Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-247-84 - TRI STAR DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA PARK RETAIL CENTERTUKWILA PARK RETAIL & BROCK RESIDENCE INN Tri Star Development EPIC- 247 -84 -WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Tukwila Park Retail Center 0 Proponent Tri Star Development Location of Proposal, including street address, if any northwest corner of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 247 -84 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS X` This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for i5 -days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by November 7, 1984 Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date October 22, 1984 Signature 1 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. This determination is issued subject to the attached conditions in Exhibit A. EXHIBIT A - Tukwila ParkRetail Center DNS Conditions of Issuance 1. Dedication of required public right -of -way along West Valtey Highway (SR 181) and construction of improvements required therein. 2. Compliance with Public Works Department letter of October 5, 1984. ORICE MEMO CITY of TUKWILA TO: FROM:-� �. -4`- -- DATE: o '-"--2,4- '^8 SUBJECT: To J\LJ M _ S12'(-2A vvas per .. $ c p3oN , 8 opz $u■Qa (NQA. % OfFICE MEMO CITY of TUKWILA TO: FROM : dtt1leA/ /16/Pt DATE: /9-1U/--?1i' SUBJECT: G� //� r1// r�/`�rw 0�`7 Cow o,� -t-il dfia wQ5 maila' y� On 10 %N /fl6f . paz V L2OT • CITY OF TUKWI LA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; ; DG v PLNG P.W. • CN -5z5 EPIC 24- - FILE FIRE n ,POLICE In P & R PROJECT "rJ \N Liss F LOCATION ,v, �N4 Srp.IK t5L.P FILE NO. �w ��� DATE TRANSMITTED 13019I, 118,tct$4. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY _OW.1: g STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION.. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE ill COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 0 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; n BLDG ["LNG f 1 P.W. CN`3Z5 EPIC2-477-84 FILE FIRE ( POLICE n P & R PROJECT' �. \N(L r LOCATION trAuvAi smrsla � jL'4P FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED ', Zeitoq$+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY OCT. , tq STAFF cooRDINATOR__KaAtaggOVI 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 ITV OF TUKWILA . C N -52,5 • CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC 2''7 - 9 4 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; (n BLDG rn PLNG 'INN P.W. n FIRE rn,POLICE n P & R PROJECT-TDPNALA LOCATION V4,v444 $1,N17 FILE NO. qVg DATE TRANSMITTED 1 t 2.1419t+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Lel% C s m STAFF COORDINATOR Ktcx, taggeet RESPONSE RECEIVED O: . 8 [918047 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 5-/c/ r/ 6 w c l&111, �h� Q l i 24i N t -1�" t3 751- DATE `0/ 5 r/ COMMENTS PREPARED BY ///0;27.■ C.P.S. Form 11 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor via Planning Department Lawrence S. Braun, P.E. 304 Main Avenue South, Suite 200 Renton, Washington 98055 Inn Ventures, Inc. 2115 North 30th, Suite 202 Tacoma, Washington 98403 Re: Brock Residence Inn at Strander Blvd. and SR 181 Site Plan, Sheets C -1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 Dear Sirs: In researching the files, our findings include the following: L.I.D. #7, for the purpose of providing water mains in the vicinity of your development, received participation through your property ownership by past participation in the development of public mains for the City through L.I.D. #7, special water connection charges are waived for water. Search of the City's files finds no like participation for sewer mains. Therefore, the development will be required to pay special connection charges beyond the regular connection fees for connection into the City's sewer system. The Public Works Department has reviewed your plans and approved plan sheets C- 1,2,3,4,7, &8 per the following comments: Prior to issuance of any utility permits, authorization for release shall be provided by the Planning Director and Building Official. Twenty -four hours prior to your contractor beginning his work, the contrac- tor shall apply for and obtain the following permit as conditioned in this letter: 1. Private Fire Loop - (Permit Fee: $25.00) - This new fire loop main connecting into Strander Blvd. and SR -181 shall remain private. All fire loop mains shall be Class 52 ductle iron pipe. All public or Private mains shall be a minimum of 8" in diameter. An additionallete valve shall be shrbedprovided per after the tap; also additional gate the City's Standard Hydrant Pndnh drantsnassemblies shall feet be prom eeach hydrant. All hydrants and Y ions of pro- vided per the City's _The final FeretDepartment, hydrants are the responsibility Gibbs - Phone: 433 - 1859). Fire Marshall, (Fire Marshall - Doug Blocking shall be provided at all hydrants, stubs, bendsoanthe junctions, including blocking provided City main with the new fire loop in SR 181 and Strander Blvd. The existing fire hydrant in SR 181 shall be relocated behind the new sidewalk. On Plan Sheet C -7 -Item 8, the shallrive be changedentrance toe #�21meterobox - 17�" fog - tight, 11" x 18" box - x 28 -5/8" x 12 ". The private water loop, gate valves, blocking and hydrants shall be approved by the Tukwila Fire Department and the Insurance Underwriters prior to its construction (this is the sole respon- sibility of the contractor /or owner). Tapping in the City's main shall be wet taps (DaveiGrage -- 433 - 1863)• An agreement from the owner for rpy shall accompinyithe . application for this water fire-loop/private 'cating how this private fire -loop is to be maintained hereafter. 2. Domestic Water Meters - (dposite for cinstaaallati n /regular one -half connection charge per meter: inch = $1,550; two inch = $2,550). Special connection.chlrgges #7.. have been met by past participation of the property to Each structure shall be separately metered. The City will stall the services from the private mains/fire-loop the services from meter; the developer is responsible providing the meter to each unit. The difference in Chet final cost by City forces will be deducted /billed from the Applications for water meter permits shall Cetyc ompexe d b y by general easement document, approved by which nd allows City the developer and recorded through King County personnel . to inter upon the of main- taining, and taining, monitoring, repairing services (from the private main to the meter). Final Location of the meters and services may beaeelocated- inonhe field Inspector field at the discretion of the City p 433- 1863). 3. Curb - Cuts /Access /Sidewalk Permit - a (Permit Fee.cu$25.00utters shall Driveway Aprons, sidewalks, As part of be per the City's Standard Plans (Ordinance #1233). 2 the permit itlication for curb - cut /access�iewalk, the developer shall prove the transfer of right -of -way documents, executed by the owner for the ENTIRE strip of right -of -way for the right turn lane and sidewalk adjacent to the West Valley Highway for the sidewalk and right turn lane for both Phase I and Phase II deve- lopments. Upon the City's review and approval of this document, the developer shall be required (prior to the permit sign off) to have this right -a -way document recorded to run with the land. Also, accompanying the permit application shall be a joint access agreement between the two developments for the joint use access at SR 181 and Southcenter Blvd. It is recognized by this permit that only a temporary access for left turn in- out /right turn in -out from Strander Blvd. is allowed at this time. The City reserves the right to review this access at any time in the future to reduce its usage to right- turn -in and right- turn -out. Therefore, by the granting of this permit the City only provide permanent recognition to the limits granted all permitees for right- turn -in and right- turn -out for the access in Strander Blvd. A handicapped ramp shall be provided crossing Strander at the intersection of Strander Blvd. and SR 181 at a field location per the City Inspector (Sally Heye -- 433 - 1854). Existing light stan- dards in the sidewalk shall be relocated behind the sidewalk. The 6' x 8' underground vault shown on the plan C -2 on SR 181 shall be modified and /or relocated to accommodate the new curb and gutter sidewalk system. On Sheet C -7, detail #4 boring and casing profile for storm - expansion joints shall be provided on either side of all driveway aprons to the sidewalk system. Finally, the two.develoments- shall submit in wri,ti.n.3,, on .the tiqing and commitment by both ownerships for the providing of the right turn and /sidewalk right -of -way in'SR 181 and accomplishing the sidewalk /curb and gutter and requirements for providing the pave- ment in the right -of -way to the City for review'and approval prior to application for the curb - cuts /access /sidewalk permit. 4. Sanitary Side Sewer Permits - (Permit Fee: $170:00 regular connec- tion charge (per building',= plus special connection charge to be calculated at time of permit application) All sanitary side wewer shall be a minimum of 6" in diameter; a minimum of 36" cover /PVC; at a 2% minimum grade; and be provided in Class "B" bedding throughout. All sanitary side sewers shall have cleanouts at the point at which they leaveeach building 'structure at vertical and /or horizontal bends. Sanitary sewer shall be either concrete or PVC (schedule40, minimum). 3 Per sheet C _Ionly one side sewer is shown for building clusters. The Tukwila Municipal Code requires that each structure shall be separately sewered. Therefore, either the sewer main shall be extended and including manholes for the last reach (with 8" diameter pipe, manholes At every 300' and /or at bends); or, separate sanitary side sewers shall be shown to the private mains. 5. Private Sanitary Sewer Main Permit - (Permit Fee: $25.00) - The issues involving additional private mains shall be resolved as described in item 4 above prior to issuance of this permit. A copy of the joint agreement by which the private mains shall be operated and maintained shall be provided for the City's review and approval prior to the issuance of any sewer permit. The pri- vate sanitary sewer main permit application shall be accompanied by the appropriate easements for the main two adjacent properties. The private mains (which are to remain private) shall be completed and inspected prior to application for the sanitary side sewer permits for individual structures. All private sanitary manholes shall be channeled. A detail for channelization of a typical sanitary sewer manhole shall be pro- vided for the City's review and approval prior to beginning the work. Sewer mains shall be provided in Class "B" bedding throughout. 6. Public Sanitary Sewer Main - Permit Fee: $25.00) - That portion of pipe from the existing Sewer manhole at rim elevation 26.04 including the pipe from the existing manhole to the first manhole and including the manhole is proposed to be developed for poten- tial future turnover to the City of Tukwila. The final authority for acceptance of this facility is the City Council. To meet the City's requirement the following shall be provided: This facility shall be built of concrete, with the piping material placed in Class "B" bedding. Also the existing manhole shall be rechanneled accordingly to, accommodate the system and additional channelization shall be provided and a new concrete manhole per the City's requirements. Ihe appli- cation for the permit shall include the executed easement to the City of Tukwila for maintenance, monitoring, replacement and repair of this proposed facility. A knock -out and 8" stub to the west shall be provided in the manhole structure (rim elevation 26.04) at,the invert of the incoming private sewer main. Upon construction of this faci- lity and permit sign- off,the following documents shall be pro- vided to the City for consideration for turnover as a public system: a) As -Built Drawing. b) Copy of Approve Easement recorded with King County. c) List of Materials /Costs. d) Bill of Sale. e) request for turnover to the City. 7. Storm Drain - (Permit Fee: $25.00) - All pipe under paved areas (from catch basin to catch basin)shall be corrugated metal pipe, Class - 4 - 14 galvaniAlO steel /aluminum coated or aluSum: All storm drain pipe shall be provided with a minimum of 12" of cover throughout. Ladderungs where provided shall be galvanized steel only. Accompanying the permit applicationifor the City's review and approval, (prior to the issuance of the storm permit) shall be the storm drain designer calculations indicating the contact person with WSDOT - WSDOT approval, or the storm drains as shown on the plans. These storm drairjcalculations shall be provided (along with hydraulic grade line profile) and demonstrate no negative impact to the existing storm drain system at Strander Blvd. and SR 181 by this private connection into the 12" road pavement on the south side of Strander Blvd. As part of main J /T /A underneath Strander Blvd !required is the filling with grout of the 18" diameter steel sleeve. The drain under Strander Blvd. shall be sized to accommodate both Phase I and Phase II Developments. 8. Landscape Irrigation - (if appropriate) - It is:the sole respon- sibility of the owner and /or his engineers to assure that coor- dination of these utility plans has been accomplished by the landscaping designs, as the landscape plans have not been sub- mitted as part of this plan review. If irrigation is required for the landscaping plans, requested is a submittal of four sets of landscape irrigation plans to Public Works for,review and appro- val which include an overlay of all utilities. Included in these plans, backflow pervention devices shall be noted: "or DSHS approved" It shall be noted that the necessary precautions are to be taken including utility call ups working in the public right -of -way of Strander Blvd. and SR 181, and coordination with WSDOT while working in SR -181. This plan review does not cover availability or review of franchise utili- ties. This task remains the sole responsibility of the owner. If you have any questions regarding any of the matters covered throughout this letter please do not hesitate to call me at 433 -1856. Phillip R. Fraser Senior Engineer /cs cc: Tukwila Maintenance Shop Fire Marshall Associate Planner Assistant Engineer Building Official file Enclosure: (1) LSB.PF (1A /1B) lk.The developer's traffic engineer, Centrac « Associates, shall submit their field review of the as built for the right turn lane and accesses in writing, to the City prior to sign off of this permit. Centract shall review accesses for adequacy per their original traffic analysis for the project. 5 • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; n BLDG PLNG PROJECT t J \ 4(( rA ,V \NPy 4 str--Psocetz. $L7 FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED laa9r, ZB,L + RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR( D RESPONSE RECEIVED LOCATION CN ` 32 5 EPIC 2477 -e34 FILE P.W. n FIRE 1 1 POLICE P& R °Cr' I 1 OCT. c Ike* 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 °7-eA. .� -�E z„r �v Sal /1 6 DATE 0 r,` COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 III , OF TUKWILA C ENV1 RONMENTAL CHECKLIST 'FORM ! ,,, li e e_.y7 This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for 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. oro A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Mike Hess /Tri Star Development; . 2. Address and Phone Number.of Proponent: Lynnwood, WA 98036 4323 198th Street, S.W. 3. Date Checklist Submitted: September 14, 1984 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tukwila Park 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): 29,071•Sq Ft Acres (See attached) 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): See Attached 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: November 1984 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. • YES NO X (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO X (c) Building perrit YES X N0__ (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 X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO 10. DO you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: _ NO 11. Do you.know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: Yes, Brock Residence Inn is granting an easement for -acess to SR -181 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: Does not apply II. ENV I RONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 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? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO X X X X • (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 X Explanation: The existing alders which have grown up to 10" diameter will be grubbed. The grubbed areas will be replaced with structural fill and additional0" to 2' -0" of structural fill will be placed on the flat site to provide drainage. 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: The one -story buildings should not alter off site air movement significantly. 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, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X (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 • (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? YES MAYBE NO X _X._ Explanation: The site will be paved extensively and cover by buildings. The rain water which normally would have been absorbed into the water table now Y _goes immediately into the storm system, in the past this system had taken the surface water directly to the Green River which is within 250' of the site. 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? X (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ Explanation: Existing scrub alders, black berry bushes and scrub grass will be removed. Irrigated planting areas and strips along the arterials will be established with cultured planting such as sod, rhododendroms, mugho pines, etc. X X 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 . X organisms, insects or microfauna)? — (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. X or movement of fauna? — (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife X habitat? Explanation: 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Although being a commercial /retail establishment there will be negligible amount of traffic generated in comparison to the amount of traffic on SR -181 and Strander Boulevard. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X. Explanation: There will be new site lighting at the parking areas and security lighting at the•buildings' perimeters. These fixtures will have little glare because of the use of non - glare, cut -off diffusers. • 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanationtince the undeveloped site is zoned for commercial use, it will be used for the City's intended use. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable. natural resource? X X Explanation: Electrically, domestic water and natural gas will be supplied to the project. The constrution of the project will also consume non - renewable resources. 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? X X Explanation: Being a retail center,there is a possibility a paint retailer or a retailer handling aerosol cans may lease a building suite. • • YES MAYBE NO 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: Being a retail center the project may help to promote workers and shoppers to live in the area. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: New jobs may cause the need for additional housing in the area 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? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? .(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See attached traffic study 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? ,(c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? ••X•• X X X (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? —. X • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? X Explanation: Being a commercial /retail project there will be need for fire and police protection and postal services. The workers and shoppers may make use of local parks and recreational facilities during breaks and while traveling to and from the project. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Explanation: Since the project will conform to the Washington State Energy Code, the use of electricity and natural gas for heating, cooling and lighting will be at a minimum. The construction of the project will create additional fuel consumption. 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? X X X Explanation: The project will need to tie into,the utilities, all of which are located in the arterial right -of -ways. There will be a need to obtain a service contract for solid waste disposal of refuse generated by the commercial /retail project. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: 1 • YES MAYBE NO 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? X Explanation: The view was limited by a stand of scrub alders at the primary building site that in effect were of the same pro- portions as the building. To augment the clean aesthetic qualities of the building, the project is to be landscaped. • 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: The project does not impact any existing recreational facilities or opportunities other than potentially genera - ting some incindental use of local recreational facilities by off duty workers and use of the facilities by business patrons on their way to and from the project. 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: There are no existing historical objects on the existing flat site. _ CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: 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 pon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or will, 1 la - full disclosure on my part. Aka krintect /1-4.vt Signature and Title Date 1/MhA2A'. -8- CDm. INC. • ERCIAL Gf� 01 CIATES 4230 198th STREET LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON, 98036 771 -2300 September 14, 1984 Attachment to City of Tukwila TUKWILA RETAIL I. BACKGROUND. 6. The business- Commercial project is to be developed on the 2.103 acre site. The project will include two one -story buildings, with Building "A" having 26,771 square feet, Building "B" having 2,300 square feet, for a total of 29,071 square feet. The buildings will be of Type III -N construction, with Building "A" fully sprinkled. They will have peri- meter walls consisting primarily of aluminum storefront and archi- tectually detailed CMU walls. The wood roof trusses will be supported by a system of steel columns, wood and glu- laminated beams and wood ledgers. The architectual features of the buildings will include covered perimeter walks, delineated four foot high stucco fascia, fabric awnings, CMU with corbel and lintel accents and an interior court with a large skylight. The site development will include asphalt parking areas with landscaped perimeter areas and islands. 7. The project is located on the northwest corner of the heavily used inter- section of Strander Boulevard and SR 181 West Valley Highway. The north and west sides of the property are to be bounded by the proposed Brock Residence Inn. The area in the near vicinity is primarily an undeveloped commercial area, except for two restaurants, one immediately on the opposite side of both arterials. END OF ATTACHMENT. 17544 MIDVALE AVE. N., SUITE 200 SE7lTTLE, WA 98133 206 542 -9474 1tINIKin, ASSOCIATES CONSUITINq ENGINEERS TO: MEMORANDUM Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila FROM: Terry Gibson, Centrac DATE: July 26, 1984 PROJECT: Tukwila Retail Center & Brock Inn SUBJECT: Resolution of Access Requirements along Strander for Proposed Retail /Residence Inn Development The following statements summarize the topics discussed and conclusions drawn during our meeting yesterday at City Hall concerning street /access improvements required along Strander Blvd. west of SR -181: o In order to accommodate the projected 700 -800 vehicles per hour turning left from Strander onto SR -181 (northbound) during the PM peak (worst case), it was mutually agreed that the 2 -way left -turn lane should be converted to a 2nd left -turn lane from the Green River bridge to SR -181. o This 2nd left-turn lane has been planned by the City (at the same time as the SR -181 southbound right -turn lane improvement) for years. The following design options were discussed to safely handle inbound /outbound turning traffic to /from Steak & Ale and Brock's driveways: Option #1: Add continuous traffic "C Curb" along north side of 2nd left -turn lane except for short "break" in curbing to permit left -turn inbound movement to Brock's driveway and left -turn egress movement from Steak & Ale driveway. Brock's driveway would be signed "No Left Turn Any Time" or "Right -Turn Only" and the Steak & Ale driveway would be signed "No Left Turn 4 -5 PM" (similar to sign detail originally proposed for Brock's driveway). "Thru Only" striping would be painted'on inside westbound lane on Strander to discourage hazardous left -turn inbound movements to Steak & Ale driveway through opening in traffic curb. Option #2: Allow left -turn egress movement from Brock's driveway except during PM peak (4 -5 PM) but install "C Curb" between existing left -turn lane and, right -turn lane ALASKA IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING July 26, 1984 Mr. Phil Fraser Page 2 on Strander approach to SR -181 to discourage hazardous crossing of 2 lanes to turn right onto SR -181. No traffic curbing would be placed along "centerline" of Strander (as, in Option #1) and full access would be permitted for both driveways except for restricting left-turn egress during 4 -5 PM peak. o Centrac recommends Option #1 to the City of Tukwila for implementation as part of its ongoing SR -181 /Strander improvement project. The 2nd left -turn lane will alleviate projected turning congestion on Strander and at the same time, preserve the critical left -turn inbound access to the 'Brock /Retail Development and the existing left -turn egress movement from Steak & Ale driveway on Strander during off -peak hours. See attached sketch for proposed access revisions. Note: Eliminating the left -turn egress movement completely at Brock's driveway would only affect exiting vehicles heading southbound on SR -181, which can easily (and more safely) be accommodated via a simple right -turn at the SR -181 driveway. The left -turn inbound movement to Steak & Ale can be rerouted to the SR -181. driveway, which is safer and easier to negotiate. Thanks again, Phil, for meeting with me to help resolve these access issues for the subject development. My client, Commercial Design Associates, is presently preparing final plans for the Brock development. We would appreciate a letter, from the City of Tukwila as soon as possible which officially approves the street /access improvements proposed by the developer to mitigate traffic /safety impacts, as shown in Figure 6 of the "Traffic Impact Analysis" report, except for the Option #1 design revisions as discussed above. Sincerely, CENTRAC ASSOCIATES, INC. Terry L. Gibson, P.E. Senior Traffic /Civil Engineer TLG:klg cc: Scott Shanks (CDA), Ross Ernst (City Engr.), Ming Wang (INCA) CENTRAC ASSOCIAT ES • • .PROPOSED NORTH DRIVEWAY_ ACCESS FOR RETAIL & BROCKS INN • 8' SW .. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TUKWILA RETAIL-CENTER AND BROCK RESIDENCE INN DRIVEWAY 1 4 1 ./ ANDY'S TUKWILA DINER STOP SIGN 0 03 L) CD I 2.5' .NEW ROW LINE (54' FROM SR -181) I 1-4°. DRIVEWA! 2 i NEW 8' SIDEWALK= NEW 12' RIGHT TURN LANE • (FUTURE SB THRU LANE) ©FoQ SRoU('S DR�vE►�A�1-- �sour.D READ "A'Y T�►AF" PROPOSED SOUTH DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR RETAIL CENTER & BROCK INN --4- -- STRANDER EXIT. SIGN DETAIL t EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY r-- I NEW t STRIPING SEE SIGN DETAIL ABOVE SW REMOVE BUTTON CENTRAC Associates RESTAURANT REMOVE RAISED ISLAND TO ACCOMODATE 2ND (DUAL) LEFT TURN LANE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND BY DEVELOPER P�. BY CITY OF TUKWILA Figure 6 OP"io'l 4l PROPOSED /PLANNED ,A-css STREET /ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS REVIS1D SS INTRODUCTION • • This report summarizes our traffic analysis of the proposed Tukwila Retail Development and is intended as a technical .supplement to the site deve)opment plans and SEPA checklist., The purpose of this analysis and documentation is to identify the traffic impacts and access /ROW requirements of the proposed development, as well as.appropriate physical improvements (or policies) to mitigate the effects of these impacts on the existing transportation system. The proposed development site is located just north of Strander Blvd. between the West Valley 'Road (SR -181) and the Green River. The site development layout consists. of: approximately 23,000 square feet (gross floor area) for specialty retail shops; 144 resident -motel units (Brocks' Residence Inn, with each 2 -story 8 -plex building containinb 4,000 square feet) and manager's residence/clubhouse;, and, either a fast -food restaurant with a • drive -up lane or a branch bank with drive -up lanes (approximately . 3,000 square feet for either scenario). Access, to the site would be provided via single driveways onto W. Valley Road and Strander Blvd. The proposed retail /residence motel complex is scheduled for construction in the fall of 1984, with occupancy by early 1985. •.The site location is currently undeveloped although the existing zoning is C -2, regional retail, with the land use designated as commercial. Approximately. 110 parking spaces would be provided on-site for the retail shops and fast -food restaurant (or bank) . on the east portion of the site. Parking spaces would also be provided for Brock's Residence Inn and clubhouse between the retail and residence -motel complexes. The site location and vicinity are shown in Figure 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing street /highway system in the vicinity of the Tukwila Retail Development is shown in Figure 2. Access to the site would be provided primarily by the West Valley Road (SR -181) via I -405 and a full interchange 1/2 -mile to the north, with secondary access via Strander Blvd. connecting the site with the greater Southcenter commercial - industrial district. I -405 is a 4 -lane limited access freeway and provides access to Renton and the Eastside and connects with I -5, I -90 and SR -520 freeways. West Valley Road provides access to the Green River Valley and is a 5 -lane roadway (2 lanes southbound and northbound plus a center two -way left -turn lane) from the I -405 interchange to south of • Strander. Strander and Southcenter Blvds. are the primary east - west arterials connecting West Valley /Interurban to the City of Tukwila, Southcenter regional shopping center and Andover Business Park. Strander Blvd. is a 4 -lane arterial, but widens r• • I C. .ter...,_': P i *,w AV •Ilr ►t. 1011:nC M — 0• r0•r1 - 1 11t AV 1 ell MN 9 4AtluM � n{ 1. {v r • ay a 1. t • • y — .. 1lg11w•.10 • a ' - a 71s C •4-- MAAR ^t i r. • S11� I7 roues/ {. Clrl*•l 1V• 1. OrS •s/1« 24,800 21.100 S3H3VONO CENTRAC Associates TR A N MPACT STUDY LEGEND Estimated Daily Traffic Volume (2 -Way AWDT -1984) Traffic Signals Stop Signs Figure 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS to 5.lanes to acc Oodate left -turn movemenW at intersections 'with north -south arterials such as Andover Park E and SR -181. Traffic control in the vicinity of the project is provided by .traffic signals at major intersections, including Strander /SR- 181, Strander /Andover Park E and SR -181 /I -405 NB ramps nearest to the site. Stop sign control is utilized at all other nearby intersections, with the exception being the SR- 181/S. 158th St. intersection. Since 158th Street is the main entrance to Longacres Race Track, the Washington State Patrol assigns officers to control traffic between I -405 and 158th during the racing season (April to October) from 2:00 - 3 :00 PM Wednesday through Friday and from 11:00 AM to Noon on Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Speed limits in the immediate area are posted as 40 mph for,SR -181 and 30 mph for Strander. The existing geometric configuration of SR -181. and Strander Blvd. in the vicinity of the proposed site development are shown in • Figure 3. South of Strander, SR -181 is a 4 -lane section with a left -turn pocket at the intersection approach. Between Strander and 158th, SR -181 has four lanes plus a two -way left -turn lane except where left -turn acceleration lanes* are provided at the Strander and 158th intersections. Strander Blvd. widens from four to five lanes east of the Green River bridge to accommodate a two-way left -turn lane. At the SR -181 intersection, single left and right -turn lanes are separated from two westbound lanes by a raised traffic island. This intersection is controlled by a fully - actuated, 3 -phase traffic signal. Current average weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) on roadways in the vicinity of the proposed development are shown on Figure 2. Estimated daily volumes vary from nearly 50,000 on I -405 to 1,100 on S. 158th (6,000 during racing season) and are derived from 1981 counts by Washington State Department of Transportation, City of Tukwila records and recent intersection turning movement counts by Centrac (see Appendix). Existing AWDT volumes on SR- .181 directly adjacent to the site are approximately 26,000. vehicles per day, with 15,400 on Strander Blvd. just west of SR- 181. Based on recent turning movement counts at the SR- 181 /Strander intersection, the most critical peak -hour of traffic occurs during the PM commute peak between 3:45 and 4:45 PM. The AM peak hour (7:15 - 8:15 AM) and the noon peak hour (11:30 AM - 12.30 PM) represent about 80% and 85% of PM peak -hour conditions at this intersection adjacent to the project site. During the PM peak -hour, which represents about 12 percent of average weekday traffic volumes, the dominant traffic flows are eastbound on Strander and northbound on SR -181 toward I -405 (with 60 %/40% *The "refuge lane" was required to permit safe left -turn movement from Strander to SR -181 northbound prior to full signalization in 1981 by WSDOT. N SCALE 1' = 80' EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY $ tt �►+DY•a TUK Wlu DINER ›- C9 DRIV.EWAI _ 700' R r CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 3 EXISTING GEOMETRICS AND RIGHT-OF--WAY directional split hourly traffic volumes The highest levels* of congestion and longest delays to motorists will generally occur during the PM peak period. A' measure of the relative congestion levels can be made by comparing the level -of- service (LOS) at intersections. Level-of-service' relates traffic volume demand to capacity and can range from LOS "A" (free -flow conditions) to LOS "F" (forced -flow or jammed conditions), with LOS E being capacity ,conditions. LOS "D" (tolerable delays at intersections) is generally considered adequate for urban intersections. The estimated PM peak -hour LOS for 1984 at the four most critical intersections, using "Transportation Research Board's Circular 212 ", are summarized in Table 1 below. All of the intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS, although the SR- 181/Strander intersection is near capacity conditions (LOS D /E). Intersection TABLE 1 • LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS (1984) PM Peak Hour Level of Service SR -181 @ Strander Blvd. D/E (C) SR -181 @.S. 158th St. A (D /E) SR -181 @ I -405 NB Ramps Strander @ Andover Park E. C Comments Signalized (LOS improves to "C" if dual LT lanes provided on Strander approach). Stop sign control on 158th (LOS at or near capacity during Longacres racing season). Signalized. Signalized. During 1980 and 1981, accidents were not a serious problem at any of the four intersections. The highest accident location is the SR -181 /Strander intersection, which has experienced 4 accidents per year for the 1980 -81 period. This intersection was signalized during 1981 and had experienced 6 -9 accidents per year (1977 -79) prior to signalization. All other intersections in the • vicinity have experienced less than 4 accidents during either calendar year. Metro Transit provides peak -hour transit service along SR -181, including Route 154 (Seattle- Auburn) and Routes 158/159 (Seattle -Kent East Hill). These routes connect to Seattle via Interurban AvenueOorth of I -405) and I -5. There are several other routes which provide express and local service into the Southcenter area via Southcenter Blvd. and Tukwila Pkwy., which are beyond a reasonable walking distance for patrons or residents *of the proposed development. 4 SOUTNCENTE BLVD. TUKWILA PKWY. EVANS -BLACK DR. r 0 Z Q A 33 m w 1835 51 % 151 1585 f 48% 189 755 21% 62 825 25% 99 650. 18 % 55 790 24%, 96 1010 28% 85 890 27% 106 CENTRAC Associates. LEGEND /% OF TOTAL TRAFFIC AWOT f . PJd. PEAK SCENARIO A SCENARIO 8 900 25% 78. 1090 33% 130 A N TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 4 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION • J w aovTH EHTE BLVD. EVANS -BLACK OR. A► 2 W 0 Z 0 28,500 3540 30,300 . 3690 30,100 3730 r 0 • 2 0 0 m (A 0 26,700 28,500 8.300 26,700 3470 27,400 3525 27,500 3565 15,700 1 1810 16,500 16,500 J 1910 15.700 1810 16,600 1885 16,800 1940 24,800 2970 25.800 3055 25.700 3075 CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND AWDT P.M. PEAK W/O PROJECT W/ SCENARIO A W/ SCENARIO B 15,700 .1810 16,600 1885 16,800 1940) Figure. 5 PROJECTED 1985 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED PROJECT • TABLE 2 III •LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE CONDITIONS (1985) W /PROJECT PM Peak Hour Level -of- Service (V /C Ratio) W /Exist.ing Geometrics W /Proposal St. Inpyts. Intersection (See Note) SR -181 @ Strander E (0.94) B (0.63) Blvd. SR -181 @ North B (0.64) • B (0.64) Driveway Strander Blvd. @ Sowtk 'A (0.33) A (0.33) Driveway • SR -181 @ S. 158th St. ' C* C* SR -181 @ 1 -405 NB C* C* Ramps Strander @ Andover C (0.72) C (0•.72) Park E. * LOS estimates based on prior traffic studies (Tukwila Hotel, EIS and Tukwila Bend Traffic Impact Study). NOTE: Proposed Street /Driveway Improvements(Assumed) 1. Add Southbound Right -Turn Lane from North Driveway. to Strander 2. Provide Dual Left -Turn Lanes on Strander Approach to SR -181 3. South Driveway on Strander would align with Steak & Ale Driveway and include one Exit lane & one Entry lane. 4. North Driveway on SR -181 would be located 80' north of Andy's South Driveway and include two Exit lanes and one Entry lane. Engineers • iikilects • Planners PROJECT • TUK- WII./W g&TI1 ., DEVEt.OPME!✓I SUBJECT.. EXI3MJC eOW. * Cr£0Mf-T1uC,s' CHECKED: ____ DATE _ JOB NO. 4- PPAPa3n 5'79 ,—/fi ST lh Phi✓F4t1Ca -.t r CFiy 6 iw Brocer row, Ac uss. -{o 5h4.4.... !t -For 8roca kts. ti•t .T.. • r s-- Z.S (541 5e. 11i) I I-_ -1 u. P' 5; ..ck Lott' Drwar..ls. N(A.J 124511 —a -14,1 Lc- CS,-.8 ZS') b-4-4-,-1, 1:1 t,j �. c SGk J t 7yd.,�t F. 4-0 nVW 744 ExIST. ROB/ Wig) 1 1; dr AOP TV DINE tit .Iv \3„- % 24 CWt% . / STRftN P f2 \d e fel V) • STFf 4.517 SCAV. f �'_ 80' Ts I� 4. '1444j Q4- PROJECT SUBJECT - - . l V I1 GV n G N. LJA I t • 1 JOB NO. �''1 f 1C- FM- TVa-rfi t1C- ivi cr PA.►'f*✓r1 hA rf.4) cos 0 • 0 jr P ;} ¢� Exi 44 44( ►f5c..A.+. . 0- 53 loo lobo 0 0 Z�- 31 5iP, iJ 8wp. -Z5 IoE:o 445 440 655 Scl✓f o ®_ 5b.. 1147. �GV = 122 4- (2-g -4:41) = 581,E EIEi 4- v�C S' 4 00 = 0., O 2 6714 x./-,. vh` _ 5IS oo = 6.31_ 0 SGTAer-ia B -sue. E CV _ ' °IX + Cg' +-Lt) = $11- we,ts. 2- frJCd...y�✓�<<51Xioo 0.3Z 0 t0 910' 93 s- y1-o ✓fit to ® -. N�.. D►_ Ezu f (4.2.4-2.4) = 1 I' i 644- lc • 11//G :: I t 19/ /Boo = 0_6 Z J. if 2 6,Al- td-di 7G7- 1°q$Aloo = D. 6 / L 2.0 40 2.0 63" 2.045 .. ✓P;f t o .5* —Nreft. Dot • zcv = cs f- (14-4-31) _ 11 ¢-!- v. 1 6.;3- G..._ % = tt41 #100 =. 0, l 4- 2 FX; } (..„ I -,• Lk = I f °''/ Vo o = 6 SCAfM4 0 (AA — s -.4. @ to) 435. 4-2 -70 4 &co = /L52►� v ✓ _ jLSi- .2f-cur - l� f ss zrr. �-b /� - - -1- - °� .18444% 43' /s liio3 C 6x,,1-4? 1c = a S9 _:1-"?)) Sc ✓ 2+0 6— 3-4y2_11, yao +5 S zcv Z 4-2-50 4-660 = rc 5Hvo ExrJ 1, Gc.,� -e �L = 1 "%l e o -- 0. `f 4- O `2Ec _Q65? -tco 4- 3cs5=1Yio =0._78 ( '`'6 At. me v/c = 9-9.2 24o+3LS Ct:x1144%-t ✓/C - o S5_ 2D624 11329I CHECKED .DATE BY • r Rood_ m464- RvJccT T_ v_kwri.14_ DEVE��1 Efr ¢ Jog No, 84'1 calzaa ,1e4¢c/4t.4. Tc. INTI=RSECTIoN • w VA LLEY RD. (sa -if1) p sTizAtJDE.4. 6LVD. Loc. No. 1 V 114DICFTE nlofr'1! WITH ARROW • • I 3r ti 39'. TCU t - - - - -J - Engineers • Architects • Planners 11440 ;4-71 1 TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM PM PEAK . w/ Peo TIM= PERIOD SAY 'DATE• Thum, /26/84- S p�12 . • r V rn b 14-06 , PED. L 1374- 4/ �cU. • (it bus -s) zX. T1W PERIOD PM PEPd W/ PRATE Foe sc6 JAeto CwoiQsr CASE) DRY t DATE_ 5T 14' I Y 2.077 1 1491 CHECKED .DATE . By T G-165oa 1/2:41_ -s .j JTERSEcT1ot4 NU-EY RD (sQ u3i }- - IZANDF.R BLVD. • No L ATE NORTH rH RRftoW of 1- 1% VJ1�(. 1 • Jots 8414 c. 4uz /144164‘41.44. Tete. I L . Espineers • Architects • Planners buns %OW 14- 1 Ct . • -- 1 13 031 .. J 1 TURNING • MOVEMENT DIAGRAM WLiJL 9170 AM PEAK TIME PERIOD 7:/45-- e.: /CAM DRY t DATE; ,M04.) 1/2o/84— • ST-N 064— 79 78 st >1. CO Ir ti 31 1 594-1 1 9151 t og.1 2% NOW P641( TIME PERIOD 'II:39 Am- 1Z:3oPM1 DRY DATE FRI•) 3/6/84- Q 1 124.11 24-4- 340 1 121 %J. IA VC..) 11 9!8¢ CHECKED BY ' .D AT E PrCOJ cT _ rugun PEvEkPNftr Jos No, 84� ¢ _ _ c.44 1NTERSECT;oN • W. VAUZY RD. (Se—No- e PKoPoEO DR.1vEwAY Loc. No. 3 114DICATE NORTH WITH ARROW I NTERSECT1okt S1 A rJ DE.le BLVD. PR.oPosE.D peiVEIAY Loc. iJo. 4' 1 2.0751 � t /144t5Ciattd, 9•cc. Engineers • Architects • Planners • r TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM wc..7,1. 1}4E PER lop PM PEAK HOUR_ SAY 4 DATE. Fo12 Sc JAQ1O c$ (woks r cAsE) ___i✓Etx1 D21;VEwAY . 37 74- 4. I' 1.. 2139 1 1520 PED. L J x-76 ._- -rn E PERIOD PM PEAK gook :DRY tt DAT L Fog- SC-WA-kw o (WORsr cAs ) N Ew DZI VE WA Y hr • [ Hot} 4 �n1 - •• CHECKED: JO8 NO. • lS2-127) Frtt77Sa %_ Pic Olt E �S i9 o� J • FN. r P PIT- ) Cs ) 7Y2.71' 12.4T6 4-0.7 d DATE DATE S4-lSr ._.: DATE •S riY24 Pf �•b Fri 1- T11 33 Willi 17C it 4)"-) • D f-, •ot -7!ui os) y��,oy Or d'' t. 3 D2i ✓£ iJ ,.9, v = 2, Z Fvft- PX, ,•, +�-�- C3o up —3 5" r. -n..c 1'141) 64-41-6D 90. 7 .k 23 Porr ;V-p_ 92,41.6.14, 2 /. 9 y k 2- 2-x E -frs'E awl) -712-1p.f e � r, - f us N A L(A/ ff1 7}5-,N) I.9 1-; 00 - 6 t G)0 Ph . �N �'.P,2t1/E- �'1G4-! 7v1 ov ./.4/44 �3r1 T'�) 0 �f � -.)3c�aJ g33. SS3 (/69 -) !7.0(9.9) = II-- 1-0o. 03 oo — (J rat, - -� 1'2-too —1 s o7) Ph Ch'P'x) c-qgo TR-Lff G• P1-1 fitJ Prk OJ fla obi,/ 0Jr' 3 :.a— q-:POR 3:0-a--t' oJf4 0 Ve F t1AN 6 EVES ALLEY HWY (SR rP3.(0.1% PU8L DEp.r. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; 1 1 BLDG PLNG 1 1 P.W. FIRE C 4 ` 325 EPIC247-84 FILE PROJECT ' K. (L r LOCATION .V, &*/ £ SC S t5 DATE TRANSMITTED 13East 2,8/198+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY OC''r, 1—1 STAFF COORDINATOR K_ 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. POLICE ( 1 P & R FILE NO.. ITEM COMMENT R GAG - rW 1S 1' tc r i re vra6eLAF R_E.P�ES Ew r ykiec 6- Q - k. P On g& W 14J 2 ICLE c_ aci-r 1E r 1 v N CAW. c�tEvCS LIZ CItaEL_V 77-W1'4 1 -1*.Or. 1hlctziASE-b ' V U Pf -b t-IL u A I LA a LE WI AA) LbL (2 HAS .gEEVlJ Rec oc b DATE /o—Z— I/ COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 C?TY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; ( j BLDG PLNG P.W. FIRE �I POLICE P & R PROJECT 11J \N(LA LOCATION ,v&IV l � $C" S $L\4P FILE NO. �W 1_ DATE TRANSMITTED 7,,g,19S,T RESPONSE REQUESTED BY c r, cJg84 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. CN' ` 3Z,5 EPICZ4-7'84 FILE ITEM COMMENT (O /t3 4/11 a c(d t-ho» c,f c` I rt d c eA L1 C.�.y c s4-c a d i sin corer r A-« ; II -64)-e -,41,, 5z, �- GS fp a 4. as DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; 1 ( BLDG PLNG PROJECT ' ,.\N LL f LOCATION P.W. FIRE 410 cN4 -3a5 EPICZ4-7-84 FILE POLICE ty,c1Wh*/ 4 srr 5L\IP DATE TRANSMITTED', 2.8119,841- OCT. ESPONSE REQUESTED BY fi, eiti1C( STAFF COORDINATOR S_ RESPONSE RECEIVED . 2„` my FILE NO. 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 1,"" L: e f..._ .si .14e i /.J' �6G-- r, .,,,.- c , ,,r,. %-Zra- /a° 6.. i ,>..,,g1:7 G,,it f'1 .ice ti_.- . A.------7-`,... .4„,.., i.--- / ‘S 6(--O 6.,4r4%7 _- ,r) ., , ' i^ bu-d .- :0L ._.r_r ." di- '4 f! X, GG.00cL GAVa..0 —Q r �- 6y /,==e-Krfri COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; 1 BLDG ei PLNG P W FIRE POLICE P & R PROJECT 11X.,\,1\4 r LOCATION ,V, , . PI� sr $L.SP NW DATE TRANSMITTED , zoo, 19c + RESPONSE? REQUESTED BY �', �� t� 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. ' • GNP -3Z5 EPIc2.4-? - FILE FILE NO. ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA 1161.!-1' `(', ENVI RONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM r This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for 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 $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Mike Hess /Tri Star Development 2. Address and Phone Number.of Proponent: 4323 198th Street, S.W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 3. Date Checklist Submitted: September 14, 1984 City of Tukwila 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tukwila Park 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): 29,071 Sq Ft Acres (See attached) 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): See Attached 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: November 1984 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES NO X (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO X (c) Building permit 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 X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: NO 11. Do you.know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: Yes, Brock Residence Inn is granting an easement for acess to SR -181 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: Does not apply II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 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? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? 0 YES MAYBE NO X X X X (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 X Explanation: The existing alders which have grown up to 10" diameter will be grubbed. The grubbed areas will be replaced with structural fill and additional0" to 2' -0" of structural fill will be placed on the flat site to provide drainage. 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: The one -story buildings should not alter off site air movement significantly. 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,' or the rate and amount of surface water runoff ?: X (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 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? (1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? YES MAYBE NO X Explanation: The site will be paved extensively and cover by buildings. The rain water which normally would have been absorbed into the water table now _ I goes immediately into the storm system, in the past this system had taken the surface water directly to the Green River which is within 250' of the • site. 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? X • (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop ?: X Explanation: Existing scrub alders, black berry bushes and scrub grass will be removed. Irrigated planting areas and strips along the arterials ? will be established with cultured planting such as sod, rhododendroms, mugho pines, etc. 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 X organisms, insects or microfauna)? — (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 X or movement of fauna? — (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? - X Explanation: 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: Although being a commercial /retail establishment there will be negligible amount of traffic generated in comparison to the amount of traffic on SR -181 and Strander. Boulevard. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Explanation: There will be new site lighting at the parking areas and security lighting at the•buildings' perimeters. These fixtures will have little glare because'of the use of non - glare, cut -off diffusers. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? ExplanationSince the undeveloped site is zoned for commercial use, it will be used for the City's intended use. 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: Electrically, domestic water and natural gas will be supplied to the project. The constrution of the project will also consume non - renewable resources. X 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk oflan 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? X Explanation: Being a retail center,there is a possibility a paint retailer or a retailer handling aerosol cans may lease a building suite. 11. Population. Explanation: • • YES MAYBE NO Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Being a retail center the project may help to promote workers and shoppers to livein the area. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: New jobs may cause the need for additional housing in the area 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? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, . bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See attached traffic study 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? X X X Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? X (f) Other governmental services? YES MAYBE NO X Explanation: Being a commercial /retail project there will be need for fire and police protection and postal services. The workers and shoppers may make use of local parks and recreational facilities during breaks and while traveling to and from the project. 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? X Explanation: Since the project will conform to the Washington State Energy Code, the use of electricity and natural gas for heating, cooling and lighting will be at a minimum. The construction of the project will create additional fuel consumption., 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? X X X X_ Explanation: The project will need to tie into the utilities, all of which are located in the 4rterialright -of -ways. There will be a need to obtain a service contract for solid waste disposal of refuse generated by the commercial /retail project. 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 NO 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: The view was limited by a stand of scrub alders at the primary building site that in effect were of the same pro- portions as the building. To augment the clean aesthetic qualities of the building, the project is to be landscaped. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact' upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: The project does not impact any existing recreational facilities or opportunities.other than', potentially genera- ting some incindental use of local recreational facilities by off duty workers and use of the facilities by business patrons on their way to and from the project. 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure., object or building? X Explanation: There are no existing historical objects on the existing flat site. CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: 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 pon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or will, 1 la full disclosure on my part. A2ieczkrintett /1/4?,,t Signature and Title JAM6496. Date ,N�. �O�IA ESL CDk 4230 1981h STREET LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 771 -2300 September 14, 1984 Attachment to City of Tukwila TUKWILA RETAIL I. BACKGROUND. 6 The business- Commercial project is to be developed on the 2.103 acre site. The project will include two one -story buildings, with Building "A" having 26,771 square feet, Building "B" having 2,300 square feet, for a total of 29,071 square feet. The buildings will be of Type III -N construction, with Building "A" fully sprinkled.' They will have peri- meter walls consisting primarily of aluminum storefront and archi- tectually detailed CMU walls. The wood roof trusses will be supported by a system of steel columns, wood and glu- laminated beams and wood ledgers. The architectual features of the buildings will include covered perimeter walks, delineated four foot high stucco fascia, fabric awnings, CMU with corbel and lintel accents and an interior court with a large skylight. The site development will include asphalt parking areas with landscaped perimeter areas and islands. 7 The project is located on the northwest corner of the heavily used inter- section of Strander Boulevard and SR 181 West Valley Highway. The north and west sides of the property are to be bounded by the proposed Brock Residence Inn. The area in the near vicinity is primarily an undeveloped commercial area, except for two restaurants, one immediately on the opposite side of both arterials. END OF ATTACHMENT. CEN T RAC': ASSOCIATES 1544 MIDVALE AVE. N., SUITE 200. SEATTLE, WA 98133 206 542 -9474 �CONSULTINC� ENGINEERS TO FROM: Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila Terry Gibson, Centrac DATE: July 26, 1984 PROJECT: Tukwila Retail Center & Brock Inn SUBJECT: Resolution of Access Requirements along Strander for Proposed Retail /Residence Inn Development The following statements summarize the topics discussed and conclusions drawn during our meeting yesterday at City Hall concerning street /access improvements required along Strander Blvd. west of SR -181: o In order to accommodate the projected 700 -800 vehicles per hour turning left from Strander onto SR -181 (northbound) during the PM peak (worst case), it was mutually agreed that the 2 -way left -turn lane should be converted to a 2nd left -turn lane from the Green River bridge to SR -181. o This 2nd left -turn lane has been planned by the City (at the same time as the SR -181 southbound right -turn lane improvement) for years. The following design options were discussed to safely handle inbound /outbound turning traffic to /from Steak & Ale and Brock's driveways: Option #1: Add continuous traffic "C Curb" along north side of 2nd left -turn lane except for short "break" in curbing to permit left -turn inbound movement to Brock's driveway and left -turn egress movement from Steak & Ale driveway. Brock's driveway would be signed "No Left Turn Any Time" or "Right -Turn Only" and the Steak & Ale driveway would be signed "No Left Turn 4 -5 PM" (similar to sign detail originally proposed for Brock'is driveway). "Thru Only" striping would be painted on inside westbound lane on Strander to discourage hazardous left -turn inbound movements to Steak & Ale driveway through opening in traffic curb. Option #2: Allow left -turn egress movement from Brock's driveway except during PM peak (4 -5 PM) but install "C Curb" between existing left -turn lane and :right -turn lane ALASKA IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING on 'Strander approach to SR -181 to discourage hazardous crossing of .2 lanes to turn right onto SR -181. No traffic curbing would be placed along "centerline": of Strander (as in Option #1) and full access would be permitted for both driveways except for restricting left -turn egress during 4 -5 PM peak. o Centrac recommends Option #1 to the City of Tukwila for implementation as part of its ongoing SR -181 /Strander improvement project. The 2nd left -turn lane will alleviate projected turning congestion on, Strander and at the same time, preserve the critical left -turn inbound access to the Brock /Retail Development and the existing left -turn egress movement from Steak & Ale driveway on Strander during off -peak hours. See attached sketch for proposed access revisions. Note: Eliminating the left -turn egress movement completely at Brock's driveway would only affect exiting vehicles heading southbound on SR -181, which can easily (and more safely) be accommodated via a simple right -turn at the SR -181 driveway. The left -turn inbound movement to Steak & Ale can be rerouted to the SR- 181 ;driveway, which is safer and easier to negotiate. Thanks again, Phil, for meeting with me to help resolve these access issues for the subject development. My client, Commercial Design Associates, is presently preparing final plans for the Brock development. We would appreciate a letter,from the City of Tukwila as soon as possible which officially approves the street /access improvements proposed by the developer to mitigate traffic /safety impacts, as shown in Figure 6 of the "Traffic Impact Analysis" report, except for the Option #1 design revisions as discussed above. Sincerely, CENTRAC ASSOCIATES, INC. Terry L. Gibson, P.E. Senior Traffic /Civil Engineer TLG:klg cc: Scott Shanks'(CDA), Ross Ernst (City Engr.), Ming Wang (INCA) CENTRAC ASSOCIATES DRIVEWAY 1 .PROPOSED NORTH DRIVEWAY, ACCESS FOR RETAIL & BROCKS INN ANDY'S TUK WILA DINER TUKWILA RETAIL- CENTER AND BROCK RESIDENCE INN I DDRIVEWA 2 NEW ROW LINE (54' FROM c SR -181) CCO NO LEFT- SCALE , TURN gym: 1' = 80' NEW 12' RIGHT TURN LANE • �-5 PM1 (FUTURE SB THRU LANE) �FoQ 842oCK'S DRiV Ev4A`i -- 4sr4ouw ReA0 "My rime„ PROPOSED SOUTH DRIVEWAY' ACCESS FOR RETAIL CENTER STRANDER EXIT & BROCK INN SIGN DETAIL REMOVE BUTTON `JAR J f � / sNOER STEAK ND LE RESTAURANT REMOVE RAISED ISLAND TO ACCOMODATE 2ND (DUAL) LEFT TURN LANE 0 CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND BY DEVELOPER Figure 6 DPTio#1 #1 PROPOSED /PLANNED A -ccEsr STREET /ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS REVISID&s BY CITY OF TUKWILA 1 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes our traffic analysis of the proposed Tukwila Retail Development and is intended as a technical .supplement to the site development .plans and SEPA checklist., The purpose of this analysis and documentation is to identify the traffic impacts and access /ROW requirements of the proposed development, as well as appropriate physical improvements (or policies) to mitigate the effects of these impacts on the existing transportation system. The proposed development site is located just north of Strander Blvd. between the West Valley •Road (SR -181) and the Green River. The site development layout consists. of: approximately 23,000 square feet (gross floor area) for specialty retail shops; 144 resident -motel units (Brocks' Residence Inn, with each 2 -story 8 -plex building containing 4;000 square feet) and manager's residence /clubhouse; and, either a fast -food restaurant with a • drive -up lane or a branch bank with drive -up lanes (approximately . 3,000 square feet for either scenario). Access to the site would be provided via single driveways onto W. Valley Road and Strander Blvd. The proposed retail /residence motel complex is scheduled for construction in the fall of 1984, with occupancy! by early 1985. • The site location is currently undeveloped although the existing zoning is C -2, regional retail, with the land use designated as commercial. Approximately 110 parking spaces would be provided on-site for the retail shops and fast -food restaurant (or bank) on the east portion of the site. Parking spaces would also be provided for Brock's Residence Inn and clubhouse' between the retail and residence -motel complexes. The site location and • vicinity are shown in Figure 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing street /highway system in the vicinity of the Tukwila Retail Development is shown in Figure 2. Access'to the site would be provided primarily by the West Valley Road (SR -181) via I -405 and a full interchange 1/2 -mile to the north, with secondary access via Strander Blvd. connecting the site with the greater Southcenter commercial - industrial district. I -405 is a 4 -lane limited access freeway and provides access to Renton and the Eastside and connects with 1 -5, I -90 and SR -520 freeways. West Valley Road provides access to the Green River Valley and is a 5 -lane roadway (2 lanes southbound and northbound plus a center two -way left -turn lane) from the I -405 interchange to south of Strander. Strander and Southcenter Blvds. are the primary east - west arterials connecting West Valley /Interurban!to the City of Tukwila, Southcenter regional shopping center and Andover Business Park. Strander Blvd. is a 4 -lane arterial, but widens • h J awes .�/• u w ear . If Seattl • tam*. 11.; .• � a r° axllevtr weer Mersa Isbnd chard heights is N 4.. LOUTS v PROJECT r �I 0. `-li ,I•, s F 1 r i .I. ilk .... 4 . ! I` • i WW �r r .oil LL 1. Iwwr' ° il Sunnrdak 51n4: `•cans' i 4 • .!l< .,. lormandy 1? iO 1 ` °`" R aillw Park F Z rst.o •.;.� r • f: 1 f: 1... • •!uM4 Q % $ 1'.. r •erm.a..c e eri,.,. 1 I n. •e.IM w:. = 7 y i.. D . r Des Moines j 2 Ms* Pr: • Rent N,. 6•e�•.. Ma w 1•n 'ourrty Ro. Woodmont Beach Loll I I.3 Rtdondo I T. •. Tnomas Browns Pt 13 .o. • .r I,T. Aubu I.... 1.1�4•w / ... Co•,.ewr w.wt Boy Minon 5 Figure 1 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP SOUTHCENTE 0 z 0 0 w 0 CENTRAC Associates LEGEND Estimated Daily Traffic Volume (2-Way AWDT -1984) Traffic Signals Stop Signs TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS to 5 .lanes to acc odate left -turn movemen at intersections with north -south arterials such as Andover Park E and SR -181. Traffic control in the vicinity of the project is provided by traffic signals at major in.tersections,.l1ncluding Strander/SR- 181, Strander /Andover Park E and SR -181 /I -405 NB ramps nearest to the site. Stop sign control is utilized at all other nearby intersections, with the . exception being the SR- 181/S. 158th St. intersection. Since 158th Street is the main entrance to Longacres Race Track, the Washington State Patrol assigns officers to control traffic between I -405 and 158th during the racing season (April to October) from 2:00 - 3:00 PM Wednesday through Friday and from 11:00 AM to Noon on Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Speed limits in the immediate area are posted as 40 mph for SR -181 and 30 mph for Strander. The existing geometric configuration of SR -181 and Strander Blvd. in the vicinity of the proposed site development are shown in Figure 3. South of Strander, SR -181 is a 4 -lane section with a left -turn pocket at the intersection approach. 'Between Strander and 158th, SR -181 has four lanes plus a two- waylleft -turn lane except where left -turn acceleration lanes* are provided at the Strander and 158th intersections. Strander Blvd. widens from four to five lanes east of the Green River bridge to accommodate a two -way left -turn lane. At the SR -181 intersection, single left and right -turn lanes are separated from two westbound lanes by a raised traffic island. This intersection is controlled by a fully - actuated, 3 -phase traffic signal. Current average weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) on roadways in the vicinity of the proposed development are shown on Figure 2. Estimated daily volumes vary from nearly 50,000 on I -405 to 1,100 on S. 158th (6,000 during racing season) and are derived from 1981 counts by Washington State Department of Transportation, City of Tukwila records and recent intersection turning movement counts by Centrac (see Appendix). Existing AWDT volumes on SR- .181 directly adjacent to the site are approximately 26,000 vehicles per day, with 15,400 on Strander Blvd. just west of SR- 181. Based on recent turning movement counts at the SR- 181 /Strander intersection, the most critical peak -hour of traffic occurs during the PM commute peak between 3:45 and 4:45 PM. The AM peak hour (7:15 - 8:15 AM) and the noon peak hour (11,:30 AM - 12:30 PM) represent about 80% and 85% of PM peak -hour conditions at this intersection adjacent to the project site. During the PM peak -hour, which represents about 12 percent of average weekday traffic volumes, the dominant traffic flows are eastbound on Strander and northbound on SR -181 toward I -405 (with 60 %/40% *The "refuge lane" was required to permit safe left-turn movement from Strander to SR -181 northbound prior to full'signalization in 1981 by WSDOT. EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 3 EXISTING GEOMETRICS AND RIGHT-OF--WAY i ' directional spl iAn hourly traffic volumes). The highest hest l evel s • of congestion and longest delays to motorists will generally,. occur during the PM peak period. A* measure of the relative congestion levels can be made by comparing the level. -of- service (LOS) at intersections.' Level -of- service relates traffic velume demand to capacity and can range from LOS ' "A " - (;free -flow conditions) to LOS "F" (forced -flow or jammed conditions), with LOS "E" being capacity .conditions. LOS "D" (tolerable delays at intersections) is generally considered adequate for urban intersections. The estimated PM peak -hour LOS for 1984 at the four most critical intersections, using "Transportation Research Board's Circular 212 ", are summarized in Table 1 below. All of the intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS, although the SR- 181 /Strander intersection is near capacity conditions (LOS D /E). Intersection TABLE 1 • LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS (1984) PM Peak Hour Level of Service Comments SR -181 @ Strander Blvd. D/E (C) Signalized (LOS improves to "C" if dual IT lanes provided on Strander approach). SR -181 @ S. 158th St. A (D /E) Stop ',sign control on 158th (LOS at or near capac,i ty during Longa;cres racing season) . SR -181 @ I -405 NB Ramps C ._ Signalized. Strander @ Andover Park E. C Signalized. During 1980 and 1981, accidents were not a serious problem at any of the four intersections. The highest accident; location is the SR-181/Strander intersection, which has experienced 4 accidents per year for the 1980 -81 period. This intersection was signalized during 1981 and had experienced 6 -9 accidents per year (1977 -79) prior to signalization. All other intersections in the vicinity have experienced less than 4 accidents during either calendar year. Metro Transit provides peak -hour transit servicel along SR -181, including Route 154 (Seattle - Auburn) and Routes 158/159 (Seattle -Kent East Hill). These routes connect to Seattle via • Interurban Avenue north of I -405) and I -5. There are several other routes which provide express and local service into the Southcenter area via Southcenter Blvd. and Tukwila Pkwy., which are beyond a reasonable walking distance for patrons or residents of the proposed development•... SOUTHCENTER BlVO. 4 TUKWILA PKWY. EVANS -BLACK DR. 0 •Z G) n s m 0 1835 51 S 151 1585 48% 189 755 21% 82 825 25% 99 850. 18% 551 790 24% 98 1010 28% 85 890 27% 108 900 1 25%1 78 1090 1 33%1130 1 1 N CENTRAC Associates. 'LEGEND % OF TOTAL TRAFFIC AWDT 4'. P.M. PEAK SCENARIO A SCENARIO B 900 25% 76 1090 33% 130 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 4 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. tp . > _. „.s. iv.,, 23 -4 co / O Z v • R+ sA A 8,500 3540 0,300 . 3690 D,100 3730 .•80 S311QYONO1 26,700 28.500 8.300 26,700 1 3470 27,400 1 3525 27,500 1 3565 1 5,700 16,500 16.500 1810 1870 15.700 1810 16,600 1885 16.800 1940 24,800 2970 25.800 3055 25,700 3075 CENTRAC Associates • 4. • 1 • TRAFFIC IMPACT A N STUDY LEGEND AWDT P.M. PEAK 15,700 .1810 16,600 1885 16,8001 1940 W/O PROJECT W/ SCENARIO A W/ SCENARIO 8 Figure. 5 PROJECTED 1985 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED PROJECT TABLE 2 .LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE CONDITIONS (1985) W /PROJECT PM Peak Hour Level -of- Service (V /C Ratio) W /Existing Geometrics W / Proposed St. InpVts. Intersection (See Note) SR -181 @ Strander E (0.94) ' B (0.63) Blvd. SR -181 @ North B (0.64) B (0.64) Driveway Strander Blvd. @ Sowti. A (0.33) A (0.33) Driveway SR -181 @ S. 158th St. C* C* SR -181 @ 1-405 NB C* C* Ramps Strander @ Andover C (0.72) C (0'.72) Park E. * LOS estimates based on prior traffic studies (Tukwila Hotel, EIS and Tukwila Bend Traffic Impact Study). NOTE: Proposed Street /Driveway Improvements(Assumed) 1. Add Southbound Right -Turn Lane from North Driveway. to Strander 2. Provide Dual Left -Turn Lanes on Strander Approach to SR -181 3. South Driveway on Strander would align'with Steak & Ale Driveway and include one Exit lane & one Entry lane. 4. North Driveway on SR -181 would be located 80' north of Andy's South Driveway and include two Exit lanes and one Entry lane. • . 1. GOWLA G • Engineers • Ar ect$ • Planners PROJECT • TW 'ILA R4 TPI(..- DfVELOPIPII SUBJECT EXI3TIOG IoW. 4- G£O Her -, ics o J . . �r �JA1t. CHECKED: DATE JOB NO _Q + PPA P 6 s7f i /fiu.esr :PI Phi ✓b+) cAr# i gF,A1t_ I (IS,?ae191 1 Auvss. 44 It eroca Tk s 'r Privy., 1 ids • r Ravi 8rdckls ■ P i 5; ...tl� ht. *A.- 4 r'Y' J.y s. Wej a•:s►#— ` -w� Liw�1 7.-3' (sc." 2.5) b-e-4-%-k Nw idL sD z�--) nw EVST. 124\AI DO I!2) T stir 1 r,. Inv / ASR . cr.40 STJ NP STE ►c I ,c: tfsr T • 1,,_ 80' T_3 I1,Q +o Au.,,--j Lc.Ci-- T....,, 4 it PROJECT Engineers • Architects • Planners SUBJECT PM Pic" 744' W'G' CHECKED: DATE •JOBNO. Q 1 / � � ' - ► � + ✓ r l � S 1 t . • .n Lot a& P ¢r Exis411 • 44( Mj/$c••o•+. 44o Sys.•.,.;. B 0 • ._ 33s 64 4 O i .o -,, 0.--:.%....„ 72- 7-4- 37 5'00 0 . 52.0 53 lob 655 _ _je 6 C 0 logo 51P,4iJDV- WM. 425 1 0130 443 le8o 440 S+✓Nko ® — SDI D.•7: °Z 4424-.11-13) = 581 ?L- i EiE■+Lc.t vic= Igo = 0 -S- AO 2 67.14-(4-44-. c_ : "Zoo //d oo = 6.31 0 SGT A(Lt i a —s .), . tL ACV= ',1X +i31rk)- v 7-f ; 4 -? 51A 0.31- /} to 10 910' 935- 9to «Its 20 60 I' l ZD 63 2045 £ u = + (6L+2.4) = III 9 yet. 6F44 1<..e. V% : I t 19/1900 = o.‘ 2 k v %L :. 1°q%900 = 0- 6 I /3 E,Gv _ 2° —L.ys— �- ( -31) 7L 2 F),;44-4.-,ti ,, if,. Q3S�s -EQ.) _ -- — +270 4 Gco = 1L52 Ems Ge+._-+ %- = I C st r o - �c�-2 w v _ jL s - YaS14 lS B f:T(s..�-b �L - i 400 • - _ ii" - a?? `'! %134 Did (. i �t: _ /GSP- CG6oi3C$J 1 g - 0.74 1- 4-211;3 4-3cs 1-122-0, &Li 3� iv: = n F9 )) S J t >a 13 — St-181 40 + sss Ea/ = .z duo 4440 =Il %CA • ILtB 1*o -- 6.94- "%58 Rq- [.�.� -• ��c = CcS2- 5 ) =1goo = 0.71 %134 Del ur-• %/4_ = (j65p -tto 4.34=1810 =0.78 c P't$ LIrrb?*17Vc= 4i -1- 290 +3ES =�$ 0 0_I_'. CEx;s4N- '✓%c I►44 -0I C-RAJes M 9�a¢ CHECKED .DATE BY • T Cf DSod m,184- •RVJcc -r _T- U1wrG4_ DEVAIttl air .:Joe tic,. 8404 c lizac • INTER5ECT10N w• VA Lc.EY RD. (s1Z-181) (� 5771-A rJ DE4 BLVD. (roc. No. 1 • IWDICATE NORTH WITH ARRow CD _1 I1 • 3% row %D rlaudialca . Tore. Englneera • Architects • Planners 1329 FORM "TM - TURNING MOVEMENT bIAGRAM wtasiL ' PM PEAK w/o PRo 3 TIME-. PERIOD DAY 4 DATE THL'RS.� Y26/84- 57IA-tJ Dfk 3: 46-- 4-:46-- PM, v 0 rn tcris j 14-06 PED. L 1715 1. (ti• busts), TIME PERIoci PM PEA-1; w/ PR.oj- A4DA = FoC WO RsScFrJ T AeC-AS o E c ) ) STVA JDFat ' 38 � 66I o L 1 1374 Y 2077 tit 14-91 - - . . • "l:l��_ PRoJc- -c-r TUKW 1 LA_ DEV ELOPMENT CHECI(E.D .DATE ;.J08 4• •._'j-_.: ' j • lay _T. G 55OJ Y .0194.- -f T Engineers • Architects • Planners IT RS EC T ION DOES fiNcies ALLEY R. (sit-nu).- - - -- - IttAKIDak BLVD. No. 1 V LATE NORTH TH ARROW 113D31 .. J i TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM wtimit. 9 �4M pEA K TIME PERIOD ,7-75-- 8.: /S 14m DAY 4 DATE MO4.) 1/20/e¢ • 78 ICI t31 }-1 C 1 594-1 PEI). 1279 co m co 1 9151 N oot1 PE,41c TIME PERIOD JJ:39 Am— 12:3oPM DRY DATE FRI.? 3,46/64- - - -s kto Df4e_ 24-4- r 3400 r� I • I I I r eo LiJ tO 1 1241) 2139) 3 (4-921 'a: cotes 984 CHECKED DATE BY • R 'DJ C-c-r _ -Joe No. ru�w►� ee.y gip Air ■ -8414= - - -- INTERSECTION W. VALLEY RD (s12-161)- @ PRoPo•ED D21VEwAY Loc . No. 3 11401CATE NORT11 WITH ARROW JNrEQSECrtoN 57T A IJ Df BLVD. PRo P o3 ED peNEWAY LoG. go. m1 (eli 2075 . 11444C14(.44 . %cc. Engineers • Architects • Planners FOR M iM : TURNING • MOVEMENT DIAGRAM M[MZIL PERtoD DAY 4 DATE, PM PEAK ff0(J2 Fog scc,,Qlo (woes r G4 sE_) NEW DRIVEwAV 37 74- r Li r- 1520 PED. 1 176 Ti1.SE PERIOD PM PEAK WW2 Fog- 5Cei.JARjo CE'l (wo !Zs r CASE) NEw DQIVEwAY DAY4DATE. 1101 r nners Aur 8Y: CHECKED: JOB NO. VI ol. •t� DATE AL4- DATE vM1C DATE sirg 7111:: T rrP4 Pf mar%} = lS 2-0Z Prt USE J RAIE P S Y Tgl P PITT = 4-0.7 'D LsAS; J2 ) ?YAP R4 ¢Z, p Gc�vDf _ ' ''`7�'i v j�_ �yT� 2 , J- . �/L PK ✓c+�+-� -- i3u uo -3 �� dF �S a Fr� 33 72-. pf 1 7C 7171 T • Ph 4) pig OV i pox) 0 o- J�! Z ;ap• :•1. }oo -7t d cN D(Li✓£ d 64 ) NSA, 2 K /•9' 2- x � Lr. � L3 &Jp rn °N1--� Do,' 41-/D; J919 "'1 pi ± OSE� H-76-1 or P"7 �z�- � �: vo - 6 -oo Ph •'N/A,-t_ vv wt-,,=s P c---b 3'. oc - q-, op Ph C-GL•rrlr • s'�� -i' Pr�g,� ti peivE_ �1 r—� 1 i1 1 g �� ' T) �� SS3 (/CI) l7O(9. ig- G C4 0) 9) }s7121,:rpc.,aie_, 7-. op /ad ft, psorr..-0 f2---0‘) - It 00 et) / 3'D 3 C.. 00 0 PI (2(5-00 Pr,') C- u)J T33. r37-) 12-t d o —1 oo Ph £ '/ >c) (3o o Commercial Design Associ. Inc, 4230 198th Street Southwest LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 (206) 771-2300 TO CITY OF TUKWlLA I-----,;"!:-1f-.:-1-.7-17,`.-- � �:/i�/�/ i/'.`/i�/ / /� '-�' '' | ` . ���•. �� ��A�� ' � ' , . , ` ' 6200 SOUTHCENTEQ BLVD. ^ T WA �A1A@ 'U�NlLA^ ``,. ^��"° WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached 0 Under separate cover via o Shop drawings O Copy of letter O Prints O Change order EUITE CAF Trzamarioirma DATE �/����b �^��"�` JOB NO. ATTENTION ..ENT KENT ""' T .ARK PARK ' ' II w • ^m 4 ■ — ^"m-` —^ '— —� OF $60,00 FOR ENVIRONMENTAI IMPACT the following items: O Plans. [X [HECK 0 Samples 0 Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION ' ' II w • ^m 4 ■ — ^"m-` —^ '— —� OF $60,00 FOR ENVIRONMENTAI IMPACT ' - STATEMENT REVIEW FEE ON T UKWl|A PARK. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: O For approval 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit copies for approval O For your use 0 Approved as noted 0 Submit copies for distribution -- As requested 0 Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints O For review and comment 0 O FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO PRODUCT 2404 //VEET5.1 Ire, Caton, Mass. 01471. SIGNED: a nenclosures are not as noted, kindly notify * ""*"" . d9 r °