Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0091 - TACO BELL - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)l92-0091 16350 west valley highway TACO BELL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS) M E M O R A N D U M TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer and Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner DATE: April 27, 1992 RE: TACO BELL at West Valley /Strander, 1/20/93 memo revision The traffic distribution analysis work has been completed for Taco Bell. Vehicle trips have been calculated for three intersections, and the revised traffic mitigation fees are given below. 1. Interurban /Grady /S. 156th Street /Southcenter Blvd. This project involves the interchange ramps as wells as the intersections. The estimated project cost is $11,000,000. The unadjusted cost per trip would be $2,000; however, this has been reduced to a "fair share" cost of $1,000 per trip (see memo of 4/22/93 for further explanation). Taco Bell's trip contribution is 8 trips (average of 6 for Southcenter and 10 for Grady). Cost of mitigation for this intersection: $8,000. 2. Andover Park East /Strander Blvd. This project involves intersection widening and new signals. The engineer's project cost estimate is $94,000. Based on the 1989 -90 Tukwila Traffic Deficiencies Study, the traffic increase to the year 2010 is 694 vehicle trips. The pro -rated cost per vehicle trip is $135. Taco Bell's trip contribution is 29 trips. Cost of mitigation for this intersection: $3,915. 3. South 180th /SR 181: This project involves intersection widening. The engineer's project cost estimate is $1,520,000. Based on the 1989 -90 Tukwila Traffic Deficiencies Study, the traffic increase to the year 2010 is 3,200 vehicle trips. The pro- rated cost per vehicle trip is $475. Taco Bell's trip contribution is 11 trips. Cost of mitigation for this intersection: $5,225. Based on these calculations of project costs and pro -rated share per vehicle trips, Taco Bell's total cost of mitigation for additional vehicle trips: $17,140. CITY OF TLIKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT A 2,348 SQUARE -FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT INCLUDING A DRIVE -THRU, 44-STALL PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING, BIOFILTRATION SWALE AND 6' WIDE CURBSIDE SIDEWALK ALONG STRANDER BLVD. AND WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY. PROPONENT: TACO BELL RESTAURANT LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: PARCEL NO: SEC. /TWN /RNG: 252304 -9053 25/23/4 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L92 -0091 The City has determined that the proposal dies not have a probable s. i gn i f i:cant 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. DNS As, issued under 197 -11- 340(2). .Comments must be submitted by The lead agency will.not act on this proposal tear, 1,5 day s•from the date below. i L. Rick eeler, Responsible Official 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 may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. PROJECT: DATE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: fast :L� P� ity of Tukwila x3i*:- ttt:4,:)r:N.-,'q•lA1:'):`3■i: 11: i` John W. Rants, Mayor epartment of Community Development APPLICANT: FILE REFERS CE: THRESHOLD DETERMINATI N: CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE TACO BELL April 23, 1993 To construct a 2,348 square -foot fast food restaurant, including a drive -thru, 44 -stall parking lot, landscaping, biofiltration swale and 6' wide curbside sidewalk along Strander and West Valley Highway. Northeast corner of West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Strander Blvd., Tukwila, WA NW 1/4 Section 25, Twn. 23, Rge. 4 Brown Connally Rowan Architects L92 -0091 This is a Mitigated Declaration of Non - Significance ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD Rick Beeler, Director The environmental review of this proposal consisted of an analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: a. SEPA Checklist submitted by Brown Connally Rowan Architects, dated November 6, 1992. b. Traffic Analysis prepared by Heath & Associates, dated November 1992. c. Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated November 13, 1992. d. Memo from Gregary B. Heath of Heath Associates revising the previous Traffic Analysis to reflect a reduced number of trips, dated March 3, 1993. 6300 Southcenter Bodlevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Taco Bell MDNS 4/14/93, Page 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant proposes to construct a new Taco Bell restaurant on a vacant site of 46,855 square feet. The facility will include the following: a 92 -seat restaurant, with an area of 2,348 square feet and maximum height of 18 feet; a 10 -car capacity drive -thru aisle; a 44 -stall parking lot; landscaping which includes a biofiltration swale, large stature street trees and screening shrubs; parking lot lighting with down -ward directed fixtures; and a 6' wide curbside sidewalk along Strander and West Valley Highway. The drive -thru would be open 24 hours per day. The principal exterior building materials are creme - colored stucco for walls, red terra cotta roof tiles and glass windows. PRINCIPAL CHECKLIST ITEMS A. WATER Approximately 67% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. Storm water runoff from parking areas will contain oil, heavy metals, and other pollutants. The proposed biofiltration swale will partially address the need for cleansing of surface runoff. Installation of oil /water separators would provide additional mitigation of effects of pollutants downstream. B. PLANTS A total of 8 existing trees are proposed to be saved: seven mature, ornamental conifers along the northern edge of the site, and a 2 -1/2 -foot diameter maple tree. Based on the site design, it is unlikely the trees will survive the impacts of construction on root areas. A 3 -foot diameter chestnut tree and a 6 -foot diameter poplar will be removed. To mitigate the loss of existing vegetation, the proposed landscape design adds large stature street trees along Strander and West Valley Highway. C. LAND USE The proposal includes a trash enclosure area surrounded by 4 -foot tall evergreen screening plants. This does not meet the Tukwila Zoning Code requirement for total screening of outdoor storage. The trash enclosure does not meet current Tukwila requirements for recycling bins. Taco Bell MDNS 4/14/93, Page 3 Project drawings submitted for SEPA review include signs. However, signs require separate permits from the City. D. TRAFFIC It is estimated that the new restaurant would add approximately 1264 vehicle trips to roads in the project area, with the greatest volume occurring during weekdays and the noon hour. To serve the proposed facility, a new access drive would be created on Strander Blvd. and on West Valley Highway. The project's contribution to vehicle trips at year 2010 (build -out for the area) has been estimated for three intersections: West Valley Highway /Southcenter Blvd: 8 trips; Andover Park East /Strander Blvd: 29 trips; and West Valley Highway /South 180th Street: 11 trips. Based on this additional traffic generated by the project, mitigation fees have been calculated for each of these intersections. Currently, the intersection of Strander and West Valley is signalized, with a left turn lane for southbound traffic turning east (toward propposed Taco Bell) onto Strander. The project driveway on West Valley would be limited to right in /right out access. Signs at the driveway to alert motorists to this restriction would improve traffic safety at the intersection. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate, as the environmental review indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal. MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. WATER To maximize the cleansing of surface runoff prior to discharge into the Green /Duwamish River, the project shall install oil /water separators at all catch basins. B. PLANTS Eight trees proposed for retention shall be adequately protected during construction. Any of these trees lost within 5 years from construction completion date shall be replaced by large stature trees of a similar. species, with a minimum size of 2 -1/2" caliper. Taco Bell MDNS - 4/23/93, Page 4 C. LAND USE a. To provide adequate screening, the trash enclosure area shall be surrounded by a fence and /or evergreen screening shrubs at least as tall as the enclosed materials. Recycling bins must be included within the trash enclosure area. b. This MDNS does not include approval of signs. No signs for the project shall be installed prior to issuance of any required sign permits from the City of Tukwila. D. TRAFFIC a. Specific vehicle trip estimates and mitigation fees calculations for the project are shown in Exhibits A and B, Memos from Ron Cameron, Tukwila City Engineer to Ann Siegenthaler, DCD (dated 4/22/93, 4/23/93). In summary, the cost of the project's contribution to future intersection improvements has been determined for three intersections, as follows: West Valley Highway /Southcenter Blvd: $8,000.00 Andover Park East /Strander Blvd: 3,915.00 West Valley Highway /South 180th: 5,225.00 Total for project $17,140.00 These specified mitigation fees shall be paid to the City of Tukwila prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the project. b. To maintain safe traffic flow along West Valley Highway, the West Valley driveway shall be marked and posted with a sign to alert motorists to the right in /right out turning restriction. Prep by: cc: Ann Siegenthaler Jack Pace, Senior Planner File To: Ann Siegenthaler From: Ron Cameron Date: April 22, 1993 Subject: Interurban /I05 /Southcenter Blvd /Grady Mitigations The "Fair Share" mitigation cost of $1,000 /peak hour trip for this interchange was established in 1989/1990. The traditional "Fair Share" method applied to this interchange resulted in extremely high costs. Analysis comparing other "fair share" costs was used in de- veloping the $1,000 /trip rate. The project for this interchange was in PS &E and estimated to cost $11,000,000 with resulting costs of over $2,000 per trip for devel- opment generated traffic. King County, Bellevue, and Renton trip fees did not exceed $1,000 at that time. The $2,000 /trip rate was viewed as unfair in comparison. The cost of $2,000 was determined by the high project cost ($11,000,000). It was proposed to use the $1,000 rate considering the unusually high cost of the project and that the other agencies with trip fees did not exceed $1,000. The $2,000 cost would prohibit development - 'in this case one that generated a small amount of peak hour traffic. Fees that have been used as mitigations in this area range from $100 to $500 per trip. The $1,000 for the Interurban /Grady /Southcenter area continues to be used. This method has been reviewed with a number of developers and their Traffic Engineers and accepted as a fair means to address this area. R Er-17-71 VEJ APR 2 31g9(3 COMM?_:NrTY DEVELOPMENT YJ \n'.Viti'm „�...T,�rC;, is •r.:i;S ?,i'... .na._.. • ;. To: Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner From: Ron Cameron, City Engineer )s+..„ Date: March 18, 1993 Subject: Taco Bell @ W Valley /Strander, 1/20/93 memo revision The traffic distribution analysis work has been completed for Taco Bell. Traffic revised mitigations are: Interurban /Grady /S 156 St /Southcenter Blvd. This project involves the interchange ramps as well as the intersections. The pro rata share determined using the $10,000,000 project cost and increased traffic resulted in a $5,000+ pro rata share. A "fair share” approach has been used for increased traffic here that's been approved in other de- veloper agreements or mitigations. The "fair share" used is $1,000 and based on the Renton, Bellevue, and King County mitigations of $1,000 + per trip. Taco Bell's 8 trips (average of Southcenter 6 and Grady 10) is $8,000. [No change] . Andover Park E /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $94,000. The prorated share is $135 /trip. Taco Bell's 29 trips mitigation is $3,915. S 180 St /SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and improvement cost is $1,520,000. The prorated share is $475. Taco Bell's 11 trips mitigation is $5,225. Total trip mitigation is $17,140. Oil water separators are to be provided for catch basins, biofiltration as shown on the plan provided, an easement is needed for the sewer. Frontal improvements along Strander and W Valley are to be provided in accord with the Sidewalk Ordinance. The public improve- ments will need to be turned over, acceptance by City Council that they meet City standards following completion for the frontal improve- ments, sewer, water, and drainage. g—~• F:7 . VAR 18 r9 ' D VEf Of 'i N B1 1H HEATH & ASSOCIATES Transportation and Civil Engineering Mr. Ron Cameron, P.E. City of Tukwila Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Proposed Taco Etpll Dear Mr. Cameron: (206) 752 -1206 March 3, 1993 RECEIVED MAR - 81993 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS This letter is in follow -up to our recent meeting regarding the proposed Taco Bell located'at the intersection of West•Valley and strander. At the meeting we discussed the re- evaluation of the trip distribution for expected patrons as being more from the west rather than the south. Based on this conversation and subsequent review of my original trip distribution, I have assigned 20 percent of the traffic destined for the Taco Bell as sourcing from the south and increased the westerly sourced traffic as being 50 percent. This amounts to a reduction from 22 trips to 11 trips to and from the south and an increase to 29 trips from 18 trips to and from the west. The primary reason is a realization of the South Center Mall and surrounding retail and business as being the primary source of customer traffic. Using these revised volumes causes a contribution to the Andover Park East/Strander improvement of 3,915 dollars based on 29 trips x $135 per The contribution to south 180th Street and SR -181 becomes 5,225 dollars on 11 trips x $475 per trip. trip. based Coupled with the contribution of 8,000 dollars toward improvements to the north the total traffic contribution by Taco Bell would be 17,140 dollars. Please call should you have any further comments or questions. Sincerely, Gregary B. Heath, P.E. 3302 Narrows Drive • Tacoma, Washington 98407 To: Carol Proud, Associate Planner From: Ron Cameron, City Engineer Date: January 20, 1993 Subject: Taco Bell @ W Valley /Strander JAN 0 is93 cc DEVL Development traffic mitigations are determined from identified capac- ity or safety improvements needed for traffic increases. The Traffic Deficiencies Study identifies increased traffic and improvements needed to provide the safety and capacity for the 2010 increase. The improvement cost is divided by the "1990" to 2010 traffic increase to determine a prorated share per trip. Mitigations are determined from the development's increased peak hour traffic and the cost /trip. Taco Bell peak hour traffic affects three intersections with improvements planned for construction within the next 5 years: Interurban /Grady /S 156 St /Southcenter Blvd. This project involves the interchange ramps as well as the intersections. The pro rata share determined using the $10,000,000 project cost and increased traffic resulted in a $5,000+ pro rata share. A "fair share" approach has been used for increased traffic here that's been approved in other de- veloper agreements or mitigations. The "fair share" used is $1,000 and based on the Renton, Bellevue, and King County mitigations of $1,000 + per trip. Taco Bell's 8 trips (average of Southcenter 6 and Grady 10) is $8,000. Andover Park E /Strander. The increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $94,000. The prorated share is $135 /trip. Taco Bell's 18 trips mitigation is $2,430. 5 180 St /SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and improvement cost is $1,520,000. The prorated share is $475. Taco Bell's 22 trips mitigation is $10,450. Total trip mitigation is $20,880. Oil water separators are to be provided for catch basins, biofiltration as shown on the plan provided, an easement is needed for the sewer. Frontal improvements along Strander and W Valley are to be provided in accord with the Sidewalk Ordinance. The public improve- ments will need to be turned over, acceptance by City Council that they meet City standards following completion for the frontal improve- ments, sewer, water, and drainage. M E M O R A N D U M To: Jack Pace From: Ron Cameron Date: January 8, 1990 Subject: Homewood Suites supplemented Feb 9 This memo identifies traffic and sewer SEPA issues and mitigations. It's intended to clarify the earlier descriptions of these needs. TRAFFIC The Homewood traffic study shows LOS E and F existing and the 50 peak hour Homewood trips having a small measurable effect on the adjacent intersections. A normal mitigation would be to request a fair share of the needed improvements based on peak volumes or to only allow development approval if the deficiencies are corrected. In this case, a large $11,000,000 project is being designed and expected to be built in 3 to 6 years time. Homewood's "fair share" would be about $110,000 (1% peak hour volume) of this project. A more appropriate SEPA mitigation would be to provide traffic capacity and safety mitigation for the "interim" period between and the future project that will work with the future project. The Homewood Traffic Study suggested a that type of improvement - signal controllers, coordination, master control. We are working with the State on that and it will provide minimal traffic capacity increases. A better approach to improving conditions for the existing problems that will be further degraded by Homewood's traffic is to conduct a Preliminary Engineering study. It would determine increased safety and capacity improvements for the "interim" and work with the future $11,000,000 project. The study is estimated to cost $50,000 and determine capacity improvements such as widening the bridge, sidewalks, dual left turn lanes, signalization, and similar items. They would need to be designed and evaluated for current geometrics and the future realignment with current and future volume assignments. The purpose of the lengthy traffic description is to provide background on the complications of this vicinity. The CH2M and other work has not been included in this memo. The traffic mitigation study will evaluate whether Interurban can be widened to provide increased capacity on Interurban, the intersections of Interurban /Scouthcenter Blvd & Interurban /Grady, and provide ped safety. The improvement would serve until the Southcenter extension project is built and must work with the completed project. This will include the bridge, can it be widened, what costs, permits, etc. This is a complex study for existing and "future" conditions where the future conditions include additional widening, bridges, and ramp changes. \i13 PUB1_:C : C2 :(3 (206) 433-0179 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer DATE: January 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Homewood Suites Traffic Mitigation The December 16 Homewood Suites Traffic Analysis identifies a small amount of peak hour traffic to be generated by the development - 1% or less of the intersection approach volumes. The various proposed signal timing mitigations are in process by WSDOT. The intersections are currently operating at LOS E and at LOS F. The increased traffic will degrade the LOS by some amount. The proposed signal timing mitigations are not expected to provide a significant or measurable LOS increase. A preliminary engineering study is planned to determine widening improvements for capacity and safety as well as walkway for pedestrian safety improvements. These improvements are intended to serve "immediately" as well as compliment the $11,000,000 Southcenter Boulevard /I -405 ramp project. One mitigation approach would be to request 1% of known $11,000,000 capacity and safety project. It is recommended, in this case considering the small peak hour volumes, to request participation in the interim improvement design. The 1% cost of $110,000 would be about $20,000 /trip. Peak hour mitigation fees are ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 per trip depending on the corridor. Fifty (50) trips times $1,000 per trip equals $50,000 cost for the preliminary engineering and design of capacity and safety improvements on Interurban from Southcenter Boulevard through South 156th Street be contributed as traffic mitigation. RC /kjr A 1 50 D DJ pre\i r ^; na c . n rvr, i ,-, cc r ; r-, •1,5 r,: 7 .�e �u ��t�C,�t ,n��C�.•- t �^ T�u�. W x.,11 bc. �,a:� -� (� I '\ 1.t -i..4 dic� .e 1 \ ^Yu✓".. ,e .i ,f 1 Cy1 y� 0 %a (IS e w 1 '•; -..f t� ,p( ri 1 . 1 "C" Pla: — •A i'4I QY�)1"eV( .1^, .:)V...A Li 1 �A k , 1 1.S 4), e_ � t.-�t � '1►^•� ^ a�+ .., ^. /� r it j C'G� Q �} i �'.' �+�- ,iu:t 5..AsiPS y, 1' ... )re.41.t 4 tx Contrc't lo._ Epic File No. Fee $ 225.00 Receipt No. Pc1z- 01 44- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 'Paco Bell Restaurant N° 06 -628 2. Name of applicant: V Wendy Ender, Brown Connally Rowan Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Wendy Ender Brown Connally Rowan Architects 222 East 26th Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421 (206) 627 -4367 4. Date checklist prepared: 6 November, 1992 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): We propose a 90 -day construction period starting one month after receiving building permit. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. G2 No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Earth Consultants has prepared a soils report for Taco Bell Corp. Heath & Associates has prepared a traffic study. Both are attached for your review. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 1 Rot,/ CONNO RECEIVED NOV 1 71992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6 4m.*.,g4,1m.;veacg: G,"i.4?'auiii 43" C.f trantWATAC sx�2', �^. i. t�; n! ��a.. Jr,'.�;��aadH:H?'Aec�'�t.�tunc: viaiaKrrtLSCxvuta .a.W�s�x=/.at�rst+u &r�;: 10. List any government at;r_'ovals or permits that will be needed foi' your proposal, if known. City of Tukwila site plan approval and 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. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Proposed use for this site is a quick service restaurant with drive thru. The building size is 2,348 SF and will seat 92 customers. The total site area is 46,855 S.F. 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 proposed project location is within the City of Tukwila at the NEC of West Valley Highway and Strander Blvd. A vicinity map and legal description are included on the attached Architectural Site Plan. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B . ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Steepest existing slope is approximately 3%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The attached soils report prepared by Earth Consultants indicates that soils are primarily loose silt. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site will be graded to allow proper drainage of the parking lot. No import of fill will be required. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. All dirt and sediment will be contained on the site. Temporary erosion control measures will be shown on building permit drawings. Following construction, storm water run -off will be tightlined to existing facilities. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? g. About 67% of the site will be impervious 3 Evaluation for Agency Use Only � 4L i:., ... ,'. U' o-S' %.s.,,.w.arJi.��!'zx;�i;ra.. ,...u:E;.. :,'Y.,q,f >...� r..,' %2: =•,.. .. 3i�.. ::R:�'l,R«: ,, .. .�i'Jii'�'. x.....:�Et r, f!. k.*' i' :°,.,`.af::°a:ir.s�!C^::�$1?'., :::E..,.` ?�"�",�'�'r.:^1 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The entire site will be either landscaped or paved. Storm water will be collected and transferred into the public storm drainage system. Temporary erosion control will be implemented during construction. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, emissions will include those typically resulting from the use of automotive and construction equipment. Odors from construction equipment will be present during construction and dust and smoke may be generated during short term clearing and grading activities. The total amount of dust and air pollution generated by development and use is not expected to be significant. b . Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Vehicular traffic utilizing neighboring roadways will provide the only known offsite source of emissions or odor. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to air, if any: Watering during site preparation becomes evident. 3. WATER a. Surface: emissions or other whenever dust 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or ever it flows into. Streams - none Saltwater - none 4 Evaluation for Agency Use Only Rfi7tOta.Y.diLi '`..''td"%af:'.e72:i2 ,i,;li a, 1:X{4;f1`.1:itirn..Ag:A"9lC'G> 'wF".NA41413ri4p?q'?d 'a'.i NCE63S!S.a7LiaYmoC,Sd;Y+iYa Lakes - none Ponds - none Wetlands - none 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. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 9flRti �7ek"(f wareSi rstALrof:etroleSseta\Y1 n m°lul;'t! 4t"lnr 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No 5 Evaluation for Agency Use Only Y F :GeLLiatiiiliSi7 &'�n�.k1..nv"t? "tCf�Gi:°t'i1S�'2.51:L".� iItt4;.:!Y.7: +YdAgv,z4g.:.Y+s,%ti SCE�:Xi7.-7 b . Ground: :t' JPSGSG4MWIld�" lk'.' L..1fY0h'.ICS.T,M'Y7ASAIiC.TIS' ^. :Ilfi7INIUM3YQttrAJAWh titill£l4Y/heant*,. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). 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. There will be no discharge into the ground. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will be collected and discharged into the existing storm water system. 6 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to control runoff surface, ground and water impacts, if any. Storm water runoff will be detained on site and will be conveyed to the public storm water system. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs _ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b . What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some existing vegitation will be removed and replaced with new plantings. (7) 6" cedar trees along the east property line will be retained. (1) 30" maple tree will be retained in the parking area. (1) 36" chestnut tree will be removed. (1) 72" poplar tree will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None 7 A :trrma13A7 r. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 'V.01 =T. ' ' 1.70z.02 3ki ?fi?r %Mt d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The entire perimeter of the site will be landscaped, including plantings of street trees, to provide a visual screen between uses. Landscaping in the interior of the site will lessen the impact of parking lot paving and enhance the appearance of the restaurant building. 5. ANIMALS r.:C 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: None 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. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None Evaluation for Agency Use Only xxrzx- aworaa bki?s/n ?.aiM:c. antis,aaasnu'is�+';YA =;.- .531 }s'tiL "1.'lln:'9rti k4gn ssYG "iegt.''+S7.I'krS:;S'.aail:1/t, 41311:;. PAgi' .'rx,7y.l.`FikkV:X.ittfCi3xVV, aZXI.:V.tnii:;4 t't:VVair:ZV.t7?.ht PA Vi': hlat ZVVMV.'KM::n g1iIIe-,VLIMPOZW'Ct110=1.asant. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric - cooling and lighting Gas - for cooking and heating b . Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 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: The proposal will conform to the 1991 Washington State Energy Code. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No environmental hazards are known to exist on the site or are expected as a result of development. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None Evaluation for Agency Use Only ,31 .41.1 �id[ a"..:C r', 4i:+ f•` �w'.. VOAi;n5V.Zi!CTIni"..3.::O..'v . M:15, 12air-a roi rov i' !2"owaghwdaA.+..`:.Ararbmtaritt x,asVg ,411$.,,,ivr:USA'tr.41os,:ko,mo V!eams4.1to 4m.,- i7ilS y7....wv,L'.l"!?mematreawrsstw l c b . Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, aircraft, other)? Traffic on neighboring roadways and railroads will produce the only appreciable noise in the area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. The proposal will emit construction noise on a short term basis during normal working hours. Some noise will be generated at the drive -up speaker. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site - Undevoloped and vacant South - Fast food restaurant East - Puget Power R.O.W West - Credit Union North- Restaurant b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None 10 Evaluation for Agency Use Only iilTYltY'9i+SNWXVCAVOZ VaO-wvxV.ae t47;.k:44N,I1r,;.AV4xciyd .ti'A4: 4G.i,. :",7'.c : ti;s":,'iluati ,fbi: .im;%, {t':ti •h':,177 1C.:'f.,t;i.: ..c:i:a:,,x.:at ;jet �t4,Lt.:tMra.!!tc.�rxtpn .u.CymmOrvv+nWA S71,,,,,rt + AVIn,,. v... rw. mn. .. c,t:trrown,M,.....w..n-Irnw.:w...... d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C -2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. Not applicable If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. J• No Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 5 to 10 people per shift, 3 shifts per day. The restaurant will employ about 35 people. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal will conform to requirements of the City of Tukwila. 11:.1wxn.!7p�.'w'.:nt�' -RJiE :'A"�.i:',t�.i'AS" :^in1:ti::'J::Sin :ti KtY'.::5: T: n: 7Lt; ���141:' 1r�1: uC" w�' 1.^.. �SYh, WYh' LJvG r1tlC. Y'f4*C.C�Q:Li4Ta:",'N.f.^tFSM \: Y.N'S?td:..a�d•.� 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The building height does not exceed 18'. The principal exterior building materials are stucco, terra cotta roof tiles and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views will be obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: n.MraN..MJ�n...hx +:.te.fnt wr4'O+..vrn.vw+NwRw.rw.v.. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Design of building and signage are consistent and reflect the "south of the border" theme of the Taco Bell menu. Landscaping will be used to enhance aesthetic qualities of the site. 12 •' u': SK?,: ii>.: ub: VV�HI; i�. c7; t'.'x' a;. G' r' r: 1�;. 3• S,: Y. G�,' dS�`% U' a•. ShiaY: C: k`. ;t�A•wrC�:.irv>vn,+•,;:+m•:•vrr �u.s..er:.n,..rw.rau+ ern. razwv.. rrnwnk.. rw. ,uo..N...aw.xw.....a...,w..,,,. • «._,.�.�.......... 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot will be illuminated during dark hours while the restaurant is open. The dining room will open for business until 11:00 pm. The drive -thru window remains open 24 hours► day. b . Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot fixtures are cut -off type, directing light downward. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None Evaluation for Agency Use Only • .. • 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on next to the site? If so, generally describe. No Evaluation for Agency Use Only b . Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe The site is located at the NEC of the intersection of West Valley Highway and Strander Blvd. Our proposal includes access to the site via a curb cut on Strander Blvd. and a right -in, right -out access on West Valley Highway. b . Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 44 parking spaces will be created, none will be eliminated. 14 N�asv.. rJhls�re:'!.•.:: x. b' v�? d+,::' r., tYuN... m.; P: tas ::3'277.71,414:M..m1..xw0 ... b,. u. n ....n.,,«w.,n.,.,.....i.e...... on...........,..........,«,..,.... n....... w.. ............. ........ ..............n.....,�. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). A new sidewalk is proposed adjacent to West Valley Highway. New sidewalk, curb and gutter are proposed along Strander Blvd. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Although located 100' from railroad, the project will not use or have any affect on rail transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Peak volumes will occur during lunch and dinner hours. Refer to attached traffic study for detailed information. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Access onto West Valley Highway is right -in, right -out only. The drive thru lane will accomodate 10 cars. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposal would require police and fire protection. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 15 s. 16. UTILITIES �n. 1,14,1771,1011 4.1f trt.Mn rvr.!01,* St.•■■n.., ■{, • a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natural gas. water, refuse service. telephone. storm sewer, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Puget Power will provide primary service, transformer and vault. Natural Gas: Washington Natural Gas Co. will provide service from existing main in Strander Blvd. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Water: City of Tukwila; Existing water service in West Valley Highway and 1 -112" meter may need to be replaced. Sanitary Sewer: City of Tukwila; Service POC will be an existing sewer stub at east side of property. Storm Sewer: City of Tukwila; Storm water runoff will be detained, bio- filtered and discharged into the existing city storm drainage system. Refuse Service: Rainier Disposal. Telephone: US West will provide service from an existing telephone pedestal on site. 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. Signature: ..L&) ' . ! C /.%L.C.ULJ Date Submitted: 1 iii 7/61(2- PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. 16 Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT 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 porvides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? This proposal includes the construction of a 2348 S.F. restaurant, on -site improvements and off -site improvements. The restaurant will include a drive thru window and seating for 92 customers. Site improvements will include ample ( 53 stalls ) parking and drive thru stacking space for restaurant patrons and employees. Parking lot drive aisles and traffic patterns have been designed to allow sufficient vehicular manueverability on -site and during ingress and egress. Perimeter and interior site landscaping will lessen the impact of the required paved parking area. Existing trees will be retained when possible. New trees will be added to the landscaping. The required bio- filtration swale will minimize pollution to be discharged into the public storm drainage system. Proposed off -site improvements include construction of a new sidewalk adjacent to West Valley Highway and new sidewalk, curb, gutter and new paving along Strander Blvd. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The proposed site plan has been designed to conform to the City of Tukwila requirements for parking, landscaping, building setback and storm water detention. The proposed planting plan indicates retention of as many trees as possible. These constraints limit feasible alternatives for a proposal of this type. 3 . Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The plan proposed is preferred by Taco Bell Corp. and was designed to meet City requirements. 17 Does the proposal cod' - t with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan. No Proposed measures to reduce the conflict(s) are: Not applicable 18 Earth Consultants Inc. Geolechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists PREPARED FOR TACO BELL, CORP. • Kyle R. Campb 11, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services )(4),--r/ Donald J. B no Staff Geologist GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED TACO BELL RESTAURANT #06 -628 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-5950 November 13, 1992 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643 -3780 222 East 26th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411 -9998 (206) 272 -6608 RECEIVED NOV 1 7 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists Si Environmental ScientLsts November 13, 1992 E -5950 Taco Bell Corporation 597 Industry Drive Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Mike Randles Dear Mr. Randles: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Taco Bell Restaurant, Tukwila, Washington. This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analysis, as well as geotechnical - related recommendations for the proposed site development. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our March 17, 1992 proposal. During our site study, loose, compressible soils were encountered to depths ranging from one to twenty -six feet below the existing ground surface. In our opinion, the proposed restaurant building, as well as other associated structures, may be supported on shallow foundation systems provided that a preload program is completed prior to foundation construction. All the foundation footings should bear upon at least two feet of compacted structural fill after any fill induced settlements have been completed. If you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. 71t 4 Kyle R. Campbell, P. E. Manager of Geotechnical Services DJB /KRC /kml [59500t?S.Rpt1 1805 . 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 101, Tacoma, Washington 98421.9998 Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464.1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206) 272.6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-5950 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Description 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface 2 Groundwater 3 Laboratory Testing 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 General 3 Site Preparation and Grading 4 Preload Program 5 Foundations 6 Lateral Pressures 6 Slab -on -Grade Floors 7 Excavations 7 Site Drainage 7 Racial!' Procedures 8 Pavement Areas 8 LIMITATIONS 9 Additional Services 10 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate Al Plates A2 through A5 Plate B1 Field Exploration Laboratory Testing Vicinity Map Test Boring Location Plan Typical Settlement Monitor Legend Test Boring Logs Atterberg Limits Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED TACO BELL RESTAURANT #06 -628 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AND STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-5950 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Taco Bell Restaurant in Tukwila, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the subject property and to provide recommendations for site preparation, as well as present geotechnical information for the proposed site development. Project Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building location, as well as our exploratory locations, were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on the preliminary plans provided to us, the site will be developed with a "drive - through" restaurant facility. The restaurant building will be constructed of wood frame with a slab -on- grade floor. In addition, a trash enclosure and identity sign will be constructed within the project limits. The remaining portions of the site will be utilized mainly as asphaltic concrete paved parking and drive areas with some perimeter planters. It is anticipated that grade modifications for the proposed development will consist of earthwork fills on the order of one to two feet in thickness. Structural loading is anticipated to fall within the following ranges, including maximum dead plus live loads: • Wall loads • Maximum Column loads - • Slab loads 200 to 1500 pounds per lineal foot 10 to 15 kips 100 to 150 pounds per square foot (psf) If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be notified and allowed to review our recommendations in light of actual design information. In any case, it is recommended that the Soils Engineer of Record be retained to perform a general review of the final construction design. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation E -5950 November 13, 1992 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site of the proposed facility is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard in Tukwila,Washington.(see Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The rectangular shaped parcel encompasses about one acre and is bounded by a one level restaurant to the north, Strander Blvd. to the south, a railroad easement to the east, and West Valley Highway to the west. Most of the site is vacant and covered with several large trees, blackberry bushes and tall grasses. The southeast section of the property appears to have been cleared, and is partially covered with low grasses. A monitoring well monument was observed at the southwest corner of the site and a 55- gallon steel drum with a sealed lid and unreadable labels was observed at the north side of a large Chestnut tree. The entire parcel appears to slope gently downward from the northeast to the southwest. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling four borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Refer to the test boring logs, Plates A2 to A5 for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. Below is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, during our site study we encountered very loose to loose, native brown silt with fine sand (Unified Classification ML) to an approximate depth of eight feet below the existing ground surface. Beneath the upper layer of silt, very loose to loose, gray silty fine sand (SM) was encountered from about eight (8) to twenty-one (21) feet below the existing ground surface. Below the intermediate layer of loose silty sand, a very soft to soft gray elastic silt (MH) was encountered to the maximum exploration depth of twenty-six and one -half (26.5) feet below the existing ground surface. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation E -5950 November 13, 1992 Page 3 Groundwater Groundwater was observed in Borings B -1 and B -2 , at thirteen (13) feet below the existing ground surface. It is important to note that groundwater levels are not static; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Groundwater is not expected to have a significant impact on construction unless deep utility excavations are necessary, or if the sign excavation extends below a depth of ten feet below existing grades. Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as Atterberg limits on representative samples. Additionally, moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual test boring log or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions; our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. In accordance with Taco Bell Corporation requirements, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of sixty (60) days following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed generally as planned, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the final design. In our opinion, the proposed building can be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill after the completion of the recommended preload program. It is our opinion that the weight of the structural fill and building loads will induce about two inches of total settlement with about one inch of differential settlement. In order to reduce the magnitude of the settlements, we recommend that the structural fill required to raise the site to design grade (approximately two feet) be allowed to pre - compress the loose native soils for approximately three to four weeks prior to the excavation of the foundations. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation November 13, 1992 E -5950 Page 4 These and other geotechnically related aspects of the project are discussed in the following sections of this report. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Taco Bell Corporation and their representatives. No warranty is expressed or implied. It is recommended that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and Grading Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, trees, organic matter, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any soils to be used as structural fill. It is critical that all subgrade soils disturbed during initial clearing work be removed if unsuitable for compaction and /or recompacted in the course of site preparation earthwork operations. Following the stripping and clearing procedures, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations (including the trash enclosure), asphaltic pavements or concrete slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative from this office. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the applicable structural loading condition. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas when encountered. Structural fill under pavements, trash enclosure and walks should be placed in lifts approximately eight inches in thickness, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with the ASTM D- 1557 -78 test standard (modified proctor), except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Laboratory tests indicate that the moisture content of the near surface on -site soils during the time of our field exploration range from below optimum moisture content to above optimum moisture content. The on -site soils may be used as structural fill provided the moisture content of the soil is near optimum, and the grading operations are conducted during dry weather. It is important to recognize that the on -site soils encountered during our field exploration are fine - grained and are moisture sensitive.Therefore, compaction and grading will become difficult if the soil moisture increases above the optimum moisture content. If necessary, the moisture content can be reduced by aeration in dry weather, or by intermixing lime or cement to absorb Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation E -5950 November 13, 1992 Page 5 excess moisture. In any case, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction. During dry weather, most compactible non - organic granular soil can be used as structural fill. It is recommended that any structural fill planned for on -site use be submitted for approval prior to import. Preload Program As discussed previously, we recommend that fill placed to raise site grades be monitored as a preload. The preload is designed to pre - consolidate the compressible soils in a manner that will limit post - construction movements to within a tolerable range. It is our understanding that approximately two feet of structural fill will be required to bring the site to subgrade elevation. Based on our analyses, we estimate that the preload fill material will induce approximately one and one -half to two inches of settlement across the building foundation and slab areas. The building site should be graded to three to four inches above planned finished subgrade to allow for the anticipated settlement. Based on the results of our laboratory testing of the site soil samples, we estimate that this settlement should take about three to four weeks to occur. A smaller settlement than estimated would indicate that the soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely, a larger settlement than estimated could be interpreted as indicating the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and additional measures, such as a surcharge or a longer preload period, may be needed to obtain satisfactory results. The preload should extend, at full height, (i.e., final slab subgrade elevation), a minimum of five feet beyond the building perimeters, and then slope outward at 1H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical). Preload material to be used should meet the requirements of structural fill as defined in the "Site Preparation and General Earthwork" section of this report. Prior to placement of the preload, we recommend installation of three settlement markers within the building area to monitor the magnitude and rate of settlement. A typical settlement monitor is illustrated on Plate 5. These markers should be protected from disturbance by construction equipment. The settlement markers should be surveyed, as soon as the markers are installed, by this office or a licensed surveyor. The initial monitoring should be done during the preload placement and should include the natural ground elevation. Readings should then be taken on a weekly basis after completion of the preload placement until the settlement has stabilized. Settlement readings should be evaluated by Earth Consultants, Inc. if a licensed surveyor performs the settlement monitoring. Should the planned subgrade elevation change, resulting in more or less fill being necessary, we should be contacted to provide updated recommendations regarding the preload program. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation E -5950 November 13, 1992 Page 6 Foundations Based on the encountered subsurface soil conditions, preliminary building design criteria, and assuming compliance with the preceding "Site Preparation and Grading" section, the proposed restaurant building may be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on structural fill after completion of the preload program. Individual spread footings or continuous walls footings providing support for the restaurant building and trash enclosure may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing value of one thousand five hundred (1500) psf. Footings should be at least twelve (12) inches in width and should extend to a depth of at least eighteen (18) inches below the lowest adjacent finished subgrade or interior floor slab surface. It is understood that the isolated footings employed for the Taco Bell identity sign support is usually on the order of about seven to ten feet in depth due to lateral load and /or uplift design requirements. Based on the design load information provided to us by Plastoline, Inc., and the loose compressible soils encountered at the proposed identity sign footing elevation, our analysis indicates that the sign may realize settlements of one to two inches. If this amount of settlement cannot be tolerated, then we suggest that the sign area be surcharged. At least three feet of soil surcharge should be placed at the proposed sign location in an eight foot diameter from the center of the footing. We estimate that this settlement will take about three to four weeks to occur. The deeper sign footing may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of one thousand (1,000) psf. These basic allowable bearing values are for dead plus live loads and may be increased one -third for combined dead, live, wind, and seismic forces. After completion of the preload program it is estimated that total settlements for the relatively light building, trash enclosure and identity sign structures will be approximately one inch. It is recommended that all footing excavations be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that exposed soil conditions are as anticipated in this report, and /or provide suitable modifications in the design, as required. Lateral Pressures An allowable passive pressure value against the sides of footings, grade beams or other subsurface foundation elements of two hundred (200) psf per foot of depth may be used provided there is positive contact between the vertical bearing surface and the adjacent compacted fill or undisturbed native soils. Earth Consultants, Inc, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation E -5950 November 13, 1992 Page 7 Friction between the base of footings and /or floor slabs and the underlying soil may be assumed as forty (40) percent of the dead load. Friction and lateral pressure may be combined; however, the lateral bearing resistance used must not exceed two -thirds of the combined amount. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors should be supported on at least one foot of structural fill. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free - draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6 -mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand should be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Excavations You should be aware that in no case should the excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and federal safety regulations. The existing upper twelve (12) feet of native silt and sand soils would be classified as type "B" soils by OSHA. Therefore temporary cuts greater than four feet in height, should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1H:1V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, or if excavations greater than twelve (12) feet in depth are required, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring would help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and would provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. The above information has been provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the above information be interpreted to mean that this office is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Site Drainage Groundwater was observed at Borings B -1 and B -2 at an approximate depth of thirteen (13) feet below the existing ground surface. It is not likely that groundwater levels will present any construction related problems while excavating the foundation footings. However, utility excavations may encounter groundwater depending on invert elevations. If seepage is encountered in foundation or utility trench excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation E -5950 November 13, 1992 Page 8 Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. It is recommended that the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by this office, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. The site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings in landscape areas. In pavement areas, this may be reduced to two percent. We recommend that footing drains be installed around the perimeter of the building just below the invert of the footing with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. We suggest cleanouts be installed at several accessible locations to allow for the periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Backfill Procedures All backfill associated with utility line trenches and tree removal should be spread, watered or aerated as required, thoroughly mixed to a uniform near- optimum moisture condition, placed and compacted by mechanical means in lifts approximately 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The degree of compaction obtained should be at least 90 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 -78 laboratory test standard. All backfill procedures should be subject to compaction control monitoring and testing by this office. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. This means that at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D- 1557 -78). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The following pavement sections are recommended for lightly - loaded areas consisting of parking stalls experiencing daily traffic of 100 cars: Earth Consultants, Inc. material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. The following pavement sections are recommended for heavier traffic areas consisting of roadways subjected to a minimum daily traffic of 1,000 cars and five applications of 18,000 - pound single -axle load trucks: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Two inches of AC over four inches of ATB. Asphaltic Cement (AC), Asphalt Treated Base (ATB), and Crushed Rock Base (CRB) materials should all conform to the WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 -78 laboratory test standard. It should be noted that parking stall pavement sections assume no truck traffic. In addition, the above pavement sections are based on a 10 -year design period. It is recommended that concrete slabs which are placed directly over a native soil subgrade and are subject to vehicle traffic loads be at least six inches in thickness. It is also suggested that nominal reinforcement such as "6x6- 10/10" welded wire mesh be employed, at near midpoint, in new exterior concrete slabs and paving. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between test borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Taco Bell Corporation November 13, 1992 Additional Services E -5950 Page 10 This office will be available to provide consultation services relating to review of the final design and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the approved construction plans and specifications. In addition, it is suggested that this office be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with the design concepts and project specifications, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. It should be noted that it is generally in the best interests of the owner /client to maintain the same Soils Engineer during construction in order to obtain the project objective, with optimum quality control. Earth Consultants, Inc.. Earth Consultants inc. Grorec nkal Engineers. Geologists i Environmental ntal Scr„Ib .. Reference: King County / Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1990 Vicinity Map Proposed Taco Bell #06 -628 Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 5950 I Drwn. GLS Date Oct. '92 Checked DB 1 Date 10/12/92 I Plate 1 B -1 4- LEGEND Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E -5950, Sept. 1992 Proposed Building STRANDER BLVD. Existing Jack -In -The -Box Not -To -Scale Reference: Site Sketch By Brown Connally Rowan Architects FAX Date 9/22/92 Earth Consultants inc. Geoinciinlal Engineers. GeeingLsts ♦ Environmental Sclrnllsas Boring Location Plan Proposed Taco Bell #06 -628 Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 5950 Drwn. GLS 'Date Oct. '92 Checked DB I Date 10/12/92 I Plate 2 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NOTES: • Base consists of 3/4 - inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 5/8 - inch diameter hole. • Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand. • Marker rod is 1/2 - inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. • Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. • Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 - inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is not attached to rod or base. • Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. • Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press - fit plastic couplings. • Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. • Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. Earth Consultants Inc. Croirdmucla Enputern. Crok gLas i Ensvovtxrllal::ornILS S TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL PROPOSED TACO BELL #06 -628 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5950 I Drwn. GLS I Date Oct' 92 Checked DB 1 Dated 10 -21 -921 Plate 3 APPENDIX A E-5950 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration was performed on October 2,1992. The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling four borings to a maximum depth of twenty -six and one half (26.5) feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were drilled by Associated Drilling, using a truck- mounted drilling rig. Continuous - flight, hollow stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. The approximate boring locations were determined by taping from property corners on the site. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location and Site Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm, who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the borings are presented in the Appendix on Plates A2 through A5. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one - hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration is called the "N- value ". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse Grained Soils More Than Larger Than No. 50% Material 200 Sieve Size Siz e Gravel And Gravelly Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained On No. 4 Sieve Clean Gravels (little or no fines) v 0.0. oo : C' 'e, °'o,o, °, •° W G gW Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines • '0::•::• • • ! •' '• Gp gp Poorly - Graded Gravels, Gravel - Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravels With Fines ( appreciable amount of fines) i I I 0 I t• l I0 i 1 111 GM gm Silty Gravels, Gravel- Sand - Silt Mixtures ,� , GC gC Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand - Clay Mixtures Sand And Sandy Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Passing No.4 Sieve Clean Sand ( little or no fines) o c °o °° ° ° °oo o°oo ; pO °oo SW SW Well- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines , q f . ��� , SP Sp Poorly- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines Sands With Fines (appreciable amount of fines) i•i• • 11 .... 1j • {... 11) I SM Sm Silty Sands, Sand - Silt Mixtures s SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures Fine Grained Soils More Than 50% Material Smaller Than No. 200 Sieve Size Silts Liquid Limit And Less Than 50 Clays I ml Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,Silty- Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity /C( Inorganic Clays Ot Low To Medium Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Ciays, Lean OI Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays Of Low Plasticty Silts Liquid Limit And Clays Greater Than 50 mh Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine Sand Or Silty Soils CH ch Inorganic Clays Of High Plasticity, Fat Clays. / / /// / / / //� / / /// OH Oh Organic Clays 01 Medium To High Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils ,• = PT pt Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Topsoil 41`':,,:. •••Humus And Duff Layer Fill ••••• ••• ••••••••••••• • ••••••• Highly Variable Constituents The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding 01 The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs Notes : Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab- oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. I 2 "0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER TT 11 SHELBY TUBE E SAMPLER OR P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED 2 WATER LEVEL (DATE) iWATER OBSERVATION WELL C TORVANE READING, tsf qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX Earth Consultants Inc. (ilttNtx IUlit.111J 'Wm 't' f. (.UlIk/gISIS • 1Jw1101U1Ml11,1i SC.1 IUISIS LEGEND Proj. No. 5950 Date Oct' 92 Plate Al .. BORING NO. B -1 Logged By DB Date 10 -2 -92 Bev. Graph CS Soil Description D(ft) Sample (N) Blows ( %) ml Grass roadway Brown SILT with sand, very loose to loose, wet to saturated - r = 5 - - _ 10 _ - - _ 15 _ 20 I II: II:.::E::::::i• T 5 4 8 7 2 2 1 3 25 40 b 23 38 38 45 38 LL =32 PL =30 1: : •, .+ • sP Gray fine SAND, trace silt, loose, damp -with silt ....;.... ::t• • _.i�i = ... ::: � sm Gray silty fine SAND, very loose, waterbearing nth Gray SILT, very soft to soft, saturated ,, - _ 25 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 13.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis, and Judgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accopt responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information mourned on this lop. ,U +� 1 1, Earth Consultants Inc. ' �y�J cerH edu, kalFSx,+ roers .oeaoats,s&Emdmnmrnuntscka„tsas BORING LOG PROPOSED TACO BELL #06 -628 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5950 I Drwn. GLS 1 Data Oct' 92 Checked DB 1 Date 10 -12 -921 Plate A2 Logged Date BORING NO. By DB B -2 Bev. 10-2-92 Graph US Soil Description (Depth Sample lNl Blows R. W (%) ml Brown SILT with fine sand, loose, moist 6 10 12 WD =84.6 DD =74.5 -moist to wet 5 22 6 16 sm Gray brown silty fine SAND, loose, moist to saturated 6 29 ••!•'• 5 38 ,; ::• ::: 15 ii nth Gray elastic SILT, soft, saturated T 3 48 . Boring terminated at 19.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 13.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. Subsurtac* conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location ot this exploratory hole. modified by.rginMring tests. ansysls• and judgement. They are not necessarily reprswmalive of other times and locations. We cannot accopt responsibility tor the use or interpretation by others of information preserved on this log. e y� Earth Consultants Inc. • 11(44\ �� +, ` BORING LOG PROPOSED TACO BELL #06 -628 / il i :11 ceauhn�IEngineers Geologists & Environmental Scientists TUKWILA, WASHIGNTON Proj. No. 5950 l Drwn. GLS Date Oct' 92 Checked DB Date 10 -12 -92 1 Plate A3 Logged Date BORING NO. By DB B--3 Bev. 10 -2 -92 Graph US CS Soil Description (D Sample (N) Blows R. W ( %) ml Brown SILT, loose, moist _ 6 20 — 5 T 6 19 Boring terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered druing drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory tole, modified by engineering teats, analysis, and Judgement. They are not necessarily ,.presentative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility tor the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. i /�i� 411 � BORING LOG (4' �` e� 0�f Earth Consultants Inc. To/ iff uir1 Geotechniwi Engineers. GeologWsa Environmental ScientWs PROPOSED TACO BELL #06 -628 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5950 I Drwn. GLS Date Oct' 92 Checked SD I Date 10- 12 -92' plate A4 Logged Date BORING NO. By DB B-4, Elev, 10 -2 -92 Graph CS Soil Description D(ft) Sample (N) Blows ( %) ml Brown SILT with fine sand, loose, damp - grades to moist Gray silty fine SAND, loose, moist L' - - — 5 - T T T 7 6 6 9 17 19 Ism 4 Boring terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis, and judgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility tor the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 414,.. f „� ,�'I 1rfe ;1( /y y4 'art 1 Consultants Inc' ..._..�'r1/ t'��/ r�) GaacchnkalI 1gnw rs. Gnob}i�stsl4FSWronmenralSckmisLc BORING LOG #06-628 PROPOSED TUKWILA C WASHINGTON Proj No. 5950 ' Drwn. GLS I Date Oct' 92 Checked DB 1 Date 10 -12 -921 Plate AS 100 80 x 60 w z )- 40 5 20 A-Lin e CL-ML (141,k, 1=13 • 40 LIQUID LIMIT 60 80 100 Key Boring/ lest Pit Depth (ft) Soil Classification • USCS L.L. P.L. P1. Natural Water Content • B-1 2 Brown SILT with sand ML 32 30 2 Earth Consultants Inc. GeeleChnbeel Engineer& Geologists & Environmental Scientists Atterberg Limits Test Data PROPOSED TACO BELL #06-628 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5950 I Date Oct ' 92 Fate B1 _ Copy Copy Copies DISTRIBUTION E-5950 Taco Bell Corporation Civil Engineer, A &E Dept. 17901 Von Karmen Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 Taco Bell Corporation 597 Industry Drive Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Mike Randles Brown Connally Rowan Architects, Inc. 222 East 26th Street, Suite 106 Tacoma, Washington 98421 Attention: Mr. Rory Connally Earth Consultants, Inc. G B H HEATH & ASSOCIA Transportation and Civil Engineering (206) 752 -1206 TUKWILA TACO BELL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TUKWILA, WA PROJECT PROPONENT: Brown Connolly Rowan Architects 222 East 26th Street, Suite 106 Tacoma, WA 98421 NOVEMBER 1992 3302 Narrows Drive • Tacoma, Washington 98407 RECEIVED DEC 2 3 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TURWILA TACO SELL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TUKWILA, WA Introduction Project Description Existing Conditions Forecasted Traffic Demand and Analysis Conclusions and Mitigating Measures Appendix List of Tables 1. Existing 1992 Level of Service Without Project 2. Trip Generation 3. Future 1993 LOS With and Without Project List of Figures 1. Vicinity Map 2. Roadway System 3. Site Plan 4. 1992 Existing Street Volumes 5. 1992 Existing Street Volumes - PM Peak 6. Trip Distribution for Project Traffic 7. 1993 Future Street Volumes without project 8. 1993 Future Street Volumes without project 9. 1993 Future Street Volumes with project - Noon 10. 1993 Future Street Volumes with project - PM Peak - Noon - Noon - PM Peak 2. 2. 2. 9. 16. 6. 9. 10. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15: .�............�..__ :... TUKWILA TACO BELL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS I. Introduction PAGE 2 The purpose of this traffic study is to gather and develop a data base of current traffic operations on the street system serving the Tukwila Taco Bell. Based on these findings, assessments of likely future traffic conditions on the surrounding street system as well as the key intersections were made. Appropriate mitigating measures, if required, are then defined in order to counteract any impacts associated with this development to insure safe and efficient operation of traffic in the area. II. Proiect Description The project is defined as a single use project consisting of a 2,000 square feet Taco Bell fast food restaurant with associated parking. The total site area is approximately 1.1 acres. For traffic purposes the project is expected to be built and occupied by 1993. The project is located on the northeasterly corner of West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard in the city of Tukwila. All landscaping and parking requirements for this type of use would be met on -site. A single access to west Valley Highway and a single access to strander Boulevard is proposed. Figure 1 shows the project location and an overview of the surrounding street network. III. Existing Conditions A. Existing Street System 1. Strander Boulevard is a five lane roadway in very good condition. The road east of West Valley Highway dead -ends. The speed limit on this street is 25 mph. 2. west valley Highway is also a five lane roadway with a speed limit of 40 mph. Signalization of this street occurs at the main intersections. Figure 2 shows the street system adjacent to the proposed development. HEATH & ie4019talATES , Civil and lion Engineering Vicinity Map Figure 1 B ' SSnCM'ES as eaarpoFIIA. Roadway System � n i�ai Figure 2 IL URN LANM CXI STINr1 1/211 W.M. ItELOC.ATE TEL. FEOE0rA1 IF ACGE39 Tb Hwy. Is nibuiL r. Avow A RIGHT TURN ONLY E9s To NORTH PNOUND 101. EXI STI a. MAT 1 T O _ R N tom: • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • L4-1' L-1-1 1 ► 1 ICETA N EXIST: _ .... 0' 1S :8. • TREES i MAPLE �-- ��gg Exist U. Q. pow VAULT ,i4 ail IT-, � v 1L1►�p L4HT TO REMAIN (1) NORT1 b °KCAL E ® NiaNU E0P.g2 ® g oNa- © MONUMENT 51441,0 1%;ILA QQ LOT LIc I-IT L.'< Wv,- •/ l e AA °F o w= c Geolf �'A erivo AI ii i 1 0 MCI vrINCA Uk K•IN'TK•1504 • '11FAHant iejp001CtalitTES tion Englwarbg Site Plan Figure 3 . PAGE 6 B. Existing Street Volumes and Patterns All field data for this study was collected during October and November of 1992. Information from the City of Tukwila and WSDOT was also reviewed. Figure 3 represents counts taken during the noon peak hour. Figure 4 represents the PM peak hour count for several intersections that would be most impacted by traffic from the new Taco Bell. Accumulated during the counts is the truck percentage found in the traffic stream. The percentage presently occurring and used in the analysis is 4 percent. The peak hour information was then used to perform capacity computations in accordance with Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, commonly known as the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analysis is used to determine level of service (LOS). The methodology for determining the LOS at unsignalized intersections strives to determine the delay for vehicles desiring to move across conflicting traffic streams which have the right -of -way. The range for unsignalized intersection level of services is LOS 'A', indicating little or no delay, to Los 'E', indicating capacity. Capacity analysis for signalized intersections is also quantified by the same range of LOS 'A' to LOS 'E' reflecting individual driver delay at the intersection. LOS calculations were calculated through the use of NCAP, a software program, created by PSI. The following table shows the LOS presently existing at the intersection adjacent to the projects. TABLE 1 Existing 1992 LOS without Project Intersection Control Geometry 1992 strander /W Valley(Noon) signal All C Strander/W Valley(PM) Signal All B Traffic at the intersection operates adequately. Generally, LOS D or better represents an acceptable LOS for urban /suburban areas. 1 260 444.14,5 6b V- STRANDER BLVD S 180TH ST SW 43RD ST to S 21.4 -441 1sr t• ,ix- S19. 9 3 1992 Existing Street Volu es — Noon Figure 4 ntl +l1,ti G 1992 Existing Street Volumes - PM Peak 9HJ miinee ini Figure 5 PAGE 9 IV. Forecasted Traffic Demand and Analysis A. Trip Generation The trip generation data is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication, Trip Generation, Fifth Edition. The land use codes (LUC) most applicable to this development is LUC 834, Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through. The PM data is used as the design hour and applied to the street system in order to be used for future capacity analysis. In order to provide a worst case analysis the PM peak hour for the generator was used in the analysis for both the Noon peak hour counts and the PM peak hour counts. The AM counts were not used as this type of restaurant does not serve a large breakfast trade. Table 2 shows the trip generation expected for a typical Taco Bell of this size. The generation was accomplished through the use of Trip Generation, a software package created by MicroTrans. A major amount of the traffic volume associated with fast food restaurants are in the form of pass -by trips and diverted trips with only a minor amount of the project volume defined as primary trips. A pass -by trip is defined as a trip attracted to a particular development from the traffic "passing by" on the adjacent street. A second traffic volume element associated with fast food projects is the diverted trip which is a vehicle already on the traffic network which decides to divert to the project site from a neighboring roadway. In both cases the trip to and from the fast food restaurant is in some sense "spur of the moment" and convenience based. Pass -by trips and diverted trips for a fast food restaurant have been recently analyzed in the May ITE Journal article entitled "Refinement of Procedures Used for Estimating Pass -by Trip Percentages" and are estimated to total approximately 75 percent of the trips to a fast food restaurant. Because West Valley Highway is a dominant arterial in the area a higher portion of the 75 percent of the trips labeled pass - by /diverted would be pass -by rather than diverted. In order for trips to divert to a site good interconnecting corridors from nearby parallel arterials must generally be available. It should be noted pass -by reductions were assumed at outlying intersections but were not taken at the proposed driveway on West Valley Highway or the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Time Period LUC 834 Drive -In AWDT 1264 vpd PM Peak Inbound 61 vph PM Peak Outbound 59 vph PAGE 10 B. Trip Assignment and Distribution The destination and origination of this traffic influences the turning movements into and out of the project which in turn influences the LOS analysis. Once the trip allocation has been determined trip assignment and distribution of the future project traffic is applied to the road system. The trip distribution for the restaurant will be directed toward Strander and West Valley. Figure 6 shows the percentage distribution and also shows the intersection volumes for the various intersections receiving project traffic. C. Future Traffic Volumes With and Without the Project The applicable growth rate for background traffic in this area was assumed to be 4.5 percent as determined by WSDOT count information for SR -405 in the vicinity of the project. This growth rate was then applied to the 1992 counts shown in Figures 4 and 5 to determine the traffic expected in 1993 without the project built and occupied and is shown in Figures 7 and 8. The project trips are then added to the 1993 baseline trips to determine the traffic expected with the project. These counts are compiled in Figures 9 and 10. An analysis was made of the primary intersections serving the area in order to determine the percentage of additional 1993 traffic attributable to the new Taco Bell project based on pass -by trip reductions at the outlying intersections. The only intersection affected greater than 0.6 percent by the new Taco Bell project is the intersection of strander Boulevard and west Valley Highway. This intersection increase by approximately three percent during both the noon and PM peak hours. Because the remaining intersections are anticipated to be only nominally affected by the new Taco Bell, Los analysis was not performed. A change of even 0.6 percent would be considered within the daily variation at any given intersection and would this amount of traffic would not be noticeable as to the effect on an intersection. D. Future 1993 LoS With and Without the Project The following table outlines the expected LOS based on several scenarios. TABLE 3 Future 1993 LOS With and Without Project Intersection Strander /W Valley(Noon) Strander /W Valley(PM) Proj Ent /W Valley(Noon) Proj Ent /W Valley(Noon) Control Geom. signal All signal All stop All Stop All 1992 1993 1993 w/proi c c c B B C A A4:::. :f?a`:�5 W..tc:d4]a"'"IiCS.fhl�.'•'��F, iF:,'W :ti.i:V':rrL;Cru R:v\FS- rft +sn.+-.a<az e.- c:xM1xx.- �+.x,..yy�•...v: rn_ i Trip Distribution for Project Traffic 1 T✓� STRANDER BLVD S 180TH ST 510 alo 41 444 .40, 4.441 f • rri 441. VaS 91 SW 43RD ST 1993 Future Street Volumes without the Project - Noon HEATH 19TES GY�� flora Figure 7 G 1993 Future Street Volumes without' Project — PM Peak Figure 8 1993 Future Street Volumes with Project - Noon 1993 Future Street Volumes with. Project - Pm Peak PAGE 16 As the above analysis shows the LOS is unchanged with the addition of project traffic with the exception of a reduction to LOS C from LOS B for the intersection of west valley Highway and strander Boulevard. V. Conclusions and Mitigating Measures The construction of this project is expected to add approximately 1264 additional vehicle trips to the roads in this area. The expected increase during the noon and pm peak hours are expected to be approximately 120 vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the project decreasing via pass -by reduction to approximately 60 total vehicle trips at the outlying intersections. The LOS at the adjacent intersection of West Valley Highway and strander Boulevard is acceptable with the project constructed and fully occupied. Given the full signalization available at the adjacent intersection and the full roadway improvements adjacent to the site no mitigating measures are recommended for the proposed Taco Bell project. FAME 17. TUXWILA TACO BELL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS APPENDIX TURIRLA Th00 S1LL P01MAR! a SN=P 411118RAIROM CALJULA?nON FOR 2 TI.CR.IQ.lT. OF FASTP00D - DRIVE '1710 11/92 DRIVB AVSRAGB STANDAID ADJUSTMENT WAY EATS DIVIATION !ACTOR VOLUl01 AVG MID? 2 -OAT VOL 632.12 266.21 1.00 1264 7 4 AM PI B1 INT7R 28.34 0.00 1.00 57 7 -9 AM PR MR BRIT 27.22 0.00 1.00 54 7 -9 AM PR 51 TOTAL 55.56 27.24 1.00 111 4 -6 PM PR B1 INTER 19.00 0.00 1.00 36 4 -6 PM PR BR BRIT 17.53 0.00 1.00 35 4 -6 PM PR BR TOTAL 36.53 20.64 1.00 73 AM GUM PR BR !NM 30.65 0.00 1.00 61 AM GSM PI BR BRIT 29.44 0.00 1.00 59 AN 0211 PR B1 TOTAL 60.09 25.90 1.00 120 PM GSM PR B1 SNTSR 36.55 0.00 1.00 73 PM G11 PR MR BRIT 9.71 0.00 1.00 19 PM GSM PR B1 TOTAL 46.26 26.91 1.00 93 SATURDAY 2 -11AT VOL 686.04 330.12 1.00 1372 PR BR INTER 28.08 0.00 1.00 56 PR BR EXIT 27.75 0.00 1.00 55 PR BR TOTAL 56.63 25.10 1.00 113 SUNDAY 2 -MAT VOL 515.67 224.27 1.00 1031 PR BR ENTER 32.68 0.00 1.00 65 PR BR BRIT 35.40 0.00 1.00 71 PR MR TOTAL 68.08 12.06 1.00 136 Notes A sere rate indicates no rate data available Sources Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991. TRIP GENIMAT2ON BT MICROTRANS INPUT WORKSHEET IntersectionsWEET VALLEY /NTRANDER AnalystiflATE Tia.P.riod Aniysds$0011 Project No., City /Stats.TURWIL►, WA Dates1992 Area Type* CBD !Mhos VOLUME AND GEONETRICS (N) 111 NORTE IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Voluse• 2.Lanes,lans widths (1235) SD TOTAL 1 1 1 < v > 583 608 44 WEST VALLEY N/S ST. 1 2 1 I 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 RT TN LT < I > 1- 12.0' -LT - - -" 1- 12.0'- LTE - - "> 1- 12.0,- RT - - -v 3.Movsssnts by lane " 449 4.Parkinq locations - S.Day storg. Ingths ( 795) -> 5 6.Islands WS TOTAL - 7.Sus stops v 341 TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS 38 " 40. <- ( 127) -WD TOTAL 49 v "--- RT- 12.0, -1 <v-- LTH- 12.0' -1 w w < I > LT TN RTE 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 I 1 1 1 STRANDER E/W STREET 553 286 <"> 11 ( 850) N/D TOTAL Ap Grd. 9 NV Pr (1) Adj.Pkg.Lans Y/N Ns Duos (Ib) PEP Cni.Psd (pd /hr) P.dstrn Button Arr. Y/N Mn.Tias Type ES +0.0 2.0 WS +0.0 2.0 NE +0.0 2.0 SD +0.0 2.0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 O 0 N 21 3 N 21 3 N 12 3 N 12 3 Grader +up, -down Nbsbuses .topping /hr Min.Tisings sin.gresn for HVrveh. > 4 whl. PEFrp.ak -hour factor pedestrian crossing Nmspkg..neuver. /hr Cnf.Peds,Cnflctng pads /hr Arr.Types Type 1 -5 PHASING D I A G R A M • • • o <0000 • • v • • ••> <•• • • v OR • • • • v ••> • • Tim- ing G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 C. 0.0 Y +R. 2 C. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 0. 0.0 Y +R. 0 G. 0.0 1 +R. 0 Ptsd /Actl A A A A A A Protected turns. " 0000" I Permitted turnss +++ +" I Cycle Length 0 Sec NEATE 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI Intersectiontll$T VALL1Y /STRANDS* Date11992 Analyst.5IATE TiaePeriod AnlysdsNOON Area Types COD =that Project No. City /StatesTUENILA, NA VOLUM' ADJUS11DlNT NORESENT 1 Appr. 2 lht. 3 Not. Volume (vph) 4 5 Peak Plow Sour Rate Factor Vp PRP 3/4 6 Lane Group 7 S Flw rt Number in Ln of Grp Vg Lanes (vph) N 9 Lane Utilis Patrol, Tb 9 -6 10 11 Adj. Prop. now of V,vph LT or RT 7 x 9 Pit , Prt LT 669 0.90 499 0.56 LT ES TN 5 0.90 6 F 1106 3 1.10 972 • RT 341 0.90 379 0.43 RT LT 4$ 0.90 54 0.39 LT NS TN 40 0.90 44 F 140 2 1.05 147 • RT 30 0.90 42 0.30 RT LT 206 0.90 310 A 316 1 1.00 310 1.00 LT NS TN 553 0.90 614 0 626 2 1.05 657 • RT 11 0.90 12 0.02 RT LT 44 0.90 69 A 49 1 1.00 49 1.00 LT SS TN 606 0.90 676 0 1324 3 1.10 1456 • RT 503 0.90 640 0.49 RT LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• . PROTCTD, +++ . PERMTTD, 0119 is PROTCTD 6 PERMTTD) A • F • 0 • • • • v • MATS i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, VA, using NCAP by PS! .,...�...... ..........,..,...._.,.. .._...._.............,..-_.,,.,.... .._...............+,,.,..,..+.. .. ,..,..�,+....,,,, Int.r..ctionsflST VALUE/STRUM Dateilf92 . AnalystsNEATE Tioieriod Aniysdt$005 Area Types CBD XOth.r Project No. City /$tate.TURNZLA, NA amiss ew••w••••n•N SM. MM. ssM. .••N.w••.n...O.s..sOs.O..s000OO OOOOaaa.sss. SATURATION PLOW ADJUSTMENT NORRSNEET 5 6 7 4 f 10 11 12 Ln.N. NvyV.h Grade Pkg. EusBtk Ar.aTp Rt Trn Lt Trn Tv PM Pg Pp Pbb Pa Prt Pit LANE GROUP 1 2 Ap My 3 Ideal Sat. Plow pcphgp 4 No. of Las N T.9 -5 T.9 -6 T.9 -7 T.9 -8 T.9 -9 EA P 1800 N8 P 1800 3 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 T.9 -10 T.9 -11 T.9 -12 13 Adjsat PiwRt s (?Phg) 1.000 0.936 0.973 4865 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.955 0.981 3339 A 1800 1 N8 0 1800 2 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.997 1.000 3554 A 1800 1 NB 0 1800 3 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.927 1.000 4954 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• - PROTCTD, +++ • PERMTTD, 044 • PROTCTD i PERMTTD) A ° P w • • •••• f•••> • v 0 •f ff� • • NEATN 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, NA, using NCAP by PSI Int.rsactiontNl.T VALLIT /.TRAND1R Datatlff2 AnalyatIERATI Timensiod AnlyadsPOON Area Types CVO XOth.r Proj.ct No. City /Atat.ITURMILA, NA MN OS IUPPL=IOi1ITAL WOMEN= FOR LEPT -TURN ADJU.TIRNT FACTOR, fLT INPUT VARIA.Lis /CONMPATIONS Cycle Length, C (sec) Iffective Green, g (s.c) N uab.r of Lams, N Total Approach Plow Rat., Va(vph) Mainline' Flow Rat., Vla (vph) Left -Turn Plow Rat., Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, Plt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Plow Rate, Vo (vph) P rep. of LT in Opp. Vol. Plto S op - 1.00No /(1 +P1t0((400 +Vm).tc. To - Vo/lop Go - (9-CTo) /(1 -To) Ps - (1175- O..2SVo) /1000 PI . Plt(1 +(N- 1)9 /(PsOn +4.5)) Gq -9 -Gu Pt 1 •P1 Of - 2Pt(1- Pt "(.5Gq)) /P1 11 - 1.00 /(1400 -Vo) Pm - Gf /g + &R/9 • (1 /(1+P1 etc. Plt - (Pm + N - 1)/1 ID Na Na A. !RAT/ i AA.00IATU, Tacoma, NA, using NCAP by PAX IntersectiontWIST IRLLIT /STRAMDIR Analyst,UXATI Tia.Paricd Anlysd,110011 Area Types CED xOther Project NO. City /ltatesTURMILA, MA Datet1992 CAPACIT! ANALYSIS MORJIMIIT LAME OROOP 1 2 Appr. *nut. II P MS ! A Ma 0 A SS 0 3 Adjusted Plow Rate • (vph) 4 Ad.lat P1w.Rt • (vphg) 5 Plow Ratio v/• 3/4 6 Omen Ratio g/C 7 6 9 Ln.Orp v/C Crit. Capac. Ratio 7 o,vph X Lana 4x6 3/7 Group 972 - 4965 0.200 0.210 1023 0.950 147 - 3339 0.044 0.046 319 - 657 - 1693 3554 0.169 0.195 0.199 0.477 49 - 1456 - 1693 4954 0.029 0.294 0.030 0.309 155 0.950 335 0.950 1494 0.365 52 0.950 1533 0.950 •. • • • • •• • Cyol. Length. 31.Sa.c, Lost Tile /Cycle,L. 7.5.ac, S(v /•)oi. 0.726, Xc.0.930 LAMS GROUP DIAORAMi -(••• . PROTCTD, +++ • PIRlf1TD, 606 . PROTCTD 6 PERMTTD) A " • ! " • • • 0 • • EEATE 4 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, MA, using SCAP by PSI ._._ _. �......... «..,.,....,..+,..... Int.rsectionsWllT VALLST /STRAMDSR AnalyatiUSAT1 Tif.Period AnlyidtP0011 Area Types C!D XOth.r Project Po. City / /tat.,TUUMILA, MA Date$1952 LAMS GROUP 1 2 Ap My LPVIL- OP- IzRVIC= MORSSRmST Second Tern Delay s 7 1 9 10 Cycle Delay Lane Delay Prgr.n Length dl Group d2 Factor C a.c /veh Cap,c a.c /v.h PP (sea) (vph) T.9 -13 Pir.t Term Delay 3 v/c Ratio X 4 Green Ratio q/C SS P 0.950 0.210 Lane Op Delay ..o /v.h (6+1)1! Tot.D.l.y_i LO1 11 Ln Op LOS 5 -1 12 13 Apprch Delay ..a /v.h Apr LOS Tb1 5 -1 31.1 9.40 1023 12.76 0.15 M1 P 0.950 0.046 31.1 11.45 155 41.75 0.15 A 0.950 0.111 M/ 0 0.311 0.477 31.1 31.1 9.56 4.05 335 1494 26.37 0.01 1.00 0.15 A 0.950 0.030 11 0 0.950 0.309 31.1 31.1 11.61 1.15 52 1533 77.31 9.59 1.00 0.15 11.14 C 18.54 C 45.24 E 45.24 S 35.93 D 3.51 A 14.09 1 11.99 P 15.01 C 17.49 C Intersection Delay 11.06 ..o /veh, Intersection LOS C Table 9.1 LAMS GROUP DIAGRAM• -(11• - PROTCTD, +++ - PSRMTTD, 111 • PROTCTD 4 PERMTTD) A • 1111 P • • • v 0 • V ESATE 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, MA, using MCAP by PSI INPUT NORXSEEET Int.r6.ation,NSET VALLNT /STRANDUR Analy.ttREATN Tia.Period Anly.dsN00N Project No. City /$tat.ITUZNILA, NA Dat.,1996 N /OVT Area Types C5D XOth.r VOLUME AND GNOMETRICs 111 NORTH IDENTIPT IN DIAGRAM 1. Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths NUT VALLET N/s ST. (1260, SS TOTAL 1 1 ( < • > 609 635 46 40 " 1 2 1 - I 12.0 I 42 <- ( 1331 12.0 I 12.0 -NS TOTAL RT TR LT 51 v < I > • "--- RT- 12.09 -1 v - -LTN- 12.0. -1 1- 12.00- LT - - -" 1- 12.0- LTN - - "> 1- 12.0'- RT - - -• 3.Moveasnts by lane " 669 6.Parking location. - 5.Ray stomp ingtbs ( 11301 -s 5 6.Ieland& 1/11 TOTAL - 7.11us stops v 356 TRAFFIC AND ROADNAT CONDITIONS < I LT TE RTN 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 I 1 1 1 STRANDER E/N STREET 576 299 <"> 11 ( SSR] N/S TOTAL Ap Ord. % NV pr (6) Adj.Pkg.Lan. T/M Na Ruses (Mb) PNF Cnf.P.d (pd /hr) P.dstrn Sutton Arr. T/M Mn.Tiae Type ES +0.0 2.0 NS +0.0 2.0 NS +0.0 2.0 SE +0.0 2.0 N M N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 N 21 3 N 21 3 M 12 3 N 12 3 Grades +up, -down Nbsbuses stopping /hr Min.Tiaings ain.green for N•r•eh. > 4 vhls PNFIpeak -hour factor pedestrian crossing Na,pkg.maneuvers /hr Cnf.PedsvCnflatng pads /hr Arr.Type, Type 1 -5 PHASING D I A 0 R A M • o <0000 • • • • • ••> <•• • OR • • • pr • w • • Tie- ing 0. 0.0 T +R. 2 0. 0.0 T +R. 2 0. 0.0 T +R. 2 GU 0.0 T +R. 2 0. 0.0 T +R. 2 G. 0.0 T +R. 2 0. 0.0 T +R. 0 G. 0.0 T +R. 0 Ptad /Act l A A A A A A Protected turnss ••••" moo" I Permitted turnss ++++" I Cycle Length 0 Sec RUTS i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, NA, using NCAP by PSI IntersectlontWEST VALLET /STRANDNR Dates1554 N /ouT AnalystelIATO TlasPeriod AnlysdiNOON Area Types CM EOther Project No. City /StatesTORMILA, NA ... H... HHH.. N. H.. HH.. M... H... H .........H..H...H.H.....H...... VOLUNR ADJUSTMENT MORRSIEET ....HH.... H....... MOOMOIROVUOIRMIOMM 1 Appr. HH. ss 2 M&t. LT TR RT 3 Mvt. Volume (ph) 665 5 356 4 Peak Pour Factor PIP .H.n 0.50 0.50 0.50 5 Flow Rate Vp 3/4 HHH 521 6 356 6 Lane Group ...•. P 7 Plw rt in Ln Orp Vg (,ph) HH.. 523 8 Number of meanLanes N 3 10 Lane Adj. Utilis Plow Patr,U V,vph Tb 5 -6 7 x .H... 1.10 MS LT Ts RT 51 42 40 0.50 0.50 0.50. 57 47 44 P 148 2 1.05 • HH.. 1015 155 NS LT TR RT 255 57. 11 0.50 0.50 0.50 332 642 12 A 0 332 654 1 2 1.00 1.05 332 667 OS LT TR RT 46 635 605 0.50 0.50 0.50 51 706 677 A 0 51 1353 3 1.00 1.10 51 1521 11 Prop. of LT or RT Plt , Prt .H. 0.56 LT • 0.43 RT 0.35 LT • 0.30 RT 1.00 LT • 0.02 RT 1.00 LT • 0.45 RT LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(f•• . PROTCTD, +++ . PERMTTD, 555 • PROTCTD 6 PERMTTD3 A • P • • v 0 • • !RATA 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, NA, using NCAP by PSI IntersectioneNlNT VALLNT /STRANDER Date:1114 N /OUT MalyetSNNATN Ti*a5ariod AnlysdiPOON Area Types CAD Bother Projaet No. City /StatasT03(NILA, NA m MMMMMMMeaaOWOaaeO SATURATION PLOW ADJUSTMENT WORRSNEET LANE 3 4 GROUP Ideal No. Sat. of 1 2 Plow Los Ap NV pcphgp N OW WO ffnn.. 0. ES P 1800 3 5 Ln.W. Pw 6 NryVeh Phv 7 Grade Pg S Pkg. Pp 9 Swank nk Pbb 10 AreaTp Pa T.9 -S IWWWWOU 1.000 T.9 -6 T.9 -7 7.9 T.9 -9 T.9 -10 11 12 13 Rt Trn Lt Trn Adjiat Art Pit P1wwRt s T.9 -11 T.9 -12 (rphg) 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.936 0.973 4865 NS 1800 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.955 0.981 3341 NS A O 1800 1800 1 2 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.997 1.000 3554 as A 0 1800 1800 1 3 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.927 1.000 4953 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• . PROTCTD, 4++ • PERMrD, 066 - PROTCTD i PERMTT03 A • P w • • • 0 • NUTT i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI .._,.,... �a. e.. r« ae.. ..uw..wesv«sa`eaw+r ^..::a:a�ticY ze tl��' uan. ri. m:. rnmeabmmsv,•+ cwtraw�w.. ,.w..+nw...,�a «er...aw�+.�.�..• W ...r.«..a�,.....,....r.. IntorsectiontflST VALLST /STRANDER Datet1fl4 W/OUT AnalystuEEATE TinsPeriod AnlysdtNOON Area Types CAD 'Other Project No. City /0tateiTUEWILA, NA - --N- -- N--- N- N--- N------- N-NA-- N-- N--- ----NN SUPPLEMENTAL NORRSEEET FOR IivT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, fLT INPUT VARIAALSS /COMPUTATIONS Cycle Length, C (sec) Effective Green, it (sec) Somber of Lanes, N Total Approach Plow Rate, Va(vph) Mainline Plow Rate, VI (vph) Loft -Torn now Rate, VIA (vph) Proportion of ilt, Plt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Plow Rate, Ve (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Plto sop - 1S00No /(1+91to((400 +VU)etc. To - Ve /lop Oa - (q- CTO) /(1 -Yo) Ps - (S75- 0.42SVo) /1000 P1 - Plt(1 +(N- 1)g /(F.Ou +1.5)) Oq -9 -.Oa Pt -1 -P1 Of - Pt "(.50q)) /P1 E l - 1000 /(1400 -V0) Fe - Of /q + Oe/q • (1 /(1 +P1 eta. Flt - (Fa +N- 1) /N IS Ns NA SS EAATN i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, NA, using RCAF by PSI Intersection *WZST BALM/STRUM AnalysteNSATS TL SPariod AnlyadsWOON Area Types CBD )(Other Project No. City /StatesTUXVILA, WA Dat.s19114 N /OUT CAPACITY ANALYSIS NORXSSSST LANs GROUP 1 2 Appr. Neat. Ns P WS P A 113 0 A BB 0 3 Adjusted Plow Rat. • (vph) 4 Ad.sat Plw.Rt (vphg) 5 Plan Ratio v/s 3/4 4 Green Ratio g/C 7 Ln.Grp Capin. c,vph 4x4 1015 - 4545 0.209 0.220 1061 155 - 3341 0.046 0.049 143 332 - 617 - 1493 3554 0.196 0.193 0.204 0.493 349 1770 51 - 1521 - 1493 4933 0.030 0.307 0.032 0.323 54 1601 s v/C Crit. Ratio 7 X Lan. 3/7 Group 0.950 ••• 0.850 ••• 0.950 ••• 0.311 - 0.950 - 0.950 ••• Cycle Length.. 37.2sec, Lost Tias /Cycls,L. 7.5sec, S(v /s)ci. 0.751, Xc.0.950 LANs GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• • PROTCTD, +++ . PURNTTD, /q - PROTCTD 6 PXRMETDJ A • • 1111 P • 0 • ••••� ••••> • • • • BEATS 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI w.7.rn1,-. taw. ft: f�faNUf 'H,7.1.14,03VAI»W:4,....1211n17 dtuw wre.i neia. Intersection :MIST VALL3T /fTRAMDIR Date:1554 X /o0T AealystsUAT! Tia.Period Anlytd:1100a Area Typsi CID XOthes Project Mo. City /Itate:TDRMILA, MA .. ■. m LIVIL- 07- IIRVICI MORXSIIlT Pirst Term Delay second Term Delay Tot.Delay_& LOS LAMI 3 4 S 6 7 S 8 10 11 12 GROUP •/c Green Cycle Delay Lane Delay Prgren Lane Gp Ln Apprch Ratio Ratio Length dl Group d2 Factor Delay Op Delay 1 2 X g/C C see /•eh Cap,o sec /•eh PP sec /•eh LOS sea /•eh Ap M► (sec) (aph) T.9 -13 (6 +8)•9 9 -1 11 P 0.850 0.220 37.2 10.84 1061 12.35 0.85 19.76 C 19.76 C WI P 0.950 0.048 37.2 13.38 163 40.48 0.85 45.80 3 45.80 X A 0.850 0.206 37.2 11.06 349 25.48 1.00 36.74 D MS 0 0.388 0.488 37.2 4.41 1770 0.07 0.85 3.81 A 14.54 S A 0.950 0.032 37.2 13.65 54 75.64 1.00 89.25 1 S S 0 0.850 0.323 37.2 9.33 1601 9.29 0.85 15.83 c 18.21 C Intersection Delay 18.77 sea /•eh, Intersection LOS C Table 9.1 LAM! GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• - PROTCTD, +44 ■ PIAMTTD, 599 ■ PROTCTD 6 PERNITD) 13 Apr Los Tb1 9 -1 A _ P w O • • •••• ••••> •••p • • • • BEATS 6 AJIOCIATIS, Tacoma, MA, using MCAP by PSI INPUT WONRSIBET InterseotieniNflT VALLtT /ST7NMDI* AnalystiUXATE TiaePsriod AnlysdaNOON Project we. City /DtateeTUEWZLA, WA lemur VOLUME AND =METRICS WEST VALLEY (8) 111 NORTH IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Voluaea 2.Lanes,lanu widths (1309] SS TOTAL 1 1 I < • > 609 635 64 Datelllle NITS Area Types CBD XOthsr 1 2 1 I 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 RT TN LT < 1 • 1- 12.0' -LT - - -" 1- 12.0'- LTE - - "> 1- 12.00- RT - - -v 3.Movsaents by lane " 46P 4.Parking locations - S.Bay storge ingths ( 949 ] -> 24 i.I•land• X/B TOTAL - 7.Bus steps • 356 TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS 8/8 ST. 52 " 60 <- ( 190] -WS TOTAL it • "--- RT- 12.0' -1 n-- LTH- 12.00 -1 < I LT TN RTE 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 I 1 1 1 • STRANDER X/N STREET 578 299 <"> 25 ( 902] 8/3 TOTAL Ap Ord. t EV pr (t) Adj.Pkg.Lans Y/N Na Suss (Mb) PEP Cnf.Psd (pd /hr) Pedstrn Button Arr. Y/N Mn.Tiae Type XS +0.0 2.0 WS +0.0 2.0 NS +0.0 2.0 SS +0.0 2.0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 8 21 3 N 21 3 N 12 3 N 12 3 Grader +up, -dam Nbibuses •topping /hr Min.Tiaingt ain.grssn for NVtveh. > 4 whls PHFspeak -hour factor pedestrian crossing Waspkg.aaneuvers /hr Cnf.PsdstCnflatng pads /hr Arr.Typst Type 1 -5 PHASING D • I A • G v R A M o <0000 • • • • • ••> <•• • • G. • • • OR A • • • • <•• • • • Tie- ing G. 2.8 T +R. 2 0. 9.3 T +R- 2 1.8 Y +R- 2 G. 0.0 T +R. 2 0- 4.9 Y+A. 2 G.13.5 2+R- 2 G. 0.0 2 +R. 0 O. 0.0 Ptad /Actl A A A A A A Protected tercel came I Permitted turns +++ +" I Cycle Length 42 Dec HATE i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI ... ....+ ..... a.,., a« .e..w-,....,.,.ren VA,M vn:;.nwix:1,31,4.eaw., Mt, CrowsumMWowwz.xo..muu.. mmatn. mmoomemMotw...rmt. Int.rs.ctiontNElT VALL1! /STPANDER Dat.t1114 NIT/ AnalystsNSATI TLa.P.riid Anlyid NOON Area Types C$D Lothar PrO.,I N.. City/states LA, WA MOUWOMPOSSIMPOOSIOMO VoLUMR ADJUSTIDIT • RUT 1 Appr• 2 Mvt. 3 Mvt. Volume (vph) 4 Peak Nour !actor PE! 5 Flow Rat. Vp 3/4 6 Lan. Group RD LT TR RT 469 24 356 0.10 0.90 0.90 321 27 396 9 ND LT TR RT 66 60 52 0.90 0.90 0.90 76 67 56 R6 LT TR RT 291 576 25 0.90 0.90 0.10 332 642 26 A 0 13 LT TR RT 64 635 601 0.90 0.10 0.90 71 706 677 A 0 rt Ln Vg h) 6 Number of Lana N 944 3 ■ f Lan. Utilia lctr,0 Tb 9 -4 10 Adj. Flow V,vph 7x 11 Prop. Of LT or RT Plt , Prt .1.10 1036 0.53 LT • 0.42 RT 201 2 1.05 211 0.36 LT • 0.29 RT 332 670 1 2 1.00 1.05 332 703 1.00 LT • 0.04 RT 71 363 1 3 1.00 1.10 . 71 1521 1.00 LT • 0.49 RT LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• • PROTCTD, +++ • PRRMTTD, 606 • PROTCTD a PRRMTTO) A ! • •••• •••y • O • v ,1 LARIATS a AS6ocIATRf 'Ua.atsa, ', using SCAP by PSI ,,, _ ._. ... ....+..• urw. .r..«ssn.'F »....�uitif:G:i'rY�i iii Li[lws:i:.b']?L ( lF.J : f.SVi �.. fXfW.h+. C: C: rr, ti3.. Y. :.thkY+t.c[uhJM.t�alYlk +n[.? XnV44lSY'n.�4ti4Y . tM_ n.' M1+ SI JJa` itiM1, 4. 401..nnr. w.2.iknnlin »Yn0.h.,,,,rifU,.N1WbNK... ...n<..v..:.u. Interseotion *WEST VALLEY /STRANDER Dates1994 WITH AnalysttfEATE TimePeriod AnlysdsNOON Area Type: CBD XOther Project No. City /StatesTUXWILA, WA SATURATION PLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET LANE GROUP 1 Ap 2 My 3 Ideal Sat. Flow pcphgp 4 No. of Lns 5 Ln.W. Pw 6 EvyVeh Phv 7 Grade Fg 8 Pkg. Pp 9 BusBlk Pbb 10 AreaTp Fa 11 Rt Trn Frt 12 Lt Trn Flt T.9 -5 T.9 -6 T.9 -7 T.9 -8 T.9 -9 T.9 -10 T.9 -11 T.9 -12 13 AdjSat P1wRt 8 (vphg) EB F 1800 WB P 1800 A 1800. NB 0 1800 A 1800 SE 0 1800 3 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.937 0.973 4875 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.957 0.981 3346 1 2 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.994 1.000 3542 1 3 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.927 1.000 4953 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• • PROTCTD, +++ . PERMTTD, iii - PROTCTD i PERMTTDJ A " F " • • •••• ••ry • v 0 V HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by P8I InteraectionsNEBT VALLEY /STRANDER AnalyatsflATI Tia.Pariod Anlyad;MOON Area Types CID XOther Project No. City /StateSTURNILA, NA Dates1994 NITS SUPPLEMENTAL NOREBSEET FOR LEPT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, fLT INPUT VARIABLES /COMPUTATIONS Cycle Length, C (sac) Effective Green, g (mac) Number of Lanes, N Total Approach Plow Rate, Va(vph) Mainline Flow Rate, V1m (vph) Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, Plt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Plow Rate, Vo (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Plto Sop - 1800No /(1 +P1to((400 +VV)etc. Yo - Vo /Sop Gu - (g- CYo) /(1 -Yo) Fs - (87S- 0.625Vo) /1000 P1 - Plt(1 +(N- 1)g /(PsOu +4.5)] Gq -g - .Gu Pt -1 -P1 Gf - 2Pt(1- Pt "(.5Gq)) /P1 E1 - 1800 /(1400 -Vo) Pm - Gf /g + Gu /g • (1 /(1 +P1 etc. Fit - (Pa + N - 1) /N Ep NB NB BB REATE i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, NA, using MCAP by PSI .���... .�. IntersectioniWEST VALLEY /STRANDER Dates1994 NITS AnalystsBEATE Tis.Period AnlyadsNOON Area Types CBD XOther Project No. City /StatesTURNILA, NA CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LANE GROUP 1 Appr. 2 Nest. 3 Adjusted Flow Rate v (vph) 4 Ad.Sat Plw.Rt • (vphg) 5 Flow Ratio v/■ 3/4 6 Green Ratio g / C EB 1038 - 4875 0.213 0.224 F 211 - 3346 0.063 0.066 NB A 0 332 - 703 - 1693 3542 0.196 0.198 0.206 0.486 SE A 0 71 - 1521 - 1693 4953 0.042 0.307 0.044 0.323 7 8 9 Ln.Grp v/C Crit. Capac. Ratio 2 c,vph X Lane 4x6 3/7 Group 1093 0.950 + ++ 222 0.950 ••• 349 0.950 ••• 1719 0.409 - 75 0.950 - 1601 0.950 ••• Cycle Length. 41.7sec, Lost Tine /Cycl.,L. 7.5sec, 8(v /s)ci. 0.779, Xc.0.950 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• - PROTCTD, +++ - PERNTTD, /// - PROTCTD li PERNTTD) • fff• +ff•> • V HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI .... Intersection:WEST VALLEY /STRANDER AnalystINIATE TiMOPeriod Anly.diNOON Project No. city /ttatetTULM1LA, NA Date :1994 MITE Area Types CID XOthor LEVEL -OF- SERVICE WORKSHEET _ First Term Delay Second Term Delay Tot Delay _& LAS LANE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GROUP v/c Green Cycle Delay Lane Delay Prgren Lane Gp Ln Apprch Apr Ratio Ratio Length dl Group d2 Factor Delay Gp Delay LOS 1 2 X g/C C sec /veh Cap,c sec /veh PF sec /veh LOS sec /veh Tbl Ap My (sec) (vph) T.9 -13 (6 +8) +9 9 -1 9 -1 ES F 0.950 0.224 41.7 12.12 1093 12.20 0.85 NB r 0.950 0.066 41.7 14.74 222 33.78 0.85 A 0.950 0.206 NE 0 0.409 0.486 41.7 41.7 12.41 5.23 349 1719 25.68 0.09 1.00 0.85 A 0.950 0.044 8E 0 0.950 0.323 41.7 41.7 15.11 10.47 75 1601 63.04 9.29 1.00 0.85 20.67 C 20.67 C 41.24 E 41.24 E 38.09 D 4.53 A 15.29 C 78.15 F 16.80 C 19.54 C Intersection Delay 19.89 sec /veh, Intersection LOS C Table 9.1 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(+++ . PROTCTD, +++ • PERMTTD, 999 • PROTCTD & PERMTTD] A " • •••• • T " • ••••> • v 0 ***f> • v HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI \ : IntersectionsWEST VALLEY/STRANDER Dates1992 AnalyettHERTH TimePoriod AnlysdsPN Area Types CSD XOther Project No. City/StatesTUKWILA, WA VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET 1 Appr. 2 Mvt. 3 Mvt. Volume (vph) 4 5 Peak Plow Hour Rate Factor Vp PHF 3/4 6 Lane Group 7 8 Fly rt Number in Ln of Grp Vg Lanes (vph) N 9 Lane Utilis Fctr,U Tb 9-4 10 11 Adj. Prop. Flow of V,vph LT or RT 7 x 9 Pit , Prt ED LT TN RT 458 11 49 0.90 0.90 0.90 509 12 54 575 3 1.10 0.89 LT 633 • 0.09 RT LT TH RT 13 e 18 0.90 0.90 0.90 14 9 20 43 2 1.05 0.33 LT 45 • 0.47 RT NE LT TE RT 236 1046 2 0.90 0:90 0.90 262 1162 2 A 262 1164 1 2 1.00 1.05 262 1.00 LT 1222 • 0.00 RT SS LT TN RT 11 805 398 0.90 0.90 0.90 12 894 442 A 12 1336 1 3 1.00 1.10 12 1.00 LT 1470 • 0.33 RT LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-(*** PROTCTD, +++ a PERMTTD, • PROTCTD & PERMTTDI A " • •••• F " • v • v HEATH & ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI . �. ..... ........... ar.+ ran.. n.... VARMW 2Pa<0,M!iRD✓1W..,?T16NYWN:M116 .WiWV4W11177, M.+: 2m�` Yw "a�N•.ft�3YY.at0.M..awtM..nMow Yr1 IntersectiontNEST VALLEY /STRANDER Date:1992 AnelystsfEATE Tia.Period AnlysdsPM Area Type: CBD XOther Project No. City /State:TUXN /LA, NA SUPPLEMENTAL NORRSEEET FOR LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT ?ACTOR, fLT INPUT_ VARIABLES /COMPUTATIONS Cycle Length, C (sec) Effective Green, g (sec) Number of Lanes, N Total Approach ?low Rate, Va(vph) Mainline ?low Rate, Vm (vph) Left -Turn ?low Rate, Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, Plt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing ?low Rate, Vo (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Pito Sop - 1800No /(1 +Plto((600 +Va)etc. Yo - Vo /Sop Gu - (g- CYo) /(1 -Yo) Fs • (876- 0.625Vo) /1000 P1 - Plt(1+(N- 1)g /(FeGu +4.5)) Gq -g - Gu Pt 1 - P1 Gf • 2Pt(1- Pt ^(.SGq)) /P1 E1 - 1800 /(1400 -Vo) Fa • Gf /g + Gu /g • (1 /(1 +Pl etc. Flt - (Fa + N - 1) /N EB NB NB SB BEATS i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI v51.RVnIfilnVriipV SF�CtY rkAtM'.'�RwMtRF_WhYR.SneaewM4� M1r,..., r- u:xr.- ?sties✓ri"trrn•.::aal aalx.»:10u.L•.:s' u.10•41. lY.b4'?ifiilPJ�. GUSCSt1 hY..,lt 00- 10•.'M•IYI.PIIIIMVw. 17EI ASVONMMb410 .Jnl..11MAIP144t4frlss'. . rcfYL•..frurn..r..... Intersection :MEET VALLEY /STRAMDER Dates1992 AnalystIEEATE Tim.Period AnlysdsPM Area Types CBD XOther Project 11o. City /state:TUXWILR, WA CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LAME GROUP 1 2 Appr. Mvmt. ES ! wB ! A MB 0 A 'SS 0 3 Adjusted Flow Rate v (vph) 4 Ad.eat F1w.Rt s (vphg) 5 Plow Ratio v/s 3/4 6 Green Ratio g / C 633 - 5047 0.125 0.132 45 - 3262 0.014 0.015 262 - 1222 - 1693 3563 0.155 0.343 0.163 0.460 12 - 1470 - 1693 5081 0.007 0.289 0.007 0.305 7 8 9 Ln.Grp v/C Crit. Capac. Ratio 7 c,vph X Lane 4x6 3/7 Group 666 0.950 • ** 47 0.950 * *• 276 0.950 ••• 1639 0.746 - 13 0.950 1547 0.950 * ** Cycle Length. 19.4sec, Lost Time /Cyc1e,L. 7.5sec, S(v /s)ci. 0.583, Xc.0.950 LAME GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• - PROTCTD, +++ - PERMTTD, i/i - PROTCTD & PERMTTD) A " • v 0 • V BEATS & ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using MCAP by PSI "1.13. .: P: d.t A'. 1:f A` qrs in :.014trcw.tetost'nrinmwo)Y.i0ott •I•C •;M••! •.1/4•N,.3Tk\ Yo0Zote9fu". •Im• ax.. mt•0414 xus• on• al•.1.+` u+ KW O..'!• 74 0T-4.,MereArovvza'cq-Mw..r.,... interaectioniWEST VALLEY /STRANDER Analyetu9IATO TiaePsriod AnlyudsPM Project No. City /StatetTURUXLA, WA Datet1992 *sea Type CID XOthur LEVEL- OP- SERVICE _WORKSHEET _ First Term Delay Second Term Delay Tot Delay_i LOS LANE 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GROUP v/c Green Cycle Delay Lane Delay Prgrsn Lane Gp Ln Apprch Apr Ratio Ratio Length dl Group d2 Factor Delay Gp Delay LOS 1 2 X g/C C aec /veh Cap,c s.c /veh PF •ec /veh LOS sec /veh Tb1 Ap Nv (sec) (vph) T.9 -13 (6 +8)•9 9 -1 9 -1 ES F 0.950 0.132 19.4 6.36 666 17.03 0.95 NB 0.950 0.015 19.4 7.27 47 80.98 0.85 A 0.950 0.163 NB 0 0.746 0.460 19.4 19.4 6.12 3.28 276 1639 29.67 1.34 1.00 0.85 A 0.950 0.007 88 0 0.950 0.305 19.4 19.4 7.33 5.02 13 1547 163.64 9.53 1.00 0.85 19.88 C 19.88 C 75.01 F 75.01 ! 35.79 D 3.92 A 9.55 8 170.97 F 12.37 B 13.65 B Intersection Delay 13.82 aec /veh, Intersection LOS B Table 9.1 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• - PROTCTD, +++ - PERMTTD, //1 - PROTCTD i PERMTTD) A F • • v 0 • v HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, 8A, uaing.NCBP by PSI INPUT WORKSHEET Intersection:WEST VALLEY / STRANDER Analyst:HEATS Tim.Period AnlysdsPM Project No. City /State:TUXWILA, WA Date :1992 Area Types CBD XOther VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS 111 (8) NORTH IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths 3.Movements by lane 4.Parking locations 5.Bay storge ingths [ 518] 6.Islands E/B TOTAL 7.Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS VEST VALLEY N/8 ST. [1214] 8B TOTAL 1 1 1 < v > 398 805 11 1 2 1 l 12.0 l 12.0 l 12.0 RT TN LT < l > v 1- 12.0'- LT - - -" 1- 12.0'- LTH - - "> 1- 12.0•- RT - - -v " 458 -> 11 v 49 18 " 8 <- [ 39] -MB TOTAL 13 v - - -RT - 12.0, -1 <v-- LTH- 12.01 -1 < l > LT TH RTE 12.0 l 12.0 l 12.0 l 1 1 1 STRANDER E/W STREET 1046 236 <"> 2 [1284] N/B TOTAL Ap Grd. 1 HV Pr (8) Adj.Pkg.Lane Y/N Nm Buses (Nb) PH! Cnf.Ped (pd /hr) Pedstrn Button Arr. Y/N Mn.Time Type EB +0.0 2.0 W8 +0.0 2.0 NB +0.0 2.0 BB +0.0 2.0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 N 21 3 N 21 3 N 12 3 N 12 3 Grade: +up, -dawn EV :veh. > 4 whls Nmspkg.maneuvers /hr Nb:buses stopping /hr Min.Timing: min.green for P8?speak -hour factor pedestrian crossing Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng pads /hr Arr.Type: Type 1 -5 PHASING D I A G R A M • • v • • ••> 0 <0000 • • • v • • • v OR • • • v ••> • • Tim- ing G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y+R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 0 G. 0.0 Y +R. 0 Ptmd /Actl A A A A A A Protected turns: ••••" 0000" l Permitted turns: +++ +" l Cycle Length 0 Sec HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI TM'e ?A het,: ��NA .•.1'l:Y2LlF :" 'ka✓SY .>. .Yil,:_v.n':n.r�..n+v�n.n..r'.n . INPUT WORKSHEET Intersection:WEST VALLEY /STRANDER Analyst:HEATH TimePeriod Anlysd1PM Project No. City /StatetTUEWILA, WA Dates1994 W /OUT Area Types CBD XOther VOLUME AND GEOMETRICS 111 (N) NORTH IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM 1.Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths 3.Moveaents by lane 4.Parking locations 5.Bay storge ingths 6.Islands 7.Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY NEST VALLEY N/S ST. [1268] 88 TOTAL 1 1 1 < v > 416 841 11 1 2 1 l 12.0 l 12.0 l 12.0 RT TH LT < 1 > v 1- 12.0'- LT - - -" 1- 12.0'- LTH - - "> 1- 12.0'- RT - - -v [ 561] E/B TOTAL " 499 -> 11 ✓ 51 CONDITIONS 19 " 8 <- [ 41) -MB TOTAL 14 v "--- RT- 12.0' -1 <v-- LTH- 12.00 -1 < l > LT TH RTH 12.0 l 12.0 l 12.0 l 1 1 1 STRANDER E/W STREET 1096 236 < "> 2 [1334] N/B TOTAL Ap Grd. 1 BV pr (8) Adj.Pkg.Lane Y/N Nm Buses (Nb) PHI Cnf.Ped (pd /hr) Pedstrn Button Arr. Y/N Mn.Time Type EB +0.0 2.0 WE +0.0 2.0 NB +0.0 2.0 BB +0.0 2.0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 N 21 3 N 21 3 N 12 3 N 12 3 Grader +up, -down HVsveh. > 4 whls Nmspkg.maneuvers /hr Nbsbuse■ stopping /hr Min.Timings min.green for PEP:peak -hour factor pedestrian crossing Cnf.Peds:Cnflctng pads /hr Arr.Types Type 1 -5 PHASING D I A G R A M • • v o " <0000 • v • • ••> <•• • • • • v OR • • • v f•> • • Tim- ing G. 0.0 Y +R- 2 G. 0.0 Y +R• 2 G. 0.0 Y +R- 2 G. 0.0 Y +R- 2 0. 0.0 Y +R■ 2 G. 0.0 Y +R- 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 0 G. 0.0 Y +R- 0 Ptmd /Actl A A A A • A A Protected turns ••••" 0000" l Permitted turns: +++ +" 1 Cycle Length 0 Sec HEATH 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI . Intersection,WEST VALLEf /STRANDER Dates1994 W /OUT AnalystsfEATB TimePeriod Anlysd1PM Area Types CBD XOther Project No. City /CtatesTUKWILA, WA VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET 1 Appr• 2 Mvt. 3 Mvt. Volume (vph) 4 5 Peak Flow Hour Rate Factor Vp PRP 3/4 6 Lane Group 7 8 Flw rt Number in Ln of Grp Vg Lanes (vph) N 9 Lane Utilis Fctr,U Tb 9 -4 10 11 Adj. Prop. Flow of V,vph LT or RT 7 x 9 Plt , Prt LT 499 0.90 554 0.89 LT ES TB 11 0.90 12 F 623 3 1.10 685 * RT 51 0.90 57 0.09 RT LT 14 0.90 16 0.35 LT WS TB 8 0.90 9 F 46 2 1.05 48 * RT 19 0.90 21 0.46 RT LT 236 0.90 262 A 262 1 1.00 262 1.00 LT NB TN 1096 0.90 1218 0 1220 2 1.05 1281 • RT 2 0.90 2 0.00 RT LT 11 0.90 12 A 12 1 1.00 12 1.00 LT SB TB 841 0.90 934 0 1396 3 1.10 1536 • RT 416 0.90 462 0.33 RT LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(* *• . PROTCTD, +++ • PERMTD, 100 .. PROTCTD i PERMIT))) A " F " 0 • • •••* •••■> ••••> • • v v BEATS i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by P8I . . , .... Intersection :WEST VALLEY /STRANDS* Date :1994 W /OUT Analyst:HEATE TisePeriod Anlysd:PM Area Type: CID XOther Project No. City /Stata:TUXWILA, WA SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET LANE 3 4 5 6 7 GROUP Ideal No. Ln.W. HvyVeh Grade Sat. of Fw Fhv Fg 1 2 Flow Lns Ap My pcphgp N T.9 -5 T.9 -6 T.9 -7 8 Pkg. Fp 9 BusBlk Fbb 10 AreaTp Pa 11 Rt Trn Frt 12 Lt Trn Flt T.9 -8 T.9 -9 T.9 -10 T.9 -11 T.9 -12 13 Adjsat FlwRt 8 (vphg) EB F 1800 3 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.986 0.957 5048 WA F 1800 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.932 0.983 3263 A 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 NB 0 1800 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 A 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 88 0 1800 3 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1.000 5081 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -[••• - PROTCTD, +++ - PERMITD, fit - PROTCTD i PERMTTD] 3563 • A F " 0 a a •aa• •aay ••••> • • v v HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI IntersectiontWEST VALLEY /STRANDER Datef1994 W/OUT AnalysttfEATH Tim•Period AnlysdsPM Area Typal CBD XOther Project No. City /State,TURNILA, NA SUPPLEMENTAL NORESSEET FOR LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, fLT INPUTVARIABLES /COMPUTATIONS Cycle Length, C (sec) Effective Green, g (sec) Number of Lanes, X Total Approach Flow Rate, Va(vph) Mainline Flow Rate, Vm (vph) Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, Plt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Plto Sop - 1e00No /(1 +Plto[(400 +VM)etc. To - Vo /Sop Gu - (g-CYo) /(1 -Yo) Fs - (575- 0.625Vo) /1000 P1 - Plt[1 +(N- 1)g /(FsGu +1.5)] Gq -g - GU Pt 1 - P1 Of - 2Pt[1- Pt "(.5Gq)] /P1 E1 - 1500 /(1400 -Vo) F• - Of /g + Gu /g • [1 /(1 +P1 etc. Flt - (Fm + N - 1) /N ES NB NB SB SEATS 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI nnm....ewrwinrnii....11 .gr nwmuani*a+reMin a..,.. c,w.w.�.,.�. IntersectioniwEBT VALLEY /STRANDER Date,1994 W /OUT AnalyatsNEATE TisePeriod AnlyadiPM Area Types CID XOther Project No. City /StatesTUXWILA, NA CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LANE GROUP 1 2 Appr. Mat. EH F WB F A NB 0 A BB 0 3 Adjusted Flow Rate v (vph) 4 Ad.Bat F1w.Rt (vphg) 5 Flow Ratio v/s 3/4 6 Green Ratio g / C 7 8 9 Ln.Grp v/C Crit. Capac. Ratio ? c,vph X Lane 4x6 3/7 Group 685 - 5048 0.136 0.143 721 0.950 • +• 48 - 3263 0.015 0.015 262 - 1281 - 1693 3563 0.155 0.360 0.163 0.474 51 0.950 • +• 276 0.950 ••• 1688 0.759 - 12 - 1536 - 1693 5081 0.007 0.302 0.007 0.318 13 0.950 - 1617 0.950 +++ Cycle Length. 20.8sec, Lost Time /Cyc1e,L. 7.5sec, 8(v /s)ci. 0.607, Xc -0.950 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -( +•• - PROTCTD, +++ - PERMTTD, I/9 - PROTCTD 4 PERMTTD) A w • F ^ 0 • ••••> ••••> • • v v HEATH & ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI a� r tea.:. -ewe tie�act:: t.crrbeo. w..mwan+m;cmar>..rar. IntersectionswEST VALLE2 /STRANDER AnalystIEEATE TimsPeriod AnlysdiPM Project No. City /StateiTUXNILA, WA Date:1994 W /OUT Area Types CBD XOther LEVEL -OF- SERVICE VORXSBEET GROUP 1 Ap 2 My First Term Delay Second Term Delay 3 v/c Ratio X 4 Green Ratio g/C 5 Cycle Length C (sec) 6 Delay dl sec /veh 7 Lane Group Cap,c (vph) 8 Delay d2 sec /veh 9 Prgren Factor PF T.9 -13 10 Lane Gp Delay eec /veh (6 +8)•9 Tot Delay_i LOS 11 Ln Gp LOS 9 -1 12 13 Apprch Apr Delay LOS sac /veh Tbl 9 -1 BB F 0.950 0.143 20.8 6.72 721 16.17 0.85 NB F 0.950 0.015 20.8 7.78 51 78.18 0.85 NB A 0 0.950 0.759 0.163 0.474 20.8 20.8 6.55 3.42 276 1688 29.67 1.44 1.00 0.85 BB A 0 0.950 0.950 0.007 0.318 20.8 20.8 7.84 5.27 13 1617 163.64 9.23 1.00 0.85 Intersection Delay 13.75 sec /veh, Intersection LO8 19.46 C 19.46 C 73.07 F 73.07 F 36.22 D 4.13 A 9.58 B 171.49 F 12.32 B 13.55 B B Table 9.1 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS-(*** - PROTCTD, +++ • PERMTTD, 881) - PROTCTD i PERMTTD] A • ••ww F • • w�ww� v 0 **w•> • V BEATS 4 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI INPUT WORKSHEET Int•rsaotionINEIT VALLEY /ITEANDIR AnalystlEEATE TimePeriod AnlyedIPM Project No. City /State:TUKWIIA, NA Date:1984 WITS Area Types CBD XOther VOLUME AND GEOMETRICB III (N) NORTH IDENTIPY IN DIAGRAM 1.Volumes 2.Lanes,lane widths 3.Movements by lane 4.Parking locations S.Bay storge ingthe (1206] 6.Islands E/B TOTAL 7.Bus stops TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS NEST VALLEY N/8 ST. (1286] SB TOTAL 1 1 1 < v > 416 841 29 1 2 1 1 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 RT TB LT < I > v 1- 12.0'- LT - - -" 1- 12.0'- LTE - - "> 1- 12.0'- RT - - -v " 499 -> 30 v 677 31 26 <- - ( 88] - NB TOTAL 31 v "--- RT- 12.0, -1 <v-- LTE- 12.0, -1 A w < I > LT TH RTH 12.0 I 12.0 I 12.0 1 1 1 STRANDER E/N STREET 1096 236 < "> 16 (1348] N/B TOTAL Ap Grd. t HV pr (f) Adj.Pkg.Lane Y/N Nm Buses (Eb) PHP Cni.Ped (pd /hr) Pedstrn Button Arr. Y/N Mn.Tims Type EB +0.0 2.0 NB +0.0 2.0 NB +0.0 2.0 SB +0.0 2.0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0 0 0 0 N 21 3 N 21 3 N 12 3 N 12 3 Grade: +up, -down Nbzbuses stopping /hr Min.Timing: min.green for HV :veh. > 4 whim PRP :peak -hour factor pedestrian crossing Nm:pkg.maneuvers /hr Cnf.Peds :Cnflctng pads /hr Arr.Type: Type 1 -5 PHASING D I A G R A M • • v o " <0000 • • • ••> <f• • • v • t v OR <ftt> • f • • v tt> • • Tim- ing G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R- 2 G. 0.0 Y +R. 2 G- 0.0 Y +R. 2 G. 0.0 Y +R- 0 G. 0.0 Y +R- 0 Ptmd /Actl A A A A A A Protected turns: •■•+" 0000" I Permitted turns: +++ +" I Cycle Length 0 Sec HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by PSI .ewm 7airrtr.ro:t.• urroW.wasex:• rrtr,r nM xr rrrr+.n•.w.cxnwvtamro.w+,„aRa+, ., • .. v, rn« rw• w, r, rr.+s:, r, •..>.vrrr- rrmr,r- Aa:n+..r:ra:ae rratrk .anoseraw.t•Iroerevorrrrir rerortccewrr..c enacr:.,e.ccwrsr•,..aw., Intersection:WEST VALLEY /STRAMDER Date :1994 WITH AnalystsHEATE TimePeriod Anlysd:PM Area Type: CBD XOther Project No. City /8tate:TUKWILA, WA VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORESHEET 1 Appr• 2 Mvt. 3 Mvt. Volume (vph) 4 5 Peak Flow Hour Rate Factor Vp PH! 3/4 6 Lane Group 7 8 9 !lw rt Number Lane in Ln of Utilis Grp Vg Lanes Fatr,U (vph) N Tb 9 -4 10 11 Adj. Prop. Flow of V,vph LT or RT 7 x 9 Plt , Prt EB LT TH RT 499 30 677 0.90 0.90 0.90 554 33 752 1339 3 1•10 0.41 LT 1473 • 0.56 RT WE LT TH RT 31 26 31 0.90 0.90 0.90 34 29 34 97 2 1.05 0.35 LT 102 • 0.35 RT N8 LT TH RT 236 1096 16 0.90 0.90 0.90 262 1218 18 A 0 262 1236 1 2 1.00 1.05 262 1.00 LT 1298 • 0.01 RT 88 LT TH RT 29 841 416 0.90 0.90 0.90 32 934 462 A 0 32 1396 1 3 1.00 1.10 32 1.00 LT 1536 • 0.33 RT LAME GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• • PROTCTD, +++ . PERMTTD, #I0 . PROTCTD 4 PERMTTD] A • ■•■• F • • v 0 • v HEATH 6 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by P8I Intersection :NEST VALLEY /STRANDER Analyst:HEATH TisePeriod AnlysdsPM Project No. City /StatesTUEMILA, WA Datet1994 NITS Area Types CED XOthsr SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET LANE 3 4 5 GROUP Ideal No. Ln.W. Sat. of Fw 1 2 Flow Lns Ap My pcphgp N T.9 -5 6 HvyVeh Fhv 7 Grade Fg 8 Pkg. FP 9 BumBlk Fbb 10 AreaTp Fa 11 Rt Trn Frt 12 Lt Trn Flt T.9 -6 T.9 -7 T.9 -8 T.9 -9 T.9 -10 T.9 -11 T.9 -12 13 AdjSat FlwRt 8 (vphg) EH F Ie00 MB F 1800 A 1800 NS 0 1800 A 1800 88 0 1800 3 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.916 0.980 4796 2 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.947 0.983 3318 1 2 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.998 1.000 3556 1 3 1.000 1.000 0.990 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1693 0.950 1.000 5081 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• . PROTCTD, +++ - PERMTTD, //I - PROTCTD i PERMTTD] • • • ffff •fff> V 0 **ff> • V HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by P8I . �..... �.... �.-..+ rn... uwcvmrt, N�ai c6f�/ ct. M. �M,. y,:ff14�Y1 ^.a1'V4?iWISVJT.SrwM .txtiL Vwtiwxw M:. r�xant4iw.. iw. wrwi�stw' Mrwn. l+ n: an+ o¢ es. cAUxMhvr.+•y"uaarvrnhwT�rr++yrrr W.. nt... ti+ a- nrts�wlviNnMte". wey}IIfHM.fN.�.tYaM�elNitfdlbMY W�vrwm Interaection,WEBT VALLEY /BTRANDER Dates1994 WITS AnalystsHEATH TimePsriod Anlyad,PM Area Types C8D XOther Project No. City /8tatesTUKWILA, NA SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR LEFT -TURN ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, fLT INPUTVARIABLES /COMPUTATIONS Cycle Length, C (sec) Effective Green, g (sec) Number of Lanes, N Total Approach Flow Rate, Va(vph) Mainline Flow Rate, Va (vph) Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt (vph) Proportion of LT, Plt Opposing Lanes, No Opposing Flow Rate, Vo (vph) Prop. of LT in Opp. Vol. Plto Sop - 1800No /(1 +Plto((400 +Vm)eto. To - Vo /Sop Gu - (g- CYo) /(1 -Yo) Fs - (875- 0.625Vo) /1000 P1 - Plt(1 +(N- 1)g /(FsGu +4.5)] Gq g - Gu Pt 1 - P1 Gf - 2Pt(1- Pt "(.5Gq)] /P1 El - 1800 /(1400 -VO) Fa - Gf /g + Gu /g • (1 /(1 +P1 etc. Flt.- (Fm + N - 1) /N ES NB NB SB HEATH 4 ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, MA, using NCAP by PSI :f. 1,1‘. n.rrin na1,14,a.••.nsl..verne4 Intersection:WEST VALLEY /STRMDER Date11994 WITS AnalystINIATH TislePeriod AnlytdIPM Area Typal CDD XOther Project No. City /StatesTUXWILA, WA CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LANE GROUP 3 Adjusted 1 2 Flow Rate Appr. Mvwt. v • (vph) ES F 1473 - 4 Ad.Sat Plw.Rt • (vphg) 5 Plow Ratio v/s 3/4 6 Green Ratio g / C 4796 0.307 0.323 WS P 102 3318 0.031 0.032 A 262 - NB 0 1298 - 1693 3556 0.155 0.365 0.163 0.461 A 32 - 8B 0 1536 - 1693 5081 0.019 0.302 0.020 0.318 7 8 9 Ln.Grp v/C Crit. Capac. Ratio 7 c,vph X Lane 4x6 3/7 Group 1551 0.950 + +r 107 0.950 ••• 276 0.950 ••• 1640 0.791 - 34 0.950 - 1617 0.950 ••* Cycle Length. 45.9sec, Lost Tine /Cycle,L■ 7.Ssec, S(v /s)ci. 0.795, Xc.0.950 LANE GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• . PROTCTD, +++ . PERMTTD, /i/ - PROTCTD i PERMTID) A " • F • • v 0 **r•> v HEATH i ASSOCIATES, Tacos*, WA, using NCAP by PSI . 4. 12. �v+ a ..+.2f.R+ia+.YM'tM�*�W.tE1�/beM VLer�ww ...rro.�Mrrawwr.r .. �. �.. w1 .wN..wuu)..ix( ✓.N+:C!"::rfi•I54 r�vX1tVlJ :ffA :gL'M�W"1C1L.LYYAica.xCV�v riawbaaaet..n.:+r.Re wun�. . 'wa.a++w.wwx.n.a� .+ w+ n.a....vALmwa.:W.nC+r..u..t�xe: san�v�^tsN. wee! y+. ew!. wM tM. n, nelx:. smr* rwraeiamm :a�IMatnrGntYxfAMn!r ♦.•. IntersectioniWEBT VALLEY /BTRANDER Dates1994 NITS AnalystuREATE Tim.Period AnlysdiPM Area Types CBD XOther Project No. city /8tate*TUXNILA, WA LEVEL -OF- SERVICE WORKSHEET 1 Ap 2 My First Term Delay Second Term Delay Tot.Delay i LOS 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 v/c Green Cycle Delay Lane Delay Prgrsn Lane Gp Ln Apprch Apr Ratio Ratio Length d1 Group d2 Factor Delay Gp Delay LOS X g/C C sec /veh Cap,c sec /vah PF aec /veh LOS sac /vah Tbl (sec) (vph) T.9 -13 (6 +8)•9 9 -1 9 -1 se F 0.950 0.323 45.9 11.54 1551 9.51 0.85 NS F 0.950 0.032 45.9 16.87 107 51.46 0.85 A 0.950 0.163 NE 0 0.791 0.461 45.9 45.9 14.47 7.98 276 1640 29.67 1.92 1.00 0.85 A 0.950 0.020 SD 0 0.950 0.318 45.9 45.9 17.10 11.63 34 1617 97.37 9.23 1.00 0.85 Intersection Delay 18.22 sec /veh, Intersection LOS 17.89 C 17.89 C 58.07 E 58.07 E 44.14 E 8.42 8 14.42 E 114.46 F L7.73 C 19.70 C C Table 9.1 LAME GROUP DIAGRAMS -(••• • PROTCTD, +++ • PERMITD, 888 . PROTCTD 6 PERMTTD] A • • v • v REATS i ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, WA, using NCAP by P8I LOCATION:NEST VALLEY /PROJECT ENTRANCE INAMEzHEATH SOURLY VOLUMES N> Major streetsWEST VALLEY N. 2 Grade 1591--- V2 - - -> O1 10--- V3 - - -v Date of Counts: 1993 Time Period: PM PEAR Approach Speeds 40 PROD ENTR PHF: 0.9 N. 1 Populations 60000 <-- -V5 - -- 148e v-- -V4 - -- 0 N. 3 <I I> V7 V9 1 1 0 12 Minor Street X STOP YIELD Grade 01 VOLUMES IN PCPS <-- -VS - -- --- V2 - - -> v---V4 - -- 0 --- V3---v <1 1> V7 V9 I 1 0 12 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 9 1 Volume (vph) I 1591 I 10 I 0 I 1488 I 0 1 12 I Vol(pcph),see Table 10.1IXXXXXXXXIXXXXXXXXI 0 IXXXXXXXXI 0 I 12 I STEP 1 t RT From Minor Street / -> V9 Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm 1/2 V3 +V2. 5 + 796 - 801 vph(Vc9) Tc- 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp9. 425 pcph (Fig.10.3) Cm9 -Cp9- 425 pcph STEP 2 : LT From Major Street v -- V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp 1 of Cp utilised and Impedance Factor Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) V3 +V2- 10 + 1591 - 1601 vph(Vc4) Tc- 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp4. 145 pcph (Fig.10.3) (V4 /Cp4)x100. 01 P4. 1 Cm4.Cp4. 145 pcph STEP 3 s LT From Minor Street < -\ V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm 1/2 V3 +V2 +V5 +V4. 5 + 1591 + 1488 + 0 - 1700 vph(Vc7) Tc- 7 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp7. 65 pcph (Fig.10.3) Cm7.Cp7xP4. 65 x 1 - 65 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY MOVEMENT V(PCPH) SH - (V7 +V9) /((V7 /Cm7) +(V9 /Cm9)) if lane is shared CM(PCPH) CR CSH(PCPH) (CM -V) CR LOS LOS (CSH -V) CM CSH 7 0 9 12 4 0 65 425 65 413 E A 425 425 413 413 A A 145 145 D LOCATIONsWEST VALLEY /PROJECT ENTRANCE !MAMEOHEATH HOURLY VOLUMES N> Major streetsWEST VALLEY N. 2 Grade 1087--- V2 - - -> 01 10--- V3 - - -v Date of Counter 1993 Time Periods NOON Approach Speeds 40 PHT* 0.9 Populations <-- -VS - -- 1209 v-- -VI - -- 0 N. 3 V7 V9 1 1 0 12 Minor Street PROJ ENTR N. 1 60000 X STOP YIELD Grade VOLUMES IN PCPS ___V2 - - -> v-- -V4 - -- 0 --- V3 - - -v <1 1> V7 V9 I I 0 12 VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement no. I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 7 I 9 I Volume (vph) I 1087 I 10 I 0 I 1209 I 0 I 12 I Vol(pcph),aee Table 10.1IXXXXXXXXIXXXXXXXXI o Ixxxxxxxxl 0 12 STEP 1 s RT From Minor Street 1-> V9 Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm 1/2 V3 +V2. 5 + 544 - 549 vph(Vc9) To. 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp9. 588 pcph (Fig.10.3) Cm9 -Cp9- 588 pcph STEP 2 s LT From Major Street v -- V4 Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp t of Cp utilised and Impedance Factor Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) V3 +V2- 10 + 1087 - 1097 vph(Vc4) Tc. 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2) Cp4. 286 pcph (Fig.10.3) (V4 /Cp4)x100. 01 P4- 1 Cm4.Cp4. 286 pcph STEP 3 s LT From Minor Street < -\ V7 Conflicting Flows, Vc Critical Gap, Tc Potential Capacity, Cp Actual Capacity, Cm 1/2 V3 +V2 +V5 +V4- 5 + 1087 + 1209 + 0 - 1700 vph(Vc7) Tc- 7 secs (Tab.10.2) Cpl. 65 pcph (Fig.10.3) Cm7- Cp7xP4. 65 x 1 • 65 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY MOVEMENT V(PCPH) SE - (V7 +V9) /((V7 /Cm7) +(V9 /Cm9)) if lane is shared CM(PCPS) CR CR LOS LOS CSH(PCPH) (CM -V) (CSH -V) CM CSH 7 0 9 12 4 0 65 588 65 576 E A 588 588 576 576 A A 286 286 C r, L.. /-. ..A Z' 1.. 1 C. T• Lz.. ttHJ2 caVhNT. Pa0`AI .. '.__.1,1- II. ^t•- _(9_. /Ci4 14...NM ulrti C'..":i Q ..r.0.0. -- A.P.[:rar. S /. i•1.4Lett. Lw.Y1.. t P..t. 1u..Rtt.'- 4 1144,4.I44,CC — t C.... O . ----.- ._ -.. _ 0..t. t.------ NIN,.,. G1•.1mt.e,. .4i.4, IL► — 1\' 14 4A CI, I .:A../. r: /.t ...t..“ '.'.CIM...,:A. A.RtC : :I<AI.. .t....1t41.1<.,:..... — .- .. -9.,4. C .... - a}Pr.O.e. -- L. 11AICOOt:.L O,I.4.,t...`r.t* /.R v ..R . 6.t4e.” P.,+w1 .. - -.__ __ ■ 1.4.L. O- - -27 -- FICR-1G .14.004.1:#. /.L.A..M., .0110— f'II u IC. ---- -. - - -• 'A.S.' O - - -- 745 C,-. f3C.001'.411.'1.7f$J .10A14 rAC I. 4 e. IPhTN./n —..0/. I.n/.r11L .. un4.,. nn4 —._et • IS Dat O. C.. — I•itWA C.,t.A.....0..A./.O' 0Ai.ICED ACS -- A4'.140 Rt. tr.4M1•------ -. ."1. .; p_. •l. 6.1 I :.ti LV•. r/..+1t' . -- -._._. ..._.. . ..t.a v114, .n. L.A —.. _.- ..1T.^ O STRANGER BLVD. it um au 34511.411011 O. 06 -628 SWAIN ! U1 VAIICT 11O011AT 113f4, MA$IW4171 LANDSCAPE PLAT! rolls M�l Iv .P a tea co I CON. co moor Inc 01.110114. 0114 NM COMP' IOM1M AICIITICTS. IC. m 437 1M 51 14010.11011.104 001 80101.W1 a N 10-r' ®® ®0 0 0 000 141 /41 acal�6� ;. :1 E 6 i $a �i� asi._. it )11 bit I 8 ■ 1 628 Tuna, SIKURu .t 9.Ou.stSI swa CT a lMa06 - ARCHTEC1UiAL SITE PLAN P��,� 1i 411fiF 0 a.r I_ MO 101 I w. vol was r .w, war 014 roan 0011 COM O.O.W .[M'CC1C. m WI.. R um.% rata NM I.M an-ul P 1 m `�, =� tl 10-r' ®® ®0 0 0 000 141 /41 acal�6� ;. :1 E 6 i $a �i� asi._. it )11 bit I 8 ■ 1 628 Tuna, SIKURu .t 9.Ou.stSI swa CT a lMa06 - ARCHTEC1UiAL SITE PLAN P��,� 1i 411fiF 0 a.r I_ MO 101 I w. vol was r .w, war 014 roan 0011 COM O.O.W .[M'CC1C. m WI.. R um.% rata NM I.M an-ul elevations exterior finish schedule