HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-228-84 - COSTCO - WAREHOUSEThis record contains information which is exempt from public disclosure
pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW
as identified on the Digital Records Exemption Log shown below.
EPIC -22 -89
City of Tukwila
Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Ordinance
RECORDS DIGITAL D- ) EXEMPTION LOG
THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERMIT FILE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING REDACTED INFORMATION
F,age # Code
Exemption � � �� Brief Explsnatoty Description, Statute /Rule
The Privacy Act of 1974 evinces Congress'
intent that social security numbers are a private
concern. As such, individuals' social security
Personal Information —
numbers are redacted to protect those
Social Security Numbers
individuals' privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec.
5 U.S.C. sec.
DR1
Generally — 5 U.S.C. sec.
552(a), and are also exempt from disclosure
552(a); RCW
552(a); RCW
under section 42.56.070(1) of the Washington
42.56.070(1)
42.56.070(1)
State Public Records Act, which exempts under
the PRA records or information exempt or
prohibited from disclosure under any other
statute.
Redactions contain Credit card numbers, debit
card numbers, electronic check numbers, credit
Personal Information —
expiration dates, or bank or other financial
RCW
189
DR2
Financial Information —
account numbers, which are exempt from
42.56.230(5)
RCW 42.56.230(4 5)
disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.230(5),
except when disclosure is expressly required by
or governed by other law.
COSTCO
EPIC- 228 -84
COSTCO /TUKWILA
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
COSTCO /TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
For
Costco Wholesale
4401 - 4th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington
682 -8909
By
Entranco Engineers, Inc.
1515 - 116th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
June 11, 1984
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
II - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT 2
III - METHODOLOGY .4
IV - ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 11
V - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY 20
APPENDIX A - LETTER OF MAY 8, 1984
APPENDIX B - 1990 LAND USE SCENARIOS
APPENDIX C - 1979 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATA
APPENDIX D - SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
i
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
NUMBER
1 Traffic Volumes - Forecast vs. Actual Counts
2 Costco Vehicle Traffic Generation vs. Floor Areas
3 Costco Trip Generation by Time Periods
4 1982 -83 Accident History
5 Level of Service vs. Volume /Capacity
6 Volume /Capacity (LOS)
ii
PAGE
4
5
5
9
11
12
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
NUMBER PAGE
1 1990 Costco Traffic Generation 7
2 1990 "Three Costcos" Traffic Generation 8
3 Noon Hour Volume /Capacity Ratios 13
4 PM Peak Hour Volume /Capacity Ratios 14
iii
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Costco Wholesale facility will generate 4,700 vehicle trip
ends daily (2,350 arrivals and 2,350 departures). Eighty -five percent of
this traffic will be new trips and 15 percent will be linked with other
trips in the business area of Tukwila.
Many arterial street improvements will be needed by 1990, with or without
Costco. This is particularly true with respect to access to SR -181 and in
the vicinity of Southcenter. Specific impacts of Costco on these locations
will be relatively minor. The only location at which Costco traffic will
cause a significant reduction in service level (from C to 0) is at Andover
Park East and Strander Boulevard. Left -turn lanes (northbound and
southbound) are needed at this location to maintain the 1990 base service
level C.
At Andover Park East and Saxon Driver, a southbound left -turn lane is
recommended in order to separate through and left - turning traffic. This
improvement should be made by restriping the street in the short term.
Long -range improvements should include the widening of Andover Park East to
five lanes (60 feet) from four lanes (50 feet) for left -turn lanes and the
provision of sidewalks and street lighting.
A path or walk for pedestrians on Saxon Drive is recommended for pedestrian
safety and convenience.
A signal is not justified at this time at Andover Park East and Saxon
Drive. This location should be monitored annually, and if a signal does
become justified in the future, one means to deal with traffic would be to
develop a second access to Andover Park East, thereby reducing the volume
entering and exiting at Saxon Drive.
1
II
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
Costco Wholesale has proposed to use an existing 118,400 square foot
warehouse building in the city of Tukwila for wholesale /club sales of
consumer goods. The building is located at 1160 Saxon Drive, east of
Andover Park East, near the southeast corner of the Tukwila business
district. This is an area that is predominantly developed for warehouse
and office uses at this time. On April 11, 1984, Costco submitted an
environmental checklist to the City of Tukwila. On May 8, 1984, in a
letter addressed to Jerry Quinn Lee of Douglas Mulvanny Architects
(Appendix A), the City of Tukwila identified a number of traffic issues
which need to be addressed prior to making a threshhold determination. The
purpose of this report is to address those issues so that a threshhold
determination can be made.
The scope of this study includes:
1. A forecast of total vehicle trips to and from Costco for:
a. Average weekday,
b. Noon peak hour, and
c. PM peak hour.
2. A forecast of vehicle trips to and from Costco on the major
arterial streets in the Tukwila business district.
3. An analysis of forecast traffic conditions at Andover Park East and
Saxon Drive, to determine if signal warrants were met and if
additional improvements will be needed.
4. Identification of required upgrading of existing facilities,
including streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, street lighting, and
railroad improvements.
2
5. The forecasts of future traffic and analysis of traffic impacts
includes a scenario with three future facilities with the traffic
generation characteristics of Costco.
3
III
METHODOLOGY
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic generation estimates were developed based on two major assumptions:
1. General growth in Tukwila between 1984 and 1990 will occur at the
same rate as indicated for the low - growth scenario that was used in
the LID study. This assumption is supported by the trend of the
last four years. In general, 1984 traffic volumes are lower than
they were in 1980 (see Table 1).
Table 1
Traffic Volumes: Forecast vs. Actual
Andover Park East, south
of Saxon Drive
Strander Boulevard, east
of Andover Park East
Southcenter Parkway, south
of Strander Boulevard
1984 ADT 1980 ADT 1990 Base
(a) (b) (c)
7,350 8,280 10,270
11,200 14,950 19,450
25,000 25,450 38,930
(a) ADT = Average daily traffic volume.
(b) 1980 ADT = Forecast 1980 volume from LID model using 1980
Puget Sound Council of Governments' (PSCOG) trip table.
The 1980 model volumes for the business district represent
a 5% average increase over the 1979 volumes in the LID
study.
(c) 1990 Base = Forecast 1990 traffic volumes using low- growth
scenario, without Costco traffic.
2. Costco vehicular traffic generation will occur at the same rate per
square foot in Tukwila as the average of traffic in Seattle,
Spokane, and Portland (see Table 2).
4
Table 2
Costco Vehicle Traffic Generation vs. Floor Areas
Daily Vehicle
Trip Ends
Gross Floor Area (Entering Trip Ends Per
Location (x 1,000 Sq. Ft.) and Exiting) 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Seattle 98 4,014 41.0
Spokane 117 4,106* 35.1
Portland 103 4,426* 43.0
Average 106 4,182 39.7
The a.m. portion of these data were extrapolated from
Seattle data; these stores were not open in the morning
on the weekday that the counts were taken (May 25, 1984).
The ITE trip generation manual and Arizona trip generation manuals were
examined. However, no studies of Costco -type facilities were reported in
those publications. The 39.7 generation rate appears to be reasonable,
since the three studied facilities had generation rates very close to the
average. Application of this rate to the Tukwila facility produces a daily
vehicle trip end volume of 4,700 (2,300 in plus 2,300 out) (see Table 3).
This number is conservative because each Costco facility is designed and
operated around a base area of 100,000 square feet. Aisle space and
storage areas are varied as actual building areas vary.
Table 3
Costco Trip Generation by Time Periods
Period Trip Ends Inbound Outbound
Average Daily Traffic 4,700 2,350 2,350
Noon (12 to 1 p.m.) Peak Hour Traffic 592 317 275
PM (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.) Peak Hour Traffic 414 203 211
Eighth Highest Hour Traffic 355 183 172
5
Fifteen percent of Costco trip ends are assumed to be "linked" with other
business district trips. This means that 15 percent of the people driving
to Costco will have already been in the area because of some other trip
purpose. Therefore, 85 percent of the 4,700 trip ends (3,995 trip ends)
will be new trips entering the business area.
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
The LID traffic model was used to develop 1980 traffic volumes and to
forecast 1990 traffic for three (3) 1990 scenarios:
1. 1990 Base - The low- growth scenario, without Costco; 5.4 trip ends
per 1,000 square feet was used for the warehouse that Costco
proposes to use.
2. 1990 Costco - Uses the low- growth scenario with 39.7 trip ends per
1,000 square feet for the proposed Costco facility (see Figure 1
for Costco component of traffic generation).
3. 1990 Three Costcos - The same as "1990 Costco," but includes two
additional hypothetical Costco-sized generators (39.7 trip ends per
1,000 square feet); one is at the northeast corner of Andover Park
East and South 180th Street, and the second is south of South 180th
Street and west of Andover Park West (see Figure 2 for Three - Costco
component of traffic generation).
The LID Model assigns total daily trips: Peak -hour trips were assigned as
a percentage of the forecast daily trips. The percentages reflect the
actual percentages that occurred in traffic counts between 1979 and 1984
(i.e., forecast peak -hour volume = forecast ADT x (actual peak hour)
actual ADT).
6
•
•
\\\
s 1.r.") Y NCY1
t .1
I • :1
. s
1 *
,,..i.,:,.z.:....„:..,....-,,r1,—
•,4 Lal ::::
I
. ;; ......... • :o. 1...L.A ,...:.:•.44. .1. •ii .3 t i. pr.. 1 Xrtraf. ..., u LIZ.. •,"1"C:.• . , ......,-,.... • +...+A.J..4..... J. •_„,.......-..-3..Y.r.zirr-,%-x'-'-is-. C)
Met 0•64 ••• A., ewe moo eat. ,..... .4,0
1 .
...m.......trmlatru. ,..amm rzn4rinuto x 117.: zt......1.11:7:=1.71.1:::: s ,i1,,,xiir...,...:x3...,4..u..77:.,,,....._......,....z... .; _az.:7,:a_..11-1.11
. -..
..,..7•:,....,, 1
. -
TYC .-----........--• .
- ..*....-- .•....o.ve:17.2.711 •
.....„„,,,ti:..,..,,,,:,,,,,,. 1
.1 ..I. , . • , , . ..
...,
•
•
...1;•
rti
5
•
1 1:
• I ,
• •
co/
1.f::‘,"
f.') n •.„7 .....
3s1
1
4
_..- ___... _.27.. ..........___ ..... .. _ .. .... ----
-,.............. ,_.....,_ ,..,‹ , „....,... ......
AMA‹.: b3iN3514.1.110
.._ •• 4...
■S
.....,- ''''."'r(7'.'.;w.........,..,......"'..'".'.-''"•'...,:Z•:::::::'"•-•..-.„..,, : 4 * .3,
/7-
/ /
illiii
''' • x.... ye...Ob.-4w a. • ....-es. • 4r:',,Kir;e1; to
. . . , , s- ,* * ' c --- :"-'z..1 • , . . , •,-::: : Y --Y'' • -,•:: 1 ti) '" ' it 4
V ""•••••••••—.
;"_?- It •., ..e o. to a
1 C? I • r.. /
A 1. Ne. .....,Z
i • 4-:,
j D1." 1 :
JP
•
'R. • 4o Aaaa * •
COSTCO /TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
000•1■11.1•MININ
z
w
111
-J
.17
EE
3
> >
6 0 .
> Z
au a. a
E • c
8
<1—cLz
0
f
LO
ea At
N. MA OM SM. NON ION
COSTCO/TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
ENTRANCO Erxgineers
,H,RANS0(117I•liON CONSOLTAN,S
LEGEND:
4700
414
592
Average Daily
Traffic Volume
P.M. Peak Volume
Noon Peak Volume
THREE
COSTCO'S GENERATION.
1986-1990
8
The 1980 street network was used for both the 1980 and 1990 forecasts. The
1984 street network is virtually identical to the 1980 network. The 1980
network is particularly appropriate for testing for needed improvements
because it generally reflects currently funded capital improvements in the
Tukwila business district.
ACCIDENT HISTORY
Accident records for 1982/83 were reviewed for Andover Park East between
South 180th and Strander Boulevard, for Strander Boulevard between Andover
Park East and SR -181, and for South 180th Street between Andover Park East
and SR -181. A total of 21 reported accidents occurred at these locations
in the two -year period (see Table 4).
Table 4
1982 -83 Accident History
Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East
East of Andover Park East on Strander
Boulevard
Strander Boulevard and SR -181
Andover Park East between Saxon Drive
and Strander Boulevard
Andover Park East and Saxon Drive
Andover Park East between South 180th
and Saxon Drive
Andover Park East and South 180th
South 180th east of Andover Park East
to SR -181
SR -181 and South 180th
Total Accidents
9
Property
Damage Only Injury Fatality
3 1 0
2 0 0
0 0 0
9 5 0
0 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
4 1 0
0 2 0
25 9 0
OTHER TRAFFIC FACTORS
No data were obtained regarding existing pedestrian volumes or train
volumes. There is no transit service on Andover Park East at this time.
There is no street lighting on Andover Park East between South 180th Street
and a point approximately 800 feet north of Saxon Drive.
Costco shoppers on average purchase $65 to $90 worth of commodities which
typically must be transported in private vehicles. Therefore, it was
assumed that virtually no shoppers would take transit or walk to the
facility. More than 100 employees will work at the Tukwila facility when
at full operation; 65 to 70 employees will work on a typical weekday and
they will arrive in four shifts, beginning at 4 :00 a.m. Some employees may
take transit or may be dropped off by an auto driver (carpooler); however,
with no transit service on Andover Park East, it is assumed that the volume
of transit users and carpoolers (who become pedestrians) is less than the
King County average of 10 percent work trips by transit, or less than 14
trip ends per day.
All train tracks in Tukwila are spur tracks. One spur track crosses
Andover Park East south of Strander Boulevard. There is no history of
train accidents at this location in either 1982 or 1983. This track, as
well as other spur tracks in Tukwila, will be crossed by the Costco
traffic. (Approximately 2,000 Costco - generated vehicles per day will cross
the subject spur track.) Because of the nature of spur track traffic - -it
is generally infrequent, it usually occurs in the evening or early morning,
and it is usually low -speed trains, plus the 30 to 35 mph vehicle traffic
conditions on Andover Park east - -the existing signing and pavement markings
appear to be adequate for maintaining a high level of safety at the spur
track crossings.
10
IV
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
VOLUME /CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Nine intersections were analyzed to determine the effects of Costco traffic
on the level of service (see Table 5 for connection between levels of
service and volume /capacity (v /c) ratios in Tukwila). The results of those
analyses are depicted in Table 6 and Figures 3 and 4.
Table 5
Level of Service vs. Volume /Capacity
Description
Level of Service Volume /Capacity (Average Stopped Delay *)
A 0.0 to .60
B .61 to .70
C .71 to .80
D .81 to .90
E .91 to 1.00
F Varies
Free Flow (0 to 16 second vehicle
delay)
Good Flow, Little Delay (16.1 to 22
second vehicle delay)
Fair Flow, Frequent Delay (22.1,to
28.0 second vehicle delay)
Congested Flow, Long Delay (28.1 to
35.0 second vehicle delay)
Intolerable Delay, At Capacity (35.1
to 40 second vehicle delay)
(40.1 or greater)
* Actual delays can vary widely, depending on traffic signal timing,
intersection and street geometry, work in the street, traffic
characteristics.
11
ti
TABLE 6
VOLUME /CAPACITY (L.O.S.)
.
1984 BASE
1990 BASE
1990 COSTCO
1990 THREE COSTCOS
PM
Noon
PM
Noon
PM
Noon
PM Noon
South 180th and SR -181
1.03 (E)
1.17 (E)
1.18 (E)
1.21.(E)
`
(West Valley Highway)
.87 (E)
1.04 (E)
1.05 (E)
1.06 (E)
South 180th and Andover
Park East
.56 (A)
.49 (A)
.63 (B)
.69 (B)
.75 (C)
South 180th and Southcenter
Parkway
.60 A)
.74 (C)
.76 (C)
.80 (C)
Strander Boulevard and
Andover Park East
.67 (B)
.67 (B)
.75 (C)
.72 (C)
.86 (D)
.78 (C)
.96 (E)
.90 (D)
Strander Boulevard and
.91 (E)
.78 (C)
1.25 (E)
1.00 (E)
1.26 (E)
1.02 (E)
1.28 (E)
1.05 (E)
Southcenter Parkway (2)
.77 (C)
.69 (B)
.90 (D)
.88 (0)
.91 (D)
.89 (E)
.93 (E)
.94 (t)
South 180th and Andover
Park West
.71 A
.58 A
.85 D
.86 (D)
.96 (E)
Strander Boulevara and
.97 (E)
.94 E
1.09 (E.)
1.06 (E)
1.11 (E)
1.08 (E)
1.13 (E)
1.12 (E)
SR -181 (3)
.41 (A)
.63 (E)
.73 (C)
.70 (B)
.74 (C)
.71 (C)
.75 (C)
.73 (C)
Tukwila Parkway and 1 -405
Crossing (Five Lane)
.74 (C)
.56 (A)
.86 (0)
.65 (B)
.88 (D)
.68 (B)
.91 (E)
.73 C
Saxon Drive and Andover
Park East
.36 (A)
(1) V/C with the addition of an eastbound right -turn lane.
(2) V/C with the addition of a third westbound lane; the middle lane would serve left and right turns.
(3) V/C with the addition of a second eastbound left -turn lane and a southbound right -turn lane.
S3k-i:,'YON01
............
a st a i
1 *
1 :
1 1 :
* 7 -
1
• f .<(
' • — — — : '...::::::.,-; ,.,
Anal$17,....4M,rz 7 fr: X X.V.12r11.:114.0nninarZI ill IZZ.T.:1.: UTZ r.,.rfu LT-.,zi-xn.z..ninr.;raa-".:1..C:, 47:•:""::.:,..:7-.:77:-74*--, 7 7^ : : ' ^ - • ! :-
..‹,is
• 1 a
1.:2-%-.XrIra:121.4 =rravirzr izi.,..Trar rar,c,r,Tunli =1„z; mu ,•mt`',17,1,,,,,r;r12-11..tu, 1.4 f_.1.3811 17.:X3 4-'7'. L.:it:L.7Z LICI.,...7:tt.'::L, rt ZcZT: tzt r..:-. ,..r tru.:, ,.,'...113.r: : • ,
$ ,. ,.,...
, , a
4
4c.:"L-Jit . .."
.0' '
::_..,...—...._—. ..._ —
--
: • :.-„,...
; • 7
i ,..
• ,
--.. 1 i
\ \
./1.A . ......
,a.•••
100,04'," - ••".10.3
■
.... ... .......... _
. .
•, , , \ i I )... c v :4
' , , •
' - - , '',. i 1 : 't•--.*••••••,...................,.....,,,,,..„„..00*--"''''''' !.
•,, ••., 1 , ,
1 , '",,:. .-m•ullr:.,-1.;:;:
\11. ■
;
• I
;'; I I ' --- • .--- • ..... -•
Q / / 1 1 ; >- I._.
/ ,' , i ':.itt . . •
431/ .: / ILI •X
ki f s
..4."-1
Lr.
..t.
11 •,......
•:,
(,,,,,,
/ ,
//i/,
/lit
,,_
,
,,\,..,.............._....a. .....- ..... ---
....),....:---.....-•--"...›.-----.--,1 C........--
.$___._.,__..._.,...._
4L...............„,,..„.......................T.•”.v......„..,y,, '''' ......7:::"..........''....". ..,......
.......:
.. , ......,... ...........
in,.
°I.,' 7 ...A
1 .,.. &, OsOOfir
1
Ii, ,'/ • i; Ci 1 t . ',"" l''''
k
)) i / , •' , ' '' It 1
.jyt.,.;''
- - — - ---- --,_,:; - - - ---- /, --,&,...... ;.:.--- - - .---..•..- - ... -j.. - - - ''''.1%....4r.re..X•V:4C-4tAlcie-A4I,Ii..,Ai,ar.,W4g.:1,r-.-.... .. - --- — — --'-- - - 4 _, / :,...
\I ilk
''' • KIV.................• 4, ...., :a. • *--.....,,,s, iec a 4 .4 ••••,......... ..... .
: ; ^ _.
.....
>t1.2
co 0 t4 U
0 0 0
• • • •
ar>,
X I •
i
I
-J
I-
CY
03
A...... • ......
Nivd
c. 4.6 • OW, rg: :10
1
k'*".•••: k, ••••. , ''t.,";
)M>f<4.. :'.131N-1331.4k114..)
$ 4, • ,
* es •
',•••• *
* a
COSTCO /TUKW
0
u
O 0
Z u
• 0
t)
o O. OD 0
ot, I,
. . • .
•
=
(D
-• 0 ■D
• LO -J
o - '0 '0 '0
LO CO
o 0 0
n co
7; 6
0 .•-•
O g
0
0
m
rn
ddV .L V1IMMCLL /OD LSOD
AQCI.LS .LDVdN
■,._
aftaaaaa a la a <a
' •
,re
c. .......... .....
•
T . • • - — • -?,
. , /
_.... c••• i • ,
i tl •• ,'/' / /( i
,.1.
t.,i — --( 1 0 ,... t. ./,' /IA/ \ ;,
_ ,,,.... ,,,..„:„.,.•_...............„..„.......„,..4..
) • /4/://
/it II
k
SOUTHCENTER PKWY
....
. _
.....
•- -4 1 Y I
\\:A\
,
,
.TJ
1,0
I rjet
.r- •/'
Lc, ........
• /
:!C)
WEST
../e)
5
„..,:,.....,,.,.......—„t., .,--
.ry 'at 8:8 X Xi
...... . (..-; . .
..... • ••••
...... •
co "-Lt
T.
t
•-
3 *1
L Z.7
i ..,
iNistitetw, .0,
F.: A 31
.. ”
- •
r • )- •
• ••
..... - --- •
;•-• t_ t. c-1 -
^ ^••.-••-
-Inarcr.r4.1liZrY.Stscz
- • — • • •■
• • - • xt n 7 A
rs
•..7o
. ff. rtul
r Prow Nritlint
etvir moo. go. arm *we etx, x•xe
zx
lem. mos
c:rn).
:
z 1
•z:
s
LONGACRES
■21.1
- lent let
\\,
The data in Table 6 and Figures 3 and 4 lead to the following conclusions:
1. As Costco traffic disperses from the site, the volumes and their
effects become increasingly smaller. It should be noted that three
intersections have level of service E operations in 1984:
SR -181 and South 180th Street
Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway
Strander Boulevard and SR -181
When comparing 1990 Base with 1990 Costco, it should be noted that
v/c ratio increases by .02 or less as a result of Costco and by .04
or less as a result of 1990 Three Costcos at the above three
locations. All three locations will have v /c's in excess of 1.00
in 1990 unless specific street improvements are made. By itself,
Costco traffic will have an insignificant effect on these three
intersections.
2. Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East will have a significant
drop in level of service (LOS), from LOS B in 1984 (V /C = .67) to D
(v /c = .86) in 1990 with Costco. Costco will add .11 to the v/c
ratio in 1990. 1990 Three Costcos would increase the v/c to .96 in
the p.m. peak.
3. South 180th Street and Andover Park East will remain at LOS B
(v /c = .69) with 1990 Costco and would be at LOS C (V /C = .75) with
1990 Three Costcos. These represent .06 and .12 V/C increases,
respectively -- significant in magnitude but still at acceptable
service levels.
SAXON DRIVE AND ANDOVER PARK EAST ANALYSIS
This intersection will operate at LOS A (V /C = .36) with 1990 Costco,
without improvements. Costco traffic will be the only traffic on Saxon
Drive. Although capacity requirements will be met with the existing street
configuration, the volume of southbound left -turns will result in an
increase of both the turning and rear -end accident potential at Saxon Drive
on Andover Park East. A southbound left -turn lane would separate the
through and left -turn traffic, thereby reducing accident potential.
15
The Andover Park East and Saxon Drive intersection was checked for signal
warrants (Ref.: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices -- MUTCD) and
traffic volumes were determined to meet 96 percent of the minimum volume
warrant and 89 percent of the interruption warrant. The 85 percentile
speed is generally less than 40 mph on Andover Park East (the speed limit
is 35 mph). However, because it is a T intersection without through
traffic in the east -west direction, the number of conflicts is
approximately three - fourths of what one would expect for a comparable
volume at a four - legged intersection (i.e., westbound left turns conflict
with both northbound and southbound traffic, and westbound right turns
conflict only with northbound traffic).
The intersection volumes exceed those required for the combination of
warrants (80 percent or more of the stated values of two or more warrants
must be met, as is the case here). However, the MUTCD specifically
cautions that an ". . . adequate trial of other remedial measures which
cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic should precede installation
of signals under this warrant."
16
V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VEHICLE CAPACITY AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
The 1979 Tukwila Transportation Improvement Plan identified a number of
short -range and long -range improvements in Tukwila. This list was refined
in the 1981 LID Study. Our current analysis, which takes into
consideration the Puget Sound Council of Governments' 1980 and 1990 trip
tables, would suggest that most of the identified improvements should be
made with or without Costco. Specific improvements which are needed with
or without Costco are:
1. Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway. Add westbound lane
(for three -lane approach) and improve 1990 Base V/C from 1.25 to
.90 (1990 Costco would improve from V/C = 1.26 to .91).
2. South 180th and SR -181. Add eastbound right -turn lane (four -lane
approach) and improve 1990 Base V/C from 1.17 to 1.04 (1990 Costco
would improve from V/C = 1.26 to 1.05). Additional improvements,
including the Winkler Boulevard extension or a grade separation,
should be considered at this location.
3. Strander Boulevard and SR -181. Add second eastbound left -turn lane
and a southbound right -turn lane to improve the 1990 Base V/C from
1.09 to .73 (the 1990 Costco V/C would go from 1.11 to .74).
Recommended improvements which will be needed by 1986 to serve Costco
traffic are:
1. Provide northbound and southbound left -turn lanes on Andover Park
East at Strander Boulevard. The existing roadway is 50 feet wide
(curb face to curb face width). The left -turn lanes could be
17
installed as short range improvements by rechannelization (using
paint and buttons) and by reconstruction of the signal to align
with the new lanes. The long -range improvement for this
intersection includes widening from 50 feet to 60 feet to provide
for permanent left -turn lanes.
2. Provide southbound left -turn lane on Andover Park East at Saxon
Drive. The roadway is 50 feet wide here also; the improvement can
be accomplished within the existing roadway by channelization as an
interim or short -range improvement. The long -range improvement
would include widening to 60 feet here also.
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
In 1986 the Andover Park East and Saxon Drive intersection will be very
close to meeting the volume criteria for signal warrants as specified in
the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Because this is a T
intersection, it will not operate with the delay characteristics and higher
accident potential of a four - legged intersection. The effective minor
street volume is approximately three - fourths of the actual forecast volume
as a result of the right turns. It is recommended that a signal not be
planned at this time but that a monitoring program be established to
determine on an annual basis, after Costco opens, if the conditions
warranting a signal installation have developed. If they should develop,
one means to alleviate the problem would be to develop an alternative
access to the site and spread out the traffic entering and leaving Andover
Park East.
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
No specific off -site pedestrian /sidewalk, railroad crossing, or street
lighting improvement needs were identified in order to serve Costco traffic
or other traffic as it may be affected by Costco traffic. However, when
the street is widened for the long range, as recommended above, fixed
street lighting improvements should be included.
18
However, it is recommended that a pedestrian path or walkway separating
pedestrians from roadway traffic on Saxon Drive be provided. This will
help to reduce the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
and will assure separation of pedestrians from vehicle splash during
inclement weather.
Accident totals are low near the proposed site. Because accident totals
tend to vary with traffic volume, some increase in accidents may be
expected. Based on volume alone, four additional accidents per year may be
expected on the routes shown in Table 4 herein.
19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Box, Paul C. and Willard A. Alroth. "Warrants for Traffic Control
Signals." Traffic Engineering, 11/1967, pp 32 -41; 12/1967, pp 22 -29;
1/1968, pp 14 -20.
Buttke, Carl H. "An Approximation of Regional Shopping Center Traffic."
Traffic Engineering, pp 20 -23; 4/1972.
Clement, J.P. "Limitation of Signal Warrants." Public Works, pp 54 -55;
10/1980.
Entranco Engineers. "Transportation Improvement Plan for the City of
Tukwila." 10/1979.
Entranco Engineers. "Tukwila LID Plan" (unpublished). 2/1982.
Henry, R. David; Jay H.L. Calhoun; R. David Pfefer, and Robert K.
Seyfried. "Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant NCHRP Report 249." 9/1982.
Lalani, Nazir. "Factoring 'Passer -By' Trips into Traffic Impact Analyses."
Public Works, page 82; 5/1984.
Oppenlender, Joseph C. "Continuous Warrants for Traffic Signals." ITE
Journal, pp 22 -26; 5/1983.
Richards, Hoy a. and G. Sadler Bridges. "Railroad Grade Crossings."
Automotive Safety Foundation (booklet), 1968.
Schoppert, David. W., et al. "Factors Influencing Safety at Highway Rail
Grade Crossings." NCHRP Report #50, 1968.
Slade, Louis J., P.E. and Frederick E. Gorove, P.E. "Reductions in
Estimates of Traffic Impacts of Regional Shopping Centers." ITE Journal,
pp 16 -18; 1/1981.
20
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF MAY 8, 1984
May 8, 1984
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
JERRY QUINN LEE
Douglas Mulevanny Architects
12200 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA 98005
RE: Costco Warehouse Environmental Checklist - EPIC - 228 -84
Dear Jerry:
has 1401x1 /Asctiat%
pcug
We apologize for the delay in responding to the environmental checklist,
but we wanted to very specifically define the traffic issues in order to
facilitate your response. These issues are the only ones remaining to be
answered from the checklist.
A threshold determination is being withheld until the below listed infor-
mation is submitted. Following evaluation by staff the determination will
be made.
1. Average daily trips of cars and trucks including the time periods of
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. and identified peak traf-
fic generation.
2. Analysis of existing intersection at Andover Park East and Saxon Drive,
including signal warrant analysis and the anticipated direction of tra-
vel in the business district in and out of the City.
3. Analysis of requirements at the intersection of Andover Park East and
Saxon Drive and along the identified impacted routes.
4. Identification of required upgrading of existing facilities, including
streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, street lighting and railroad
improvements.
5. The aforementioned data run through the current "L.I.D., computer
program," including two other similar, potential sites and for retail
j usage in the industrial park area.
Our understanding is that METRO is currently processing the "L.I.D. com-
puter program," or that the author of the program, Entranco Engineers, is
able to run the program for you. We are not saying these two firms must be
1
Ae -2-
JERRY QUINN LEE
Dpuglas Mulevanny Architects
May 8, 1984
used, only that they hold or are using alot of the needed information. You
certainly may generate the requested information in whatever way you choose
provided data adequate to answer our concerns is provided.
Due to the engineering nature of this information any questions you have
should be directed to Ross Earnst, City Engineer, at 433 -1856. I'm
available to answer other questions at 433 -1847.
ReI sp ; tfjj ly
Rick Beeler
Associate Planner
RB %blk
cc: City Engineer
Planning Director
i
APPENDIX B
1990 LAND USE SCENARIOS
1 9 9 0 L A N D U S E
Low Growth (1)
Retail Office Industrial
1,631,000 1,426,000
+ 221 -room hotel '
+ 400 -room hotel
10,000 453,000
158,000
466,000
305,000 ,1,715,000
586,000 2,334,000 540,000 648,000 2,351,000
297,000 1,720,000 2,000
1,674,000 6,363,000
2,183,000
747,000 2,024,000
3,579,000 6,714,000
(1) Low Growth - Some properties will develop at a lower intensity than currently
expected, or later phases of a multiphase project will not develop.
(2) Probable Growth - Properties will develop as 'currently expected.
(3) High Growth - Vacant land will develop at a greater intensity than is currently
expected, and major redevelopment of some properties may occur, including some
conversion from industrial to office.
Revised 12/28/81
Probable Growth (2)
Retail Office Industrial
2,036,000
+ 221 -room hotel
+ 400 -room hotel
10,000
+ 150 -room hotel
High Growth (3)
Retail Office Industrial
1,851,000 158,000 2,176,000 2,666,000 150,000
+ 221 -room hotel
+ 400 -room hotel
510,000 466,000 10,000 1,240,000 467,000
+ 150 -room hotel
305,000 1,715,000
540,000 . 876,000 2,459,000
2,000 1,020,000 2,345,000
2,588,000 4,562,000 7,143,000
550,000 1,470,000
575,000 1,326,000 2,204,000
2,000 1,825,000 2,986,000
2,763,000 7,607,000 7,277,000
Entranco Engineers
1515 - 116th Avenue N.E.
Suite 200
Bellevue, Washington 98004
TUKWILA. MICRO MODEL
INTERNAL ZONE SYSTEM
sr. aloe
IWO
.0E10 AM,
APPENDIX C
1979 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN DATA
GUJ
47111M
2,00 0 1200
• ' /tCAL['1-•1200•�
1390
1020
670
70* 1550
1410*
1140
•
690*
1538
830
1270
380*
480
..I
1440« 910*
AND R SLV
1840
1180
90
900
940* S60* 470*
990 340 780
III 1/11181111811181818,
11 e's 111111111111111111ii[.t
• PLANNIN9 AREA
90UN0ARY
42
•
•
•
•
•
220 770
160 670 460
410 \s lec•f, 5-
ENTRANCO
Engineers
LEGEND
3S0 A.M. PEAK NOUN
3S0* NOON PEAK NOUN
450 P.M. PEAK HOUR
COUNTS TAKEN MARCH - APRIL, 1979
FIGURE 1
PEAK- HOUR TRAFFIC FLOW
APPROACH VOLUMES
Tx 0 boo
-f121' 311110..11MalleniftliC29
SCALa:I'•I5O0•
TUKWILA
CITY
L WAITS
ENTRANCO
Engineers
1.
�J \ °\
•
I„
32
I∎9
mom ST
10
LEGEND
PROJECT LOCATIONS AND JURISDICTION
Q CITY OF TUKWILA
• CITY OF TUKWILA AND WSDOT
O CITY OF TUKWILA AND OTHER CITIES
Q PROJECT SEGMENT
FIGURE 3
SHORT —RANGE PLAN
PROJECT LOCATIONS
r
MONTH
O
3
SCALE IN MILES
1 •
_
' \ L
Neer 7 •
4-
:I
•
.e
EXISL, ■ .
4 t\
/J ■
r,
i - _. tliiiiiy,,,le 1 - ---1
.:. 4:
41: 4s;41 .
ONGACRES)
1,1 PARKWAY
1!k4 LANES
if
CONNECT T
1-5 !N.B.!
RAMPS
8
ENTRA■CO
Engineers
i
4 X4.4
,6
LEGEND
4
NEW ROAD - NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES
I0I EXISTING 4 THROUGH LANES
EXISTING 2 THROUGH LANES
4 FUTURE LANES (WHERE IMPROVED)
2-WAY LEFT TURN LANES
FIGURE 5
LONG-RANGE (1990)
THRU-LANE REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX D
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Entranco Engineers, Inc. Page 1/2.
Job No. SS(006 -6 S
Client
Made by
Checked by
cosTc -o
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Street Name
Approach Lanes Marked
Sped Limit
Average Daily Traffic (1)
Major Street
f�iv)ovea E
2
Vehicle Volume Highest 8 Hours
3S
/0)000
Hour Ending
lPvh
P✓v,
Pv
2 (Pr l')
SPVh
(o Prh
3 Pm
(t 4 m
Wa rant 1 - Minimum Vehicle Volume
Wa rant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Number of lanes for moving
traffic on each approach
Major Street Minor Street
1 1
2 or more 1
2 or more 2 or more
1 2 or more
Date 6 / 7 /`d i
Date
Minor Street
S,4kor brz.
2_
2.S
4700
E.5.fw,.,a*ed
Veh /Hr Total of
Both .Approaches
1o0?
icZ
C 37
78
743
736
-7(0
) See Notes
Vehicles per hour on
major street (total
of both approaches)
Warrant #1 Warrant #2
500
600
600
500
750
900
900
750
Veh /Hr on Highest
Volume Approach
3o3
Z 2`t
z (07
('-(
/72
Z6�
2,zy
1, 2, and 3.
Vehicles per hour
on higher volume
minor street approach
(one direction only)
Warrant #1 Warrant #2
150
150
200
200
75
75
100
100
Maximum Warrant Value 50% 50% 50% 50%
Percent Met So 39 4 f SO
w a v' v-0-., j 4( = 5 to 96 ‘) w awb.ti:1 itr 2.=89 A
Date on which count was made I qS (0 (or forecast year).
Page 2/2
WARRANT #3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME (see Notes 1 and 3)
Required: 150 pedestrians per hour in highest volume crosswalk crossing major
street for 8 hours- -same 8 hours 600 vehicles (total) on major street (1,000
vehicles if a four -foot or larger raised median).
School Pedestrians
Required: 250 pedestrians (total) cross major street in each of 2 hours of day
1 and some 2 hours major street vehicle volume is 800 and no signal within 1,000
feet.
School
Hour Count
Pedestrian Volume Percent Met
WARRANT #4 - PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
Signal must accomplish speed control and platooning.
DO DO NOT now have platoons.
Distance to adjacent signals on major volume steet feet feet.
Are cycles same length at adjacent signals on major volume street?
WARRANT #5 - ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE
Required: Five or more correctible accidents in one year. Volumes in Warrants
1, 2, and 3 at least 80 percent of those required. Also, the signal should not
seriously interrupt progressive traffic flow.
Correctible accidents are considered to be right -angle vehicle, right -angle
vehicle vs. pedestrian, and those involving excessive speed if proposed signal
would control speed.
Number of accidents susceptible to correction by signal Year 19
Percent Net
WARRANT #6 - COMBINATION
Required: Two or more warrants at least 80 percent of stated values.
REMARKS: 5AiLory DR. TUG- HAS °NE 1 G -r- 1 r.1 OA) "Do E Tv
4 €06 R t c, f -T TU 2 N 5 F l o u`t b r a. TO ,41\1 b O'i e 2 N o rarer 404
E =F Ttvea VoLum G AHPPgc)Arcr3ery G o N T rtL vII/Notie S TI2
Is tea; S S TRAI- N 4 GTU /4-L 6 y A-PP iZo .. 2 6% . rrte72e-r-o,e e 51 G N
NOTE: Ai oT c
ReOv►'t PIA EIAJO
1. Warrants 1, 2, and 3: Where speed limit equals or exceeds 40 mph, reduce
warrants to 70 percent of required volumes.
2. If signal spacing would seriously interrupt progression of major street, assign
zero percent to Warrant #2.
3. Minor street approach volumes may be one approach during some hours and on the
opposite approach during other hours.
OFOCE MEMO
CITY or TUKWILA
xik
TO: rtallo
FROM: i2.1(.4C
DATE:
SUBJECT: ()SiC O3 (Mk° rZSC-A"...S 4
sneuLKfl* i 11-3ccz.. 03s
1-c)
OF .11A--r.
Moca.\0_:3
r)(9 )
1H E 1 rtzervf;ktketJ-7--5 -9/0-ty,
tA) 6 1 ci - I/ - eco ()(c)
WAC 197 -11 -1350
FINAL
DECLARATION'OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal Costco Warehouse
Proponent Costco
Location of proposal
1160 Saxon Drive
Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No.
EPIC - 228 -84
This proposal has been determined not to 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 by the lead agency of, a completed environmental checklist and other
information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to
the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
Responsible official Brad Collins
Position /title
Planning Director
Address and phone 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188. 433 -1845
Date 4 - Zq - ?LP Signature 6AL.o.4), Gde-0"..0
STIPULATION:
In order to offset impacts, improvements will be required to the public
roadways as part of this redevelopment. These improvements w.idllAnc]udes'idewalks,
restripping, rechannelization, signal modifications, additional street
lighting and commitments of the developer /property owner to other long range
roadway improvements.
Costco
WHOLESALE
4401 4TH AVENUE SOUTH
SEATTLE, WA 98134
TELEPHONE (206)682 -8909
July 25, 1984
Lorraine Cronk
6200 South Center Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
•
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
'JUL 251984
BUILDING DEPT.
Re: Building Permit for Tire Shop
Dear Lorraine:
Our understanding is that in order to obtain a building permit
for our tire shop, a. list of functions must be submitted.
Costco's Tire Shop mounts and balances tires, replaces stems
and valves, and installs batteries only. We offer this as a
service to promote our tire sales, and no other car service
functions are performed.
Should you have any further questions, please call me at 682 -8909,
or at home at 882 - 2875.
Respectfully submitted,
COSTCO WHOLESALE
Craig Jelinek
General. Manager
4-101 4TH AVENUE SOUTH
SEATTLE. WA 98134
TELEPHONE (206)682 -8909
July 18, 1984
The City of Tukwila
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to our discussion with staff and the city council,
Costco is pleased to submit the following proposals:
1. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit Costco will,
at its expense, provide for:
The Re- Striping and signal modifications at the inter-
section of Andover Park East /Strander Blvd.
Re- striping in Andover Park East and Saxon Drive for the
addition of a south - bound, left -turn lane.
2: Street lighting will be installed where appropriate on
Andover Park East prior to October 28, 1984, the point that
daylight savings time ends. The City will determine the
method of financing these improvements. If the City de-
termines that all or a portion of these costs should be
financed through the L.I.D. process, the City will initiate
one. In the event an L.I.D. is not formed Costco agrees to
pay for these improvements (including preliminary desigh
fees and costs) and receive a "latecomers agreement" as
. permitted by law. Costco requests that 'if for some reason
the L.I.D. is not formed the City would assume all or a
large portion of the cost of these improvements.
3. A warrant study will be conducted at Costco's expense
relative to the necessity of a signal /pedestrian crossing
at Andover Park East and Saxon Drive. In the event the City
concludes such a device is necessary the City will determine
the method of financing these improvements. If the City
determines that all or a portion of these costs should be
financed through the L:I.D. process the City will initiate
one. In the event an L.I.D. is not formed Costdo agrees to
pay for these improvements•(including preliminary design .
fees and costs) and will receive a "latecomers agreement" as
permitted by law. Costco requests that . if for some reason
the L.I.D. is not formed the City would assume all or a
large portion of the cost of these improvements.
The City of Tukwila
July 18, 1984
Page Two
We very much appreciate the courtesies extended to Costco
by the staff and the City Council. Special thanks too for
your extra effort. Costco looks forward to a long and
prosperous residency in Tukwila. We are anxious to become
an active and contributing citizen of the City.
Very ly yours,
Jer H. Brotman
Chairman of the Board
Bcc: Mr. Larry Martin, City Attorney
Mr. Art. Wahl
Mr. John Osterhaus
Mr. Jim Seingal
Mr. Dick DiCerchio
Mr. Franz Lazarus
Mr. Craig Jelinek
Mr. Brad Collins
Mr. By Sneva
•
COStCO'""OLESALE
4401 4TH AVENUE SOUTH
SEATTLE, WA 98134
TELEPHONE (206)682 -8909
July 12, 1984
Mr. Phil R. Fraser
Senior Engineer
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear Mr. Fraser:
•
We appreciated the opportunity afforded by yesterday's meeting
to review your letter dated July 11, 1984.
As was mentioned in the meeting the private development costs
associated with the subject property have already reached the
upper limit of the economic parameters dictated by a Costco
styled business. Costco is anxious to locate in Tukwila and
become an active and contributing member of the community.
Costco would expect to generate sales tax revenues to the
City of Tukwila in each of the next five years of between
$200,000 and $400,000 and employ approximately 150 people.
We therefore request that all offsite mitigating measures re-
quested by the Planning Department be undertaken by the City
of Tukwila. In the event the City does not recoup three times
the amount of its expenditures through sales tax revenues in
the next five years, Costco will pay the City three times the
amount of the unrecouped expenditures.
The above request does not include future LID's that might be
adopted for other improvements.
We also ask that the owner of the subject property not be re-
quired to agree in advance not to resist the LID process. We
believe that as a practical matter this request is not necessary
at this time and the owner is unlikely to agree to something as
large as what you have planned until specifics can be shown him.
We believe that we can contribute to the long term economic
well being of the City in addition to being good citizens.
We appreciate your time and courtesies.
Sin ere
rey H. Brotman
C ..irman of the Board
JUL 1 2 1984
CITY OF
PLANNING DEPT.
CostcowrrouEs *LE
4401 4TH AVENUE SOUTH
SEATTLE, WA 98134
TELEPHONE (206)682 -8909
July 12, 1984
Mr. Phil R. Fraser
Senior Engineer
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear Mr. Fraser:
We appreciated the opportunity afforded by yesterday's meeting
to review your letter dated July 11, 1984.
As was mentioned in the meeting the private development costs
associated with the subject property have already reached the
upper limit of the economic parameters dictated by a Costco
styled business. Costco is anxious to locate in Tukwila and
become an active and contributing member of the community.
Costco would expect to generate sales tax revenues to the
City of Tukwila in each of the next five years of between
$200,000 and $400,000 and employ approximately 150 people.
We therefore request that all offsite mitigating measures re-
quested by the Planning Department be undertaken by the City
of Tukwila. In the event the City does not recoup three times
the amount of its expenditures through sales tax revenues in
the next five years, Costco will pay the City three, times the
amount of the unrecouped expenditures.
The above request does not include future LID's that might be
adopted for other improvements.
We also ask that the owner of the subject property not be re-
quired to agree in advance not to resist the LID process. We
believe that as a practical matter this request is not necessary
at this time and the owner is unlikely to agree to something as
large as what you have planned until specifics can be shown him.
We believe that we can contribute to the long term economic
well being of the City in addition to being good citizens.
We appreciate your time and courtesies.
Sincere
Je rey H. Brotman
C -irman of the Board
1908
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
July 11, 1984
Via: The Planning Department
Craig Jelinek, Manager
COSTCO Wholesale
4401 4th Avenue South
Seattle, 14A 98134
Dear Mr. Jelinek:
J u L 11 1984 I
Erry OF l KvnLa
PLANNING DEPT.
Re: COSTCO /Tukwila Traffic Impact
Study -- Recognized Impacts /Development
Requirements /Mitigating Measures
The Public Works Department has reviewed the COSTCO /Tukwila Traffic Impact
Study provided by your consultant and concluded that both short - /and long -
range impacts to the City's transportation will occur as a result of this
type of development in the Central Business District. It is also
recognized that with more development to the Central Business District on
the scale of COSTCO, proportionately more impacts to the City's transpor
tation corridors will be realized.
In order to off -set these impacts, mitigating measures are required to the
public roadways as part of this re- development. These mitigating measures
include sidewalks, re- striping, re- channelization, signal modification,
street lighting and long -range commitments of the property ownership to
future roadway improvements.
Impacts to the Public Roadway System are recognized in the attached analy
sis in terms of reduced service levels and safety. Specific mitigating
measures to be provided by the developer to off -set these impacts include
the following:
1. The Re- striping and signal modifications at the intersection of
Andover Park East /Strander Blvd., including the addition of north-
bound and south -bound turning lanes (anticipated: re- striping will
not require roadway widening at this time).
2. Re- striping in Andover Park East and Saxon Drive for the addition of
a south - bound, left- turn -lane (anticipated: re- striping and
re- channelization will not include roadway widening at this time).
•
Mr. Craig .Jeli•, Manager
July 11, 1984
Page 2
3. Per the signal warrant . analysis described in. the COSTCO /Tukwila
Traffic Impact Study, a new signal /pedestrian crossing at Andover
Park East and Saxon Drive is projected at 82% of being warranted
after the COSTCO Development. To confirm this projection. the deve .
loper is obligated to provide an additional warrant analysis for
City review within six(6) months of the COSTCO Development becoming
operational. This future warrant analysis along with the commitment
to provide the signalization /pedestrian crossing at Andover Park
East and Saxon Drive, if so warranted - -is required as part of the
application for this Development.
4. For the City's review, noted is there are no street lights on
Andover Park East from South 180th to approximately 1000 feet north
of Saxon Drive. The COSTCO Development will generate significant
nighttime traffic on Andover Park East. Prior to the COSTCO
Development, street lighting throughout Andover Park East will be
required.
The City will determine the level and method of participation by the
COSTCO Development for street lights at Andover Park East in the
near future. When this information becomes known, it will be made
available to the Developer.
5. To provide adequate and safe pedestrian movement separated from
vehicular traffic, on -site sidewalks connecting the existing
sidewalk system in the development along Saxon Drive to Andover Park
East is required.
6. To provide needed transportation system improvements due to this
and other developments in the Central Business District, COSTCO, is
required to enter into an agreement for long - range commitments by
the property ownership for such transportation improvements.
These commitments will include roadway widenings, intersection wide -
nings and signalization projects.
The City will determine the level and method of participation by
this development in future L.I.D.'s /Developer Agreements for such
improvements. The City Attorney is working with staff to provide
the appropriate agreements for this development. When these
agreements become available they will be transmitted to yourself.
These agreements will be part of the application by the Development.
Mr. Craig Jell", Manager
'U • July 11, 1984
Page 2
The above mitigating measures satify the impacts which have been recognized
to the review of the COSTCO /Tukwila Traffic .Impacts Study and City
Transportation Plans and Studies. Should you have further' questions
regarding the issues raised in this letter, please do not hesitate to con-
tact me at 433 -1856.
Sincerely,
n1
Phil R. Fraser
Senior Engineer
cs
cc: `Planning Director
Public Works Director
City Attorney
City Engineer
Associate Planner
COSTCO File
Enclosure: (1)
CRA.F
kLtALi(Lfdl,L
PAGE 4;
TYPE OF IMIPROVEMEI'IT
M /R= h1EDIUH RANGE
L/R =LONG RANGE
LEVEL OF SERVICE
WITH COSTCO
ORIGIN OF
REQUIREMENT
COMMENTS
ASSOCIATED
COST
OBLIGATi0h1,
17
Intersection Impreovement
S/R
Approach E Now .
Co /R
*Includes R/W
*$504,000
Strander Blvd/
.
STCTR Pkwy.
Add W/B • Lane
(300 Ft: + Tapers)
.
17
Intersection Improvement
S/R -
Co /R;T.I.P; X12;
R/W
F +
S. 180th /SR 181
Table 3
*Includes widening
Add E/B 300 LF
Page 36
of bridge (220 LF)
*$520,000
Right Turn Lane
•
Entranco Report
•
17
Intersection Improvement
S/R
E- Approach -F
Co /R;T.I.P
Includes
Rt.S /B
Strander Blvd /SR 181
Table 3, Page.37
*R /W
$100,000
Add 100 LF 2nd
Entranco Report
Run -way widening
Lt. E/B
E/B Left Turn Lane
Signal Modification
$50,000
200 LF S/B Right Turn Lane
Total:
*$150,000
•
17
Intersection Improvement
APE /Strander Blvd.
S /R -4M /R
Co /R;T.I.P; #3;
Table 3
*without widening
includes stripping
*$22,000
C >D
Add N/B & S/B Left Turn Lanes
300 ft. + tapers
Page 36,
Entranco Report
& signal
Modification
* *with widening
* *$650.000 '
18
( *) Intersection Improvement
S/R (L /R * *)
Co /R
*Stripping revisions
*$2,000
A ?
300 LF Left Turn Lane on
APE @ Saxon Drive
Not capacity issue.;
safety issue.
* *300 LF + 150
* *$400,000
Accommodation for
Tapers full, inclds.
R/W widening 50 Ex
High.Volume
Provide: Adequate
60 LF
. Access/ Storage
in APE
18
New Signal /Pedestrian
S 4L * **
*82% Projected to
Co /R Appendix Pages
* **
- /R-- /R
Crossings @ A.P.E. &
Saxon Drive
Signal Warrent
Requirement
1/2 & 2/2; Page 18,
Entranco Report
Require warrent
analysis after
COSTCO Development
into verify projec -.
$93,000
A.AL1
Lions.
REFERENCE
_PAGE t
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
M /R= MEDIUM RANGE LEVEL OF SERVICE
L/R =LONG RANGE WITH COSTCO
ORIGIN OF
REOUIREMEMT
COMMENTS
ASSOCIATED
COST
OBLIGAT'iOW..)
18
Street Lighting
on APE South of Strander
Blvd. to S. 180th Street
.S /R N/A
City Comment:
Safety Issue with
waiver thru or
Development
City, Review Comments
Co /R
COSTCO REPORT
City Review Comment:.
Safety Issue;
appropriate
requirement.
•
$96,000
19
On -site Sidewalks connecting
development along Saxon Drive
to APE
S/R : N/A
Sidewalk Ord. 1233
' COSTCO REPORT.
$3,000
MAJOR
OADWAY WIDENINGS
•
Andover Park East: 4-- 5 Lanes
From Tukwila:Parkway
•To S. 180th Street
L /P.
Table 7, Page 59,
Entranco Report;
' COSTCO REPORT: MAP
Ex. 50 L.F. to
60 L.F. in width
8,000 L.F. in
length
$6 MIL.
Strander Blvd:
4 - 7 lanes,:Southcenter
Parkway to.APW
4.- 5 lanes:APW to SR 181
M/R
Table 7, Page 59
Entranco. Report;
COSTCO.REPORT: MAP
Ex. 50 L.F. to
60 L.F. or 84
L.F. in width
5,000 L.F. in
length
$6.6 MIL.
S.•180th Street
From Southcenter Parkway
to SR 181
M/R
Table 7, Page 59,
Entranco Report;
COSTCO REPORT: MAP
Includes roadway
widening with
bridge widening
4,000 L.F.
$7.3 MIL.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
ctr-te_e -two a_
M E M ORAN D\
TO: Brad Collins, Planning Director
FROM: Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer
DATE: 6/26/84
SUBJECT: COSCO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FALlso
Public Works has reviewed the COSCO /TUKWILA Traffic Impact Study and found
that impacts to the City's transportation system will occur. Also, with
more development in the Central Business District on the sale of COSCO,
there are proportionately more impacts to traffic movement in the CBD.
In order to offset these impacts, mitigating measures will be required_to
the public roadways as part of this redevelopment. These mitigating meas-
ures will include sidewalks, restripping, rechannelization, signal modifica-
tions, additional street lighting and commitments of the developer /property
to long range roadway improvements.
In reviewing the COSCO Study, some descrepencies were noted between the
traffic modelling and observations in the field. Specifically, at South
180th Street and Andover Park East, observations indicate a greater amount
of congestion in the PM than is shown in Table 6. From Saxon Drive to
South 180th Street, there appears to be a significant loss of vehicles
which can not be accounted for. (See page 7, Map 1).
The Traffic Impact Study provides the information on which to base mitigating
measures required by this development; however, further discussions by staff
will provide a final determination as to the specific requirements to be
applies to this development.
xc: Public Works Director
City Engineer
File
TO
R S ,
•
O
M
* SUBJECT / ( LAZ- m m c 5 �[
MESSAGE
DATE
13 /P¢
drffiCLIW
ci
REPLY
SIGNED
REOTFORM ® 4S 472 .
SIGNED
SEND PARTS I AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT -
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
nCTeru Akin CII C =no Cnl I nW_1 ID
DATE
/ /
POLY PAK (50 SETS14P472
City. o Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
May 8, 1984
JERRY QUINN LEE
Douglas Mulevanny Architects
12200 Northup Way
Bellevue, WA 98005
RE: Costco Warehouse Environmental Checklist - EPIC - 228 -84
Dear Jerry:
We apologize for the delay in responding to the environmental checklist,
but we wanted to very specifically define the traffic issues in order to
facilitate your response. These issues are the only ones remaining to be
answered from the checklist.
A threshold determination is being withheld until the below listed infor-
mation is submitted. Following evaluation by staff the determination will
be made.
1. Average daily trips of cars and trucks including the time periods of
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. and identified peak traf-
fic generation.
2. Analysis of existing intersection at Andover Park East and Saxon Drive,
including signal warrant analysis and the anticipated direction of tra-
vel in the business district in and out of the City.
3. Analysis of requirements at the intersection of Andover Park East and
Saxon Drive and .along the identified impacted routes.
4. Identification of required upgrading of existing facilities, including
streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, street lighting and railroad
improvements.
5. The aforementioned data run through the current "L.I.D., computer
program," including two other similar, potential sites and for retail
usage in the industrial park area.
Our understanding is that METRO is currently processing the "L.I.D. com-
puter program," or that the author of the program, Entranco Engineers, is
able to run the program for you. We are not saying these two firms must be
~ Page -2-
JERRY QUINN LEE
Douglas Mulevanny Architects
May 8, 1984
•
used, only that they hold or are using alot of the needed information. You
certainly may generate the requested information in whatever way you choose
provided data adequate to answer our concerns is provided.
Due to the engineering nature of this information any questions you have
should be directed to Ross Earnst, City Engineer, at 433 -1856. I'm
available to answer other questions at 433 -1847.
Rick Beeler
Associate Planner
RB /blk
cc: City Engineer
Planning Director
•
• JoLN,.. 4 Izct 134-
f5 ()K110__11•WK._ \1■14._ _ _ _
Tes_
_\(,Le_tp-•e --vt-yt7E
1"?zrekc_ iCitt kssapRO_;__ _
1. 'Number of vehicles by type generated (average daily trips).
2• Peak traffic generation.
3. Analysis of existing intersection atAndover Park East and
Saxon Drive, including the anticipated direction of travel
in the business district and in and out of the City.
Analysis of requirements at the intersection of Andover Park
•
East and Saxon Drive and along the impacted routes.
5. Signal warrant analysis of the intersection of Andover Park
East and Saxon Drive.
.•
. .
6. Required upgrading of existing facilities.
LS
Lin ps07_,Amff-2.(:)_\L
---HtNUSS. ..(SS la-UU 61ON,V=
I (OLM.,_e_Q7Mc_f_g(-Aer.lk t.rE
fN2-1:
---! tz.16 scrn:1112 toespzt4a-L f__6s _
_ _ _
I i •
•
•
-. • ---_____..-. __......--- ....------- -----_-__ _..... ..... ___________-- -_-_-_-_-_-__ ___-_ . ....
...
r V\ v+ \ \ \k\)
c■n17-.'
ti 11,1A1 L t D mt et: rvv 4.4n l b -e I h K n_ hy AI& r/1 a
rgs‘ 44)77:s
h6K4- f K1,vs e i b.z_ run coif
u- me sot GV '(2J(. -5/
a-2 * -14 9 w eco.2f, PG-i? � 4_,
Co-• frocv‘i1 144 ccv(-Izt /4-' L. 6,71:
Net La? -16
v s 9`L? ii 1 1 @`"` -3
G p k Co5% (a iiit e4. _co L<)c (
Goin f? m4-41-
i I
1!
I b._ LIF •
I
TUTR.C.,_..tOrt.._
Number of vehicles by type generated (average daily trips).
1 t t.111~ 4 DT 44.-4.:-.5 for 6, 4i.
2. Peak traffic generation ta14L40i-.33 .04.444;84
3. Analysis of existing intersection at Andover Park East and
Saxon Drive, including the anticipated direction of travel
in the business district and in and out of the City.
4.— AnalySisrequirements at the.intersection of Andover Park
:East and Saxon Drive and along the impacted.routes.
5. Signal warrant analysis of the intersection of Andover Park
East and Saxon Drive.
Required upgrading of existing facilities At'011.4g/
6.
- 77— FAiLint6so-=iMf(a0qQ\AENTS ,
lik\WC1.____Ja4V-ASKSCZ fa-AS Cea-Ps
s4-
•
TearSiLIA _ L-- k frzulAerM
_ ?s 1. LOsr_cs. _ .0Ps-Th - •
\&f\L Cbt2tel)LSCL tri2A
COT-G5
rat,fr
/
k)g\ IA AID(
ALL b kt CAP n10 • D Q -
.yN CTSfl (U UT c Gib
1--+
Ape
1 /Uct
- AAINinue / -coL)\,0
svm,tLD Lk -L1/1614A,(.0
s1O/ LS
rtto _Srxr) 1411114 .404
I II 1;-) <2.4. rAS -j G�VI &V Vu -) (41
-fi
` r--�-- si•RP 53
-vi S 1 i :. 14\ 51 -c1s1
c. ceat --aiNter) 010 --
mci-Vrat
or.4 ) 0q1
-1\5 _
\NQ,vo G E59
(3.0c11-s .1?)QoksPaal.-1- scF4Q2
miovaosow7 (3-11 4inS,
Ism - 1s
15 L4�1) Ni Sly
wziLICISP
Nt "84
• -ac1S\eM 4'— .53.0k)11 p�1
• 1 1 sielm4ar-12 i�'i/ ..
m.usIDNK5--) --)poci) ncvock 941,
Q 1%, '`
4
p9.!
81%
ID l
0Z%
/.9
92 d
9 9.
2-
Cl1-L fowl s\t L
_6kscL, -- ,�)
4-
U
.
/ /G( 006
CettL. d3END cca tOc*_46-1- $6.(z,--
1)C2/`-)
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO:
BLDG
PLNG
PROJECT (1('),STC_O WA I�LiS�
LOCATION 11(e70 95'1.30 D2 E
DATE TRANSMITTED 1313¢
STAFF COORDINATOR � ,
P.W.
410 C Ee'_ / /`t
EPIC 7 Z8 —�
FILE 1t101 U
FIRE POLICE [ P & R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1 ,4 )3Com
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART -
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR., COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
P6-444 /-P-(s;:) Lvi—L( 6-87,S
.�J
DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED B
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA •
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
• CN
EPIC Z -
FILE tpot.uottuu Pe2_VA l`r .
TO: [Y] BLDG PLNG P.W. 1 FIRE POLICE P & R
PR0JE CT /J�ST(.-b jai �%�LiS� (I(�'�M� Z- ��'1R"� ZSI.JU u\atrCQ Ste)
LOCATION t(V) 9.5'(,CA3 jjr2.1�'c
DATE TRANSMITTED 13 1 u f RESPONSE REQUESTED BY(?/ BY41,k4 131t013
STAFF COORDINATOR p. (J . V5, RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE' STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
FILE NO.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE Y-- /6 — S COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO, �� PLNG P.W.
PROJECT /(J
LOCATION (1(00 9 (2)1) I�1 i
DATE TRANSMITTED '4- 1,31u-
STAFF COORDINATOR �C V,
FIRE
cN Ee(- -//4
EPIC 2 2 —`
FILE 13lk- 101k1(s 19 2 -k.rt. .
POLICE
P &R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 401i 41
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CI T,.Y OF TUKW.ILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG I I PLNG P.W.
PROJECT (1)5TC.C� W_��
LOCATION ti(pC) 5Fri.613 D19-1��c
b"1"-- IRE
DATE TRANSMITTED 4
4-
STAFF COORDINATOR f?.t ,
.CN 4
EPIC -24
FILE t93t.uoicu P' V11i
E ITFID
'nR - R
ev h 0 1984
JUKWILA FIRE PREVENTION RIIREAU
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4 ($'tai IJGpfJ
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
)/ 4U-4 4 -7 I C1 1 944'f 4,14
h6!cI ert / le E2(,'7(i.09. - EX) f 117 0,7L 4'1 1
von fi.%i e5 In 's - coil f o i.ti 5 r/c f'/ 7 f v
4 C. 1 e e q v i r e4, e f S -
P'/) — Co ir e -a e-) i --D1/.GI 51",-)01 e- , 0lec4-oki
M.u5 it- IV ain 4giii 4 7$ .4, .v., y 40. 1- d //; 1 ;e9. p-aipe5e-d_ Q
tP7L9 /1 4I c45 11 /he4-- /ki /071 A q 1
f� 7 qi,i✓in9 a/ e4 s hi q n e e- cL. f-o hc- N 1 es2904%'cl
as 4 Fire- Lame - 4/0 ?IV,/ il, /_ {- deli-41 el 41 -t
4 106/, (Th;5 w; /I 4e old-/e/le 4 Dn 711
-f44/ COblf 9 LTd?t /oh p/iiii ,) •
DATE 4 —24 i 4 COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
%-r CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
APR 1 6 1984
BY-
TUKWILA FIRE PREVENTION .BUREAU
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO:
PROJECT
BLDG
PLNG
LOCATION U(pD 9\-,(4)0 IO12..1 i
DATE TRANSMITTED 4 143i-
STAFF COORDINATOR � ` j,
•CN Ee(- 7/I4
EPIC -22,E -54
F I L E JlU I&1Cs 191�24V1.tr
P.W. FIRE POLICE P & R
(MUU0-\, _ loPsItT- nu0 g M 4-r IAiNt2 OS��
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4t (YI2V4 /JGp13
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE' STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT J
____ Svb,,,,,f or; 9;11 9 / S�fi" 414,-- d»,� d B�g, 4
14€ 41 I''?-4c de-sig N C r j j'"C'- j A. O %— , /h -
5119i0/rlce 57 S7 el . — fi 9i4 71 atio f"'/) 51".4/eir
Go✓ f •9 p— i' e — /YP /"9 stem c ai 1 #/i I-4-0,9`!o. -,
1h 44;4 f �f D�-O/°S.o I J9 v/ o G e4 f er.
.pe-Op05€1 cireAviii,'S 5 ‘ ow 4-_,/ ))/4(10-feir / e--
/
9`q, 74/1/- 7 ,f- 9%,01/"- 2,(/ )...5 . "._ /re, 7 ],j
An ; M 1 71 a-± q,(/ 'fix /; k hi vs 9• G Ojx, F 7
57' -je 711 7 h th g C /1 a pvi /'-r1 e-1 7'5 -
-
DATE .-1
4-
COMMENTS PREPARED BY •
C.P.S. Form 11
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES NO x
(f) Sign permit YES ?C, NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES NO x
(h) Storm water system permit YES NO x
(i) Curb cut permit ' YES NO x
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES NO x
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO
(1) Other: G#iA-7) /;u PkiL,n;,- mfiv P 'b
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
FUTURE AUTO CENTER 40'x108' ATTACHED TO SIDE OF STRUCTURF.
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
NO
1 2 Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro -
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
N/A
II. ENV IRONt1EN T AL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1,
YES 'MAYBE NO
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil? _
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures? x
The destruction, covering or modification of any
(d)
x
CITY OF TUKW.ILA •
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO:
BLDG PLNG
. PROJECT
LOCATION ( ' (Qc 5q--(c
P.W.
FIRE
• �'
EPIC 72,g5
- °
F I L E 1501140J p it l-' .
ICE
P &R
FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 4 1313f RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4i 1k41 W
STAFF COORDINATOR p_.[C P. RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD. BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
TUKWILA
CITY OF 7UKk_L
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
CN 01^//4
EPIC 2Zj3 -�
FILE 3tUOIl1Cs P W&1i .
TO: 1 BLDG I 1 PLNG ( 1 P.W. FIRE [Y3 POLICE I P & R
F T 1 .�, S (14/t4OCCM-- IPPrt2fi4�..IQ Rol it'[—�1�Lg12t-. t\S'�)
PROJ�C l,C�`jT� �
F I L E '
LOCATION t I& C) 95'1.60 ora��
DATE TRANSMITTED 4 13iu¢ RESPONSE REQUE 1 BY if �4 1363s
STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION.. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. •
ITEM COMMENT
/9} peM 13,
�.�;�� 4,1a- "--yi; ~�.,c)
,,,,,,/,'„,74(#„
Pt-
otoold 4//1 ,ietzef
/KA"
DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S.Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•N
EPIC 7 as -
FILE ll101111C1 P W\11 .
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG PLNG P.W. FIRE POLICE K-1 P & R
PROJECT l_�STC_O W k, ---6v 62R-MOOQ 10MT au!) f5Vl4 .T vvior 2 ous,E)
FILE NO.
LOCATION `1(pp 9%-'(,3O 012—
DATE TRANSMITTED 4 J3l3f
STAFF COORDINATOR w ,
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY eirtifitg 1.1t0/3
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMIN.ATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE' STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE y —/
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
• •CN Ee(' —//4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG
PLNG
PROJECT /��j- (L WA - L S�
LOCAT ION ( ((p0 95'1,60 I�iLiy,�c
DATE TRANSMITTED 4' 1434-
STAFF COORDINATOR v5,
P.W.
EPIC 22.15 -
FILE fott 011aj, es 2..krr
FIRE 1 POLICE 1 P & R
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4($1V4
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
Control Number .
CITY OF TUKWILA
iv�0 e lil''.
G � ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM. —=--� 1
wil 14 1984 ,I Rpp 1 2 1984 1
Aas Mulvaney /Architect 1
jr's�. A
DITIITS questionnaire Trust be completed and submitted with th ap h>wcati a f�Qr
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all perso s a '10.14-2 ar -,a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible.
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $60.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
cio (////cd-/
I BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: COSTCO /DOUGLAS MULVANNY /ARCHITECTS
2. Address and Phone !umber. of Proponent: 12200 NORTHUP WAY
BELLEVUE,WA 98005 (206)881-7600
3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4/11/84
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF TUKWILLA- PLANNING
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: COSTCO /WHOLESALE
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding, of its scope and nature):
118,400 SQ.FT. WHOLESALE/CLUB. SALES OF GROCERIES /HARDWARE /CLOTHING /FURNITURE-
ECT.IN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
+ sn..t, + ;� I +i,: ;: F! P, SK EAST
1 160 SAXON ae I \LE _ ANDOVER PARK FAST SAXON DR I LF FX LST LNG T I I T -ljP r.nNrRFTE
BUILDING IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 6/84
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline .permit, etc.
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit
(c) Building permit
YES NO X
YES NOS
YES X NO
• •
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit
(e) Sewer hook up permit
(f) Sign permit
(g) Water hook up permit
(h) Storm water system permit
(i) Curb cut permit '
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington)
(k) Plumbing permit (King County)
(1) Other:
YES NO x•.
YES NO x
YES NO x
-YES NO x
YES NO__ x_
YES NO x
:YES NO x
YES__ NO
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
FUTURE AUTO CENTER 40'x108' ATTACHED TO SIDE OF STRUCTURE.
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
NO
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
N/A
II. ENVIRONt•1ENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
YES MAYBE. NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic.
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil? _
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures? x
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(C) NORMAL SITE GRADING AS REQUIRED FOR PARKING LOT ASPHALT AND CATCH
BASINS.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b)* The creation of. objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh.
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
Dr the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood. waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? •
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
x
x
x
x
x
• •
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
(1)
Explanation:
SLIGHT REDUCTION AS REQUIRED FOR ADDITIONAL RESTROOMS AS
PER CODE.
YES MAYBE Na
x
x
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? x
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or .
endangered species of flora? x
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Explanation:
(c) ADDITIONAL NEW LANDSCAPING AT PARKING LOT.
5.. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a). Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
x
•
YES MAYBE N0
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise .
levels?
Explanation:
ADDITIONAL NOISE FROM CARS IN PARKING LOT.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? x
Explanation:
ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT LIGHTING AND HEADLIGHTS FROM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural.
resources?
x
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource? x
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
x
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, .
or create a demand for additional housing? x
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:.
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? x _
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? x _
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? x _,
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods? x
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? x
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
Explanation:
(_SEE ATTACHED)
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for.new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection? x
(c) Schools? X
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X
le) Maintenance of public facilities, including
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:°
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
YES MAYBE. NO
x
x
x
(a) Power or natural gas? x
(b) Communications systems? x
(c) Water? X
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
(e) Storm water drainage? X
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
Explanation:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
x
18. Aesthetics
Explanation:
Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in .
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his -
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
YES MAYBE NO
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
"%nature an Ti 1e _e
*///.534-
x.
x
13.(a) There will be additional vehicular movement onto Saxon Drive.
We plan to provide three lanes of traffic at Saxon Drive; one
lane for entering and two for exiting. On a typical day, Costco's
traffic count is approximately 1500 cars, with approximately 1,000
cars during the non -peak hours (12 -5 p.m.). Business hours are
between 10 a.m. - 9 p.m.
13.(b) Additional parking will be provided for customers. Based on City
of Tukwila requirements, less than 200 cars are required; Costco
will be providing approximately 550 stalls which should handle their
needs. New parking lot lighting will also be provided.
13.(c) From the North, access to our proposed site will be from Southcenter
Parkway; access from the South will be along South 180th /S.W.
43rd. Both of these streets are main arterials providing good
traffic flow. At South 180th and Andover Park East, there is an
existing traffic signal which will provide controlled access onto
Andover Park East. Although there will be an increase in vehicular
traffic; we feel existing roads will be sufficient for our traffic
flow.
Control Number
CITY OF TU KW I LA
REG
ENVI RONt�:ENTAL CNECKLI ST FORN', i
ppR1 1984
' I �
s Mi,lvanny /Architect L
' TMs questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application 4:6F
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons_,_aayIno`-= fog- a----=
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
'lb/W
•
A fee of $150.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I .BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: .COSTCO /DOUGLAS MULVANNY /ARCHITECTS
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 12200 NORTHUP WAY
BELLEVUE,WA 98005 (206)881 -7600
3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4/11/84,
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF TUKWILLA- PLANNING
5. tame of Proposal, if applicable: COSTCO /WHOLESALE
.6. Nature and Brief'Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to. its size, general design elements, and other factors that will oive
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
118,400 SQ.FT. WHOLESALE /CLUB. SALES OF GROCERIES /HARDWARE /CLOTHING /FURNITURE-
ECT.IN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental irr
pacts, including any other information needed to hive an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
1 160 SAXDN DRYVF _ ANDOVFR PARK EAST 1s SAXnn, DR I VF FX_I ST I N.f; T I I T —IIP rnNCRFTE
BUILDING IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 6/84
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc.
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit
(c) Building permit
YES NO x
YES ND_x_
YES X NO
13.(a) There will be additional vehicular movement onto Saxon Drive.
We plan to provide three lanes of traffic at Saxon Drive; one
lane for entering and two for exiting. On a typical day, Costco's
traffic count is approximately 1500 cars, with approximately 1,000
cars during the non -peak hours (12 -5 p.m.). Business hours are
between 10 a.m. - 9 p.m.
13.(b) Additional parking will be provided for customers. Based on City
of Tukwila requirements, less than 200 cars are required; Costco
will be providing approximately 550 stalls which should handle their
needs. New'parking lot lighting will also be provided.
13.(c) From the North, access to our proposed site will be from Southcenter
Parkway; access from the South will be along South 180th /S.W.
43rd. Both of these streets are main arterials providing good
traffic flow. At South 180th and Andover Park East, there is an
existing traffic signal which will provide controlled access onto
Andover Park East. Although there will be an increase in vehicular .
traffic; we feel existing roads will be sufficient for our traffic
flow. ,
plug
iimeg (1-140
Licidt t oc7 t,a 142zs o w
�
*Mkt Tow ol P. , —
t r.) cw kt$ Q.. -At,c 1 sG, e tLQ
b _s (rV brs hot/R-5 6
ekek 71frje
4- it sfe &T
4:1-47%.4x-7 7o p% 7 /dam
51ra--71-7
.vcb-v clre.,
/7c92 /1/440
l/a ,? ore
1M— ( -t
cw 'frog'
-- hstd;//./
6e.p;7? 7
,_}po5712/
c, — �cEe7ft' 7
e - -,fiavc
kotL. rag., wee--.5
L/
(8SJOM JO a SOl)
0
4
( 61•1 Avenue
0
•outhcenter Parkway
• .
• ▪
0
•
• pu3°
Andover Park W•st
Andover Park East
o �
•
• ; • Sat Or
▪ O t
•
a ▪ 7r a
Avenue
South
u
CL
West V•ttey Road
to
•.....••••w... ....... ..... ..... • • . .•1.
...... -.._.. r..•�--
.. •• • . ....r�•••• ..•....._....•.........A.,• • ......••.... ...-- .....
..r......._.
kt_
s
Coweal 0661. uo
( 61s1 Av•nu•
1-5
0
0
c
Andover Perk West
Andover Perk E••t
0 -1 - - •
• • 4
� n �
Avenue
0
....... ..w.••w 1• . w...`.' r• r. M••••••. •••••.....•.w......1•r►�..+�...w.
•...
••••••••• ••..•..•. •••• •...• •. ...•.•.•........•..... • ........•.........•....,..r...• •. .•• •.. • •••
• 1, .... -.w o.. r.• ........... r 1'
O
We
pe3RYl
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit
(e) Sewer hook up permit
(f) Sign permit
(g) Water hook up permit
(h) Storm water system permit
(i) Curb cut permit •
(j) „Electrical permit (State of Washington)
(k) ,.Plumbing permit (King County)
(1) Other:
YES NO X
YES NO x
YES NO x
YES NO x
YES h0__x_
YES NO X
YES NO x
YES x NO
20. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:.
FUTURE AUTO CENTER 40'x108' ATTACHED TO SIDE OF STRUCTURF_
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
NO
12: -Attach.any other application forrn that has been completed regarding the pro -
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
N/A
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS�5C3)
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" ansv, Ru 'stor -v - 1■ s
r.)17.q7 Cled6V- --; t...3.73,',■., .,_84..
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: 51k,'W-•(.0 _
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in ch .ham, �� ��2t4W 4-'��'t `�
substructures? ~‘- coK t��-
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compac �t P �.
ing of the soil? S. Dail) .
(c) Change in topography or ground sin-)
tures? j
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
ND
x
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? x
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x
Explanation:
(C) NORMAL SITE GRADING AS REQUIRED FOR PARKING LOT ASPHALT AND CATCH
BASINS.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a)
•
Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? x
(b) The creation of. objectionable odors? x
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally? X
Explanation:
Water. Will the proposal'result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
Dr the rate and amount of surface water runoff? x
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x
(d) Change in the amount of surface water 'in any water
body? x
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of x
ground waters? •
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(9)
x
YES MAYBE NO
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters? _
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies? X
Explanation:
(i) SLIGHT REDUCTION AS REQUIRED FOR ADDITIONAL RESTROOMS AS
PER CODE.
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in "a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Explanation:
(c) ADDITIONAL NEW LANDSCAPING AT PARKING LOT.
• 5.. Fauna . Will the proposal result in:
x
x
(a). Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)? x
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna? x
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna? x
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
Explanation:
ADDITIONAL NOISE FROM CARS IN PARKING LOT.
YES MAYBE NO
x
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? X
Explanation: -
ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT LIGHTING AND HEADLIGHTS FROM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
8.. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? x
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource? x
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
x
11. Population.
Explanation:
Will-the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:.
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
(e)
(f)
Explanation:
(SEE. ATTACHED)
14. Public Services., Will the proposal •have an effect upon,
or result in a need 'for 'new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas: •
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintonanro nf.nr,hlir' farilitipC_ inrluriinn
YES MAYBE NO
x
x
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
15. Eneroy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE ND
x
x
x
x
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal.result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his -
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of rrry knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Z),,� �onature an
le /ace-
1-///51-
=e
x.
x
Y.
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO:
PROJE °CT
LOCATION
BLDG
PLNG P.W.
l I tPc 9c& J Dru \(..
FIRE
•CN 'e(- - //4
EPIC ?as
FILE - GL.101 ill is Pew∎ (1 .
DATE TRANSMITTED
)313f
STAFF COORDINATOR 4(J j,
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
POLICE
FILE NO.
P &R
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4 ( ?kL ��rJ
RESPONSE RECEIVED
ITEM COMMENT
�i kag a MC s N o tx ?v LIs At 1 w Cy /..) sy v rtt cr.t or w v\T 1 �► 'nj1S
---v Nei-vote e'c-1-- • IF TH-fi l4 -no Cil$ L , Tt /L'iv V !c--
S1 *u 13E '/Es " - LE1.)'(IL. 'r MvEr--) 671/02. CAD ut T! !Ito Vlc'.j TAII Fri(_
.5TUn1
/ 3 d
l ae "Mme`!Er's ' LI►ITR.
STU01M .
/3 c. - A7 . PIAK lolls / t owl -ottt 1 tW MI-FA( at ) Ir,., S. /3
APE. T3 c/1!& r /}"S II G zn) O ,' /\ Su i ppThwo)N r-
n ti :Vol_ • TR Itrl c t7P4'v AP £ . / Do IYo% Ref r
IS 1IL7- I<NawN L-fi 1( .. '7Zi}fFic w/u gc a+Aupfl -T;
A ton-Il4lV1>r -r / 11n2 D1T!cNf t.- s IQT'M' _ AT l ifs 7' )h
DATE 11/ /8 /G9 COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11