% 2% PHF 0.91 0.90 0.84 0.92 0.93 2 TC Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 823 -1821 Intersection: Andover Park E. ® Strander Blvd LocatIon: City of Tukwila Prepared For: David Evans & Associates Vehicle Volume Summary Date of Count: Wed 5 -6 -92 Checked By: ZMM 4:30 P to 5:30 P Peak Hour Summa Legend: T= Number of heavy vehicles (greater than 4 wheels) L= Left -Turn S= Straight R= Right -Turn HV= Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak hour Factor (Peak hour volume / (41Highest 15 minutes)) INPUT WORKSHEET Intersection:STRANDER & ANDOVER Date:MAY 12 1992 Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:NOON PEAK Area Type: CBD XOther Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths 3.Movements by lane 4.Parking locations 5.Bay storge lngths 6.Islands 7.Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS Ap Grd. % HV pr ( %) EB +0.0 2.0 WB +0.0 4.0 NB +0.0 3.0 SB +0.0 1.0 Grade: +up, -down HV:veh. > 4 whls Nm:pkg.maneuvers /hr PHASING D 1 A G R A M Tim- ing ^ Ptmd /Actl A ^ G= 8.7 Y +R= 3 Adj.Pkg.Lane Y/N Nm N N N N OR G= 13.1 Y +R= 3 A [ 577] SB TOTAL v > 110 306 161 1- 12.0'- LT - - -^ 1- 12.0'-- TH - - -> 1- 12.0' - RTH - -v> [ 874] -> 530 E/B TOTAL - v 258 0 0 0 0 Nb:buses stopping /hr PHF:peak -hour factor Cnf.Peds:Cnf lctng peds /hr G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 A /. A 86 Buses (Nb) 0 0 0 0 ^ * < * * * ** * * * * *> * v G= 42.0 Y +R= 3 ANDOVER PARK N/S ST. A 1 1 1 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 RTH TH LT < I > v v PHF 0.92 0.84 0.94 0.90 < ** * * G= 16.7 Y +R= 3 ^ < I > LT TH RTH 12.0 I 12.0 1 12.0 1 1 1 Cnf . Ped (pd /hr) A 10 10 10 10 ^ G= 9.2 Y +R= 3 A Y Y Y Y 146 435 <- [ 802] -WB TOTAL 221 v < ^ -- RTH - 12.0' -1 <--- TH-- 12.0' -1 v - - -LT- 12.0' -1 STRANDER BLVD E/W STREET 364 289 < ^> 241 • [ 894] N/B TOTAL Pedstrn Button Y/N Mn.Time A 18 18 18 18 G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 Arr. Type 3 3 3 3 Min.Timing: min.green for pedestrian crossinc Arr.Type: Type 1 -5 ^ G= 22.: Y +R= A Protected turns: * * * *^ 0000^ I Permitted turns: + + + +^ I Cycle Length 130 Se Intersection:STRANDER & ANDOVER Date:MAY 12 1992 Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:NOON PEAK Area Type: CBD XOther Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA LANE 3 GROUP v/c Ratio 1 2 X Ap My A 0.821 EB 0 0.821 A 0.821 WB 0 0.479 A 0.821 NB 0 0.763 A 0.821 SB 0 0.821 0 First Term Delay Second Term Delay t 4 Green Ratio g/C 0.067 0.323 0.191 0.447 0.222 0.266 0.128 0.172 5 Cycle Length C (sec) 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 LEVEL -OF- SERVICE WORKSHEET 6 Delay dl sec /veh 45.51 30.82 38.34 19.21 36.57 33.42 41.97 39.46 7 Lane Group Cap,c (vph) 113 1095 320 1518 374 885 218 591 8 Delay d2 sec /veh 24.03 3.61 10.67 0.19 9.37 2.76 14.58 6.31 9 Prgrsn Factor PF T.9 -13 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 10 Lane Gp Delay sec /veh (6 +8) * 9 69.54 29.26 49.01 16.49 45.94 30.75 56.55 38.90 AVID EVANS ASSOCIATES , Portland, Oregon , using NCAP by PSI Tot.Delay_ &_LOS 11 12 13 Ln Apprch Apr Gp Delay LOS LOS sec /veh Tbl 9 -1 9 -1 F D E C E D E D 33.04 25.13 35.50 43.66 Intersection Delay 33.49 sec /veh, Intersection LOS D Table 9.1 D D E LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -[ * ** = PROTCTD, + ++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD] ‘ 2 T C Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 823-1821 t Strander Blvd 1708 834 874 Turning Movement Diagram 110 577 306 785 161 1203 Prepared For: David Evans & Associates 626 924 Intersection: Andover Park E. © Strander Blvd EB Location: City of Tukwila WB Date of Count: Wed 5-6-92 NB Peak Period: 12:00 P - 1:00 P SB Checked By: ZMM Intersection 146 5 221 Strander Blvd %HV PHF Check In: 3177 Out: 3177 2% 4% 3% 1% 2% 0.92 0.84 0.94 0.90 0.94 802 932 J 1734 Time Interval From North on (SB) Andover Park E. From South on Andover Park (NB) E. From East on (WB) Strander Blvd From West on (EB) Strander Blvd Interval Total Ending at T Lt S R T L SR 4% T L SR 0.90 T L S 0.94 11:15 A 2 25 66 20 6 65 80 53 13 52 91 22 8 7 85 56 622 5 26 72 16 11 60 92 51 12 64 130 28 9 13 79 46 677 11:30 A 7 51 138 36 17 125 172 104 25 116 221 50 17 20 164 102 826 5 38 81 30 5 67 96 69 8 73 140 48 6 20 109 55 11:45 A 12 89 219 66 22 192 268 173 33 189 361 98 23 40 273 157 706 3 28 55 22 8 59 79 50 7 69 129 34 9 22 108 51 12:00 P 15 117 274 85 30 251 347 223 40 258 490 132 32 62 381 208 758 1 49 85 27 6 86 104 57 6 38 95 33 4 12 117 55 12:15 P 16 166 359 115 36 337 451 280 46 296 585 165 36 74 498 263 779 0 34 82 19 6 66 105 41 7 53 122 39 1 25 123 70 12:30 P 16 200 441 134 42 403 556 321 53 349 707 204 37 99 621 333 847 2 35 76 18 9 78 103 65 9 76 116 46 10 26 151 57 12:45 P 18 235 517 152 51 481 659 386 62 425 823 250 47 125 772 390 793 2 43 63 46 7 59 82 78 11 54 1102 28 3 23 139 76 1:00 P 20 278 580 198 58 540 1 741 464 73 479 1 925 278 50 148 911 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:30P 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total Survey 20 278 580 198 58 540 741 464 73 479 925 278 50 148 911 466 6008 Total 5 1161 306 110 28 1 289 1394 241 33 122114351146 18 86 15301258 3177 Approach 577 924 802 874 3177 %HV 1% 3% 4% 2% 2% PHF 0.90 0.94 0.84 0.92 0.94 2 TC Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmorc, WA 98028 (206) 823 -1821 Intersection: Andover Park E. @ Strander Blvd Location: City of Tukwila Prepared For: David Evans & Associates Vehicle Volume Summary 12:00 P to 1:00 P Peak Hour Summa Date of Count: Wed 5 -6 -92 Checked By: ZMM Legend: T= Number of heavy vehicles (greater than 4 wheels) L= Left -Turn S= Straight R= Right -Turn HV= Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak hour Factor (Peak hour volume / (4'Highest 15 minutes)) LOCATION: COMPUTER f:ITY HOURLY VOLUMES' Major street : ANDOVER PARK EAST N INAME:EDM I VOLUMES IN PGF'H N= 2 <---V5--- 613 1 <___v5___ Gr ade 598--- V2 - - -. v-- -V4 - -- 17 - -V2 -- v--- 'J:1 - -- 0 % 12-=- V3 - - -v N= 3 I ---V3---v 1 . ....1 1 1 . 1 Date of Counts: . 1 i ' EXIST V7 V'? X STOP (.7 '`J'� ' Time Period: `!TEED ' PM PE A • s 18: s 1 ' s Approach Speed: 1 Minc'r Street: Grade I 35 DRIVEWAY 1 0% I PHF: .'± N= 1 P o p u l a t i o n : 300r i( i VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. 3 4 5 7 9 Volume (vph) 5'!v 1. 17 : 613 1-7 18 V o1 (pcph) , see Table 10. 1 I XXXXXXXX I XX .•X 1 : XXXXXXX` : 12 18 STEP 1 . F:T From Minor Street /-> :J9 Conflicting Flows, V: Critical 6a:, T: Potential Capacity, 1 =p Actual Capacity, Cm C o n f l i c t i n g Flows, 'vc Critical Gap, T': Potential C a p a c i t y , Cp of Cp utilized and Impedance r ac;c'•r Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) Conflicting F lows, '•J': Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm MOVEMENT V (F'CF'H ) 7 12 130 260 118 9 18 781 260 763 4 17 544 527 ' 1 /2 V3+V2= E. - 299 = 305 vph :'•J' :'3 ) I Tc-- 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp 9= 781 p' :ph (Fig .10.3) 10.3) C :m9 =Cp9= 731 pcph ST F' ' LT From Major Street V4 • • V3 +V2= 1 2 + 598 = 610 vp h (Vc 4) I Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10 ') I C :p4= 544 pcph (Fia.10.3) I (:'•J:} /Cp4)x100 3. F4= .98 I :m$ =Cp4= 544 p,_ph, STET . LT From Minc'r Street . • V7 I 1/2 V3 +V2+V5+V4= I 6 + 598 + 613 + 17 = 1234 vph(Vc7) Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2) I Cp7= 133 pcph (Fig. 10. 3 ) I i_m7= Cp7xF'4= 133 x .98 = 130 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = : V7 +V'3 ) / r: ( V7 /C :m7) + <V9 /1 :m9: :) if lane is shared C :F: 1 :F: LOS LOS CM ( F'C :F 'H) C :SH 4: F'C F'H i !: C:M -'v :' c: I : :SH -v ) CM ti_ SH '7:30 '30 D A A C: 1 LOCATION:COMPUTER CITY HOURLY VOLUMES Major street:STRANDER BLVD N= 2 Grade 850---V2---> 0% 21---V3---v <| |> Counts: � � \ :=XIST \/7 V9 | Time Period: i � • � PM PEAK 20 9: Approach Speed: Minor Street: - -I5 DRIVEWAY 2 PHF: .9 N= ' Population: 30000 Date of VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no' Volume (vph) Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXXIXXXXXXXX1 ST 1 : RT From Minor Street = Conflictinc Flows, Vc CriticM. Sap, Tc Potential Capacity, Actual Capacity, Cm = ===__ STEP 2 : LT From Major Street ConfIicting.Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Caoacity, Cp % of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) ----==== STEP 3 : LT From Minor Stre=t Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm • SHARED LANE CAPACITY MOVEMENT V(PCPH) 7 9 20 C <---V5--- 714 v---V4--- N= 3 2 B50 N v X STOP YIELD Grade 0% |NAME:EDM CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) 1 VOLUMES IN PCPH 21 9 714 ---V3---v 9 |x,AXXXXX: 20 /-> V9 1/2 V3+V2= 11 + 425 = 436 vph(Vc9) Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp9= 673 pcph (Fig,10.3) Cm9=Cp9= 673 pcph V3+V2= 21 + 850 = 871 vph(Vc4) Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) | Cp4= 390 pcph (Fig''0'3) (V4/Cp4)x100= 2.3% P4= .99 Cm4=Cp4= 390 pcph | 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= | 11 + 850 + 714 + 9 = 1584 vph(Vc7) Tc= 7 secs (Tab'10,2) 1 Cp7= 77 pcph (Fig.10.3) 1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 77 x 'Tice = 7G pcph SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared CR CR (CM-V) (CSH-V) 76 105 56 76 673 105 664 76 ... v-- V4 <-\ V7 V7 20 <---V5--- V9 5 7 1 •0 L ntz CM A 9 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mark Cross FROM: Phil Fraser DATE: 7/30/92 SUBJECT: Computer City, 227 APE (L92 -0047 & L92 -0048) - Environmental Impact stateemnt Review Enviornmental Public Works provides the following comments responding to the enviornmental checklest for Computer City: Page 6, Par. 3. a, 6) - The answer given is incorrect. Surface water will not be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. Change 4th line by deleting the phrase: "...and sanitary sewer system... ". Also, add: Oil /water separators and biofiltration (where possible) to be included in the surface water design. The City Engineer has reviewed the Traffic .Impact Study and has no comment on the report findings. Mitigations oulined in this Study (refer to Section V. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION, Page 8) to be included in the mitigation of the action proposed in the environmental checklist. A no protest agreement to upgrade the water system would be required to address deficiencies identified in the Comprehensive Water Plan. The developer will enter into an agreement with the City to combine driveways with the property to the north at such time as the property to the north comes in for new or substantial redevelopment and participate in 50% of the relocation costs. Also non- enviornmental comments Public Works requests be relayed to the developer for his refrence: 1. Refer to the Fire Department for fire access requirements. 2. Refer to 12/12/91 memo from Phil Fraser for other requirements that were identified at 12/12/91 Pre - application Meeting (attached). Note Item #5 on page 2: Widen Strander Blvd & Andover Park East 2 -1/2' through relocation of the curbs & gutters along with associated relocations of light poles /utilities. Also provide any dedication of R/W associated with this curb /gutter relocation. This will allow for street widening and restriping of A.P.E. and Strander Blvd.. 3. Sidewalk width shall be 6 feet (rather than 5 ft shown on plans) in accordinance with the City's Sidewalk Ordinance. Sidealk and Page 2 frontal improvements are to be similar to those completed under Office Club project on the east side of APE. Attachments (3) xc. Read File Development•File: Computer City - Enviornmental MEMORANDUM TO: DEVELOPMENT FILE: PRE - APP028 -91 - COMPUTER CITY FROM: PHIL FRASER, SENIOR ENGINEER DATE: 12/12/91 3. A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR ACCESS /SAFETY AND FOR THE "DELTA" CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION FROM CURRENT WAREHOUSE USE TO RETAIL USE WILL BE REQUIRED. CONTACT RON CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER AT 433 -0179 FOR FINAL SCOPING OF THIS STUDY. ELIMINATION OF LOT LINE AND COMBINED TRIP GENERATION WITH NEW USE NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED . ALSO . A. AGREE TO NOT PROTEST DEFICIENCIES IN WATER SYSTEM IN STRANDER BLVD., ETC. AS IDENTIFIED IN CITY'S MOST CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN (CONTACT PAT BRODIN, SENIOR WATER /SEWER ENGINEER AT 433 -0179 FOR THIS INFORMATION). B. IN FUTURE, COMBINE MOST NORTHERLY ACCESS WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP TO THE NORTH ON A.P.E. AT TIME OF NORTHERLY PROPERTY OWNER'S REDEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING THAT SUCH DRIVE WAY CONSOLIDATION PROVIDES IMPROVED ACCESS /SAFETY AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION. a C. )O / Co / A , 7g go)-.J THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AMMEND THE PRE - APPLICATION FORM FOR PUBLIC WORKS: 1. A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS REQUIRED. COPY OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT CHECK -OFF LIST IS ATTACHED (?r- '"- y r N 7 T LZU I At r 2. PER FIRE MARSHALL NICK OLIVAS, FIRE ACCESS AROUND BUILDING IS NOT ADEQUATE. SEVERAL QUESTIONS AS TO ACCESS FOR WESTERLY BUILDING, USE OF RR EASEMENT FOR ACCESS, STATUS OF RR EASEMENT, AND NARROWING OF ACCESS DRIVE BETWEEN BUILDINGS WITH PARKING NEED TO BE DISCUSSED WITH FIRE DEPT. 4. A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED. MITIGATIONS RESULTING FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY MAY BE CARRIED OUT AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT OR POSSIBLY, WITH CITY'S APPROVAL, BE PUT INTO THIS AGREEMENT. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS WILL BE IN THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT: a..L -.N ........ ....,. r. r.: :.. .........rc.r.a a us:i tic. '+[oi u )u.- raM1SS: ao. x..o,..- ..wwrnavner::: eY ^'[YLC. .: - r . v.i"" ;.... ?h ^ ;:7, ... ^.ri. .. ..,, CITY'S POLICY - -IS TO HAVE AS FEW DRIVEWAS- ACCESS POINTS TO CITY'S TRAFFIC CORRIDORS AS POSSIBLE. 5. WIDEN STRANDER AND A.P.E. 2 -1/2' THROUGH RELOCATION OF C/G AND ASSOCIATED LIGHT POLE /UTILITY RELOCATIONS ALONG WITH ANY ASSOCIATED DEDICATION OF R /W. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR STREET WIDENING AND RESTRIPING OF A.P.E. AND STRANDER BLVD. 6. PROVIDE EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK. THE WIDTH OF THIS SIDEWALK TO BE PER THE CITY'S SIDEWALK ORDINANCE. THE FINAL LOCATION OF SIDEWALK TO BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY ENGINEER, RON CAMERON 433 -0179. SIDEWALK TO BE EXTENDED TO ENDS OF PROPERTY AND TO MOST REASONABLE CONNECTION POINTS. 7. WATER ANALYSIS TO ASSURE NEEDS OF DEVELOPMENT ARE MET WITH AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY TO CRITERIA OF PUBLIC WORKS, FIRE MARSHAL AND INSURANCE UNDERWRITER SHALL BE PROVIDED BY YOUR ENGINEER. 8. CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL BE FOLLOWED (AVAILABLE THROUGH ARLINE 433 -0179) 9. CITY'S UNDERGROUNDING ORDINANCE WILL BE FOLLOWED. 10.DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSMBLY SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR WATER SYSTEMS 11.CITY'S FLOOD ORDINANCE SHALL BE FOLLOWED AS PART OF APPLICATION. 12. DEVELOPER IS REQUESTED TO INCLUDE BIOFILTRATION IN RETROFIT OF DRAIN SYSTEM. 13. CHECK WITH DON WILLIAMS, RECREATION DIRECTOR, 433 -1843, FOR ANY FUTURE DEDICATIONS OF TRAIL ALONG RR EASEMENT AREA. 14. FOLLOW 1/1/90 R.C. DESIGN MANUAL FOR DESIGN /DETENTION. 15. HANDICAPPED ACCESS RAMPS FOR SIDEWALKS ALSO NEED TO BE SHOWN ON PLANS. 16. ACCESS POINT AT STRANDER BLVD. TO BE MOVED BACK INTO PROPERTY TO PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM POTENTIAL ACCESS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY AND ALLOW NORMAL APRON (SEE CITY STREET AND ROADWAY STANDARDS, PLAN R -7. Turner & Associates 2115 N.E. Park Road Seattle, Washington, 98105 (206) 523 -7489 4. Date checklist prepared: June, 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CITY Oi- T! VIA JUN 2 2 '*k A. BACKGROUND PEHMIT CENTER 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Computer City Supercenter 2. Name of applicant: Computer Supercenters International Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Grading and construction is anticipated to start in the latter part of 1992 and the retail store and ongoing site improvements could be complete by fall of 1992. Exact timing would depend on the City's review process. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. The project would not be extended beyond the project site and is submitted as a "stand alone" retail use intended to meet the City of Tukwila development standards. However, it is possible that a proposal for development of a retail facility (approximately 30,000 square feet) will be submitted for the site adjacent to the project's western boundary. Should the project on the adjacent site be approved and constructed, it is expected that access to Strander Boulevard, storm water retention, and parking would be shared. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. - Traffic Engineering Study. David Evans and Associates, Inc. - Design Review Application, Board of Architectural Review. Turner & Associates. 2 :yts• nh!„ ;;•:M1 ^G: -1:.'ti i:•:..... ,H. :. 3 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approval of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. As noted above, however, it is possible that an application to construct another facility adjacent to the project site will be submitted to the City of Tukwila in the near future. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Bureau of Architectural Review Approval (BAR) Building Permit 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. The proposed retail outlet would house a Computer City Supercenter where general retail merchandise is sold. The proposed structure would be a remodel of the existing industrial warehouse into an attractive retail store. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The street address is 227 Andover Park East, located in Tukwila just south and east of Southcenter Shopping Center. Section, township and range are NE.26 -23.4. Street map and vicinity map are provided on drawing submitted for B.A.R. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan map as environmentally sensitive? No. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The project site is level width less than a 1% slope. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, 4 clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The closest soils report on file at the City of Tukwila dates from January 28, 1972, by Dawes & Moore for Don Roll Co., for a site on a lot approximately 200 feet to the east. Soils identified on that site were "gray and brown sandy silts, sands, and gravels ". d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. The existing building is constructed on conventional spread footings and shows no sign of differential settlement after twenty years. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Significant excavation or of fill is not expected to prepare the site for development. An area approximately 140' by 90' will be cleared of building and asphalt paving and regraded to accommodate the proposed building remodel. Reuse of the existing fill from the demolished floor slab area is proposed in the new addition area to achieve a level floor slab. See grading plan for additional detail. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, soil erosion could occur in connection with the proposed development since a small portion of the site will be stripped of building and asphalt during the construction phase. Even though the site is flat, erosion could occur during rain and /or wind storms that occur during the construction phase of the project. To minimize this potential for soil erosion, site preparation techniques would include temporary detention ponds and filter fences to reduce the impact of water runoff on the surface soil. Landscaping will be placed on all surfaces not covered with impervious materials. No significant erosion is expected. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 87.47% of the proposed site is in impervious surfaces. Approximately .21 acres of landscaping (12.53 of the site) is proposed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Earthwork activities should be done during periods of dry weather. Erosion and sedimentation controls such as interceptor swales, straw bale barriers, silt fences and straw mulch for temporary erosion protection of exposed soils should be applied during construction. Stabilized construction 2. Air 3. Water No. a. Surface: No. 5 Na'Irt'aY tG.6.r. <' wkrtarR!'++ a . .. -.i. •..r . ..t„ +. entrances and washpads should be installed at the beginning of construction and maintained for the duration of the project. All erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City of Tukwila requirements. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during con- struction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Development of the site, as proposed, would not result in any significant impacts to existing air quality. The primary impact from development of the purposed project are related to construction activities and future vehicle traffic. Dust generated from grading and construction vehicle activity would be a temporary nuisance in the general area. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: - Transport of materials on local streets should be controlled to minimize congestion during peak travel times. This would minimize secondary air quality impacts caused by reduced travel times. - Dust produced by construction can be reduced by using a number of techniques. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards could be sprayed with water, oils, or chemical dust suppressants. Areas that might be exposed for prolonged periods of time should be covered with suitable groundcover to prevent wind erosion. Soil carried out of the construction area by trucks could be minimized by: use of a sawdust mat as a transition zone from the construction site; wheel washing; washing or brushing truck undercarriages; and covering dusty truck loads. For soils that do escape the constructions site on trucks, a daily cleaning program for truck routes would help minimize dust. 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, salt- water, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. b. Ground: No. 6 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 indi- cate 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 diver- sions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. The proposed project will not require the withdrawal of surface water from existing pervious areas. However, surface water drainage will continue to be diverted to the storm drain system in Strander Boulevard south of the project site. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. The proposal is classified as Zone X according to FEMA maps dated 9/29/89 on file at the City of Tukwila. Zone X indicates areas outside the 500 year floodplain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and antici- pated volume of discharge. No. Based on the preliminary grading and utility plans for the Computer City Supercenter project, all surface water runoff would be collected by the existing on site storm drains and sanitary sewer system and would then enter the City's storm drain or sanitary sewer system. Minor alterations to the on site system are being considered. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. The existing impervious surface will not be increased significantly so infiltration will be maintained at its current level. No ground water will be withdrawn as a result of this project. 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 chemi- 4. Plants 7 cals:; 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. The site would be served with municipal sewer lines and no waste material would be discharged into ground water. c. Water runoff (including storm water) : 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and the 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. Existing buildings and asphalt paving are proposed to be demolished and replaced by new paving and building, resulting in a small increase to the existing 86.18% impervious surface to 87.47% on site. Alterations to the existing storm drainage system will be minimal and it will continue to discharge to the City's storm drains in Strander Boulevard. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Surface water could be contaminated by runoff containing oil and gas from parked cars on the parking lot and streets servicing the proposal. However, surface water runoff will be directed into a system of catch basins and oil and gas separators prior to discharge to minimize surface water contamination. No storage of hazardous materials on the site is proposed. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As described above, no increase in the ration of pervious impervious surfaces is being proposed. Oil and gas separators are being proposed as a measure to reduce surface stormwater runoff contamination. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other s hrubs _ g rass pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other types of vegetation 5. Animals None known. None known. 8 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Two small areas of landscaping located at the proposed new driveway locations will be replaced by similar materials in equal quantities in adjacent new landscape planters. Additional planting areas adjacent to the building and parking areas are proposed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: All new landscaping would be installed per the requirements of the City's landscaping ordinance. The existing mature landscaping located in the 10' wide planters along Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East are proposed to be preserved and enhanced with additional plantings. Irrigation is being proposed for all landscaping. a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: 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. No birds are known to use the site as part of a migratory pattern. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The existing 20 year old mature landscaping planters along Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East are being substantially preserved. 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. For the Computer City Supercenter store envisioned for the site, electrical energy would be used for lighting and power for HVAC, refrigeration, and miscellaneous power equipment. No. b. Noise 7. Environmental Health 9 Some heating will be reclaimed heat from refrigeration compressors. Supplemental energy for heat will be natural gas. 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 other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: For the Computer City Supercenter store, energy conservation would consist of an insulated building envelope, HVAC with heat recovery features, automatic energy management system, airlock entrances, energy efficient light fixtures, and minimal use of glass. The State of Washington has adopted model conservation standards for new commercial buildings. Provided the City of Tukwila has adopted these standards, or has no standards conflicting therewithin, the future development would be consistent with these model standards. 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, des- cribe. No special environmental hazards are known to exist on the site. Operation of the proposed project would not involve the use or storage of substances representing an unusual health risk. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire, police, and ambulance services would be required on a basis consistent with any commercial retail store of approximately 25,000 square feet. No special services would be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Mitigation measures are not required. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic from adjacent streets may be heard from the interior of the site but will not affect he commercial operations proposed. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or assoc- ciated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? 10 Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Sources of noise identified for the development and operation of a Computer City Supercenter store are as follows: construction related noise for approximately three months from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, six days per week; normal traffic generated noise associated with a commercial retail store's operations from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm, seven days per week; and several large truck deliveries per day. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Mitigation measures for noise are not necessary since surrounding land uses are generally not noise sensitive. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site of the proposed project is currently occupied by a 28,750 square foot industrial building housing a sprinkler fabrication company and a wholesale restaurant supply company. The surrounding area is generally developed with a mixture of light industrial and retail uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. Not in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. The 28,750 square foot industrial building was built using the tilted concrete panel method of construction prevalent in the area. It is fully sprinklered. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The southerly 60' of the building will be demolished, and the concrete wall panels will be relocated. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification of the site is C M Industrial Park. The proposed use is allowed outright. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current Comprehensive Plan designation is Light Industrial. g. If applicable- what is the current shoreline master program desig- nation of the site? Not applicable as the site is more than 200 feet from the river. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. 10. Aesthetics 11 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. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately thirty people would work at any one time. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. Buildings are currently vacant. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with exist- ing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed is a concrete tilt -up structure that is similar in size, design, and scale of the other industrial, warehouse, and commercial buildings north, south, east and west of the site. The proposed structure would be setback from Strander Boulevard approximately 120 feet. This setback, the mature 10 foot wide landscaping strip along the public right -of -way, and perimeter landscaping would provide an adequate buffer to retail and service commercial uses to the north, east and south. The type of use proposed is also consistent with land uses adjacent to the site and in the surrounding area. a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s) not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The south and east elevations would be +/- 30 feet in height. The two remaining building elevations of the proposed structure would be approximately 26 to 28 feet in height. The principle exterior building material would be pre -cast concrete tilt -up panels with a series of offsets, accented with paint, at the 12. Recreation building street facades. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or ob- structed? The existing 28,750 square foot building is 238 feet long and is being reduced in this proposal to approximately 25,000 square feet by being demolished back 60 feet from its existing front south facade. This will substantially open up views east and west. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: A ten foot landscaping strip along the public right of way, interior parking lot landscaping, and perimeter landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and ground cover are proposed. The east and south elevations of the proposed structure would have trees and shrubs planted along the entire base of the proposed structure to soften the views of the structure from the public right of way and adjacent commercial uses. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior lighting for the improvements resulting from the proposed bulk retail development would consist of wall lighting, parking lot lighting with non -glare fixtures, and signage. Any glare that may occur would happen at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No safety hazards from lighting would occur. The proposed landscaping along Andover Park East and Strander Boulevard could be designed to minimize glare from headlights on adjacent property. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All outdoor lighting would be shielded and directed downward to minimize potential intrusion on neighboring properties. a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? No recreational facilities, with the exception of the racetrack, are in the vicinity of the project site. 12 No. None are proposed. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, in- cluding recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses If so, describe. 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, arch - eaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Mitigation measures are not required. 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. See attached traffic report and site plans. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Metro bus routes 240, 340 and 912 stop 10 feet from the southwest corner of the site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? There are currently 56 spaces. This proposal would provide 65 spaces, the minimum number required by code. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve- ments to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). See attached traffic report and site plans. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 13 15. Public Services Date Submitted: C077,2.112.. 14 The proposed project would not require the use of water, rail or air transportation to provide goods and services to the site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the com- pleted project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached traffic report. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Various mitigation measures are being considered. Please see the attached traffic report. 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. The reduction` in building site and the similarity between existing and proposed uses indicate that there will be no increase. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Mitigation measures are not required. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the util- ity providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sewer: City of Tukwila Water: City of Tukwila Telephone: U S West Power: Puget Sound Power and Light C.' Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on 15 transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. S. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- . cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NONPROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? The objective is to converting the existing warehouse building into an efficient retail store. This is being accomplished by partially demolishing the south 60 feet and remodeling the remaining portion. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? None. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Not applicable. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Not applicable. 16 SW 13 AO 010(01 COMPUTER .• CITY REMODEL PROJECT 227 *COVER P0000 E. TUMWI L. A ,W A . STREET" MAP EXISTING NOT A PART slow. 10 EATIMITI IN FMK 00000001 CEVELIPNENT 5, SUE 100.610. ExACI 11(011LP. 01* 00055*0*0 WM.'" 70 STRANDER BOULEVARD 103 .PPA014:1 WALL P005 11101 NI. LI.1 . I 1 1 1 ••>/ CON COMPUTER CITY <-; BUILDING AREA: SUPERCENTER _ (*511(0* 00.1.71 PACP05t0 il 1 77 5 1 ,• ..at• tit' ... ... • 101* 0000 *0 0 INDEX PERWCIIYI 51.511I PLAN 000000 ROI 02-f51L0I1* ILLY01050 CI.ORAOING 0 UIILIII ION li•LAJOSCAPt PLAN BIN 3.F. SI TE INFORMATION ny ro. 0NI110000114. SITE PLAN 5111117 C410, rNrITE DNDICIE COLUM 111P1 SOUTH ELEVATION 5C11 II Di 5111401i EAST ELEVATION EFoff 1:1742P'` °"`'. STIPULATION FOR REUSE PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS TUKWILA, WA h0. A2 N • • • EXISTING NOT A PART r '41 111 4tl44fsir14r 41' N �,N/,fl •f ", • .40.4001 C44T CO / RIM. 700 94, 0,07 / TURN umN TYPICAL 7,10 /yLCO 4AA0e C07rwf RSILIGITS 42 *T. 7,04. 01n,w[LCR (•ANNLCT,LY rvl PO4 MCCN4N/C4C /LNV! NC NC COMPUTER CITY SUPERCENTER GRIN•. *27 YN. .two* ItAwu 441001 1 A Y l0U7f If »T e (1451 AOG CANOPY Mlle., 3f74 RA i =�# ..4077 ACeA.f • vag ehill ft Re0I0414 t Iurl.p x�* rct Cf NO if .r e.TK wce l 4NC0OYO 10•0410 art. DAM 2.2./71.11 Aerr/N• h 1f 1; / � � /I I I 71/51 04404 CONTIX/R C pf_v[ -- 4 eMlel/0 Aft•Cr,ON A ./ � /10.72!40 RC L �RON Toil. MOO. F-- -w- 7L I f } • 7f ^ - /,4 2410.4 cr., Nr7 Mr4 f •/ 7.wr 70 44.04*re efwT Nn 0.'407 STRANDER BOULEVARD •00..1I• ICNT •••• L,Ht 19 MA /0.1r /,N Rt WIRIO 40*4* /NCLY; .. NS ..NEST. ..147,4 f ••p.,RIO. _ 1 \ 1 R740CATe C..47 .72740 0» 0702 f PRELIMINARY GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN C07Cfl r4 O 204 O .N21rNtl S /aNCN4 SCL C✓INLROt OM Al. Ct4Mt 0e g0CfIII N.O. ELIMI /M 099 N (aI110 1/414I 1 ✓/p0 .Y 4* C 442a/ L YN 0 2A04KCR4N0, 70.4 7110H, 0474 4t90•f1. 1 i 1 7070777 S�/0 CON N( ., .M• 40 if ,C N ORNaw ✓ ./ INC.! IC .0220/1 . . _ y 4 I 740101400 4112 0*0M4N70 ( R[LOC T/ONI,{4% Af CONIIR.LTCO,NIT ✓l 74*214. Cii.% • 401 • 401 . , 40.04/ I ' C4NNKT40 TO f ✓l f 0 HnNO tT t 4 7. OS CAW/ rwca CoraCC110 tYtTIM • NtM 70 4 0 ( 70 T✓l .7.207 OOaw'IO CTA ✓fl OY1T[M. .1 1f /;'r DAVID !VANS u• ASSOCIATES toe 0 4,1 ft rowing No: C1 5HR1B PLANTIt'Y.a GROUNDCOVER PLANTING CC*IFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AROUND EXISTING TREES 11 VEGETATION COMPUTER CITY SUPERCENTER PLANT SCHEDULE, 1501Y.c4 P.M'C C014i NL-t LANDSCAPE 1NZT4LLATICN NOTES, wk EXISTING NOT A PART • e-t C ro •r•■■.M u•■ •.a US all eaT IM STRANDER BOULEVARD FfREL IMIN,4iY L 4NDSC4FE FLAN =VI I .. ) .1 . 0 414* CB 1 046 1 P A, OM I deaMantagrai d ill it ••44•104. *MIS rag Q _ � 30' 4Q_ 0' 6 1 "• 20'' -0" D,yte 06/11/92 Drawing Na L1 - - .--- - -- - -- _. _. ...... 1 � t. Ir t..•11.1' I_ Ir. or 14' (4• fro GP) i (j ALE /''•1O AO ell 1 P1 117 1.51.1 10.• •1111. nb. lY. MN' 11' 1. 4• 011.33 (.1 0.1) LEGEND CO (tT•ItJf.✓ N Nfrfl LHI t J .00.1 :J04 J O 0440 0.4.4.0 if SOW eurr NN awe • ty /t4• JJ JIJI,Jtr JrNJA MN 0.•404/ At AtN'11r/Y AMY Ow 0a0r0w•■ tN twI 04 304404 49 aer✓ err J c7✓tr A•O.✓b WWII. MJIC. II • Ii•♦ 3. . ..ro) \ t o A /NI .r A " I 1 I I 1 ! ( d 0l `•-•- I'� 1 Jf JJ AA / .4 TN.4RCO A4 trflrt .7.110 M / /!Nl(JL 4(71144(9 100 1117 • 434 4' urf au..wwaat- 0 " Jtrf•A" .crt.Y.vit 797. II .•e, '0 J / . ,.du/ p i MN s MI • M fL b 1....11 4W M 1.. • NN (4•tw• r., 11. 1r•• N0114• ( a e. 11••• 11.1 •1f 1f O.A) J rt'IS JJt. , e 41. • • rs:- .'• Y , �ti �i wr••s. 4°,4C /P /C P1./.L1P1,PS JY 9v ct J.o M/tr..•.r •! 0073.60 9.41 1111 • .41 _•. , ! •'0 i " l ur, •f II YO { i 00. �1 ♦" 1 r9wi ! rArtN l 1 `1, r - � - •"' J!/ 7" / " ri \-344,•04.4404444, r.� w -. , ._ _ - - 1 . -- , ��• ,3.134 � J•"' _ ■ - mil -_- -. jlJ -- - ,- 1 .____ � - _ _ - - �. - � Nlx tar[ - -- .- tw : ma., eft - -- „fief", CCjjZnZV - - _ tow? .WY Nom.! l �e1 r • c- 1.. 4011 f.. lb •,40.' I �I • anus e/lr,.. MJ 40 1' ▪ o.. tr. • 44t " r (a• 1 1., ▪ .. 1r. •1. R• . c. - (4 1., vr l • w t.w .. --- _..77-4== wt 9' 40.4, r Jw °1 �� - t wn+. ~epee f ry T �!t. 01::° -"•'-- r , . ..•,•,,t 0 000 \ \ - •.., -. a ,.-_, . ) . 0, • ✓+ ,..,t- '. 0\a wr. ,.. • NY �, • :N. 1 r .' 'k\ .1 t4.4t 9' r Mt V rod IM.. • •.0 M (w.-.J 10..x) 30' 30' i , T (�1 T I 11 1 0 1., l0.. • N n• (4• tw 1., I L kAL o P /P ESCr /oN T,.[,. 1 a.4 0 of 0.40.•0 I.4uttto0t Park Mo. 9 . • 01 1 t•1 ' ran 04 n. M 4 t1 01 d u . 0. 7 90• , .c a •i cl4 n,,, w w anlpP.,.n . 1 the . town .f .uw.la. fwnly .. 4q. at �0 I /I..rJN . oo... I • .. lr •h :7- • -, .•J- �- 77 .7 w `•' NI 19 /f N 0� ✓` ' WWI<101001 Jwraro •.- Lyt/AH 0. ✓ a✓At • - _ t JJ var.. avtO " - Mr_(- Mw4T1- - -i _• -_ _- 1 �Yw•W 041. 111, I. role 1 I 1 Ji SURVEYORS CEP.T /F /C.t7TE I , nn4 or l* tur 010 p....... ' roperty 01 M an •.0tr t.t•e,., . .0t rho I property gloss a Inw bar l plot.... Mrrq that no on rt easel 0 a pre pro,. and .nu tarp an. t enr t.4 1 1•plt l t plat 4..10 . .01; t o.et• oiil 0074` 0.0.7. a.tl .n0. \ ; ,ttto 1 000110 0,1tM 000 f,• MOtI bl� .0 4..t•p1:10411:4:t: o M at; fur 4480 to ''''''''''''' O I an•' wor nefa rn »4t. t r4 004 had. ''' .1. fie. 0111 \ 4lY • 1101• • . boll...• 1t 4'(4 {. M. 110. 11 x VI 4u. NO 1 •14114 to ra& 470.10060 .N�I1 0 SA .8.4.... 01. OM, .I 8-1 061 ..1...1 Id.• ••.SJ 0441.11 R. 6.,wn•. TANGY CORPOMAT /ON ROY 4 JqJ Han, raft Ml/ ! 0.14".0,.A1 r. IpN•M f 66. 06 f' F 7061 /7Y.: 4SSr/.117ES ;:.:•. M F MK 1 MAMA 1.4610l 0 0 4 0 11 V \',I I •�T. ' ' {... � , w '• ^ 1-:L x - 'v ,..l TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ; \,/, tA - p FOR 'I HE PROPOSED l 1 17 , ' , COMPUTER CITY CITY OF TITKWILA, WASHINGTON Prepared for BSW Architects, Inc. BSWA0001 Prepared by DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 415 - 118th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98005 June 11, 1992 [EXPIRES 7 / 25 / TABLE OF CONTENTS Pag • I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 - III. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 A. Street/Highway System 1 B. Traffic Volumes 3 C. t Traffic Flow Performance 3 . FUTURE CONDITIONS 6 A. Traffic Generation and Distribution 6 B. Future Level of Service 8 C. Project Access 8 V. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION 8 APPENDICES LIST OF TABT,FS AND FIGURES Table 1: Level of Service Criteria Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Figure 1: Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes - Mid -day 4 Figure 3 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes - PM Peak 5 Figure 4: Trip Distribution and Generation - PM Peak 9 I. INTRODUCTION This analysis has been prepared to identify the traffic impacts of the proposed Computer City retail store located in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. II. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed project will be located to the northwest of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Fast The planned 1.5 acre site is currently the location of a warehouse with an attached office. Figure 1 shows the project site and vicinity. The proposed Computer City will contain 24,596 square feet of retail space with 64 parldng spaces provided on site. The proposed project will replace a 26,700 square foot warehouse with an attached 2000 square foot office. The project will be accessed by two driveways. One driveway will be off Andover Street East and the other off Strander Boulevard. M. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Street/Highway System Andover Park East is a north -south two-way road with 12 foot lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and a 35 mph speed limit. North of Strander Boulevard, the street is four lanes with a center turn lane. South of Strander Boulevard, Andover Park Fast is four lanes. Strander Boulevard is a two way east -west street with five 12 foot lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk and a 35 mph speed limit. City of Tukwila staff identified the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Fast as critical in terms of potential impacts by the proposed project. This intersection is signalized with left turn pockets on each legs. 128 TH ? Robinson Point Zen Cara mu Scaftwofor h< Federal war Panther Loam 7 111 :1 -Sea DOM NUM 14JOC7►'t121, DC. 1..2A• L FIGURE Vicinity Map ST Lcke O►tfnni�r B. Traffic Volumes The intersection of Andover Park FEst and Strander Boulevard was counted by David Evans and Associates, Inc. on May 6, 1992 during mid -day (12:00 to 1:00 PM) and during the PM peal: (4:00 to 6:00 PM). These traffic volumes were used to calculate existing levels of service (LOS) and to analyze the effects of project trips on the critical intersection and at the project driveways. Existing PM peak and mid -day traffic volumes are shown in Figures 2 and 3. C. Traffic Flow Performance LOS determination for existing and future traffic conditions were completed using the methodology described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manna1 and Support Software developed by FHWA and the TMODEL2 Corporation. Level of service analysis represents combined consideration of roadway, traffic volumes and operational characteristics. The result is a description of a street's ability to successfully carry the traffic imposed on it. Level of service for signalized intersections is explained according to delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15- minute analysis period. Calculating delay is complex because it depends on multiple variables, including the gnnlity of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio and the volume /capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. The methodology used for calculating the LOS at one -way and two -way stop - controlled intersections is based on the concept of "reserve capacity". The reserve capacity concept is applied only to an individual traffic movement (or shared -lane movement). Once the capacity of all individual movements has been calculated and their LOS determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. Normally, the movement with the worst LOS defines the overall evaluation, but this may be tempered by engineering judgement. This is particularly true in cases where the most critical movement serves a very minor percentage of the total traffic entering the intersection. Past experience I -5 1 -5 1130111 ST. S.W. FIGURE 2 Existing Mid -Day Traffic Volumes 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 0 *.+• ANDOVER PARK WEST SOUTH CENTER PARKWAY ANDOVER PARK EAST WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY X Signalized Unsignalized Level of Service Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) Reserve Capacity Expected Delay Minor Street Traffic A B C D E F < = 5.0 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 40.0 40.1 to 60.0 > 60.0 > = 400 300 -399 200 -299 100 -199. 0-99 * Little or No Delay Short Delays Average Delays Long Dela Very Long Delays * Source: 1985 Highway Capacity Manual IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS TABLE 1 A. Trip Generation and Distribution 6 with the unsignalized analysis procedures indicates that this methodology is very conservative and that it tends to over - estimate the magnitude of any potential problems. Therefore, the result of any unsignalized intersection analysis should be reviewed with this thought in mind. The LOS criteria used for this analysis is shown in Table 1. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS * When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. The intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park E. currently operates at LOS D for both the mid -day (33.49 second delay) and the PM peak (33.19 seconds delay). The Appendix contains all the LOS work sheets. Peak -hour trips generated by the proposed development were estimated using trip generation statistics from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I m), Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, Section 816, Retail Store. Trips from the existing facility were TABLE 2 7 calculated using Section 710, Office and Section 140, Warehouse. The rate are shown in the appendix. The trips generated by the existing facilities on the site were subtracted from the trips generated by the proposed project to estimate new trips. The new trips were then adjusted to remove pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips attracted from traffic passing a site. The ITE manual estimated pass-by trips for a facility of the size of the proposed project to be about 51%. The calculations are contained in the appendix. The results are summarized in Table 2. The appendix contains the trip generation rates. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY P.M. Peak PM peak-hour trips to and from the subject development were distributed based on existing travel patterns, previous traffic studies, and knowledge of residential and Figure Enter Exit Total Existing Land Use Warehouse - 26,700 sf Office - 2,020 sf 9 22 31 Proposed Land Use Retail Store - 24,590 sf 59 59 118 Total New Trips (Existing Minus Proposed Trips) 50 37 87 Pass-by Trips (51%) 25 19 44 TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS (New Trip Minus Pass-By Trips) 25 18 43 TABLE 2 7 calculated using Section 710, Office and Section 140, Warehouse. The rate are shown in the appendix. The trips generated by the existing facilities on the site were subtracted from the trips generated by the proposed project to estimate new trips. The new trips were then adjusted to remove pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips attracted from traffic passing a site. The ITE manual estimated pass-by trips for a facility of the size of the proposed project to be about 51%. The calculations are contained in the appendix. The results are summarized in Table 2. The appendix contains the trip generation rates. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY P.M. Peak PM peak-hour trips to and from the subject development were distributed based on existing travel patterns, previous traffic studies, and knowledge of residential and Figure employment centers. The project trip assignment and distribution are shown in Figure 4. B. Future Level of Service The LOS of the critical intersection with project trips is LOS D (33.27 seconds delay) during the PM peak. The addition of project trips to the intersection does not change the LOS. C. t Project Access Levels of Service were calculated for the project access driveways during the PM peak. The driveway on Andover Park East, if stop controlled, will operate at LOS D. The driveway off of Strander Boulevard will operate at LOS E. V. FINDINGS AND MITIGATION The following is a summary of the LOS calculations. Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East Existing mid -day LOS - D [33.49] Existing PM Peak LOS - D [33.19] PM Peak with Project - D [33.27] The proposed project will not impact the critical intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park Fast During the PM peak period the intersection is LOS D with or without trips from the proposed project. Driveway off Strander Boulevard PM Peak With Project - E (left turns from driveway to Strander Boulevard) PM Peak With Project - D (left turns from driveway to Andover Street E.) 8 Driveway off Andover Park East PM Peak With Project - D (left turns from driveway to Andover Street E.) 1-5 DAVID I V AND AND AS3OCUSZ3, FIGURE 4 Project Trip Distribution PM Peak .... ' • 10 • On -site, DEA recommends that the developer install stop signs designed to Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards at the project access driveways. As requested by the City of Tukwila, the project proponent should plan on moving the driveway at Strander Boulevard approximately 30 feet to the west to provide access for the adjacent property and to provide room for an apron which will meet City of Tukwila's roadway standards. DEA recommends that the driveway on Andover Park East be moved approximately 40 feet to the north to improve access for trucks and emergency vehicles. The proposed project site is required to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. As required by the City, all walls of the proposed project have to have be within 150 feet of a location in which a fire truck can be parked. DEA has checked the proposed site design and determined compliance with Tukwi:a requirements. The proposed site design will allow emergency vehicles direct access to the south and east sides of the building from the parking lot. All parts of the north side of the building are within 150 feet from the project driveway on the northeast corner of the site. The western edge of the building will have a bay provided for fire truck access. The trucks can back into the bay from either Strander Boulevard or from the project's parking lot. The project proponent will be required to construct frontage improvements. DEA recommends that the proponent pay their fair share of a developer agreement along Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East A easement should be provided for a sidewalk with the width of the easement and sidewalk as specified in Tukwila's sidewalk ordinance. The sidewalk should be constructed so removal of existing trees will not be necessary. • APPENDICES __________ COMPUTER CITY SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 24.59 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OF GENERAL MERCHANDICE DRIVEWAY VOLUMES - 5/19/92 AVERAGE WEEKDAY 0 0 0 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. GENERATION TRIP 24 HOUR 7_9 AM pK HOUR 4-6 PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT 59 24 HOUR PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT SATURDAY 0 0 0 SUNDAY 0 0 0 59 LAND USE SIZE WAF:EHOUSINGG TOTAL COMPUTER CITY SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION AVERAGE WEEKDAY DF:IVEWAY VOLUMES 5/19/92 26.7 TH.6P.SO.FT. GENERAL OFFIi_:E 2.02 TH. iii-:. SQ. FT. Note:' A zero rate indicates no rate data available TF: I F' GENERATION BY M I C:ROTRANS 24 HOUR AM FF':. HOUF: PM FI( HOU} TWO —WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EX I' 130 11 4 7 1 7^ 3 1 �� �S 19 5 9 2 Figure VII-1A: Shopping Center Pass -By Trips (Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Average Pass -By Trip Percentage vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic} Number of Studies: 45 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 326 Data Plot and Equation 70 10 x 100 x X •x x x x x. x x X x X Actual Data Points Fined curve X X x 200 300 400 500 600 700 80 00 900 1000 1100 1200 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = -0.341 Ln(X) + 5.376 R = 0.34 Institute of Transportation Engineers INPUT WORKSHEET Intersection:ANDOVER & STRANDER Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:PMPEAK Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS • (N) ' 1 1 1 NORTH IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths 3.Movements by lane 4.Parking locations 5.Bay storge lngths [ 714] 6.Islands E/B TOTAL 7.Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS Ap Grd. % HV pr ( %) EB +0.0 4.0 WB +0.0 3.0 NB +0.0 2.0 SB +0.0 1.0 Grade: +up, -down HV:veh. > 4 whls Nm:pkg.maneuvers /hr PHASING Tim- ing G= 4.9 Y +R= 3 Ptmd /Act A ^ N N N N G= 8.9 Y +R= 3 A DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES [ 598) SB TOTAL 1 1 1 < v > 90 249 259 Adj.Pkg.Lane Y/N Nm 1-12.0'-LT---A 1-12.0'--TH---> 1- 12.0'- RTH - -v> 0 0 0 0 G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 A ^ 47 -> 522 v 145 Buses . (Nb) ^ 0 0 0 0 G= 35.6 Y +R= 3 ANDOVER PARK N/S ST. * * * * *> * v A 1 1 1 I 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 RTH TH LT < 1 > v v PHF 0.92 0.84 0.90 0.91 Nb:buses stopping /hr PHF:peak -hour factor Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds /hr OR OR G= 26.7 Y +R= 3 A Date:MAY 12 1992 Area Type: CBD XOther Cnf . Ped (pd /hr) < 1 > LT TH RTH 12.0 I 12.0 12.0 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 ^ G= 4.9 Y +R= 3 A Y Y Y Y 117 ^ Portland, Oregon 430 <- [ 696] • -WB TOTAL 149 v < ^ -- RTH - 12.0' -1 <- - -TH -- 12.0' -1 v - - -LT- 12.0' -1 STRANDER BLVD E/W STREET 449 330 <^> 255 [1034] N/B TOTAL Pedstrn Button Y/N Mn.Time 18 18 18 18 G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 A ; Arr. Type 3 3 3 3 Min.Timing: min.green for pedestrian crossin( Arr.Type: Type 1 -5 ^ ** * * G= 31. Y +R= A Protected turns: * * * *^ 0000^ 1 Permitted turns: + + + +^ 1 Cycle Length 130 Se Intersection:ANDOVER & STRANDER Date:MAY 12 1992 Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:PMPEAK Area Type: CBD XOther' Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA LANE 3 GROUP v/c Ratio 1 2 X Ap My A 0.814 EB 0 0.814 A 0.814 WB 0 0.545 A 0.814 NB 0 0.814 A .0.814 SB 0 0.478 0 First Term Delay Second Term Delay 4 Green Ratio g/C 0.037 0.274 0.129 0.366 0.266 0.299 0.206 0.239 5 Cycle Length C (sec) 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 LEVEL -OF- SERVICE WORKSHEET 6 Delay dl sec /veh 47.21 33.53 41.87 24.84 33.96 32.08 37.44 32.32 7 Lane Group Cap,c (vph) 63 935 217 1255 451 1008 350 821 8 Delay d2 sec /veh 35.20 3.94 13.95 0.39 7.58 3.68 9.42 0.35 9 Prgrsn Factor PF T.9 -13 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 10 Lane Gp Delay sec /veh (6 +8) * 9 82.41 31.85 55.82 21.44 41.54 30.39 46.86 27.77 Tot.Delay_ &_LO: 11 12 1: Ln Apprch Apz Gp Delay LO: LOS sec /veh Tb= 9 -1 9 -2 F D E C E D E D DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES , Portland, Oregon , using NCAP by PSI 35.02 28.51 33.84 35.81 Intersection Delay 33.19 sec /veh, Intersection LOS D Table 9.1 D D D D LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -[ * ** = PROTCTD, + ++ = PERMTTD, ### = PROTCTD & PERMTTD] INPUT WORKSHEET \Intersection:ANDOVER & STRANDER Date:MAY 12 1992 |Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:PM PROJECT Area Type: CBD XOther !Project No.COMPUTER CITY City/State:TUKWILA | |VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS !ANDOVER PARK N/S ST.; ' (N) \|| NORTH � [ 6022 SB TOTAL | 1 1 1 | | : | 12.0 | < v > 1 12.0 | 12.0 90 251 2611 RTH TH LT < 1 1-12.0'-LT---^ 1-12.0'--TH---> IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1-12.0'-RTH--v> |1.Volumes 12.Lanes,lane widths 13.Movements by lane ^ 47 1 14.Parking loeations 15.Bay storge lnaths [ 716] -> 524 | 16.Islands E/B TOTAL - 17.Bu(=. stops v 145 | !TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS v v ( 117 ^ 435 <- [ 7017 -WB TOTAL 149 v <---TH--12.0'-1 v---LT-1 < \ > LT TH RTH 1 STRANDER BLVD 12.0 | 12.01 E/W STREET | 12.0 | | 452 1 1 1 � 330 <^> 255 [10372 N/8 TOTAL \ lAp|Grd.1 % HY Adj.Pkg.Lane 1 Buses | PHF |Cnf.Ped| Pedstrn Button| Arr. |pr| (%)| Y/N | Nm 1 (Nb) |(pd/hr)| Y/N |Mn.Time| Type | | / | 1 1 1 1 | 1 ! |EB1+-0.01 4.0 N 0 0 0.92 | 10 Y 18 | 3 \WB1+0.01 3.0 N | 0 � 0 0.84 1 10 Y 18 ; 3 1NB1+0.01 2.0 N | 0 | 0 0.90 : 10 � Y | 1S 3 ISB1+0.01 1.0 N | 0 \ 0 0.91 1 10 | Y � 18 3 | 1Grade:+up,-down Nb:buses stopping/hr Min.Timina: min.green for |HV:veh. > 4 whls PHF:peak-hour factor pedestrian crossing |Nm:pkg.maneuvers/hr Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds/hr Arr.Type: Type 1-5 1 :PHASING 1 OR OR | �^ |^ * | | * | * � D. � | * : * * � | * | * � 1 \ ***** |<***** | |<***** � **> |<***> \<** A 1 * | * � | | | | v 1 v G 1 v ^ \ v ^ \ | | | .-;:, * I | * | \ � ^ | • A | *+*** ( � *****>: *****>| <** <***>) **) M � *� *� * | * � *. . ., / v / * � * � | * ' ' ' ' ' �� � * � � i 1 | \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 !Tim- | G= 4'9! G= 8'91 G= 0.01 8= 35.61 G= 26.71 G= 4.91 G= 0.01 G= 31.0 | ing |Y+R= 31Y+R= 31Y+R= 31Y+R= 31Y+R= 31Y+R= 31Y+R= 31Y+R= :: 1 1 \ \ 1 | | \ | \Ptmd/Act| A A A A A A A A \ 1 Protected turns: ****^ 0000^ | Permitted turns: ++++^ | Cycle Length 130 Sec | | DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES , Portland, Oregon r E � SSOC :i E5 DAVID � 1nhJ^..� n"ouI_ .:1-IT , using NC :AF' by P'8I ; Int of se: tt i :In: A,NDOVEF: & 6TRANDET Date: MAY 12 1992 , ; Analyst : EDM T i mePer i _Id An l y d : P'M PROJECT Area Type: C :E'D XOt her : ;Project N :'.0 :OMF'UTEF: C :ITY C :ity/ State:TUKWILA ; LEVEL- OF -SERV I?_ E_IWOF :KSHEET : : First Term Delay : Second end Term Delay T: It . Del ay_':_LOS LANE : 31 4 : 5 : 6 : 71 B: 9 : 10 : 111 12 : 13 GROUP: v /'= : Green: Cycle: Delay ; Lane: Delay ;F rg•rsn :Lane Gp: Ln: Apprl_h:Apr : Ratio; F:atic1:Length: di :Group: d2 :Factor: Delay : Gp; Delay :LOS 1 ; 2: X ; q /C: ; C: : se: /veh : f_ ap , 1_ :sec /veh : F'F : set= /veh :LOS: set= /veh : Tb l Ap:Mv: ; ; 1:se1 =: ?; : Cvph: ?: :T.9- 13 :1:6+8 : ?919-1; :9-1 - -: : : 1 1 : 1 1 1 I_ 1 1 1 : Al 0.8141 0. 037 I 130.0 47.21 1 6 8 c `01 1 .00 1 82.41 1 F 1 I J/ 1 J I 47.211 63: .:IJ. 1 I 1 r 1 EB: 0: .C.).3171 0.274: 130.0: 33.56: 935: 4.041 0.85 : 31.96: D : 35.12: D 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 A ) I 0.814: a• 1 a 30.0 1 a• 3 7 2 1 1 7 1 a n 9 5 t i. 00 1 5c 32 z 1 : 1 I ^I1 . i�'::I I 1J _ 1 `T�.G/ 1 i l iJ. J1 i _ 1 JJ. u�l 1 I 1 1 5c 1 1 : -•5 1 I c I 1 D 1 O 1 O, J J (� 1 [? Er 6 1 130.01 � 4. S'� 1 1 .e: J J I 0.40: 0.85 1 ( :) I.: 22.51: �:i . J 1 1 I 1 1 •. 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 . 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 1 A l ' '.r_ 1 130.0: �'$n 1 4 1 c1-•.1 1 41.54: r_ 1 1 1 h I 0.8141 ?. u l=J 1 .J ,.J . '� 6 1 ''t •J 1 . J O 1 1.00 1 v 1 1 1 01 1 n 1 32.12: : 1 8 5 1 n c 0 1 1 3n 1 1 1 0.8171 I0.2991 i130.0: 11008: .3.76: f_).vJ 1 .:v1.).JI)I D 1 vv.'�1_) D 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 t : A: 0.8201 0.206! 1 30 . ) : 37.49: 350: 9.821 1.00 : 47.31: E : ; t 1 0.4801 3' : 130.0: 32.341. 1 : 0.36 ; 0.85 : 27.791 1 3 . 0'2; SB 1 O' ( ?. � mod:::. D 6 D 1 1 4 2 2 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 4 4 1 1 . 1 !Intersection Delay 33.27 sel_/ veh, Intersection LOS D, Table 9.1 :LANE GROUP D IAGRAMS - E *** = PROTCTD, + ++ = PEr :MTTD, #nn = PROTCTD °< F ERMTTD 3 : 1 , 1 , 0 * 1 1 , P_.rtland, Oregon • 2 T C Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 823-1821 — Strander Blvd 1564 850 714 Turning Movement Diagram 598 543 1211 1577 330 613 449 1034 255 Intersection: Andover Park E. © Strander Blvd EB Location: City of Tukwila WB Date of Count: Wed 5-6-92 NB Peak Period: 4:30 P 5:30 P SB Checked By: ZMM Intersection Prepared For: David Evans & Associates trander Blvd %HV PHF Check In: 3042 Out: 3042 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 0.92 0.84 0.90 0.91 0.93 696 1036 1732 Time Interval From North on (SB) Andover Park E. 259 1 From South on Andover Park (NB) E. From East on (WB) Strander Blvd From West on (EB) Strander Blvd Interval Total Ending at T 149 1 S 117 R T L S R T I L S R T L SR 1034 3:45 P 5 41 46 16 6 89 103 72 4 27 99 30 7 16 111 36 686 6 • 44 75 22 4 39 70 35 7 48 81 41 3 16 110 28 609 4:00 P 11 85 121 0.92 38 10 1 128 173 107 11 75 180 71 10 32 221 64 734 3 62 67 25 4 50 114 63 10 41 99 35 6 12 132 34 4:15 P 14 147 188 63 14 178 287 170 21 116 l 279 106 16 44 353 98 547 1 38 61 8 7 33 162 41 10 38 95 20 5 15 112 24 4:30 P 15 185 249 71 21 l 211 349 211 31 154 374 126 21 59 465 1 122 814 0 68 76 21 7 85 131 61 5 36 114 31 2 10 142 39 4:45 P 15 253 325 92 28 296 480 272 36 190 488 157 23 69 607 161 773 1 65 72 1 24 7 71 96 45 4 44 1 125 38 8 11 136 46 5:00 P 16 318 397 116 35 367 576 317 40 234 613 195 31 80 743 207 770 2 71 60 25 2 87 119 82 7 35 96 29 5 15 124 27 5:15 P 18 389 457 141 37 454 695 399 47 269 709 224 36 95 867 234 685 3 55 41 20 1 3 87 103 67 2 34 95 19 10 11 120 33 5:30 P 21 444 498 161 40 541 798 466 49 303 804 243 46 106 987 267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:OOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey 21 444 498 161 40 541 798 466 49 303 804 243 46 106 987 267 5618 Total 6 1 259 1 2491 90 19 1 330 1 4491 255 18 1 149 1 430 1 117 25 1 47 1 522 145 3042 ` Approach 598 1034 696 714 3042 %HV 1% 2% 3% 4% 2% PHF 0.91 0.90 0.84 0.92 0.93 2 TC Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 823 -1821 Intersection: Andover Park E. 0 Strander Blvd Location: City of Tukwila 4:30 P Prepared For: David Evans & Associates Vehicle Volume Summary o 5:30 P Date of Count: Wed 5 -6 -92 Checked By: ZMM Peak Hour Summary Legend: T= Number of heavy vehicles (greater than 4 wheels) L= Left -Turn S= Straight R= Right -Turn HV= Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak hour Factor (Peak hour volume / (4'Highest 15 minutes)) INPUT WORKSHEET Intersection:STRANDER & ANDOVER Date:MAY 12 1992 Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:NOON PEAK Area Type: CBD XOther Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS Ap pr EB WB NB SB D I A G R A M Tim- ing Grd. (%) +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 - (N) 111 NORTH IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths 3.Movements by lane 4.Parking locations 5.Bay storge lngths 6.Islands 7.Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY PHASING % HV 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 Grade: +up, -down HV:veh. > 4 whls Nm:pkg.maneuvers /hr G= 8.7 Y +R= 3 Ptmd /Actl A t G= 13.1 Y +R= 3 �✓ : Adj.Pkg.Lane Y/N Nm N N N N A [ 577] SB TOTAL 1 I 1 < v > 110 306 161 [ 874] E/B TOTAL OR 1- 12.0'- LT - - -^ 1- 12.0'-- TH - - -> 1- 12.0' - RTH - -v> 0 0 0 0 G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 A ^ 86 -> 530 v 258 CONDITIONS Nb:buses stopping /hr PHF:peak -hour factor Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng peds /hr ^ Buses (Nb) 0 0 0 0 * * * * *> * v G= 42.0 Y +R= 3 ANDOVER PARK N/S ST. A 1 1 1 I 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 RTH TH LT < I > v v PHF 0.92 0.84 0.94 0.90 < ** * * G= 16.7 Y +R= 3 Cnf . Ped (pd /hr) A 10 10 10 10 A A < I > LT • TH RTH 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 I 1 1 1 G= 9.2 Y +R= 3 Pedstrn Button Y/N Mn.Time A < ^ -- RTH - 12.0' -1 <--- TH-- 12.0' -1 Y Y Y Y 146 435 <- [ 802] -WB TOTAI. 221 v STRANDER BLVD E/W STREET 364 289 < ^> 241 • [ 894] N/B TOTAL A 18 18 18 18 G= 0.0 Y +R= 3 Arr. TypE 3 3 3 3 Min.Timing: min.green for pedestrian crossinc Arr.Type: Type 1 -5 G= 22. Y +R= A Protected turns: * * * *^ 0000^ I Permitted turns: + + + +^ I Cycle Length 130 Se Intersection:STRANDER & ANDOVER Date:MAY 12 1992 Analyst:EDM TimePeriod Anlyzd:N00N PEAK Area Type: CBD XOther Project No.COMPUTER CITY City /State:TUKWILA LANE 3 GROUP v/c Ratio 1 2 X Ap My A 0.821 EB 0 0.821 A 0.821 WB 0 0.479 A 0.821 NB 0 0.763 A 0.821 SB 0 0.821 First Term Delay Second Term Delay 0 4 Green Ratio g/C 0.067 0.323 t 0.191 0.447 0.222 0.266 0.128 0.172 5 Cycle Length C (sec) 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 LEVEL -OF- SERVICE WORKSHEET 6 Delay dl sec /veh 45.51 30.82 38.34 19.21 36.57 33.42 41.97 39.46 7 Lane Group Cap,c (vph) 113 1095 320 1518 374 885 218 591 8 Delay d2 sec /veh 24.03 3.61 10.67 0.19 9.37 2.76 14.58 6.31 9 Prgrsn Factor PF T.9 -13 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 10 Lane Gp Delay sec /veh (6 +8) * 9 69.54 29.26 49.01 16.49 45.94 30.75 56.55 38.90 Tot.Delay_ &_LOS 11 12 13 Ln Apprch Apr Gp Delay LOS LOS sec /veh Tbl 9 -1 9 -1 F D E C E D E D Intersection Delay 33.49 sec /veh, Intersection LOS D Table 9.1 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -[ * ** = PROTCTD, + ++ = PERMTTD, # ## = PROTCTD & PERMTTD] DAVID EVANS ASSOCIATES , Portland, Oregon using NCAP by PSI 33.04 25.13 35.50 43.66 D D D E 2 TC Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 823-1821 t Strander Blvd 1708 834 874 Turning Movement Diagram 577 785 1203 Prepared For: David Evans & Associates 626 924 Intersection: Andover Park E. © Strander Blvd EB Location: City of Tukwila WB Date of Count: Wed 5-6-92 NB Peak Period: 12:00 P - 1:00 P SB Checked By: ZMM Intersection 146 435 221 Strander Blvd %HV PHF 2% 4% 3% 1% 2% 0.92 0.84 0.94 0.90 0.94 802 932 Check In: 3177 Out: 3177 1734 Time Interval From North on (SB) Andover Park E. From South on Andover Park (NB) E. From East on (WB) Strander Blvd From West on (EB) Strander Blvd Interval Total Ending at T L t S R T L S R T L S I R T L S R 0.94 11 :15 A 2 25 66 20 6 65 80 53 13 52 91 22 8 7 85 56 622 5 26 72 16 11 60 92 51 12 64 130 28 9 13 79 46 677 - 11:30 A 7 51 138 36 17 125 172 104 25 116 221 50 17 20 164 102 826 5 38 81 30 5 67 96 69 8 73 140 48 6 20 109 55 11:45 A 12 89 219 66 22 192 268 173 33 189 361 98 23 40 273 157 706 3 28 55 22 8 59 79 50 7 69 129 34 9 22 108 51 12:00 P . 15 117 274 88 30 251 347 223 40 258 490 132 32 62 381 208 758 1 49 85 27 6 86 104 57 6 38 95 33 4 12 117 55 12:15 P 16 166 359 115 36 337 451 280 46 296 585 165 36 74 498 263 779 0 34 82 19 6 66 105 41 7 53 1 122 39 1 25 123 70 12:30 P 16 200 441 134 42 403 556 321 53 349 707 204 37 99 621 333 847 2 35 76 18 9 78 103 65 9 76 116 46 10 26 151 57 12:45 P 18 235 517 152 51 481 659 386 62 425 823 250 47 125 772 390 793 2 43 63 46 7 59 82 78 11 54 102 28 3 23 1391 76 1:00 P 20 278 580 198 58 540 741 464 73 479 925 278 50 148 911 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:30P 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:OOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey 20 278 580 198 58 540 741 464 73 479 925 278 50 148 911 466 6008 Total 5 116113061 110 28 289 1 3941 241 33 122114351146 18 1 86 1 5301 258 3177 Approach 577 924 802 874 3177 %HV 1% 3% 4% 2% 2% PHF 0.90 0.94 0.84 0.92 0.94 2 TC Traffic Count Consultants P.O. Box 82382, Kenmore, WA 98028 (206) 823 -1821 Intersection: Andover Park E. @ Strander Blvd Location: City of Tukwila Vehicle Volume Summary 12:00 P to 1:00 P Peak Hour Summary Date of Count: Wed 5 -6 -92 Checked By: ZMM Legend: T= Number of heavy vehicles (greater than 4 wheels) L= Left -Turn S= Straight R= Right -Turn HV= Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak hour Factor (Peak hour volume / (4'Highest 15 minutes)) Prepared For: David Evans & Associates LOCATION : i= OMPUTE =: CITY HOURLY VOLUMES Major street: ANDOVER PARK EAST N= .Grade 598--- V2- - -:• 0% 12--- V3 - - -v Date of Counts: EXT Time Period: PM PEAK :l Approach Speed: t Minor Street: Grade DRIVEWAY 1 07.. - F•HF: .9 N= 1 P o p u l a t i o n : 30000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS V7 Movement n o. Volume ( til p h) `9 8 Vo'_':pcph? see Table 10. 11XXXXXXXX1XXXXXXrX STEP 1 : F:T From Minor Street Conflicting Fly :ws. Vc Critical Gap. Tc Potential Capacity, fp Actual Capacity, Cm STEP 2 . LT From Major Street Conflicting Flows, V;: Critical Gap, To Potential Capacity, C:p f o of i p utilized and Impedance Factor Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) STET' 3 . LT From Min:ir Street Conflicting Flews, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, i_p Actual Capacity, Cm MOVEMENT V (F'r: :F'H) 4 12 18 17 N .-- -VS - -- 613 v-- -V4 - -- 17 N= 3 V'? 1 X STOP YIELD 1 81 •d 1NAME:EDM i_ M (F'CF'H) CSH (F'r_ :PH ) 1 30 781 544 1 VOLUMES IN F'i_:F'H 1 --- V3 - - -v . • I 12 17 613 1'2 260 `60 1 7 1 XXXXXXXX 1 12 / -> V.:74 •/ -- V4. V7 CF: CF: (r_ :M -V ) (CSH -V ) 118 230 763 • 3r) 527 v--- '•i4 - -- 12 1 R 1 1 1/2 'V 3 +V 6 - 299 = 305 vp h (V': 9 ) 1 T' : 5.5 secs (Tab. 10. 2) 1 i= :p9= 731 pcph (Fig. 10.3) 1 Cm9 =Cp9= 721 pcph 1 '•l3 +V2= 12 • 598 = 610 vph (Vc4) 1 Tc= 5.5 secs ( T ab. 10. 2) Cp4= 544 pcph (Fig.10.3) (V4 /t :p4) x100= 3. F'4= .98 1 i:m$ =0p4= 544 scph SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7 +V9) / : (V7 /Cm7) +(V9 /Cm9)) if lane is shared LOS CM D A A 13 18 1/2 V3 +'V2+V5+V4= 6 + 593 + 613 + 17 - 1234 vph (V'=7) T' := 7 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp7= 133 pcph (Fiq.10.3) Crn7= Cp7xF'4= 133 x .98 = 130 pcph LOS CSH C LOCATION:COMPUTER CITY HOURLY VOLUMES Major street:STRANDER BLVD N= 2 Grade 350---V2---> 0% 21---V3---v ---- <| |> Date of Counts: | � 7 - 7 XIS"7 \/7 V9 : Time Period: | 1 \ PM PEAK 20 91 Approach Speed: Minor Street: 35 DRIVEWAY 2 PHF: .9 N= 1 Population: 30000 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no' Volume (vph) STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street _ Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm _ ____ === ===_ - __ STEP 2 : LT From Major Street 2 <---V5--- 714 v---V4--- 9 N= 3 �50 N v X STOP YIELD Grade 0% Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp % of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street Conlicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm SHARED LANE CAPACITY MOVEMENT V(PCPH) 7 20 9 ' 9 4 9 76 673 390 3 21 |NAME:EDM | VOLUMES IN PCPH Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXY«v1XXyXXXXX| '___===== 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4= | 11 + 850 + 714 + 9 = 1534 vph(Vc7) 1 Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2) 1 Cp7= 77 pcph (Fig.10.3) \ Cm7=Cp7xP4= 77 x .99 = 76 pcph = - (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) | 1/2 V3+V 1' + 425 = 436 vph(Vc9) Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) 105 105 ---V2---> V7 20 7 714 20 � IxxxXXXXX) 20 /-> V9 Cp9= 673 pcph (Fig.10 Cm9=Cp9= v-- V4 V3+V2= 21 + 850 = 871 vph(Vc4) Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp4= 390 pcph (Fig.10'3) (V4/Cp4)x100= 2'3% P4= .99 Cm4=Cp4= 390 pcph <-\ V7 56 76 664 76 <---V5--- v ---V4--- V9 LCS LOS CM CP.H E E A E 9 == C ( y Cl/c/:.) O C VAS ASS Ft -Cr