Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-257-85 - CASTLE INNS - HAMPTON INN
HAMPTON INN 254 UNIT HOTEL AND RESTAURANT WEST OF WEST VALLEY HWY & S0. 158T" ST. EPIC 257 -85 WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal 254 unit hotel to be known as Hampton Inn and a restaurant Proponent Castle Inns Location of Proposal, including street address, if any west side of the West Valley Highway opposite S. 158th St. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 25 .7-85 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. [l There is no comment period for this DNS In This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by February 26, 1985 Responsible Ufficial Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date February 11, 1985 Signature ' , 0. You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City a 1, 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. fro Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE EPIC - 257 -84 Hampton Inn The following mitigating measures are attached to this determination: 1. Dedication and improvement of a right turn lane along West Valley Highway per requirements of the Public Works Department and Washington State Department of Transportation. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, consumation of an agreement to participate in installation of a traffic signal at S. 158th St. 3. Accomodation of the future potential extension of Tukwila Parkway across the northern portion of the property. 'CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM •C N EPIC 257-85 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: F-1 BLDG t ( PLNG � P.W. FIRE t ` POLICE tar& R P ROJECT A k tOL\ (N k3 - L M 17 r (or LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED 1[25-a5 STAFF COORDINATOR ' [C . 7. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1130185- RESPONSE RECEIVED 10 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 T-N .Z(o e4vs • • /t O C O/t2 Pr z_ Orh� / L"ct- fi7 / G ! si Lr �L. _ l .• wd� DATE /—` 3/-15-- COMMENTS PREPARED C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM 01/ ,N. EPIC 2.5 %--8J FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: n BLDG E] PLNG p: P.W. 4.4 FIRE POLICEP & R PROJECT ON 1t3k3 ...- 1k) . FILE NO. LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED (ZS 'a5 STAFF COORDINATOR '.,[C '. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY i k0185— RESPONSE RECEIVED 115118c 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 C VaaNI 0KAENTS) �.3 vAlpicr - 3 I•4o S i s SIA1 ti U t Tv t1)( P NM° nU ro it- i+0V is '�. $ PzAr P F1C-3 z. K.-#. IL 34 K 14o1- 31 - i5117b 'tou SP Lt 1Mo005_-? SCE /S U'4,? p. 11 • -ptL. p . L -Ne w► f-o �1, ��c n t�s r u� ��- sR- ^I 8I i s Tze) LW ( to �F • tN) M ■ 'LS o1'- L g -+ LCTI C]Ci Lr r1 \& X s (.0 f\ L 12- U 1R-II) [ 6 fL t(yeN r�� o� S R -1°2` �LL� u w(`s(4'N/1k, F-0(- - c TI-) Its c't c tdz rt FtiS Dt'VtauOIYltr\sr IUMIDO OFdt,bem s1vULD -ge sPtu -L oar Fo& L_bNC� nc.l1 5l11, ■(1Ssv 6L� w(i c, e) oA kL ` . Ii 4 "fF t_T 124 Lair 1"--u S i n 1/t1 D l7 L 01) . Is rnis L.XJ1(3)1\ 4e- . ?,a3 1-)itvoymtv\L 1wok, Avb Cinp Sint ,(c. c P oft-to w tt -LG6{ o L P U c /i"►w) L/ N 2. D(s/t om"f13)1'l� VLVvcd9(1. / /LTtc(Aty� °>rLv wSPur CI`iv) 1Z C U 1� 11r'Vl rt (LN (-- f)i .(,.� +1- (c-ei " k I a .00 /11_06. 4.- w 1(t --Nnt_ n6\ iD un7t T L,� C - D -t�Piv LA.o� 'too . Poov c0 `L�'t,.� k. s r o vNnuc.$ DATE 1 /3O/&ST COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 akp F-11\61- ° TareQu IGLIT -171414 1Z) j fonn,o -p►n -BUT 11 E. u Ic wi LFJ lP mic Lo 0-� -j 1)s ILL �r1 7 rs fSscd �•t�t I� FALL- 7?SCJ .st6,v c c e A.)/ )S SoLrrn D2i v x9--\/ — • a y' w (07 /if is 7vo /A-v -rte 4 71-71 k puftP _ jusTI F/ C 1 O ) FaL s 1\> PfZ 1S *1�1-/-LL/ S7kt &T • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN .I c 25 7 — 85 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: Q BLDG n PLNG 1 P.W. FIRE TIEVOLICE P & R PROJECT pd\4t1-0tJ (tit '-'r �'� r 1k) LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED (Z5 -85 STAFF COORDINATOR- ' (4 157. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1130185- . 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 l. ' TRWY -0 Mcom s� PAGE .TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 6 Traffic Control IS PROVIDED AT THE INTF.RSRCTTON nF S 158 Awn SP 181 13Y a>;un POLICE OFFICERS. INFORMATION FROM CAPTAIN .JAMES BURSAU, "RENTON POLICE DEPART- PROVIDES NO COVERAGE AT THIS INTERSECTION.' MY EXPERIENCE HAS BERN THAT TRAVETC FLAGGING IS CONDUCTED BY A MEMBER OF THE LONGACRES ATAFF AND NOT A COMMISSIONED POLICE OFFICER. 8 .TRADIONALLY WEEKEND TRAFFIC IN THE VICINITY OF LONGACRES. DURING HE RACING SEASON, IS AT .A.PEAK STARTING 1 HOUR PRIOR TO THE FIRST RACE AND ONCE AGAIN FROM THE LAST RACE UNTIL HOUR AFTER.THIS RACE CONCLUDES. WEEKEND CROWDS NORMALLY FAR OUTNUMBER WEEKDAY ATTENDEES AND TRAFFIC SPECIFIC TO THE INTERSEC- TION OF S 158 AND SR 181 IS.ALSO HEAVIEST DURING THIS .PERIOD. 21 TOP PARA ALLUDES TO OFFICERS CONDUCTING TRAFFIC CONTROL SHOULD A SIGNAL • LIGHT NOT BE PLACED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SR181 AND S 158 ST. QUESTION, WHO IS TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR THIS COVERAGE? 20 IF THE UPGRADING OF SR 181 AND S 158 ST COINCIDE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLANNED PROJECT THE REMOV AL OF THE REFUGE LANE SOUTH OF 158 WILL PRESENT NO PROBLEM. SHCTTT.T) THE ST(;NAT.T9.ATTfN NnT TAKE PT A(`P REF(1RR OR DURINC PROJECT CONSTRUCTION THE REMOVAL OF THIS LANE WILL SERIOUSLY HAMPER THE MOVEMENT OF WESTBOUND TRAFFIC EXITING 158 ST AND ATTFMPTTNn Tn ENTER THE cnnTwiloriNn TRAFFIC FLOW. 23 TO WIDEN SR 181 ON THE WEST SIDE FOR THE SHORT DISTANCE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE HAMPTON INN AND THENCE TAPER IT BACK INTO THE PRESENT @ SOUTHBOUND LANES AND ONCE AGAIN WIDEN THE WEST SIDE INFRONT OF THE BROCK INN WOULD NOT QNLY CkEATE THE CLASSICAL BOTTLENECK BUT WOULD INCREASE THE ACCIDENT POTENTIAL CONSIDERABLY. IF THIS IMPROVEMENT IS TO BE A PART OF THE PROJECT THE (CONTINUED) DATE 117 7p 4- • COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 HAMPTON INN - SUPPLEMENTAL INFO EPIC 257 -85 CONTINUED ADDITIONAL LANE SHOULD COMMENCE AT THE BASE OF THE NORTHBOUND 405 EXIT .AND CONTINUE SOUTH TO THE INTERSECTION WITH STRANDER BLVD. 26 SOUTH DRIVEWAY FROM PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE WARNING SIGNS DIRECTING MOTORISTS LEAVING THE PROPERTY THEY MAY "RIGHT TURN ONLY ". DURING DARK OR INCLEMENT WEATHER SOME DRIVERS PARTICULARLY THE ELDERLY OF SIGHT DEMINISHED MAY NOT SEE THE "C" CURBING IN THE CENTER OF SR181 AND ATTEMPT TO CROSS OVER AND ENTER THE NORTHBOUND FLOW OF TRAFFIC. ONCE AGAIN I WILL DRAW TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY PLANNERS THE INCREASED BURDEN PLACED UPON THE PUBLIC SAFETY PEOPLE A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS WILL ENTAIL. CALLS FOR SERVICE WILL INCREASE, HOW MUCH, NO ONE CAN PREDICT AT THIS TIME. BEST GUESS...MANPOWER AVAILABILITY AND RESPONSE TIME WILL BE IMPACTED MEASURABLY BY THE COMPLETION AND OCCUPATION OF THIS PROJECT AND THE NEARBY BROCK RESIDENCE. AS CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING IN SITE SECURITY. PJL CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM •CN EPIC 257-85 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: (1 BLDG 1 1 PLNG P.W. .54F IRE t ►POLICE tP & R PROJECT 1O 3 I k — 1k)k . LOCATION FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED i ZS ` S RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (305 5— STAFF COORDINATOR ' 4 h-'. 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 --v izcom -s �1� mare rCas. -.� DATE //2 A"'� COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • N EPIC 257 -85 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL/EVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: BLDG 1 PLNG P.W. FIRE tiLPOLICE 1P & R PROJECT p rok\ 1NN T- to . LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED (z5-S5 STAFF COORDINATOR FICX.. 157. 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 Cry E 15‘)1443 193C1- )AA �iis, FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 11'30185— RESPONSE RECEIVED • DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY Cy C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM 41,N EPIC 257-85 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: 1. BLDG PLNG P.W. FIRE tt POLICE ! lP & R PROJECT t'cvet ©N M ThL., LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED (k5-a5 STAFF COORDINATOR 1F-4,C. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1130185- 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 T-`aN UNAe.rvs "44,e tjAe,/, � a WILTS ,65) DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 • JohnsonBraund = - design group p.s., inc. architecture, engineering & planning consultants January 24, 1985 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Hampton Inn Our Project #84 -97 Environmental Checklist - EPIC 257 -85 Rick: This letter is responding to your letter to Mr. Dick Pringle on January 15, 1985, regarding additional information needed by your office to complete the City's review of the above reference Environmental Checklist. Following is the additional information for the six items requested: Item #1 - Transportation Study The updated comprehensive transportation study was prepared by Centrac Traffic Engineers and will be submitted under separate cover by Centrac. Item #2 - Water and Sewer Availability A. Sewer The proposed project lies within the present City of Tukwila planning and sewer service area as delineated in the comprehensive plan. Development scenarios for this site project retail development. The site lies within Basin Area #9 according to the comprehensive plan. Project development of this site and others north to the freeway (11 acres total) will result in an increased peak flow of .08 MGD. Service to this site will be provided by constructing approximately 500 LF of 8" gravity sewer main easterly under West Valley Highway to an existing line and manhole near the intersection of south 158th and Nelson Place. This construction may require boring under West Valley Highway. The existing 12 inch sewer line flows southerly to a 36" Metro line approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of South 158th and Nelson Place. A grease trap may be required at some point in the future where the City line and Metro line connect. An attachment to this letter depicts the site, the proposed sewer extension (Project #10) and the future grease trap (Project #11). No problems are noted in this service area. Architecture, Engineering & Planning Consultants Lawrence S. Braund, P.E. Thomas A. Johnson, AIA Greg L. Allwine, ARCH. 304 Main Avenue South, Suite 200 Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 271 -7200 (206 ) 623 -5732 Mr. Rick Beeler Hampton Inn B. Water • • -2- January 24, 1985 The site is depicted with adjacent water mains on an attachment to this letter. The closest available water main lies approximately 500 feet south of the site along West Valley Highway. An extension of this system will be required to serve the site for both domestic and fire flow requirements. Fire flows in this area exceed 4000 GPM. Pressure of this system is 145 psi. The comprehensive plan calls for a capital improvement project to extend a 12" water main northerly along West Valley Highway. No problem areas are noted for servicing this area. Item #3 - Mitigation Measures The owner takes exception to the following mitigating measures as proposed within the Environmental Impact Statement: A. Page 6 (d) 3: The square footage of landscaped area is as outlined on the proposed site plan. B. Page 10 (c) Fire, 1: The hotel will not be a high rise building but it will conform to the City's Fire Protection Ordinance. C. Page 11 (c) Park and Recreation, 1: The project will not provide a swimming pool. D. Page 9, Movement and Circulation of People and Goods: A pedestrian bridge from the site across the river to the Christensen Trail will not be required. Item #4 - Vehicular and Pedestrian Access This item is discussed in Items 1 and 5. Item #5 - Potential Impact on Police Services A. Transportation This is a heavily travelled area during morning and evening rush hours. The traffic volumes and potential problems become more severe during Longacres horse racing season. Because of the projects close proximity to Longacres, additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic will logically be generated between this area and the track. Since the publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Hotel, dated June 1982, the Washington State Patrol no longer provides traffic control in this area during Longacres racing season. Mr. Rick Beeler Hampton Inn • • -3- January 24, 1985 Mitigating Measures Careful planning and engineering in response to a thorough traffic analysis of this area in an effort to prevent traffic situations which may endanger both life and property (see revised traffic study by Centrac). B. Security The close proximity of the proposed Hampton Inn to the Longacres race track will logically attract numerous "horseracing fan" tenants to the hotel during racing season. These people may become prime targets for potential robberies and assaults, especially in their travel between the track and the Inn as well as in the parking lot. Mitigating Measures The developer should work very closely with the City of Tukwila Police Department Crime Prevention Division, especially in the areas of proper landscape plant selection and location, placement and design of light fixtures, and the use of quality hardware devices. Item #6 - 1984 - 1989 Long Range Park and Open Space Plan A. Recreation Due to the essentially transient nature of the Hampton Inn guests, no recreational amenities will be provided as a part of the development. It is assumed that many of the guests will use the Longacres facility during the racing season (April - October). Passive use of the project river shoreline is expected, both as a visual amenity and for fishing. Mitigating Measures 1. The 1984 - 1989 Long Range Park and Open Space Plan proposes the development of a trail system along the east side of the Green River from I -405 to Strander Boulevard where it would then connect to Christensen Trail and Bicentennial Park on the opposite side. The developer and the City of Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department should work together in order to secure the easement or right -of- way necessary to develop the trail link. Agreements for the installation and maintenance of the trail and associated landscaping should be a part of the right -of -way or easement acquisition. 2. The Long Range Trail and Open Space Plan has also established City of Tukwila goals and policies relating to trails, river use, and recreation opportunities. The developer should recognize and consider these goals and policies when developing the river front areas. Mr. Rick Beeler Hampton Inn • • -4- January 24, 1985 I trust this information is sufficient for the City to complete it's Environmental Assessment. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, JO ON BRAUND Greg GA:smb cc: Dick Pringle Condel AIA c " CITY OF SEATTL 'Tiff ' REW NDEPENDENT ATER SYSTEM CITY OF SEATTLE • 19 08 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor January 15, 1985 Dick Pringle Castle Inns 1100 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Bellevue, WA 98008 RE: Hampton Inn Environmental Checklist - EPIC - 257 -85 Dear Dick: This letter is to follow up our discussion of January 15, 1985 regarding additional information needed to complete the City's review of the submitted environmental checklist. Overall, our request is to update, clarify or supplement the portions of the Tukwila Hotel environmental impact statement referenced in the checklist. Please submit the following as soon as possible: 1) Updated comprehensive transportation study of access and coordination of City and state ongoing and planned projects. Include updated average and peak hour traffic counts. Discuss the City's 6 -year Transportation Improvement Plan, 1985 budgeted plans, signalization at So. 158th St., state HOV lanes and SR 181 overlay projects and limited access. In addition, discuss the proposed full access point and right in and out access point. 2) Relate water and sewer availability to the City's Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans. 3) Clearly state which mitigation measures are proposed. 4) Discuss vehicular and pedestrian access to So. 158th St. and the Longacres Race Track season and patronage. 5) Include potential impact on police services. Dick Pringle January 15, 1985 Page Two Discuss the City's 1984 -1989 Long Range Park and Open Space Plan relative to a pedestrian easement and recreation facilities along the Green River. The City will request a pedestrian easement atop the required King County dike maintenance easement. We also discussed the timing of the Board of Architectural Review and submission of this information. If at 9:00 a.m. on January 25, 1985, we receive this information and if the information adequately addresses the impacts of the project so our review can be quickly completed, your proposal should be ready for review by the Board on February 14, 1985. This is subject to the Board's agreement at their January 24, 1985 meeting to holding a special meeting on February 14, 1985, instead of their normal meeting date of February 28, 1985. You indicated that the site plan was revised to locate the hotel back to the original site of the Tukwila Hotel. Accordingly, a new site plan and landscape plan must be submitted in the large and reduced formats with the aforementioned . environmental information. If you have any questions, please call me at 433 -1847. Respectful 1#e L. Ric Beeler Associate Planner cc: Planning Director LRB:ks CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; F-1 BLDG (1 PLNG j- P.W. PROJECT. 5161/ LOCATION Lill t /I) `U%, Vd tI w - DATE TRANSMITTED III cN '5-05 EPIC o?6—' O5 FILE DE-2-15- I-1 POLICE n P & R �,_l5- F`I:LE-NO. =Dg 85 1-7 -F,5- \ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR )6Ci 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 AdiST 57R3. ad .cd 0 e— /,0762, 6e v 44A2 ZL/ 00-4 DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY l_fIP.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVI' 'OU G FORM TO; ( j BLDG ]� ] y' G (IP.W. PROJECT. /`,/ FIRE CN F5-0-05 EPIC FILE DE-2-15- POLICE P &R LOCATION Wi' f `t%, V( 1 iW y `V' fo''', / FILE NO. Die";74fr DATE TRANSMITTED /-7 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /'g " O� STAFF COORDINATOR Aq! (/ /a/ 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 COMME'T DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 1!! • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT - B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description,of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site is virtually flat. c. What general types`of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, i�� specify them and note any prime farmland. See,DEIS, Appendix I. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. See DFIS, Appendix I. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 10,500 c.y. of imported fill will be required to raise the site above the flood elevation. The source of fill is not known at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. YPs. See DFIS, Pages 25. 26 and 27. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 36% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after Phase I construction. v , Evaluation for Agency Use.Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See DEIS, Page 26. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give .approximate quantities if known. See DFIS. Pages 30 thru 34. (With this proposal being approximately 1/2 the scale as the proposal for the EIS. the projected impact would be less.) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No taer c.-.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: See DEIS, Pages 30 -34, . 6,e_e- a4e( • 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. See DEIS. Page 35. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Mill the project require any work over, in, or adjacent, to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The proposed structure and parking will be within 200 feet of the Green River high water. mark. (See Sheet P -1. Alternate G0, ' #2.) In Alternate #1, Sheet P -la, only the park- ing will be within 200 feet of the Green River. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would" be affected.' Indicate the source offill material. N/A 4) .Mill the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. All property below elevation 25.8. See DEIS, Page 35. 0 -Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? - If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Maybe -- See DEIS, Pages 35 thru 39. • • • • • 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. See DEIS, Pages 35 thru 39. d. Proposed measures ito reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:. See DEIS. Pages 35 thru 39. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: See DEIS Page 41 and Appendix E. • deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass - - pasture - crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bul.lrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? See DEIS, Pages 40, 42, and Appendix E. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See attached landscape plan and DEIS. • Page 42. . Animals Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Circle any birds and animals . which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: See DEIS, Pages 43, 44, and Appendix F. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List. any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See DEIS. Pages 43. 44. 45. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. See DEIS, Pages 43, 44, 45. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, any: See DEIS, Pages 43, 44, 45. • i YL• =?ia� Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. • e. What is the - currenf .zoning - classification =of-- the - ----- -- - site? C -2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? C -2 9. c If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? See EIS, -Page 20(3 ) and Appendix D. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. See EIS, Pages 19 and 20 {3). • i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 200 guests in 148 rooms and 8 employees. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible.with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Arrhitertural Resign Review and compliance with the previous FIS and Shorelines Permit. .. ' . 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? None. b. Approximately how many units, - .If any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None. c. Proposed measures 'to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: • N/A 10. Aesthetics a. .What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The building is 34 feet to the roof deck and 44 feet to the top of the mansard roof. The principal exter- ior building material will be a "stucco" type finish using "Dry -Vit ". b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? See EIS,. Pages 76 thru 78. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Reduce building height from proposed 8 -story to a 4 -story structure. Evaluation for Agency Use Only i Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare , a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? • . • e e 11 • u 1 • e ••.11 ••. • • . . n lot lighting and automobiles, prima-r41y-duri-nii-the- evening hours. See DEIS, :Page 52.--- =_---- - - - - =- Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Possibly, since the site is currently vacant and no light or glare is generated from the site. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may ,�', " GsaT affect your proposal? None. 1,->emy d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot lighting could be limited so that no direct light spills off -site. See DEIS, Page 52: 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? See DEIS, Page 69. b. Would . the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Due to the transient nature of the hotel usage, no recreational amenities will be included in the proposal. • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local - preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. ••No b. Generally describe 'any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural • importance known to be on or next to the site. - See DEIS, Appendix C, Pages 15 and 16. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: See .DEIS, Appendix C, Pages 15 and 16. 14. Transportation .a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See DEIS, Pages 65 and 66, and Appendix A -- Traffic. Analysis. : Is the site currently served by-public transit? If . not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? See 14(a) above. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project would provide -156 - -parking spaces and eliminate none. —. Evaluation for Agency Use Only w t d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur'in -the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If . so, generally describe. See EIS, Page 66(e) . f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur._____Ihe vehicle trips per day would be substantially less than the amount described in the Traffic Analysis in Appendix A of the previous DEIS. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: See DEIS, Appendix A. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. See DEIS, Pages 69 & 69. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct . impacts on public services, if any. See DEIS, Pages 68 & 69. Evaluation for Agency Use Only '.i ' 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,• telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. See DEIS, Pages 73,•74 and 75. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the . project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See DEIS, Pages 73, 74:and.75. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of _my knowledge. I understand that the lead .agency is relying on them to make its decision.- s r fc 7%10 -, Signature: / Date Submitted: /8� Evaluation for Agency Use Only • i CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CN 1S-QUS EPIC o�'�7 5 Jr FILE dE-2- '5 TO; 0 BLDG J PLNG P.W. (i FIRE ICE El P & R PROJECT. 4.74 i LOCATION tj)/ t (, Vo .bj 1 Jwy `l�' 54 /51V- FILE .. NO. D -'8 cp DATE TRANSMITTED /-1-15 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /'9 "lJ.� STAFF COORDINATOR n (/ %Q/ 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 FLORA AND LIGHTING: While the EIS makes general'references in these two elements; the'proper selection of flora, placement and design of'lighting•standards and fixtures and. tha Aelerrion of quality physical hardware devices for the'building and the individual units are . critical components -of creating a secure environmental atmosphere. Maximum security and the preception of a secure"environment'by.tlie guest and''the* employee cannot .be achieved through the 'usage of ari'individual component but is rather, the result of a total. protection system. *?* *IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THE.BUILDER.WORK IN CLOSE HARMONY WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER. TRANSPORTATION Please review contents of original report from the Tukwila Police Department to • - - the DEIS Appendix 41.. I goute in part. Sub para. 7— Particular rare must—be taken to .Plan 'fill- ingress /egx4wPA r,�rP_ operty for both vehicles and pedestrians. This is a very heavily travelled area'at both morning and' evening rush hours_ The traffic prnhlPre i,arnmpa's 'rP durirg *ha Longacres racing season. Given. the close proximity 'of this complex.to the horse racing track it is'only logical to•assume there will be an'inrrease in hrith font and vehicle .traffic "between this area and the track. - Careful planning and quality engineering must be done to insure that we do not create'a traffic sitnatihn which will endanger both life and property. End'Qoute...Still very-true today. ■11 • • PUBLIC SERVICES...POLICE SEE ATTACHMENT COMMENTS PREPARED BY . POLICE Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN 85 -005 EPIC 257 -85 FILE DR -2 -85 PROJECT... .HAMPTON INN PUBLIC SERVICES...POLICE...CONTINUED The environmental checklist utilizes Information contained iri' original DEIS dated June 17, 1982 or-approximately 21 years old: As this document relates to police •services '(DEIS P 68 -69) the information is no longer valid. Firstly, the response time in the city of Tukwila 'as grown from two and three minutes to three and five minutes, the five being closer to the norm than the three. With each additional building venture this response time is'increased based upon the number of calls for 'service. The impact of this facility, along with that of'the'Brock Residence being built directly to the south, couid be substantial and possibly` warrant the addition of another officer on the'evening /graveyard shifts. Secondly, the .DEIS alludes to traffic control by the Washington State Patrol during those periods when the track is .in - operation. The State Patrol has provided not traffic control services in the area of Longacreas since the summer of'1982. Traffic control is presently conducted by civilian security personnel hired by Longacres. Question...Should one of these traffic control persons wave pedestrians° across the intersection while traffic is in motion and a person(s) "is injured, who is liable...Longacres the employer of the traffic control person, the City of Tukwila within whose jurisdiction this activity took place or even the Hotel for being so'situated and not providing a safe crossing. Thirdly, with the card rooms in the vicinity of'S 144 and the hotels starting to mushroom along Interurban, will we not be creating our own "STRIP " ? ?? CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO;. n BLDG n PLNG L"P.W. n FIRE 1 POLICE ri P & R PROJECT. 4#jA, LOCATION ())/ t 'l `ui, V A)1Wy 0 5, -85" DATE TRANSMITTED /-7-y- ,RESPONSE REQUESTED BY I4 "13 • CN EPIC ;?5-7-Y5- FILE ,2E-2- 'S STAFF COORDINATOR 11Jr,�i IJiO' 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 «LOOvon +4t�st4 \R v.s‘PD+Ct I S�UO' pcttr1� At Ct) 6 (1.4J 1146 ( t r°It1 11'� / :S'E O�i`t�_ t� E� �� `� R uT (-t c")N 6xIQ 'PL NI NTl I) Itiu V 1.V} fr) 14 PD k'1: A c r Pii . PriNto0 /0 AIL -1 I 1.6 C Q-u\ S n IN a.►..tVO n N NS c,u,s u I cl'V kJ L:..! C ri 8 LcN(L.TIP ?Nwv4r5 igUO '}n ; av ems `P►,�_ s 1(1•MYI ■ I �e . �.. t IM a n vt„, - tAVAI‘ s e i'\/IAA Lf Uri SOL1 , 00 k$ () 4rCki/ eve ... C is f P ?LnNs °,.19- FtA vo DATE �crci I i 4 iLINJ 1 LA (0);W: COMMENTS PREPARED BY . �' I f 9)(13QZ--- i er13 53TPTV iT4° C P.S. Form 11 FLO VJe Ltdc�ld ,Sz , -° S vo ¶\ u' u t CITY. OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM •CN 519Z6- EPIC OU -7 O.5- FILE QE -2- '5-- TO; n BLDG [n PLNG n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE f] P & R PROJECT. ,j ,0_, LOCATION WB /' ` o, a _ _ J Aituy 0 5, /5-3 ELL-E NO 'sae -a DATE TRANSMITTED /-145 '5 c.RESPONSE REQUESTED BY )415. STAFF COORDINATOR '4 Via/ �� �/ 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 X6-- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 • *ILA ;19 09 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Beeler, Associate Planner FROM: Don Williams, Director of Parkss& Recreation DATE: January 9, 1985 SUBJECT: Hampton Inn Environmental Checklist Form After review of the E.C.F. I have considerable concern about the original E.I.S. as referenced in this E.C. relating to the current permit applications. First, the developer should review the current 1984 -1989 Long Range Park and Open Space Plan. On pages 5 -4 and 5 -5 a trail is identi- fied to be located on the east side of the Green River between I -405 and Strander Blvd. (see map 5 -7) This is part of a river front trail system to be planned as developement occures along the shores of the river. Either city right -a -ways will or have been obtain or _ easements from private land owners will provide the location of the trail. The pedestrian /bicycle trails will be built and maintained either by the city or land owner, depending upon agreements. Along the shores of the Green River through the Hampton Inn Site an easement is requested from the owner for a future public trail. The desiredldocation is the top of the dike following the same legal description as the King County dike maintenance easement. This has . been done throughout the city. I formally request the owner provide the easement to the city for such a trail prior to permits being issued. My second concern involves the lack of recognition by the developer in either the 1982 E.I.S. or the current E.C.F. of the city's goals and policies as stated in the current Long Range and Open Space Plan about trails and facility linkage development. On pages 2 -1 through 2 -8 such goals and policies that the city has formally adopted relating to trails, river use and recreation opportunities are stated. I suggest the developer- considers these items when planning to develop the river front areas. • • Rick Beeler January 9, 1985 Page 2 Hampton Inn Environmental Checklist Form It is also suggested in the 1982 a pedestrian bridge be built over the Green River. It is recommended this not be included in any phase of this project. The proposal shows the developer recognizes the potential and desired recreation use of the river frontage, however our department would prefer to develop a river front trail. This section, along with sections to the north and south will help to develop the west side of the river. I have no additional comments on the proposal. The easement along the river is strongly requested. Renton 0 1 � 1 2000 ft. 10 ac. k-1/2 JIIIIIII ll 1111111111111111111111111111111I1111 l II II 11111 S -4 nton " ............... uuuu, lllaaWUluUUlllllulllpllODUm ,,,,,,,, CAREY /CALDWELL PARTNERSHIP Vashon , Wa. • 463-2196 Foster Golf Lin InlUnuullnuinllvp�•••••• ' 74 / %j�J� ,��i J,0 • I����■ Planning Area Boundary nnnnnun City Limits (1984) Legend Short Range projects: S -1 etc. Long Range projects: L -A etc. long range trail system: L -K Primary bicycle & pedestrian routes ...muss Other bicycle & ped. routes00000000000000 Existing parks 0 and schools ❑ See section 3. rnr—1 SHORT & LONG RANGE PROJECTS EF oil `Juk wo _Park and pen pEce P_EN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR TUKWILA HOTEL. PREPARED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF R.W. THORPE AND ASSOCIATES Prepared in Compliance with The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Chapter 43.21c, Revised Code of Washington, as amended SEPA Guidelines, Effective January 16, 1976 -Chapter 197 -10, Washington Administration Code, as revised City of Tukwila Ordinance Number 1211 • 69 • quarters of a m i l e northwest of the subject site. The force currently consists of 27 commissioned officers. Emergency response time would average between two and three minutes. Present service level is considered adequate. During Longacres season, the Washington State Patrol provides local traffic control on West Valley Highway. There were seven reported accidents in the general vicinity in 1981. However, during the horse racing season, minor traffic accidents have been handled by the Washington State Patrol and not reported to Tukwila. 1m1± The proposed development could create adverse impacts on the service level to the rest of the City. The increase in tax revenue contributed by this development could help negate this impact. Lieutenant Patrick Phelan, Administrative Commander of the Tukwila Police Department expects a broad variety of police problems will occur due to the hotel. Problems which could occur are: car prowls, burglaries, and alcohol related problems. (Refer to Appendix H for correspondence with Lt. Patrick Phelan, Administrative Commander.) Mtttgattng Measures Tax revenues from the proposed development will help offset the cost of additional service. tlnavotdabte Adverse tmpacts Increased demand for police service. Cond i'ttons Several recreation facilities are in the vicinity of the site. Bicentennial Park is a one acre neighborhood park located 1/4 mile, south of the site on Green River and accessed by Strander Boulevard. The park has a sheltered picnic area and is acces- sible to the River for fishing. Tukwila Park is 1/3 mile north of 1 -405 on 65th Avenue South. This 6.5 acre neighborhood park has picnic grounds, tennis courts, children's play area, and restrooms. Fort Dent Park is the nearest regional park, located north of 1 -405 on Interurban Avenue. This 50 acre park, 2/3 mi le from the site, has facilities for field games, tennis, and track, and is equipped with restrooms. Longacres race track is visible from the site. Horse racing is seasonal, lasting from April to October. TA•ar w,vo.i• i r ko %4" /k ede . s. •�- : y= 7Q The Green River provides an important recreational feature adjacent to the site, both from the standpoint of a passive visual amenity, as well as for fishing. The City of Tukwila Park and Open Space Progr does not identif an •ark needs in the •eneral vicin (1976 -1981) su oa s or e ou cen er ne g or oo• n wh he site is located are as follows: . "Encourage shopper and employee use of Christensen Road." 2. "Encourage employers to provide some on -site recreational opportunity to employees." 3. "Encourage open areas in developments for the enjoyment of customers and employees." The Trails and River Park Concept of the Plan identifies either side of the Green River as a Riverfront Park. However, the Preliminary Park Plan for the section of River which the sub- ject site is on, does not show any park facilities on the east side of the River. di640' .t eS Project development may include a pedestrian hr 41666-4rom the hotel to Christensen Trail across the Green River. Additional demand could be expected on Christensen Trail if the bridge is constructed. Attendance is expected to i nnrease atnLongacres. Passive use of the pro i ect's shoreline is proposed. The area etw een he area con a n ng e p r ng o , re lane and dikes, maintenance road, and the shoreline is planned to be improved with the addition of groundcover, shrubs, and conif- erous and deciduous trees. Mttfivati•nII Measures 1. The protect will provide a swimming pool and j acuzz i for use by hotel guests. 2. Tax revenues from the proposed development will help offset the cost of additional service. Unavotdabte Adverse Impacts None. d. Mffif rl-s= The maintenance of existing public facilities is undertaken by the City's Street and Sewer Departments. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; LDG n PLNG PROJECT. 444A, I CN 0S -05 EPIC oZ57' OJr FILE dE-2 3 P.W. [] FIRE n POLICE n P & R �.�%� %l� `�%, i� (,(J y `f+' 5, /S(J -- rE�I�LE -NO.� ,�/�! -w x85- ) 415-- D /-7 -Y5 ..RESPONSE REQUESTED BY / -"Q RESPONSE RECEIVED LOCATION (J,-- J DATE TRANSMITTED COORDINATOR Oth 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 • \ EMS • Control No. 6.5-- oc .5 Epic File No. \rFc 2 u 1984 Fee 5100.00 Receipt No. CITY j r 1 Li ; Si :11— +• PLANNING vrP EiNVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: Castle Inns Hampton Inn 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Dick Pringle, 1100 West Lake SammamisR, Parkway, Bellevue, WA 98008; (206) 641 -5789 4. Date checklist prepared: December 28, 1984 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Phase I construc- and III - The construction of additional hotel rooms and a restaurant may happen at a future time, depending upon market conditions, etc. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. A Phase II expansion could.: result in the addition of approximately 100 hotel rooms with adjacent parking. The proponent may short plat and sell approx..1.5 acres adjacent to the West Valley .Highway .to develop as a restaurant. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related-to this ,proposal. A .Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared and issued in November 1982 for a 274 -room hotel complex on this site. In addition, a Shorelines Permit was issued for that same project. .s -.ared • R. . horse s - • " . 1. . • ss a -e 1- Hotel." Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. . Not known. • • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. See Page IV of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description,of the site (circle one): ..Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site is virtually flat. c. What general types'of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. See DEIS, Appendix I. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. See DEIS, Appendix I. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 10,500 c.y. of imported fill will be required to raise the site above the flood elevation. The source of fill is not known at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. See DEIS, Pages 25, 26 and 27. 9. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately.36% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after Phase I construction. - • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See DEIS, Page 26. 2.1 Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give Approximate quantities if known. See DEIS. Pages 30 thru 34. (With this proposal being approximately 1/2 the scale as the proposal for the EIS, the projected impact would be less.) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c.-.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: See DEIS, Pages 30 -34. . * Water a: Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal .streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what - stream or river it flows into. See DEIS, Page 35. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent, to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The proposed structure and parking will be within 200 feet of the Green River high water. mark. (See Sheet P -1. Alternate #2.) In Alternate #1, Sheet P -la, only the park- ing will be within 200 feet of the Green River. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlaflds and indicate the area of the site that would' be affected. Indicate the source offill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. All property below elevation 25.8. See DEIS, Page 35. 6) -Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Maybe' -- See DEIS, Pages 35 thru 39. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. See DEIS. Pages 38 & 39. 2)" Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any tfor example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See DEIS, Pages 35 and 36. Evaluation for • Agency Use Only • • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. See DEIS, Pages 35 thru 39. d. Proposed measures ; to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See DEIS, Pages 3.5 thru 39. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the See DEIS, Page 41 and Appendix E. site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, other types of vegetation • buttercup, bul.lrush, eelgrass, milfoil, other b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? See DEIS, Pages 40, 42, and Appendix E. c. list threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. • • Evaluation for • Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See attached landscape plan and DEIS. • Page 42. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: See DEIS, Pages 43, 44, and Appendix F. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List. any threatened or endangered species known to .be on or near the site. See DEIS, Pages 43. 44. 45. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. See DEIS, Pages 43, 44, 45. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, . if any: See DEIS, Pages 43, 44, 45. . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric or natural gas will-be-used as a. heating source. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if .any: Compliance with Washington State Energy Code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of. this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if.any: Evaluation for • Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Existing traffic along the West Valley Highway. See DEIS, Pages 46 thru 51. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created -by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. See DEIS. Page 7(f) and 46 thru 51. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: See DEIS. Page 7(f) and 46 thru 51. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently a vacant field and a C -2 Zone. Adjacent land uses are C -2 with a.single family residence located to the north of this project. See DEIS, Page 15(F). b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, - . describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. - None. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the- .curreni .zoning- classification =of =- the -- site? C -2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? C -2 c g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? See EIS, Page 20 (3) and Appendix D. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an . "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. See EIS, Pages 19 and 20 {3). i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 200 guests in 148 rooms and 8 employees. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible.with existing and projected land uses and -plans, if any: Architertural Design RPViPw and compliance with the previous EIS and Shorelines Permit - Evaluation for • Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units '.would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? None. b: Approximately how many units, If any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. .What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The building is 34 feet to the roof deck and 44 feet to the top of the mansard roof. The principal.exter- ior building material will be a "stucco" type finish using "Dry -Vit b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? See EIS, Pages 76 thru 78. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Reduce building height from proposed 8 -story to a 4 -story structure. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light would be emitted from hotel rooms. - lobby: parking lot lighting and automobiles, pr.imar4ly•duri -the -- evening hours. See DEIS, -:Page 52.-- - _ �-- b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Possibly, since the site is currently vacant and no light or glare is generated from the site. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None.. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot lighting could be limited so that no direct light spills off-site. See DEIS, Page 52. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? See DEIS, Page 69. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: QUe to the transient nature of the hotel usage, no recreational amenities will be included in the proposal. • Evaluation for • Agency Use Only ' 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. -No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known td be on or next to the site. See DEIS, Appendix C, Pages 15 and 16. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: See DEIS, Appendix C, Pages 15 and 16. 14. Transportation :a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See DEIS, Pages 65 and 66, and Appendix A -- Traffic Analysis. Is the site currently served by-public transit? If . not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? See 14(a) above. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project would provide-156-parking spaces and eliminate none. -15- d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use'(or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally descr -ibe. See EIS, Page 66(e). f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The vehicle trips per day would be substantially less than the amount described in the Traffic Analysis -in Appendix A of the previous DEIS.. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: See DEIS, Appendix A. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. See DEIS, Pages 69 & 69. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct . impacts on public services, if any. See DEIS, Pages 68 & 69. 'Evaluation for Agency Use Only } ' 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. See DEIS, Pages 73, 74 and 75. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vitinity which might be needed. See DEIS., Pages 73, 74: and .75. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.- s -' 2. 07 5: Signature: Date Submitted: Evaluation for Agency Use Only HAMPTON INN HOTEL Interior - Corridor Prototype 2024 21 20.1. 412,4 40411114.015. 0101 MOSS 14.091YILIVATIOIS U.S PROPOSffb IIAMPTON SOUS ST NV • moo luI • FUTURE EXPANSION L24 . TOP OF SANK Nor, • 000 0004 01 0206 04■010 00.00 rv•rsi^44 soISARY NICIIS WATER LW ASV.. 10.11 • • •••-•"—""n• GREEN RIVER PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN • 10 24 40 IV 00 00 NOM. • 007.0iTIC4•"1- p. ANO 0.0010.4Th21• r000404r100 4 6ritZT rol /04 ...v.m.sc....0"..e.to Try. • • - • • ■ _ • - • _ JohnsonBraund design group p.s.,Inc. architecture, engin CENTRAC ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON INN DEVELOPMENT Prepared For JOHNSON BRAUND DESIGN GROUP Submitted To CITY OF TUKWILA January 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Street /Highway System 3 Existing Traffic Conditions 6 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS - WITHOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 11 TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 12 Traffic Generation and Assignment 12 Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service 16 Safety and Parking Impacts (Signalization at North 20 Driveway, Proposed Access Driveways and Parking) TRAFFIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 23 Programmed Transp. Improvements (by Tukwila, WSDOT, etc.) 23 Proposed Street /Access Improvements (by Developer) 24 Other Recommended Improvements (by Others) 27 APPENDIX Peak -Hour Turning Movement Volume Summaries (1984 and 1986) Hour -by -Hour Volume Estimates at Longacres Entrance (SR -181 @ S. 158th) plus Signal Warrant Summary Trip Generation Calculations 28 FIGURES 1. Vicinity and Location Map 2 2. Site Plan 4 3. Existing Conditions 5 4. Existing Geometrics and Right -of -Way 7 5. Project Generated Traffic and Trip Distribution - 15 6. Projected 1986 Traffic Volumes With and Without Project 17 7. Proposed /Planned Street /Access Improvements 25 TABLES 1. Level -of- Service - Existing Conditions (1984) 10 2. Trip Generation Summary 14 3. Level -of- Service - Future Conditions (1986) with Project 19 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the traffic analysis by Centrac Associates for the proposed Hampton Inn 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. This traffic study is only intended to be an update analysis since other recent studies have been completed for similar development proposals at this site and another site 1/4 mile to the south. A Hilton Hotel was originally proposed for the subject site in 1982 but was never developed due to uncertain economic conditions. The traffic volume and access /safety impacts were analyzed and documented by the TRANSPO Group (Tukwila Hotel, March 1982) to supplement the DEIS prepared for this project. Centrac recently completed a traffic impact - analysis and report•for the Tukwila Retail Center and Brock Residence Inn development (July 1984) at the NW corner of SR -181 and Strander Blvd. This joint use project is -now -under construction; _with_f.ul.l.- _occupancy by 1986. - Traffic data and future (1986) volumes from these studies have been utilized for the Hampton Inn traffic analysis. As shown in Figure 1, the proposed development site i s located south of I -405 and-immediately west of the entrance-to Race Track. The site is bordered on the east by the West Valley Road (SR -181) and on the west and south by the Green River.- The Hampton Inn development consists of a 4 -story hotel complex with a total of 252 guest rooms and a quality restaurant with 8,000 square feet separate from the hotel building(s). Depending on future economic conditions, the hotel may be constructed in two phases, with 148 rooms for Phase I and an additional 104 rooms -1- of p uua S ri S • West ttsn.a • -. • Blakely Park rja ` • Port Blakely [ 3055 Cquti ST Pt. whin / r4 is 7t. War /\ *Staff • 0 Enetai •-.c NAVALL� rPpk • W911 an • B. South Beach merlins ' N Le. w •59I•OTO. • TLOATI•C 5R. met Bell LNAar o7bank ' k 'Bea Arts Pt. Manchester Colchester Mercer Island Seward Put Newport Shores Orchard Heights C' y Yukon 12. m • Colby South Colby Harper May Pi es Creek Williams Pt. .i Lincoln Park Southworh Hff —' "B;•cr PL ROXBURY soal N.o.e,r ormandy t Park Scad11 s, • 'aroma l twit ° 22, b II =J ? Angle Lake 5,200 51. 57 O., ar. cr. /07:54r 16TH 5 192ND ST. Normandy &anon Des Moines ° a Beach Robinson Pt. 5 176TH ST. Bo u Lk. 105TH ST 176TH �197.0 Pontiac, Lake •0T 'BRIE RD. 240 Clark Saltwater Siam Park merry Ray • Kent, *f�, 55,11 Cr, C8.P5.. 51 Woodmont Beach Redondo 01. Thomas Buenna elaide 5. 5 3121. ST. 7 5. 296TH ST. Lake noaott O7_,, Assoc Pa ST. 22HD SE 30175 Sl. _ SL 31218 I5.50, ST. Oman Rwe Lamm. Cem SE. 32015 Fort Nlsaualy Browns PL aFt Green rw.-r. 5. _. Commencement Bay S. 3.115 Tacoma 0_ a q' . C TO* an • 4` 3050 Si. Tacoma J, , t/ « Y r T�O Wolltchet �'tt O N. 21ST ST. ,y Cpl- TN 1 V N ,rfN = > finis. of _1 sT. I tNN'" ST. r < • p5�t ��dt ,` AY. Sound O` ,7 '1� v • 1 PI. Foadict 7illo. TL r o o ST. Algona 29TH 75T AV N. 3 Trout Lake 3R0 AT SW MARSHALL AV. Milton. AL •ovlT• CENTRAC Associates " TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 1 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP during Phase II construction. Primary access to the site would be provided via a full access driveway onto W. Valley Road opposite S. 158th Street (fourth leg of SR- 181/158th intersection). The preliminary site plan (see Figure 2) also includes a second access driveway.approximately 400 feet south of the main driveway. Traffic at this secondary exit /entrance would be restricted to right- turn -in and right- turn -out only. The proposed motor inn /restaurant development is scheduled for construction in the fall of 1985, with occupancy by June 1986 for Phase I units and by June 1988 for Phase II units. The site location is currently undeveloped although the existing zoning is C -2, regional retail, with the land use designated as commercial. Approximately 310 parking spaces would be provided on -site for Hampton Inn with 92 parking spaces also provided for the restaurant. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street /Highway System The existing street /highway system in the vicinity of the Hampton'_ Inn development is shown =i•n Figure 3.- Access to the site would- _ be provided primarily by the West Valley Road (SR- 181)_ =.via I -405 and a full interchange immediately to the north, with secondary access via Strander Blvd connecting -_the =site with =the greater Southcenter .commerc i al -- industrial di st-ri ct. -I- _40.5 - -i s a 4- lanei- limited access - freeway -and provides- access - to:Renton and ._t lie = _ _ -__= Eastside and connects with 1-5,-1-90 and SR -520 freeways:- -The--__ _. -_. West Valley Road provides access to the Green River Valley and - a 5 -lane roadway (2 lanes southbound and northbound plus a center two -way left -turn lane) except for 700 -foot section south of the site where only 4 lanes. Strander and Southcenter Blvds. are the primary east -west arterials connecting West Valley /Interurban to the City of Tukwila, Southcenter regional shopping center and 1 sapioossy OVWWN30 x1 2 '0 >0 Rio c 0 co (-3 N z v r Z TOP OF BANK II1HHIIIIHHIIIIL1IIIi PHASE ONE 4 STORIES 148 ROOMS "FT RESTAURANT }/ -8000 S.F r m ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE G R E E N R I V E R TOP OF BANK J :aa s389YDNOI ENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND Estimated Daily Traffic Volume (2 -Way AWDT 1984 -85) Traffic Signals Stop Signs Figure 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS l Andover Business Park. Strander Blvd. is a 4 -lane arterial, but widens to 5 lanes to accommodate left -turn movements 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 City of Renton assigns officers to manually control traffic on SR -181 between I -405 and 158th during the racing season (April to October) from approximately 2:00 - 4:00 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, 30 mph for Strander and 25 mph for S. 158th Street. The existing geometrics and channelization along SR -181 in the vicinity of the proposed site development are shown in Figure 4. Immediately south of S. 158th, SR -181 is a 4 -lane section except for the short left -turn acceleration pocket for westbound left turns from 158th. North= -of S. 158th, SR -181 - includes two lanes westbound and eastbound plus left= turn-lanes'at =all- signalized- intersections (I -405 NB ramps, I -405 SB ramps /Grady Way and Southcenter Boulevard).. - -- Existing Traffic Conditions Current average weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) on . roadways in the vicinity of the proposed development are shown on Figure 3. 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, prior traffic reports and recent qN 1 -405 NB On /Off Ramps 1 Existing Right —of —Way Limited Access Zone co --► 50' To Longacres r 1 Existing Right —of —Way id 4- 4-- Raised Island SR 181 W. VALLEY ROAD CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Approximate Scale:: 1'= 80' Figure 4 EXISTING GEOMETRICS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY intersection turning movement counts by Centrac. Existing AWDT volumes on SR -181 adjacent to the site are approximately 28,000 vehicles per day (31,000 with Longacres open), with 15,400 on Strander Blvd. just west of SR -181 and 12,200 using the I -405 NB on /off ramps. Based on recent turning movement counts at SR -181 /I -405 NB ramps and the SR- 181 /Strander intersections, 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. Weekday traffic volumes on SR -181 were found to be substantially higher than weekend day traffic volumes and thus weekday traffic has been analyzed to identify the impacts associated with this project. Furthermore, the combination of project generated traffic volumes and existing non - project volumes will be highest during the average weekday. See Appendix for existing AM, Noon and PM peak turning movement volumes. During the PM "street" peak -hour, which represents about 10 -12 percent of average weekday traffic .volumes in the vicinity of the site, the dominant- traffic -flows are eastbound on Strander and' " - -- -- northbound on SR -.18 -1 'toward °I - 405 -( with _65 % /35 %= directional in hourly traffic volumes)SR- 181 - presen tly -- carries _ - approximately 1,100 vehicles per -lane northbound.during the -PM -- peak and nearly 1,000 vehicles per-lane southbound during-the AM _ =- peak (effective capacity of a traffic lane-is .normally 1000:: *The "worst case" traffic conditions actually occur between 3:00_ and 4:00 PM on Wednesday through Friday when Longacres is-open " (April to October), just before the PM "street" peak hour. However, this special event "peak" is not representative of average weekday peak conditions which occurs between approximately 4:00 and 5:00 PM for both SR -181 and project site traffic. -8- vehicles per hour). The worst 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 intersections in urban areas such as Tukwila. The existing (1985) PM peak -hour LOS at the three most critical intersections, using "Transportation Research Board's Circular 212 ", are summarized in Table 1. All of the intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS except the SR- 181 /Strander intersection which is operating near capacity conditions (LOS D /E). 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._.A1.1-. -other intersections �i_n th.e- ._.__._- vicinity have experienced less than 4 acci=dents during.- either - -- calendar Metro Transit--provide-speak.-hour : trans. -i t- s.ervi ce :- along - =SR -1.81; _.__ -� ____ i n c l u d i n g Route 154-- (Seattl e= Auburn)= and Routes : 158f159,--,,,- (Seattle-Kent East = H i 1 -1 �) . These routes connect- to Seattle vi a - - 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. -9- Intersection TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS (1984) PM Peak Hour Level of Service Comments SR -181 @ Strander Blvd. D/E (C) SR -181 @ S. 158th St. Signalized (LOS improves to "C" if dual LT lanes provided on Strander approach). A (D /E) Stop sign control on 158th (LOS at or near capacity during Longacres racing season). SR -181 @ I -405 NB Ramps C Signalized. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS - WITHOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Peak -hour traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed hotel /restaurant development have increased quite dramatically compared with other volume trends in the Tukwila area. At the SR- 181 /Strander intersection, commuter peak volumes have increased approximately 20% during the AM peak and over 45% during the PM peak since 1981 (when counts taken by WSDOT prior to signalization). This amounts to a 6 -12% annual growth rate for peak -hour traffic the past 3 years, which far exceeds the 2.9 percent per year average growth rate for the Tukwila area as determined by Entranco Engineers during the Tukwila Micro -Model Study. Some possible explanations for the high growth rates for Strander and W. Valley Road include: Strander Blvd. and SR -181 are being used by many commuters as an alternate route to either I -405 or S. 180th Street, which both operate at or exceed capacity conditions during peak -hour periods; and, increased development on Southcenter Pkwy. and within the Andover industrial area (i.e. Doubletree II Hotel, Boeing Engineering Center, etc.) have generated significant volumes of "new traffic " -:.___ along the SR- 181 /Strander . access corridor. Since the West Valley Road (SR -181) and- .i-t.s intersection with Strander Blvd.=-presently-operates-at or- znear., _capacity : condi t -ion s =- - during peak -hour periods,- the SR -181 and Strander corridors cannot handle s-ignifica -ntly- more- tra:ffi -c_in the _near -- future without additional wi- dening of these -5 lane arterials •Tukwila Transportation Improvement P1a n-(:- T.F.P.) completed Entranco in 1979 projects an additional - southbound- -=and _ northbound__ -:4 lane will be required on SR-181 by 1990,- but with nb additional -- - - widening of Strander Blvd. being required (since Tukwila Pkwy. 1s- !to be extended east to SR -181 at S. 158th Street and would become alternate route to Strander). Future traffic growth along Strander is limited and along SR -181 is "restrained" until future widening to 7 lanes occurs. Thus, the average growth rate of 2.9 percent per year (from the micro -model study) was utilized to forecast daily and PM peak traffic volumes for 1986* (summarized on Figure 6 in the next section), assuming the Hampton Inn development is not built. Projected peak -hour levels -of- service at nearby intersections in 1986,,without the subject development being constructed, would be slightly worse than existing conditions (see Table 1), with an assumed 6% overall traffic growth rate. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Traffic Generation and Assignment Daily and peak -hour trips generated by the proposed Hampton Inn and quality restaurant were estimated separately but then combined since common driveways would provide access /egress to the joint -use development. Trip generation statistics assembled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, Trip Generation, 1982) indicate that daily traffic volumes generated by quality restaurants are-somewhat higher on Saturday, with= _ daily volumes for hotels /motor inns being significantly lower on Saturday, compared with projected traffic volumes-for an average:- weekday. The peak-hour---of travel- for--the proposed__restaurant -= typically occurs_ between-= 12:.00 and -1:00 PM (weekday);== except-W:on.= == - Saturday when the peak occurs- between 8:00 and 9:00 PM. The-"" - -- maximum peak period_ for Hampton Inn would °occur ei:t -her- between == == 4:00 -6:00 PM or 6 :00 -8 - :00 _ PM.. =Thus the -peak period primary traffic • generato.r=(-hotel) _.would overlap: -the "street" peak Om.SR= 181-: *Construction of the proposed hotel /restaurant development is projected for completion by Summer, 1986. The non - project traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 assume Longacres is open (April to October) and the extension of Tukwila Parkway east to SR -181 (at S. 158th) has not been constructed. Table 2 summarizes the daily and peak -hour vehicle trips generated by land use proposed for the Hampton Inn site. Even though the maximum peak -hour volume for a specific trip generator may exceed the "street peak" volumes by up to 25 %, the "worst case" conditions would still occur during the weekday "street" PM peak -hour (when non -site traffic is maximum) or between 4:00 - 5:00 PM. When fully constructed and assuming 100% occupancy for Phase I and Phase II hotel units, the proposed joint -use development woul.d generate approximately 2.,320 vehicular trips on an average weekday, with 170 of those trips occurring during the PM peak hour. In order to analyze the "worst case'" traffic impacts of the proposed development, it has been assumed that all trips to the complex will be "new auto trips " -- no vehicles currently using the adjacent roadway system* will use the proposed restaurant /hotel facilities and that no reduction to trip generation forecasts has been made for possible carpool and transit trips to /from the site. The daily and PM peak traffic generated by the restaurant and hotel were assigned to the proposed access driveways on W. Valley Road (SR -181) and then distributed to the adjacent street system using the trip distribution pattern shown. - -tn Figure =5. - - -- Approximately 65% would - access /egress the site via SR -181 north, with 35% using SR -181 south -or _Strander Blvd. The. City -of_ Tukwila's proposed extension of Tukwila Parkway east_to SR -181 at S. 158th Street -(shown- on-Figure -5) has not been -included- :f.-or assignment of site trips-since this new --connection - -is programmed- -: for completion by - 1990, = with -the = Hampton Inn to__be -f u11y - -_ - -- operational by-1986=88; -During the PM peak,- the- est-imated = directional split is 55 %-arrivals -and 45% departures-from-the--- --- proposed development. Most of the PM peak exiting vehicles were *Typically, 10 -15% of all trips generated by a new development will already be using the adjacent street system, traveling to another nearby destination. Trip Generator TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Projected Trips Generated AWDT (SAT) PM Peak (Street) Max Peak (Gen.) In Out In Out 1. Quality Rest. 599 794 30 19 61 22 (8,000 S.F.) 2. Hampton Inn Phase I 1011 779 35 36 41 42 (148 units) Phase II 1721 1327 59 61 70 72 (252 units) ' Phase I TOTALS 1610 (1573) 65 55 102 64 Phase II TOTALS 2320 (2121) 89 80 131 94 NOTES: 1. Peak hour for quality restuarants typically occurs between Noon and 1:00 PM except for Saturdways when the peak occurs between 8:00 and 9:00 PM. 2. Peak hour for..hotels occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 PM and 6 :00 and 8:00 PM. - -- 3. The evening peak hour on - -SR. -181 occurs -between_3:45__and_ - 5:00 PM. 170 10% 12. 240 )096 17 SOUTHCENTE 320 460 EVANS-BLACK DR. 560 35% 42 .810 : 35% 59 EVANS-BLACK DR. 560 . .. 42 1050 65W 78 )51,0 6596, 11Q, EVANS-BLACK DR. 560 ' 3596 42 . 810 35% , 59 BAKER BLVD. STRANDER BLVD. 560 CENTRAC Associates LEGEND ,96 OF TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATED AWDT j P.M. PEAK 1050 , , 65% 78 .151:0 .65% 110 Hotel -(Pfiaie• 1) Restaurant Hotel: (Phase. 11) a. Restaurant TRAFFIC IMPACT STU DY Figure 5 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION assigned to the full access (no,rth) driveway, although approximately two - thirds of the right -turn traffic would utilize . the proposed south driveway (limited to right turns in /out). Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of- Service The projected 2320 daily and 170 PM peak trips for the restaurant and hotel were combined with the projected 1986 non -site traffic to estimate 1986.daily and PM peak volumes for both hotel construction alternatives - -Phase I with 148 rooms and Phase II with 252 rooms, assuming full occupancy. These volumes are shown in Figure.6 for the impacted arterials, on an average weekday when Longacres race track is open. West Valley Road (SR -181) would carry approximately 37,000 vehicles per day (vpd) north of the site and 34,000 vpd south of the site. When Longacres is not open, daily volumes would be reduced by approximately 3,000 vpd on SR -181. Since the "effective daily capacity" of a 5 -lane roadway is approximately 30,000 vph, SR -181. would operate at capacity conditions (LOS E) during extended peak -hour periods. Strander Blvd. would handle over 17,000 vpd by 1986 between._.__ Andover Park E. and SR -181, and operate at tolerable level -of- service (LOS-_C or ---D) wi -th -the exis.ti-ng.4 -lane section. The:.._L -405 northbound ramps-would d handle nearly 16,0.00 vpd and S. --158th ,_ volumes would-- remain at.- approximately. 6,000 -vpd with-the- proposed -, project. It-should be pointed out that -the.proposed.development would at most - contribute :only,.2 -4 % =of these projected daily and peak -hour traffic-:volumes-on these arterials, :- adjacent =to project site -: =- �- The projected 1986.peak- hour-•volumes were analyzed at the four - -_ most critical intersections /driveways, using the level -of- service (LOS) methods described in .the Existing Conditions section. In order to estimate the traffic impacts of the proposed project during average weekday peak conditions, the 4:00-5:00 PM period (street peak) was analyzed with and without Longacres open for both Phase I and Phase II development of Hampton Inn. The 24200 2490 23990 2470 23500 2420 37510 4045• 37050 •4015 36000 3935 15810 1585 15560,' 1570 15000 1540. EVANS -BLACK DR. 6050 330 6030 325 6000 320 34310 '3915 34060 3900 33500 "3855 .•aO S3BQYDNO1 BAKER BLVD. 33210; 3780 32960:: 3760 32400.` 3720 STRANDER BLVD. 1,7270 ;.1970 17185 1965 17000 _. 1950 09 28540 3250 28375 ^3240 28000 :. `3210 CENTRAC Associates • N TRAFFIC IMPACT ST UDY AWDT LEGEND Figure 6 P.M. PEAK 9 W, Project (Ph- II) PROJECTED 1985 TRAFFIC VOLUMES W/.`Project;- 34310 39.15 34060 3900 33500 '3855 (Pha30 u? WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED PROJECT W° /O: Project" maximum peak hour during the horse racing season is 3:00 -4:00 PM, but this peak only occurs for about one -half of the year on only three weekdays (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday). Determining the traffic impacts and necessary mitigating measures for the Hampton Inn project for "special event" peak conditions is both difficult and unfair, since Longacres is the cause of the extreme peak congestion on SR -181 at S. 158th prior to the start of each racing day. Comparisons of 1986 "street" and "Longacres" PM peak -hour turning volume estimates at the SR- 181 /S. 158th intersection with and without Longacres open are included in the Appendix. Table 3 summarizes the projected 1986 level -of- service (LOS) during the critical PM peak period (4:00 to 5:00 PM) for both hotel development scenarios and with /without Longacres open. Without any improvements to SR -181 except a new fully- actuated signal* at SR- 181 /S. 158th and proposed driveways, the 4 critical intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better) except for the SR- 181 /Strander intersection. This intersection should improve to LOS C/D when the additional southbound lane on- SR-181 is constructed the length of the Brock Inn site in the next year or so. The full- access driveway at SR- 181 /-S. 158th - would operate_at.LOS-C. with the signal - control• -- during -the 4:00 = 5:00 PM peak period when Longacres-is open and at-LOS B when -- Longacres is- closed -. -- However, this signalized intersection cannot handle _pro jected _traffic_-- volumes -for the: Longacres inbound peak (LOS E for 3:00'= .4:00_ PM) _:unless- SR- 181 -_is widened -to >_ _ accommodate a _second southbound left-turn—lane: — -- *A new traffic signal is recommended at this location to permit safe exiting maneuvers from S. 158th and north driveway to Hampton Inn site, to provide safe access /egress for pedestrians and emergency vehicles, and to accommodate dual left -turn southbound on SR -181 (see discussion in next section of report). TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE CONDITIONS (1986) WITH PROJECT Intersection SR -181 @ I -405 NB Ramps PM Peak Hour (4:00 -5:00) Level of Servicel w /Existing w /Proposed Geometrics Street Improvements 000® O C D C D C D C SR -181 @ S . 158th St.2 C B C B (3:00. -4:00 PM) (E) (B) (E) (B) B • B C B (0) (8) (0) (B) SR -181 @ South Driveway C C C C B B B B SR -181 @ Strander Blvd. E E E E D C D OCase 1: Phase- I._Development -with Longacres Open (April -Oct.) 2 Case 2: Phase -:I:r Devel op.ment .without ..Longacres Open -(Oct.-April-) 3 Case 3: Phase - =L:I: Development. w ith - Longacres Open (April-Oct.) 0 Case 4: Phase,Il. Development without Longacres Open (Oct. - April) 1 PM peak hour conditions: for. 4:.00- 5. :00 PM (street peak) i-.n•-year 2 ---- — 1986 when Hampton Inn development is open.- Longacres peak- hour - == conditions (3:00 -4:00 PM) are not significantly impacted by the proposed project, i.e. the projected level -of- service would still be LOS E/F with or without the Hampton Inn project. 2 Assumes new signal at this location, with separate left and right turn lanes at north driveway, and no south driveway. Safety and Parking Impacts Signalization @ North Driveway (SR- 181 /S. 158th): As part of their traffic impact analysis for the Tukwila Hotel EIS (Hilton Hotel proposed at same site in 1982), the TRANSPO Group performed a signal warrant analysis for this intersection with and without Longacres open. Volume warrants for signalization were not satisfied for the minor road approaches (158th and north driveway), even with the proposed Hilton Hotel and Longacres feeding traffic through this intersection (see Appendix for volumes assumed and signal warrant calculations by TRANSPO). The SR -181 volumes have increased significantly since 1982, but projected crossing traffic at this location would be reduced since the Hampton Inn project would generate approximately 80% of the Hilton project plus Longacres has opened a new south exit (which has reduced exiting volumes on S. 158th). Despite the fact that projected volumes for the SR- 181 /S. 158th intersection in 1986 will not meet signal volume warrants, an actuated traffic signal is recommended at this location for the following reasons: 1) With approximately 1,000 vehicles_:per.-lane on SR-181-:in- the peak direction,- exiting traffic from Longacres 158th) or the Hampton Inn site will experience significant delays during peak periods in waiting-for----- adequate gaps in upstream traffic. Left-turn egress movements would -be., extremely_hazardous :without—, signalization since .an adequate gap .in. traffic directions would be required (existing - left- turn- refuge area south of 158th would be converted into a northbound left -turn lane to the Hampton Inn site). 2) The proposed hotel /restaurant development located directly west of the main entrance to Longacres could generate significant pedestrian traffic between the site and Longacres, especially from April to October. Without a signalized pedestrian crossing at this location, pedestrians would either cross on their own or wait for patrol officers to wave them across. This would be extremely hazardous with the potential for severe injuries and legal suits, as well as further complicate the manual control of this congested location by officers before and after race track events. 3) Emergency vehicle access and egress to and from the Hampton Inn site and S. 158th Street would be severely hampered without signalization. Response times would be longer with increased congestion plus the police and fire personnel would experience the same delays and hazards when leaving Longacres or the Hampton Inn site. 4 The heavy southbound left -turn volume from SR -181 onto S. 158th prior to Longacres events (700 -800 vehicles per hour) can be accommodated by providing a second left -turn lane. This channelization revision can be provided if SR- 181 _is widened on the south side (as- -_ proposed—See-Figure - 7) , - -but a dual left -turn movement._--- —.- cannot be safely-accommodated -without- -signal control - =: -; -- Proposed Access- Driveways: The-projected peak hour- _traff_icc = =� -_ -- . volumes to be- gener. ated_ by =_the : Hampton- Inn development can == be >_..; - -- accommodated= -via-a: s:ing1e;- ful l= access driveway =at the proposed.:-=7: SR- 181 /S. 158th °signalized -i nte rsecti on: -- As -shown-in Table-3;- -= the PM peak level -of -= service at this location-would be-desirable,--- (LOS- B or C) even if all traffic for the Phase II scenario were assigned to the north driveway. A single driveway is not desirable for the following reasons. 1 Traffic queuing at the single exit would at times block vehicles arriving and leaving the first parking bay. Aisles for north -south parking spines would be utilized for circulation for parked vehicles to /from the south half of the site, which would increase vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and potential accidents. 2) The north driveway will be the "focal point" for pedestrian access between the project site and Longacres. Concentration of all vehicular traffic inbound and outbound at this driveway is not desirable and could potentially result in severe accidents involving pedestrians. A second driveway at the south end of the site would permit site traffic destined southbound on SR -181 to make a right -turn without waiting for the signal. Southbound right turns destined for the hotel could also this driveway, which would improve internal circulation and reduce potential conflicts with - pedestrians at the north driveway. Parking Impacts:_- Parking- spaces for-__the.pr.oposed_--=-- restaurant/hotel . development - will _=be-provided on -site without - any..— parking required off -site or adjacent to bordering: arterials and roadways. Approximately 4 00 total parking spaces will be - -- -- provided - -90 for=the- restaurant and_3L0for Hampton projected parking _ overfl_ows__are anticipated during _ peak, perfiods,_ =:— although the-enforcement of parking by-;hotel and = restau rant = patrons only will be critical during Longacres- racing - season: °_ TRAFFIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Programmed Transportation Improvements (by Tukwila, WSDOT, etc.) The City of Tukwila has programmed several short -range and long - range transportation improvements, as part of its 6 -year Transportation Improvement Program (1985- 1990), that should help alleviate peak -hour congestion and improve traffic flows in the vicinity of the subject development. During 1985, the north approach of SR -181 at the Strander intersection will be widened to accommodate a right- turn -only lane and sidewalks the entire length of the Brock Residence Inn site (presently under construction). Tukwila has identified the widening of SR -181 from 5 to 7 lanes from I -405 to Strander as a long range (1987- 89) transportation need to handle projected traffic volumes for this State highway. Thus, providing an additional southbound lane for the entire length of the Hampton Inn site would accommodate the ultimate 7 -lane roadway section for SR -181. Other programmed transportation improvements that could impact traffic circulation at the proposed Hampton Inn development include: overlay, _ safety- and drai nage= improvements by WSDOT- on - _ SR-181 from_I- 405-to .Strander (Spring, 1.985); realignment of--: Southcenter Blvd,: =to-intersect with-Grady- Way-_and widening_of= the T -Line Bridge by WSDOT 'and City (1985 -86); extension_of Tukwila Pkwy..to connect =wi-th Si 158th Street at--.SR-18I- with a- new bridge crossing Green -River by-Tukwila-1( 1985- 90)- ,.which=:would_._: -. provide an alternate_= - east-west _ route = t-o-- Strander of Strander Blvd.,-(from Andover .Park W.: =to existing Green-River-J.;= : = bridge) from .4 to 5- lanes = -by Tukwila as part of connecting ---- -° - Strander to S.W. 27th Street in Renton to provide new east -west link south of Longacres (1987 -89); widening of S. 158th (Longacres Way) by Tukwila to 4 lanes (SR -181 to east city limits) plus improved pedestrian access (1985 -86); and, I -405 HOV lanes* added by WSDOT from Bellevue to Tukwila (1985 -87). Proposed Street /Access Improvements (by Developer) The following traffic control and access improvements, as summarized in Figure 7, will be provided by the developer during construction of the Hampton Inn development to mitigate the traffic and safety impacts of the proposed hotel /restaurant development: ° Provide new curb and gutter and 8' concrete sidewalk along the west side of SR -181 between the north property line and the south driveway, plus participate with the City of Tukwila and WSDOT in providing a new 12' southbound lane on SR -181. These street improvement should complete the west side of the ultimate 7 -lane urban roadway section for SR -181. The new 12' lane would function as a thru /right turn lane along the Hampton Inn site and then taper to - match the existing roadway beyond the south driveway. ° Participate in funding - of a new - f u l ly- actuated =s i gnal_:andh channel i zati on - improvements at - the_i:nters -ect -ion S. 158th and the north driveway.- Loop detection should be - - provided for -- left -turn movements - from- S_R 18 =1 as we as - -on- _ -_- S. 158th and Hampton _Inn driveway approache -s.- A=si ngl e= pedestrian crosswalk -- with =_signal ._ actuations`should -bey - 3 = - - -- provided across -SR -1-81 east of S. 158th .Street == ==The = - Hampton Inn development would contribute -2 -3% of daily_:.: *Per recent conversations with WSDOT, the proposed HOV lane improvements along the I -405 corridor would not affect the limited access zone along the west side of SR -181. The limited access zone for the east side of SR -181 may be extended south as part of these improvements by WSDOT. IN 1 --0 ti NEW OPTION LANE TO ACOM LONGACRES TRAFFIC ATE CHANNELIZATION REVISIONS �', ! -405. NB On /Off Ramps NOTES - 'an. NEW 12' SOUTHBOUND THRU LANE SEE NOTE 1 Existing Right -of -Way Limited Access Zone icD • !-50' PROPOSED FULL ACCESS DRIVEWAY FOR RESTAURANT AND HAMPTON INN 1.�_ SOLlD LINE. - _-.SHOWS LIMITS OF INITIAL WIDENING_ ON SR 181 , DASHED LINES _SHOW- ULTIMATE_PLAN_ WITH.__12' LANE _AND..8'- _SIDEWALK EXTENDED NORTH TO 1 -405 NB ON /OFF RAMPS.. 2. SR 181 WOULD BEGIN TAPERING FROM .THREE LANES TO TWO LANES _ SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED :. DRIVEWAY (APPROX. 320' TAPER LENGTH REQUIRED). CENTRAC, Associates 1 1 To Longacres FUTURE 4 LANE WIDENING OF S. 158TH BY CITY Existing Right -of -Way NEW FULLY - ACTUATED SIGNAL (84 CHANNELIZATION REVISIONS) As 4-- NEW LEFT TURN POCKET -�_ (Raised Island fr SR 181 W. VALLEY .RD, . t NEW 8 SIDEWALK 'v a1111111111 TIT STOP SIGN .PROPOSED LIMITED ACCESS DRIVEWAY 111111�II� 1IIIIIIIII IIV 1111111111111 E .NOTE 2 LEGEND NEW SIDEWALK NEW ROADWAY PAVING Approximate Scale: 1' 80' TRAFFIC -IMPACT- STUDY Figure T' . PROPOSED /PLANNED STREET /ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS f (AWDT) and peak -hour traffic volumes at this intersection, with S. 158th Street traffic representing 7 -8% of total projected traffic. • The North driveway onto SR -181 would provide full access and is 36' in width to accommodate two 12' exit lanes, with separation of left /thru and right- turning movements, and one 12' inbound lane. Channelization revisions to SR -181 are required to accommodate northbound left -turn vehicles (raised island removed to provide 150' left -turn lane. This driveway intersection will be controlled by a new traffic signal (critical left -turn egress movement improves from LOS E to LOS C). • The South driveway onto SR -181 provides partial access and is 24' in width to accommodate one exit and one entry lane (12' each). A single exit lane is adequate at this stop - controlled intersection which will permit right turn in /out movements only. Note: No signing is required to enforce limi.ted_access.at this driveway, since left turns- in/out are impossible with the existing raised island median on SR -181. o Standard turning radii (25' minimum) will be- provided- -in ._ order to safely accommodate vehicular traffic turning right i n /out at-both driveways._,-= • Approximately_400 parking spaces-will be provided which should adequately= handle the• vehicular_ -traffic} projected for-the joint hotel /restaurant developing during "peak" or worst case conditions. All parking stalls will be 90° and 2 -way circulation will be provided for all aisles and connections to driveways. ° The proposed site plan layout (shown in Figure 2) may need to be modified somewhat along the north perimeter of the site to accommodate the future extension of Tukwila Parkway to the SR- 181 /S. 158th intersection. This may require reorientation of the restaurant and parking layout so that the main driveway would connect to Tukwila Pkwy. instead of SR -181. Traffic access and internal circulation patterns would not be significantly different. Other Recommended Street Improvements (by Others) ° In order to mitigate traffic congestion between 1 -405 and S. 158th Street on SR -181 during the inbound peak prior to Longacres events, a second southbound left -turn lane is required to accommodate the 700 -800 turning vehicles per hour at the entrance intersection. Widening on the west side of SR -181 from the I -405 NB ramps intersection to S. 158th to provide an additional southbound lane would permit conversion of the existing inside through lane to a through/left_ lane .(new southbound through lane would match the proposed additional lane along the Hampton Inn site). This improvement in conjunction with_a new fully- actuated signal would permi:t..a dual left -turn movement plus through traffi:c_l anes during Longacr -es special events .:an d -- a single left- turn - -lane and three southbound through - lanes =- at all other. times. _ As shown in Figure -7, initial construction could include only taper-= - widening starting the left - turn - transition and =-.then.widening=_-to. the.ful1_ _ - - - == l ane later on.. __- =Since the _heavy__turni ng- .-vo1 ume =that. — - requires add- i- t:i.onal left -turn _capaci -t -y - -i s being generated -:: by Longacres and other properties east of SR -181, the costs of this improvement should be borne by these . property owners. o In conjunction with the above widening /channelization improvement, S. 158th Street needs to be widened at the SR -181 intersection'to accommodate the proposed dual left -turn movement. The City of Tukwila has programmed a design study for 1985 to examine the widening of Longacres Way (S. 158th) to 4 lanes from SR -181 to east city limits as well as improving pedestrian access. o The existing left -turn channelization on SR -181 between and S. 158th could be revised to provide additional left - turn storage capacity for the existing single southbound left -turn lane to Longacres. The existing "C" curb transition length exceeds WSDOT design standards for left -turn channelization and an additional 100 -125 feet of storage could be provided at minimal cost (see Figure 7). This channelization revision could be made during construction of proposed overlay /safety improvements for SR -181 (scheduled by WSDOT for April 1985). o The new traffic signal at the SR- 181 /S. 158th intersection should be interconnected with the adjacent signal to the • north (at I- 405-NB ramps) to provide progression of -SR -181- - traffic through both. intersections. -__-. APPENDIX Engineers • • Architects • • Planners J /64,o l3ur FORM rM -4A TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM NE( zIL 9/To TIME PERIOD S:46 4:45 PM DAY DATE ?4-I to . 1/ZC• / r ZO(O Z. L -- TIME PERIOD 3:4-6 - - 45 pm DAY DATE l-1U2 . V /-7 /SS 12giq - - - -- h --�-+ v INDICATE' N wrrH ARROW Engineers •Architects • Planners 14- Gfo Du5E5 t)G1cS 726 O V) F 594 1303 Ntjj 19415-i J PED. L • J 112.79 CO m 915 SHEET FORM iM- TURNING:. • MaVEME'47-- . DIAGRAM NEwZIL 9/-M M PEAK TiuE PERtoD 7 " /s 8: /S Arm DAY 'DATE.'. MOAI.) 1/30/84. STS? -NO 79 4. 8 %. r 4 7 8 � _L; -mug" Z o.. .T7,u cK N 001J. PEA K TIME. PERtofl 11:3 -e AM_ 12 :30PN1 DAY DATE , FRI.) 3%6/84- - S112,}N.D 1 244 Ni. 360 �° rL j. f 1.241( .i I I58 • CO to ComPILED DATE BY CHECK ,1:1 DATE. 13Y 1-7-3-45 N TERSEcTIoN 5Go 12,A35- Vou)t,w...5 I Noi cATE NoRTH WITH A RROW LQCRT SR B $. .1.25HA S4-1 - PRoJec-r -Joe No.. esclitetz 4utaciaie4.1ge. Engineers • Architects • Planners _ - J 194-o • SHEET FORM "TM -414 TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM NEtZiL /7O 3:0o —4:oo TIME PERIOD PM rPEA14- Y DAT 'CI. /07S PE33. - L: r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L_J t k , Lot4Aws PEleidc- ei- 60 7-Stoo TIME PERIOD F1 'Pkhkg- Mig(C, DAY DATE; /54:5 VI'VrX k 1)6M{ COMPILED -DATE- - BY CHECKED -DATE BY -- - -- 14-3-85 • Locn-naN P ( o.J E C-r J0t3 No.. 52_1$1 dr S- .I5 4- e.c4uto P.27_9 f_-1 -- riddociztea. I NTERSECTIoN &Co 12)4.SE Voait -,I s 133o Engineers • Architects • Planners TIME PERIoD DAY 'r DATE: L a O in L' 1 1 1 1 , 1 L. J •1. 13 0 SHEET L- OF FORM TM -4A TURNING • MOVEMENT DIAGRAM NENZIL t."1 Fee, K Iclg(o k�IJC-- A &fl'�S'� PrA1 L " r- PET). . L TIME -- PER 10D DAY DATE 70 +: 00 . - S= o o (GiScv• INDICATE NORTH WITPj ARROW eakrac ,4o4ouatea. 9KC. - -•• -- - Engineers • Architects • Planners . F0.- d, -T A• -4 F. TUNING M0vEMEN T DIAGRAM NEt7tL .9 'to 4 =00 —5 %o0 TIME PERIOD Ft-f CFA IC- DAY 4 DATE l 8G Icl IS ‘4I-1 III 1 - - - -J 2-333 t41 w) jilt") X70 w /o1nvMT�s L J = I I55 i- 130+3w-7- i 34-(o v.)/ T ►✓i prLV M-r' s = (a5 +30-76 6 TIME PERIOD DAY 4 DATE _ ' � � I r ODl �S MST �' q-t.t. t T124NPPI C, AT SIN PuE__ t.l N Q(Z114 D vet,40:. r -1 t— - L.__- - -J 4:00 --S ;oo f?ag. I g4,, w/o -GYMPVM71S: Gv_` -1- 155¢-130+52 +Z. 13(02 W� iM ?vr.n -r S Lam/ a I (5S+ ls5 +S2 +ZS A-ss U1mES Au. sot Tf 4 pp C, �C- E10 Nom D2t V rz/0"f r -+ - - - - -J W/o iM1'VMT Y-CA/ = 1136 4- 3a d" 3C.o +7. INl 2t`1 r? I T`S .1135 r 304-36, {-Lc 1224' r� +:00-5'.00 fM re4.I(- 19 136v. o/o S►•/It'1Ir -n'r'S i1 31+524-7.47 123 t4J/ zMP4NMS 135 +314 -sz +z° = 1z-3Y, . TIM w . y y : /5-E5 I-4. 4.0fr ,sitfEL 40)../c21 sar T Hezuisib EicL,—,L.3 to wci ... 14 0 ' .1 Prfs■ z . . 70 100 ....... ... • • • • 7 ' -t t--• • - — -5 : • "i • 't.t."0! it* I ; , !_t_t I._ .1 .. ' .to ... .. : . . . . . L. 1!1:1‘■ 4 l'Art• , t--: - - • • <- - • --f t , I 1- -1- I- • • • s • • • •5 L e ' • , • 40 • • • . : . --t- • • WIV1 : . .4- .1 AIVI Pfb . . =WI* IMRE IIR ERNI sr. •••• 1 1 . 11 . Ar,;•■ 2.1 i'va44 : : . ... . . . . ; )2.:1111. : • . f ?rk, :F. : Pm 3: Pi:IN: , " • • ' • ' 7- 7 t'' .).$-" fe -r1-; • ; • 010: ' e e 11•1111113S. • I PAA 1 4 , • 5 - • _ T- . .1 6,47:4,1'71 FW1-:: • - • 1 ptv, to Pt". . 10 /In 711 ph . _ ISO . 11 .712. M.IDN.L4l_ _Zap. _. , . . . . . ..... .. . • .2-4--i44-21-D.r045 : : IZ)tlO : dC-ACAA-s- Psis( • . • ; t- - • •----.4:14c) . . • • • „ — . ..... .5-6a . . . •, • ; . .. " • • 1 • • 6- • : ;4.0; • ; ;-i- J.!. i 7 -•-i '7" • ! !' !•T'• • • 7 -+ 1- . -4 I tr--1- • . . , : : : 640. ... • (00 40 i17Oi. 4 -4 I . • 4,0 -:_ : : _ • •. : 10G0 - 120 . ..... . ... .. -;." 7-7 7 " • 7 7' 7"!- 7'7' 7' •—t- . - I • , • • : : • r: . ZtO I _ L WIP :4 -546i . - T : : . .3f0 • ........ • • • 2Z0 - go 110 '.4 - • . -''• oo .. . . 0.5v 40 434cr- . TO - 2( 0 - I (0o 40 1-50 517- - • . tL1980 : , •__ . Z99j5 . .... --rif pia ( 1-1-crzEi_ ( friG VO LOA) 1i- '501Y) MP*/ tAl 171-1 LOAM/ A--C_PF-S,. The TTIANSM Grove ' • - Z. Rtn: - ' L 1 i • • • fir i 1 1 • 1 CQ! "1 f �1 Mi~ q!■ ■IIVIII/H ■■ �_ • j-i-t ■■■■■ ••••• �,� i = =i�� r • row rumnpi. ilimmommummilmommuurs min i um very 4 r i■ •••••• /• ■: Yv, - . T 1 — tit 1,) U M mIJoe- go1?c) ( r3v7rt rtt°P2vI4ct-rP->) M I c rn -I r'- - (goo v fOrl we 5 %+2s LIE( -(16() )i2 val vmES SA-7 t s F Sa'7 rS Fr s=ue roe_ sa-t FQ,C. Fcle M,Joa i oAD ( 416ftgsr vouum E r∎Pfroi rii- 1/) /s0 v p h r- S wzs 0 Hou,2S US, An, o -4() 4eS }- ou as US 1 S Is9 -ref o FfcUeS /. 7E1r /S8.7ff -. L4ak eAs-T • Z — t- NTr-5- eA/d°_7 (Li n./ of Corr-rtiv vG JS --77-e_4FFC- r ioZ. RZOAr ( B(r tt F - ct1 s) Mir1. C2.r7EZJA goo v Pi, r-un. 9 tiles ftGTJf Ulo 5 At-7- I S F- t F-O Lon) q-c e ss 5 A--7 t 5F / F4 H-C 7(tAt- 4y 6A-1 isr=rF. -1) 1_04G, ocpr_, 64-7 rbfP'ED 1~ AMs.Ti 8 — MIN• C2cTET.4. -- AC7UP4, W/o L4,-) PCZES - - c -ruqk.■ Fof? fag ?At PI02, (2.0AD __5/QLUM.ES l/O wM�S v Du) ,nntS VOLuw ES 1 -11(a H r -,S-r VOL- w+ e rs-PP269-c t-1 "a�ii_ a.,,p 75 up - Fog 9 14e o f4Ol2s USI,,st, s x567 rf AL Roues (.6 NFL FoJL 7 f4OiJIZS / Sir -i# toe S Houras L61tsf6 F L conAr 1 ht\A- -r t v kJ L• a17. 2 f Z - GrA2RA47 1 • Fog- g - -S _ . W412947 L f sA-r is -+Eb ymeeAJT /1 0 1-117-a: AW0- . w /Yie44.17 -Z ) 1 r1-2S. USitiC- /S 8 -r-r- 5 P7(SF! E 0 WAegAkrr ( d HAS trwo 6JI &1T 2 7 ties . C51,JJ 14c1717.- 1C L4 __ ::. SP-7 6F1 WA 7=I _7 1 6 l/V. 7"Z.) .8= :(-teS US /.•1z_. /sffny v4 Lo - _ 5l '7ISFIGr? W4& JJ'iZ- 0 M-?5_ - =I O WA_?eit1- 7_a y /0 /fe.5 _.05h1c- 1-f7ft v 1 _ C e 7!- C r A n► us7• _ _ BE rn /;, -'7 Fog- _ . 3 i- .,JJPs z.-4/-7A-1 /Ai - Ate/ G .r)F� 2. 5A--71 S EJ 1-f-En) R C-DmI3 WA-7rani Ur AA/ Z 0r 1A. T5 ( Zcce3 A€i. 5A�( 5fF-1EX) 7 ) Ao %, -71.1K-u)(1.14- (- crrE L 5i 6"/ AL_ yV/e2Arr Y/,a,F� The TRANSPO GrOw estb 4e �ddatietled . %tt. Engineers • Architects •Planners PROJECT /'!AMPToL -- '5-kJ ^� SUBJECTi.15 -t'm r►.1T T-r- SHEET' OF - 1 By Me, DATE I-11-P6 CHECKED' T DATE /-1945 JOB NO. TtZ&1 rtL ErJE2it0NA Hv rt; Et- ‘tPL-Y. __".1S11‘.( : o. '7o e.ylp+olees per .wpreel roo,r -, . M okLl t� ► : D, 5 o e mpk Nees .5a G o - 624-.,4-70 5A / 605 5po ADSu&ISO DA 11—`( Nun -rQ P 2A E_ _ O. K o.ces = (o. 8 3 -Tb-riN t_ U N t'rS 14? 4 104- = 252 25z((p.s3) = 1,121 Awo-r '.s.5'rLG1.12ANT 041 w4 QuALA-Ty \ oOc 5F• & Ia. -Tr, p -4-r _ %4 504 -.41) = 599 Awl x-17\ L CnF.t-t.E E-A-r t a■ = 2 320 Av..t o 14/41 to 44 owl._ 1?421L�r�1� Spa. s HAt •iP"tb J ti 285c' A4v OT - (pet- Trcinspo G► P� 7-3w/Z850 = at 70 508 4DZ (3to) Hot ti 4-o /505 = -l4 `7)0 re. duc.-1,opJ. 7 5 %o I rs..-h oy� • i t,--- Pt° rt -A-c_7 w/c i-as' ,.. ._ • to - eoktde /1(240e4tted . %cc. Engineers • Architects • Planners PROJECT 1-R.AMPTOrJ SUBJECT 1-al P t4EPA-no► 1 /D►s ri' auTt a..J SHEET: 1 OF BY' MC- `3 DATE -11 -13S CHECKED' 1-1t," DATE ( -(g45 JOB N 0. {Ph1Se- Z - 14? U1,111- N DL. -- S 000 Z5 QuAL► T`f 2.5-51-ALA R.0 J1 14F) u ,it-r HOi">i✓L (us! n9 ( 20 Acd.1us-i-menk a 'DAIS.( 10.5 (O.(4 ) = (Q.83 (0.83 (14-a) = t DI 1 AWD1 a ?M AK. �s- cizEl✓T 3 — VS Ph In�6OU1,17 ► 3(0 (.(4s) _ OUT130u D , 3"i (, (05) : • 241 F tDOO sr IZESTAURAn -IT 0 VA.11_`i .234(148) . 241 (14S) = 3 CP - Tc7TA L 14.C1 (8) = Sq9 Awtsr 1PM PEA K �S-rtz EETi 274 - 1IJr)ouMb . 4.43 ((1.14- X S = 30 OUT 6ou ¢4- 3((a,•14))(4E7' •19. PNASE 2 TOTALS o DAIL_`i 1 O rAt— 49 01 1 -►- 'SC1 cf = I 1 0 AW l7T o P M ?EAt<. — Sou /JD 3S +3D = Cos' bco + t °t = 15-S/ e4 t14414 ,1Qaotiated. T ce. Engineers • Architects • Planners PROJECT k- 141,4101 oLi Tiv SUBJECT, Trzr fP E N 1= 12-JN."rI pt.l G 1ri o►J SHEET' 2 OF 5 BY: Mc-`( , DATE 1-17 -&S CHECKED' DATE .-15.4C JOB NO gS�-L PH t.ss T - (04- ada't-+1onct( Amts (HOTEL,) o 1 A%L-( a. `b 3 004-) _ 710 o ?M PEt \< C Sill N60 u,•11) .234.(1o4) _ .24- D U'r Sou Nip '. Z4I , (.1 fl 4) = ZS - 1"01AL- 4c PHASE •S 61C.3 J DIALS (7 DA ttr�t I (a 1 1 O = Z37-c7 Aw oT v ?M PEAK 6-511111 14gOUNIL) -- (05 +24 = 89 OU- rBour.» 55 +. Z5 = SO TOTAL ICo 1 Engineers • Architects • Planners PROJECT—AJAMP rc' .. � j " SUBJECT T AFFIL `Dls- nZ�& -_sr .J SHEET' 3 OF 5 By: MC--"I DATE 1-I1 -a CHECKED' 11J DATE (- 6-g5 JOB NO 54- ?HASE- Z - 1ST Pifa -4T1OP-1 pr�ltr DA,Y DN1 --C) PM 'PEAvL Vot -uretCS o 111 -.I3ou 4o — (Ail NsouwD MarNt et-rm. A.,,i(-5---1)1A2•( Ca % -C-rbrY) 4he t iv1 per Tror1spo slucly 3 5 T. -drum ►` Sou..11-1 to CQ =42 .(D5 o OUT e 1,-1 6 !o +0 -W a LlD2TM I S, en-t (p5 (56) :. 3(.' 55- 31a = l 9._ �NASE 1 PcX Trpnspa Stuii%j S TTZ i 6U 'rt (Ttr\)0 t)( t S, ° TrJSOLc Zo °lo 6-F Aeovc) .2.0 ( 4 -Z)= 4z- v = 34 0 Cc rrco►� —�' A 55 u t E (PG"... Sa3 use # Z mow•/. 34- i a (.c,,$) = iz tci -12,= 1 JAI') 8 ) e4 4e Ard2ociat'4.1.(e. Engineers • Architects • Planners SHEET' 4 OF 5 BY MC-`i • DATE Hi-8S CHECKED' I DATE I- c-2 PROJECT i- AMpTbrJ '=►ar.l JOB NO. SUBJECT T r z A r - Fir_ 'DI srr&u!.un of•-1 ASs - D s-rr.► 1-3u-n o►-1 %rwv ` ..f I ' S ) Pr -1 PEA tL `l OL;tw r"1 F_S 0 .L O 8 ou ►∎l b .625 (8) = 5'6 S -SE= 3I o of T (3ou r`-17 .6os050)= 52 8o-Sz Z8 TO DivVY ti Z ID 7)14Y it I .c.05 (z8)= \9 ZS -\o _10 31 PROJECT ftcwa ate4 , %cc. Engineers • Architects • Planners N A>1 PTC) 71:1•J SUBJECT T2 i P U Eti.! Erz.A. -n n►.1 / Disrrei rain o►.-I SHEET 5 -, OF 5 BY: N -'tC -( DATE 1- l7-P CHECKED' 'fl- DATE kg X'S JOB NO 1-1c4 L VOt_U►'� S' 19 /6(Q J {TN -STZDGIL's j NL Lot-11=1 ac z E 1 I ZoCJL 1ZESIDSN C Tr-I N Siuf)`(. 1g8b PM `i) AIL Z - v,/A-4 .- nzArric 3BSS W. VAL. ■/ 1-L . spL,T = (ao 7, 1.18 40 a • Ca (38SS) = 2310 3855 -. �3 10 = ES4-S Ln►.�la�.c iz s TrzAFctc P.SSUMc_ '45o /so 3-4 Pr-' 4-5 ?I-el (EsT, per -PA.►E MAtz �I SPI--,7"- F EKtYINc._— t.- 15714. 340 (. SD ) 17 0 ZIO (.So = los N rs N CAAJ L4. D►( '7b s6 _ ty l-o►-1 41A2F S Loa 6 S r. 1,1 4,, -fry 351. F .I1! 1 t 86 8c-r.L C.4-t- PM QEAK- w� Lb 06 -A-e1 s OM) --A, (th/ It ► -v • L04 G- }C.it,E $ 2:cv 140+ 1 10o +720 :060. 30+ I1tO+ o = 1190 l et G B • � Ce. t.� pM PEA(L( -$ -S PM) cy WI LA 1J 6.4.e ZC-.J d Pe..) 80+ 1169 + 1.0 =1370 010 It 14) —t► 30-4-11+0 + 30 =1 SHEET: _. OF eobt4.4 , Aradociattea. %•ce. BY' MC' »�� DATE 1- Zt- Engineers • Architects • Planners CHECKED' ______ DATE 1.4 "5 PROJECT 01\ M?to►-A JOB NO q5 1't IPGAtc s 4 T A r SUBJECT Trip (aF4a F i7_t -r I4)5 U ' IT - -10-re .. MAC TEAk (Co- a 1 -i' 3oufr = , 4-3 (. (05) 141-e) _ P. °u-Tgou-Jo = -44- (.45) i4-Z 42 a SAT /kW DT a I ( (as) (14-a) 8,000 L{,6t,11..( S-rt.0 2Ar.a"1' 0 1.110i4 12eAK 02;oo - / :oo PA4) 50 E.01-0-10 _ ? ( 1 o 5 8 = Col Ou- 1-5a.4 tp i,,.a r i - (1o.35) B = ZZ o SAT aw Z52 UtJtT 4OT L MAC PEAK T�C3ouJo = .d-3 (.toE Z'Z = 1O Ou oo(,1wi .4-4 C (p ) Z52 = 7"/ o SAT- 4-w O1- i5u,c_wows coLet-, ,ueppyT.Tho. calkoe.Q.esiNta -vvenosictsv1)0(______ _I foie Ac_LEss ks-KYD c.c.c4ig_v_tk.)psaw \atm •=3-ram Ccociumu eLmoczp) 00-00€ Of_o_PYM) taw. -_TResert.Q._ c_askys75', 015“3ss C41 (c> Millor-45\tiQ\A,‘Q31- fLOO_, H85- Isocl,q23-Go _PL,ems st.ctotst,t-7i set-A- .66\z sI- 1 1 O\(#21.16/•1 tYS Lit/14tr--Y _11 tSCLES3 , - _D15(.0-5 U M (DOC( o.v-MIT To 00E----N-1-1--- ISCLS pcsim-s- 1-z) cL1E p.(461--_10 6<yr dmit\57. \Ws'OZ(e- 5L-5•4.\ie tuat■J 5 5(-03L.lo e q"-O (6\11)1Q1151L-kr , , omk-yz_. majimti outy) ; , risoic) ivelem-r ff Nancomo INNEA33_Es t3m Qsef). SLS .10:FOrwf .Pfricw Locfsr1W I1/43€NQ