HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E2000-025 - SCHNEIDER HOMES - OFFICE BUILDINGSCHNEIDER HOMES
NEW THREE STORY OFFICE
BUILDING ON VACANT SITE
6540 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
E2000 -025
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
New 15,000 sq. ft, three story office building
On a vacant lot
PROPONENT:
SCHNEIDER HOMES
LOCATION OF PROPO'SAL,, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS,
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO:
SEC/TWN/RNG:
LEAD AGENCY':
62540 % - S0UTHCENTER� BL'-
,,, 00020 -0014
S'EC 23/23/04
CITY OF TUKWILA
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on';the ;environment. An environmental,
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c).
This decision was made •after review of a completed environmental
checklist. and other infor.mationion ,file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request: .,•
AAAA• k* kAAA AAAA**kiAAAk *AAk *A *AA *Alk'*AA** Vi k k* CAkA* AAkAk *kAik * * *AAkk *k *AAAAAkA
l,° 1
r -�^
is final .and ' signed.
ANY:
FILE 'NU, . E2000 -025
This determination
200.1.
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670
6.300 Southc enier~ Boulevard
Tukwila, WA ! 98188 .
Copies of the procedures f or SEPA,` a -ppea l s are
Department of Commu'ni.tiy. Development".
vailable -with the
Memorandum
To: Steve Lancaster
From: Moira Carr Bradshaw
Date: August 27, 2001
Subject: SEPA Decision
Schneider Homes Office Building
6540 Southcenter B1.
File No. E2000 -024
Project Description: New three story 11,585 square foot office building on a vacant site
at 6450 Southcenter Boulevard. See the attached vicinity map and site plan.
Other agencies with Jurisdiction: None
Required Permits /Approvals:
Board of Architectural Review Approval
City of Tukwila Building Permit
City of Tukwila Miscelleneous Permits
Notice of Application Issued February 13, 2001
Comment Period Deadline: March 15, 2001
Public Comments Received: None
Documents considered with SEPA checklist:
1. SEPA Checklist (Schneider, August 2000)
2. Traffic Impact Analysis (Entranco, October 2000; June 2001; July 2001)
3. Level One Drainage Report (DBM, October 2000)
4. Soils Investigation (HCB Engineering and Construction, March 2001) Addendum
(June 2001)
Summary of Primary Impacts:
Earth /Soil
The .73 acre site is a combination of class 2 and 3 sensitive slopes. The property is
approximately 130 feet deep and 246 feet along Southcenter B1. Elevations on the site
range from 110 feet in the southwest corner to 136 feet along the center north property
line.
Page 1 of 4 08/27/01
There are several 12 foot barriers on the site including a 1:1 slope on the south side along
Southcenter B1. and approximately 40 feet from Macadam Bl. In addition there is a 3 —5
foot rockery encroaching and along the north property line adjacent to a driveway to the
adjacent homes to the north.
A soils investigation (HCB Engineering & Construction, March 2001) and its amendment
(June 2001) describe the soils as dense, dry cohesive soils, intermixed with rocks and
boulders. Four test pits were excavated. Liquefaction and settlement are therefore not
concerns for development of the site. The soils are moisture sensitive however, and must
be excavated for foundations and if exposed to moisture during construction then
overexcavated and replaced in driveway /pavement locations.
Storm Water
A level one drainage report was prepared (DBM Consulting Engineers, October 2000.)
The subdrainage basin for the project is the Gilliam Creek, which drains to the Green
River. Water is collected in the public underground piped system in Southcenter Bl. and
carried under Interstate 405 to the Creek. Gilliam Creek is a Chinook salmon - bearing
creek and the Green River supports bull trout. The applicant is proposing a detention
vault in Macadam Road where they also are proposing to locate a number of parking
stalls.
According the Public Works Department, detention will be required but biofiltration for
water quality control may or may not.
Traffic
The property fronts on Southcenter Bl. a 5 lane principal arterial; however, due to the
grades along the streetfront, a single access is being designed on Macadam Road and Old
Bluff St. (both unimproved rights of way) to 65 Av. S., a two lane collector arterial. An
emergency access has been designed to allow vehicular ingress and egress to Southcenter
B1. just west of the proposed building. The 65 Av. S. and Southcenter B1. intersection is a
T with a stop sign on 65 Av. S. The 66 Av. S. Bridge intersects with Southcenter Bl. just
to the east of the site and connects Southcenter BI to the Tukwila urban center.
The applicant intends to request a vacation of Old Bluff St. and Macadam Road right of
way between 65 Av. S. and Southcenter Bl. where they are showing parking and access.
The project could proceed without the right of way vacation by utilizing a street use
permit.
Vehicular trips for the proposed office space were estimated using the Trip Generation,
6th Edition (ITE, 1994) There are 120 daily trips estimated for the project. The total daily
trips were allocated to a.m. peak (15 trips,) and p.m. peak (15 trips.) Using these
estimates, the level of service at affected intersections was calculated for 2010 and no
changes in LOS are forecast. However, the Traffic Impact Analysis (Entranco, June 2001)
and (July 2001) identifies the intersection of 65 Av. S and Southcenter Bl as currently
operating at Level of Service (LOS) F, which is below the adopted standard of D.(TMC
Page 2 of 4 08/27/01
9.48.050(D)). A peak hour warrant for the estimated 2010 traffic volumes at the 65 Av. S.
/Southcenter intersection was satisfied, indicating that a signal may be justified.
The report also identified the 66 Av. S. and Southcenter Bl intersection as operating at F
which is below the adopted standard of E (TMC 9.48.050(C)). An analysis of the signal's
timing revealed some potential solutions. For the delays for northbound right turns and
west and eastbound traffic on Southcenter BL, a new signal head, some additional wiring
and retiming of the signal could be improve the level of service for this intersection.
Based upon the City's Traffic Concurrency Standards and using the cost per trip fee
identified in the City's Transportation Element, and updated by the Capital Improvement
Program, there is a fee of $2,584 for the two trips on Interurban Av. (See Figure 10 of the
report.)
Access was studied for the 65 Av. S. driveway and geometrics were found to be adequate.
Nonmotorized transportation was studied and sidewalks and marked crosswalks in the
area exist for pedestrians. In addition, although there is no motorized access to
Southcenter B1 and because there is a 12 foot elevation difference between the building
and the sidewalk, the applicant is proposing stairs so that pedestrians may directly access
Southcenter B1. and the sidewalk.
There are no marked bike lanes and cyclists must use the outside lanes, which on
Southcenter B1 are 14 feet.
Staff Response
Staff is not convinced that the 65 Av S. and Southcenter Bl. intersection is operating at
LOS F and recommends that further analysis be conducted. Prior to issuance of
construction permits for this project, the following actions will be required:
1. A concurrency fee collected from the applicant for Interurban Av. for $2,584 for the
new, wider bridge on Interurban Av.; and
2. A signal timing and geometric intersection analysis for the 66 Av. S. /Southcenter Bl
intersection completed by the applicant, and
3. A full signal warrant analysis for 65 Av. S. /Southcenter B1. intersection completed by
the applicant; and
4. A developer's agreement completed that outlines the applicant's agreement to
contribute a fair share (using p.m. peak for year of signal improvement/installation)
toward: a.) the cost of improving the 66 Av. S /Southcenter Bl. intersection signal
upgrade and b) the cost of improving the 65Av. S. /Southcenter B1 intersection signal
installation, if warranted.
Trees
The site is an undeveloped hillside that is well vegetated. There are 38 (possibly more)
trees that are 6 inches or larger in diameter that will be affected by the applicant's
development plan.
Page 3 of 4 08/27/01
Staff Response
Because trees will be significantly impacted by the proposal, the applicant would need to
replant at least 70 trees, per the tree replacement section of the Zoning Code. (TMC
18.54.130). The applicant's current landscape plan does not meet the needed number of
replacement trees nor has there been any indication of efforts to preserve any of the
existing trees by incorporating them into the site /landscape plan. However, there is
opportunity on the site plan to add additional trees and through the exception process the
opportunity exists to add trees off -site. Because the nature of the project is an office
building in close proximity to the Green River Trail, there would be justification to allow
some percentage of tree replanting to occur along the river. This issue can be resolved
during the design review process and administered using TMC 18.45.
Public Service
The proposed building will be located approximately 450 feet from 65 Av. S. at the end
of a driveway. An emergency driveway is shown on the west end of the site providing
turnaround/access to Southcenter Bl. Emergency vehicles could also utilize one of the
two westbound lanes of Southcenter Bl. and access the building/site via the proposed
stairs on the east end of the site or the emergency drive at the west end.
Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of Nonsignificance
C: \mcb\schneider \SEPAreport.doc
Page 4 of 4 08/27/01
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
To: Jill Mosqueda
From: Cyndy Knighton
Date: 08.02.01
Printed: August 2, 2001
Re: Schneider Homes Office Building
E2000 -025
The study dated July 17, 2001 is adequate and supercedes previous versions of the report. A traffic
impact fee of $2,584 is required for impacts to the Interurban Bridge Widening project. It was
calculated by applying the cost per trip fee, as updated using current CIP costs for the project.
Updating the cost per trip using updated costs yielded a per trip fee of $1,292.
The traffic impact analysis indicated two other intersections which will fail concurrence' standards by
2010 without the proposed project: 66th Avenue S at Southcenter Boulevard and 65t Avenue S at
Southcenter Boulevard. At the applicant's expense, signal timing modifications to the operation of the
66th Avenue S intersection with Southcenter Boulevard will be provided prior to issuance of building
permits. The timing changes will be used by the City to improve intersection operations as described
in the attached report. The engineer performing the signal timing analysis will coordinate with city
staff to ensure optimal timing throughout the system is achieved. When the improvements are
implemented by the City, the applicant will agree to contribute a fair share contribution toward the
cost of installing the new signal head, wiring, and any other construction costs.
The intersection of 65th Avenue S at Southcenter Boulevard was identified as currently operating at
LOS F for the southbound left -turn movement. It was also stated that a signal is currently warranted
under the MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant. Though I agree it is close to warranting a signal, I disagree
that the peak hour warrant is currently met. Therefore, at the applicant's expense, a full signal warrant
analysis will be conducted prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Should a signal be warranted at
that time, the applicant will agree to contribute a fair share contribution toward the cost of installing a
signal.
c: \windows \temp \e2000 -02. doc
• •
City of Tukwila
Memo
To: Jill Mosqueda
Moira Bradshaw
From: Cyndy Knighton
Date: 07/24/01
Re: Schneider Homes
As requested, I reviewed the traffic impact study submitted on June 21, 2001 by Entranco. There were a couple
outstanding issues that needed correction so I contacted the report's author, Michael Riggs, PE, with my
concerns. He agreed to make the necessary changes and provide a new report for review.
The corrections were relatively simple. Some of the figures representing traffic volumes were incorrect and
requested that they be corrected and the associated LOS calculations verified to ensure the correct turning
movements were being used in the analysis. The second concern was regarding a calculated LOS F for the
intersection of 65th Avenue S at Southcenter Boulevard. Neither I nor Brian Shelton, City Engineer, believed the
HCS generated LOS was accurately reflecting the roadway conditions. 1 provided signal timing sheets to Mr.
Riggs who agreed to run a small model to simulate the traffic and generate an LOS based on those results.
Finally, through some misunderstandings over a period of 6 months or so, a growth rate of 5- percent was used
to estimate traffic volumes on a 10 year horizon. That growth rate was verbally corrected to Mr. Riggs, who
agreed to re- calculate the traffic numbers and analyses using a more accurate 2- percent rate.
Mr. Riggs agreed to complete all the above changes and resubmit his report for review. If you have any
questions about the above transactions, please give me a call!
gill Mosqueda - Schneider Homes Traffic Report Update
•
From: Cyndy Knighton
To: Jill Mosqueda; Moira Bradshaw
Date: 7/17/01 10:18AM
Subject: Schneider Homes Traffic Report Update
•
As you both know, I had a few issues with the existing traffic report submitted for the Schneider Homes
Office Building. I spoke with Mike Riggs of Entranco, the report's author, over the first week of July.
Based on that conversation, he agreed to re -run some numbers and fax over modifications to the report. I
was left with the understanding that I'd have those revisions by July 10th.
As of this morning's phone conversation with Mike Riggs, I was told he still hadn't had an opportunity to
complete the requested modifications. At this time, I have been assured that the changes will be in my
hand by July 19th.
Based on my understanding of this process from an earlier conversation with Jill, I informed Mike Riggs
that the current report was likely to be denied. However, I will keep working with him to come to
agreement on the analysis so he could immediately submit a report once the denial was issued. This
should expedite the process since the revised analysis will have essentially been reviewed and approved.
If my understanding is incorrect or you have questions /concerns with the above, please grab me to talk.
Cyndy
•
SCHNEIDER HOMES
OFFICE BUILDING
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
SCHNEIDER HOMES
EXPIRES
0/
PREPARED BY
411(3110 E N T R A N C O
7740 N. 16th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85020
602 - 889 -7000
July 17, 2001
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JU1302001
PERMIT CENTER
' • •
Table of Contents
' Project Description 1
Existing Conditions 1
Trip Generation 3
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCHNEIDER HOMES OFFICE BUILDING
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Project Description
Schneider Homes proposes to construct a new office facility on a 0.73 -acre site located
in the northwest corner of the 66th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection in the City
of Tukwila, Washington. The site is located as shown in Figure 1. The project would
consist of a three -story building with a gross floor area totaling about 10,653 square feet.
The building would be in constructed in early 2001 and fully occupied by early 2002.
Access would primarily be off of 65th Avenue onto a driveway, which is now Old Bluff
Street. The driveway at Old Bluff Street would be the only access to the proposed office
building.
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to examine the likely impacts of the
proposed office building on the surrounding public street system within the timeframe
that the project is likely to be built -out.
This study was prepared in accordance with the City of Tukwila Traffic Concurrency
Standards, Title 9, and Chapter 9.48, 1993. Based on the expected number of peak
hour trips generated, the proposed office building would be classified as a development
which will generate 5 or more trips and requires a Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision per TMC
9.48.050. This project classification requires the inclusion of a Trip Generation Analysis
as well as a Trip Distribution Study as a part of the analysis outlined in this report.
In addition, based on an undated letter from the City of Tukwila, the following elements
are included in this study:
1. Extended network distribution until no peak hour affects are seen.
2. Analysis of bike and pedestrian safety within the network.
3. Discussion of mitigation including the City's Capital Improvement Projects listed in
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Conditions
Currently, 65th Avenue exists as a two -lane paved public street with curb, gutter and
sidewalk, and a posted speed of 25 mph. The characteristics of 65th Avenue can be
described as climbing to the north towards a city park and residential area with single
and multi - family housing. The 65th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection is stop
controlled T- intersection for southbound 65th Avenue traffic. The Seattle Mortgage
Company is in the northwest corner and the existing Schneider Homes Office building is
in the northeast comer.
OId Bluff Street is a paved road with grass or landscaped shoulders. Old Bluff Street
dead ends approximately 270 feet to the south where it has previously been closed to
traffic at the old Macadam Road (no longer existing) and Old Bluff Street intersection.
OId Bluff Street now serves as a drive for the existing Schnieder Homes Office Building.
Traffic Impact Analysis 1
Schneider Homes
1 •
DRIVEWAY
w
>
Q
1
I-
n
co
SEATTLE
MORTGAGE
SOUTHCENTER
O
SCHNEIDER
HOMES
PROPOSED
SITE
t
NORTH
u
>
Q
1
I.—
co
BLVD.
1 -405
1 I
SOUTHCENTER MALL
FIGURE 1.
VICINITY MAP
Southcenter Boulevard is a four lane paved road with a center turn lane for left turns on
to 65th Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Southcenter Boulevard runs east and
west along the 1-405 freeway with guardrails along the south side and curb, gutter and
sidewalk on the north side.
66th Avenue is also a four lane paved road with a separate raised pavement marker
center turn lane for northbound traffic turning westbound onto Southcenter Boulevard.
The portion of 66th Avenue south of Southcenter Boulevard serves as access over the I-
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour, Inbound to Site
AM Peak Hour, Outbound from Site
PM Peak Hour, Inbound to Site
PM Peak Hour, Outbound from Site
120 vpd
15 vph
2 vph
3 vph
14 vph
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution for the site is based on existing traffic patterns on the road system
serving the site. The majority of the traffic (56% would arrive or depart the area on 1-405.
A small amount (4 %) would use Southcenter Boulevard to and from the west. Twenty
(20 %) percent would travel to and from the south via 66th Avenue where the traffic would
disperse quickly to Andover Park E, Andover Park W and Southcenter Parkway. About
Traffic Impact Analysis 3
Schneider Homes
• •
DRIVEWAY
ono
v
SOU THCENTER
BLVD.
L (0)
.- (0)
r (20)
+I tr
oc,In
.-.N
1i
SITE
t
NORTH
o
IN
v
L (101)
■ (804)
FIGURE 2.
CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
,, o 9-1
v
.-i 4 L.
L(0)
■ (718)
r(545)
1 t r
0 o N
s
N
LEGEND
(xx) — PM PEAK HOUR
(4:30 — 5:15 PM)
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
ANDOVER
10%
PARKWAY W
ANDOVER
5%
PARKWAY E
5%
1
-o
D
0
01
20%
65TH AVE.
co
r
0
N
WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
\0
W �' w
66TH AVE.
•
0
D
0
INTERURBAN AVENUE
0
Z
0
70
— •
_Al— (1) 0
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
ANDOVER
—r ( <1) <2
i._(1)0
PARKWAY W
ANDOVER
■( <1) <2
( <1) 0
PARKWAY E
—I(0) <1
) VM>1 Vd V1IM>i(11
A
I"
0
w
A
(3) 4
■( <1) 3
r
r
A
I N
<1 ( <2) L4%
tit
WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
—■ (<1) <2
65TH AVE.
co
r
0
rn
66TH AVE.
(3)
t
A
0
01
�._ (<1) <2
INTERURBAN AVENUE
--� (1) <1
Z
70
Schneider Homes
1
DRIVEWAY
SOUTHCENTER
0
00 rl
4J L.
55
661 -w►
L 123
■ 980
BLVD.
t- 0
4--0
r. 24
1 t r
SITE
t
NORTH
FIGURE 5.
2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITHOUT PROJECT
Lo
♦— 875
r 664
47 tr
N C 'o
N N
LEGEND
XX - PM PEAK HOUR
• •
LO
■0
38
DRIVEWAY
SOUTHCENTER
o
4.1 L,
4
t
NORTH
qtr
o
ri
L 126
980
55
661 .
BLVD.
SITE
FIGURE 6.
2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITH PROJECT
66TH AVE.
LO
♦• 877
664
1tr
Novo
N
LEGEND
XX - PM PEAK HOUR
•
•
Level of Service criteria for signalized intersections is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 — Level of Service Criteria: Signalized Intersections
LOS Delay
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 and < 20 seconds /vehicle
C > 20 and < 35 seconds /vehicle
D > 35 and < 55 seconds /vehicle
E > 55 and < 80 seconds /vehicle
F > 80 seconds /vehicle
Level of Service was calculated for the three cases:
• Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
• 2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without the Project
• 2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With the Project
The results of the level of service analysis for existing peak hour volumes are shown
below in Table 4.
Table 4 — Existing Levels of Service
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66th
EB /L
C
32.1
Avenue /Southcenter
EB/T, R
D
46.8
Boulevard
WB /L
F
100.9
(Signalized)
WE/T, R
B
18.1
NB /L, T
D
41.2
NB /R
E
79.5
SB /L, T, R
D
48.3
OVERALL
E
56.7
65th
EB /L
B
10.4
Avenue /Southcenter
SB /L
F
89.3
Boulevard
SB /R
B
12.2
(Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
- F
57.8
65th Avenue/ Old
WB /APPROACH
A
9.3
Bluff Street
EB /APPROACH
B
11.5
(Unsignalized)
Traffic Impact Analysis 10
Schneider Homes
•
•
The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes without the project
are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - 2010 Levels of Service Without Project
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66th Avenue/
EB /L
C
32.2
Southcenter
EB/T, R
E
69.9
Boulevard
WB /L
F
182.3
(Signalized)
WB/T, R
C
24.3
NB /L, T
D
41.3
NB/R
F
128.8
SB /L, T, R
D
48.3
OVERALL
F
91.0
65' H Avenue/
EB /L
B
11.0
Southcenter
SB /L
F
199.6
Boulevard
_ SB /R
B
11.6
(Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
122.8
65TH Avenue/ Old .
WB /APPROACH
B
11.5
Bluff Street
EB /APPROACH
A
9.3
(Unsignalized)
The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes with the project are
shown in Table 6.
Table 6 - 2010 Levels of Service With Project
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66th Avenue/
EB /L
C
32.2
Southcenter
EB/T, R
E
74.0
Boulevard
WB /L
F
182.3
(Signalized)
WB/T, R
C
24.4
N B /L, T
D
41.4
NB /R
F
128.8
SB /L, T, R
D
48.3
OVERALL
F
91.9
65'H Avenue/
EB /L
B
11.0
Southcenter
SB /L
F
243.7
Boulevard
SB /R
B
11.7
(Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
153.7
65TH Avenue/ Old
WB /APPROACH
B
11.7
Bluff Street
EB /APPROACH
A
9.7
(Unsignalized)
Review of the level of service tables shows that the project will not have a significant
impact on the traffic operations of the surrounding ,roadway system. No degradation of
level of service will occur as a result of the project's development. The delay at the 66th
Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection will increase by 0.9 seconds with the project,
an increase of Tess than one percent.
Traffic Impact Analysis 11
Schneider Homes
The capacity calculations for the 65th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard included the effects
of the adjacent traffic signals located east and west of the intersection. The level of
service for the southbound stop controlled left turn movement is LOS F under all
scenarios and the addition of project traffic simply exacerbates this low level of service.
The intersection of 65th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard should be considered for
signalization based on the 2010 traffic volumes. Since approach counts were not taken
at this intersection, the peak hour warrant (Signal Warrant 11, The Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices, 1998 Edition) was therefore used to evaluate the intersection
using 2010 volumes without the project. The peak hour warrant was satisfied.
Since it appears that a signal may be warranted at this intersection, the level of service
was calculated for 2010 with and without the project assuming a signal is installed at the
65th/ Southcenter Boulevard intersection:
The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes without the project
are shown below in Table 7.
Table 7 — 2010 Levels of Service Without the Project (Signalized)
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
65th Avenue/
EB /L
E
56.9
Southcenter
EB/T
A
9.4
Boulevard
WB/TR
C
20.8
(Signalized)
SB /L, R
D
35.3
OVERALL
B
19.7
The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes with the project are
shown below in Table 8.
Table 8 — 2010 Levels of Service With the Project (Signalized)
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
65th Avenue/
EB /L
E
56.9
Southcenter
EB/T
A
9.4
Boulevard
WB/T, R
C
20.9
(Signalized)
SB /L, R
D
36.3
OVERALL
B
19.9
Access Geometrics
Since the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the site accesses are low, turn lanes
are not necessary on westbound Old Bluff Street at the 65th Avenue drive entrance.
Examination of the need for left turn lane at the same intersection shows that it is not
warranted per the requirements for provision of left turn lanes on two -lane highways as
contained in the article, "Volume Warrants for Left -Tum Lanes at Unsignalized
Intersections'; Highway Research Record 211, US Department of Transportation, 1968.
All other areas will function with the existing left turn configuration.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes
12
At the access at Old Bluff Street, we recommend providing a single inbound and single
outbound lane.
Non - Motorized Transportation
The roadway system in the area was evaluated for the adequacy of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. In general, the roadways in the area have pedestrian facilities, in the
form of sidewalks, along them. Along the south side of Southcenter Boulevard, the
sidewalk is separated from the roadway with a concrete barrier. Marked crosswalks exist
across the west leg of the intersection to allow for pedestrians to cross from the north
side to the south side at the 65th Avenue intersection.
On 66th Avenue, a sidewalk is provided on the east side of the roadway where it crosses
1 -405.
Currently, bike lanes do not exist along Southcenter Boulevard or on 66th Avenue. Bikes
must either use the curb lane with motor vehicles or travel on the sidewalk.
Mitigation Measures
The intersection of 66th Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard will operate at LOS F in
2010 with or without the project. Examination of the data shows that this level of service
deficiency exists due to the delay experienced by the northbound right turn movement. A
potential solution to this poor level of service is to overlap the northbound right turn
movement with the westbound protected left turn movement. Doing this, and adjusting
the signal timing to give more time to the eastbound and westbound phases would
improve the level of service dramatically. Table 9 compares the 2010 levels of service
(with project traffic) with and without this improvement.
Table 9 — 2010 Levels of Service With Project, 66th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard
With and Without Improvements
This improvement would be relatively easy to construct, as it would only require a new
signal head, some additional wiring and retiming of the signal. The City should consider
implementing this immediately as it will improve current operations also.
The intersection of 65th Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard should be considered for
signalization when it meets warrants. This study did not include a warrant analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis 13
Schneider Homes
Without
Improvements
With
Improvements
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
66th Avenue/
EB /L
C
32.2
oowowmmo
31.8
Southcenter
EB/T, R
E
74.0
68.6
Boulevard
WB /L
F
182.3
129.0
(Signalized)
WB/T, R
C
24.4
19.2
NB /L, T
D
41.4
50.3
NB /R
F
128.8
14.5
SB /L, T, R
D
48.3
48.3
OVERALL
F
91.9
55.0
This improvement would be relatively easy to construct, as it would only require a new
signal head, some additional wiring and retiming of the signal. The City should consider
implementing this immediately as it will improve current operations also.
The intersection of 65th Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard should be considered for
signalization when it meets warrants. This study did not include a warrant analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis 13
Schneider Homes
although it appears that in 2002 the peak hour volume warrant will be met. Operationally,
this intersection would benefit from signalization as soon as possible.
At the request of the City, projects from the 1993 -1998 Arterial Street Capital
Improvement Program that are likely to be significantly impacted by the project's new
traffic have been included in Table 10, along with an estimate of the number of peak
hour and daily trips generated to each project.
Table 10 — CIP Projects
Project
Number of Site
PM Peak Trips
Number of Site
Average Daily Trips
'Southcenter Boulevard — 68th Avenue to
Grady Way
13 _
91
Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard
<2
12
Andover Park E Railroad Crossing
<1
6
Andover Park W (Tukwila Parkway —
Strander) ;
<1
6
Interurban (Southcenter /Grady /I -405)
13 .
91
W Valley (I- 405 - Strander)
2 .
12
Strander Blvd at Andover Park W
<1
6
Interurban Avenue S (Southcenter Blvd — S
139th St)
2
— —
12
Conclusion
When fully completed, the proposed Schneider Homes Office Building development will
generate about 120 daily trips to the surrounding public street system on an average
weekday. Of these, about 17 will occur in the AM peak hour and 17 will occur during the
PM peak hour.
In the horizon year of the site, which was taken as 2010, the addition of the site -
generated traffic will not result in the lowering of intersection level of service at any of the
study area intersections. The site traffic will be able to readily enter and exit the site
without causing either traffic congestion or safety problems.
Traffic Impact Analysis 14
Schneider Homes
•
APPENDIX
•
s
izazii i 9 . c 4 3
IIII, I
a, m
W D
N m rOrr 1
0 0 0r 2 _ C Z
b �3 O Z
o r o o
0000E1'
0 0 o b i s
pQQ T
0000 W r r r N C
0000 r 00.40 b f
gags Emig /
tRki �oecg -lo 5
W A N. W W A N m b
hUI O
gO r O
En I
N
M is W
O
E
W
E
t
0
H W N
r
E
0000 W
tut
-E
r e ti e S
Fyn 0
tAsuu
'anM O
44000
r
A /P W W 41
it 2 2
E
0 4.4
igNE
00440
IY O N
O W A W
fN 0 W A
if
0
0
WT
0
I! 3
W>
gm
8
a
3
r
V
�ma�C
nags Ism
am Limo
a
b
0
a
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
N
diO6£TlhI3 : aweN e
0
c
4
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
I66Th AVE
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
LOC# 1 PM ENTI38M
•
TRAFFICOUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360 -491 -8116
Stert Dna
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
From North
mem L tem I left 1 App. coal
Peek Hour From 0430 PM to 05:48 PM • Peek 1 ot1
ietersectIon 04;30 PM
Vokone 1 0
Percent 50.0 0.0
08:15 Volume 0 0
Peak Rear
HlgrkL WO PM
Wong 0
PeekFeeoer
50.0
0
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From East
2
0
0 1 1
0.500
RIM 1 rnm I Loft L App. coal
0
0.0
0
718
58.8
173
448
43.2
138
68TH AVE
From South
Fllgtt I lieu I lea I Arm. Tatar
File Name : ENT13901P
Site Cade : 00000001
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 2
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From West
alga I_ terry I lee I App. Toad
mt. Tow
1283
309
0430 PM
0 193 145 338
0.934
812 0
74.5 0.0
188 0
08:18 PM
188
210 822
25.5
84 232
0 84 232
0.888
98
18.0
21
583
84.3
138
1 852
0.2
0 159
04:48 PM,
24 152 0 178
0.928
2739
700
0.978
0
0.0
0
Peak HourRom 04:00 PM to 0&48 PM -Peek 1 of 1
8yAppm.ek 0430PM
Voles. 71
Pecan 40.8
111.Int 05:00 PM
Velum. 20
Peak Factor
0
0
Left L Total_
103
59.2
17
34
103
0.0 59.2
0
34
174
33
54
0.808
174
54
0.806
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From East
Right L Tfmu 1 Left 1 App. Total
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From West
Riga I 111TU I
Left I App. Total
lot. Total
101
11.2
28
0490 PM
20
0430 PM
101
11.2
0430 PM
20
• 804
88.8
204
0
0.0
0
272 0
804 0
88.8 0.0
22'2 0
905
232
242
0.635
905
242
0.935
0
0.0
0
0&15 PM
0
542
923
142
142
04:48 PM
O 551
0.0 92.9
05:15 PM
O 142
as
7.7
13
18
42
7.1
18
587
160
160
0.917
593
160
0.927
1668
425
0.980
latersectlom 04x0 PM
VoUmn 71
Percent 40.8
05:15 Volume 18
Peak Factor
Hies lot 05:00 PM
Volume 20
Peek Factor
0
0.0
0
0
Lett O App. ToMI
103
59.2
17
34
Right] Thru I left 1_ App. Total
1110 l
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
Fmm West
aim [
loft App. Total
Int. Toed
174
33
54
0.808
101
12.2
28
04:30 PM
20
804
88.8
204
0
0.0
0
222 0
232
242
0.935
0
0.0
0
05:15 PM
0
542
94.3
142
43 587
7.7
18 160
142 18 160
0.917
85TH AVE
T
t
5118100 4300 PM
5118100 5:15:00 PM
PRIMARY
1888
425
0.980
.
F
0
b
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
N r N 0 t;
lI
O O r W W
N r N O Mi f
rN U 10 W
alibi I
A .
Al N
0000
0000
.0 r A
if
3
0 D
m
6
D. N r r
0.- 0 0 r
O r O r O
mui;v
Qr
V 0 4 A 0
P o o
C o
P
V
0
0 0
A O
W O r O
0 0 r 0
0 0 0 0
mkt
0
O O O O
O 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 O
0 0 0 0 A
13
� N
I
r N O r
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
r N 0 r
O
6
3r
W
3
gm
0
5
o r r A o r r r W
w N a r O• r N
if
IF
0
3o
-DC
E0000000: 9903 !S
.d£06EtIN3 : aweN 91W
0
00
•
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
I65
OLD BLUFF ST
LOC# 3 PM ENTt38M
TRAFFICOUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360 - 491 -8116
File Name : ENT13903P
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 2
65tH AVE
From North
OLD 8WFF ST
From East
65THAVE
From South
OFFICE DRIVEWAY
From West
Steelton)
Pear Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04.10 PM
Volume 0 145
Paeant 0.0 100.0
05:00 Volume 0 47
PeakFaetor
Ht 01:00 Pit
Volume 0 47
Peak Facer
MOO nun 1 late 1 App. Total
0
0.0
0
3%91 Tim Lea I_ APP.
Right 1 Nu Left ( ADP. Total
FHln I Thm I left I ADP• Toth!
Int. Total J
145 0
OA
47 0
0 20
0.0 100.0
0 10 10
20
05530 PM
0 47 0 0
0.771
10 10
0.500
5
3.7
1
05:15 PM
1
129
98.3
33
0
0.0
0
41 0
134
34
42
0.798
3
100.0
0
0430PM
2
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0 0
3
0
0.830
302
91
5 6A
A
A
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
8
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Tukwila, Washington
Boone
00131
PM Peak 2000
7/17/01
Southcenter Blvd
. 66th Avenue
Eastbound
L T R
1 553 98
0.93 0.93 0.93
1 149 26
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 2 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
10
1 692
0.14
0
0 0
VOLUME DATA
Westbound
L T R
545 718 0
0.93 0.93 0.93
147 192 0
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 1 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
0
586 769
0 0
0.00
0
Northbound
L T R
210 0 612
0.89 0.89 0.89
59 0 173
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
0 1 2
LT R
12.0 12.0
62
237 621
1.00
0 0
Southbound
L T R
1 0 1
0.50 0.50 0.50
1 0 1
3
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
1
2
1.00 0.00
0
0
Duration
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
Intersection Delay = 56.7 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = E
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N Y N N Y Y
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 approach:
' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Y N N N N
Channelized: N
Y
N N
IGrade: 0.00 •
IUpstream Signal Data:
Approach: Eastbound
IL prot T
Distance: 1520
• Progression Speed: 35
Cycle Length: 110
Green Time: 40 40
Arrival Type: 3 3
Saturation Flow Rate: 1700 1700
IProgressed Flow. 37 410
Approach: Westbound
f,HV 1.0 1.0 1.0
P by 0.02 0.02 0.02
t f 2.2 3.5 3.3
Worksheet 5a. Effect of Upstream Signals (Computation 1)
'Movement
Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal: 2 Movement 5 Vt V I,prot Vt V I,prot
0.967
1.000
0.967
0.967
1.000
0.967
0.967
0.967
Worksheet 5d. Effect of upstream signals (computation 4)
Movement
1 stage 1 10 12
V c,x 1006 1351 503
s 3400 3400 3400
Px 0.967 0.967 0.967
V c,u,x 925 1282 405
Worksheet 5e. Effect of upstream signals (computation 5)
Movement
1 stage 1 10 12
'Px 0.967 0.967 0.967
C r,x 734 157 595
•
C plat,x 711 152 576
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
9 12
Conflicting Flows 503
Potential Capacity 576
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Movement Capacity 576
Probability of Queue free St. 0.86
Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1
Conflicting Flows 1006
Potential Capacity 711
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Movement Capacity 711
Probability of Queue free St. 0.93
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7 10
Conflicting Flows 1351
Potential Capacity 152
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.93
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.95
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95
Movement Capacity 144
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
I II— I
I II —1
I II I
v(vph) 50 114 79
C m(vph) 711 144 576
v/c 0.07 0.80 0.14
95% queue length
Control Delay 10.4 89.3 12.2
LOS B F B
Approach Delay 57.8
Approach LOS F
•
' HCS: Unsignalized Intereons Release 3.1b
TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
IAnalyst: Riggs
Intersection: 65th Avenue / Old Bluff St
Count Date: 05/18/00
Time Period: PM 00
Intersection Orientation: North -South Major St.
Vehicle Volume Data:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Y Y Y N N N N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.03 •
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles:
Northbound Southbound
• Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 129 145
IShared In volume, major rt vehicles: 5 0
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700
Number of major street through lanes: 1 1
ILength of study period, hrs: 0.25
IWorksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation.
ICritical Gap Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
t c,base 4.1. 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
P hv 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
G 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
t 3,It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
' t stage 1 s stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tc
1 stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
IFollow Up Time Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
t f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
P hv 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
tf 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
IWorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
IStep 1: RT from Minor St. 9
Conflicting Flows 165
12
188
Potential Capacity 880 854
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
▪ Movement Capacity 880 854
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99
' Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1
Conflicting Flows 168 188
Potential Capacity 1410 1386
IPedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 1410 1386
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00
IStep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11
Conflicting Flows 353 356
IPotential Capacity 572 569
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 572 569
' Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10
IConflicting Flows 357 353
Potential Capacity 598 602
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1. 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1. 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity 592 602
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
I II I
I II I
I 11 I
v(vph) 40 0 0 0 0 8
Movement Capacity 592 572 880 602 569 854
Shared Lane Capacity 592 854
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
I II I
I 11 I
I II I
v(vph) 40 8
C m(vph) 1386 1410 592 854
v/c 0.07 0.01
95% queue length
Control Delay 11.5 9.3
LOS B A
Approach Delay 11.5 9.3
Approach LOS B A
Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Rank 1 Delay Calculations
Movement 2 5
P of
V i1
V i2
S i1
S i2
P* Oj
D maj left
N number major st lanes
Delay, rank 1 mvmts
1.00 1.00
129 145
5 0
1700 1700
1700 1700
1.00 1.00
0.0 0.0
1 1
0.0 0.0
•
Intersection:
City /State:
Analyst:
Project No:
Time Period Analyzed:
Date:
East /West Street Name:
North /South Street Name:
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, Washington
00131
2010 without Project
7/17/01
Southcenter Blvd
66th Avenue
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
Intersection Delay = 91.0 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = F
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N Y N N Y Y
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N, N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 approach:
' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Y N N N N
IChannelized: N
Y N N N
IGrade: 0.00 • •
IUpstream Signal Data:
Approach:Eastbound
IL prot T
Distance: 1520
Progression Speed: 35
ICycle Length: 110
Green Time: 40 40
Arrival Type: 3 3
Saturation Flow Rate: 1700 1700
Progressed Flow: 45 500
Approach:Westbound
f,HV 1.0 1.0 1.0
P by 0.02 0.02 0.02
t f 2.2 3.5 3.3
Worksheet 5a. Effect of Upstream Signals (Computation 1)
'Movement 2
Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal: Movement 5 Vt V I,prot Vt V I,prot
V prog 500 45 050 100
Total Saturation•Flow Rate, s (vph) 3400 3400 3400 3400
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3
Effective Green g eff (sec) 40 40 50 50
Cyde Length, C (sec) 110 110 110 110
Rp (from table 9-2) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Proportion of vehicles arriving on green P 0.364 0.364 0.455 0.455
g q1 10.3 0.9 13.2 1.8
g q2 1.8 0.0 3.7 0.1
G q 12.1 0.9 17.0 1.8
Worksheet 5b. Effect of upstream signals (computation 2)
Movement 2 Movement 5
Proprtion of time blocked Vt V I,prot Vt V I,prot
alpha 0.350 0.350
beta 0.741 0.741
t a 29.543 9.718
F 0.115 0.284
f 0.663 0.060 0.646 0.086
V c,max 1743 22 2189 133
V c,min 2000 2000 2000 2000
t p 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0
p 0.000 0.092
Worksheet 5c. Effect of upstream signals (computation 3)
Platoon Event Periods Result
p2 0.000
p5 0.092
p dom 0.092
p subdom 0.000
Constrained or unconstrained? U
Proportion unblocked for minor movements, px
(1)
1 stage
p1 0.908
p4 1.000
p7 0.908
p8 0.908
p9 1.000
p10 0.908
p11 0.908
p12 0.908
Worksheet 5d. Effect of upstream signals (computation 4)
Movement
1 stage 1 10 12
V c,x 1161 1560 581
s 3400 3400 3400
Px 0.908 0.908 0.908
V c,u,x 935 1374 295
Worksheet 5e. Effect of upstream signals (computation 5)
Movement
1 stage 1 10 12
Px 0.908 0.908 0.908
C r,x 728 137 701
•
C plat,x 661 124 637
• •
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Lane 1
T R L Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R
N N N N N N Y Y Y
IChannelized: N
IGrade: 0.03 • III
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles:
Northbound Southbound
IShared In volume, major th vehicles: 157 177
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 9 0
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700
Number of major street through lanes: 1 1
ILength of study period, hrs: 0.25
IWorksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation.
ICritical Gap Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
t c,base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
IIP hv 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
G 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
t 3,It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Itc,T:.
1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tc
I1 stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Follow Up Time Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
It f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
P hv 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
t f 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
IWorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
'Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12
Conflicting Flows 178 1971
Potential Capacity 865 844
IPedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 865 844
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99
IStep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1
Conflicting Flows 181 197
Potential Capacity 1394 1376
UPedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 1394 1376
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00
IStep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11
Conflicting Flows 374 378
IPotential Capacity 556 554
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 556 554
IProbability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10
IConflicting Flows 377 374
Potential Capacity 580 582
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.0 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity 577 582
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
I II I
I II I
I 11 I
v(vph) 27 0 0 0 0 4
Movement Capacity 577 556 865 582 554 844
Shared Lane Capacity 577 844
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 11 I
1 11 I
1 II I
v(vph) 27 4
C m(vph) 1376 1394 577 844
v/c 0.05 0.01
95% queue length
Control Delay 11.5 9.3
LOS B A
Approach Delay 11.5 9.3
Approach LOS B A
Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Rank 1 Delay Calculations
Movement 2 5
P of
V i1
V i2
S i1
S i2
P' Oj
D maj left
N number major st lanes
Delay, rank 1 mvmts
1.00 1.00
157 177
9 0
1700 1700
1700 1700
1.00 1.00
0.0 0.0
1 1
0.0 0.0
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, Washington
00131
2010 with Project
7/17/01
Southcenter Blvd
. 66th Avenue
Eastbound
L T R
1 684 123
0.95 0.95 0.95
1 180 32
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 2 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
11
1 838
0.14
0
0 0
VOLUME DATA
Westbound
L T R
664 877 0
0.95 0.95 0.95
175 231 0
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 1 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
0
699 923
0 0
0.00
0
Northbound
L T R
227 0 746
0.95 0.95 0.95
60 0 196
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
0 1 2
LT R
12.0 12.0
68
239 714
1.00
0 0
Southbound
L T R
1 0 1
0.50 0.50 0.50
1 0 1
3
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
1
2
1.00 0.00
0
0
Duration
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds X
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds X
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
Intersection Delay = 91.9 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = F
L Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
T R L T R L T R
Y N N N N Y N N N
IChannelized: N
Grade: 0.00 • •
Upstream Signal Data:
Approach: Eastbound
IL prot T
Distance: 1520
IProgression Speed: 35
Cycle Length: 110
Green Time: 40 40
Arrival Type: 3 3
Saturation Flow Rate: 1700 1700
IProgressed Flow. 45 500
Approach: Westbound
IL prot T
Distance: 500
IProgression Speed: 35
Cycle Length: 110
Green Time: 50 50
Arrival Type: 3 3
f,HV 1.0 1.0 1.0
P hv 0.02 0.02 0.02
t f 2.2 3.5 3.3
Worksheet 5a. Effect of Upstream Signals (Computation 1)
'Movement
Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal: 2 Movement 5 Vt V I,prot Vt V I,prot
Worksheet 5d. Effect of upstream signals (computation 4)
Movement
1 stage 1 10 12
V c,x 1164 1562 582
s 3400 3400 3400
Px 0.909 0.909 0.909
V c,u,x 940 1377 300
Worksheet 5e. Effect of upstream signals (computation 5)
Movement
1 stage 1 10 12
IPx 0.909 0.909 0.909
C r,x 725 136 696
•
C plat,x 659 124 633
• •
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
IStep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12
Conflicting Flows 582
Potential Capacity 633
• Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Movement Capacity 633
Probability of Queue free St. 0.85
IStep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1
Conflicting Flows 1164
Potential Capacity 659
IPedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Movement Capacity 659
Probability of Queue free St. 0.91
Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10
Conflicting Flows 1562
Potential Capacity 124
IPedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.91
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.93
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.93
IMovement Capacity 115
IWorksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
' I 11-
---I
v(vph) 58 I 11 146 I 93
C m(vph) 659 115 633
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N Y Y Y
IChannelized: N
f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
P hv 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
tf 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
lWorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
IStep 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12
Conflicting Flows 179 197
Potential Capacity 863 844
IPedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 863 844
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99
IStep 2: LT from Major St. 4 1
Conflicting Flows 184 197
Potential Capacity 1390 1376
IPedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 1390 1376
Probability of Queue free St 1.00 1.00
Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00
IStep 3: TH from Minor St. 8 11
Conflicting Flows 376 381
IPotential Capacity 555 551
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 555 551
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10
'Conflicting Flows 378 376
Potential Capacity 579 581
•
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1. 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.0 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity 576 581
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 11 I
11 I
11 I
v(vph) 42 0 0 1 0 4
Movement Capacity 576 555 863 581 551 844
Shared Lane Capacity 576 774
IWorksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 11 I
1 11 I
1 11 I
v(vph) 42 6
C m(vph) 1376 1390 576 774
v/c 0.07 0.01
95% queue length
Control Delay 11.7 9.7
LOS B A
Approach Delay 11.7 9.7
Approach LOS B A
Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Rank 1 Delay Calculations
Movement 2 5
P of
V i 1
V i2
S i1
S i2
P' Oj
D maj left
N number major st lanes
Delay, rank 1 mvmts
1.00 1.00
157 177
9 0
1700 1700
1700 1700
1.00 1.00
0.0 0.0
1 1
0.0 0.0
•
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
2 3 4
50.0
4.0
1.0
secs
5 6 7
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left P
Thru P
Right P
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
28.0
4.0
1.0
8
Intersection:
City /State:
Analyst:
Project No:
Time Period Analyzed:
Date:
East /West Street Name:
North /South Street Name:
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Tukwila, WA
Riggs
00131
2010 without project
7/17/01
Southcenter Blvd.
65th Avenue
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left
Thru
Right.
Peds
SB Left P
Thru P
Right P
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
28.0
4.0
1.0
Intersection Delay = 19.7 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = B
Errors exist. See bottom of report.
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
2 3 4
50.0
4.0
1.0
secs
5 6 7
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left P
Thru P
Right P
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
28.0
4.0
1.0
8
Intersection:
City /State:
Analyst:
Project No:
Time Period Analyzed:
Date:
East /West Street Name:
North /South Street Name:
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
65th Avenue /Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA
Riggs
00131
2010 with project
Southcenter Blvd.
65th Avenue
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Green
Yellow
All Red
7.0
4.0
1.0
P
P
X
50.0
4.0
1.0
Cycle Length: 100.0 secs
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left P
Thru P
Right P
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
28.0
4.0
1.0
Intersection Delay = 19.9 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = B
Errors exist. See bottom of report.
HCS: Signals Release 3.lb
IInter: 66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd City /St: Tukwila, Washington
Analyst: Riggs
IDate: 7/17/01
E/W St: Southcenter Blvd
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Intersection:
City /State:
Analyst:
Project No:
Time Period Analyzed:
Date:
East /West Street Name:
North /South Street Name
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, Washington
Riggs
00131
7/17/01
Southcenter Blvd
66th Avenue
Eastbound
L T R
1 684 123
0.95 0.95 0.95
1 180 32
0
1900 1900
0. 0 0
1 2 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
11
1 838
0.14
0
0 0
VOLUME DATA
Westbound
L T R
664 877 0
0.95 0.95 0.95
175 231 0
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 1 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
0
699 923
0 0
0.00
0
Northbound
L T R
227 0 746
0.95 0.95 0.95
60 0 196
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
0 1 2
LT R
12.0 12.0
68
239 714
1.00
0
0 0
Southbound
L T R
1 0 1
0.50 0.50 0.50
1 0 1
3
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
1
2
1.00 0.00
0
0
Duration
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds X
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds X
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
20.0
4.0
1.0
IIVOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
Adjusted Prop. Prop.
IAppr./ Mvt Flow No. Lane Flow Rate Left Right
Movement Volume PHF Rate Lanes Group RTOR In Lane Grp Turns Turns
Intersection Delay = 55.0- (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = D
Intersection Delay 55.0- sec /veh Intersection LOS D
ERROR MESSAGES
INo errors to report.
• : i
•
• . ••••• .
• ,
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington' 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: (
■
FROM:
DATE: 0 Co
(1.
SUBJECT j — 3
c!.
(206) 433-1800
-72
e V4--/ I) ); —/-1/, CZ_ L-1,-1 P.,
1
t- -A-Le rh
/
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
3211 Callow Rd.
Lake Stevens, WA 98258
(425) 334 -7054
June 25, 2001
Moira Bradshaw
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
SUBJECT: Schneider Homes' Office Building
Dear Moira:
"1YOF Tv ItA
J:jui2JZ601
PERMIT CENTER
At your request, I have prepared the following discussion concerning liquefaction and settlement
of the subject site.
Liquefaction: The proposed Schneider Homes office building site consists mainly of dense, dry,
cohesive soils intermixed with rocks and boulders. For liquefaction to be of concern, the site
would need to consist of loose, saturated, sandy soils with a high water table. Since neither of
these conditions exists on the site, liquefaction was not mentioned in the initial soils report.
Settlement: The site and surrounding area are stable and not subject to any significant
settlement, providing the bearing pressures recommended are not exceeded. Ground movement
due to erosion is a possibility but can be avoided by providing erosion control best practices and
avoiding excavation and ground work during the wet season.
Please call me at (206) 248 -2471 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
H.C. Bloss
HCB /jc
cc: Jill Mosqueda — City of Tukwila Public Works Dept.
IEX..PIRES
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
SCHNEIDER HOMES
PREPARED BY
4131, E N T R A N C O
7740 N. 16th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85020
602 - 889 -7000
June 20, 2001
RECEWE
JUN 2 1 2001
DEVELOPMENT
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCHNEIDER HOMES OFFICE BUILDING
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Project Description
Schneider Homes proposes to construct a new office facility on a 0.73 -acre site located
in the northwest corner of the 66th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection in the City
of Tukwila, Washington. The site is located as shown in Figure 1. The project would
consist of a three -story building with a gross floor area totaling about 10,653 square feet.
The building would be in constructed in early 2001 and fully occupied by early 2002.
Access would primarily be off of 65th Avenue onto a driveway, which is now OId Bluff
Street. The driveway at Old Bluff Street would be the only access to the proposed office
building.
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to examine the likely impacts of the
proposed office building on the surrounding public street system within the timeframe
that the project is likely to be built -out.
This study was prepared in accordance with the City of Tukwila Traffic Concurrency
Standards, Title 9, and Chapter 9.48, 1993. Based on the expected number of peak
hour trips generated, the proposed office building would be classified as a development
which will generate 5 or more trips and requires a Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision per TMC
9.48.050. This project classification requires the inclusion of a Trip Generation Analysis
as well as a Trip Distribution Study as a part of the analysis outlined in this report.
In addition, based on an undated letter from the City of Tukwila, the following elements
are included in this study:
1. Extended network distribution until no peak hour affects are seen.
2. Analysis of bike and pedestrian safety within the network.
3. Discussion of mitigation including the City's Capital Improvement Projects listed in
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Conditions
Currently, 65th Avenue exists as a two -lane paved public street with curb, gutter and
sidewalk, and a posted speed of 25 mph. The characteristics of 65th Avenue can be
described as climbing to the north towards a city park and residential area with single
and multi - family housing. The 65th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection is stop
controlled T- intersection for southbound 65th Avenue traffic. The Seattle Mortgage
Company is in the northwest comer and the existing Schneider Homes Office building is
in the northeast corner.
Old Bluff Street is a paved road with grass or landscaped shoulders. Old Bluff Street
dead ends approximately 270 feet to the south where it has previously been closed to
traffic at the old Macadam Road (no longer existing) and OId Bluff Street intersection.
Old Bluff Street now serves as a drive for the existing Schnieder Homes Office Building.
Traffic Impact Analysis 1
Schneider Homes
DRIVEWAY
65TH AVE
SEATTLE
MORTGAGE
SOUTHCENTER
SCHNEIDER
HOMES
PROPOSED
SITE I
t
NORTH
�i
to
BLVD.
1 -405
SOUTHCENTER MALL
1
FIGURE 1.
VICINITY MAP
Southcenter Boulevard is a four lane paved road with a center turn lane for left turns on
to 65th Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Southcenter Boulevard runs east and
west along the 1 -405 freeway with guardrails along the south side and curb, gutter and
sidewalk on the north side.
Schneider Homes
DRIVEWAY
SOU TH CEN TER
BLVD.
L (0)
♦— (0)
4... (20)
1tr
oG,In
�y
SITE
vi o
n wl
v
4
(45) _I
(542) --►
L (101)
— (804)
FIGURE 2.
CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NORTH
LEGEND
(xx) - PM PEAK HOUR
(4:30 -5:15 PM)
1 G1
v73
1-1 rn
•
co
--I
N
0
2
Z
m
rn
0
-n
Z
- I
H
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
ANDOVER
10%
PARKWAY W
ANDOVER
5%
PARKWAY E
5%
)VM>1 Vd V1IM>1(11
0
20%
0
0 c
M
z
m
65TH AVE.
CO
r
0
rn
N
N
N
N
WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
66TH AVE.
:1°
D
0
D
Fi
0
INTERURBAN AVENUE
0
Z
0
70
--I
•
(1)0
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
ANDOVER
■( <1) <2
(1)0
PARKWAY W
ANDOVER
—1/( <1) <2
L_ ( <1) 0
PARKWAY E
—'(0) <1
c
c
r _ O
> I A
-P- µ
D U1
D 4 t'
_<
A w
A
w r
.■ (3) 4
131N3OH1flOS
0
65TH AVE.
co
0
<1 ( <2) wl
WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
—i( <1) <2
66TH AVE.
W
A
N
0
A
0
lk
>
0 F+
A
N
(3) v 1
(NI)
3
( <1) <2
INTERURBAN AVENUE
■ (1) <1
z
0
•
•
10% of the site traffic would use Interurban Avenue north of Grady Way, 10% would use
Grady Way east of Interurban Avenue and 11% would use the West Valley Highway
south of 1 -405.
Trip distribution for the project is shown in Figure 3. Trip assignment, in terms of both
AM and PM peak hour site traffic, is shown in Figure 4. The trip assignment was carried
to a point at which 2 or Tess site trips would be present on the roadway network. This is
well below the point where peak hour affects due to the site would be seen, particularly
in light of the high background volumes on the roadway.
' Access
As currently proposed, the site would include a single access point. On the west side of
the project, the primary access point would be to 65th Avenue. Old Bluff Street (old
South Macadam Road) would be vacated and improved to about 300 feet north to 65th
Avenue and serve as the main access drive into the site. An emergency exit to
Southcenter Boulevard is proposed in the southwest corner of the project site (to be
constructed with removable safety bollards).
Future Traffic Volumes
Although the project will be fully completed and occupied within the next two years, the
City has requested that 2010 be used as the horizon year of the analysis. Based on
information supplied by the City of Tukwila, traffic on Southcenter Boulevard has been
increasing at a rate of about 5 percent per year. Compounding this growth factor for 10
' years yields growth of about 63 percent, which is a very high growth. Nevertheless, this
growth was used to generate 2010 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the project as
shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows 2010 peak hour traffic volumes with the project.
Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the traffic operations at an
intersection. Level of service is ranked from LOS A, which signifies little or no
congestion and is the highest rank, to LOS F, which signifies congestion and jam
conditions. Level of service is calculated in accordance with the Highway Capacity
Manual, TRB Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994 (Updated in
Table 2 — Level of Service Criteria: Unsignalized Intersections
LOS
Delay
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 and < 15 seconds /vehicle
C > 15 and < 25 seconds /vehicle
D > 25 and < 35 seconds /vehicle
E > 35 and < 50 seconds /vehicle
F > 50 seconds /vehicle
Traffic Impact Analysis 7
Schneider Homes
DRIVEWAY
•
SOUTHCENTER
N %o
14.4
.14
BLVD.
SITE
66TH AVE.
t
NORTH
L 181
■ 1443
81
974 �►
FIGURE 5.
2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITHOUT PROJECT
.• o .-I
4J
994 •••■■
176
L
0
4- 1290
979
41 tr
LEGEND
XX - PM PEAK HOUR
• •
DRIVEWAY
.1
N O
1 �►
0
0—►
3
LO
♦� 0
r 50
+1 tr
N M
in r♦
w
SOUTHCENTER
BLVD.
SITE
66TH AVE.
t
NORTH
N 01
wl
4
L 164
1- 1443
81
974
FIGURE 6.
2010 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITH PROJECT
Lo
+ 1297
979
1tr
n ° 0
ri
r�
LEGEND
XX - PM PEAK HOUR
•
•
Level of Service criteria for signalized intersections is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 — Level of Service Criteria: Signalized Intersections
LOS Delay
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 and < 20 seconds /vehicle
C > 20 and < 35 seconds /vehicle
D > 35 and < 55 seconds /vehicle
E > 55 and < 80 seconds /vehicle
F > 80 seconds /vehicle
Level of Service was calculated for the three cases:
• Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
• 2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without the Project
• 2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With the Project
The results of the level of service analysis for existing peak hour volumes are shown
below in Table 4.
Table 4 — Existing Levels of Service
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66th
EB /L
C
32.1
Avenue /Southcenter
EB/T, R
D
46.8
Boulevard
WB /L
F
100.9
(Signalized)
WB/T, R
B
18.1
NB /L, T
D
41.2
NB /R
E
79.5
SB /L, T, R
D
48.3
OVERALL
E
56.7
65th
EB /L
B
10.5
Avenue /Southcenter
SB /L
F
102.9
Boulevard
SB /R
B
13.2
(Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
66.3
65th Avenue/ Old
NB /L, T, R
A
9.3
Bluff Street
SB /L, T, R
B
11.5
(Unsignalized)
NB /APPROACH
A
9.3
SB /APPROACH
B
11.5
Traffic Impact Analysis 10
Schneider Homes
•
•
The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes without the project
are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - 2010 Levels of Service Without Project
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66th Avenue/
EB /L
C
32.3
Southcenter
EB/T, R
F
256.6
Boulevard
WB /L
F
451.4
(Signalized)
WB/T, R
F
134.1
NB /L, T
F
90.2
NB/R
F
387.9
SB /L, T, R
D
48.3
OVERALL
F
278.2
65'" Avenue/
EB /L
C
17.4
Southcenter
SB /L
F
-
Boulevard
SB /R
D
25.5
(Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
-
65'" Avenue/ Old
NB/T, R
B
11.6
Bluff Street
SB/T, R
B
15.0
(Unsignalized)
NB /APPROACH
A
11.6
SB /APPROACH
B
15.0
It should be noted that the left turn movement for the southbound approach to 65th
Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard operates at a very poor LOS F for 2010 conditions
without the project. The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes
with the project are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 - 2010 Levels of Service With Project
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66th Avenue/
EB /L
C
32.3
Southcenter
EB/T, R
F
263.5
Boulevard
WB /L
F
451.4
(Signalized)
WB/T, R
F
134.9
N B /L, T
F
90.2
NB /R
F
387.9
SB /L, T, R
D
48.3
OVERALL
F
280.0
65T" Avenue/
EB /L
B
11.1
Southcenter
SB /L
F
280.1
Boulevard
SB /R
B
14.1
( Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
178.1
651" Avenue/ Old
NB /L, T, R
B
10.2
Bluff Street
SB /L, T, R
B
11.9
(Unsignalized)
NB /APPROACH
A
10.2
SB /APPROACH
B
11.9
Review of the level of service tables shows that the project will not have a significant
impact on the traffic operations of the surrounding roadway system.
Traffic Impact Analysis 11
Schneider Homes
• 2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without the Project
• 2010 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With the Project
The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes without the project
are shown below in Table 7.
Table 7 — 2010 Levels of Service Without the Project (Signalized)
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
65th Avenue/
EB /L
E
72.1
Southcenter
EB/T
B
10.9
Boulevard
WB/TR
D
42.4
(Signalized)
SB /L, R
E
70.3
OVERALL
D
36.1
The results of level of service analysis for 2010 peak hour volumes with the project are
shown below in Table 8.
Table 8 — 2010 Levels of Service With the Project (Signalized)
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
65th Avenue/
EB /L
E
72.1
Southcenter
EB/T
B
10.9
Boulevard
WB/T, R
D
39.9
(Signalized)
SB /L, R
E
79.4
OVERALL
D
35.9
Access Geometrics
Since the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the site accesses are low, tum lanes
are not necessary on westbound Old Bluff Street at the 65th Avenue drive entrance.
Examination of the need for left turn lane at the same intersection shows that it is not
warranted per the requirements for provision of left turn lanes on two -lane highways as
contained in the article, "Volume Warrants for Left -Tum Lanes at Unsignalized
Intersections", Highway Research Record 211, US Department of Transportation, 1968.
All other areas will function with the existing left turn configuration.
At the access at Old Bluff Street, we recommend providing a single inbound and single
outbound lane.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes
12
On 66'h Avenue, a sidewalk is provided on the east side of the roadway where it crosses
1-405.
Currently, bike lanes do not exist along Southcenter Boulevard or on 66th Avenue. Bikes
must either use the curb lane with motor vehicles or travel on the sidewalk.
Mitigation Measures
The intersection of 66th Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard will perform very poorly in
2010 with or without the project. This is due almost exclusively to the high growth rate in
traffic used at the City's direction. Various improvements were analyzed, including
adding additional turn lanes and timing improvements but to no avail. It is unlikely that
the 2010 volumes at this intersection will approach those estimated due to capacity
constraints on 66th Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard.
The intersection of 65th Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard should be considered for
mitigation when it meets warrants. This study did not include a warrant analysis although
it appears that in 2002 the peak hour volume warrant will be met. Operationally, this
intersection would benefit from signalization as soon as possible.
At the request of the City, projects from the 1993 -1998 Arterial Street Capital
Improvement Program that are likely to be significantly impacted by the project's new
traffic have been included in Table 9, along with an estimate of the number of peak hour
and daily trips generated to each project.
Table 9 — CIP Projects
Project
Number of Site
PM Peak Trips
Number of Site
Average Daily Trips
Southcenter Boulevard — 68th Avenue to
Grady Way
13
91
Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard
<2
12
Andover Park E Railroad Crossing
<1
6
Andover Park W (Tukwila Parkway —
Strander)
<1
6
Interurban (Southcenter /Grady /I -405)
13
91
W Valley (I- 405 - Strander)
2
12
Strander Blvd at Andover Park W
<1
6
Interurban Avenue S (Southcenter Blvd — S
139th St)
2
12
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes
13
Conclusion
When fully completed, the proposed Schneider Homes Office Building development will
generate about 120 daily trips to the surrounding public street system on an average
weekday. Of these, about 17 will occur in the AM peak hour and 17 will occur during the
PM peak hour.
Schneider Homes
X
Z
W
a
a
•
•
1
50.0
0
2
0
O 1 1
0.500
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
By Approach 04:OOPM
Volume 3 1 1
Percent 60.0 20.0 20.0
High Int. 04:00 PM
Volume 1 1 0
Peak Factor
5
2
0.625
O 718
0.0 58.8
O 173
545 1263
43.2
136 309
0430PM
O 193 145 338
0.934
0430 PM
0
0.0
0430 PM
0
718 545 1283
56.8 43.2
193 145 338
0.934
612
74.5
168
0
0.0
0
05:15 PM
168 0
210
25.5
84
822
232
64 232
0.888
0430PM
612 0 210
74.5 0.0 25.5
05:15 PM
168 0
822
64 232
0.886
98
15.0
21
04:45 PM
24
553
84.8
138
1
0.2
0
852
159
152 0 176
0.928
04:45 PM
92 582 0 654
14.1 85.9 0.0
04:45 PM
24 152 0 178
0.929
Int. Total 1
2739
0.978
700
TRAFF1COUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360- 491 -8116
File Name ENT13901P
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 2
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
From North
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From East
66TH AVE
From South
Stertllme
Right L Thnrl Left I App. Total
Right 1 Thnr L Left 1 App. Total
Right { Thnr_J Left I App. Total
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From West
Right 1 fin 1 Left _1 App. Total
Int. Total 1
Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04:30 PM
Volume
Percent
05:15 Volume
Peak Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak Factor
1
50.0
0
0
0.0
0
1
50.0
0
2
0
04:30 PM
0 0 1 1
0.500
0
0.0
0
718
58.8
173
545 1263
43.2
136 309
04:30 PM
0 193 145 338
0.934
612 0 210 822
74.5 0.0 25.5
168 0 64 232
05:15 PM
168 - 0
64 232
0.886
98
15.0
21
553
84.8
138
1 852
0.2
0 159
04:45 PM,
24 152 0 176
0.926
cn
O
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
I ESt I 1 In 21 I Total
1
1
ill1111Mil
4 jM T1ru Lt.
North
5/18/00 4:30:00 PM
5/18/00 5 :15:00 PM
PRIMARY
Out In Total
MTFI AVE
2
2739
0.978
700
Intersection 04:30 PM
71
40.8
16
Volume
Pereeo
05:15 Volume
Peak Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak Factor
0
0.0
0
05:00 PM
20 0
k Hour From 04 :00PMto05:45PM- Peak 1af1
8Y APPS
Volume
Percent
High Int
Volume
Peak Factor
103
59.2
17
34
04:30 PM
71 0 103
40.8 0.0 59.2
0500 PM
20 0 34
174
33
54
0.806
174
54
0.806
101
11.2
28
804
88.8
204
0
0.0
0
04:30 PM
20 222 0
0430 PM
101
11.2
04:30 PM
20
804 0
88.8 0.0
905
232
242
0.935
905
222 0 242
0.935
0
0.0
0
05:15 PM
0
542
92.3
142
142
45
7.7
18
18
587
180
160
0.917
04:45 PM
0 551 42 593
0.0 92.9 7.1
05:15 PM
0 142 18 160
0.927
1666
425
0.980
TRAFFICOUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360- 491 -8116
•
File Name : ENT13902P
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 2
65TH AVE
From North
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From East
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From West
Startlime
Right I Nu
Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM • Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04:30 PM
Volume 71
40.8
16
Percent
05:15 Volume
Peak Factor
High Int 05:00 PM
Volume 20
Peak Factor
Left I_ App. Total
Right
Thor 1 Left_ App. Total
Right 1 Thm 1 Left_ ( App. Total
Int Total
0 103 174 101 804 0 905 0 542 45 587
0.0 59.2 11.2 88.8 0.0 0.0 92.3 7.7
O 17 33 28 204 0 232 0 142 18 160
04:30 PM 05:15 PM
O 34 54 20 222 0 242 0 142 18 160
0.808 0.935 0.917
65TH AVE
Out In
1461 1 ?741 0J
Right LQft
North
5/18/00 4:30:00 PM
5/18/00 5:15:00 PM
PRIMARY
1668
425
0.980
Intersection 0430 PM
Volume 0 145 0
Percent 0.0 100.0 0.0
05:00 Volume 0 47 0
Peak Factor
High int 05.00 PM
Volume 0 47 0
Peak Factor
k Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
BYAPPtaach
Volume
Percent
High Int
Volume
Peak Factor
04:15 PM
0 149 0
0.0 100.0 0.0
0500 PM
0 47 0
145
47
47
0.771
149
47
0.793
0
0.0
0
0 20
0.0 100.0
0 10
20
10
05.00 PM
0 0 10 10
0.500
04:30 PM
0
0.0
05:00 PM
0
0 20 20
0.0 100.0
0 10 10
0.500
5
3.7
1
129
98.3
33
0
0.0
0
05:15 PM
1 41 0
04:45 PM
7 131 1
5.0 94.2 0.7
05:15 PM
1 41 0
134
34
42
0.798
139
42
0.827
3
100.0
0
04:30 PM
2
04:00 PM
4
100.0
04:30 PM
2
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
O 0
3
0
2
0.375
0 0 4
0.0 0.0
O 0 2
0.500
0.830
302
i
'91
'TU KWILA WASHINGTON
65TH AVE
'OLD BLUFF ST
LOC# 3 PM ENT138M
•
TRAFFICOUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360- 491 -8116
•
File Name : ENT13903P
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 2
65TH AVE
From North
StartTlme Right � Thru 1 Left �_ App. Total
k Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:
Intersection 04:30 PI
Volume 0
Percent 0.0
05:OOVolume 0
OLD BLUFF ST
From East
65TH AVE
From South
OFFICE DRIVEWAY
From West
Peak Factor
High Int
Volume
Peak Factor
145
100.0
47
Right 1 Thru 1 Left ] App. Total
Right 1 Thru 1 left 1 App. Total
_ Right 1 Thru] Lefty App. Total
Int Total
0 145 0
0.0 0.0
0 47 0
0 20
0.0 100.0
0 10
05:00 PM 05:00 PM
0 47 0 47 0 0
0.771
20
10
10 10
0.500
5
3.7
1
129
98.3
33
0
0.0
0
05:15 PM
1 41 0
134
34
42
0.798
3
100.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
3
0
04:30 PM
2 0 0 2
0.375
0.830
302
91
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:•66th
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
Intersection Delay = 56.7 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = E
Intersection Delay 56.7
sec /veh Intersection LOS E
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Inter: 66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd City /St: Tukwila, Washington
IIAnalyst: Boone Proj #: 00131
Date: 6/16/00 Period: 2010 without Project
E/W St: Southcenter Blvd N/S St: 66th Avenue
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, Washington
Boone
00131
2010 without Project
6/16/00
Southcenter Blvd
66th Avenue
• •
PHASE DATA
4
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
Adjusted Prop. Prop.
Westbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
L 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 - - -- 0.950 1805
TR 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1900
IINorthbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
ILT 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.952 1810
R 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 0.88 0.850 2842
IISouthbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
LTR 1900 1.000 1.000 0.985 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.952 1782
1 292 0.00 0.236 69 0.01
1221 3532 # 0.35 0.236 835 1.46
1031 1805 # 0.57 0.300 542 1.90
1358 1900 0.71 0.582 1105 1.23
398 1810 0.22 0.218 395 1.01
1086 2842 # 0.38 0.218 620 1.75
2
1782 # 0.00 0.064 113 0.02
Sum (v /s) critical = 1.30
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 20.00 sec Critical v /c(X) = 1.59
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
Appr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Group Approach
IILane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del
Grp v/c g/C dl Fact Cap k d2 d3 Delay LOS Delay LOS
IEastbound
L 0.01 0.236 32.2 1.000 69 0.11 0.1 0.0 32.3 C
TR 1.46 0.236 42.0 1.000 835 0.50 214.6 0.0 256.6 F 256.4 F
Intersection Delay = 278.2 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = F
•
SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET
Adj. LT Vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v
v/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X
Primary phase effective green, g
Secondary phase effective green, gq
Intersection LOS F
ERROR MESSAGES
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Intersection:
City /State:
Analyst:
Project No:
Time Period Analyzed:
Date:
East /West Street Name:
North /South Street Name:
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, Washington
Boone
00131
2010 with Project
6/16/00
Southcenter Blvd
66th Avenue
•
•
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3. 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
Westbound
L 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 - - -- 0.950 1805
TR 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1900
torthbound
Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
LT 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.952 1810
1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 0.88 0.850 - - -- 2842
fouthbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
LTR 1900 1.000 1.000 0.985 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.952 1782
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Adj Adj Sat Flow Green - -Lane Group- -
Intersection Delay = 280.0 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = F
ERROR MESSAGES
HCS: Unsignalized •rsections Release 3.1b
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: Boone
Intersection: 65th Avenue
Count Date: 5/18/00
Time Period: PM 00
/
Southcenter Boulevard - Current
Intersection Orientation: East -West Major St.
Vehicle Volume Data:
Movements: 1 2 5 6 10 12
Volume: 45 542 804 101 103 71
HFR: 49 558 860 108 128 88
PHF: 0.92 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.81
PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Pedestrian Volume Data:
Movements:
Flow:
Lane width:
Walk speed:
% Blockage:
Median Type: TWLTL
# of vehicles: 0
Flared approach Movements:
# of vehicles: Northbound 0
# of vehicles: Southbound 0
Lane usage for movements 1,2 &3 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Y N N N Y N N Y N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N Y N N Y Y N N N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N N N N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N Y N N Y Y
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T
N N N N N N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
N
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
IY N N N N Y N N N
Channelized: N
• •
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles:
Eastbound Westbound
Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 0
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700
Number of major street through lanes: 2 2
Length of study period, hrs: 0.25
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation.
Critical Gap Calculations:
Movement 1 10 12
t c,base 4.1 7.5 6.9
t c,hv 2.0 2.0 2.0
P hv 0.02 0.02 0.02
t c,g 0.2 0.1
G 0.00 0.00 0.00
t 3,It 0.0 0.7 0.0
t c,T:
1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00
tc
1 stage 4.1 6.8 6.9
Follow Up Time Calculations:
Movement 1 10 12
t f, base
t f,HV
P hv
tf
2.2 3.5 3.3
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.02 0.02 0.02
2.2 3.5 3.3
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
9 12
Conflicting Flows 844
Potential Capacity 307
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Movement Capacity 307
Probability of Queue free St. 0.56
Step 2: LT from Major St. 4 1
Conflicting Flows 1688
IPotential Capacity 374
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Movement Capacity 374
Probability of Queue free St. 0.77
IStep 4: LT from Minor St.
7 10
Conflicting Flows 2287
Potential Capacity 33
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.77
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.82
ICap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.82
Movement Capacity 27
IWorksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
i II--- • I
II - -I
i u i
v(vph) 85 196 134
C m(vph) 374 27 307
v/c 0.23 7.15 0.44
95% queue length
Control Delay 17.4
LOS C
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
3048.9 25.5
F D
1822.2
F
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
2 3 4
P
P
P
P
X
50.0
4.0
1.0
secs
5 6 7
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds X
SB Left P
Thru P
Right P
Peds X
EB Right
WB Right
28.0
4.0
1.0
8
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
65th Avenue /Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA
Riggs
00131
2010 without project
6/20/01
Southcenter Blvd.
65th Avenue
Northbound
L T R
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds X
SB Left P
Thru P
Right P
Peds X
EB Right
WB Right
Green 7.0 50.0 28.0
Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0
All Red 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cycle Length: 100.0 secs
85 1770 # 0.05 0.070 124 0.69
1025 3539 0.29 0.620 2194 0.47
1710 3480 # 0.49 0.500 1740 0.98
348 1316 # 0.26 0.280 368 0.95
Sum (v /s) critical = 0.80
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 15.00 sec Critical v /c(X) = 0.95
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for exclusive lefts
APPROACH EB WB NB SB
ICycle Length, C 100.0 sec
Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G
Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g
Opposing Effective Green Time, go
Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N
Number of Opposing Lanes, No
Adjusted'Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt
Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto
Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo
Lost Time for Lane Group, tl
"Left Turns per Cycle: LTC =V1tC /3600
Opposing Flow per I,aane, Per Cycle: Volc= VoC /3600fluo
Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7)
gf= (Gexp(- a * (LTC ** b))] -tl, gf < =g
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C)
gq= (4.943Vo1c * *0.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g
Igu =g -gq if gq > =gf, =g -gf if gq <gf
n= (gq- gf) /2, n > =0
Ptho =1 -Plto
P1 * =Plt [1 +((N -1) g/ (gf +gu /E11 +4 .24)) )
11E11 (Figure 9 -7)
E12= (1- Ptho * *n) /Plto, E12> =1.0
Ifmin =2 (1 +Plt) /g or fmin =2 (1 +P1) /g
gdiff = max(gq -gf,0)
fm= [gf /g] + [gu /g] [1 / {1 +P1 (E11 -1) }] , (min = fmin;max =1.00)
IIflt=fm= [gf/g] +gdiff [1 /(1 +Plt(E12 -1) } ]
+ [gu /g] [1/ (1 +Plt (E11 -1) ] , (min= fmin;max =1.0) or flt= [fm +0.91 (N -1) ] /N **
flt
• SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for shared lefts
APPROACH EB WB NB SB
ICycle Length, C 100.0 sec
Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G
Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g
Opposing Effective Green Time, go
' Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N
Number of Opposing Lanes, No
Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt
Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt
Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto
Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo
ILost Time for Lane Group, tl
Left Turns per Cycle: LTC =V1tC /3600
Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc= VoC /3600fluo
IOpposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7)
gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf < =g
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C)
'gq= (4.943Vo1c * *0.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g
gu =g -gq if gq > =gf, =g -gf if gq <gf
n= (gq- gf) /2, n > =0
Ptho =1 -Plto
P1 *= Plt[1 + {(N- 1)g /(gf +gu /E11 +4.24)))
Ell (Figure 9 -7)
E12 =(1- Ptho * *n) /Plto, E12 > =1.0
Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
2 3 4
P
P
P
X
50.0
4.0
1.0
secs
5 6 7
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds X
SB Left P
Thru P
Right P
Peds X
EB Right
WB Right
28.0
4.0
1.0
8
• 1
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane
▪ Lane Group
Intersection:
City /State:
Analyst:
Project No:
Time Period Analyzed:
Date:
East /West Street Name:
North /South Street Name:
Fax:
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
65th Avenue /Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA
Riggs
00131
2010 with project
6/20/01
Southcenter Blvd.
65th Avenue
ISouthbound Sec LT Adj /LT -Sat:
LTR 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 0.847 0.818 1316
' Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.03
ILane usage for movements 10,11 &12 roach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 •
L T R L T R L T R
IIStep 3: TH from Minor St.
•
8 11 •
IConflicting Flows 353 356
Potential Capacity 572 569
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 572 569
Probability of Queue free St.
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1b
TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: Boone
Intersection: 65th Avenue / Old Bluff Street - 2010 w/o
Count Date: 2010 without Project
Time Period: PM 2010
Intersection Orientation: North -South Major St.
Vehicle Volume Data:
Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Volume: 0 52 10 0 261 0 36 0 0 0 0 3
HFR: 0 65 13 0 522 0 47 0 0 0 0 8
PHF: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.38 0.38 0.38
PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Pedestrian Volume Data:
Movements:
Flow
Lane width:
Walk speed:
% Blockage:
Median Type: TWLTL
# of vehicles: 0
Flared approach Movements:
# of vehicles: Eastbound 0
# of vehicles: Westbound 0
Lane usage for movements 1,2 &3 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N Y Y Y
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.03
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N Y Y
Channelized: N
Y
•
•
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.03
Y
Y
Y
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N Y Y
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.03
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles:
Northbound Southbound
Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 52 261
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 9 0
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700
Number of major street through lanes: 1 1
Length of study period, hrs: 0.25
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation.
Critical Gap Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
t c, base 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
t c,g 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
G 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
t 3,It 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
t c,T:
1 stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tc
1 stage 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Follow Up Time Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
t f,base 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
Y
•
•
t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
P by 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
tf 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
9 12
Conflicting Flows 71 522
Potential Capacity 991 554
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 991 554
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 0.99
Step 2: LT from Major St.
4 1
Conflicting Flows 78 522
Potential Capacity 1521 1044
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 1521 1044
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8 11
Conflicting Flows 593 600
Potential Capacity 418 414
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 418 414
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7 10
Conflicting Flows 597 593
Potential Capacity 414 417
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 1.00 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity 408 417
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 11 1
1 11 1
1 11 1
v(vph) 47 0 0 0 0 8
Movement Capacity 408 418 991 417 414 554
Shared Lane Capacity 408 554
•
•
• •
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 11 I
I 11 1
1 11 I
v(vph) 47 8
C m(vph) 1044 1521 408 554
v/c 0.11 0.01
95% queue length
Control Delay 15.0 11.6
LOS B B
Approach Delay 15.0 11.6
Approach LOS B B
Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Rank 1 Delay Calculations
Movement 2 5
P of
V 11
V i2
S11
S i2
P' Oj
D maj left
N number major st lanes
Delay, rank 1 mvmts
1.00 1.00
52 261
9 0
1700 1700
1700 1700
1.00 1.00
0.0 0.0
1 1
0.0 0.0
•
•
HCS: Unsignalized Intereons Release 3.1b
•
TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: Boone
Intersection: 65th Avenue / Old Bluff Street
Count Date: 2010 Peak Hour With Project
Time Period: PM 2010
Intersection Orientation: North -South Major St.
Vehicle Volume Data:
Movements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
Volume: 0 0 50 0 0 3 0 261
HFR: 0 0 63 0 0 6 0 339
PHF: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.77
PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0 0 52 13
0 0 139 35
0.77 0.77 0.38 0.38 0.38
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Pedestrian Volume Data:
Movements:
Flow
Lane width:
Walk speed:
% Blockage:
Median Type: TWLTL
# of vehicles: 0
Flared approach Movements:
# of vehicles: Eastbound 0
# of vehicles: Westbound 0
Lane usage for movements 1,2 &3 approach:
Lane 1
L T R L
Lane 2
T R
N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.03
N N N
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1
L T R L
N
Lane 2
T R
N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
N N N
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1
L T R L
Lane 3
L T R
Y
Y
Y
Lane 3
T R
N Y Y
Lane 2
T R
N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.03
N N N
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 approach:
Lane 1
L T R L
N
Y
Lane 3
L T R
Y
Y
Y
Lane 2 Lane 3
T R L T R
N N
Channelized: N
N N N
N Y Y
4 1
Conflicting Flows 63 6
Potential Capacity 1540 1615
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 1540 1615
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8 11
Conflicting Flows 37 66
Potential Capacity 855 825
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 855 825
Probability of Queue free St. 0.60 0.83
IConflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10
121 204
854 754
P of
V i1
V i2
S i1
S i2
P' Oj
D maj left
N number major st lanes
Delay, rank 1 mvmts
1.00 1.00
0 0
9 0
1700 1700
1700 1700
1.00 1.00
0.0 0.0
1 1
0.0 0.0
•
•
Cizy of Tukwila
COPY
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
April 5, 2001
Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director
Mr. Ken Peckham
6510 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: Schneider Homes Office Building Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Peckham,
Enclosed is a copy of the Public Works Traffic Impact Analysis comments sent to
Entranco on'April 4, 2001.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 206- 433 -0179.
Sincerely,
]ill Mosqueda, P.E.
Development Engineer
Enclosure (1)
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 433 -0179 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
3211 Callow Rd.
Lake Stevens, WA 98258
Telephone: (425) 334 -7054
March 12, 2001
Schneider Homes, Inc.
6510 Southcenter Blvd. #1
Tukwila, WA 98188 •
ATTENTION: Mr. Dennis Alfredson
RE: Results of Soils Investigation
Schneider Homes' Proposed Office Building
Dear Mr. Alfredson:
1'tlECE V E®
JUN 0 1 2001
C®M�(Ii L1l DTY
DEVELOPMENT
As requested, I have completed my soils investigation for a proposed 3 -story office
building on the Schneider property. The site is located within the City of Tukwila and is
bordered by Southcenter Boulevard to the South and Old Macadam Road R.W. on the
West.
Proposed building dimensions are approximately 140 feet by 40 feet. This report will
address the Topography and soil conditions found and make recommendations pertinent
to construction of the project.
I. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site covers 0.73 acres, is unoccupied and vegetated with blackberries, conifers and
deciduous trees. A 10' x 68' long driveway exists on -site. Entering from the existing
driveway along the east property line of the subject property.
Along the North property line, a short rockery, varying in height from 2 feet to 5 feet,
separates the property from a driveway that serves two older, existing homes. The
ground at the foot of the rockery slopes south and west at approximately 12 %. At the
R.W. line of Southcenter Blvd., the ground drops on a 1:1 slope to the back of the
sidewalk. A 1.1 slope also exists on -site approximately 40 feet from Macadam Road
R.W. . In both cases, these slopes reach a height of approximately 12 feet.
1
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
•
II. SUBSURFACE INSPECTION
My field investigation was conducted on March 7, 2001 and consisted of excavation of
four test pits on -site, varying in depth from 7 to 9.5 feet. The pits were excavated using a
Linkbelt No. 2650 Track Hoe with a 1 C.Y. bucket with ripping teeth.
A description of the soils encountered on site are included in the soil logs. Soil samples
were described using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
III. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The test pits revealed subsurface conditions that appeared relatively uniform throughout,
although Test Pit #4 showed signs of disturbance, possibly from past earthwork to
accommodate the farm house that once occupied the site. Typically, one foot of topsoil
covers the building area. Below the surficial horizon, the soils consist of a dense to very
dense fine, silty sand with a mixture of rock and boulders of adesitic and basaltic
composition. It is believed these glacial sediments (till) overlay the native basaltic
sandstone, but to what depth it is uncertain.
No seepage or ground water was encountered in any of the pits. Test holes were
terminated between 7.5 feet to 9.5 feet.
IV. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• 1. Foundations. Standard continuous spread footing may be founded on the dense,
native soils, a minimum of 18 inches deep. Interior footings may be 12" deep. Bearing
pressures of,2000 PSF should be used. Any over - excavation to remove boulders or
unsuitable soils should be backfilled with structural material.
•
All backfill should be placed in Max. 12" lifts and compacted to 90% of the laboratory
max. density.
Because of the moisture sensitivity of the native soils, clean, coarse sand or 5/8" minus
gravel should be imported for structural backfill.
2. Slabs. Slabs on grade should be cast on top of 4" of clean, coarse sand or 5/8"
minus gravel. A plastic vapor barrier should be placed between the slab and gravel.
3. Pavements. The undisturbed, dense, glacial soils which extends across the site
is capable of supporting the traffic loads anticipated. However, they are considered
moisture- sensitive, due to their high silt content. Should wet conditions occur during
construction, the disturbed areas should be over - excavated to firm sub -grade and back -
lilled with select structural back -fill and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density
(ASTMD 1551).
2
NCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
• •
4. Retention Vault, Foundation. If vault is founded on basaltic rock, vertical
• pressure of 4000 p.s.f. may be used. However, if founded on the dense, native soils, 2000
p.s.f. should be used.
For lateral loads on retention vault walls, use an allowable passive pressure of 35 PCF
and a coefficient of friction of 0.4. Surcharges due to sloping ground or traffic loads
should be added.
V. SLOPE STABILITY
The site drains well and does not show any history of ground movement or erosion
problems. Our test pits showed a medium dense to very dense native soil capable of
standing vertically, if protected.
The construction plans call for grade changes up to 12 feet to accommodate the building
and parking areas. To protect these grade changes and provide landscaping erosion
protection and access. I recommend stepped rockeries or block wall facings and slopes
1.5H to IV or flatter. If space does not allow, facings up to 10 feet and higher may be
designed using a Tensar Geofabric material to provide a reinforced facing system.
VI. USE OF THIS REPORT
This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Schneider Homes, Inc. and their
consultants for the specific application to this project. This report is not meant to
represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The soils tests were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices to provide information for the area explored. There are possible
variations in the subsurface conditions between exploration locations. I recommend that
a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and
budget. Further, we recommend that our firm be retained to perform monitoring and
testing during construction to confirm the conditions indicated by the explorations and /or
provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions revealed during
construction.
I appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
H.C. Bloss
Attachments
3
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
d41
7_—�2 — L
•
1.
2.
• •
FIGURES
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
•
•
•
YIC1N1TYMAp
•
• •
• DES OFFICE BUILDING
•
ILITY SITE PLAN
N 17, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.
\A\
10' MIN. TYPE II REAR
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
(ADJ. TO LDR)
TW= 80.05
BW =68.05
•
30' REAR BLD.
SETBACK(ADJ. TO LDR)
TW= 80.05
BW =66.65
TW= 74.05
BW=65. 75
BW =67.35
10' MIN. TYPE /I
SIDE LANDSCAPE
REQ.(ADJ. TO LDR)
TW= 68.00
BW =66.50
30' SIDE
BLD. SETBACK
(AD,/ TO LDR)
•
49.85
TA
. FRONT
SCAPE SETBA
/
Y GRADE
tJ
37.30\
7503'E
50 8" iv
.?L 5 "N.
/
57-77,r1
4 8"
n('
8"
50.45
TA
EMERGENCY
ACCESS
TYPE 1 -i(
yY -�\ RIM= 4 i . 04
IE =37.39 12" W
R„ •
EX. SSMH
RIM= 43.00
1E =34.80 8" E
1E =39.50 8 W
IE =38.70 6 "N
te`
•
•
APPENDIX "A"
SUMMARY TEST PIT LOGS
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
TEST PIT NO. 1
DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION
0.0 -1.0 Dark brown topsoil
1.0 — 4.0 Dense, light tan, silty sand; trace
gray clay lense, mottling, small roots to 3 feet.
Fractured and weathered cobbles to 12 ". Moist.
4.0 — 7.5
•
•
Dense to very dense light tan, silty sand, some
mottling, moist, (SM) fractured and weathered
cobbles & blocky boulders to 18 ". Very hard
digging. No seepage or groundwater encountered.
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet.
APPENDIX "A"
Pg. 1
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
•
TEST PIT NO. 2
DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION
0.0 — 1.0 Dark brown topsoil.
1.0 — 8.5 Dense to very dense light tan silty sand. Trace gray
clay lenses & mottling. Moist (sm.) fractured and
weathered cobbles. Occasional blocky boulder to 2
feet. Very hard digging. No seepage or
groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 8.5
feet.
APPENDIX "A"
Page 2
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
•
DEPTH (FEET)
0.0 — 1.0
1.0 — 7.0
7.0 — 9.5
•
TEST PIT NO. 3
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Dark brown topsoil.
Dense, light tan, silty sand with some mottling,
moist (sm). Some fractured and weathered cobbles.
Very dense, light tan silty sand (sm) dry. Some
fractured and weathered cobbles. Very hard
digging. No seepage or groundwater encountered.
Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet.
APPENDIX "A"
Page 3
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
TEST PIT NO. 4
DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION
0.0 — 2.0 Dark brown topsoil. Few reddish -brown boulders
to 18 ".
2.0 — 8.0
•
•
Compact to dense light tan silty sand. Roots to 4
feet, mottling, (sm) moist fractured and weathered
cobbles. Reddish brown blocky boulders to 24 ".
No seepage or groundwater encountered. Test pit
terminated at 8 feet.
APPENDIX "A"
Page 4
HCB ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
•
L.3.4 SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT
A soils engineering report, when required, shall be based on adequate and
necessary test borings, and shall contain all information listed in this
Section. Recommendations included in the report shall be incorporated into
the plans and specifications.
1. Data regarding the nature, distribution, strength and erodibility of
existing soils and of soils to be placed on the site, if any.
2. Conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures.
3. Analysis, conclusions, and design recommendations for interim soil
stabilization devices and permanent soil stabilization, to include
settlement created by the grade and fill operations and potential
effects to structures /utilities both on and off of the site. A
monitoring program to adequately measure settlement until stability
has occurred both on and off of the site shall be required in all cases
where such settlement is likely to impact existing structures and/or
utilities. In all cases involving the likelihood of settlement, the soils
engineer shall provide a risk analysis which predicts the possible
monetary liabilities associated with such settlement both on and off
of the site.
4. Identification of threshold limits for slope stability and settlement
which, when reached, will require the initiation of corrective
measures to mitigate adverse impacts both on and off of the site.
5. Opinions and recommendations addressing the adequacy of the sites
relative to the development proposed in the Land Altering Permit
Application.
• .
6. If any of the Land Altering Permit activities are undertaken for
structural purposes, the appropriate analysis of the soils shall also be
provided per requirements of the current UBC, including
determination of the bearing strength of the soils. This report, along
with a final soils report by the Soils Engineer of Record,
substantiating that the final product meets the recommendations of
the original soils report (design) shall be provided by the Applicant
to the Building Official prior to any building construction at the site.
The Soils Engineer of Record for the project shall also inspect and
provide a final written report on the structural capabilities of the on-
site soils. It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to enlist the
services of the Soils Engineer of Record to perform any on -site
inspections necessary to provide required soils reports and to
substantiate that the land altering activities were conducted as
specified in the original soils design report.
L.3.5 MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE AND AGREEMENTS
1. Prior to the issuance of a Land Altering Permit the Applicant,
Developer or Owner shall provide a monitoring and maintenance
schedule for permanent erosion control facilities that is binding on
all subsequent owners of land served by the Sediment and Erosion
Control Facilities. Such schedule shall provide for access to such
facilities by the City Engineer or his/her authorized representative.
The maintenance schedule shall be developed for the life of each
permanent erosion control system element and shall state the
maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and
who shall perform the maintenance.
3. The maintenance schedule shall be printed on the Land Altering Plan
and shall refer to the Land Altering Ordinance as currently modified.
L -7
•
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
February 16, 2001
Ken Peckham
6510 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Schneider Homes
6540 Southcenter Boulevard
SEPA Checklist E2000 -025
Dear Ken Peckham:
To date, I have not received your Affidavit of Posting for the public notice board. Please
contact me at your earliest convenience to provide a status on when the notice board will
be installed, or submit the signed affidavit by Thursday, February 22, 2001. A copy of the
Affidavit was included in the notice of complete application, dated February 9, 2001.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 206 - 431 -3673.
Sincerely,
A1exa Berlow
Associate Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Ciz of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
DATED: February 13, 2001
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community
Development for review and decision.
APPLICANT: Kenneth E. Peckham for Schneider Homes, Inc.
LOCATION: Macadam Road South and Southcenter Boulevard
FILE NUMBERS: L2000 -071 (Design Review)
PROPOSAL: To build an 11, 585 square foot three (3) story office complex, including
parking and landscaping.
OTHER REQUIRED
LAND USE PERMITS: E2000 -025 SEPA (State Environmental Policy Review)
These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100,
Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the
Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, 2001. For information
on the date and time of the public hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431 -3670. If you cannot
submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give
your comments on the proposal before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal
contact Alexa Berlow, Planner -in- charge of this file. Anyone who submits written comments will become
parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.
APPEALS
You may request a copy of any decision by the Planning Commission on a project or obtain information on
your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. A decision from
the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
DATE OF APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED:
October 19, 2000
February 9, 2001
February 22, 2001
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Ischneider homes, inc.
6510 Southcenter Boulevard•Suite #1 •Tukwila, WA 98188.(206) 248 -2471 •FAX (206) 242 -4209
February 9, 2001
Ms. Alexa Berlow
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
Dept. of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Your February 6, 2001 Letter
SEPA E2000 -025
Dear Alexa:
Your letter mentioned our need to respond to the items raised in the letter by using the revision submittal
sheet. No revision submittal sheet was included with your correspondence. Also, 1 am not entirely of the
mind that this checklist needs to be corrected. a ii1l" t+tt` d94t+fy4
wtoic) potentiatonvtrOntnentrdintpatta that y ' red by
iinfeOlita reli iat was unknown orr unavailable to the thelppitearttoad-bektipplied. `by
atinfortnation noted in the Seddon that allows for apettcy o ` ; c tli
l i y as possessing all the'flegeSSOrYinfOrnkatiOttlie00013rior
U detect t n t',c information that the #
wing at proper mitigation ures.If mitigation.is
Of course, where certain information is needed like a slope analysis or geo -tech report, prior to making any
determination regarding steep slopes, slope stability, or general site conditions that may affect the manner
in which the property is improved, that information is quite necessary. The items I am taking issue with in
your February 6 letter are as follows:
A.9 1 believe we accurately described what permits will be necessary in the development of this
Project.
A. 12 The information you provided here can be added to the SEPA checklist under Agency Comments
B.1.f through h; B.3.c, B.3.d
Again, the information you provided can be added to the checklist under Agency Comments
Really all your comments regarding Section B can be added under the section allowing for Agency
Comments with the exception of the last one. That should have read gas or electric heat will be provided.
Electrical services will be necessary for the operation of office electronics, lighting, and the building's
elevator.
Keep in mind that the SEPA checklist is a tool used in helping to identify potential environmental impacts.
If you have knowledge that counters our information, amends, or fills in missing information, you have the
necessary knowledge to arrive at a determination regarding the existence of lack thereof of potential
impacts to the environment. If you need information produced by the applicant such as traffic reports,
downstream analysis, slope analysis, or geotechnical information before arriving at a determinatioiR
ECEIVED
FEB 14 2001
^^ COMMUNITY
DEM ELOPIE1s.MF8
pertaining to a specific section of the SEPA checklist, I understand your requesting that type of
information. We submitted this checklist taking into consideration all aspects of our development. It was
compiled and completed with information that was available to us, to the best of our knowledge DoV"t ask
us -to regenerate information already m your possession. That is neither time nor cost effective for either
one" of us:
We are working to supply your department with the necessary geotech and slope information. After we
submit that information to you, along with the surrounding property information, I would suspect you have
all information necessary to complete the initial review of our project. We're in for a SEPA determination
and Architectural Design Approval. After we have completed those initial reviews, we still have to apply
for a commercial building permit, which when submitted will include engineering and building designs that
will need approval from the city of Tukwila. I get the feeling that many jurisdictions these days are putting
the cart well ahead of the horse by requiring us to basically design the project in total, prior to the city
making`simplistic determinations.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to call me at (206) 248 -2471. 1 would be
most happy to discuss any aspect of it with you in greater detail.
Very truJ.your
ICGf
enneth E. Peckham
Schneider 1- tomes, Inc.
Cc: Steve Lancaster, Director Community Development
Jerry Schneider, President Schneider Homes, Inc.
b
•
Cizy of Tukwila
•
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
February 6, 2001
Ken Peckham
6510 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Schneider Homes
6540 Southcenter Boulevard
SEPA Checklist E2000 -025
Dear ken Peckham:
Your application for SEPA determination has been reviewed. The following comments
have been provided: Please respond using the revision submittal sheet.
The Public Works department has the following comments:
A.7.
Submit a copy of the "slope analysis" or a geotechnical report.
A.9
This work will require at least a building permit, a mechanical permit and a street use
permit from the City Of Tukwila.
A.12
NOTE: The sensitive areas overlay shows class 2 and class 3 slopes either on the site or
immediately adjacent to the site. When reviewing, please remember that the geological
conditions do not conform to the property lines.
B.l.b
Submit a copy of the "slope analysis" or a geotechnical report. See item A7.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
• •
B.l.c
A geotechnical report will be necessary.
B.l.d
A geotechnical report will be necessary.
B.l .f through h.; B.3.c., B.3.d
All storm drainage design and erosion prevention plans shall meet all applicable
requirements in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. A copy of this
manual can be referenced at the City of Tukwila Public Works Department, Mondays
through Fridays from 8:30am to 5:OOpm. This department is located at 6300 Southcenter
Boulevard, Suite 100 in the Minolta Building. You may also purchase a copy of the
design manual. The cost for this manual is 30.00 dollars.
Please correct the following information regarding drainage: This site drains to the Green
River via Gilliam Creek, which is a Chinook salmon - bearing creek and is within 1/4 mile
downstream.
B.3.a.1
Please correct the following information in this line item: This site drains to Gilliam
Creek, a Chinook salmon - bearing creek, which drains to the Green River.
B.5
Please correct the following information in this line item: This site drains to Gilliam
Creek, which is a Chinook salmon - bearing creek. The Duwamish/Green River supports
bull trout and bald eagle. This site is within or adjacent to the Pacific flyway.
B.5.d
Please correct the following information in this line item: Should read, "erosion
prevention and sediment control plan and revegetation plan."
B.6.a
The building needs electricity for other than heat. Or is it solar- powered?
Information Items
Submit a geotechnical report with the building permit application. Please provide the
Applicant with the enclosed Applicant Handout for geotechnical report guidelines.
Public Works will expect a Technical Information Report based on a Full Drainage
Review with the building permit application. This project will require flow control and
probably water quality.
2
• •
If you have any questions about these comments, you may contact Jill Mosqueda,
Associate Engineer who provided comments to this application. Jill can be reached at
433 -0179.
The Planning Division has the following comments:
Item # 8: Submit a surrounding land use map
Item # 9: Submit a title report
Item # 10: Submit specifications for lot lines for 300 feet from the site property
If any of the items listed above do not apply to your project, please state this and provide
any necessary material to support your response.
Sincerely,
Alexa Berlow
Associate Planner
Enclosures
3
CITY OF TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
To: Alexa Berlew
Project Name: Schneider Homes, Inc. Office Complex
File #: E2000 -025
Date: 01.18.01
Reviewer: L. Jill Mosque
The City Of Tukwila Public Works Department has the following comments
regarding the above permit. Please contact me at 1639, if you have any .
questions regarding the following comments.
SEPA Item Number:
A.7.
A traffic impact analysis and a drainage report were submitted with the
application. Public Works did not receive either a copy of the "slope analysis" or
a geotechnical report.
A.9
This work requires at least a building permit, a mechanical permit and a street
use permit from the City Of Tukwila.
A.12
The sensitive areas overlay shows class 2 and class 3 slopes either on the site or
immediately adjacent to the site. When reviewing, please remember that
geological conditions do not conform to property lines.
B.1 b
Public Works thinks the City needs to see the slope analysis or a geotechnical
report.
B.1.c
Was not answered. Applicant needs a geotechnical report.
Projects /Schneider Homes /E2000 -025 Schneider homes
1
B.1.d
How does Applicant know without a geotechnical report? This is not a rhetorical
question.
B.1.f through h.
B.3.c.
B.3.d
All storm drainage design and erosion prevention plans shall meet all applicable
requirements in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
This site does not drain immediately to the Green River. It drains to the Green
River via Gilliam Creek, which is a Chinook salmon- bearing creek and is within 1/4
mile downstream.
B.3.a.1
This site drains to Gilliam Creek, a Chinook salmon- bearing creek, which drains
to the Green River.
B.5
This site drains to Gilliam Creek, which is a Chinook salmon- bearing creek. The
Duwamish /Green River supports bull trout and bald eagle. This site is within or
adjacent to the Pacific flyway.
B.5.d
Should read, "erosion prevention and sediment control plan and revegetation
plan."
B.6.a
The building needs electricity for other than heat. Or is it solar - powered?
Additional Information to provide the Applicant:
Public Works will expect a geotechnical report submitted with the building permit
application. Please provide the Applicant with the enclosed Applicant Handout
for geotechnical report guidelines.
Public Works will expect a Technical Information Report based on a Full Drainage
Review with the building permit application. This project will require flow control
and probably water quality. Please provide the Applicant with the enclosed storm
drainage and erosion prevention handouts.
Projects /Schneider Homes /E2000 -025 Schneider homes
2
• •
Please inform the Applicant that the City has a design guidelines manual
available for $30.
Enclosures (3)
Projects /Schneider Homes /E2000 -025 Schneider homes
3
• •
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
December 27; 2000
Ken Peckham
6510 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Schneider Homes
6540 Southcenter Boulevard
Design Review L2000 -071
SEPA Checklist E2000 -025
Dear Ken Peckham:
Your applications for approval of design review and a State Environmental Protection
Checklist to build an office building at, 6541 Southcenter Boulevard, has been found
Incomplete, as of November 15, 2000: The following items need to be submitted for the
application to be considered complete.
Please refer to the checklist form for precise specifications. A copy of these applications are
attached for your reference. The items to be submitted are marked by an "X ".. These items
are listed below.
Design Review Checklist
1. Item #9: Submit a surrounding land use map
2. Item # 12: Locate all sensitive areas. If there are no sensitive areas, please state this and
provide any necessary material to support this.
3. Item #17: Provide existing and proposed utility easements
4. Item # 18: Provide sewer and water availability documents
5. Item # 21: Phow nearest and all existing fire hydrants
6. Item # 22: Provide a copy of a schematic road design, if applicable.
7. Item # 24: Provide a copy of a luminaire plan for your proposal
8. Item # 25: Provide specifications for any signs proposed for this development, per the
Tukwila Sign Code.
9. Item # 26: Show any stream frontage, if applicable.
10. Item # 27: - Included-
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
Schneider Homes Office Buil
File Number L2000 -071 (Design Review)
File Number E2000 -035 (SEPA Checklist)
Sce of Incomplete Application
Page 2
11. Item # 28: Submit prior to the public hearing
12. Item # 29: Submit prior to the public hearing
13. Item # 30: Submit prior to the public hearing. This item is optional.
SEPA Checklist
1. Item # 8: Submit a surrounding land use map
2. Item # 9: Submit a title report
3. Item # 10: Submit specifications for lot lines for 300 feet from the site property
If any of the items listed above do not apply to your project, please state this and provide any
necessary material to support your response.
This determination of Incomplete Application does not preclude the City to request revisions to
your proposal through the formal project review phase. Because of the timeline on your
application submittal, this phase has begun. However, this phase can not be completed until we
receive the items listed above, or a statement and support materials to request if an item can be
waived.
If you have any questions about this notice, contact me at (206) 431 -3673.
Sincerely,
Alexa Berlow
Associate Planner
cc: Reviewing City Departments
Prepared For: Schneider Homes
Our Job No. 00083
- October 10, P 00.
000z :6 i LOU
eers •
502 16t Street, N.E., Suite 3.1.2
Auburn, Washington 98002
Phone: (253) 8874:1924
Civil Engineering, Land Planning, Surveying, and Environmental Services
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
2.0 UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
3.0 ONSITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
4.0 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
5.0 RESOURCE REVIEW
BASIN RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY REPORT
FLOODPLAIN MAP
SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOILS SURVEY
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Exhibit I:
Exhibit J:
Exhibit K:
Exhibit L:
APPENDIX
Vicinity Map
Assessor's Map and Legal Description
Zoning Map
Site Plan
FEMA Floodplain Map
Drainage Basin Maps
Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table
Hydrology Modeling Calculations and Design
Site Photos
Basin Summary
Sensitive Area Folios
Soils map
DBM Consulting Engineers
• •
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
The following report is based on a field observation performed on October 3, 2000. The
weather condition during the site visit was sunny and 68 °. The proposed site is located at
the northeast corner of the intersection of 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard.
This is in section 23, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County,
Washington. The proposed project is to construct one office building for Schneider Homes.
The existing ground cover is young second growth forest, composed of predominantly
deciduous trees and underbrush such as blackberries and grasses. In the middle of the site,
running east/west, is an old gravel driveway covered with brush. Topography of the site is
generally sloping to the southwest from the northeast corner. The site is in the Green River
Basin and drains to the existing conveyance system located on the north side of Southcenter
Boulevard. This existing conveyance system drains into a pond located on the south side of
Southcenter Boulevard, approximately 1/8 of a mile from the site. At this point, the
drainage from the site is less than 15% of the total tributary drainage to the pond.
2.0 UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
Surface water flow from the north side of the property is intercepted by an asphalt driveway
serving two residences adjacent to the north property line. To the north of these two
residences is Tukwila Park. At the south end of Tukwila Park are tennis courts. These
tennis courts have a conveyance system designed to convey surface water flow to the east
into an existing storm conveyance system draining south, down a private drive, connecting
into the existing conveyance system on the north side of Southcenter Boulevard. This
conveyance system flows to the east and drains into the Green River. The resident who
lives in the adjacent property to the north of the site address (6550 Southcenter Boulevard)
stated that there has been no drainage problems to report from recent memory,
approximately the last two years. It appears that all surface water from the north of the
property is directed into the conveyance system on the East Side of the property that is tight -
lined to the Green River.
3.0 ONSITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
Currently onsite there is no developed drainage conveyance system. All surface water from
the site sheet flows south to Southcenter Boulevard where it is intercepted by the
conveyance system on the north side of Southcenter Boulevard.
DBM Consulting Engineers
• •
T4.0 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
•
The downstream drainage system is composed of a series of catch basins directing the water
to an open pond adjacent to I -405 to the southwest of the site. Distance from the site to this
open pond is approximately 600'. This open pond is located just south of 65th Avenue
South. There does not appear to be any problems at this time in this portion of the
conveyance system downstream of the property.
5.0 RESOURCE REVIEW
BASIN RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY REPORT
As part of the research for the level one downstream report, review of the Green River
Basin was reviewed and the summary is in the appendix. (See Exhibit J)
FLOODPLAIN MAPS
The site is not in a flood plain. The FEMA Flood Plain Maps were reviewed and are in
the appendix. (See exhibit E)
SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS
There are no sensitive areas onsite. Sensitive Area Folios are in the appendix.
(See exhibit K)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOILS SURVEY
The onsite soils are classified as urban soils. United States Department of Agriculture's
soil survey maps are in the appendix. (See exhibit L)
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
All storm drainage designs will be in accordance with 1998 King County Surface Water Design
Manual and related publications.
There does not appear to be any surface water drainage problems associated with the
downstream corridor. All additional surface water runoff generated by development of the site
will be detained and released at a rate equal to the predeveloped rates up to 10 -year storm
occurrences (Level I Flow Control) per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual
(KCSWDM). Therefore, the proposed development should proceed as specified by the
reviewing agencies.
DBM Consulting Engineers
•
APPENIDIX
EXHIBIT A:
VICINITY MAP
DBM Consulting Engineers
S 149th St
• •
TUKWILA OFFICE BUILDING
DBM JOB # 00083
16th St_
=0.I tl 8Migiri3yi,L'`ptt r
65TH AVE SOUTH &
SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
Tukwila Pky SW 21st
SW 27th St
Baker Blvd
Strander Blvd
SW 33rd St
0 yds
Streets98
Copyright m 1988 -1997, Microsoft Corporation and/or Its suppliers. All rights reserved. Please visit our web site at http://maps.expedia.com.
200
400
600
Page 1
EXHIBIT B:
ASSESSOR'S MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DBM Consulting Engineers
Ft.
King, WA, 1997-98 - 23-04-23SE, Sheet: 1 of 1
• •
SW LI- 23-4
It
F
1
y
7-1
.
•
•
.-.
,
..c.:
• 1
4tii.(\
• %, .....
0 ,,--
tk.N,
\
.i,
1
.
:
)4 i
•
Oils
Nt / ill
A.
MO OR $
M
.
4,,,
s4c,
II N of
13
d‘ S
c.fs
ist„
2111=
N
'i40,N6
\ N
*......
zreari..ielailLii.....
....., •"'
.. •
1
'
,
--Q
(1)
;\
IV
UM
...
,\ . - - --
irlr.
n,A.0-1
11112:
Sag
,
I
MI
MO
Mini
Wg.
....-.-.,-
.
i
• 0 g 1
• * 11
it
N%
% i ' i
rs1
1 1411 i
,..T..t.• / / "r;
1 7 ,
7 •
. tvrM t 146'1
•, •szt... *
*SW 24.72,4
ij
• •
That portion of W. H. Gilliam's Donation Claim No. 40, Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.
M., in King County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Tract 28 of the Interurban Addition to the Seattle, according to the
plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, in King County, Washington;
thence south 89d 47' 00" east along the south line of said Tract 28, 22 feet;
thence south 24d 25' 00" east 65 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence south 68d west 156 feet;
thence south 37d west 120 feet, more or less, to the east margin of 65th Avenue South;
thence southeast along said east margin 70 feet, more or less, to its intersection with the north margin of
State Highway Road No. 11;
thence east along said north margin 270 feet, more or less, to a point form which the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING bears north 24d 25' west;
thence north 24d 25' 00" west 113 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
jobfiles /00083 /acad
EXHIBIT C:
ZONING MAP
' DBM Consulting Engineers
tEATTLE
LJ
A
SEATTLE
CtilinCoV:
•
City Ttrloivga
tcnirig h1cp
• `..S,cift • I'='10.00. J.
ri9
,bi, & t225.
F-=
eIso4 so-ownefeie
ppc mge•
4th to! F4 abrib
2
210!
Page 1 of 2
SITE
9Gure.18-9
Zoning Designations
1.0114.ovr Den* Residental
MDR-Meclorn Density Residatial
tiD11-fitti Der* Resileetial
. MKT
MUO-Mtral the DfliCe
RCG-Residental Darmredel Cantle
FICC-Neighbothead Coarnercial Center
RCanaienal Cammettit
http://www.ci.tulcwila.wa.us/dcd/zonemap1.jpg
10/09/2000
• •
---DBM Consulting Engineers
01
21
1
1.144•-•
1
rwa TOT . MI
MAWR 11116101
r1.n4r1 wAMU
r. ..r.
1•r ...mow
ww.0 w W
o
o
1, 1,.. \ / 2')
■
"
\ \\ ' // rr /�� /
■
AULMWM
' rr.o.r r
..... N,....7,
. .... .....
. ........rp
....1 ...., ....,,I,
. 02.......- ,00....c,
, ...-
:„....v...
\ _ / SpU
"� -----•"
/"
/
_ \ TM�ENt
SCHNEIDER HOMES OFFICE BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
•
•
• •
EXHIBIT E:
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
DBM Consulting Engineers
ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS
!FERENC! ELEVATION
MARK (FEET NGVD) DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION
RM330 30.60 A chiseled •q In southeast
of the southerly walk
wingwall on I1,. Fort Dent /ridge
over Green River, 11 feel east of
centerline of sidewalk, 7 feel
north of 1e light pole.
E stablished by CHEM HILL, Inc.
90133'1 33.51 A chiseled square In angyle point on
the nerlh.a.t. wingwoll of I1.
concrete Inlerurbon Avenue .bridge
aver Green River In Tukwila.
Established by CHEM HILL, Inc.
901333 25.01 A nail In Oho lop of the northeast
wingwoll of the 1 -405 Bridge over
Flock Elver.
RM334 11.95 A roll read spike, on the east face
• el a 1org• power poi. 30 1ee1 west
at cent erl In. of 01u ck RI.er, SO
feel .earth of the cent er 1 1ne of
161h S . Esiobl l shed by CHEM
HILL, Inc.
901335 26.34 A ehl sel•d •quay• on the hi sheet
point of a large reek ° northerly
side of bike palh of the nor h hw•.t
of Chr I s I Green S.11. Park In
Tukwila, 120 feet south of the
Sl rands Bout ever Er Edge over
Green Ri vv. EstablI shed by CHEM
HILL, Inc.
RM336 31.96 PK nalI and shiner set In southwest
of woad wingw°II on I1,.
. 1,1°1 tall road brida. over Green
R v.r, 0.30 30111 south along the
r Ever from the Strand•r Boulevard
■ ridge over Green RI vier.
RM337: 27.09 A 60 -d spike In southwester I lac.
e1 48 -inch cos onwaod Ir.. 0 1.11
bank of 0r ..n River. 100 1..tn from
n °rth.nst.rlrr of large
1• bulldln9, 25 10.1 •..I o1
bike path north side 1 pond, 3,200
feet north along 'oft bunk from
South 160th Street-SW 43rd Street.
Eelobll.hsd by CH2M HILL, Inc.
90133E 12.30
Rai 'rood spike 3.3 feel up south
lace 2711, S Ilrcl power ppoi.
an north aide SW 2711, 51,0.1; 11rs1
power poi, oast of Spr I nobre•k
Crank. Established by Clty of
Renton Pahl Ic Works Department.
RM339 21.79 Chi sot ed square on top of
curb on Gael side of dr leeway 10
house number 1516 on SW 43rd
$ 51.5 foal ulh of north
end of 00000.1• curb and 29.5 I.et
.0u1h of south c foee of house.
Eel abl'shed by City of Renton
Tub! Ic Works Deportment.
901340 32.49 A chiseled ' +' In lop .outhw.sler 1
boll at southwest f wood
earth footbr Edge over Green RI ear,
7.5 feel well of cent er1Ins brl doe
dock, 1,200 feet south of South
180th Sly eel -SW 43rd St r0e1 600
feet west of 5R 101. Est obli shed
by CHEM HILL, one.
RM347 22.14 The north bolt o1 11,e fIre hydrenl
whl eh 1. SO 1.e, eels! of Eel 1 obi .
Dl Girl but or, Inc., bull ding and 100
feel south el South 180th Se rest.
'
LEGEND •
.
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED
BY 100 -YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood Muddle da0emdned.
ZONE AE
ZONE AH
Em goad aerations d�mred.
Food depths d 1 m 7 Feet (madly .rm
d pondkbe base good elevations
dNamie&
ZONE AO Hood depths oft m 3 het (usually boat
Mw on doping boraW: 90 depths
deeandocd. For wan d .AM4 fan flooding,
velorN. abo dmwdtied
ZONE A99 To by protected born 100-year flood by
Federal flood protection deem undo
construction 00 base elements dnnmkad.
ZONE V Coastal flood MTh velocity hued Mawr
acb0: no base flood deadens determined.
ZONE VE Cosad Rood with Idodry hazard twave
.etmY. hoe Ikod akrstlan deromoed
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas d 900-yeas Mod: awe d 100 -yese
Rood well avenge depths of Ins than
1 foot or with daWge one kn dun
1 muar. odic nd areas protected by
levees bons 100 -ywr Mod
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Ann de,emined m be abide 100 year
Madpkb.
ZONE O Arras In which Mod hands an
undetermined.
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS
Wend9ed Id0d9ed
1903 1990
Castel berths woes are normally boned wee or
Food Huard Areas.
513
IEL 987)
RM7 X
• M2
97o0r30 ". 32 °22'30"
t)haw4
Protected Area
.dl ean.00 Special
Flood BoundW
Roadway Boundary
Zane 0 Boundary
Boundary °Mdbp Sped.' Food
Huard Zoom Ind 0aundoy
Chiding Arens d Dlifwen
Cased Bas. Rood Elevnbn.
Widen Speed Rood Hoard
Zones.
Bass Food El.ntbn One;
Oowdon In Fen. yes Map Inlet
for Dev.tkn Wen.
Crass Sudan Line
Ban flood Oration a Fen
Where 1101!.030 Within Zona
5.e Map Idea for Benton Oaken.
EImMn Reference Meth
River Mk
Hesitant, Coordinates Based on North
American Deem of /527 WAD 271
Pm)wdion
NOTES
TNs m.p Is for use In administering the N•Mnd Food Insurance Room,:
h does not no.... Oy Idendfy s0 erns sub)0et m Reeding. PerflOdoM 10110
odd dnlnsg..aums of .mad atm. or e1 pl.dm.bo hoboes outside
Speller Food Heard Ares.
Cmsbl base Mod sbv.dma ypy only tendw.rd of 0.0 NOVO, and Indude
the effects el wpm .clan; these nMMne .,.y .loo differ 6Onflke0r
from MONO developed by 0. National Woad, Sanke for lea vane
Gv.ceedmn hdennbp.
e...... c....r.d rswr Host OOO.rast toodl include Z.nel A AE AK AO.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 918 OF 1125
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
CONTAINS:
WMMUN1IY
1ENT.Ory of
171 spry OF
NUMBER PAWL SUR07
ketone
530011
0370
0070
MAP NUMBER
53033C0918 F
MAP REVISED:
• MAY 16,1995
Federal Emergency Management Agency
J
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON AND
IN CORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 959 OF 1125
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
CONfNNS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PNVE
6FATAC OW OF 030320 0000 F
Tt0tWRA MY OF 63001 0000 F
•
MAP NUMBER
53033C0959 F
` MAP REVISED:
s`•.' MAY 16,1995
Federal Emergency Management C7
Ali
•
•
EXHIBIT F:
DRAINAGE BASIN MAPS
DBM Consulting Engineers
(7'-'Y Vl
390
- 25
wOk<
� 45
N*
--25
OPEN POND
...
.N 172,00
x 24 5
200 - 100
x24.5
Xp..5.
26.5
n
200;
PREDEVELOPEQ
BASIN MAp `�
IMPERVIOUS AREA 049 AC
PERVIOUS AREA 0.315 AC
4 /' � /
1 /
/ .l i (/
/�/ I
i
P
&
_ A �.
,,,
■ �� GA..' • \
�D` \ ,59.0.5 — — \ ' — / ,
i
7YP£ 7 -7C
▪ RIMJ7.04
• 1E =J739 12' W
SCALE:1'e33'
DEVELOPED: BASIN MAP
•
EXHIBIT G:
OFFSITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM
TABLE
DBM Consulting Engineers
Basin: .1.ot -viz &t-5^J e F 1/6(
OFF -SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE
Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2
Subbasin Name:
Subbasin Number: 44
Symbol
! • Drainage ;' .
Component T pe, ..
Name and'Size
`• Drainage Component
Description `
:
Slope
• ' ••Distance :.
from site
disc har • e
Existing
• ' problems :
Potential •
• Problems
Observatlons:of field inspector •
: resource reviewer, or resident'
••
see map
Type;. sheet flow; svrele,
• stream channel; pipe, .
pond size. diameter, ,:
• • ...surface area -; •:: :.:
. ,
drainage basin; vegetation, rover, :
depth; type of sensathre area, volume
... .. • .. . • • •
96:
:..
1 /4lni 4E1;3'20 It
. � ,;.ry.�.. :.
cohslric4ons tinder ca c , pending,
. overtopping flooding, habitat or organism
destruction; scouring bank sloughing '
.:.. tlon, lncislonl'oth.:. `
sediments er erosion ...
...
•.
tributary area; tlkeilhood of problem
overflow pathways potential Impacts
.... ... .. • .....
I
d5Pl1-.�,L --
/G�oNV&7,1i /CE G0INa
Sa v� S/O op T�NN /f
-t 1 ou r, Ti) 771E NDi2i// of pr,--.
D. S
VP57 'i.i
Non/E
No NE
Sec- !Word
/�
R12-
/15 puRl.'r
CL ^ntJcY, G•110714/h
41/12 Z ,/A/ /s C4v4.7 ?70Cfi
/oZ
U "S%k_i nI
4/ 77-, 065e/<
L /rG D" , f/;/5
..yam "' f'•'"r"a727
f'3
6-5/
()-01 G'N�
vt'. ei4•pI / y 1 fs 5y14c$
— (S7
Gi/S T
NMit
n/rr/l/E
56 %' 4
/2 y
4�77/r ^/E
UP s fiz_� , / 5 / 7j 91,945c
r 5
-7/5-7-
/V oit/f
A/c ;d6.
5 La h6d ;7)
R_5
/n v?
or5r2__ �i>7/ 5 u' BYm55
± i5
z4ST
/ /oiVE
No vii--
5CC r'/aro
R 6
� �TIun7-1./,/�
vr5TRE).9MJ s ,7.1 3 i;155
k 3
Soar / w'
fvoA),.:
,voicre
5� ? /;,� 7-0
R 7
>�U�E
oJ � t-4 CE�TC2 ✓ Lvo.
,...or,-/ V (R r,C.E S 75 E. i
// . I /�
ar/Tlr✓�
5 !7 -�
AJo,J /.-
,rS/oN
'
kb /n9p.1-0- L /, <, �'
�:
6e/ 776# A/6
( iS ")
50 v"r4 L Tuz, R L4D.
"' "VEDA /klC. ('- 5y5't .-,,�.
600-niCe -I F('_ 13 LV1).
s pc
L 1, �j
1, !V
o-
3,$/
.
-% -2 2-) �+1
l
-- -
--- --
/Vet/6
Atop/..
FJorie.-
ao /n?P,i-e.7- t /Kf4/
,ijo /41 /x, 444'647
c / 7767 - G /n/E
J (0
Oi t 1 Po 'TP
o01µc- 6,1\SiZ2 ■. 1.V D. /
1A-ID S (J E i - I
f /i t--- NS
��!e/,=-
74- 1/ 00
.- ,3cLD//r'
/%.}.l -
FS . /s% op
No/11E
T/�A7-' / �, >.
Ala //V,°/7.0-- 1-//.<El -y
//w • ,F.1,../..?., ,
.
7761 Pe/Air
0A) 5 /7K-
--,1,4[_,T-- Faaj to S6.,
vie,
--
/tJc J
Ale'/\/6'
N D 41-PPA/L.A./T 5-"Lo ✓-e/n/G
/ /LL /,(J /ERoS /e)/✓
LITable.doc 11/2192
EXHIBIT H:
HYDROLOGY MODELING CALCULATIONS
AND DESIGN
DBM Consulting Engineers
SECTION 111
--TN:r.trufmiri A
tf 4 d
‘'"r':111 1:4151111111151
110
KCRTS User's Guide
December 15, 1995
• •
FACILITY DESIGN WITH NO FACTOR OF SAFETY
Retention /Detention Facility
Type of Facility: Detention Vault
Facility Length: 38.00 ft
Facility Width: 38.00 ft
Facility Area: 1444. sq. ft
Effective Storage Depth: 4.00 ft
Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft
Storage Volume: 5777. cu. ft
Riser Head: 4.00 ft
Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches
Number of orifices: 2
Full Head Pipe
Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter
(ft) (in) (CFS) (in)
1 0.00 0.74 0.030
2 2.60 0.53 0.009 4.0
Top Notch Weir: None
Outflow Rating Curve: None
Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation
(ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.01 0.01 14. 0.000 0.001 0.00
0.02 0.02 29. 0.001 0.002 0.00
0.03 0.03 43. 0.001 0.003 0.00
0.04 0.04 58. 0.001 0.003 0.00
0.05 0.05 72. 0.002 0.003 0.00
0.06 0.06 87. 0.002 0.004 0.00
0.16 0.16 231. 0.005 0.006 0.00
0.26 0.26 376. 0.009 0.008 0.00
0.36 0.36 520. 0.012 0.009 0.00
0.46 0.46 664. 0.015 0.010 0.00
0.56 0.56 809. 0.019 0.011 0.00
0.66 0.66 953. 0.022 0.012 0.00.
0.76 0.76 1098. 0.025 0.013 0.00
0.86 0.86 1242. 0.029 0.014 0.00
0.96 0.96 1387. 0.032 0.015 0.00
1.06 1.06 1531. 0.035 0.015 0.00
1.16 1.16 1675. 0.038 0.016 0.00
1.26 1.26 1820. 0.042 0.017 0.00
1.36 1.36 1964. 0.045 0.018 0.00
1.46 1.46 2109. 0.048 0.018 0.00
1.56 1.56 2253. 0.052 0.019 0.00
1.66 1.66 2398. 0.055 0.019 0.00
1.76 1.76 2542. 0.058 0.020 0.00
1.86 1.86 2686. 0.062 0.020 0.00
1.96 1.96 2831. 0.065 0.021 0.00
2.06 2.06 2975. 0.068 0.022 0.00
2.16 2.16 3120. 0.072 0.022 0.00
2.26 2.26 3264. 0.075 0.023 0.00
2.36 2.36 3409. 0.078 0.023 0.00
2.46 2.46 3553. 0.082 0.024 0.00
2.56 2.56 3697. 0.085 0.024 0.00
Stage Elevation
(ft) (ft)
2.60 2.60
2.61 2.61
2.62 2.62
2.63 2.63
2.64 2.64
2.74 2.74
2.84 2.84
2.94 2.94
3.04 3.04
3.14 3.14
3.24 3.24
3.34 3.34
3.44 3.44
3.54 3.54
3.64 3.64
3.74 3.74
3.84 .3.84
3.94 3.94
4.00 4.00
4.10 4.10
4.20 4.20
4.30 4.30
4.40 4.40
4.50 4.50
4.60 4.60
4.70 4.70
4.80 4.80
4.90 4.90
5.00 5.00
5.10 5.10
5.20 5.20
5.30 5.30
5.40 5.40
5.50 5.50
5.60 5.60
5.70 5.70
5.80 5.80
5.90 5.90
6.00 6.00
Hyd Inflow Outflow
Target
1 0.30 * * * * * **
2 0.15 * * * * * **
3 0.15 0.04
4 0.16 * * * * * **
5 0.18 * * * * * **
6 0.09 0.02
7 0.12 * * * * * **
8 0.13 * * * * * **
Storage
(ac -ft)
0.086 0.024
0.087 0.024
0.087 0.025
0.087 0.026
0.088 0.026
0.091 0.028
0.094 0.029
0.097 0.030
0.101 0.031
0.104 0.032
0.107 0.033
0.111 0.034
0.114 0.035
0.117 0.036
0.121 0.036
0.124 0.037
0.127 0.038
0.131 0.039
0.133 0.039
0.136 _,0.502
0.139 1.350
0.143 2.440
0.146 3.740
0.149 5.210
0.153 6.630
0.156 7.160
0.159 7.660
0.162 8.120
0.166 8.550
0.169 8.970
0.172 9.370
0.176 9.750
0.179 10.120
0.182 10.470
0.186 10.810
0.189 11.140
0.192 11.470
0.196 11.780
0.199 12.090
(cu. ft)
3755.
3770.
3784.
3799.
3813.
3957.
4102.
4246.
4391.
4535.
4680.
4824.
4968.
5113.
5257.
5402.
5546.
5691.
5777.
5922.
6066.
6211.
6355.
6499.
5644.
6788.
6933.
7077.
7222.
7366.
7510.
7655.
7799.
7944.
8088.
8233.
8377.
8521.
8666.
Calc
0.25
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
Discharge Percolation
(cfs) (cfs)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Peak
Stage Elev
4.05 4.05
4.02 4.02
4.00 4.00
3.66 3.66
3.47 3.47
2.56 2.56
1.74 1.74
1.30 1.30
Storage
(Ac -Ft)
0.134
0..133
0.133
0.121
0.115
0.085
0.058
0.043
(Cu -Ft)
5843.
5801.
5777.
5289.
5015.
3704.
2514.
1879.
• •
Route Time Series through Facility
Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf
Outflow Time Series File:rdout
Inflow /Outflow Analysis
Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.298 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.248 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
Peak Reservoir Stage: 4.05 Ft
Peak Reservoir Elev: 4.05 Ft
Peak Reservoir Storage: 5843. Cu -Ft
0.134 Ac -Ft
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Project Location:Sea -Tac
- -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob
(CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period
0.116 2 2/09/01 15:00 0.248 4.05 1 100.00 0.990
0.020 7 12/28/01 17:00 0.116 4.02 2 25.00 0.960
0.035 5 2/28/03 7:00 0.039 4.00 3 10.00 0.900
0.017 8 8/26/04 6:00 0.036 3.66 4 5.00 0.800
0.024 6 1/05/05 15:00 0.035 3.47 5 3.00 0.667
0.036 4 1/18/06 23:00 0.024 2.56 6 2.00 0.500
0.039 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.020 1.74 7 1.30 0.231
0.248 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.017 1.30 8 1.10 0.091
Computed Peaks 0.204 4.04 50.00 0.980
Expand by 40.0000 percent
At height 4.00000 Feet
FACILITY DESIGN W/ 40% FACTOR OF SAFETY
Retention /Detention Facility
Type of Facility: Detention Vault
Facility Length: 44.97 ft
Facility Width: 44.97 ft
Facility Area: 2022. sq. ft
Effective Storage Depth: 4.00 ft
Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft
Storage Volume: 6836. cu. ft
Riser Head: 4.00 ft
Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches
Number of orifices: 2
Full Head Pipe
Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter
(ft) (in) (CFS) (in)
1 0.00 0.74 0.030
2 2.60 0.53 0.009 4.0
Top Notch Weir: None
Outflow Rating Curve: None
Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation
(ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs)
0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00
0.01 0.01 17. 0.000 0.001 0.00
0.02 0.02 34. 0.001 0.002 0.00
0.03 0.03 51. 0.001 0.003 0.00
0.04 0.04 68. 0.002 0.003 0.00
0.05 0.05 85. 0.002 0.003 0.00
0.06 0.06 103. 0.002 0.004 0.00
0.16 0.16. 273. 0.006 0.006 0.00
0.26 0.26 444. 0.010 0.008 0.00
0.36 0.36 615. 0.014 0.009 0.00
0.46 0.46 786. 0.018 0.010 0.00
0.56 0.56 957. 0.022 0.011 0.00
0.66 0.66 1128. 0.026 0.012 0.00
0.76 0.76 1299. 0.030 0.013 0.00
0.86 0.86 1470. 0.034 0.014 0.00
0.96 0.96 1641. 0.038 0.015 0.00
1.06 1.06 1812. 0.042 0.015 0.00
1.16 1.16 1982. 0.046 0.016 0.00
1.26 1.26 2153. 0.049 0.017 0.00
1.36 1.36 2324. 0.053 0.018 0.00
1.46 1.46 2495. 0.057 0.018 0.00
1.56 1.56 2666. 0.061 0.019 0.00
1.66 1.66 2837. 0.065 0.019 0.00
1.76 1.76 3008. 0.069 0.020 0.00
1.86 1.86 3179. 0.073 0.020 0.00
1.96 1.96 3350. 0.077 0.021 0.00
2.06 2.06 3520. 0.081 0.022 0.00
2.16 2.16 3691. 0.085 0.022 0.00
Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation
(ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs)
2.26 2.26 3862. 0.089 0.023 0.00
2.36 2.36 4033. 0.093 0.023 0.00
2.46 2.46 4204. 0.097 0.024 0.00
2.56 2.56 4375. 0.100 0.024 0.00
2.60 2.60 4443. 0.102 0.024 0.00
2.61 2.61 4460. 0.102 0.024 0.00
2.62 2.62 4477. 0.103 0.025 0.00
2.63 2.63 4495. 0.103 0.026 0.00
2.64 2.64 4512. 0.104 0.026 0.00
2.74 2.74 4683. 0.107 0.028 0.00
2.84 2.84 4853. 0.111 0.029 0.00
2.94 2.94 5024. 0.115 0.030 0.00
3.04 3.04 5195. 0.119 0.031 0.00
3.14 3.14 5366. 0.123 0.032 0.00
3.24 3.24 5537. 0.127 0.033 0.00
3.34 3.34 5708. 0.131 0.034 0.00
3.44 3.44 5879. 0.135 0.035 0.00
3.54 3.54 6050. 0.139 0.036 0.00
3.64 3.64 6221. 0.143 0.036 0.00
3.74 3.74 - 6391. 0.147 0.037 0.00
3.84 3.84 6562. 0.151 0.038 0.00
3.94 3.94 6733. 0.155 0.039 0.00
4.00 4.00 6836. 0.157 0.039 0.00
4.10 4.10 7007. 0.161 0.502 0.00
4.20 4.20 7178. 0.165 1.350 0.00
4.30 4.30 7348. 0.169 2.440 0.00
4.40 4.40 7519. 0.173 3.740 0.00
4.50 4.50 7690. 0.177 5.210 0.00
4.60 4.60 7861. 0.180 6.630 0.00
4.70 4.70 8032. 0.184 7.160 0.00
4.80 4.80 8203. 0.188 7.660 0.00
4.90 4.90 8374. 0.192 8.120 0.00.
5.00 5.00 8545. 0.196 8.550 0.00
5.10 5.10 8716. 0.200 8.970 0.00
5.20 5.20 8886. 0.204 9.370 .0.00
5.30 5.30 9057. 0.208 9.750 0.00
5.40 5.40 9228. 0.212 10.120 0.00
5.50 5.50 9399. 0.216 10.470 0.00
5.60 5.60 9570. 0.220 10.810 0.00
5.70 5.70 9741. 0.224 11.140 0.00
5.80 5.80 9912. 0.228 11.470 0.00
5.90 5.90 10083. 0.231 11.780 0.00
6.00 6.00 10254. 0.235 12.090 0.00
Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage
Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac-Ft)
1 0.30 * * * * * ** 0.06 4.00 4.00 8098. 0.186
2 0.15 * * * * * ** 0.04 3.81 3.81 7710. 0.177
3 0.15 0.04 0.03 3.12 3.12 6314. 0.145
4 0.16 * * * * * ** 0.03 2.81 2.81 5683. 0.130
5 0.18 * * * * * ** 0.03 2.77 2.77 5608. 0.129
6 0,09 0'02 0'02 1.99 1.99 4028. 0'092
7 0,I2 ^*^+++* 0.02 1.41 1.41 2848. 0'065
8 0.I3 *°°++++ 0.03 I.09 I'09 2209' 0,05I
6.4.1 WETPONDS — BASIC• LARGE — METHODS OF ANALYSIS
FIGURE 6.4.1.A PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES (FEET)
ST 1.1
ST 1.0/
ST 1.0 LA 0.8 LA. 0.9 LA „1�� � 1.2
.
0.54"
(0.045')
Incorporated Area
. c=D River /Lake
— Major Road
NOTE: Areas east of the eastemmost isopluvial should use 0.65
inches unless rainfall data is available for the location of interest
24 The mean annual stone is a conceptual storm found
by dividing the annual preap Cation by the total number
of storm events per year
result, generates Large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and
bedrock soils. and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at
a shallow depth (less than 5 feet) by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) hydrologic soil
groups that are classified as till soils include a few B, most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for
classification of specific SCS soil types.
1998 Surface Water Design Manual
6 -69
9/1/98
ttiv7- fry.57-4/4'-7-
,./i2 /T-: •
/
•
t*
VOZ-1.1•41.ff.' ,9z92 -,
47 /
I t V
) (N•
A ,
t.. '
.o.° T• , v
12 (7 '''..'i 4 ■ A .1 v_
7'1,/ -17,5') 1 3 72-j r---- .
00 :
f: / z-
1/4 M
2-4c te 0 Cc:
/n • J 4 j
1/J eT Vei t..(17-7 ez: I c,L,
et •
Id
• •
EXHIBIT I:
SITE PHOTOS
DBM Consulting Engineers
Photo 1:
South Side of
Tennis Courts
Located in Tukwila
park. Drainage
Diverted East.
Reach 1
(Upstream Bypass)
•
Photo 2:
Conveyance System
of South Side of
Tukwila Park.
Reach 2
(Upstream Bypass)
Photo 3:
Asphalt Conveyance
Channel at the South
Side of Tukwila Park.
Reach 2 (continued)
(Upstream Bypass)
•
Photo 4:
Private
Driveway
Adjacent to
Site East
Property Line.
(Upstream
Bypass)
Tightline ,
3nveyance
•
•
•
�
•
•
!
•
•
.
41N
Photo 8:
Southwest
Corner of Site
Adjacent to
Southcenter
Blvd.
•
=
•
r
Photo 9:
West side of
Site Adjacent
to Existing
Office
Building at
Intersection of
Southcenter
Blvd. And
66th Avenue
South
•
EXHIBIT J:
BASIN SUMMARY
DBM Consulting Engineers
Green/Duwamish River Basin
Nonpoint Action Plan
SUB-BASIN BOUNDARIES •
•
WariligNUWIMEMmill"70 miles
1988
•
Green/Duwamish River Basi
Nonpoint Action Plan
LANDFILLS
• Abandoned Landfills
* Closed Landfills
• • Active Landfills
Source: SeattleflUng County Department of Public Health
Solid Waste
Li......
10miles
Problem Definition
December 1989 Concurrence Draft 164
Figure 12. Water Quality Degradation in Green - Duwamish
\Vaier Body Water Quality Degradation
I. Duwamish Cadmium, copper, lead & mercury often
excccd EPA chronic and acute criteria
for aquatic life. Organic toxicants &
PCBs found.
Low DO (dissolved oxygen), high
temperatures.
FC (fecal coliform) violations.
•
Probable Cause
Industrial runoff, industrial soils,
highway runoff, and atmospheric inputs
which are transported to the estuary
either directly or by CSOs and
stormdrains.
Notes
Sediment contamination is concentrated
in industrial areas of the estuary.
Low DO may be due to influence of the
salt wedge entering estuary.
!2. Lower Grcen A. •FC violations. DO.
B. Turbidity violations.
A. Pasture & urban runoff.
13. Construction & animal access to
streams
A. Highest fecal counts generally
recorded during spring & summer
Highest nutrients in fall.
B. Entire basin lies in flat, lowland
arca. Most strcambank vegetation has
been removed.
1
3. Black River
4. Sous C:rcek
A. Violations of DO. temperature. FC.
heavy metals.
11. Turbidity violations in Garrison/
Mill Creeks.
A. • IT violations
B. Turbidity violations
C. Lead. chromium. cadmium & copper
exceed EPA chronic & acute values
S. Middle Green A. FC violations
I3. lligh nutrient levels.
(. Newaukunt
7. Upper Green
A. FC violations (8-1O times the
standard).
13. Turbidity violations.
C. FIigh nutrient levels.
1). DO criterion violations.
F. Lead levels above drinking water
criteria
Possible turbidity violations.
increased temperatures. •
Generally limited information about
water quality in this area.
Source: PS \VQA.198(
A. Industrial /commercial runoff
13. High volumes stormwater runoff
A. Agriculture, on -site systems
I3. Construction. livestock access to
streams, storm events.
C. Possible urban runoff.
A. Agricultural operations near Auburn
& Crisp Creek.
Agricultural activities & urban runoff.
Stormwater runoff from agricultural
lands was determined to be major
source of contaminants during storm
event. Urban runoff determined to be
major source during base flows.
Construction of roads in upper drainage.
Removal of streamside vegetation.
A. Upland areas of basin steep.
drainage flows at high velocity
B. 31% of Midway Creek area is
occupied by landfills.
A. Fecal counts higher during dry
season.
13. During storm events, loading rates
•for suspended solids, total phosphorus
and ammonia increased.
C. In north area, 52 wetlands buffer
runoff.
A. Metro study 1976 -77 found water
quality to diminish where agriculture
area begins.
Upper plateau represents the most sub-
stantial agricultural area in the
county.
During storm events. loading rates of
suspended solids. total phosphorous.
and nitrates increased:
13ascd on limited data collected on 4
storm events during 1 year period.
Majority of this arca is a mixture of
old growth, second growth & clearcut
forests. •
Howard Hanson Dam traps large particles.
finer silts may pass through.
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION:
WHAT IS THE GREEN - DUWAMISH ACTION PLAN?
In 1987 the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan established
a system for protecting Puget Sound and its resources from the effects
of pollution. One part of the plan directed the 12 counties bordering
Puget Sound to develop and carry out action plans to control nonpoint
source pollution within individual watersheds.
Unlike "point" sources of water pollution - -sewer pipes or industrial
waste outlets - -which are fairly easy to pinpoint and correct, "nonpoint"
sources are often difficult to identify and control. Most nonpoint
pollution stems from everyday activities, not just from people who go
out of their way to break the rules. Since the activities that cause
nonpoint pollution are often spread over large areas of land, the exact
source of the problem is often difficult or impossible to trace.
Individually, nonpoint sources may be insignificant, but added
together they can have a substantial effect on water quality. Poor
agricultural practices, failing on -site sewage disposal systems, and
construction techniques that allow soil to erode -- the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than half of all
water pollution nationwide comes from nonpoint sources such as
these.
The 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan saw the
importance of beginning the nonpoint source pollution control
process as soon as possible. The Green - Duwamish River was selected
by the state Department of Ecology as an "Early- Action Watershed " --
Summary • December 1989 • xx .
Under the authority of the state Centennial Clean Water Act (RCW
90.70) and with funds from the Centennial Clean Water Fund, the
members of the committee have worked together to produce a draft
Action Plan for the Green - Duwamish watershed. To create this draft
Action Plan, data from existing studies were compiled and analyzed.
The existing regulatory and programmatic framework for nonpoint
pollution control was examined, problems were identified and
strategies for controlling nonpoint source pollution were suggested.
Citizen participation was welcomed and received throughout the
process.
Summary December 1989 xxi
The initial document, the May, 1989, Draft Green - Duwamish
Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan, contained:
• a physical description of the Green - Duwamish watershed -- its
geology, topography, climate and existing and anticipated
population and land use patterns.
• a report on initial watershed status -- water quality, beneficial
uses, and the biological "health" of habitats within the watershed.
• a description of existing federal, state, joint, tribal and local
programs and projects related to nonpoint pollution abatement and
the protection of beneficial uses in the watershed.
• a discussion of existing and potential water quality problems
stemming from nonpoint sources in the watershed, with emphasis
on the most significant and highest priority concerns.
• source control strategies for prevention and correction of these
priority nonpoint pollution sources.
•
• a long term implementation program identifying specific actions
required and the responsibilities of each implementing agency or
entity.
Since that time, the May, 1989, Draft Action Plan has been reviewed
extensively by the state Department of Ecology, implementing
agencies and affected parties in the watershed. In response to
suggestions made by these agencies, groups and individuals, this
Revised Draft Action Plan has been assembled.
December 1989 • xxii
Summary
THE GREEN- DUWAMISH WATERSHED: (Chapter 1)
The Green /Duwamish River and its tributaries drain 480 square
miles in King County, making the Green the eighth largest river
entering Puget Sound. The Green River is the major source of fresh
water for the City'of Tacoma -- 72 million gallons per day are taken
from the uppermost reaches of the watershed. These same waters
also support a lucrative fishery: catches of salmon and steelhead from
the Green are valued at over $19,000,000 a year. Two major fish
hatcheries and several salmon and steelhead rearing ponds are
located on its banks.
In addition, the Green provides rearing, spawning, nesting and
transportation areas for a multitude of fish and wildlife species. The
river is a feeding ground for heron, osprey and endangered bald
eagles; river otter, weasel and muskrat can also be found. Birds
migrating along the Pacific Flyway rely on the seasonal and
permanent wetlands of the lower Green River for shelter and
sustenance..
The Green is an excellent recreational resource in close proximity to
the largest metropolitan region in the state, and it has been
nominated for inclusion in the state Scenic Rivers System.
Using the classification of the King County Open Space Program, there
are nine basic habitat types found in the Green- Duwamish Watershed.
The fannland of the Middle and Lower Green River Valleys provides wet
and dry fields which are used, sometimes extensively, by wildlife.
Riparian woodland is present in the Middle Green, and to lesser extent in
the Lower Green. There are also ponds, marshes, and shrub swamps
along the Lower Green and mixed woodland characterizes areas of
increased gradient on the valley walls. The river provides banks of
varying character, and gravel bars are common in the Middle Green.
Urban areas make up the last habitat category. All of these habitats often
. occur side -by -side with transition zones, or have "edge" habitats marking
Summary December 1989 xxiii
Note:
their boundaries. Edges tend to be extremely valuable to wildlife, because
they provide some of the advantages of each habitat type.
The Green River also supports a wide range of human activities. How
people use the land changes dramatically as the Green River flows
from forested mountains to the industrial areas of the Duwamish.
Sharing the land are residential and industrial areas, airports, business
districts, a racetrack, construction projects, railroads, highways, and
many other man -made habitats.
To discuss . such a large and diverse area in detail, the Watershed
Management Committee found it necessary to break the watershed
study area into five sub - basins. Each of the subbasins was named for
a portion of the river, and included all the tributaries of that reach.
The Green- Duwamish Watershed Management Committee agreed to
exclude the. Upper Green subbasin from the scope of its Action Plan,
focusing instead on the four other basins, where the need for source
control strategies and water quality planning was far greater. Timber
production, the major activity in the Upper Green is currently regulated
by . the state under adopted Rules and Regulations (WAC 222), recently
revised in part to minimize nonpoint source pollution from forest
practices. Considerable water quality control is also exercised by the City
of Tacoma, which depends on the Upper Green subbasin as its major
source of fresh water.
The MIDDLE GREEN RIVER SUBBASIN runs from the Tacoma
Diversion Dam to the confluence with Soos Creek and includes the
Enumclaw Plateau. This subbasin is growing slowly, retaining its
predominantly agricultural character. Land use projections for the
year 2000 indicate that a large portion of this subbasin will remain
forested. Future development probably will continue along lines
already established: most of the river bottom land will be used for
agriculture., while the higher elevations will continue to be developed
for residential use. In 1984 the Puget Sound Council of Governments
Summary December 1989 xxiv
estimated the population of the Middle Green subbasin at 16,000,
forecasting a population of 23,000 by the year 2000.
The SOOS CREEK SUBBASIN includes the drainages of Soos,
Covington, Jenkins and Little Soos Creeks. Here land uses are
becoming increasingly urbanized. Much of the area within this
subbasin -- currently vacant, forested land -- is threatened by a rapidly
developing suburban area. In 1987 Soos Creek led all King County
community planning areas with 773 new lots recorded. According to
a 1980 Puget Sound Council of Governments report, the population of
the Soos Creek'subbasin will nearly double -- growing steadily from
65,394 to 125,216 people -- by the year 2000.
The LOWER GREEN RIVER SUBBASIN is bounded by the
confluences with Soos Creek and the Black River. This subbasin has
boomed during the last 15 years and now includes a valuable
combination of industrial, commercial, residential and agricultural
land uses. Extensive areas of new office /commercial and multi - family
residential develo.pment are also found here. Land use has been
stimulated by the growth of the Puget Sound metropolitan area and
has been facilitated by relatively recent transportation improvements
and flood - control measures. Three of the 25 largest cities in the state-
- Renton, Auburn and Kent -- are in this subbasin. As of April 1987,
these cities had a combined population of 96,000 residents. • Loss of
wildlife habitats and riparian zones has been substantial in this
subbasin.
The DUWAMISH RIVER SUBBASIN extends from the confluence
with the Black River to the river mouth at Elliott Bay. This is the
most heavily industrialized watershed in the Puget Sound area -- 98
percent of the original wetland and riparian habitats in the Duwamish
basin are gone. Present development consists primarily of residential,
industrial, and commercial uses. The Puget Sound Council of
Summary December 1989
xxv
Governments estimated the population of the Duwamish subbasin at
56,000 in 1984 and predicted a nine percent decline in population by
the year 2000.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION AND THE GREEN- DUWAMISH:
(Chapters 2 -4)
Since all land within a watershed drains to a common outlet, every
activity on land has the potential to affect the entire watershed.
Industrial, agricultural, commercial, recreational and residential land
uses all can be found within the Green - Duwamish watershed.
Nonpoint source pollution is generated by all of these activities.
Many nonpoint sources have been identified throughout the Green -
Duwamish Basin. Although there are many nonpoint sources of
pollution about which little is known, the Committee identified the
following as most significant:
o Agricultural sources from the Newaukum Creek area of the
Enumclaw Plateau;
o Runoff from the cities of Enumclaw, Auburn, Kent and
Tukwila and other.developed land in unincorporated areas;
o Industrial spills and runoff from the industrial lands
surrounding Elliott Bay and the Duwamish estuary;
o Failing on -site sewage disposal systems in the Skyway area of
the Duwamish subbasin; •
o Potential leachate of toxicants into ground or surface waters;
and,
o Erosion from construction practices due to rapid urbanization.
Summary December 1989
Governments estimated the population of the Duwamish subbasin at
56,000 in 1984 and predicted a nine percent decline in population by
the year 2000.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION AND THE GREEN- DUWAMISH:
(Chapters 2 -4)
Since all land within a watershed drains to a common outlet, every
activity on land has the potential to affect the entire watershed.
Industrial, agricultural, commercial, recreational and residential land
uses all can be found within the Green- Duwamish watershed.
Nonpoint source pollution is generated by all of these activities.
Many nonpoint sources have been identified throughout the Green -
Duwamish Basin. Although there are many nonpoint sources of
pollution about which little is known, the Committee identified the
following as most significant:
o Agricultural sources from the Newaukum Creek area of the
Enumclaw Plateau;
o Runoff from the cities of Enumclaw, Auburn, Kent and
Tukwila and other.developed land in unincorporated areas;
o Industrial spills and runoff from the industrial lands
surrounding Elliott Bay and the Duwamish estuary;
o Failing on -site sewage disposal systems in the Skyway area of
the Duwamish subbasin; •
o Potential leachate of toxicants into ground or surface waters;
and,
o Erosion from construction practices due to rapid urbanization.
Summary — December 1989
xxvi
AGRICULTURE
Pollutants most identified with farming activities are sediments,
nutrients, organic materials, pesticides and pathogens. Crop
production activities that can generate these pollutants are soil tillage,
improper application of fertilizers and pesticides, and irrigation.
Animal production activities that generate these pollutants include
animal confinement, overgrazing of pastures, unrestricted livestock
access to streams, and improper application of animal wastes to fields.
The Soos and Middle Green sub - basins have high levels of farming
activity, while the Lower Green has moderate levels. Poor pasture and
animal waste management are felt to be the most significant
agricultural sources of nonpoint pollutants in the watershed.
URBAN RUNOFF
Urban stormwater has long been recognized as a major source of
pollution in the watershed. Studies from other states indicate that
urban runoff from storm events may be as bad or worse than the
effluent from a primary sewage treatment plant. • The magnitude and
frequency of flooding may increase -as vegetation cover and permeable
soils are replaced by impermeable surfaces; erosion and stream bed
scouring results in habitat loss for fish and invertebrate species; and
increased overland flows can reduce groundwater recharge,
presenting serious problems when groundwater is used as a public
water supply.
Several stormwater management programs are already in place within
the Green- Duwamish watershed. The Elliott Bay Action Team
identified 27 priority sites for immediate action and has begun their
correction. The cities of Seattle, Tukwila, Renton, Kent and Auburn
have established stormwater management utilities. King County's
Surface Water Management Utility is nearing completion of a design
manual to regulate construction or installation of storm and surface
water management systems.
•
disposal in the United States and the only method that has been used
in King County. Leachate from landfills is a potential environmental
Summary
December 1989 xxviii
problem, threatening both surface- and groundwater in the Green -
Duwamish watershed. Active landfills exist at Enumclaw and
Ravensdale. Kent - Highlands, which is now closed, is a federal
Superfund site, slated for clean -up in the near future. Other
Superfund sites in the watershed include Western Processing and
Harbor Island. .
EROSION FROM
CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICES
Urbanization frequently results in clearin& of vegetated areas. When
soil erosion occurs during clearing, site preparation and construction
operations, valuable fish spawning areas become covered with silt.
Habitats of birds, invertebrates and plants can be degraded or lost
entirely. In the six years from 1982 through 1987, 579 acres of
forestland in the Middle Green, 404 acres in the Soos Creek, 78 acres
in the Lower Green, and 30 acres in the Duwamish subbasins were
converted to urban land uses or pasture.
Nonpoint sources that were not found to be as significant a problem
in the Green - Duwamish include mining, forest practices (except for
urban conversion practices) and marinas. The separation of the
combined sewer system, while decreasing the occurrence of sewage
overflow, can be expected to cause an increased pollutant loading due
to the effects of the added stormwater. There are numerous
stormwater discharges in the watershed, particularly in the Lower
Green and Duwamish. subbasins.
Maps showing land use, water districts, wetlands, monitoring stations,
stormwater outlets, on -site sewage disposal system failures, sewer
districts and landfills are included in this document.
3
• •
THE GREEN- DUWAMISH ACTION PLAN: (Chapter 5)
Every Puget Sound watershed has unique physical and biological
characteristics, human populations and patterns of land use. Each
Puget Sound watershed also has its own set of nonpoint pollution
problems. A long history of industrial activity,_a relatively recent but
rapid trend towards urbanization, the export of millions of gallons of
water to the city of Tacoma and a fishery resource valued at millions
of dollars are characteristics setting the Green - Duwamish apart from
other watersheds.
Regional watersheds are whole systems. Every nonpoint pollution
producing activity has the potential to affect the entire watershed. It
is easy to understand how an activity upstream can ultimately affect
the lives of people downstream. In the case of the Green - Duwamish,
however, the reverse also holds true: pollution, downstream that
threatens the runs of salmon and steelhead will also greatly affect the
lives of people upstream. Therefore the Action Plan recognizes the
need for all actors in the Green - Duwamish to share the responsibility
for their common use of the watershed.
The goal of the Green - Duwamish Watershed Action Plan is to
minimize nonpoint source water pollution, protect beneficial uses, and
enhance water quality in the watershed. Objectives of the Action Plan
include describing the unique characteristics of the watershed;
identifying the major problems associated with nonpoint source
pollution in the watershed; and, defining for each of the identified
problems a strategy for controlling nonpoint pollution at the source
and /or for improving the coordination among existing nonpoint
abatement programs and projects.
One of the unique problems identified by the Action Plan is the lack
of an overall coordinating structure. The Green - Duwamish is so large
and complex that every level of government and many private groups
Summary December 1989
xxx
;--:
:,
are active with water quality programs in the watershed. Eighty -six
separate water quality programs of the federal, state, tribal, regional
and local governments and seven additional jointly administered
programs are described in the Action Plan (A matrix of agencies, their
programs and the issues they address is contained.in Chapter 3 of this
document.). Few participants in watershed management currently
have a complete understanding of all programs and the contributions
to water quality that they make. The Action Plan responds with an
overview of those existing programs.
• To encourage coordination among existing and scheduled water
quality programs, source control strategies for priority issues are
presented in response to identified problems rather than in terms of
existing programs. Problems have been identified within the
watershed as a whole, and a variety of actions to address them are
recommended in each strategy. The source control strategies added
together comprise the Long Term Implementation Program of this
Action Plan. Each strategy recommends a variety of actions to
address these issues. The Action Plan has intentionally refrained
from addressing those unique problems that are best addressed in
subsequent water quality plans for smaller basins or streams.
Many different kinds of actions are often required before a water quality
problem can be fully resolved. To address priority issues identified by the
Watershed Management Committee, the recommendations in the Action
Plan call for:
Carefully crafted programs of education and public involvement;
o Thorough changes to policies, permitting procedures and laws;
o Increased or improved enforcement;
• Improved data management; and,
O The adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
•
Summary December 1989 xxxi
Major recommendations include:.
SENSITIVE * that all cities within the watershed adopt ordinances
AREAS which define standards which are equivalent to those
proposed for King County in the revised Sensitive Areas
Ordinance for the protection of sensitive wetlands,
riparian corridors and steep slopes.
DRAINAGE * that all cities within the watershed adopt standards
STANDARDS for drainage management comparable to those
proposed for King County in the Surface Water Design
Manual.
MONITORING
EDUCATION
ENFORCEMENT
AGRICULTURE
PESTICIDES
* that Metro lead the development of a standardized
water quality monitoring and data management
program in which all jurisdictions and agencies with
programs and projects in the watershed participate.
* that the King County Cooperative Extension lead in
the development of an integrated, multi - agency water
quality education strategy for the entire. watershed.
* that Ecology identify and publish an outline which
shows to the public which agencies are responsible for
nonpoint source controls and how to contact those
enforcement officers.
* all jurisdictions should require that each creek or
tributary be protected from grazing animals in order to:
(1) keep animal wastes out of the water, (2) reduce
bank collapse due to trampling, and (3) allow shading
vegetation to grow back along streambanks.
* King County Public Works should adopt a model
vegetation management program based on Integrated
Pest Management techniques.
SEPTIC * current public education efforts dealing with proper
SYSTEMS maintenance and operation of on -site sewage systems
should be continued and expanded. Property owners
must know that they have an on -site system and
understand how to make it work. Too many do not!
Summary December 1989 xxxii
FORESTRY
* King County and the cities within the watershed
should adopt ordinances and associated rules which
define standards for the clearing of forestland for
conversion to other uses. Conversion Forest Practice
Applications should be conditioned according to those
rules.
* When development is proposed on a parcel recently
logged under a non - conversion Forest Practice
Application, King County and the cities within the
watershed should consistently enforce the six-year
moratorium (see Chapter 76.09.060 RCW) on the
review and approval of any development permits.
Once this plan is approved by Ecology, each local and
CONSISTENCY state agency responsible for implementing a part of this
plan is responsible for carrying out its portion within the
AND prescribed schedule, using the approaches described in
the source control strategy. In addition, state law
COMPLIANCE provides that they shall be guided by the plan in
developing and approving all studies, plans, permits and
facilities in the watershed.
King County, as lead agency responsible for this Action
Plan, will coordinate among implementing agencies and
each year report on the status of implementation to the
Department of Ecology.
Ecology will audit this plan every two years to ensure
consistent and adequate implementation.
The price of prevention is far less than the cost of cleanup. Strong
measures to protect the habitats and inhabitants of the watershed are
much more cost- effective than efforts to restore these resources after
environmental harm has been done. Therefore the Action Plan's
recommendations place emphasis on proper design, installation,
construction and management of all programs and improvements in
the first place.
Like watersheds, local governments, tribes, agencies, organizations
and interest groups responsible for implementing the Action Plan are
unique. All have different histories, physical circumstances and stages
of development. However all of the actors within the Green -
Duwamish system share responsibility for the health of the watershed.
Summary
December 1989 xxxiii
Each has a stake and a role to play in protecting the Green - Duwamish
watershed from the effects of nonpoint pollution. Regional
cooperation is imperative for the Green - Duwamish Watershed
Nonpoint Action Plan to work.
EDUCATION: (Chapter 6)
Improved education is the single most important step to controlling
nonpoint source pollution in the Green- Duwamish watershed.
Everyone who lives and works in the watershed contributes to the
pollution of the river. If this pollution is to be reduced, people will
have to change the ways they work, play and live. Most people are
willing, even eager, to reduce pollution; however, most people need
help in understanding how they pollute and what they can do about it.
Education is needed for farmers about agricultural practices;
homeowners about proper maintenance of septic tanks, application of
garden products and home auto repairs; contractors about
construction practices; and boaters about sewage, garbage and motor
products disposal.
The Action Plan encourages expanded outreach programs that offer
public education about the issues combined with incentives for
changing current land use practices. Among its many
recommendations for improved education, the Plan calls for the King
County Cooperative Extension to lead in the development of a
coordinated regional water quality education strategy. This strategy
will define roles for agencies and identify and improve access to
educational materials.
The Action Plan also recommends that a work study program be set
up at Green River Community College to accomplish the goals of a
nonpoint pollution education program. Students at Green River
Community College are already involved in many facets of water
quality management. It would be a useful educational tool for these
students to be able to participate in the formulation and
Summary
December 1989 . xxxiv
implementation of specific nonpoint pollution controls. Not only
would the students learn more about the issues in a hands -on,
solution- oriented approach, but the community would benefit from
the knowledge and staffing these students would offer.
ENFORCEMENT: (Chapter 6)
While most people have positive and constructive intentions to
improve water quality, some do not. For that reason, the Action
Plan's education strategy must be backed up by a strategy for strong
and consistent water quality enforcement. The Action Plan identifies
several areas of enforcement where improvements can be made,
primarily through increased coordination between agencies
responsible for water quality and improved staffing to support existing
regulations. Recommendations are made to improve the facility and
effectiveness of enforcing existing policy.
The single most effective step recommended to improve water quality
enforcement is to increase funding for enforcement staff. The Action
Plan also recommends improvements in public access to the
enforcement network, based on the understanding that as more
people understand water quality and recognize pollution sources, they
can help improve enforcement actions by serving as eyes and ears in
the watershed.
MONITORING AND DATA MANAGEMENT: (Chapter 7)
The data generated by monitoring programs are essential for the
responsible management of surface waters by resource managers and
regulatory agencies in the Green - Duwamish Watershed.
There are currently 18 different water quality monitoring programs in
the watershed, and more are being planned as part of implementation
projects recommended in the Green - Duwamish Action Plan. Most of
these programs are narrowly focused on a certain geographic area or
Summary December 1989
xxxv •
provide short -term data for use in specific projects. Because each
program is administered by different agencies and jurisdictions for
different purposes, the data gathering is not coordinated, nor are data
analyzed for their relevance to the entire watershed.
The Action Plan recommends that a regional water quality monitoring
forum be initiated by Metro to encourage data analysis, to improve
coordination and data sharing and encourage improvements to the
coordinated use of Geographic Information Systems in the watershed.
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computerized tool for
managing and portraying land information. Land information -- land
descriptions, value, ownership, parcel size, location, use, restrictions,
easements, zoning, natural features, and hydrography -- is currently
being generated and land records are being maintained by several
public and private organizations with little awareness of each others'
activities and responsibilities. If the true potential of the fast
developing geographic information system (GIS) concepts and
technology is to be realized, some sort of "land informations systems
network" will be essential. Coordination is needed to make the best
use of taxpayer dollars and to realize the greatest utility from GIS
technology.
IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION PLAN (Chapter 8)
Once the Department of Ecology approves the Green - Duwamish
Nonpoint Action Plan, each implementing entity will be responsible
for its share of the work, keeping within the prescribed schedule and
using the approaches described for the appropriate source control
strategy. Each entity will also be required by law to follow the Action
Plan guidelines when developing and approving all studies, plans,
permits and facilities within the watershed.
Summary
December 1989 xxxvi
Note:
Given this expectation to implement the Plan, considerable effort has
been made to gain the concurrence of the implementing agencies with
the recommendations of the Plan.
During October and November, 1989, an extensive 60 -day review of
the recommendations in the Action Plan took place. A series of
hearings was held to take public testimony on the plan as part of this
review. These hearings offered implementing agenices an excellent
forum for receiving -- not just sending -- comments about the Action
Plan. Public Comment received at these hearings helped to more
clearly determine what is expected of each implementing agency,
better defining their roles during the planning process.
Following the hearings, the implementing agencies have been asked
to submit letters of concurrence to the Watershed Management
Committee indicating their intent to adopt the policies, ordinances
and programs of the Action Plan. These letters are the Watershed
Management Committee's way of asking each agency to make a
formal and specific commitment to water quality. That commitment
could be made by a department head, councilman, mayor or any other
person representing an implementing entity .
Each letter of concurrence will serve several functions. The
statements will not only express a willingness to act, but will provide
the additional details wherever they are needed in the Action Plan.
Who will do what by when? What will the deliverable product look
like? What measurable results are anticipated from this action?
These are the kinds of questions that each letter is expected to
address.
Action Plan implementation will be funded in large part through the
state's Centennial Clean Water Fund. This fund is currently the most
Summary
XXXV i'
December 1989
nonpoint pollution available
n
ants for the control of will not pay for full
implementation all of the p
significant source of grants
fan's elements. Implementing agencies may
to public bodies in the state. However even this
°Sal to secure funding•
need to use other tools at their d�P state's Centennial Clean Water
or funding through the star
To d project f fu whether a
nd ro ect Implementation must consistent of the planning
recommendations , p 1 the Action P King County Parks,
project consistent of
project is consistent or not will be made by g
and Resources.
concurrence will be incorporated into the final Action
The letters of co Department of
Plan. The Action Plan will then submitted to the De artmen to
King County Ecology will then notify enc will
Ecology. s In turn; the lead ag Y
accept or reject the plan within 60 day • implementing entities
notify the Watershed Management Committee,
�
and affected parties within 30 day s of Ecology's decision.
The Green -Duwam
ish Watershed Management Committee will
for at least a year after adoption of the Action Plan by the
continue fo quarterly during
Department of Ecology. The Committee will meet q '
P fan implementation and
the first year to receive reports on P produced and to
monitoring, to consider new information ait nd responsibility for the
resolve disputes which may arise. Authority
will continue to reside with the Committee, and the
Action Plan overned by its adopted
Committee will continue to be g
including decision making by consensus.
As staff to the
Watershed Management Committee and lead esources
for the planning process, King
County Parks, Planning an
im lementing agencies, assess all permits and
will coordinate amo n g P implementation to the will audit this p
fans and fan every two Years
to ensure consistent and adequate King P Ecology nd each year report on the status of imp
Department of Ecology. County will
uate implementation. ng
responsible for preparing reports to the Watershed and analyze .
also be resp reports will summarize Management Committee. The rep
lit data from studies conducted in the watershed,
new water qua y
•
Summary W December 1989 W xxxviii
recommend revisions to source control strategies, and characterize
the status of source control strategies and the projects to implement
them. In this way. King County will fulfill coordination and
compliance responsibilities given to it under state law (Chapter 400-
12 -570 WAC).
Nonpoint pollution abatement requires actions based on shared
responsibility for the watershed. The Green - Duwamish Nonpoint
Action Plan can only be fully implemented if coordination and
cooperation are offered by all. Each implementation action taken
somewhere in the watershed adds to the assurance of others that their
actions upstream or downstream are not taken in vain.
•
EXHIBIT K:
SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS
DBM Consulting Engineers
1tiM��
,a•-•11)
1n
0
MILE N
•
The boundaries or the sensuly eves ens.
Additional .l sh sensitive a0s areas t a Ohave not
boon manned be present s devel-
opment belweenosahai site. Illusltrat dl onr thews
apt end the site condition', lM1 actual pre.
fence or absence on the site OI he sensitive
area • s d011ned In the Se slllve Area
Ordinance - Is the legal control.
Number d wetlands. exce ino,O with an
r •1, deal nation are Included In the
“a"
ing county Wet:anda •enlory. The
locations Of wetlands des y alod '• ^ have
been
ati c0s.rlWe Iendsl designs by • ' rlely Or est
Ped In the U.S. P111, an WildIll• ere Servlce
lions nave not be0n111010 tv rifled. l their ioca-
There may be 95O5 1n 5 e nlberin9 1
{� �
®
4
■
4
1/2 0
klillrl-irecesaweVel
1
MILE
N
The boundaries trt the sensitive areas dis-
played on these maps are aperoxlmate.
Additional sensitive areas Mal have riot
been mapped may be Present on a deeel.
Oprneol 010120141 slte. Where differences
occur between what Is Illustrated on Mesa
moos God the OM conditions, the actual pre-
sence or absence on the alt. of the sensitive
area - as dellned In the Sensitive Area
Ordinance • Is trm legal control.
1'
1'
•
71 1 inn
t
MILE
3.743.1 1 a.11 , Igig gip, ii
Avert 1
li, in 1 al t tit ,
(
/
1 ru, 9641 NI h III F
41,11109tinn,tail IL/ r kli
vf *Habig Eui In r
kramlim OHM
I's-rrigopiiiii III
Milailli 1ii
e. ' viiv,illiPir
44....
!Naval
.iiin-Algtrevaile.
Faktair6.4tAtv
■ SE,A.M--N1:S :
11 1
11flP!i1 StAI 1i t1111I I 1l11R :I 11 , ia I L°eIVln II i
5 f . :
1‘4 :x: .•. ' - .:\4''1; -T.,.
- h
rgili
lO
..,41,0..,.14alik-F4 27. u11,110., /I)
tjo
•-i* 4 1$ \
Till boundaries 5 the sensitive dls.
preyed on the, maps •ro WPFOXim.le.
Aadillonel sonsl Ive area* the have not
been mapped m y be Present on a dere.
opment proposal site. Where al nem
occur between what Is Illustot d on 10.0
Main and Use sit conditions, th actual ose•
sence or-absence on the site of he gen....
area - es d•fin d In the Sensitive Are.
Ordinance • is th legal control.
Landslide Hazard
Areas
Dinvamish
4
r.
Y.
1 12 0
MILE
s•-
N
Tine Wand.. les or the sensllly areas db.
dl a r ppm Adlllonal an... lv areas tha nave not
been mnaped may be present on a 'level.
tile. dIftertanCeS
occur between ...nal is Illustrated on Inese
maNS and the site conditions. the actual pre-
sence or absence on the slle of the sensllly•
Jellned In the Sensitive Area
Urdinanc. • Io the legal nnlrol.
See wetlands and ands loo n.Tard maps for
addulonal potent al sohmrc h lard a
wetlands and landslide mein .r susceptible
to azar'allure d areasl not shown! os 11 Is mart seismiC
are
snor.11n.s underlain by lacustrine sedlmenlsl
t hese.re susceptible to IleuerachIen.
Seismic Herd
Areas
Duwamish
4
SEXITLE
\ tL
•
r.rfl•
• 11; / ...LI)
- '',/....: ■
.t, 'rt ..i , • '
... 1% 1
_ ......, cr4.,..._.:1 j;... - .,....._:.• *_ - . _, • ...._1 ...- i - :-: • '
,. .:,":!: 1' s..
' 1 , -I -..':'.■
'''
' _-,.-.:„ 7+ ' • ,......-7,-...– 7.-.‘,. --,, ',---,,1-,-„_,, ,.', -:.. ' • ..•
'A . "RTL . . -7,'''s,..... : • " • --'-',..„:"."':-„ ' ':'
_
11 - , , - - • ,— . ! •,,, -,--ti : 1...., - • • . ...,
Ni yr
••.: • 1. • Jr
('-!..:i".'‘:,'....
... -...;
..- CA' ';'•;,Y ' t `-- - " tit"?
• .,.., ,,,,,.;---
,.... -r•f_
1 1/2 0
1
MILE
4
• •
EXHIBIT L:
SOILS MAP
DBM Consulting Engineers
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERV,N SERVICE
•
SOIL LEGEND
The first capital letter is the initial one of the soil no second capitol letter,
A, B, C, D, E, or F, indicates the class of slope. Symbols without a slope letter
are those of nearly level soils.
SYMBOL
NAME
AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes
AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loom, 15 to 30 percent slopes
AkF Alderwood and Kltsop soils, very steep
AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes •
AmC Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes*
An Arents, Everett material •
BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loom, 6 to 15 percent slopes
BeD Beousite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
BeF Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes
Bh Bellinghom silt loom
Br Briscot silt loam
Bu Buckley silt loom
Cb Coastal Beaches
Ea Earlmont silt loom
Ed Edgewick Fine sandy loom
EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes
EvO Everett grovelly sandy loom, 15 to 30 percent slopes
EwC Everett- Alderwood gravelly sandy looms, 6 to 15 percent slopes
InA Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes
InC Indianolo loamy fine send, 4 to 15 percent slopes
InD Indianola loomy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes
KpB Kltsop silt loom, 2 to 8 percent slopes
KpC Kitsap silt loom, 8 to 15 percent slopes
KpD Kitsap silt loom, 15 to 30 percent slopes
KsC Klaus grovelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes
Ma Mixed alluvial land
NeC Neilton very grovelly loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Ng Newberg silt loom
Nk Nooksock silt loam
No Norma sandy loam
Or Orcos peat
Os Oridia silt loom
OvC Ovall grovelly loom, 0 to 15 percent slopes
OvD Ovoll gravelly loom, 15 to 25 percent slopes
OvF Ovoll gravelly loom, 40 to 75 percent slopes
Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand
Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loom
Pu Puget silty cloy loom
.Py Puyallup fine sondy loom
RaC Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
RaD Ragnar fine sondy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
RdC Rognar- Indianola association, sloping •
RdE Rognar- Indianola association, moderately steep*
Re Renton silt loam
Rh Riverwash
So Salal silt loam
Sh Sommomish silt loam
Sk Seattle muck
Sm Shalcor muck
Sn Si slit loom
So Snohomish silt loom
Sr Snohomish silt loom, thick surface variant
Su Sultan silt loom
Tu Tukwila muck
Ur Urban land
Wo Woodinville silt loam
The composition of these units Is more variable thou that of the others
in the area, but it has been controlled well enough to Interpret for the
expected use of the soils.
SCHNEIDER HOMES
OFFICE BUILDING
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
SCHNEIDER HOMES
PREPARED BY
430 ENTRANCO
7740 N. 16th Street, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85020
602-889-7000
RE.CENED
Oni 1 9 2000
COMMUNITY._
D7-7k1PLOPiVIEN
Table of Contents
Project Description 1
Existing Conditions 1
Trip Generation 3
Trip Distribution 3
7
Access
Future Traffic Volumes
Level of Service
Access Geometrics
Conclusion
7
7
12
13
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2
Figure 2 Current Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 4
Figure 3 Trip Distribution in Percent of Total Trips 5
Figure 4 Peak Hour Trip Assignment 6
Figure 5 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project 8
Figure 6 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project 9
List of Tables
Table 1 — Trip Generation: 10,653 Square Foot Office Building 3
Table 2 — Level of Service Criteria: Unsignalized Intersections 7
Table 3 — Level of Service Criteria: Signalized Intersections 10
Table 4 - Existing Levels of Service 10
Table 5 — 2002 Levels of Service Without Project 11
Table 6 — 2002 Levels of Service With Project 11
Table 7. — 2002 Levels of Service Without the Project (Signalized) 12
Table 8. — 2002 Levels of Service With the Project (Signalized) 12
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
SCHNEIDER HOMES OFFICE BUILDING
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Project Description
Schneider Homes proposes to construct a new office facility on a 0.73 -acre site located
in the northwest corner of the 66th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection in the City
of Tukwila, Washington. The site is located as shown in Figure 1. The project would
consist of a three -story building with a gross floor area totaling about 10,653 square feet.
The building would be in constructed in early 2001 and fully occupied by early 2002.
Access would primarily be off of 65th Avenue onto a driveway, which is now OId Bluff
Street. The driveway at OId Bluff Street would be the only access to the proposed office
building.
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to examine the likely impacts of the
proposed office building on the surrounding public street system within the timeframe
that the project is likely to be built -out.
This study was prepared in accordance with the City of Tukwila Traffic Concurrency
Standards, Title 9, and Chapter 9.48, 1993. Based on the expected number of peak
hour trips generated, the proposed office building would be classified as a development
which will generate 5 or more trips and requires a Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision per TMC
9.48.050. This project classification requires the inclusion of a Trip Generation Analysis
as well as a Trip Distribution Study as a part of the analysis outlined in this report.
Existing Conditions
Currently, 65th Avenue exists as a two -lane paved public street with curb, gutter and
sidewalk, and a posted speed of 25 mph. The characteristics of 65th Avenue can be
described as climbing to the north towards a city park and residential area with single
and multi - family housing. The 65th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection is stop
controlled T- intersection for southbound 65th Avenue traffic. The Seattle Mortgage
Company is in the northwest corner and the existing Schneider Homes Office building is
in the northeast corner.
OId Bluff Street is a paved road with grass or landscaped shoulders. Old Bluff Street
dead ends approximately 270 feet to the south where it has previously been .closed to
traffic at the old Macadam Road (no longer existing) and Old Bluff Street intersection.
Old Bluff Street now serves as a drive for the existing Schnieder Homes Office Building.
Southcenter Boulevard is a four lane paved road with a center tum lane for left turns on
to 65th Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Southcenter Boulevard runs east and
west along the 1-405 freeway with guardrails along the south side and curb, gutter and
sidewalk on the north side.
Traffic Impact Analysis 1
Schneider Homes
DRIVEWAY
SEATTLE
MORTGAGE
SOUTHCENTER
SCHNEIDER
HOMES
PROPOSED
I SITE I
t
NORTH
to
BLVD.
—405
SOUTHCENTER MALL
FIGURE 1.
VICINITY MAP
• •
66th Avenue is also a four lane paved road with a separate raised pavement marker
center turn lane for northbound traffic turning/ westbound onto Southcenter Boulevard.
The portion of 66" Avenue south of Southcenter Boulevard serves as access over the 1-
405 freeway to Southcenter Boulevard from e existing Southcenter Mall. Curb, gutter,
and sidewalk with safety- rail exist in this p rtion of 66th Avenue. The portion of 66th
Avenue north of Southcenter Boulevard doe not currently exist as a public roadway. It
is a _gravel private drive, which serves the homeowners to the north at about a 6%
incline. The 66th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection is signal controlled.
Examination of entering sight distances at the 65th Avenue /Oid Bluff Street, 65th
Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard, and 66th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard shows that, in
general, sight distances are adequate. However the southbound approach to
Southcenter Boulevard from 66th Avenue is somewhat obstructed by overgrowth at
about 200 feet north of the intersection.
In order to form a basis for analysis of project impacts, weekday PM peak hour turning
movement counts were made at the 65th Avenue /Old Bluff . Street, 65t
Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard, and 66th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersections
on May 18th, 2000. The PM peak hour was found to occur between 4:30 PM and 5:30
PM. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. Complete intersection volume
summaries can be found in the appendix.
Trip Generation
Trip generation for the project was developed utilizing data contained in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1994. So as to
provide analysis for the .full build -out of the project, trip generation was estimated for the
10,653 square foot office building.
Trip generation for the project is based on ITE Land Use Code 710 and is shown below
in Table 1.
Table 1 — Trip Generation: 10,653 Square Foot Office Building
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour, Inbound to Site
AM Peak Hour, Outbound from Site
PM Peak Hour, Inbound to Site
PM Peak Hour, Outbound from Site
120 vpd
15 vph
2 vph
3 vph
14 vph
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution for the site is based on existing traffic patterns near the site and the
location of existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. It is estimated
that approximately 4% of the site traffic would come from the west on Southcenter
Boulevard, 20% would come from the south on 66th Avenue, and 76% would come from
the east on Southcenter Boulevard. Trip distribution and peak hour trip assignment is
shown in Figure 3 and 4, respectively. Note that the southbound traffic on 65th Avenue
to the site was analyzed, but found to be negligible.
Traffic Impact Analysis 3
Schneider Homes
DRIVEWAY
SOUTHCENTER
BLVD.
L (0)
■■(0)
r (20)
qtr
o+ in
N
SITE
t
NORTH
fol
r1
N
(45)
(542) —►
t. (101)
• (804)
FIGURE 2.
CURRENT .P.EAK_HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES _ _.
yowl
v
qtr
O O N
N • v 0
LEGEND
(xx) - PM PEAK HOUR
(4:30 — 5:15 PM)
TRIP DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENT
OF TOTAL TRIPS
•
SITE
t
NORTH
76 %♦
0
N
• •
DRIVEWAY
SOUTHCENTER
BLVD.
t_ 0(0)
4•■• 0(0)
2(14)
SITE
66TH AVE.
t
NORTH
14(0)
1-0(0)
FIGURE 4.
PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT
P.% 01 /1
000
000
t. 0(0)"
.40■ 11(2)
r 0(0)
1tr
000
tfloe
LEGEND
XX - AM PEAK HOUR
(XX) - PM PEAK HOUR
Access
As currently proposed, the site would include a single access point. On the west side of
the project, the primary access point would be to 65th Avenue. Old Bluff Street (old
South Macadam Road) would be vacated and improved to about 300 feet north to 65th
Avenue and serve as the main access drive into the site. An emergency exit to
Southcenter Boulevard is proposed in the southwest corner of the project site (to be
constructed with removable safety bollards).
Future Traffic. Volumes
Since the project will be fully completed and occupied within the next two years, 2002
has been assumed for the opening or horizon year of the analysis. Based on
information supplied by the City of Tukwila, traffic on Southcenter Boulevard has been
increasing at a rate of about 5 percent per year. Compounding this growth factor and
applying to existing traffic volumes yields 2002 peak hour traffic volumes with the project
as shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows 2002 peak hour traffic volumes with the project.
Level of Service
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the traffic operations at an
intersection. Level of service is ranked from LOS A, which signifies little or no
congestion and is the highest rank, to LOS F, which signifies congestion and jam
conditions. Level of service is calculated in accordance with the Highway Capacity
Manual, TRB Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994 (Updated in
1997).
At unsignalized intersections, level of service is calculated for those moments which
must either stop for or yield to oncoming traffic and is based on average total delay for
the particular movement and for the intersection as a whole. The criteria for level of
service at unsignalized intersections are shown below in Table 2.
Table 2 — Level of Service Criteria: Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Delay.
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 and < 15 seconds /vehicle
C > 15 and < 25 seconds /vehicle
D > 25 and < 35 seconds /vehicle
E > 35 and < 50 seconds /vehicle
F > 50 seconds /vehicle
Traffic Impact Analysis 7
Schneider Homes
• •
DRIVEWAY
0
A
0 IA 0
000
w
LO
co
SOUTHCENTER
I
0er
0
I+
0(50)
0(598) —+
BLVD.
t. 0(0)
4•0(0)
r 0(22)
qtr
O N ro
M
0 0
SITE
66TH AVE.
t
NORTH
L 0(111)
�— 0(886)
FIGURE 5.
2002 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITHOUT PRO]ECT
d .d
v v �
0 0 0
0(1)
0(610) —►
0(108)
L 0(0)�
■■0(792)
r 0(601)
qtr
N Cr'?
0 0 0
LEGEND
XX — AM PEAK HOUR
(XX) - PM PEAK HOUR
• •
DRIVEWAY
0
0 0
O O O
.1 1L.
t. 0(0)\
1■■ 0(0)
r 2(36)
65TH AVE
SOUTHCENTER
N
O N
L 14(111)
0(886).
BLVD.
FIGURE 6.
2002 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
WITH PROJECT
SITE
0
t
NORTH
' 1i 0 ri
O O O
L 0(0)
~ 11(794)
r 0(601)
LEGEND
XX - AM PEAK HOUR
(XX) - PM PEAK HOUR
Level of Service criteria for signalized intersections is shown in Table 3..
Table 3 — Level of Service Criteria: Signalized Intersections
LOS Delay
A < 10 seconds
B > 10 and < 20 seconds /vehicle
C > 20 and < 35 seconds /vehicle
D > 35 and < 55 seconds /vehicle
E > 55 and < 80 seconds /vehicle
F > 80 seconds /vehicle
Level of Service was calculated for the three cases:
• Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
• 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without the Project
• 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With the Project
The results of the level of service analysis for existing peak hour volumes are shown
below in Table 4.
Table 4 — Existing Levels of Service
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66m
EB /L
C
32.1
Avenue /Southcenter
EB/T,R
D
46.8
Boulevard
WB /L
F
100.9
(Signalized)
WB/T,R
B
18.1
NB /L,T
D
41.2
NB /R
E
79.5
SB /L,T,R
D
48.3
OVERALL
E
56.7
65m
EB /L
B
10.5
Avenue /Southcenter
SB /L
F
102.9
Boulevard
SB /R
B
13.2
( Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
66.3
65m Avenue/ Old
NB /L,T,R
A
9.3
Bluff Street
SB /L,T,R
B
11.5
(Unsignalized)
NB /APPROACH
A
9.3
SB /APPROACH
B
11.5
Traffic Impact Analysis 10
— Schneider Homes
The results of level of service analysis for 2002 peak hour volumes without the project
are shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - 2002 Levels of Service Without Project
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66`" Avenue/
EB /L
C
32.1
Southcenter
EB/T,R
E
55.5
Boulevard
WB /L
F
142.0
(Signalized)
WB/T,R
C
20.7
NB /L,T
D
43.5
NB /R
F
111.3
SB /L,T,R
D
48.3
OVERALL
E
74.6
65' Avenue/
EB /L
.. B . .
11.1
Southcenter
SB /L
F
213.9
Boulevard
SB /R
B
14.1
(Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
132.7
65" Avenue/ Old
NB/T,R
A
9.6
Bluff Street
SB/T,R
B
10.4
(Unsignalized)
NB /APPROACH
A
9.6
SB /APPROACH
B
10.4
It should be noted that the left turn movement for the southbound approach to 65th
Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard operates at a LOS F under 2002 conditions without the
project. The results of level of service analysis for 2002 peak hour volumes with the
project are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 - 2002 Levels of Service With Project
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
66`" Avenue/
EB /L.
C
32.1
Southcenter
EB/T,R
E
58.1
Boulevard .
WB /L
F
142.0
(Signalized)
WB/T,R
C
20.8
NB /L,T
D
43.5
NB /R
F
111.3
SB /L,T,R
D
48.3
OVERALL
E
75.2
65' Avenue/
EB /L
B
11.1
Southcenter
SB /L
F
280.1
Boulevard
SB /R
B
14.1
(Unsignalized)
SB /APPROACH
F
178.1
65' Avenue/ Old
NB /L,T,R
A
9.6
Bluff Street
SB /L,T,R
B
10.5
(Unsignalized)
NB /APPROACH
A
9.6
SB /APPROACH
B
10.5
Review of the level of service tables shows that the project will not have a significant
impact on the traffic operations of the surrounding roadway system.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes
11
The intersection of 65th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard should be considered for
signalization based on the 2002 traffic volumes. The Peak Hour Warrant (Signal Warrant
11, The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1998 Edition) was therefore
evaluated using volumes without the project for the intersection. The Peak Hour
Warrant was satisfied; therefore the Level of Service was calculated for the two cases
applying a signalized scenario at the 65`h/ Southcenter Boulevard intersection:
• 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without the Project
• 2002 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With the Project
The results of level of service analysis for 2002 peak hour volumes without the project
are shown below in Table 7.
Table 7. — 2002 Levels of Service Without the Project (Signalized)
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
65"' Avenue/
EB /L
B
12.0
Southcenter
EB/T
B
12.4
Boulevard
WB/T
C
31.5
(Signalized)
WB /R
A
7.8
SB /L,R
B
18.0
OVERALL
B
21.8
The results of level of service analysis for 2002 .peak hour volumes with the project are
shown below in Table 8.
Table 8. — 2002 Levels of Service With the Project (Signalized)
Intersection
Leg /Movement
LOS
Delay
65t Avenue/
EB /L
B
12.0
Southcenter
EB/T
B
12.4
Boulevard
WB/T
C
31.5
(Signalized)
WB /R
A
7.8
S B /L, R
C
20.6
OVERALL
C
22.1
Access Geometrics
Since the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the site accesses are low, turn lanes
are not necessary on westbound Old Bluff Street at the 65th Avenue drive entrance.
Examination of the need for left turn lane at the same intersection shows that it is not
warranted per the requirements for provision of left turn lanes on two -lane highways as
contained in the article, "Volume Warrants for Left-Tum Lanes at Unsignalized
Intersections" .Highway Research Record 211, US Department of Transportation, 1968.
All other areas will function with the there existing left turn configuration.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Schneider Homes _ _
12
At the access at Old Bluff Street, we recommend providing a single inbound and single
outbound lane.
Conclusion
When fully completed, the proposed Schneider Homes Office Building development will
generate about 120 daily trips to the surrounding public street system on an average
weekday. Of these, about 17 will occur in the. AM peak hour and 17 will occur during the
PM peak hour.
In the horizon year of the site, which was taken as 2002, the addition of the site -
generated traffic will not result in the lowering of intersection level of service at any of the
study area intersections. The site traffic will be able to readily enter and exit the site
without causing either traffic congestion or safety problems.
Traffic Impact Analysis 13
Schneider Homes
•
APPENDIX
•
tiTUKWILA, WASHINGTON
66TH AVE
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
LOC# 1 PM ENT138M
TRAFFICOUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360- 491 -8116
Groups Printed- PRIMARY
File Name : ENT13901P
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 1
05:00 PM
05:15 PM
05:30 PM
05:45 PM
Total
Grand Total
APPrch %
Total %
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 1 1
60.0 20.0 20.0
0.1 0.0 0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
188
173
169
135
663
114 2
136 2
131 4
84 3
465 11
300
309
300
219
1128
1 1346 1025 26 2372
0.0 56.7 43.2
0.0 26.4 20.1
46.8
165
168
139
128
600
O 57 0
O 64 2
O 38 0
O 35 1
O 194 3
1153 3 359 13
76.1 0.2 23.7
22.7 0.1 7.1
222
232
177
163
794
1515
29.8
28 140
21 138
19 •132
26 117
94 527
0
0
0
2
2
5
3
6
-4
18
168
159
151
145
623
188 1007 3 41 1198
15.7 84.1 0.3
3.7 19.8 0.1
23.5
7 690
7 700
10 628
8 527
32 2545
697
707
638
535
2577
80 5090 5170
1.5 98.5
Intersection 0430 PM
Volume 1 0
Percent 50.0 0.0 50.0
05 :15 Volume 0 0 0
Peak Factor
High Int 04:30 PM
Volume
Peak Factor
1
2
0
0 0 1 1
0.500
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
By Approach 04:OOPM
Volume 3
Percent 60.0
High Int 04:00 PM
Volume 1
Peak Factor
1 1
20.0 20.0
5
1 0 2
0.625
O 718
0.0 56.8
O 173
545 1263
43.2
136 309
0430 PM
0 193 145 338
0.934
0430 PM
O 718 545 1263
0.0 58.8 43.2
0430PM
O 193 145 338
0.934
812
74.5
168
0
0.0
0
210
25.5
64
05:15 PM
168 0 64
0430 PM
612 0
74.5 0.0 25.5
05:15 PM
168 0 64
822
232
232
0.886
210 822
232
0.886
98 553 1 652
15.0 84.8 0.2
21 138 0 159
04:45 PM
24 152 0 176
0.926
04:45 PM
92
14.1
04:45 PM
24
562 0 654
85.9 0.0
152 0 178
0.929
Int. Total
2739
' 700
0.978
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
From North
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From East
66TH AVE
From South
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From West
StartTime
Right 1 • Thru 1 Left l APP. Total
Right ( Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total
Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total
Right 1 Thru 1 left 1 App. Total
Intersection 0430 PM
Volume 1 0
Percent 50.0 0.0 50.0
05 :15 Volume 0 0 0
Peak Factor
High Int 04:30 PM
Volume
Peak Factor
1
2
0
0 0 1 1
0.500
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
By Approach 04:OOPM
Volume 3
Percent 60.0
High Int 04:00 PM
Volume 1
Peak Factor
1 1
20.0 20.0
5
1 0 2
0.625
O 718
0.0 56.8
O 173
545 1263
43.2
136 309
0430 PM
0 193 145 338
0.934
0430 PM
O 718 545 1263
0.0 58.8 43.2
0430PM
O 193 145 338
0.934
812
74.5
168
0
0.0
0
210
25.5
64
05:15 PM
168 0 64
0430 PM
612 0
74.5 0.0 25.5
05:15 PM
168 0 64
822
232
232
0.886
210 822
232
0.886
98 553 1 652
15.0 84.8 0.2
21 138 0 159
04:45 PM
24 152 0 176
0.926
04:45 PM
92
14.1
04:45 PM
24
562 0 654
85.9 0.0
152 0 178
0.929
Int. Total
2739
' 700
0.978
TRAFFlCOUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360 - 491 -8116
File Name : ENT13901P
Site Code : 00000001
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 2
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04:30 PM
Voimne 1 0
Percent 50.0 0.0
05:15 Volume 0 0
Peak Factor
High Int 04:30 PM
Volume
Peak Fedor
1
50.0
0
2
0
0 0 1 1
0.500
0
0.0
0
718
56.8
173
545 1263
43.2
136 309
04:30 PM
0 193 145 338
0.934
612
74.5
168
0
0.0
0
210
25.5
84
05:15 PM
168 0 64
822
232
232
0.886
98
15.0
21
553
84.8
138
04:45 PM
24 152
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
I 11 l In 21 Total
1
WOM Thru Le, ft
North
5/18/00 4:30:00 PM
5/18/00 5:15:00 PM
PRIMARY
Out In Total
RATH AVF
1 652
0.2
0 159
176
0.926
Int Total l
2739
0.978
700
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
From North
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From East
66TH AVE
From South
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From West
StartTIme
Flight l Thni l Left 1 App. Total
Right l Thm 1 Left l App. Total _
Right l Thml Left l App. Total
Right 1 Thm 1 Left 1 App. Total
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04:30 PM
Voimne 1 0
Percent 50.0 0.0
05:15 Volume 0 0
Peak Factor
High Int 04:30 PM
Volume
Peak Fedor
1
50.0
0
2
0
0 0 1 1
0.500
0
0.0
0
718
56.8
173
545 1263
43.2
136 309
04:30 PM
0 193 145 338
0.934
612
74.5
168
0
0.0
0
210
25.5
84
05:15 PM
168 0 64
822
232
232
0.886
98
15.0
21
553
84.8
138
04:45 PM
24 152
RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
I 11 l In 21 Total
1
WOM Thru Le, ft
North
5/18/00 4:30:00 PM
5/18/00 5:15:00 PM
PRIMARY
Out In Total
RATH AVF
1 652
0.2
0 159
176
0.926
Int Total l
2739
0.978
700
-
0
0.0
0
0
0
103
59.2
17
103
0.0 59.2
0
34
174
33
54
0.806
174
54
0.806
101 804
11.2 88.8
28 204
0
0.0
0
0430 PM
20 222 0
04:30 PM
101
11.2
04:30 PM
20
804 0
88.8 0.0
905
232
242
0.935
905
222 0 242
0.935
0
0.0
0
05:15 PM
0
542
92.3
142
142
45
7.7
18
18
587
160
160
0.917
04:45 PM
O 551 42 593
0.0 92.9 7.1
05:15 PM
O . 142 18 160
0.927
1666
425
0.980
PTUKWILA, WASHINGTON
65TH AVE
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
PJLOC# 2 PM ENT138M
• TRAFFICOUNT
4820 YELM HWY B-195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360-491-8116
File Name : ENT13902P
Site Code : 00000002
Start Date :05/18/2000
Page No :2
65TH AVE
From North
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From East
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
From West
StanTime
Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total
Right 1 Thru 1 Left] App. Total
Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total
Int Total 1
Peak Hour Fmm 0400 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 0430 PM
71
40.8
16
Volume
Percent
05:15 Volume
Peak Factor
High Int 05:00 PM
Volume
Peak Factor
20
0
0.0
0
0
103
59.2
17
34
174
33
54
0.806
101
11.2
28
804
88.8
204
0
0.0
0
0430 PM
20 222 0
905
232
242
0.935
0
0.0
0
05:15 PM
0
542
92.3
142
45
7.7
18
587
160
142 18 160
0.917
0
2
65Th AVE
Out In Total
1 1461 1 1741 j___32Qj
:yht Lrtf4t
North
5/18/004:30.00 PM
5/18/00 5:15:00 PM
PRIMARY
1666
425
0.980
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
65TH AVE
OLD BLUFF ST
LOC# 3 PM ENT138M
1,A COUNT
4820 YELM HWY B -195
LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503
360- 491 -8116
Groups Printed- PRIMARY
File Name : ENT13903P
Site Code : 00000003
Start Date : 05/18/2000
Page No : 1
65TH AVE
From North
OLD BLUFF ST
From East
65TH AVE
From South
OFFICE DRIVEWAY
From West
Start lime
Right
llrrc
Lett
Truck
APP.
Total
Right
Thru
Left
Track
APP.
Total
Right
Thru
Left
Truck
APP.
Total
Right
Tm
Left
Truck
APP.
Total
Exctu.
Total
Indu.
Total
Int-
Total
Factor
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.Q
1.0
04:00 PM
04:15 PM
04:30 PM
04:45 PM
Total
05:00 PM
05:15 PM
05:30 PM
05:45 PM
Total
Grand Total
Apprdk %
Total %
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
25
35
32
35
127
47
31
24
26
128
255
100.
0
46.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
35
32
35
127
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
6
2
3
1
1
1
4
1
6
2
O 32 0
1 33 1
0 24 0
3 31 0
0
0
0
0
32
35
24
34
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
47
31
24
26
128
0 0 255
0.0
0.0
46.6
0 0 13 6 13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
1
2
15
3
1
0
0
4
0 28 10
100.
0
0.0 5.1
0.0
10
2
1
2
15
28
5.1
4 120 1 0 125
1
1
2
1
5
33
41
26
29
129
9 249
3.5 95.8
1.6 45.5
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
2
2 2
0.8
0.4
34
42
29
30
135
260
47.5
4 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 .. 0
4
100.
0
0.7
0 0 0 4
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.7
3
1
1
1
6
4
1
1
0
6
62
71
64
72
269
91
75
54
58
278
65
72
65
73
275
95
76
55
58
284
12 547 559
2.1 97.9
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04:30 PM
Volume 0 145
Percent 0.0 100.0
05:00 Volume 0 47
Peak Factor
High Int. 05130 PM
Volume 0 47
Peak Factor
0
0.0
0
0
Peak Hour Frcm 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
By Approach 04:15 PM
Volume 0 149 0
Percent 0.0 100.0 0.0
High Int. 0500 PM
Volume 0 47 0
Peak Factor
145
47
47
0.771
149
47
0.793
0
0.0
0
05:00 PM
0 20
0.0 100.0
0 10
20
10
0 0 10 10
0.500
04:30 PM
0
0.0
05:00 PM
0
0 20 20
0.0 100.0
0 10 10
0.500
5 129
3.7 96.3
1 33
05:15 PM
1 41
0
0.0
0
0
04:45 PM
7 131 1
5.0 94.2 0.7
05:15 PM
1 41 0
134
34
42
0.798
139
42
0.827
3
100.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0430 PM
2 0 0
3
0
2
0.375
04:00 PM
4 0 0 4
100.0 0.0 0.0
0430 PM
2 0 0 2
0.500
tnt Total I
0.830
302
i
'91
65TH AVE
From North
OLD BLUFF ST
From East
65TH AVE
From South
OFFICE DRIVEWAY
From West
Start Time
Right 1
Thnr 1 Left 1 App. Total
Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total
Right 1
Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total
Right 1 Thru 1 Left 1 App. Total
Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 04:30 PM
Volume 0 145
Percent 0.0 100.0
05:00 Volume 0 47
Peak Factor
High Int. 05130 PM
Volume 0 47
Peak Factor
0
0.0
0
0
Peak Hour Frcm 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
By Approach 04:15 PM
Volume 0 149 0
Percent 0.0 100.0 0.0
High Int. 0500 PM
Volume 0 47 0
Peak Factor
145
47
47
0.771
149
47
0.793
0
0.0
0
05:00 PM
0 20
0.0 100.0
0 10
20
10
0 0 10 10
0.500
04:30 PM
0
0.0
05:00 PM
0
0 20 20
0.0 100.0
0 10 10
0.500
5 129
3.7 96.3
1 33
05:15 PM
1 41
0
0.0
0
0
04:45 PM
7 131 1
5.0 94.2 0.7
05:15 PM
1 41 0
134
34
42
0.798
139
42
0.827
3
100.0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
0430 PM
2 0 0
3
0
2
0.375
04:00 PM
4 0 0 4
100.0 0.0 0.0
0430 PM
2 0 0 2
0.500
tnt Total I
0.830
302
i
'91
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
65TH AVE
0 47
0
0.0
•
145
47
47
0.771
0 0 20
0.0 0.0 100.0
0 0 10
05:00 PM
20
0 0 10 10
0.500
5
3.7
1
129
96.3
33
05:15 PM
1 41
0
0.0
0
0
134
34
42
0.798
3
100.0
0
0430 PM
2
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
3
0
0 0 2
0.375
Int Total
0.830
302
91
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:411,6th
'Inter:
Analyst: Boone
0.01 0.236 32.1
0.83 0.236 46.8
46.8 D
1.08 0.300 100.9 F
0.70 0.582 18.1 B 53.9 D
0.60 0.218 41.2 D 69.0 E
1.00 0.218 79.5 E
0.02 0.064 48.3 D 48.3 D
Intersection Delay = 56.7 (sec /veh)
Intersection LOS = E
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:4166th
Phone:
E -Mail:
Page 2
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Intersection:
Eastbound
L T R
1 553 98
0.93 0.93 0.93
1 149 26
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 2 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
10
1
692
0.14
0
0 0
VOLUME DATA
Westbound
L T R
545 718 0
0.93 0.93 0.93
147 192. 0
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 1 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
0
586 769
0 0
0.00
0
Northbound
L T R
210 0 612
0.89 0.89 0.89
59 0 173
0
1900. 1900
0 0 0
0 1 2
LT R
12.0 12.0
62
237 621
1.00
0
0 0
Southbound
L T R
1 0 1
0.50 0.50 0.50
1 0 1
3
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
1
1.00
2
0
0.00
0
Duration
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:
6th
Page 3
Init Unmet
4Arriv. Type
EUnit Ext.
I Factor
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:1066th
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
,
Intersection Delay = 56.7 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = E
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:4,66th
Page 6
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for exclusive lefts
APPROACH ED WB NB SB
Cycle Length, C 110.0 sec
Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 26.0
EEffective Green Time for Lane Group, g 26.00
Opposing Effective Green Time, go 64.0
Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1
tNumber of Opposing Lanes, No 1
'Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vit 1
Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto 0.00
:Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 769
;Lost Time for Lane Group, tl 5.00
Left Turns per Cycle: LTC =V1tC /3600 0.03
Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc= VoC /3600fluo 23.50
' Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7) 1.00
gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf < =g 0.0
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C) 0.42
'gq= (4.943Vo1c * *0.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g 0.00
gu =g -gq if gq > =gf, =g -gf if gq <gf 26.00
n= (gq- gf) /2, n > =0 0.00
EPtho=1-Plto 1.00
P1 *= Plt[1 + {(N- 1)g /(gf +gu /Ell +4.24))) 1.00
Ell (Figure 9 -7) 2.67
E12= (1- Ptho * *n) /Plto, E12 > =1.0 1.00
Efmin =2 (1 +Plt) /g or fmin =2 (1 +P1) /g 0.15
gdiff = max(gq -gf, 0) 0.00
fm= [gf /g] + [gu /g] [1 / {1 +P1 (Ell -1) }] , (min = fmin;max =1.00) 0.37
flt =fm= [gf /g] +gdiff [1/ {1 +Plt (E12 -1) } ]
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:4,66th
• Page 7
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
-for shared lefts
APPROACH EB WB NB SB
Cycle Length, C 110.0 sec
Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G
;.Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g
Opposing Effective Green Time, go
Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N
Number of Opposing Lanes, No
('Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt
Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt
Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto
Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo
Lost Time for Lane Group, tl
[Left Turns per Cycle: LTC =V1tC /3600
;,Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc= VoC /3600fluo
Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7)
gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf < =g
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C)
gq= (4.943Vo1c * *0.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g
gu =g -gq if gq > =gf, =g -gf if gq <gf
n= (gq- gf) /2, n > =0
LPtho=1-Plto
P1 * =Plt [1 +{ (N -1) g/ (gf +gu /E11 +4 .24)) )
Ell (Figure 9 -7)
E12= (1- Ptho * *n) /Plto, E12 > =1.0
fmin =2 (1 +Plt) /g or fmin =2 (1 +P1) /g
gdiff= max(gq -gf,0)
fm= [gf /g] + [gu /g] [1 /' {1 +Pl (E11 -1) }] , (min = fmin;max =1.00)
flt =fm= [gf /g] +gdiff [1/ {1 +Plt (E12 -1) } ]
+ [gu /g] [1/ (1 +Plt (E11 -1) ] , (min = fmin;max =1 . 0) or flt= [fm +0.91 (N -1) ] /N **
flt Primary
For special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach,
** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:41,66th
SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET
Northbound
Southbound
Intersection Delay 56.7 sec /veh Intersection LOS E
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:
66th • Page 9
ERROR MESSAGES
No errors to report.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:4,66thwo
• Page 1
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
-Inter: 66th Avenue & Southcenter Blvd City /St: Tukwila, Washington
Analyst: Boone Proj #: 00131
LDate: 6/16/00 Period:
.:E /W St: Southcenter Blvd N/S St: 66th Avenue
No. Lanes
''LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R L T R
1 2 0
L TR
1 610 108
12.0 12.0
10
1 1 0
L TR
601 792 0
12.0 12.0
0
0 1 2
LT R
232 0 675
12.0 12.0
68
Southbound
L T R
0 1 0
LTR
1 0 1
12.0
1
EDuration • 0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EB Left A NB Left A
542 1805 1.19 0.300 142.0 F
TR 1105 1900 0.77 0.582 20.7 C 73.2 E
Northbound
LT 395 1810 0.66 0.218 43.5 D 92.5 F
R 620 2842 1.10 0.218 111.3 F
Southbound
LTR 113 1782 0.02 0.064 48.3 D 48.3 D
Intersection Delay = 74.6 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = E
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:
[Phone:
E -Mail:
66thwo
Page 2
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Intersection:
City /State:
' Analyst:
Eastbound
L T R
1 610 108
0.93 0.93 0.93
1 165 29
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 2 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
10
1 765
0.14
0
0 0
Westbound
L T R
601 792 0
0.93 0.93 0.93
162 212 0
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 1
L TR
12.0 12.0
0
646 848
0 0
0.00
0
Northbound
L T R
232 0 675
0.89 0.89 0.89
65 0 190
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
0 1 2
LT R
12.0 12.0
68
262 685
1.00
0
0 0
Southbound
L T R
1 0 1
0.50 0.50 0.50
1 0 1
3
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
1
1.00
2
0
0.00
0
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:66thwo
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Init Unmet
Arriv. Type
Unit Ext.
I Factor
Lost Time
Ext of g
Ped Min g
Eastbound
L T R
0 0 0.0
3 3
3 0 3.0
1.000
2 0 2.0
2 0 2.0
0.0
Westbound
L T R
0 0 0 0
3 3
3 0 3 0
1 000
2 0 2 0
2 0 2 0
0 0
PHASE DATA
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4
;EB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
WB Left A
,: Thru A A
Right A A
Peds
[MB Right
SB Right
..„
Green 33.0 26.0
Yellow -4.0 4.0
All Red 1.0 1.0
Cycle Length: 110.0 secs
Page 3
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
5 6 7 8
NB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:11066thwo
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
. Page 4
Adjusted Prop. Prop.
{`:Appr./ Mvt Flow No. Lane Flow Rate Left Right
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:41066thwo
• Page 5
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Adj Adj Sat Flow Green - -Lane Group- -
Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c
Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v /s) (g /C) (c) Ratio
Eastbound
Pri.
Sec.
Left L 1 660 0.00 0.236 156 0.01
Thru TR 765 3535 # 0.22 0.236 836 0.92
Right
Westbound
Pri.
Sec.
Left L 646 1805 # 0.36 0.300 542 1.19
Thru TR 848 1900 0.45 0.582 1105 0.77
Right
,Northbound
Pri.
Sec.
Left
Thru LT 262 1810 0.14 0.218 395 0.66
Right R 685 2842 # 0.24 0.218 620 1.10
Southbound
Pri. '
Sec.
Left
Thru LTR 2 1782 # 0.00 0.064 113 0.02
Right
[ L Sum (v /s) critical = 0.82
ost Time /Cycle, L = 20.00 sec Critical v /c(X) = 1.00
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
EAppr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Group Approach
Lane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del
LGrp v/c g/C dl Fact Cap k d2 d3 Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 0.01 0.236 32.1 1.000 156 0.11 0.0 0.0 32.1 C
[TR 0.92 0.236 40.9 1.000 836 0.43 14.6 0.0 55.5 E 55.5 E
Westbound
LL 1.19 0.300 38.5 1.000 542 0.50 103.5 0.0 142.0 F
TR 0.77 0.582 17.4 1.000 1105 0.32 .3.3 0.0 20.7 C 73.2 E
Northbound
LT 0.66 0.218 39.3 1.000 395 0.24 4.1 0.0 43.5 D 92.5 F
R 1.10 0.218 43.0 1.000 620 0.50 68.3 0.0 111.3 F
Southbound
LTR 0.02 0.064 48.3 1.000 113 0.11 0.1 0.0 48.3 D 48.3 D
Intersection Delay = 74.6 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = E
For special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach,
rsee text.
If Pl > =1 for shared left -turn lanes with N >1, then assume de -facto
left -turn lane and redo calculations.
** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:0111,6thwo
Page 7
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for shared lefts
�:- APPROACH EB WB NB SB
Cycle Length, C 110.0 sec
rActual Green Time for Lane Group, G
Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g
Opposing Effective Green Time, go
Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N
Number of Opposing Lanes, No
"Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt
Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt
'
_ ,Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto
LAdjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo
Lost Time for Lane Group, tl
Left Turns per-Cycle: L=V1tC /3600
TC
;:Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc= VoC /3600fluo
Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7)
gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf < =g
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C)
gq= (4.943Vo1c * *b.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g
gu =g -gq if gq>=gf, =g -gf if gq <gf
n= (gq- gf) /2; n > =0
LPtho=1-Plto
P1 * =Plt [1 +{ (N -1).g/ (gf +gu /E11 +4 .24)) )
Ell (Figure 9 -7)
E12 =(1- Ptho * *n) /Plto, E12 > =1.0
fmin =2 (1 +Plt) /g or fmin =2 (1 +P1) /g
gdiff = max (gq -gf, 0)
lirifm=[gf/g1+(gu/g] [1 / {1 +P1 (E11 -1) } ] , (min = fmin;max =1.00)
flt= fm= [gf /g] +gdiff [1 / {1 +Plt (E12 -1) }]
+ [gu /g] [1/ (1 +Plt (E11 -1) ] , (min = fmin;max =1 . 0) or flt= [fm +0.91 (N -1) ] /N **
fit Primary
_For special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach,
see text.
* If P1 > =1 for shared left -turn lanes with N >1, then assume de -facto
left -turn lane and redo calculations.
For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
[:**
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text
HCS- Signals 3.1b File: *6thwo
Page 8
SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET
EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT
Adj. LT Vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v
v/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X
Primary phase effective green, g
Secondary phase effective green, gq
(From Supplemental Permitted LT Worksheet), gu
sec /veh Intersection LOS E
HCS- Signals 3.1b File: 66thwo - Page 9
ERROR MESSAGES
No errors to report.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:s4106thp
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Eastbound
L 156
TR 836
Westbound
542
TR 1105
Northbound
LLT 395
R 620
Southbound
LTR 113
Area
2
A
A
A
A
A
26.0
4.0
1.0
secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
3 4
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
5 6 7
A
A
A
A
A
A
7.0
4.0
1.0
24.0
4.0
1.0
8
Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Flow Rate
(s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
659 0.01 0.236 32.1 C
3535 0.93 0.236 58.1 E 58.0
1805 1.19 0.300 142.0 F
1900 0.77 0.582 20.8 C 73.1 E
1810 0.66 0.218 43.5 D 92.5 F
2842 1.10 0.218 111.3 F
1782 0.02 0.064 48.3 D 48.3 D
Intersection Delay = 75.2 (sec /veh)
Intersection LOS = E
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
`-: Adj Flow
oInSharedLn
ptProp Turns
NumPeds
NumBus
Duration
Eastbound
L T R
1 621 111
0.93 0.93 0.93
1 168 30
0
1900 1900
O 0 0
1 2 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
11
1 779
0.14
0
O 0
Westbound
L T R
601 794 0
0.93 0.93 0.93
162 213 0
0
1900 1900
0 0 0
1 1 0
L TR
12.0 12.0
646 850
0 0
0.00
0
Northbound
L T R
232 0 675
0.89 0.89 0.89
65 0 190
0
1900 1900
0 0
0 1 2
LT R
12.0 12.0
68
262 685
1.00
0
0 0
Southbound
L T R
1 0 1
0:50 0.50 0.50
1 0 1
3
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
1
1.00
2
0
0.00
0
O .25 Area Type: All other areas
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:
6thp
Init Unmet
Arriv. Type
Unit Ext.
I Factor
Lost Time
Ext of g
Ped Min g
Eastbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Westbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
PHASE DATA
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4
[11EB Left A.
Thru A
Right A
Page 3
Northbound
L T R
0.0 0.0
3 3
3.0 3.0
1.000
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0
0.0
Southbound
L T R
0.0
3
3.0
1.000
2.0
2.0
0.0
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
7.0
4.0
1.0
6 7 8
A
24.0
4.0
1.0
'
Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
LT 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.952 1810
1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 0.88 0.850 - - -- 2842
Southbound
Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
LTR 1900 1.000 1.000 0.985 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 0.952 1782
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:s111,6thp
• Page 5
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Adj Adj Sat Flow Green - -Lane Group- -
Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c
Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v /s) (g /C) (c) Ratio
Eastbound
Pri.
Sec.
Left L 1 659 0.00 0.236 156 0.01
Thru TR 779 3535 # 0.22 0.236 836 0.93
HCS- Si •nals 3.1b File: 66th. Pa•e
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for exclusive lefts
LAPPROACH EB WB NB SB
Cycle Length, C 110.0 sec
Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 26.0
Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 26.00
Opposing Effective Green Time, go 64.0
Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1
Number of Opposing Lanes, No 1
`Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 1
Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto 0.00
'Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 850'
Lost Time for Lane Group, tl 5.00
Left Turns per Cycle: LTC =V1tC /3600 0.03
Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc=VoC/3600fluo '25.97
Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7) 1.00
gf= [Gexp(- a * (LTC ** b))] -tl, gf < =g 0.0
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C) 0.42
gq= (4.943Vo1c * *0.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g 0.00
gu =g -gq if gq > =gf, =g -gf if gq <gf 26.00
n= (gq- gf) /2, n > =0 0.00
1Ptho =1 -Plto 1.00
Pl * =Plt [1 +{ (N -1) g/ (gf +gu /Ell +4.24))) 1.00
Ell (Figure 9 -7) 2.88
[E12=(1_Ptho**n)/PltO, E12 > =1.0 1.00
fmin =2 (1 +Plt) /g or fmin =2 (1 +P1) /g 0.15
gdiff = max(gq -gf,0) 0.00
fm= [gf /g] + [gu/g] [1 / {1 +P1(E11 -1) } ] , (min = fmin;max =1.00) 0.35
flt =fm= [gf /g] + gdiff [1 / {1 +Plt (E12 -1) } ]
+ [gu /g] [1/ (1 +Plt (E11 -1) ] , (min = fmin;max =1.0) or flt= [fm +0.91 (N -1) ] /N **
. flt 0.347
For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach,
see text.
If Pl > =1 for shared left -turn lanes with N >1, then assume de -facto
left -turn lane and redo calculations.
** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
'?For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:41,66thp
Page 7
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for shared lefts
" APPROACH EB WB NB SB
Cycle Length, C 110.0 sec
Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G
Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g
Opposing Effective Green Time, go
Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N
Number of Opposing Lanes, No
Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt
,,Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt
Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto
"Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo
Lost Time for Lane Group, tl
Left Turns per Cycle: LTC =V1tC /3600
Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc= VoC /3600f1uo
Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7)
gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf < =g
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C)
gq= (4.943Vo1c * *0.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g
gu =g -gq if gq > =gf, =g -gf if gq <gf
* For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:4066thp
Page 8
SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET
EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT
Southbound
Intersection Delay 75.2 sec /veh Intersection LOS E
HCS-Signals 3.1b File:•66thp Page 9
ERROR MESSAGES
No errors to report. .
Volume: 45 542 804 101 103 71
HFR: 49 558 860 108 128 88
PHF: 0.92 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.81
PHV: 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Pedestrian Volume Data:
Movements:
Flow:
Lane width:
Walk speed.:
% Blockage:
Median Type: TWLTL
# of vehicles: 0
Flared approach Movements:
# of vehicles: Northbound 0
# of vehicles: Southbound 0
Lane usage for movements 1,2 &3 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T
R
Lane 3
T R
Y N N N Y N N Y N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N Y N N Y Y N N N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 roach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T" R L T R
•
Y N N N N Y N N N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles:
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
G
t 3,1t
t c,T:
1 stage
t c
1 stage
4.1 7.5 6.9
2.0 2.0 2.0
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.2 0.1
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0 0.7 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00
4.1 6.8 6.9
Follow Up Time Calculations:
Movement 1 10 12
t f,base
t f,HV
P by
t f
2.2
1.0
0.02
2.2
3.5
1.0
0.02
3.5
3.3
1.0
0.02
3.3
liWorksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12
liConflicting Flows 484
Potential Capacity 529
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Movement Capacity 529
Probability of Queue free St. 0.83
Step 2: LT from Major St.
4 1
Conflicting Flows 968
Potential Capacity 707
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
ilMovement Capacity 707
Probability of Queue free - St.• 0.93 •
_from Minor St.
7 10
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor 0.93
° Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. 0.95
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 0.95
Movement Capacity 147
•
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement
1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 11
I 11 I
v(vph) 49 128 88
C m(vph) 707 147 529
v/c 0.07 0.87 0.17
95% queue length
Control Delay 10.5 102.9 13.2
LOS B F B
Approach Delay 66.3
Approach LOS F
HCS: Unsignalized •rsections Release 3.1b
TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: Boone
Intersection: 65th Avenue / Southcenter Boulevard - 2002 w/o
Count Date:
Time Period: PM 00
Intersection Orientation: East -West Major St.
Pedestrian Volume Data:
Movements:
Flow:
Lane width:
Walk speed:
% Blockage:
Median Type: TWLTL
# of vehicles: 0
Flared approach Movements:
# of vehicles: Northbound 0
# of vehicles: Southbound 0
Lane usage for movements 1,2 &3 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T - R L T R L T R
Y N N N Y N N Y N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L. T R L T R L T R
N Y N N Y Y N N N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N N N N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.00
. Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 oach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Y N N N N Y N N N
Channelized:
Step 4: LT from.Minor St'. 7 10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1424
127
1.00
0.92
0.94
0.94
119
•
v/c 0.08 1.19 0.20
" 95% queue length
Control Delay 11.1 213.9. 14.1
LOS B F; B
Approach Delay 132.7
Approach LOS F
HCS: Unsignalized rsections Release 3.1b
TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: Boone
Intersection: 65th Avenue / Southcenter Boulevard - 2002 w/ Project
Count Date:
Time Period: PM 00
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N N N N N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: .0.00
Step 4: LT from. Minor St. ._ - -_ -_ 7 10
Conflicting Flows •
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1442
123
1.00
0.92
0.94
0.94
115
•
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement
1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
11
v(vph) 55 11158 98
C m(vph) 649 115 491
vac 0.08 1.37 0.20
95% queue length
Control Delay 11.1 280.1 14.1
LOS B
Approach Delay F B
178.1
Approach LOS
F
HCS- Signals 3.1b File Sthssb wop rec
Inter: 65th Avenue
Analyst: Boone
Date: 7/10/00
E/W St: Southcenter Boulevard
•
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
/ Southcenter Blvd City /St: Tukwila, Washington
Proj #: 2 -30 -00131
Period: 2002 w/o Project - Signalized
N/S St: 65th Avenue (SB)
Lane Width
RTOR Vol
Eastbound
L T R
Page
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
1 1 0
L T
50 598
12.0 12.0
Duration 0.25
0 1 1
T R
886 111
12.0 12.0
3
0 0 0
Southbound
L T R
0 1 0
LTR
114 0 79
12.0
2
Phase Combination 1
EB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
NB Right
SE Right
Green
Yellow
'' All Red
`Cycle Length:
WB
.. Appr/
Lane
Grp
A
A
A
A
Area Type: All other areas.
Signal Operations
2 3 4
33.0
4.0
1.0
63.0 secs
Intersection
Lane
Group
Capcity
Eastbound
L
-T
Westbound
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
5 6 7
A
A
A
20.0
4.0
1.0
Performance Summary
Adj Sat Ratios
Flow Rate
(s) v/c
8
Lane Group Approach
g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
120
995
230
1900_.._
L99.5 1900
RT 846 1615
Northbound
Southbound
LTR 495 1560
0.45 0.524 12.0 B
0.65 0.524 12.4 B 12.4 B
0.95 0.524 31.5 C 28.9 C
0.14 0.524 7.8 A
0.48 0.317 18.0 B 18.0 B
Intersection .Delay = 21.8 (sec /veh)- :In-tersection LOS ='C
HCS- Signals 3.1b File41,thssb wop rec
Phone:
E -Mail:
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Eastbound
L T R
50 598
0.92 0.92
14 162
0
1900 1900
0 0
1 1 0
L T
12.0 12.0
54 650
0 0
VOLUME DATA
Westbound
L T R
886 111
0.94 0.94
236 30
0
1900 1900
0 0
1 1
T R
12.0 12.0
3
943 115
0
0 0
Northbound
L T R
0 0 0
0
Southbound
L T R
114 0 79
0.81 0.90 0.81
35 24
0
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
2
236
0.60 0.40
0
0
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
RCS- Signals 3.1b File
thssb wop rec
Init Unmet
Arriv. Type
Unit Ext.
I Factor
Lost Time
Ext of g
' Ped Min g
EB Left A
Thru A
Right
Peds
WB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
NB Right
SB Right
A
A
Green 33.0
[AllYellow 4.0
Red 1.0
Cycle Length: 63.0 secs
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left A
Thru A
Right A
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
20.0
4.0
1.0
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:41,hssb wop rec
Eastbound
L T R
50 598
0.92 0.92
14 162
0
1900 1900
0 0
1 1 0
L T
12.0 12.0
54 650
0 0
Westbound
L T R
886 111
0.94 0.94
236 30.
0
1900 1900
0 0
0 1 1
T R
12.0 12.0
3
943 115
0
0 0
Northbound
L T R
0 0 0
0
Southbound
L T R
114 0 79
0.81 0.90 0.81
35 24
0
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
2
0.60
236
0
0.40
0
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:
hssb wop rec
Page 3
Init Unmet
Arriv. Type
Unit Ext.
I Factor
Lost Time
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:111hssb wop rec
,.Appr . / Mvt
Page 4
VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
Adjusted Prop. Prop.
Flow No. Lane Flow Rate Left Right
54
650
943
3 115
Southbound
Left 114 0.81 141 0
Thru 0 0.90 0 1 LTR 236 0.60 0.40
Right 79 0.81 95 0 2
* Value entered by user.
SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET
Appr/ Ideal Adj
Lane Sat f f f f f f f f f Sat
Group Flow W HV G P BB A LU RT LT Flow
Eastbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
L 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 - - -- 0.121 230
T 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1900
Westbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
[IT
1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 '1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1900
R 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 0.850 - - -- 1615
ENorthbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
Southbound Sec LTAdj /LT Sat:
LTR 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 ,1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 0.846 0.971 1560
HCS- Si •nals-3.lb File: hssb wo• rec
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Adj Adj Sat Flow Green - -Lane Group- -
Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c
Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v /s) (g /C) (c) Ratio
Eastbound
Pri.
Sec.
Left L 54 230 0.23 0.524 120 0.45
Left
Thru LTR 236 1560 # 0.15 0.317 495 0.48
Right
Sum (v /s) critical = 0.65'
!Lost Time /Cycle, L = 10.00 sec Critical v /c(X) = 0.77
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET
Appr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Group Approach
Lane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del
tGrp v/c g/C dl Fact Cap k d2 d3 Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 0.45 0.524 9.3 1.000 120 0.11 2.7 0.0 12.0 B
T 0.65 0.524 10.9 1.000 995 0.23 1.5 0.0 12.4 B 12.4 B
Westbound -
IT 0.95 0.524 14.2 1.000 995 0.46 17.3 0.0 31.5 C 28.9 C
R 0.14 0.524 7.7 1.000 846 0.11 0:1 0.0 7.8 A
Northbound
Southbound
LTR 0.48 0.317 17.3 1.000 495 0.11 0.7 0.0 18.0 B 18.0 B
Intersection Delay = 21.8 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = C
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:410.hssb wop rec
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for exclusive lefts
Page 6
APPROACH EB WB NB SB
Cycle Length, C 63.0 sec
EActual Green Time for Lane Group, G 33.0
Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 33.00
Opposing Effective Green Time, go 33.0
Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1
Number of Opposing Lanes, No 1
Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 54
Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto 0.00
Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 943
-Lost Time for Lane Group, tl 5.00
Left Turns per Cycle: LTC =V1tC /3600 0.95
Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc= VoC /3600fluo. 16.50
`,Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9 -2 or Eqn 9 -7) 1.00
gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b)) ] -tl, gf < =g 0.0
Opposing Queue Ratio: qro= 1- Rpo(go /C) 0.48
gq= (4.943Vo1c * *0.762)(gro* *1.061) -tl, gq < =g 28.01
gu =g -gq if gq > =gf, =g -gf if gq <gf 4.99
n= (gq- gf) /2, n > =0 14.01
EPtho =1 -Plto 1.00
- =. P1 * =Plt [1 +{ (N -1) g/ (gf +gu /Ell +4.24))) 1.00
Ell (Figure 9 -7) 3.15
[E12(1_Ptho**fl)/PltO, E12 > =1.0 1.00
fmin= 2(1 +Plt) /g or fmin= 2(1 +P1) /g 0.12
gdiff=max(gq-gf,0) 0.00
fm= [gf /g] +[gu /g] [1 / {1 +P1(E11- 1) }],. (min = fmin;max =1.00) 0.12
flt =fm= [gf /g] +gdiff [1 / {1 +Plt (E12 -1) } ]
+[gu /g] [1/ (1 +Plt (E11-1) ] , (min = fmin;max =1.0) or flt= [fm +0.91 (N -1) ] /N **
flt 0.121
For special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach,
see text.
* If P1 > =1 for shared left -turn lanes with N >1, then assume de -facto
left -turn lane and redo calculations.
** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq,.see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:•thssb wop rec
• Page 7
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for shared lefts
APPROACH EB WE NB SB
Cycle Length, C 63.0 sec
Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G
Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g
Opposing Effective Green Time, go
** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
�` For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:khssb wop rec
•
Page 8
SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET
EBLT WELT NBLT SBLT
Adj. LT Vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v
v/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X
'' Primary phase effective green, g
Secondary phase effective green, gq
(From Supplemental Permitted LT Worksheet), gu
Cycle length, C 63.0 Red = (C- g- gq -gu), r
Arrivals: v /(3600(max(X,1.0))), qa
Primary ph. departures: s/3600, sp
Secondary ph. departures: s(gq +gu) /(gu *3600), ss
XPerm
XProt
XCase
Queue at beginning of green arrow, Qa
`Queue
.at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu
Residual queue, Qr
Uniform Delay, dl
DELAY /LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL QUEUE
Initial Dur. Uniform Delay
'` Appr/ Unmet Unmet
Lane Demand Demand
Group Q veh t hrs.
Initial Final Initial Lane
Queue Unmet Queue Group
Unadj. Adj. Param. Demand Delay Delay
ds dl sec u Q veh d3 sec d sec
Eastbound
sec /veh Intersection LOS C
HCS-Signals 3.1b File:4I/hssb wop rec
No errors to report.
ERROR MESSAGES
Page 9
• HCS- Signals 3.1b FileAllthssb wp rec
Inter: 65th Avenue
Analyst: Boone
• Date: 7/10/00 .
-.E /W St: Southcenter
HCS: Signals Release 3.1b
Page 1
/ Southcenter Blvd City /St: Tukwila, Washington
Proj #: 2 -30 -00131
Period: 2002 w/o Project - Signalized
Boulevard N/S St: 65th Avenue (SB)
No. Lanes
LGConfig
Volume
Lane Width
• RTOR Vol
Eastbound
L T R
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Westbound Northbound
L T R L T R
1 1 0
L T
50 598
12.0 12.0
0 1 . 1
T R
886 111
12.0 12.0
3
0 0 0
Southbound
L T R
0 1 0
LTR
78 114 79
12.0
2
Duration -
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4
EEB
WB
NB
SB
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Left
Thru
Right
Peds
Right
Right
Green
[Yellow
All Red
Cycle Length:
A
A
A
A
33.0
4.0
1.0
63.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
[APPr/ Lane
.Lane Group
EGrp Capcity
Eastbound
L 120
T 995.
Westbound
995
846
Northbound
Southbound
LTR 511
NB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
SB Left
Thru
Right
Peds
EB Right
WB Right
5
A
A
A
20.0
4.0
1.0
Adj Sat
Flow Rate
(s)
7 8
Ratios Lane Group Approach
v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
230 0.45 0.524 12.0 B
1900 0.65 0.524 12..4 B 12.4 B
1900
1615
0.95 0.524 31.5
0.14 0.524 7.8
28.9 C
1609 0.62 0.317 20.6 C 20.6 C
Intersection Delay = 22.1 (sec /veh)
Intersection LOS = C
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:•thssb wp rec
Eastbound
L T R
50 598
0.92 0.92
14 162
0
1900 1900
0 0
1 1
L T
12.0 12.0
54 650
0 0
VOLUME DATA
Westbound
L T R
886 111
0.94 0.94
236 30
0
1900 1900
0 0
0 1 1
T R
12.0 12.0
3
943 115
0
Northbound
L T R
0 0
0
Southbound
L T R
78 114 79
0.81 0.90 0.81
24 32 24
0
1900
0 0 0
0 1 0
LTR
12.0
2
0.30
318
0
0.30
0
0.25 Area Type: All other areas
HCS- Si •nals 3.1b File: hssb • rec
a
Init Unmet
< Yellow 4.0 4.0
All Red 1.0 1 . 0
Cycle Length: 63.0 secs
T 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1900
R 1900 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 0.850 - - -- 1615
Northbound Sec LT.Adj /LT Sat:
Southbound Sec LT Adj /LT Sat:
LTR 190.0 1.000 1 000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.00 0.860 0.985 1609
HCS- Signals 3.1b File .thssb wp rec
• Page 5
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Adj Adj Sat Flow Green - -Lane Group--
Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c
Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v /s) (g /C) (c) Ratio
Eastbound
Pri.
Sec.
Left L 54 230 0.23 0.524 120 0.45
Thru T 650 1900 0.34 0.524 995 0.65
Right
Westbound
Pri.
Sec.
'
T 0.95 0.524 14.2 1.000 995 0.46 17.3 0.0 31.5 C 28.9 C
R 0.14 0.524 7.7 1.000 846 0.11 0.1 0.0 7.8 A
Northbound
Southbound
LTR 0.62 0.317 18.3 1.000 511 0.21 2.4 0.0 20.6 C 20.6 C
Intersection Delay = 22.1 (sec /veh) Intersection LOS = C
P1 * =Plt [1 +{ (N -1) g/ (gf +gu /E11 +4 .24))) 1.00
Ell (Figure 9 -7) 3.15
E12= (1- Ptho * *n) /Plto, E12 > =1.0 1.00
fmin =2 (1 +Plt) /g or fmin =2 (1 +P1) /g 0.12
gdiff= max(gq -gf, 0) 0.00
fm= [gf /g] + [gu /g] [1 / {1 +P1 (E11 -1) } ] , (min = fmin;max =1.00) 0.12
Eflt=fm=[gf/g]+gdiff[1/{1+Plt(E12-1)))
+[gu/g] [1/ (1 +Plt (Ell -1) ] , (min = fmin;max =1.0) or flt= [fm +0.91 (N -1) ] /N **
flt 0.121
For special case of single -lane approach opposed by multilane approach,
see text.
* If Pl > =1 for shared left -turn lanes with N >l, then assume de -facto
left -turn lane and redo calculations.
** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
HCS- Signals 3.1b File:rhssb wp rec
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET
for shared lefts
Page 7
APPROACH EB WB NB SB
Cycle Length, C 63'.0 sec
** For permitted left -turns with multiple exclusive left -turn lanes, flt =fm.
For special case of multilane approach opposed by single -lane approach
or when gf >gq, see text.
..:
sec /veh Intersection LOS C
HCS- Signals 3.1b File .thssb wp rec
•
Page 9
ERROR MESSAGES
No errors to report.
L T R L T R L T R
Y Y Y N N N N N
Channelized: N
Grade: 0.03
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 roach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.03
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles:
•
Northbound Southbound
Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 129 145
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 5 0
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700
Number of major street through lanes: 1 1
Length of study period, hrs:
0.25
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation.
Critical Gap Calculations:
Movement Capacity 1410 1386
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00
Pedestrian Impedance Factor 1.00 1.00
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity 572 569
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7 10
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
357 353
598 602
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.99 1.00
592 602
Worksheet 8 Shared Lane Calculations
Shared Lane Calculations
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
v(vph)
Movement Capacity
Shared Lane Capacity
1 11
40 0 0 0 0 8
592 572 880 602 569 854
592 854
Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS
Movement
1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
v(vph) 40 8
C m(vph) 1386 1410 592 854
v/c 0.07 0.01
95% queue length
Control Delay 11.5 9.3
LOS B A
Approach Delay 11.5 9.3
Approach LOS B A
Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Rank 1 Delay Calculations
Movement 2 5
P of
✓ it
✓ i2
S it
S i2
P* Oj
D maj left
N number major st lanes
Delay, rank 1 mvmts
1.00 1.00
129 145
5 0
1700 1700
1700 1700
1.00 1.00
0.0 0.0
1 1
0.0 0.0
HCS: Unsignalized •rsections Release 3.1b
TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
•
rAnalyst: Intersection: 65th Avenue / Old Bluff Street 2002 w/o
Count Date:
Median Type: TWLTL
# of vehicles: 0
Flared approach Movements:
# of vehicles: Eastbound 0
# of vehicles: Westbound 0
Lane usage for movements 1,2 &3 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T. R
Lane 3
T R
N N N .N N N Y Y Y
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.03
Lane usage for movements 4,5 &6 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2
L T R L T
R
Lane 3
T R
N N N N N N Y Y Y
. Channelized: N
Grade: 0.00
Lane usage for movements 7,8 &9 approach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
N N N
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.03
N N Y Y Y
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 roach: --•II/1
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T R
Movement Capacity 1586 1615
Probability of Queue free St. 1.00 1.00
Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St. 1.00 1.00
Lane usage for movements 10,11 &12 roach:
Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3
L T R L T R L T
Re
N N N N N N Y Y Y
Channelized:
Grade:
N
0.03
Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles:
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
Length of study period, hrs: 0.25
Northbound Southbound
0 0
9 0
1700 1700
1700 1700
1 1
Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow -up time calculation.
Critical Gap Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
t c,base
t c,hv
P hv
t c,g
G
t 3,1t
t c,T:
1 stage
t c
1 stage
4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.1 4.1
7.1 6.5
6.2 7.1
6.5 6.2
Follow Up Time Calculations:
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
t f,base
t f,HV
P hv
t f
2.2 2.2
0.9 0.9
0.02 0.02
2.2 2.2
3.5
0.9
0.02
3.5
4.0
0.9
0.02
4.0
3.3
0.9
0.02
3.3
3.5
0.9
0.02
3.5
4.0
0.9
0.02
4.0
3.3
0.9.
0.02
3.3
Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity '
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
23 3
1054 1081
1.00 1.00
1054 1081
1.00 0.98
Step 2: LT from Major St.
4 1
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Maj. L Shared ln. Prob. Queue Free St.
45 6
1563 1615
1.00 1.00
1563 1615
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
` Step 3: TH from Minor St.
Movement 2 5
P of 1.00 1.00
V it 0 0
V i2 9 0
S it 1700 1700
S i2 1700 1700
LaP* Oj 1.00 1:00
D maj left 0.0 0.0
N number major st lanes 1 1
Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.0
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplan(ci.tukwila.wa.us
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS
PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows:
I .
1 am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application.
2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent.
4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real
property, located at tIJIAGp44- b . S • ,1 50 s„Tf •ee" Z be •
for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose.
ss
5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the
City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City.
6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for
items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days.
Non - responsiveness to City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without
d .�. is/
refund of tees
EXECUTED at
(city),
state), on ( 67 196
6-4-Q A-c— S. 3.4tJti, bti it-
(Print Name)
((SID Ic,3a 2 g.d\, MX-0n-ia gu%d'd
(Address
(344 a-4t -347
•
P7 ,
Nu mbe
(Signature)
On this day personally appeared before me GGAWA- i t. Seit (td/Z6-,esto me known to be the individual who
executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes mentioned therein. -
SUBSCRIBEDAIS,WAN TO REM 744. DAY
O ; o �OTAAY'�2
•
TARY PUB and for the State of Washington
residing 7j /zwi.+yr�
My Commission expires on 3—/5.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplan n ci.tukwila.wa.us
C11y OF TUK�„
OCT j92000
SEPAEN
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
APPLICATION
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
S�4-1 "it-4 i 40.sv.€ , IC- ¶t&K c.£ Co
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant,
indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL /0 DIGIT PARCEL
NUMBERS.
,e-‘6 . $ - SD ,1/4.1rt-1 G �'L- /c J ,
lb 44 b6o32-0 0014
Quarter: Section: e5 Township: Z-3 Range: 04-
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR :
The individual who:
• has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff,
• has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping
development standards, and
• is thee J primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
Name: iC �+J : . P.CK . A AIL
Address: (,Si0 Sc. -se2 LA 2 frj 1q °►b'lI',f
Phone: C2-44) a48 -.94 / FAX: (1 )) ;14 - ^'(a -a g
Signature:
G :NPPHAMLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00
Date: DO / /
FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P -SEPA
Planner:
File Number:
0000 —oa6-
Application Complete
(Date:
)
Project File Number:
Application Incomplete
(Date:
)
Other File Numbers:
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
S�4-1 "it-4 i 40.sv.€ , IC- ¶t&K c.£ Co
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant,
indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL /0 DIGIT PARCEL
NUMBERS.
,e-‘6 . $ - SD ,1/4.1rt-1 G �'L- /c J ,
lb 44 b6o32-0 0014
Quarter: Section: e5 Township: Z-3 Range: 04-
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR :
The individual who:
• has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff,
• has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping
development standards, and
• is thee J primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
Name: iC �+J : . P.CK . A AIL
Address: (,Si0 Sc. -se2 LA 2 frj 1q °►b'lI',f
Phone: C2-44) a48 -.94 / FAX: (1 )) ;14 - ^'(a -a g
Signature:
G :NPPHAMLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00
Date: DO / /
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
SCMnl4�+� ddb. 5 , �-�.)c • 64i - 1 C Co
2. Name of Applicant:
64-19- ► € . SC*-1 JE ,
3. Date checklist prepared:
au-9 9ws ; 3 ,
4. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila
5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
5 Pe--1 .o rs .9-0- 0 i S1-f1-4-1- / r 01-e t i Leo itLio cen o-rJ
6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
PJv
7. List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
C-0 ms 1 s
8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
?.3 t ti 12,3 o .4 J —re P A=.ra�
G.UPPHANLLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP DOC. 06/16/00 1
Agency Comments
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
41U1-4 r tSF ,..r"t'1 7 , - g.ifititR.L-
10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page.
1 h /PP 574, R.7 o Pc/ e gd a 9 £5 1V V.3 sale.
1 1. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot
number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,
provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,
vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any
plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
11-1- T}lti T ZikA.4 N l4-4> evr hn.14e-A- e1A -0ti Qom . 5 .
NnSc -Zr� So wTU4C4.."1" 2 6 ", .
12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
ND
G.\APPHAMLANDUSE.APP SEPAAPP DOC, O, /10/00
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other:
iNn.o>J p �s
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Sor/o
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.
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.
(&J€ W i LA_ ATT -e4v —P i -f0 Ae4.I ► g J f re et/CAA-et- ee 7J2 -e..J
e a!4J4c_D arms .94‘). Atria-e.e/Azc_s r, s, ,
,77 -- >?.ua -ts o s .1/ ezitize. ,rye /L.a.Js
APP.2.4 ;tYw4 -A-rE /, t -e d. y. 4z Aus- -r.e.4 -c. /✓/c{ 4ecx, -.7e . o•✓ -S.:rt .
G: APPHAMLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 3
Agency Comments
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe.
.� It &er S'; 2+cr A bst,KiZJe.+ci . To L+ r t.t ig PPeo J
f SiV,J e1W T72.ol- p -ti - r S t, > L f7 +� %.J H1 �1J2 tAAn)i wizE
TM' Pc � �caT 1 /L oSic.�
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
s 17,
h. Proposed measures to
1
TtcscP gH in)
STUB •28.t b
(r-► Ji -n tis Tr/46Q
2. Air
reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
W 1 ri-1 C1 Tt.1 6 -P1'24 e,+ti�
7-74-t,1.) ,J ei 'g t+c.40C) i J & D J EiZi w7 �I
rv..ee e; s 11,.i 177-4 Ti2,'L 3 t W taT 2, Cr S /i Dcua do/as re
PL,ac.e i� - �2 ( S,Efi -s e,J
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust,
automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is
completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
7 2 / /,J /I- c- C.4 s A . , & ij: M r-
3st/2 /x,aeyi,Je.er a 5 t D )tit AC/9 g 5/7-E_ b f 4/0 s/or�e.I i sA.4.1 )j
A. b S . th,u s reocca7 o.v , /rre,e ea u s o sJ 77i t' ) Ak /,4-c. S'o,.t ee
O ut_a 67¢ eie.2/442.5- i F-ZO•Lt Ile/06u e._.Lit 7-eatcycsc ,
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
dewm.l!ca -2 entiss'ic/Js DM` Pt 41-r-- D^► N el 4,11-z4-2-7
tJoc�c b 6i me itki m-+ r, OFF° S in Sc t- ae- or Ash ,D1-4-1.4_,-70
Mba' do u.c h t r°4/1f.s•a-e-- .
G. UPPHANU.ANDUSE.APPNSEPAAPP.DOC. 06/16/00 4
Agency Comments
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
/tlo, e l°ZIA >:-a mut_ TM '7n 12-e-se s r rE or— zEA)
r - c,J A ,Ti 7 r1 / 44 -pace rJ' 7-74
a rl . ificrtet a 6, L ► e,srt i s s S '594 0 tn- -a r'k. ,.Y.oi L: g 16t-e tfezix•tS E.
6A" ni 1 e s7: 41L- ,2E1e; -i..w -E-f) 4. J7/E 4$H,..3c -7A) S,7 -r �Z,oT, �� UcEnJS..Jq
3. Water
a. Surface:
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into.
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
N/A
G:\ APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 5
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
/Va.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
ND
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.
b. Ground:
1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
G.\ APPHANU.ANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 6
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve:
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
S11,20` ✓s-tra A.. occ. jZ. 1 =(tC.ti 9P4RA<.1 Au.; 1.11 •)
(4-1,31 (ZCP.F i tkiJ CfY'. (dL(- STCLw... b.JA -TSc.,— bJr C. Qei 4.4.fPi Ant
"0"3.4 sc.: Thou U23./ iv 6/0 - ' �'=o•e� 6e /Ny �iSCSl arc y £.)
Dbetc-rz y /rJra 771E (,es?.e.) ,�i ✓r e,
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
4h' if-5 Ab,a_re.0 41J/¢(,/ 7t7 (Q 1IlSSttof€j 77/AWE-A/ 9/SE
D" rife e/0 - st,l a•c4
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
een sr2u.e.rmeJ — .m /R,° /,14A 6 i..kAa-t e A ,j .
G:\ APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC. 06/16/00 7
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
A
Deciduous tree a 4 : r, , aspen, other
X1
Evergreen tree: 41351► cedar, pine, other
Shrubs
Grass
Pasture
Crop or grain
Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush,
skunk cabbage, other
Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
y
Other types of vegetation g e,nue geezte.s
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
/1(4- ( 7e .,.7 0,0 Al/L- 6t of 1 &,A), ieAw% reEFS
l4 77( QiZep ezz_ry ".e-3o y .
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
49pP,eede 1.4.4 mac- 40-) / Be /AdIG.e. ..); -�.�
off= 7X/ /greVvS-.o -L ,
G. IAPPHANLLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00 8
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds other.
Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
Fish
Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
Other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
20.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
/L►o,.3� ARc/oos e�
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.
Ci/�"S �K -�•4�� D/ LL. et as �+� /4.J t� �LP!G77P /Gsa C cre,c4b C E
W /GL et hl�G'_� ss. paJt -cr // SAS /S No: 4114ic.o�c
G. NPPHAMLA.IDUSE.APP SEPAAPP.DOC. 06/16/00 9
Agency Comments
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If
so, generally describe.
/OP.
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:
77./e ,gv f ems- Ji g£ A. Ta r-
e" 7y pr 'Flue ∎J//uo, 4f%? a 77/ P' r yeid gueeg do s .
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.
Aim/ c /40e. ).%) 7V fs0is
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
/l%D der iGe -s G"'.'4 8f. ,e'g J
ors
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
G AAPPHANLLANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00
10
Agency Comments
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
i�.ar/C DA) 5.u. €40.da,.31 de“..L-b
,yti,✓, .mac_
1,14.10w- - .711E 13eijee-r-.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
/VoisL t /evs AOa -4-Z of /4.17E[.t TTVA) ,i// / T1�,c��yN L'rnlsx`rcnc3J
$Hra—i. -)s Pe TD /tlC�atiR -t- i(JCG.�C /tl� ��S 44<-9-52.
ND,s £. G 7 -2 g7 ?%fii /GL>FS' OS/Al
CIt) 3' -f a % $'ra.€.ea 5 ,tom. 6.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
D� � / L o �.2 /ka��UN% e7f,/icE -S / P & t / 2-700-7 G D . c J S 7 Ge 071 re A) 0#-..1""7-C- L f k r - O G , 4 / he - r A% ' a .j ivL/w/1wt. �L£
61,as 7v0.1 /WO /Sf
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
?/e g T Di e f€‘, e.e-ry /s v ,— ,
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
itJO .
GWPHA:NLANDUSE.APPSSEPAAPP. DOC, 06/16/00
11
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
c. Describe any structures on the site.
4)69g .
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
AJO.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
/ o. c
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
e
!ed '$S /0„1011- Dom' /1-f C(Sic;
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/4
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
Nc.
GIAPPHAN U.ANDUSE.,1PP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00
12
Agency Comments
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
S-0 )-T 40 64 tiC. WIni►,. 11-4 rc eFO+�Pc_ti�G)
j•
134-be) .
Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected
land uses and plans, if any:
0,0*..putulel_ w :r►-c 2E-9 c- G'o'ats
W D d1, _1n i V 3 uk.e_ at C. f 4 n (3: �. Tv U , Est IS 710 ro.v
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low - income housing?
fS, 6-00 59, P2dPtis5rC/.' .- 6 rF-rce •
G.W PPHANILANDUSE.APR.SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00
13
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low - income housing.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
it10 n1 2 iq20isee s
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?
36,
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
IJv ■ f-ws g►-i ate.,, g .
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
GA-Am s 44. i b � c� I&t t Al S ua'dt ► ►n,P ors
G.\APPHANU.ANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP. DOC. 06/16/00
14
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
G-L- ►4 -�e-Q v\.A,,,A b c-c- p •—: A■1 s N ;� s fitos d n.� i nJrRw -iwv1
( ) 17-1 £ f,►oo..s 140,4es jF 77 .5140 is vox-.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
r)o.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
rA) t /4/0..).,) .
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
,4) J)f Assoed,va e a W , nv 77-/11 /sZ91a ,o-t_
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
A)OA)t Pos
G:\APPHANU.ANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP. DOC, 06/16/00
15
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
yd.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
VA) f P,eepas -q, ,
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
Po.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,
or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
ND•ot elio,.5 3
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
G:\APPHAN\LANDUSE. APP\SEPAAPP. DOC. 06/16/00
16
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
M' —ri✓
sliedeas /5 77 <g .e 'Ot/i4 g-L tf n
fAos T..1 g A rK.G
/604-4) 4 /5 77 et exte -42- ,I F 7-7/e oget,tEei r/P Ta
4..r_( i4Jf . S .
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance
to the nearest transit stop?
020-0 FT . ?a rUL.R..re.o S e-E
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
37 — NoM-
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).
rOo
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Nb.
G. APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC. 06/16/00
17
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
/RD 4, rl y i r 1 �Q 5 7�, - 14. kA, 77 ,off. t,e i/cg fPs
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
ND Air
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.
(LE Th P7 uc e_. P(�oet io►� �� n5
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
PeLA ce k1 /O n .
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
Glectricity)
system
other:
s sewe , septic
G. WPPHANU. AND USE.APP4S EPA APP.DOC, 06/16/00
18
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
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 e needed.
Po 75760 AI c fl/t, !L ctt^Ie g 6.9s2,
of �ikw i% Gv A-Tog .-K. Sc-evem
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is r- g one e to :1 e its ecision.
/4
Signature:
Date Submitted:
(NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND
ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PAGES).
G :NPPHAN\LANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00
19
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses: Agency Comments
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT PROPOSALS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in
conjunction with the list of elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or
the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the
item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not
implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposals be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions
to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or
production of noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine
life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life
are:
_, G: NPPHAW.ANDUSE.APPISEP.AAPP.DOC. 06/16/00
20
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental
protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or
endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or
prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including
whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
G. APPHAN\LANDUSE.APPISEPAAPP.DOC. 06/16/00
21
Agency Comments
Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary.
Applicant Responses:
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or
public service and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or
Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
G:\ APPHANU.ANDUSE.APPVSEPAAPP.DOC, 06/16/00
77
Agency Comments
�bV _
(15 H 1851 5
o., 0021b)
0b
�o ti
GOv
0'ON i/`t`\,-+ 3ldys �
•yN
is) b
Ip^ a� y�10ci a ?, S •
Hln�sa
831143
'7 Z s �
I •
Pd
30NdH0b � 1 1\133):i0 dd
):AS
')
o
201
- oy '
(1,07 I1g
of %y
730,4
b01,1:.>)
•3
\\O
z
S
cs-
,22
SS'Ep/
0%
\oE
m•
In
LZ
0
l9TE1 SIIiSAIIVE AREAS
r DOR PCP NZ AS MOM ALM
447427 47 l LU31 MI r
/ PM Or 0077 I l
,L4167 917 Sal[=7
M�IO0 MU 4 St[ DNA 721 DI X IOW
PPP 13 4OA7R A OW IV
787 rULU) Al 413/ 714
010717710 IAOS MI/ IS.M
WYE! GRAIIINfi
/ C1IM m6O Sltn/IIO7.al5
I MCP) 707117 77.71 Val r
MHO 4r RP I PM ROW
PROW
:411478111ITIfkilllI air
W4 IP L N
0.0 IM[L r /011701 47
I P
IS[M,I PLC■
1 IIO 174 701170 [107 I/O WNW
770700 7101 aPP MCP 471 11
P11711117411.. MOW
/MI �� a n. OM It
11�1
71[7•16 SLOW NU PPM)
■ MOW 0171[77 POUT 7118L 4//r
MAW/ P L — 14171861 S17747 0
L
alumni 7 71 716 r LOOM) 11
4 1161 SO IM! 111111 ROM IV 1I
73111717 777171«11 A beau 7e71771
0.117k OF 7017I 171 An RAT
ea1- -wr
Gill r..r 901:;(47
•i:II.IC "3:5.
7114- annTJI3t 0171[770
7077 bat l 71 17011 AS 771114
1 71 /7786 MILL 0 MCC S P 7TDII
PP 41 ICAO ID PIMP 08177
703/071111 14707717PIMP
011777 4771 70]1Pr IP4
LIMP AM r 007170? 701 116
P 0 'PC 7777 7 11TRUINIt0 0 or 171r,
3 171671111 1017011 I46
ILAO0- 07747137 Of T
*417710 A rll 6770 731 1100 ASA
la/ war roc( •, a.a T
7� >n 7-1 PDX
i
O11ISR1 DPW
D WADY MI D iWD IATAil
♦ rte' r
1r
NOTE. MONA[F
LIMP 170 IIMP0 PM VU
=II 77171 • 6 Ra1i
1411EI FORE I{TE*N(TS
/mttp 771 7711? 117111716 K
11104101
girt. LM0DSCAPE PI ANTINC•
2:11-71071 N COMM III MO
7PAID O T7 SPOS 711
LIII V IIIf ✓fLM�-
071P1ER 1818 471 0856)
moo Prat 717 7177711
WORM
O[- S1a17MOO 3 ( 7* 411
1308[ rum Mau
11x71 71.8
411 Ytaa
3181 /71714
PM 011 RIO 4U as 7131
Ma IMP 71/L fill It
111170 II
701D 9
171.4® O
/PAD 1
=PLO I /1111
1117•6 NCO I
I I /d171 D 11 P flt TOM 07 -317177
71116 37471 M/ r 71*1771 AM
0171174•10 10 017761 CAM
LOADING SPA([ RECIUIREMENTu
NOP 11770 OPS IMP 713
7
MIN 7107/ .*4714
I 7177 0 77+11• 0110 70• POMP 78381
moo a/a 17117717
OM u
7017 *37 7107177
'717 ID ACr WOW1/113 / 110 ra K
HITE. SIREEI_2tl0 711E LIGHTING
ELECIRIC8L LEGEND
arc 71 0WT MCP
y /0770770 nom oar,
• 3T113r111G1I74
�jGSiGtl�Sf
7 11717 70706 '1117
I OI 1 7171 l7�A 11
T 071
*44At71r l PO
111ttt7 m L 740111
=IPS DM
`• 9
\Cv 7ID
_ cnvetr0V
.,- ►I \;
•
07477
07717-
1710SC4•C1
D 41.1 AA 1710 tor
(31.31771 0177*
O PVC
a' as 177[ 1 SU71 LPIPSDIPC «7*7
*4140711 IDIOM
71 Or 1A Si110 LOC *471/1/ m
LIP
MR OA S71U 71'
0 71 Rrr 7 MP/
LM11tC4T Ruff
/1800161
141077T IS
SCHNEIDER HOMES OFFICE BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
SCALE' 1' _ ?8'-0'
SITE ACCESSIIIILITY NOTES.
141 31711710701 PP 170704 WOW 70AI07117.71
L AL 4477. MN/ Ole OOi O•l3 711 /PUP • SLOW 17 716
377(71 407170714141770 M 171. 3'
71• MP 141 r 7071171 /4/ 11701(771
a .11 COMM Mt 107 MK 4 O0 OM MAUI 1711Vat
3 MAC MU r 1 711Ai AMMON CAWS GR UM IAN
1?' A06 DOW 871110 NW VP
A tl 7040777P 47I11a/ MA774 TAUS DAL ICI M177 A
PAS SLOP OUT OM Val
7, 717 RIl71QA NO OC 741767 1 M AL11770Z TOOL
NU MI OCT 177'0 wort
1'J
srwaac stw NOTING
.:�� 1EiiIIV!! Oiiiill! H!Oill!!IIIIIIIIII_!!OUiillliii !!! IIIIIIIIIIIV' 1111�����lliiii�!!�Illllll�i�l.
aim
;K O
,a rK
roam oral
4 %moo lute ■■ ■■ ■■ L■■■ jitutrif _ ■■10111'
III[Illl 1111111111 II�IIIIIIIIII -- -- Illlllllllllll Illllllflllllllllllll lll0IIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIII +��I IIWII��I1ll l� lllllllllllll IIIIIIUIII IIIIIIIIIII
111 111' ■■■ l 'U'4n�1111 I■■ I0• •• ,II■ '111 111
IIIIIIIIII 1111111111 Illunmml : =. =.__ 1111111111111 llllllllllllll ____. ,Idil1111 111111111111111111111
...IIf 1IIIIS 11 1I1I111111111 1111 1111 II ■■ ■■ ■;■ IIII111111117 '111111111 /1 11
1r111,1 111 illllt•i 11'`1 �I�I�IIII1 ■■ ■■ ` +�I�A ■ ■ ■1 I'1111II�'���1�11111 llll�I
` 1 1111111 111111��111�1 �Ii1 1.1�) (11�1�� 1
I
ICI
ELEVATION
Inptnt
/liimillnul.l!11
111: ►4
1111111111J!
111 i1
111111
1111j
....111111.1111111111
...1 II1. :11I•II.11S • 1111110[111 11
--.11 ilitllll1�IIllllllii`1
V 111' %:!: % / / /Fr4r % r4
11 111111 1111111 11 II IL
\I 111 111 III
1111IIII1 11111 1
�` 11il1i11, Nil ��U�io��1 .
.,.t,offis iii!; iii 1 111111111 Iiiilllllllllllllumill miiii it1.1111111nlIiunIiiiIIIH I,..
11111 111.111 'III 111'1 111§
IIIIIIIIIII
II�II II lu�uih�I ��111111111111 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII 11111 2111111111111 IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII 11111111114 l�ii1I 111
IIIIIIIIIII ' -= 1111111111 1111111111 III■IIIIII Illlllllllllllllll11111 1111111111 IIIIIIIIII 1111111111 __ -- IIIIIIIIIII
m
u�
`111151 - 11111111/ 111111 111111 1111 1111111111111111 111111111 - 111111
III,I�II II,I�III,�Iu`111,I111��■ ■ ■ ■I`111„111'p���III�I`11!II,I III,I IIIIIIIII
1 n 1 111111111 1 nm1 111111 :::- n::;virtonu1 111111 1:::?s., ..fi ..:' 1 immu 1 tuna
R ELEVA{Ipy
vimm
THE
SKUTLEY
ARCHITECTS
asa 1
UI
0
cu
W
CI-
UI
N
0
d ¢ o
0 7 N
C ; dN
S
(n ,r, 7N
MINNINIM
WrILEM
THE
SKUTLEY
ARCHITECTS
A of i0i a
J �
First Floor Plan
u
� O
C7
cu ru
In �
o m
= u lm0
Lo d
w 3a<
c
NN 1N
S 1
to � 0I—
J
FP -1
P.
IISASk SPACF
w
IJ+SL SPACF
L11 --
SSECONO FLOOR PLAN
N
Second Floor Plan
THE
SKUTLET
ARCHI TECTS
arsrGal 1 PI.Mw. I*
V
,vTULT
W A
NO
C
O
C1_
L
O
O
u._
--
I-
H .. .. ..
— —
- - —
—
—
� L
I
— —
-
..
WWI
.. —
PFF Iff
❑
..
,I
..a
❑❑❑❑
.r — mi
1
V / / / / / / //r/
/ / / / / / /,i
/ / / / /// /fir / / / / / / / /�ii
— —
r
�EE1SE
❑
❑
a
.III M
•6 Am.
•
•r
rim
Er/1U
1
,.
�� a
�❑❑
6F1fF
i
Irk.___-
.�
......
��
0•
i
M N�
■ •
•
• •
�
• 0000
!I■
• ■
_::__ ;
■!'!.'
�..
U
UI
a,
o,
4.
g
v
Mi CU
3,
d .
d ■ ❑ �I
'7
�
• 00 • •
.i.r.. M,; u.—
❑ 00
�'
-
..
I�I:
�:: �
IWO
.��
:I7!1iiI
I
i
OM OW
�1K.,..
1
. �1:..
F -
- 1�6
.
-
Jr
e-e
C
1 1
.
1 -
M
11
F P.— 3
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
vr• . r�
... sn.
THE
SKUTLEY
ARCHITECTS
Aw11TCG1
V
JEFFR xT
wti
eQc, n.
C
O
►
.
_
.
\.
V«
t
\I
IMA'11ii
-JIIIti1
=
ia�i����.
���■�r����l,����������►��M�w
.:
■i•■
Z►
A
Ii
111
_
.-
__
... ,
�,�P r
-
- ,
,
i
QI
ioEC
C
N
>0 N
§
yN d(V
".
.
a, .
g nn
�
��I
•
1 1
1 1
- - - I
_- .„-_
,_/.,
•
I''-
1 1
-
-_ raa_
_ -
1 • � 1 �'
L
1 1 1 1 1„� 1 1 1
1 1 1a 1 1 ` 1 1 1
, -
��
i�
■
__
1
L
_ _ _
O
T`
4114101%.
`
_
-
l% ,
kM
_
da i
kg).
ROOF PLAN sf01m"�'"
"'` ""°`
...
s 1�" 3 •
FR-4.
......M