HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-355-87 - NORDSTROM - ADDITIONNORDSTROM EXPANSION-
SOUTHCENTER MALL
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
& TUKWILA PARKWAY
EPIC - 355 -87
AOIDAVIT
Notice of Public Hearing
[( Notice of Public Meeting
EJ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
[[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet
Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet
[[ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet
Q Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
[J Shoreline Management Permit
OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
Determination of Nonsignificance
E[' Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance
Q Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
[� Notice of Action
[[ Official Notice
[] Other
Q Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on
Name of Project I r
OSal/b(1e6s/Ct5M/p,g,4)),_
Signature
File Number pia, -3S5 $7
, 19J,Z
CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS
) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
) Federal Highway Administration
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X)
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( ) Office of Archaeology
( ) Transportation Department
( ) Department of Fisheries
( ) Office of the Governor
( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency
( ) Dept. of Planning & Community
( ) Fire District 18
( ) Boundary Review Board
( ) Health Department
( ) South Central School District
( ) Tukwila Library
( ) Renton Library
( ) Kent Library
( )Dept. of Social and Health Services
( )Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division
t. of Ecology, SEPA Division *
)Department of Game
( )Office of Attorney General
* Send checklist with all determinations
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
Devel.
( ) Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone
( ) Seattle City Light
( ) Washington Natural Gas
( ) Water District 75
( ) Seattle Water Department
( ) Group W Cable
( ) Kent Planning Department
( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment
( ) Tukwila Mayor
Tukwila City Departments:
( ) Public Works
( ) - Parks and Recreation
( ) - Police
( ) - Fire
( ) - Finance
( --.) - Pl anni n
( )Fire District 1
( )Fire District 24
( )Building & Land Development Division -
SEPA Information Center
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
( )Highline School District
( )King County Public Library
( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library
UTILITIES
( )Puget Sound Power & Light
( )Val -Vue Sewer District
( )Water District 20
( )Water District 25
( )Water District 125
( )Union Pacific Railroad
CITY AGENCIES
( )Renton Planning Department
( )Tukwila Planning Commission
Tukwila City Council Members:
( )- Edgar Bauch
( )- Marilyn Stoknes
( )- Joe Duffie
( )- Mabel Harris
( )- Charlie Simpson
( )- Jim McKenna
( )- Wendy Morgan
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) ( )METRO Environmental Planning Division
( ) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more
( ) Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce Residential 50 units or more
Retail 100,000 gsf or more
MEDIA
) Daily Journal of Commerce
) Renton Record Chronicle
( ) Highline Times
( )Seattle Times
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188
(206) 433 -1800
TO:
BARBARA RITCHEE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
MAIL STOP PV -11
Olympia, WA 98504
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PAUL A. GRODECKI
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
.25425 Center :Ridge Road
Cleveland,.OH 44145
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION 'OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal 67,027 square foot Nordstrom Expansion
Proponent Southcenter Joint Venture
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any
north side of existing Nordstrom Department Store in Southcenter Mall
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC 355 -87
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS
Q This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevar
Dati l O Signature
Phone 433 -1845
8
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
FM.DNS
•
•
grACENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC. P.A.
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
FEDERAL EXPRESS April 30, 1987
Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw
City of Tukwila,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
I�dr?�i
[i,AY; ? [ 19g,877_
C: TY OF TUKVviLA
•
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center
Nordstrom Expansion
Traffic Improvements
Per our conversation, this correspondence shall serve as official
notification of our Amendment to the Environmental Checklist submitted
by this office January 6, 1987 for the above referenced project. The
proposal is amended to include rechannelization of Tukwila Parkway. The
channelization improvement will increase "stacking" distance for
vehicles on eastbound Tukwila Parkway turning left onto the S Line
Bridge.
This should resolve all outstanding issues in regard to this project.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned.
Sincerely,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Paul A. Grodecki
PAG/blv
cc: Ross Earnst
L. Rick Beeler
T. P. Schmitz
25425 CENTER RIDGE ROAD, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44145 [216] 871-4800
FEDERAL EXPRESS
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC. P.A.
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
Mr. Dennis Neuzil, D.Eng. P.E.
Entranco Engineers, Inc.
Lake Washington Park Building
5808 Lake Washington Blvd., NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Dear Dennis:
April 30, 1987
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center
Nordstrom Expansion
Traffic Study
Per our conversation on April 30, 1987, this correspondence shall serve as
authorization for your to proceed in preparing plans and specifications for
the City's use in constructing the rechannelization of Tukwila Parkway as
discussed. Invoices should be submitted to this office on or before the 25th
of the month to my attention. Please advise of progress and copy this office
with all correspondence and plans submitted to the City.
We greatly appreciate your time, cooperation, and diligence in pursuing this
matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to
call.
PAG/blv
cc: E. Berschinski
T. P. Schmitz
25'125 CFrJ T Ir^ ^110CE "0. •0. L.:.
Sincerely,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Paul A. Grodecki
/•. -■ r ;Cl. of -ao ..1..i ;..1'", (2161072-.2000
TAT
FEDERAL EXPRESS
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC. P.A.
Mr. Ross Earnst, P.E.
City of Tukwila,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Earnst:
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
April 30, 1987
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center
Nordstrom Expansion
Traffic Improvements
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, we acknowledge that the City of
Tukwila desires to increase the "stacking" distance of the duel
left -turn lanes for eastbound Tukwila Parkway traffic turning onto the
"S" Line Bridge. After bidding this work in accordance with City
guidelines for Public Works Projects, please forward to this office the
cost of constructing the rechannelization improvements. Upon receipt
and review of cost information, this office will arrange payment of
reasonable project cost.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Paul A. Grodecki
PAG /blv
cc: M. Bradshaw
T. P. Schmitz
I ,Sin
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC. P.A.
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
FEDERAL EXPRESS April 7, 1987
Mr. Ross Earnst, P.E.
City of Tukwila,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Earnst:
n 7i
1 APR 1 3 1987
PLANNING DEPT.
I.
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center
Nordstrom Expansion
Supplemental Traffic Study
Pursuant to your request, this office has authorized Entranco Engineers
to study the alternatives proposed in our telephone conversation of
March 25, 1987. The results of that study are enclosed for your review.
The study evaluates the alternatives suggested by you in regard to the
north and west theatre driveways. It concludes "any driveway change
appears -to -have negative - consequences- for -arterial - and--- shopping center- -
traffic. Arterial capacity and service level would apparently be
reduced as well as safety." Further, "it has not revealed that
revisions would significantly improve traffic flow on the adjacent
arterials or internal Southcenter flow. It appears that any of the four
(4) alternative configurations would degrade arterial safety and
"capacity s well 'A -S- internal- dirculation. " Based" on this information,
the Owner proposes to leave both driveways unaltered since no benefit
would be realized by their modification.
As time is of the essence, your early - review and approval of the
proposed Nordstrom Expansion would be appreciated.
If you have any questions on the enclosure, please do not hesitate to
call.
PAG/blv
Enclosure
cc:
M. Bradshaw, w /encl
R. Mitchell, w /encl.
L. Johnson, w /encl.
Sincerely,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Paul A. Grodecki
P. Fraser, w /encl.
D. Neuzil, w/o encl.
25425 CENTER RIDGE ROAD. CLEVELAND. OHIO 44145 (2161871-4800
NORDSTROM JVJ EXPANSION DRIVEWAY
SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION
Prepared for
Southcenter Nordstroms
Prepared by
Entranco Engineers, Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Boulevard, N.E.
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(206) 827 -1300
April 1987
•
SUPPLEMENTAL DRIVEWAY EVALUATION
FOR
SOUTHCENTER NORDSTROM EXPANSION
Tukwila City Engineer Ross Earnst requested further evaluation of the
West Theater Driveway and the North Theater Driveway, in response to
comments on the Southcenter Nordstrom Expansion Impact Study, Entranco
Engineers, Inc., March 2, 1987.
The impact study evaluated traffic increases attributable to the
Nordstrom expansion. It evaluated safety, delay and capacity issues of
Southcenter intersections with Tukwila Parkway and Southcenter Parkway,
internal Southcenter circulation, and made improvement recommendations.
This supplemental report investigates alternative driveway
configurations relative to the Southcenter Parkway - Tukwila Parkway
arterial (Figure 1). The purpose of the additional investigation is to
determine if driveway access revisions would increase safety and capacity
on the adjacent arterial network.
Four alternative configurations suggested by the City Engineer were
investigated from a conceptual perspective. The four configurations
evaluated were:
A. Prohibit Tukwila Parkway westbound (WB) left turns into the
North Driveway.
B. Prohibit West Theater Driveway westbound left turns to
Southcenter Parkway southbound.
C. Change the driveways to one -way:
West Theater Driveway North Theater Driveway
a. Eastbound (inbound) Northbound (outbound)
b. Westbound (outbound) Southbound (inbound)
D. Close the North Theater Driveway or the West Theater Driveway
or both.
Figures depicting the alternatives are attached to this report.
1
A. Prohibit Westbound Left Turns Into the North Theater Driveway
(Figure 2)
I -405 and I -5 southbound traffic approaches Southcenter from the
northwest on Southcenter Boulevard. This eastbound traffic on Southcenter
Boulevard turns right onto the "S" line bridge and travels southbound to
the "T" intersection with Tukwila Parkway. The inbound bridge (southbound)
traffic has dual left turn lanes and a single right turn lane. The right
turn lane is served with a green arrow when the southbound approach is
green and when the eastbound left turn lanes are served; it is red when the
westbound through lane receives its green.
The purpose of prohibiting left turns at the north driveway is to
eliminate the lane change and provide a continous.right turn green arrow.
The lane change occurs for southbound bridge traffic (from the north on I -5
and I -405) turning right onto Tukwila Parkway westbound, then changing from
the outside lane across the inside lane to the left turn lane to enter the
north driveway.
The conflict occurs when westbound through traffic receives its green
light and a southbound vehicle makes a free right (right turn on red). The
westbound traffic is channelized into the single inside lane. The
southbound right vehicle that wants to turn left into the North Driveway
must merge across the . inside lane to the left turn lane.
Prohibiting the North Driveway westbound left turn and installing
channelization separating the Tukwila Parkway westbound through lanes and
the bridge southbound right turns would allow a continuous green arrow for
the southbound right turns. The continuous right turn flow to Tukwila
Parkway could reduce congestion on the bridge and on Southcenter Boulevard
during peak shopping periods.
Prohibiting the westbound left turn at the North Theater Driveway
intersection would divert those trips about 675 feet further to the West
Theater Driveway or about 350 feet east to the I -405 (on -ramp)
intersection.
Trips diverted left would travel about 350 feet and enter„ turning
right; trips to the right would travel about 1,100 feet and enter turning
left.
2
•
Left Turn Prohibition Advantages. Prohibiting the left turn into the
north driveway would allow the lane change to occur in about 600 feet going
around the curve between the north and west driveways. It would allow
extending the inside left -turn lane length for traffic in the dual
eastbound left turn lane at the Tukwila Parkway /Bridge intersection. It
would allow a continuous right turn green arrow for southbound bridge
traffic approaching Tukwila Parkway.
Left Turn Prohibition Disadvantages. Trips diverting from the North
Driveway right turn route to the I -405 driveway left turn route would
reduce the Tukwila Parkway /Bridge intersection service level. Left turns
are calculated at 1.6 times through traffic for capacity and further reduce
capacity with dual left turn lanes as on the bridge approach. It appears
quicker to turn left and travel about 350 feet to the I -405 driveway, than
to turn right and travel 450 feet to the north driveway, plus about 675
feet to turn left at the west driveway, plus ahout 450 feet back to
"central" parking. It appears there would be a substantial switch from
right turn to left turn with significant effects on the Tukwila
Parkway /Bridge intersection performance.
Currently, the two driveways operate with no noticeable congestion or
traffic safety problems with the inbound and outbound movements dispersed
between the two. Diverting the westbound left movement from the north
driveway to the west driveway will introduce another major movement at the
west driveway intersection. That movement will be in conflict with the
exiting left turns and entering right turns. Intersection capacity will be
reduced by the increased left turn volumes (remembering the left turn costs
capacity at 1.6 times that of a through vehicle) and safety will be reduced
by the increased exposure rate of conflicting volumes.
Some of the exiting westbound left turns at the West Driveway will
shift to the West Nordstrom signalized intersection. That shift will .
require longer side street (Nordstrom) green time at the expense of
mainstreet (Southcenter Parkway) arterial time. The result will be reduced
service levels at the Southcenter Parkway /Nordstrom intersection.
Christmas and other peak Tukwila Parkway eastbound congestion might be
reduced by increasing the storage length of the eastbound dual left turn
lanes approaching the Tukwila Parkway /Bridge intersection. The dual
eastbound to northbound left turns cross onto the bridge and enter another
3
•
dual left turn lane for the northbound to westbound movement onto
Southcenter Boulevard. The movement continues westbound to the single lane
I -5 northbound on -ramp. However, increasing the Tukwila Parkway inside
left turn lane would likely result in additional vehicles being trapped in
the inside lane trying to get into the outside lane for I -5 northbound.
B. Prohibit West Theater Driveway Westbound Left Turns to Southcenter
Parkway Southbound (Figure 2)
The purpose of this alternative is to reduce collisions between the
westbound to southbound left turns and Southcenter Parkway northbound
traffic. Evaluation of the collision and volume data shows a collision
rate of 1.02 collisions per million approach vehicles. An average
intersection collision rate is about 1.00, indicating this collision rate
is what could be expected, i.e., not significantly adverse.
Prohibiting the exiting movement would result in traffic diverting to
the west Nordstrom driveway signalized intersection and to the North
Driveway intersection. The west Nordstrom intersection would have its
service level reduced, affecting all movements at this intersection,
whereas the existing relief of the west driveway adds the left turn traffic .
to the Southcenter Parkway arterial through traffic not requiring
additional green time. Similarly, traffic diverted to the North Driveway
would be operating in conflict with the westbound left turns and safety
would be dimished by two factors:
The exiting left turns would be in conflict with two major
movements: the eastbound Tukwila Parkway traffic (northbound at
West Driveway) and the westbound lefts; and,
The perimeter parking can affect sight distance for exiting
traffic at the North Driveway while it is unobstructed at the West
driveway.
C. One -Way Driveways Feasibility (Figures 2 and 3)
a. West Theater Driveway Eastbound (Inbound) and North Theater
Driveway Northbound (Outbound). This would combine the detrimental
factors of restricting the westbound left turns at the North
Driveway and prohibiting exiting left turns from the West
Driveway. It would require a signal to control the North Driveway.
4
• •
b. The West Theater Driveway Westbound (Outbound) and North Theater
Southbound (Inbound). This would affect the Metro inbound bus
route significantly, requiring a new Metro routing. It would
probably require signalization of the west theater driveway
intersection. Traffic coming from the ,north on I -5 or I -405 would
still have to change lanes to turn left at the North Theater
Driveway.
D. Close the West Theater Driveway or North Theater Driveway or Both
(Figure 3)
Either of these alternatives compound the earlier described problems
for arterial and internal traffic. In addition, closing either driveway
would require renegotiation of Southcenter tenant leases. The increased
turning movements and volumes at West Nordstrom, Bridge "S" line, and I -405
intersections would result in reduced arterial service levels. The
existing driveways operate as relief for the three signals, enhancing
arterial operation. A security guard who watches traffic reported he sees
no delay or safety problems at either driveway.
SUMMARY
This supplemental report focuses on arterial effects of the.
alternatives. Substantial internal degradation of traffic safety and
movement could occur. Internal trips would be lengthened resulting in
probable higher speeds, higher intersection conflicting movement exposure,
and increased collisions. Further internal problems would occur when trips
reroute via "U" turns, or use parking row lanes for through and circulatory
travel unless the parking and travel ways (internal stop controlled) roads
are revised.
A. Prohibit Westbound Left Turns to the North Theater Driveway:
Advantages
Should increase the capacity of the southbound right turns at the
Tukwila Parkway /Bridge intersection
Would increase the lane change distance by about 600 feet.
Would allow increased storage for eastbound left turns.
5
Disadvanges
Would decrease capacity of the Tukwila Parkway /Bridge intersection by
increasing the volumes of left turns.
Capacity and safety would likely be reduced at the West Theater
Driveway intersection.
Congestion could be expected to increase at the West Nordstrom
signalized intersection.
Increasing the eastbound left turn storage (approaching on Tukwila
Parkway to the Bridge intersection) would likely trap more vehicles in
the inside lane.
B. •Prohihit Exiting Westbound Left Turns at the West Theater Driveway
Intersection:
Advantages
Would eliminate the Southcenter Parkway northbound with West Theater
Driveway westbound collisions.
Disadvantages
Would increase congestion at west Nordstrom driveway intersection.
Would increase collisions of eastbound with northbound traffic at the
north theater driveway intersection due to the introduction of another
major volume movement and sight distance.
C. One -Way Driveway Feasibility:
Either one -way configuration would combine the detrimental affects
described in A and B.
D. Closing Either the North or West Theater Driveways:
This magnifies the detrimental affects of A and B.
6
• •
Additional field checks of the alternatives were made about 1:15 p.m.
on Tuesday, March 24, 1987 and at 3:15 p.m. on Thursday March 26, 1987 and
1:15 on Sunday March 29, 1987. No delay, or safety problems were
observed. A Southcenter security officer was stopped and asked about
congestion, left turn, and access and safety problems. He said that there
had been no significant problems in the years he had been there relative to
the driveways. He had seen accidents at the west driveway, hut the drivers
run the sign. "It is not that they are trapped or caught; just in too much
of a hurry and not obeying."
CONCLUSION
Any driveway change appears to have negative consequences for arterial
and shopping center traffic. Arterial capacity and service level would
apparently be reduced as well as safety. Internal traffic circulatory
volumes would increase at the expense of safety.
This report is intended to evaluate the north theater and west theater
driveway access alternatives relative to Southcenter Parkway and Tukwila
Parkway arterial traffic. The evaluation has been made considering safety
and capacity principles. It has not revealed that revisions would
significantly improve traffic flow on the adjacent arterials or internal
Southcenter flow. It appears that any of the four alternative .
configurations would degrade arterial safety and capacity, as well as
internal circulation.
7
ro/-4os
NORTHBOUND
ro/aSOUTHBOUND k
(WEST) BOUND
SOUTHCENTER NORDSTROM EXPANSION - SUPPLEMENTAL DRIVEWAY INVESTIGATION
Figure 1
STUDY AREA
TO 1.403
O010400ND
00 H1 300003OUND
FROM H405 IwEST)BOUN0U7N �_ SOVTHCENTER BOULEVARD
wES
OnIVEWAY
p Y LINE
200 ORIpOE I -403
I-�OS
DRIVEWAY OH•MM•
11 ! "- '1'1 1 1 2 - I I ''—'+ •
ii ■allil �0 •. ,l_,u,—
1.11_ } �-
000EwAv \�'�• ill , I i �' , I ';'' , I
North and West Theater Driveway
EXISTING MAJOR MOVEMENTS
TO -400
NORTHBOUND
TO I -1 BOVTNBOUND
E) SH ~ SCVHCENTER (WST BOUND BOULEVARD
IMOV 1.403
DRVIVEWAY .400 R
I I) I Ij/TT,... T -: QII ( •
THEATER �' l'i1ii111i.i1s.1. ���- 1\ I J'
DRIVEWAY T 1 1
1 I ' t
_ )�r �, 11;1!! s' �1'
..ST
NORDSTROM i ill 1 1!! I - ` Iii
West Theater Driveway
Westbound Left Turn Prohibition
ALTERNATIVE B
10 H403
NORTHBOUND
T04.3 SOUTHBOUND
0000 1 -403 SOUTH r�
(wEST) BOUND
wEST
THE
.ILL i!i� -110
Il i r`T,i,1;;
VOA; STERNA • r, I "1 , ( ` 1.0 '�
DRIVEWAY l _ --44•^44-0,
1• ___
, • -� -.1 31_I; _� 1 it 1 `_._
North Theater Driveway Westbound
Left Turn Prohibition
ALTERNATIVE A
HO 1.403
NORTHBOUND
TO 1.1 SOUTHBOUND
1.001) 800NO�H'� SOUTHCENTER B
OULEVARD
wET
DRIVEWAY
1.403
403
DRIVEWAY /lll/ V-L411
NORDSTROM' WEST
=
i 9 i -17--.3 _I 31 11 __
One -Way Driveways (a)
ALTERNATIVE C
SOUTHCENTER NORDSTROM EXPANSION - SUPPLEMENTAL DRIVEWAY INVESTIGATION
Figure 2
ALTERNATIVE TURNING MOVEMENTS
T01.405
NORTHBOUND
T01 -5 SOUTHBOUND
7ROM 1 -405 5DUTM SOUTHCENTEq BOULEVARD
IWESTI BOUND
wEST
DR vETwAY
WEST
NORDSTROM
DRIVEWAY
■-405
rT'�
t-1---
Uq a4A PARKWAY TAT- _ f I i`
_�..i Ili i 1111111 ; :1 -i_
io.iir;;�ll��
I 7,17' I� E;i —'`;
rlr 71 iill�! •111-
11....1..!____
11, II
�.
/ O RAMP
/Att. —+—a Is I ' 11 J I
One Way Driveways (b)
ALTERNATIVE C
701-475
110070000/10
TO 1.3 SOUTHBOUND
IWESTI 000110 H SOUTNCENTfq BOULEVARD
. WEST
THEATER
DRIVEWAY
WEST
tim
i p
-S- LINE
BRIDE,
1-405
�l� A 1-401 � .405 1. - � R0W Y ORWEWAY ON -RAMP
�' 11 I I l j h r--1 r: ...HT. ; i
l All
i 11!'I�I: `.
1
Close West Theater Driveway
ALTERNATIVE D
T01.405
NORTHBOUND
TO 14 SOUTHBOUND
FROM 1 -405 SOUTH saw.
IWESTI BOUND
THEATER
DnwEwnY
NCENT`u EVARD
1100057000
DRIVEWAY
1-401
I -403 // I.403
DRIVEWAY C ON -MMP
11 i.
.- Yr .:.;
•
CSI
Close North Theater Driveway
ALTERNATIVE D
TO 1 -405
NORTHBOUND
T01.5 SOUTHBOUND
FROM 1- 405 SOUTH ,OUT
(WEST) BOUND
THEATE
DRIVEWAR
Y
0CEN7E0 BOULEVARD
1.405
1 -405 / / .403
DRIVEWAY ON -RAMP
(
O
“114 Y E 5 T
DRIVEWAY IvEwAv 111 T I I ! r • i I I
��•
Close Both North and West Driveways
ALTERNATIVE D
SOUTHCENTER NORDSTROM EXPANSION — SUPPLEMENTAL DRIVEWAY INVESTIGATION
Figure 3
ALTERNATIVE TURNING MOVEMENTS
• •
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
1APR 2 1,987 .
(JV� T ; (WiLA
�w PLANN'NiG DEPT.
March 31, 1987
Mr. Paul Grodecki
Center Ridge Design Services, Inc.
25425 Center Ridge Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44145
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center Proposed Nordstrom's Expansion -
Letter of Paul Grodecki, February 24, 1987
Dear Mr. Grodecki:
In response to your February 24, 1987 letter evaluating the
water supply requirements for fire and domestic needs for the
proposed Nordstrom's department store expansion in Southcenter
shopping center, it is noted that the rationale provided by the
Factory Mutual Engineering dated January 27, 1987 and February
18, 1987 analyzed the local public water system and determined
it to be adequate to protect the Southcenter shopping center,
including the Nordstrom's expansion. This report does not ad-
dress all regional supply mains; however, in reviewing this
matter with the City Engineer, for a development with this
insignificant impact on the overall water system, the deficien-
cies in the existing regional system do not warrant addressing by
this particular redevelopment of the property.
Still, in accordance with the City's comprehensive water plan,
added impacts to the regional system by future developments of
this size may very likely require a full addressing of the
City's comprehensive water plan and upgrading of regional
facilities outside of the property lines of Southcenter shopping
area itself.
Therefore, the City Public Works Department concurs with the
ultimate conclusion of the February 24, 1987 letter. Ross Earnst,
City Engineer, has contacted you on March 25, 1987 and provided
the response to your traffic engineering study review. My
draft letter for all site utility reviews and permits is await-
ing your final response and plan submissions on these traffic
matters, addressing Ross's concerns, before I can issue the
utility permits letter.
Mr. Paul Grodecki
March 31, 1987
page 2
Therefore, requested as soon as you have this traffic informa-
tion available, you transmit four copies of site plans and your
proposed modifications to the public roadways to my office so
that the City can complete its utility site review. Your co-
operation in this matter will be most appreciated. If I can be
of further assistance do not hesitate to call me at (206) 433 -1856.
Sincerely,
Phil Fraser
Senior Engineer
/cd
xc:
Planning Director
Building Official
Permits Coordinator
Permit file
FEDERAL EXPRESS
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC. PA.
Mr. Ross Earnst, P.E.
City of Tukwila,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Earnst:
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS UU I f 11( C I li
MAR.'-.•17 1987
March 12, 1987 CITY U rUK„t,:,L.�\
PLANNING D'PT.
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center
Nordstrom Expansion
Enclosed, for your review please find one (1) one copy of the "Traffic
Impact Study for Nordstrom Expansion" prepared by Entranco Engineers.
This study was performed to meet the requirement set forth by your
office that a traffic analysis be_performed prior to the city issuing
construction permits on the above referenced project.
The study makes several recommendations to improve traffic flow
through and around the shopping center. Specifically, "recommended
intersection improvements" include:
1) The installation of traffic buttons in Southcenter Parkway at
its intersection with the West Theatre Driveway.
2) Removal of the existing median island in Southcenter Parkway
south of its intersection with the West Theatre Driveway.
3) Closing of the Post Office exit driveway and combining it with.
Puget Sound Mutual Bank driveway.
The sole recommendation to improve internal circulation involves
restriping the parking area north of the proposed Nordstrom Expansion.
The Owner has carefully reviewed these recommendations and, with City
approval, proposes to initiate the improvements suggested at the
intersection of Southcenter Parkway and the West Theatre Driveway. It
is expected that the installation of traffic buttons and removal of
the existing median island can be . performed during phase II of the
project sitework which will include onsite paving, curbing, and
landscape improvements. The current construction schedule call for
phase II work to be performed in the spring of 1988.
25125 C:_:'.r .- ;i )f i p•' f] I' _1 c .::.i i ;.l 7. O: ili) •1.:1 ;'i I2'.CSI ri - 1 • •1800
Mr. Ross Earnst
March 12, 1987
Page 2
Because of current Lease commitments, the Owner cannot implement the
recommended driveway closure on Andover Park West. The Owner agrees
that the improvement would be beneficial and will consider its
implementation as soon as possible.
Improvement of the internal traffic circulation at Southcenter is
limited by the initial design of the site. This office is currently
reviewing both the condition of traffic circulation and parking
requirements at Southcenter as a whole. The Owner prefers to await
the outcome of the current review prior to implementing any internal
traffic changes.
Please review the enclosure at your earliest convenience and feel free
to call should you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Paul A. Grodecki
PAG /blv
Attachment
cc: Moira Carr Bradshaw
Phil Fraser
Larry Johnson
Rich Mitchell
Dennis Neuzil
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR
SOUTHCENTER NORDSTROM EXPANSION
Prepared for
Center Ridge Design Services, Inc. P.A.
25425 Center Ridge Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44145
Prepared by
Entranco Engineers, Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Boulevard N.E.
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(206) 827 -1300
March 2, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Nordstrom Study Area 1
Andover Park West Study Area 4
Accident Data 10
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Trip Generation and Assignment 10
Level of Service 12
Recommended Intersection Improvements 14
Internal Circulation and Parking . 19
SUMMARY 20
APPENDICES
A - Level of Service Concept
B - Turning Movement Counts
C - Traffic Analysis Calculations
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the traffic impact analysis and findings for the
proposed Nordstrom expansion located at the Southcenter Shopping Mall in
Tukwila, Washington. The proposed expansion will add an additional 67,027
square feet of retail floor space to the north side of the existing store.
The study will address the traffic impacts associated with the increase in
traffic generated from the development. Southcenter's internal roadway
network and parking areas, along with two adjacent intersections which
access the proposed expansion site area, are included in the analysis. The
two intersections are located at:
1. Southcenter Parkway and the west driveway adjacent to the
Southcenter Theater.
2. Tukwila Parkway and the north driveway to the east of the
Southcenter Theater.
In addition, visual observations to assess traffic operations and
safety were conducted at the driveways exiting to Andover Park West in the
southeast corner of Southcenter (February 4 and 5, 1987). These driveways
access the Puget Sound Mutual Bank, J.C. Penney Tire Center, and the
Tukwila post office. The two study areas analyzed in this report are shown
in Figure 1.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed Nordstrom expansion is located in the northwest section of
Southcenter. This report analyzes two study areas; the Nordstrom study
area in the northwest corner of the site, and the Andover Park West study
area in the southeast corner of the site.
Nordstrom Study Area
Two driveways access the Nordstrom study area (Figure 2):
1. The west theater driveway is located south of the Southcenter
Theater and is oriented in an east -west direction. The driveway
intersects Southcenter Parkway, which borders the west end of
Southcenter.
1
=7-5
NORDSTROM STUDY AREA
Cf:)
S011THCENTER PKWY
partoenteK
MO
MALL. •••134.111
a-- ----A-
115 HOPI!
IM011007.011/1
SIdt
I°
1••••10PAI
■Ahdif NAM..
• •••••••
1—
11
.1
oavaa.man POIJIC.11.1
1
--1
—1
1 I
F------1
Th
u
ri
k.La:
Le MA.. LA OM II 1•Mert
.3 j
01* 140fl
mama.
COO ■•••• 11■110.
se.rawnois raocs■
0.1.11 SAX
J.C. PONAIIII V
OW. COW
".0A1 ARCHC 0A4100LI1
.M4 •••• m••
rue 001.4
120•LS0 Oalt
MALL •
S O.MMI
MALL
S MOMO
1
)
I- —I
I— 1. -1
eNr. WM-0MM MA/MAL •
-41 :
/-CP"'"Al
/11}1-1-1-1-{fI}Ift
ANDOVER PARK WEST STUDY AREA
lig 5 T14.1 41"17.
•
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
STUDY AREA
FIGURE 1
SOUTHCENTER PKWY
NORDSTROM
DEPT. STOF1E
3 FLOORS '
PROPOSED
I EXPANSION
MALL
SHOPS
1 , OORS
I O
EXISTING
rOPERTY LINE
THE BON
DEPT. STORE
4 FLOORS
MALL.
SHOPS
(
18
r
'�- LOWEffl LEVEL FIARKING
•
NORTH THEATER DRIVEWAY
GBON MARCHE PARCEL
(
16 ACRES 1403 CARS
II
I I /
(1 /
I /
I
2 I /
vr
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
SITE AREA AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2
2. The north theater driveway is located east of the Southcenter
Theater and oriented in a north -south direction. The driveway
intersects Tukwila Parkway, which borders the north end of
Southcenter.
The west theater driveway is a two way 30 foot driveway with 15 foot
lanes in each direction. The outbound lane has a single shared lane for
left and right turning vehicles. The driveway intersects Southcenter
Parkway and is stop sign controlled. Figure 3 shows the intersection
configuration at the west theater driveway and Southcenter Parkway.
Southcenter Parkway is currently a five lane north -south arterial with a
left turn pocket for vehicles entering the west theater driveway and a
short acceleration lane for vehicles exiting southbound from the driveway.
The north theatre driveway is a two way 40 foot driveway with a 20 foot
inbound lane and two 10 foot outbound lanes for exclusive left and right
turning vehicles. The driveway intersects Tukwila Parkway to the north
and is stop sign controlled. Figure 4 shows the intersection configuration
at the north theater driveway and Tukwila Parkway. Tukwila Parkway is a
five lane east -west arterial with a left turn pocket to the North Theater
driveway and an acceleration lane for vehicles exiting westbound from the
driveway.
Both driveways access Southcenter's internal roadway network, inter-
secting approximately 450 feet east of the west theater driveway/
Southcenter Parkway intersection and 360 feet south of the north theater
driveway /Tukwila Parkway intersection (Figure 2). This intersection is
also stop sign controlled on the east and north approaches. The west
approach is not controlled and has the right of way. South of this inter-
section, the parking aisles for the site development are controlled by stop
bars. Speed limits in the internal road network are 15 mph.
Andover Park West Study Area
The three driveways observed for traffic operations and safety in the
Andover Park West study area are shown in Figure 5. Observations of these
driveways were made from 2:30 to 3:00 p.m. (February 4, 1987) and 3:15 to
3:45 p.m. (February 5, 1987). Andover Park West is currently a four lane
north -south arterial with an average weekday traffic of 12,800 vehicles per
day. Driveway 1, as indicated in Figure 5, is 30 feet wide and 190 feet
north of the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection. This
4
e
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
EXISTING INTERSECTION .CONFIGURATIO
WEST THEATER DRIVEWAY / SOUTHCENTER PKWY
FIGURE 3
TUKWILA PKWY
0
0
4 R
0
0
0
9
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
4
0
f
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
Sourt- c ENTER
PR..K(
NORTH THEATER DRIVEWAY
0
10
3.0
.40
SCAB -� IN FE.T
� e
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
EXISTING INTERSECTION .CONFIGURATIO
NORTH THEATER DRIVEWAY / TUKWILA PKWY
FIGURE 4
)
S. C. PENN %N.' TB.^.
U C a W N Q
�• <
; U N
- Z • co
W CC
I W.
�
a.
CO, o
2
• <
O m
y
<
W�
z• m
a2
STRANDER BLVD
BANK LEASE PARCEL
.49 ACRE 29 CARS
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
ANDOVER PARK WEST
DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5
• driveway primarily provides access to the Puget Sound Mutual Bank.
Driveway 2 is a one - way -only exiting driveway from the post office.
Driveway 3, which accesses the inbound driveway to the post office and the
J.C. Penney Tire Center, is 32 feet wide and 340 feet north of the
intersection. Access to the mall is possible from this driveway; however,
it is not practical because it provides access only to the outer perimeter
of Southcenter's road system.
Observations at these driveways showed queueing of 3 to 4 vehicles at
driveway 3. Average delay for vehicles in this queue was approximately 5
to 7 seconds - primarily caused by vehicles attempting to turn left onto
Andover Park West northbound.
Of the three driveways, driveway 1 experienced the longest average
vehicle delay, although queues were generally found to be only 1 to 2
vehicles in length. This delay was caused by the signalized Strander
Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection. The queue of vehicles created at
the north approach of this intersection would backup beyond driveway 1,
presenting difficulty for vehicles turning right and creating a sight
distance problem for vehicles attempting to turn left. This problem is
especially evident when a truck (S0 -30 or longer) is waiting in the queue.
Vehicles attempting a left turn into the three driveways generally
experienced short delays depending on the length of the backup from the
north approach of the intersection.
• Level of service was analyzed in the p.m. peak hour at the two theater
driveway intersections at Southcenter Parkway and Tukwila Parkway with
existing traffic volume conditions. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of
the traffic flow operations based on volume to capacity ratios and the
geometric characteristics of the intersection. Level of service A is the
optimum condition, with vehicles experiencing little or no delay, and LOS F
represents a congested and over - capacity condition. Level of Service C is
typically used for design purposes; however, LOS D is not uncommon for
cases where funding or environmental constraints are present. (See
Appendix A for level of service discussion.)
P.M. peak hour turn movement counts were conducted by Entranco
Engineers at the two theater driveway intersections on February 4 and 5,
1987 (see Appendix B). Level of service calculations followed the
methodology outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation
Research Board. The results of the LOS analysis for the existing
conditions and with the additional project generated volumes are
summmarized in Table 1. The detailed LOS calculations are found in
Appendix C of the report. The west theater driveway currently is at LOS F
8
TABLE 1
P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection and Movement
Existing With Project
Adjusted Adjusted
LOS LOS LOS LOS
Tukwila Parkway/
North Theater Driveway
Left from Theater Driveway E (68) D (103) E (54) E (85)
Right from Theater Driveway A (636) A (636) A (609) A (609)
Left from Westbound
Tukwila Parkway B (314) B (314) C (273) C (273)
Southcenter Parkway/
West Theatre Driveway
Left from Theater Driveway
Right from Theater Driveway
Left from Southbound
Southcenter Parkway
F ( -37) E (42) F ( -80) F ( -6)
F ( -37) E (42) F ( -80) F ( -6)
A (465) A (465) A (447) A (447)
Note: Reserve capacity is shown in parentheses.
for the shared outbound lane. Actual observations, however, show a much
better traffic flow condition due to the gaps provided by the signal at the
west Nordstrom driveway, approximately 600 feet south of the intersection.
Traffic flow operations are also improved by the acceleration lane for
southbound vehicles from the driveway. The acceleration lane allows
vehicles to make a two -step turn movement in which they can wait for a gap
in northbound vehicles, move into the acceleration lane, and then merge
with southbound vehicles on Southcenter Parkway. This left turn movement
was observed during field observations on February 4 and 5.
The observed LOS at the two driveways were found to be much better than
the calculated LOS from the Highway Capacity Manual. Therefore, adjusted
LOS calculations were made at the two theater driveway locations by
reducing the southbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway and westbound
traffic on Tukwila Parkway by 50 percent. This reduction was used to
9
account for the use of the acceleration lane and gaps provided by the
signal at the west Nordstrom driveway. The Highway Capacity Manual
methodology does not take these factors into consideration. The results of
the adjusted LOS calculations are also summarized in Table 1. It should be
noted that the adjusted LOS calculations are still not representative of
the observed LOS C or D at the driveway intersections.
Accident Data
Accident data provided by the City of Tukwila from January 1984 to
December 1986 is summarized and shown in Table 2. The location and number
of recorded accidents are summarized for both theater driveways, the
Andover Park West study area, and the west Nordstrom driveway on South -
center Parkway south of the west theater driveway. Also shown in the
summary is the collision diagram and direction of travel for the vehicles
involved in the accidents. The accident rates indicate that the west
theater driveway intersection with Southcenter Parkway has the highest
average number of accidents per year (5.6 as compared to 2.0 - 4.0 for the
other intersections.) For urban stop sign controlled intersections a
commonly used guideline for identifying a "high accident" location is five
or more accidents per year.
The accident movement summary shows that at(the west theater driveway,
all but one accident occured when a vehicle was attempting a left turn
southbound on Southcenter Parkway. No buses were involved in any acci-
dents; however, eight of the recorded accidents claimed a bus was present
at the intersection, restricting sight distance. Therefore, buses par-
tially contribute to the accidents at this intersection. Although heavy
northbound volumes are the most probably cause of this type of accident,
traffic volumes are not high enough to warrant a traffic signal. Sight
distance from the west theater driveway approach was analyzed and found to
be adequate in both directions, except when buses are present.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Trip Generation and Assignment
The expansion of 67,027 square feet of retail space by Nordstrom will
generate an average at 1,780 additional trips per day with 131 of these
trips occuring during the p.m. peak hour. The trip generation rate was
based on yearly traffic counts for vehicles entering Southcenter at the
various driveways from November 24, 1985 to November 23, 1986. A rate
10
• ■•
Location and Movement
TABLE 2
Accident Data Summary '
(January 1984 to December 1986)
Number of
Accidents
Location and Movement
North Theater Driveway -00-41 5 West Nordstrom Driveway 41
(Signalized) t
->,► 1 ■4,
-Cr
-Y-4- 1 Q to-
f? 1 �4
4.4. 2 4
Total
Average Annual Accidents
West Theater Driveway
Total
Average Annual Accidents
Number of
Accidents
2
1
1
1
1
10 Total 6
3.3 Average Annual Accidents 2.0
16 Andover Park West/
Backer Boulevard/
Penney's Driveway
17
5.6
N
t4,
1
4
4
2
1
Total 12
Average Annual Accidents 4.0
of 17.55 vehicles entering per day per 1,000 square feet of existing retail
space was determined from this information. This rate was doubled to
35.1 vehicles per day per 1,000 square feet of retail space to account for
exiting vehicles. This value compares very well with the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation value of 35.3 trips per day
for a shopping center of Southcenter's size.
The total number of trips generated from the Nordstrom expansion
was reduced by 25 percent since the retail floor space was added to the
existing Nordstrom store and is not expected to generate entirely new
traffic. The final generation rate calculated is therefore 890 vehicles
entering per day, or a total of 1,780 vehicles entering and exiting per
day. The calculated daily rate was proportioned to the ITE peak hour
values to produce the total number of trips generated during the p.m. peak
hour.
Using the count data provided by Center Ridge Design Services, Inc., it
was estimated that 50 percent of the newly generated traffic would be using
the two theater driveways for access and egress to the site area. This
estimate is likely to be higher than what actually occurs, and provides a
"worst case" scenario. Distribution and assignment of the project gener-
ated traffic was then determined based on regional and local travel
patterns and the p.m. peak hour turn movement counts performed by
Entranco. Figure 6 shows the p.m. peak hour project generated volumes to
and from the Nordstrom study area.
The LOS was recalculated for the two theater driveways using the
existing plus project generated volumes. Southcenter volumes on
Southcenter Parkway and westbound volumes on Tukwila Parkway were again
reduced by 50 percent to account for the acceleration lanes and close
proximity of the signal to the west Nordstrom driveway. The results of the
LOS analysis using total and adjusted volumes with the project are
summarized in Table 1.
Level of Service
LOS deteriorates by one letter with project generated volumes in each
case except for the right turn from the north theater driveway and the left
turn into the west theater driveway from Southcenter Parkway. The left
turn movement from westbound Tukwila Parkway deteriorates from LOS B to
LOS C. Turn movements exiting the west theater driveway and the left turn
from the north theater driveway operate at LOS F and LOS E, respectively,
with project generated volumes.
12
SOUTHCENTER PKWY
JG
Y LINE
NORTH THEATER DRIVEWA
O 50 100 S0 zoo
e
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
PM PEAK HOUR
PROJECT GENERATED VOLUMES
FIGURE 6
No reasonable mitigation can be recommended to improve the LOS for
these movements other than signalization of one or both driveways; however,
since traffic volumes at each intersection do not warrant signalization,
the installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this time.
Recommended Intersection Improvements
The installation of a few large traffic buttons is recommended for both
intersections to better define the acceleration lane and encourage more
drivers to use a two -step turn movement. The addition of a new exclusive
right turn lane at the west theater driveway was analyzed as an alternative
to improve level of service; however, the results of the analysis showed
that widening would not provide substantial henefit to improve traffic
operations. Therefore, the addition of an exclusive right turn lane is not
recommended. Figures 7 and 8 show the theater driveway intersections with
the recommended improvements.
Another recommendation to improve operations of the left turn movement
from the west theater driveway is the removal of the existing median island
south of the intersection on Southcenter Parkway. This improvement would
increase the acceleration distance and provide flexibility for vehicles
to merge with southbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway. This improvement
would encourage southbound Southcenter Parkway vehicles destined for the
left turn pocket at the west Nordstrom driveway to accelerate beyond the
west theater driveway in order to avoid vehicles merging in the accelera-
tion lane. The removal of this median island is expected to reduce the
number of accidents at this intersection. Removal of the island can be
completed with minimal construction at an estimated cost of $3,200. This
improvement includes the island removal and restriping of the center lane.
Suggested improvements to the driveways on Andover Park West include
the closing of the post office's exit driveway and combining it with the
Puget Sound Mutual Bank driveway (Figure 9). With the small amount of
traffic using both driveways, combining them would not create unnecessary
delay for vehicles using either driveway. At the same time, this improve-
ment would reduce the number of conflict points on Andover Park West which
are in close proximity to the signalized intersection of Strander Boulevard
and Andover Park West.
14
SOUTHCENTER PKWY
a
G
0
a
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
TRAFF(L au roags
O
O
0
Sorun4cEN r 4
1 Etg -A-1
WEST THEATER DRIVEWAY
0 Sc uTHr N"M•FZ
(\At_.i. -..
PPkR. .t NCB
0
O
0
0
O
0
FZN<OVAL_ OF
Ex %s-rt —rw �c.
=.gLAN
0
10
30
40
SCALE_ IN FEET
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
WEST THEATER DRIVEWAY
FIGURE 7
Q
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
NORTH THEATER DRIVEWAY
FIGURE 8
• a
s!!vo ea 380v er
m
0A19 a3ONVW S
1 1
I
T I A
t/PU�ET SOUND
MUTUAL BANK.
l 1
ANDOVER PARK WEST
+t'
1
d .r
J.0 PENNEY T.B.A;LEASE PARCEL
1.02 ACRES 28 CARS
U.S POST OFFICE PARCEL
.80 ACREI25 CARS
r
J
?: EXISTING LAYOUT.
NORDSTRIOM
DEPT. STOKE
3 FLOORS
PROPOSED
I EXPANSION
FLOORS
MALL
8MOPS
..`t DRIVEWAY
EXISTING STOP SIGN
o r�_ DRIVEWAY 1
/ALTERNATIVE -1
NORDSTROM
DEPT. STOKE
3 FLOORS
1
MALL
PROPOSED
EXPANSION
FLOORS
SHOPS (T�0-4
1 s �
ALTERNATIVE 2
I RESTRIPED
,'PARKING
!AREA `
DRIVEWAY
Q
4P
DRIVEWAY
EXISTINGSTOP SIGN
a
NORDSTROM
DEPT. STOKE
3 FLOORS PROPOSED
I EXPANSION
I
1 .
1 1 ± 1
G
.LANDSCAPING
FLOORS
DRIVEWAY
� I
NEW PARKING AISLE
MALL NEW PARKING AISLE •
SHOPS
r_
DRIVEWAY
FOUR -WAY STOP INTERSECTION
-
<..
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
INTERNAL PARKING / CIRCULATION
ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 10
Internal Circulation and Parking
The internal intersection of the two theater driveways located
southeast of the Southcenter Theater is a potentially hazardous
intersection with the existing layout. Figure 10 shows the existing
parking layout and driveway locations and two alternatives to improve
traffic operations and safety at this intersection.
Unnecessary vehicle conflicts are created at the intersection primarily
for two reasons. First, the parking aisles opposite the north theater
driveway are offset from the inbound and outbound driveway lanes. This
forces vehicles using the north theater driveway to make a "jogged" turn
maneuver to enter or exit the opposite parking aisles. This situation can
easily be improved as shown in Figure 10, Alternative 1 by reversing the
striping and direction of the parking aisles.
The second vehicular conflict problem occurs because of the staggered
locations of the north theater driveway and the driveway between
Nordstrom and The Bon, creating unnecessary vehicular turn movements
between the two. This situation can he improved as shown in Figure 10,
Alternative 2 by reconfiguring the driveway between Nordstrom and The Bon
to line up with the north theater driveway. This would create a conven-
tional four -way stop intersection at the junction of the north and west
theater driveways. Alternative 2 would require minor construction to
remove and replace existing traffic islands and restripe parking aisles.
Alternative 1 is the recommended alternative at this location because
it significantly improves the conflict problem for vehicles using the north
theater driveway and can he made with minimal construction cost. This
alternative would not eliminate any existing parking stalls.
Alternative 2 would improve both conflict problems; however, with a
driveway leading to the face of the building, the increase in traffic would
create additional pedestrian conflicts near the entrance to Nordstrom.
Therefore, this alternative is not the preferred alternative.
19
SUMMARY
The following summarizes the key findings and recommendations from the
study.
o The Southcenter Nordstrom expansion will generate a total of 1,780
additional vehicle trips per day with 131 occuring during the p.m.
peak hour.
o The total number of trips generated was reduced by 25 percent since
the expansion will be added to an existing Nordstrom and is not
expected to generate entirely new traffic.
o In the p.m. peak hour, 20 percent of the newly generated traffic
will enter and exit using the west theater driveway and 30 percent
will use the north theater driveway.
o Based on observed operations and calculations of the north and west
theater driveways along with the gaps created by the adjacent
signals, the level of service for each driveway is expected to be
LOS C or LOS D. Level of service calculations bsaed on the Highway
Capacity Manual show that the north theater driveway will operate at
LOS E and the west theater driveway at LOS F. These values, how-
ever, are only theoretical and do not consider the acceleration
lanes or gaps created by the adjacent signals.
o Volumes on Southcenter Parkway do not warrant a signal at the west
theater driveway; a signal is therefore not recommended at this
intersection.
o Removal of the existing median island on Southcenter Parkway just
south of the west theater driveway is recommended to increase
acceleration distance, and providing safer merge operations for
southbound vehicles from the west theater driveway, and to improve
level of service.
o The addition of a few large traffic buttons is recommended to better
define the acceleration lane at both the west and north theater
driveways.
2_n
o Closure of the existing post office exit driveway at Andover Park
West and combining it with the existing bank driveway is recommended
to reduce the number of conflict points near the Andover Park
West /Strander Boulevard intersection.
o Restriping of the parking area, as indicated by Alternative 1, to
better align the north theater driveway with the opposite parking
aisles and improve vehicle movements in and out of the parking area.
21
Appendix A
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT
LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPT
Because intersection capacity and traffic flow performance, or "level of
service ", are prime factors in the alternatives development and evaluation
process, a brief description is presented here for the benefit of the lay
reader.
The ratio of existing traffic volume to available capacity provides a
measure of intensity of traffic loading relative to the ability of the
street intersection to accommodate the traffic. The number of lanes,
presence of turn lanes, type of traffic control, signal phasing, etc., are
important capacity determinants. As the volume /capacity ratio (v /c)
approaches a value of 1.0, extreme congestion sets in, with long backups at
signalized intersections and the passage of several complete changes of the
signal cycles before a motorist can proceed. Motorists at stop -sign
controlled intersection approaches face extremely long delays. This .
congestion can also impede access to and from upstream abutting property as
traffic queues lengthen.
The term "level of service" is used to describe intersection traffic flow
performance and for signalized intersections is essentially based on v/c
ratios (see Table A -1):
TABLE A -1
Traffic Level of Service and
Volume /Capacity Ratio Relationships
for Signalized Intersections
Level
Intersection of
V/C Ratio Service
Under 0.60
0.60 to 0.70
0.70 to 0.80
0.80 to 0.90
0.90 to 1.00*
Over 1.00
* Capacity
Source: Transportation Research Board Circular 212, Interim Materials on
Highway Capacity, 1980.
General Description
(Signalized Intersections)
A Free flow
B Stable flow (slight delays)
C Stable flow (acceptable delays)
D Approaching unstable flow (tolerable
delay -- occasionally wait through more
than one signal cycle before proceeding)
* Unstable flow (intolerable delay)
F Forced flow (jammed)
Level of service "A" is a condition of unimpeded flow, while level of
service "C" is often used in the design of new urban streets as the lowest
acceptable level for peak periods. Congestion begins to occur at level of
service "D" (v /c from 0.80 to 0.85). Because of funding and /or
environmental constraints for improvements, this level of service is being
used by more cities as an adequate level, particularly for improvements to
congested existing facilities. Increasingly unstable traffic flow with
excessive delay and congestion occurs as level of service "E" (capacity) is
approached (v /c = 0.85 to 1.00). For v/c >1.00, level of service "F"
(forced flow) is obtained, and the intersection is overloaded or is jammed
due to traffic backups from overloaded downstream intersections. Table A -2
shows daily traffic volumes corresponding to peak -hour level of service C,
D, and E (capacity) applicable to roadways of various numbers of .lanes and
configurations.
TABLE A -2
Guidelines for Relating Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
to Peak -Hour Level of Service for Suburban Arterials of
Various Roadway Lane Configurations
Total
Number
of Lanes
2 Two Lanes
Lane Configuration
3 Two Lanes with Left -
Turn Lane
4 Four Lanes
5 Four Lanes with Left -
Turn Lane
6 Six Lanes
7 Six Lanes with Left -
Turn Lane
Daily Two -Way
Traffic Volume for
Various Levels of Service*
Level of
Level of Level of Service E
Service C Service D (Capacity)
8,000 10,000 11,000
12,000 14,000 16,000
20,000 22,000 24,000
24,000 26,000 30,000
27,000 30,000 33,000
30,000 35,000 38,000
* The volumes represent maximums for the daily volume that will result
in levels of service indicated during peak hours.
Modified by Entranco Engineers from original source: "Crossroads
Study and Subarea Plan ", by City of Bellevue Planning Department,
June 1979.
It should be noted that equal v/c ratios at several locations do not
necessarily indicate equal overall performance of intersections since one
location may experience a high v/c ratio for a considerable period of the
day while at another the peak period is of short duration. In addition, a
low level of service is more tolerable at a low- volume intersection than a
high - volume location.
Capacity analysis for two -way stop intersections is based on the assumption
that major street traffic is not affected by the minor street movements,
and left -turns from the major streets to the minor streets are influenced
only by the opposing major street through flow. The level of service
calculated for two -way stop intersections are therefore only for all
movements on the minor street and left -turn movement on major streets. The
general level of service concept also holds for stop- sign - controlled
intersections, although the capacity of the stop- sign- controlled approaches
is less than that of the signalized intersection approach. Table A -3 shows
the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections.
TABLE A -3
Level -Of- Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections
Reserve Capacity
(PCPH)
> 400
300 -399
200 -299
100 -199
0 -99
*
Level of
Service
A
B
C
D
E
Expected Delay to
Minor Street Traffic
Little or no delay
Short traffic delays
Average traffic delays
Long traffic delays
Very long traffic delays
* When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will
be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting
other traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually
warrants improvements to the intersection.
Source: Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Highway Capacity
Manual, 1985
Appendix B
TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
Indicate North
With Arrow
A.M. PEAK HOUR
Time Period
Date
1�
1
1
P.M. PEAK HOUR
Time Period 1. s °D— 5 :OO
Date z I 18-7
F.A NI
-17)V-IN 1-41, wY •
al
6,30
1-
ENTRANCO Engineers
LOCATION TT+'wI LA � �Y
NIC:4 - rH -774
PROJECT �oirrxGE =r -r�� Nog -RO A
INTERSECTION
TURNING
MOVEMENT
COUNTS •
_ ! ~~ Compiled Bysse.. Date 2_k&tei7 Job No. 87075-&0 Sheet Of
Indicate North
With Arrow
H
PEDS
PEDS
of
VI
11
7
,
1 t-41-
J
7
Ir
e I175J
Ice)OCo
A.M. PEAK HOUR
Time Period
Date
P.M. PEAK HOUR
Time Period `k `
Date ts�g'�
/
(A), THEA -i2 V`C
Irni
to
0
04
e
ENTRANCO Engineers
LOCATION
W EST`TNC� r R. D vv
PROJECT s -r-M •
INTERSECTION
TURNING
MOVEMENT
COUNTS
Compiled ByscG1Date ?__\- e-7Job No. 2D7o -r5 -CO
Sheet Of
Indicate North
With Arrow
4 \
A.M. PEAK HOUR
Time Period
Date
•MINIMI MIMS •MINI• ,1■1= OM= 011•••1
•
I PEGS
• PEAK HOUR
Time Period
• Date' I E) 7 vo
--krike--w `RP-IAR".
li)
I-
il
,T f1
1 k 1 1-773 13,
I 1---
.-■1_,:fiL-7:1*-J 17.
:-C
DITRANCO Engineers
• LOCATION -rut"--toll-P ''cw16`‘e
•NoP-----rf--% Y,
PROJECT So t)-r1- hoP-DGITP-0 evc/
INTERSECTION
TURNING
MOVEMENT
COUNTS
• Compiled By..i)C.-.1Date246,1S7 Job No.670-75-000 Sheet. Of
Indicate North
With Arrow
PEDS
PEDS
31
or 1
Lipt-
A.M. PEAK HOUR
Time Period
Date
P.M. PEAK HOUR
Time Period `: D —S
Date I ` 7 w, T
735
1 t
ENTRMICO Engineers
LOCATION w4C1/4‘'
Wlss-T IK ,
PROJECT Sotrrt- (ce_nrre NO T C A., .
INTERSECTION
TURNING
MOVEMENT
COUNTS
Compiled Bye Date 2_1(,,,I5-7 Job No. g-70- m--_60
Sheet Of
Appendix_ C
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS
51.1 en 07C par /o- o■f cots 'C. /1A %/77 COUn ?' p i71rvnCP5.
fro", wee/. Nov. 23, /984 7o wee. U 2y, 1985
7,(...38,80Z c-
7, !0 35, !OZ cm..s
53 v «ks x 7 d r3 how s k, = 20, S10 /may
�i7,41i.M1 C.n •.
Tara / ,SLs9 .r «v /n' eq' eta --s
7;4 4" '--b.
/, 2 72, 995 J, 7r' ( strawy w4-o wan /• .S /
*At d4 e /op o/ q ii.q )
— /00, 600 .y w,n" •5.. - •^o7'ei
/7z, 995 s. ae• /, /73 r /coo ,.4"
20, 90 c.o..- is /1..ey s
i, 173 ,. i000 s.rt' - /7.5$ cv,s /dor //o0 .
o_ , , - on I•7 Crc l fv u.k i_,% q**-tq
1 0 7 , 027 s. 7'4.9
/..
C/J 7�r.yn' d e .4.c/es i..i //
( 7. ss cv. -%h /oar loon rir) /; /74
/Au.) ever 6L19 D ,a/e104:/ l.o
o•, ry/ con Ve,--
c9.S lorlaV
410 OS ,,o7` int_.4se COP s Ala y 4774 -1'4!
Some .-.47'c 6•C /7.55 c...s /•✓o/. / /0003.14--), .4 ••,.a -or o.,o444 ,-.daciso.- -1.7.c%.- Jew
.75 _►tone aecr_07a� i0- /.G7<J '/w. �lr.. r eJF co..s /day /we/MJa YCr .1 .-r 4�.+i y
7o o', ....V.'S 7i,..7 ci�i=.r- . 7•{. -.sue e , /
.75 x (/, /7!o cq_s /.✓4y) = 8S2 C4.3
/Soy odd, 7(7onq/
890 era s /a/o i- ep0.- 744/
8i?0 1C Z — /780
71t CcLerie / G'4•S 0 013 - sea 7`g6t. /074e.s (o.g44, 10c4) 740so
.4ssu..,c ..,e /•/ /5 .#.., � ccJ7'P / .by 711./5 o..o /y s'. 7.4 is revs..., .414
Co•,31�I..v,� USC 4.s�A /I..,,7 K7 OCCI S.5 .
e ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
SHEET NO_ OF
JOB NO /37075- • 0 -.9
PROJECT
CALCULATIONS FOR
MADE BY f=6 DATE Co i;Y7 CHECKED BY DATE
r
rAvve--1c-cr_217" / 1 oc-0
Pw\
0-7 —1-C71.-P\
: Shc:›FA-L:, r\c.• k CC)
_1_ 1 E__ -1=1A
=1- 1 (CR.17)- 1>P4
2, n
-5--=:1 • --7-5-ef)
. r7-1-
t>U+1C)r-
Pc-zo:stft-C7r,
1 -::> 1 - ( 5 • 7 —1. Z..07,. r e__ (-0e_•---.-± —1-1,,etcr- 1t...3,./ .
2-0 SS (,.. 2-6:. . -7 ---, .5 0 70 (e____. t•..10 ri k I he..c.zie r
7C., SO •==k
x 5-
@,
)
so%
Ce,&.
1::›Louf
1
ey— 1:Z>a \fil
SO %
% NE>
: lc,
r01-.'( U\ Piej")t(
3z •70 Pv-1,/,(
77, N!3 "
SI 7 Tt te-wt ut\--1>g4V-e
E._ 7. we,. (,
(t A 0 irt--)
Ts
gr)4./Ki,D
Approach Speed: Minor Street:
30 MPH N. THEATER DWY.
PHF: .88 N= 2
Population: 25000
Grade
O%
| |
134|
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement no.
2
4
5
7 9
Volume (vph)` ' 630
5
Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXX|XXXXXXXX|
206 | 525 4 131 /
213 :XXXXXXXX: 4 134
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street
/-> V9
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
1/2 V3+V2= 3 + 315 = 318 vph(Vc9)
Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp9= 770 pcph (Fig.10.3)
| Cm9=Cp9= 770 pcph
STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
v-- V4
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
V3+V2= 5 + 630 = 635 vph(Vc4)
| Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp4= 527 pcph (Fig.10.3)
(V4/Cp4)x100= 40.4% P4= .67
Cm4=Cp4= 527 pcph
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
<-\ V7
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
| 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
| 3 + 630 + 525 + 206 = 1364 vph(Vc7)
| Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp7= 107 pcph (Fig.10.3)
| Cm7=Cp7xP4= 107 x .67 = 72 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared
CR CR LOS
CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM
LOS
CSH
7
9
4
4
134
213
72
770
527
68
636
314
E
A
B
B^�1-"JC.
/5■Cs3- '
ILOCAlION:TUKWILA PKWY. / N. lHEAlER DWY |NAME:S.D. GOONG
HOURLY VOLUMES ^ | VOLUMES IN PCPH
N |
IIMaior street:TUKWILA PKWY.
======- ----- ------ | ----- --=---
N= 2 <---V5--- 263 |
r=�� �50---o�---� v---V4--- ~__ __- '_ ' 0% 5---V3---v N= 3 ( ---V3---v
----- <| |> -----==--- |
Date of Counts: | | � |
2/4/87 V7 V9 | X S|UP |
Time Period: | | | � YIELD }
4:Oo - 5:00 PM | 4 1311 |
Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade
30 MPH N. THEATER DWY. 0%
PHF: .88 N= 2
Population: 25000
==_____=_____=______====________
VOLUME ADJUSTMEN[S
<---V5---
v---V4---
21�
<� /> =========
| /
V7 V9
| | �
4 134|
Movement no. . 2 , 3 . 4 . 5 . 7 . 9
Volume (vph) | 630 1 5 1 206 | 263 | 4 | 131 .
--------------------------------------------------------------- --------'------
Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXxXx|XXXXxXXx| 213 |xXxxxxXx| 4 1 134 |
--- _____ __________________ __________ __________--------
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street � /-> 09
_______ _-_ __
Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 1/2 V3+V2= 3 + 315 = 318 vph(Vc9)
Critical Gap, |c : fc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp | Cp9= 770 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Actual Capacity, Cm | Cm9=Cp9= 2/0 pcph
_________________________________==============================================
STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
v-- 04
Conflicting Flows, Vc / 05+V2= 5 4 630 = 63� vp|.(Vc4)
Critical Gap, [c | lc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2>
Potential Capacity, Cp | cp4= 52/ pcph `Fig'10.3>
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor | (V4/Cp4)x100= 40.4% P4= .67
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5) | Cm4=Cp4= 527 pcph
______ ____ ___==========_____=_____==========_______=======_____=______===
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street � <-\ V7
===============================================================================
Conflicting Flows, Vc 1 1/2 03+02+V5+04=
: 3 + 6■0 + 2+3 + 206 = 1102 vph(Vc7)
Critical Gap, [c 1 [c= 7 secs (feb.10.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp7= 160 pcph (Fjg.10.3)
Actual Capacity, Cm | cm/=Cp/xP4= 160 x .67 = 107 pcph
, ___________________
SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V)+V9)/(iVi/Gm2)+(09/Cm9)) if lane is shared
CH |0S LoS
MOVEMEN} 0(PCPH) i.;11(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) `CM-V> (CSI-4-V/ C11 CSH
-----
C?
4
4
134
213
107
//»
103 D
636
314 8
.�
`
IILOCATION:SOUTHCENTER PKWY. / WEST THEAT |NAME:S.D.GOONG
V3+V2= 111 + 582 = 693 vph(Vc4)
Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp4= 490 pcph (Fig.10.3)
(V4/Cp4)x100= 5.1% P4= .97
Cm4=Cp4= 490 pcph
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
<-\ V7
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
56 + 582 + 545 + 24 = 1207 vph(Vc7)
Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp7= 139 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Cm7=Cp7xP4= 139 x .97 = 135 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
MOVEMENT V(PCPH)
SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared
CM(PCPH)
CR CR
(CM-V) (CSH-V)
LOS LOS
CM CSH
7
9
4
163
25
135
745
490
151
151
-28
720
465
- 37 F
- 37 A
A
F
F
I0CATION:SOUTHCENTERPKWY. / W. THEATER |NAME:S.Q.GOQNG
HQ' LY VOLUMES | VOLUMES IN PCPH
7 162 207 229 45 42 E E
9 25 745 229 720 42 A E
4 25 49() 465 A
1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
56 + 582 + 545 + 24 = 1207 vph(Vc7)
Tc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp7= 139 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Cm7=Cp7xP4= 139 x .97 = 135 pcph
SHARED LANE CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared
MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH)
7
4
CR CR
CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V)
LOS LOS
CM CSH
163
25
25
135
745
490
-28
720
465
F
A
A
LQCATION:SQUTHCENTER PKWY.
/ W.
THEATER |WAME:S.D.8QQNG
HOURLY VOLUMES
IMajor street:SOUTHCENTER PKWY.
N>
N= 2
Grade 582---V2--->
01 111---V3---v
<|
Date of Counts: |
2/5/87 V7
Time Period:
4:30 - 5:30 | 157
Approach Speed: Minor Street:
30 MPH W. 1HEATER
PHF: ~95 N= 2
Population: 25000
cobSizectlet.\S
Fmw�'�u��6�L_
���
��'f��x��gs4uG�-V=��-�o_- •
| VOLUMES IN PCPH
|
<---V5--- 273 |
"---V4--- 24 |
N= 3
|>
| |
|
V9 | X STOP
| YIELD
24|
Grade
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement no.
Volume (vph)
VoI(pcph),see
<---V5---
---V2---> v---V4---
---V3---v
<| |>
| |
V7 V9
| |
182 25|
3 4 9 |
582
111 | 24 | 273 | 157 | 24 |
Table 10.11XXXXXXXX|XXXXXXXX1 25 |XXXXXXXX| 162 | 25 |
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street
=
____________________
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, 7c
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
=
/-> V9
| 1/2 V3+V2= 56 + 291 = 34/ vph(Vc9)
| Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp9= 745 pcph (Fig.10.3)
| Cm9=Cp9= 745 pcph
STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
=
=
v-- V4
V3+V2= 111 + 582 = 693 vph(Vc4)
1c= 5.5 secs (Tab-10.2)
Cp4= 490 pcph (Fig.10.3)
(V4/Cp4)x100= 5.1% P4= .97
Cm4=Cp4= 490 pcph
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, Tc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
MOVEMENT
=
7
9
4
V(PCPH)
162
25
25
=
< V7
| 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
| 56 + 582 + 273 + 24 = 935 vph(Vc7)
| lc= 7 secs (lab.10.2)
| Cp7= 213 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Cm7=Cp7xP4= 213 x .97 = 207 pcph
_________________
207
745
490
CR
45
72(
CR LOS LOS
____~-_-_-~_________
E
L0Cw[ION:TL<WILA PKWY. / W. IHEAYER DWY INAME:S.D.GQONG [(167 v4/
HOURLY VOLUMES 1 VOLUMES IN PCPH
N
Major street:TLKWILA PKWY.
|
Grade 630---V2---> v---V4--- 244 1 ---V2---> v---yu
0% ;---V3---v N= 3 | ---V3---v
------ ---== <| |> ---- � | ----------------= <| |>
Date of Counts: | | | |
1987 W/PROJECT | V7 V9 | X S[OP | | V/ V9 (
Time Period: | | | | YIELD | | | | |
. 4:00 - 5:00 � 6 157| | 1601
! Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade
30 MPH N.THEAIEA DWY. 0%
| PHF: .9 W= 2
'
SHARED LANE CAPACITY 8H = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)> if lane is shared
CR CR LOS LOS
MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V) CM CSH
7
9
4
6
160
=_
60 54
/69 609 *
526 273 C
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
MOVEMENT
9
4
V (PCPH)
6
160
253
|XXXXXXXX|
7
6
6
/-> V9
=
9 1
157 |
160
| 1/2 V3+V2= 4 + 315 = 319 vph(Vc9)
| Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp9= 769 pcph (Fig.10.3)
1 Cm9=Cp9= 769 pcph
( v-- V4
| y3+V2= 7 + 630 = 637 vph(Vc4)
Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
( Cp4= 526 pcph (Fig.18.3)
| (V4/Cp4)x100= 48.1% P4= .6
| Cm4=Cp4= 526 pcph
<-\ V7
1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
1 4 + 630 + 263 + 244 = 1141 vph(Vc7)
| lc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp7= 152 pcph (Fig.10.3)
1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 152 x '6 = 91 pcph
__________
CM(PCPH) [SH(PCPH)
91
769
=
CR
(CM-V)
85
609
CR iQS
<CSH-V> CM
LOS
CSH
E
C
LQCATIQN:SQkTHCENTER PKWY. / W. THEATER 1WAME:S.Q.S0ONG nw�» w
HOURLY VOLUMES
Major street:SDUTHCENTER PKWY.
N= 2
Grade 582---V2--->
0% 132---V3---v
-=---------- <|
Date of Counts: |
1987 W/PR8JECT� | V7
Time Period: | |
4:30 - 5:30 | 190
N>
| VOLUMES IN PCPH
|
<---V5--- 545 ( <---V5---
v---V4--- 29 | ---»2---> v---V4--- 30
W= 3 : ---V3---v
=
V9 | X STOP
| YIELD
291
Approach Speed: Minor Streei:
30 MPH W. THEATER UWY.
PHF: .9 N= 1
Population: 25000
_________
VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS
Movement no.
Grade
<| |)
1 1 |
V7 V9
� |� |
197 301
4
5
Volume (vph) | 582 | 132 | 29 |
545
Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXX|XXXXXXXX1 30 1XXXXXXXX|
STEP 1 : RT From Minor Street
= ===========
/-> V9
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, |c
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
2 9 |
190 29 :
197 | 30 |
1 1/2 V3+V2= 66 + 291 = 357 vph(Vc9)
1 lc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
| Cp9= 737 pcph (Fig.10.3)
| Cm9=Cp9= /37 pcph
STEP 2 : LT From Major Street
====== --=====================
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, lc
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
===_____=_
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
v-- V4
=
1 V3+V2= 132 + 582 = 714 vph(Vc4)
| Tc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2}
| Cp4= 477 pcph (Fig.10.3)
| (V4/Cp4)x100= 6.3% P4= .96
| Cn4=Cp4= 477 pcph
` <-\ V7
Conflicting Flows, Vc | 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
| 66 + 582 + 545 + 29 = 1222 vph(Vc7)
Critical Gap, Tc | lc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2)
Potential Capacity, Cp | Cp7= 136 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 136 x .96 = 131 pcph
=
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
MQVEMENl
7
9
4
V(P[PH)
192
CM(PCPH)
'-------
131
737
47/
_=
0R CR
CSH(PCPH) (CM-V) (CSH-V)
147 -66 -80
147 707 -80
447
LOS LOS
CM CSH
=__=
F �
A
A
9
197
200
737
477
CR [R LOS 108
221 3
221 707
447
-6 E
-6 H
LOCATION:SOUTHCEWTER PKWY. / W. THEATER |NAME:S.0.@8ONG ^u
HOURLv VOLUMES
=
N>
*
1 VOLUMES IN PCPH
N= 2 <---V5--- 545 |
Grade 582---V2---> v---V4--- 29 |
0% 132---V3---v N= 3 |
<| |> ========== |
Date of Counts: | | | |
1987 W/PROJECT | V7 V9 | X ST[B, |
Time Period: | | YIELD |
4:30 - 5:30 : 190 291
Approach Speed: Minor Street: Grade .
30 MPH W. lHEAlER DWY. 0%
PHF: .9 N= 2
Population: 25000
=____
VOLUME AMISS-MEWS
Movement no.
Volume (vph)
| 2 |
.
---V2--->
4
| 5
<---V5---
3L
{| |>
• | |
V7 V9
� | |
197
30
7 |
132 | 29 | 545 1 190 |
Vol(pcph),see Table 10.11XXXXXXXX|XXXXXXXX1
30 1XXXXXXXX1 197 |
STEP 1 : RI From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, lc
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
•
/-> V9
9 |
29 |
30 |
STEP 2 : LI From Major Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, |c
Potential Capacity, Cp
% of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor
Actual Capacity, Cm (Fig.10.5)
__======--
STEP 3 : LT From Minor Street
Conflicting Flows, Vc
Critical Gap, |c
Potential Capacity, Cp
Actual Capacity, Cm
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
MOVEMENT V(PCPH)
| 1/2 V3+V2= 66 + 291 = 357 vph(Vc9)
[c= 5.5 secs (Tab.10'2)
| Cp9= 737 pcph (Fig.10.3)
Cm9=Cp9= 731 pcph
v-- V4
| V3+V2= 132 + 582 = 714 vph(Vc4)
1 Tc= 5.5 secs <Tab.10.2>
Cp4= 477 pcph (Fig.10.3)
| (V4/Cp4tx100= 6.3% P4= .96
Cm4=Cp4= 477 pcph
CM(PCPH)
7 197
9 30
4 30
=
=
<-\ V7
=
1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
66 + 582 + 545 + 29 = 1222 vph(Vci)
1c= 7 secs (fab.10.2)
Cp/= 136 pcph (Fig.10'30
Cm2=Cp7xP4= 136 x '96 = 131 pcph
131
737
477
• CSH(PCPH)
=
CR CR
-66
707
447
L.QS LOS
CM CSH
.F
A
(6le7
w�E�������3��
' _
LQCAIION:SOUTHCENTER PKWY. / W. THEATER |NAME:S.D.GOQNG
HOURLY VOLUMES
IMajor street:SOUTHCENIER PKWY.
1 VOLUMES IN PCPH
N> |
N= 2
----- --------=-
SHARED LANE CAPACITY
MOVEMENT V(PCPH)
/-> V9
________________ ________
1 1/2 V3+V2= 66 + 291 = 357 vph(Vc9)
| 7c= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
Cp9= 737 pcph (Fig.10.3)
1 [m9=Cp9= 237 pcph
_____--------------------------------
v-- V4
1 V3+V2= 132 + 582 = 714 vph(Vc4)
| lc= 5.5 secs (Tab.10.2)
1 Cp4= 477 pcph (Fig.1O.3)
or 1 (V4/Cp4)x100= 6'3% P4= .96
(Fjg.10.5) | Cm4=Cp4= 477 pcph
Street | <-\ V7
1 1/2 V3+V2+V5+V4=
| 66 + 582 + 273 + 29 = 950 vph(Vc7)
| lc= 7 secs (Tab.10.2)
1 Cp7= 208 pcph (Fig.10.3)
1 Cm7=Cp7wP4= 208 x .96 = 200 pcph
_
SH = (V7+V9)/((V7/Cm7)+(V9/Cm9)) if lane is shared
197 200
30 737
30 477
CR [R LOS LOS
707
442
E
A
•
1F7
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC. P.A.
'AT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Ross Earnst
City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 Southcenter Blvd. MANNING D "EPT.
Tukwila, WA 98188
FEB 27 9
2 8I
Dear Mr. Earnst:
February 24, 1987
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center
Proposed Nordstrom Expansion
Per your request, we have evaluated the water supply requirements for
fire prevention and the domestic needs of the proposed Nordstrom
Department Store expansion at Southcenter Shopping Center. The results
of that evaluation are contained herein.
Attached, please find correspondence from Factory Mutual, Engineering,
dated January 27, 1987. The statistics reported in that letter indicate
that the current public water supply system is adequate to protect the
Southcenter development from any loss defined as the "maximum
foreseeable loss" (MFL). The attached Factory Mutual Engineering
approval, dated February 18, 1987, indicates that the public water
supply system is adequate to protect the Southcenter Shopping Center
including the proposed Nordstrom expansion.
In terms of domestic needs, the following calculation, based on
established industry standards, illustrates the effect of the expansion
on domestic water usage:
Building area of expansion = 67,027 s.f.
Water usage gal. /s.f. /day = x 0.1 g.p.d. /s.f.
Water usage due to expansion = 6,703 g.p.d.
4.65 g.p.m.
Average flow (24 hour period) = 4.65 g.p.m.
Peaking factor = x 3
Peak usage due to expansion = 13.95 g.p.m.
25.125 CENTER flIDCE RO %•Q. CLEVELArJD. CH10 • -14145 12U ] E371 - 1800
• •
Mr: Ross Earnst
February 24, 1987
Page 2
This increase in flow is negligible in comparison with available supply
and current usage, and does not require or warrant improvement of the
existing water supply system.
The proposed Nordstrom Department Store expansion will not increase
water supply requirements for fire protection purposes, nor will this
project significantly increase domestic water usage. Therefore, no
local water main improvements are required to facilitate the proposed
Nordstrom Department Store expansion.
We look forward to continued cooperation with the City on this project,
and ask that you feel free to call with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Paul A. Grodecki
PAG /ljc
Attachment /
cc: M. Bradshaw
L. Johnson
R. Mitchell
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
January 23, 1987
Mr. Thomas P. Schmitz, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Company
25425 Center Ridge Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44145
LAKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING (206) 827 -1300
5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N.E.. KIRKLAND. WA 98033
RECEIVED
;IAN 2 6 1987
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
Re: Traffic Study for Southcenter Shopping
Center Nordstrom Expansion
Entranco Project No. 87075 -60
o
1016
Dear Tom:
It was a pleasure to meet you and Paul Grodecki Wednesday and receive your
briefing on the reference study.
I talked to Tukwila City Engineer, Ross Earnst later in the day regarding
detailsof the City's desired scope for the traffic study. Accordingly, we
propose the following scope of services:
1. Assemble and review existing traffic count data (City counts and
Southcenter's driveway loop counts) and City accident data for site
vicinity. The City. data is expected to be available January 23. -
2. Perform Southcenter Theater driveway intersection turning movement
counts during. p.m peak hour (Southcenter Parkway and Tukwila
Parkway driveways) plus one additional count location if review of
City and. Southcenter count data so warrants.
3. Conduct noon hour and p.m. peak hour field observations of traffic
flow conditions at the'- above locations and at the several
Southcenter driveways on Andover Park West in the vicinity of post
office Puget Sound Mutual Bank.
4. Estimate trip generation (confirm suitability of the environmental .
check. list estimate) and assign the new trips to Southcenter
driveways. Calculate p.m. peak hour level of service at up to
three driveway intersections with, -"and without the Nordstrom
expansion. Assess on -site circulation impacts. Address potential
impact mitigation measures.
EVERETT OFFICE 5`6 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING 12061 258 -6202
1602 HEWITT AVENUE. EVERETT. WA 98201
Mr. Thomas P. Schmitz, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Company
January 23, 1987
Page 2
5. Prepare letter report. Present findings to client (local meeting).
and to City Department of Public Works.
Our estimated fee for the above is $3,500. A reduction in fee will be made
if any of the assumed new manual counts are not required. We will have a
better idea on this when we collect and review the City's existing counts.
We can proceed on this study as soon as.,you_ notify _us_to_do- so.- ^-l=f- you-lcan --
- -quickly arrange for — providing us the Southcenter driveway count data,
especially any hour -by -hour weekday volume data for the theater driveways,
it will expedite the schedule.
Sincerely,
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
Dennis R. Neuzil
Associate
DRN:lsj
cc: Mr. Ross Earnst, City of Tukwila
•
grA1 CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Those Present:
.ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
SOUT1iCENTER SHOPPING CENTER
NORDSTROM EXPANSION
CITY OF TUKWILA
Tuesday - January 20, 1987
Moria Carr Bradshaw
Ross Earnst
Phil Fraser
Doug Gibbs
David Ray
Duane Griffin
Larry Johnson
Rich Mitchell
Keith Masters
Bill Berger
In Henneberry
Tom Schmitz
Paul Grodecki
.A.
Lr
FEB 0 G 1987
di" TUi<VViLA
1
J
PLANNING DEPT. .
Ass't. Planner - Tukwila
City Engineer - Public Works
Senior Engineer - Public Works
Fire Marshall - Tukwila
Fire Inspector. - Tukwila
Building Inspector -kwila
Nordstrom
The Callison Partnership
Mall Manager
Ass't. Mall Manager
Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs
Center Ridge Design Services Inc.
Center Ridge Design Services Inc..
On Tuesday, January 20, 1987 at 1:00 p.m. a meeting was held at. Tukwila
City Hall with City Officials and others to discuss the Nordstrom
Expansion at Southcenter Shopping Center. A record of items discussed is
contained herein.
1) The meeting opened with an item by item discussion of a letter sent
by Phil Fraser to R. K. Murray and P. A. Grodecki dated January 12,
1987 which discussed requirements for permit approval. The plans
in their present form are approved subject to the following
conditions and /or exceptions:
a) Proposed relocation of Nordstrom water meter should be shown
on sheet SC -3 with note as shown on SC-4
b) A recommendation that inverts be verified prior to
construction. Existing note to that effect is sufficient.
c) Prior to issuing building or utility permits, CRDSI will be
required to review the City's Comprehensive Water Plan and
submit a report which analyzes the adequacy of water service
to Southcenter. The report should address how the Nordstrom
expansion will affect the proposed City water system and offer
recommendations to mitigate any impact. The study will became
an addendum to the Environmental Checklist. The City shared
the Comprehensive Plan (prepared by Horton Dennis) with CRDSI
after the meeting. The plan points out the need for increased
service and the City is committed to constructing a reservoir
north of the mall and increasing line size from the proposed
reservoir to the PRV on the Tukwila Parkway. Future plans
call for an additional reservoir southwest of the Mall.
25425 CENTER (RIDGE ROAD. CLEVELAND. OHIO 44145 [2161B71-4800
• •
d) Prior to issuing building or utility permits the City will
also require a evaluation of access to Southcenter. The
report should make recommendations to reduce the accident rate
in the areas where it is currently high and to ease the flow
into the shopping center at unsignalized intersections
especially at those entrances /exits near the post office and
the theatre (south). Ross Earnst will send accident
statistics to CRDSI for use and Keith Master will share a
parking /traffic study previously performed for Allied.
This traffic evaluation will become an addendum to the
Environmental Checklist. Permits will be issued after City
review of the report. '
2) Phil Frazer is in receipt of the permit appl Cation_and stated the
plans are_sat3sfactory and the permitting process could begin upon
receipt of reports noted in Item 1.
3) The City advised that Exhibit "C" to the current utility easement
would have to be revised to reflect changes due to the expansion.
If Exhibit "C" could not be located, some alternate method of
granting an easement must be agreed on.
4) The Fire Marshall stated that the proposed turning radius east of
the expansion was not adequate. A 35' inside radius and 80'
outside radius is required for ladder truck access. CRDSI will
study alternatives.
5) The Environments Checklist is sufficient although requiring
additional information as noted in Item 1. The Southcenter parking
data previously submitted to the City is sufficient.
6) The City requested additional information on marsh gas venting
Rich Mitchell indicated information was still be complied and
formal response would be offered later.
I trust the foregoing accurately reflects comments and understandings
resulting from this meeting. Please contact the undersigned if any
questions arise or any discrepancies are observed.
/blv
cc: (M: Br:adhawb
R. Earnst
D. Gibbs
L. Johnson
Respectfully submitted,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES
/D /1.'o oG
Paul A. Grodecki
R. Mitchell
K. Masters, Mgr.
T. P. Schmitz
T. W. Henneberry
CITY OF TUKWILA - PERMIT NUMBER EP/� -..3• F7 CONTROL NUMBER Z( 7_ 003
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM
TO: 0 BLDG.
PROJECT
PLNG. Q P.W. 0 FIRE Q POLICE Q P. & R.
NORDSTROM EXPANSION
ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED 1 -7 -87
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
RESPONSE RECEIVED
1 -15 -87
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
[j •:I`1:; tL rr:,^ +, uY
0
O
O
Q
Q _
0
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
O
Q
Q
Q
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [I
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [(
PLAN APPROVED [[
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - R ING FORM
PERMIT NUMBEREP/�-,f .r7 CONTROL NUMBER
TO: BLDG. [J PLNG. ( P.W. [[ FIRE D POLICE D P. & R.
PROJECT
ADDRESS
NORDSTROM EXPANSION
P
DATE TRANSMITTED
1 -7 -87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1 -15 -87
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw. RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
ti7 OF 1 //
13C NMPor-A I u ) S '
( to eNi r■TL- 4.2 'V A-1 13IUT1 .
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [I
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [[
PLAN APPROVED LJ
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA
•
_ (1&Ip0L
PERMIT NUMBEREP%c -J3
�7 CONTROL NUMBER �( 7_ 3
CENTRAL' PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM
TO: ❑ BLDG. [I PLNG. ❑ P.W. C1 FIRE POLICE ❑ P. & R.
PROJECT
ADDRESS .
NORDSTROM EXPANSION
DATE TRANSMITTED 1 -7 -87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1 -15 -87
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
[! POLICE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS:
❑ L. REDUCTION OF AVAILABLE PARKING DUE TO EXPANSION INTO NORTH
❑ - PARKING FIELD.
❑ 2. sidewalk and emergency vehicle access.
❑
El-� - - -- - -- 1/2/87 _- pjl _.- - - - - -- .--- - - - - -: ---- - - - - --
El
El
El
❑
El
El
❑
El
El
El
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [(
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0
PLAN APPROVED [[
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA . PERMIT NUMBERE(f /e-,fs5'7 CONTROL NUMBER Y 7_0,03
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM
TO: Q BLDG. E[ PLNG. Q P.W. Q FIRE Q POLICE XP. & R.
PROJECT NORDSTROM EXPANSION
ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED 1 -7 -87
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1 -15 -87
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINES) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
D
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED Q
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED E[
PLAN APPROVED E
PLAN CHECK DATE /
COMMENTS PREPARED BY /,,� ._
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA
PERMIT NUMBEREPIC -.13- -5'7 CONTROL NUMBER 2 7_6,03
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM
TO:
BLDG. Q PLNG. [[ P.W. a FIRE a POLICE [] P. &.R.
PROJECT NORDSTROM EXPANSION
ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED 1 -7 -87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1 -15 -87
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Moira Bradshaw RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
a s O'YYl i'yf i'1 �'� OAT t/1 i S
0
Q
0
a
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [�
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0
PLAN APPROVED [�
PLAN CHECK DATE
- COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN
I1
INC. P A.
ARCHITECTS - ENGINEERS* SURVEYORS
25425 CENTER RIDGE ROAD, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44145
TO:
Area Code 216. 835.4600
216. 871.4800
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw
ATTENTION:L
1
J
DATE:
SHIPPED VI. FEDERAL EXPRESS
Carrier
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
January 6, 1987
DRAWINGS REC'D:
PROJECT: Southcenter Shopping Center
LOCATION; Tukwila, WA
BLDG, /UNIT:
WE ARE FORWARDING TO YOU HEREWITH 0 UNDER SEPARATE COVER 0 THE FOLL')WING:
COPIES
DATE
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
1
12/11/86
Fnvi ronmental f.hPckl i st w /fPP
CRDSI
00000000
FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT.
FOR
APPROVED. FORWARD ADDITIONAL PRINTS FOR OUR USE.
APPROVED AS NOTED. PLEASE CORRECT AND SUBMIT PRINTS FOR OUR USE.
NOT APPROVED. CORRECT AND RESUBMIT FOR APPROVAL.
APPROVAL. PLEASE RETURN PRINTS INDICATING., APPROVAL OR CORRECTION NECESSARY.
FOR FIELD USE.
FOR YOUR FILES.
OTHER For review and approval
El PER YOUR REQUEST.
El FOR BIDDING PURPOSES.
REMARKS.
[2[E6M
JAN -71987
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPR.
R. Mitchell, w /enclosures - Via FX
COPIES TO: L. Johnson, w /enclosures - Via FX
JBC /Jan.'s
BY
Paul A. Grodecki
SOUTHCENTER SHOPPING CENTER
NORDSTROM EXPANSION
Tukwila, Washington
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Prepared by:
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all
governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal
before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide
information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal
(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and
to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instruction for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information
about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the
environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara-
tion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise infor-
mation known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your
knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from
your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts.
If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to
your proposal, 'write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shore-
line, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If
you have problems, the City staff can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you
plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land.
Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or
its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or
provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there
may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a
single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and
programs.
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may
be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental
sheet for nonproject actions (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words
"project," "applicant," and "property or site" should read as "proposal,"
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
Control No. .13 7- (j':o,3
Epic File No. lC -3$'S --l-4,
Fee $100.00 Receipt No. .3.2S
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Proposed Nordstrom Expansion
2. Name of applicant: Southcenter Joint Venture
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Paul A. Grodecki
Center Ridge Design Services Inc. 25425 Center Ridge Road, Cleveland, OH 44145
(216) 871 -4800
4. Date checklist prepared: December 31, 1986
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Start - January 19, 1987
Complete - February 1, 1988
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further' activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None-in addition to
this rherk list
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. No
-2-
M[E[fIli 1
[JAN_-7 1987
CITY OF
PLANni►NG, DEFT.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
City of Tukwila Building Permit
Utility Extension Permits
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description, of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
_7,027 SF Expansion of Nor ..town_ ept Store fnr retail
activities.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
As shown on drawing SK -1 attached as Exhibit "A ". The expansion is immediately
north of existing Nordstrom Dept. $torte at Southcanter Mall .
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
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
Flat
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 2%
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 attached Subsurface Investigation and Geoterhniral
En•ilee 'l• '-}• t ,ed E.1•' ":"
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
See attached report.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. 0 -1 foot of granular structural fill
required m existing. as alt surface elevation to
proposed building subgrade. Structural fill to be
from off site sources. --
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
NO
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
No change in impervious area will result.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: Asphalt
Surface in proposed building area to remain in place
during initial construction 'activities to reduce
tracking of dirt from constructinn znne
2. Air
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
No significant increase in emissions to air during
construction due to asphalt pavement in. place. Increased
automobile traffic will not generate any odors dissimilar
to those currently existing.
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: Dust control measures
during construction as required.
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. NO
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. N/A
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material. _Jg
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. No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge. No
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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 change from existing
conditions.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve. 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. No change
from existinn conditions.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
x shrubs
X grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? Existing site landscaping with expansion
area to be removed /relocated7eplanted to new planter
rocat ons.
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: Proposed landscaping would be similar
to existing.
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:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
N/A
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:'
N/A
fish: .bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other: N/A
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. N/A
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain. N/A
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: UtA
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.
Somme as existing
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: New HVAC equipment will incorporate
high efficiency components and be sized in accordance
with the Washington State Energy Code recommendations.
Micro - processor based energy management control system
will optimize several mechanical /elec ricaalfuncti5i s.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. None
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
N/A
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)? Traffic
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.
Short Term - Construction Noise
Long Term - No change from current conditions
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: None
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current -use of the site and adjacent
properties? Commercial retail
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
See attached SK -1
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? C -P District Planned Business Center
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Commercial
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? 175
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:
N/A
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. N/A _
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?
63 feet to parapet - brick masonry exterior
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? Exterior of existing
Nordstroms to be remodeled to upgrade entire store.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: Aesthetic appearance of
development will be improved.
-13-
1
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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?
No change from existing conditions
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? No
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: N/A
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
N/A
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:
N/A
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 to be on or next to the site.
I None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: N/A
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 drawing SK -1 attached hereto
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Yes
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate ?_,__
See attached SK -1
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).
N/A
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. N/A
f. How many vehicular trips .p.er —d-ay,would be generated
by the completed projecp If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occurs 890 VD Additional
g.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
None
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. No increase in public service
will result.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
N/A
1
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
(telephone,)
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
refuse service,
septic system, other.
(Qlectricity)
eanitary sewer)
Private refuse service
t*f[i
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.
Relocation of sanitary Sewer, water main, Storm
sewer and primary power is required
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: 3/ /984
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
r
-17-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
Proposed measure to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive. Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
Fulfill demand for additional retail needs
withinq existing market.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? None
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: N/A
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are; N/A
-23-
• •
a-. CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES I C.
IPAff
City of Tukwila,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS NOV 21198 6
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT. j
Attention: Mr. L. Rick Beeler
Dear Mr. Beeler:
November 17, 1986
RE: Southcenter Shopping Center
Nordstrom Expansion
Enclosed, please find a print of drawing S, a print of drawing SK -1,
and a tabulated parking requirement summary.
As discussed during our meeting on Monday, November 10, 1986, and as
the enclosures indicate, there is currently 7,257 parking spaces on
the shopping center parcel. City codes require that 5,178 spaces be
provided. The expansion will cause a loss of 53 spaces thus reducing
the total number of parking stalls to 7,204. The expansion will also
increase the parking requirement to 5,999 spaces, still below the
number provided.
This information should onfi m that the parking requirements of the
City of Tukwila are cur n ly b ing met and that Southcenter will
remain in conformance fer� co pletion of proposed Nordstrom expansion.
If you have any quests. comments regarding the enclosures or any
other aspect of the pro
PAG /blv
Enclosures
, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CENTER RIDGE DESIGN SERVICES INC.
Paul A. Grodecki
25425 CENTER RIDGE ROAD, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44145 [215] 871 -4800
PARKING REQUIREMENT SUMMARY
SOUTHCENTER SHOPPING CENTER
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (DWG.'S' DATED 4/29/86)
*************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
RETAIL - 5.0 CARS /1,000 SF GROSS LEASABLE AREA
LESS 4.0 CARS /1,000 SF FOOD SERVICE AREA
OFFICE - 2.5 CARS /1,000 SF FLOOR AREA
POST OFFICE - 3.0 CARS /1,000 SF FLOOR AREA
THEATRE - 0 /FIRST 750 SEATS +3/100 REMAINING SEAT
MOTEL - 1 /ROOM + 1 /100 SF DINING AREA + 1/4 SEAT MEETING ROOMS
RETAIL AREAS
TBA GLA
NORDSTROM 103,768
THE BON 258,944
J.C. PENNEY 251,753
TBA 20,989
FREDERICK & NELSON 174,630
MALL SHOPS 442,973
UNION OIL 1,610
__________
TOTAL SF 1,254,667
REQUIRED PARKING
RETAIL 1,073,116 X 5.0 RATIO =
LESS (45,537) X 4.0 RATIO =
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING.
OFFICE
PUDGET SOUND MUTUAL 4256 X 2.5 = 11
POST OFFICE 4650 X 3.0 = 14
THEATRE FIRST 750 SEATS 0
REMAINING 450 SEATS X 3/100 = 14
MOTEL
97,243
235,601
229,750
20,989
164,121
323,802
1,610
1,073,116
5,366
162
__ = =_ =__
5184
200 ROOMS @ 1 /ROOM 200
15,980 SF DINING @ 1 /100 SF 170
500 MEETING @ 1/4 SEATS 125
= = = = = = = = = =c=
TOTAL MOTEL 495
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 5,178
TOTAL EXISTING 7,257
PROPOSED NORDSTROM EXPANSION (DWG. SK -1 DATED 10/28/85)
************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NORDSTROM EXPANSION
56,232 X 5.0 RATIO
TOTAL EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
NORDSTROM EXPANSION
TOTAL REQUIRED
TOTAL EXISTING PARKING
LOST TO EXPANSION
56,232
2B1
5,718
281
5,999
7,257
53
TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING 7,204
NOV
F21 1986
ciTY OF I Uhl+` G.,4
PLANNING DEPT.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
NORDSTROM
SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION
Tukwila, Washington
Prepared For
Nordstrom, Inc.
W -5024
October 1986
RZA
RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical Consultants
RZARITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants
r#A144."1.1:
1400 140th Avenue N.E.
A
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 746 -8020
31 October 1986 W -5024
Nordstrom, Inc.
c/o The Callison Partnership
1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Mr. Mike Creighton
Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Nordstrom Southcenter Expansion
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to present herein a copy of the above referenced report. This
report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical
engineering study relative to the foundation and construction considerations for
the proposed expansion. Authorization to proceed with this study was provided by
Mr. Lawrence Johnson with Nordstrom, Inc. in a letter dated 8 October 1986
(P.O. No. 14139). This study has been completed in general accordance with our
proposal letter dated 29 September 1986.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and would be pleased to
discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at
your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
J. Robert Gordon, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Nordstrom Southcenter Expansion
Tukwila, Washington
Prepared For
Nordstrom, Inc.
1501 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101 -1603
Prepared By
Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc.
1400 - 140th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98005
October 1986
W -5024
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED NORDSTROM SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
1.0 SUMMARY
The proposed project construction is feasible with respect to the subsurface
conditions encountered at the subject site. A brief summary of the project
geotechnical considerations is presented below.
• Our subsurface exploration program generally disclosed a 3 to 5 -foot thick
veneer of dense fill soils directly below the parking lot pavement section
overlying the dense or hard native soils. These conditions are in general
agreement with the original foundation investigation for the shell
structure of Southcenter Shopping Center performed by others.
G Shallow spread footing support of the proposed building expansion is
feasible. The results of our study as well as the aforementioned study
indicate the fill soils in the area to be limited to 3 to 5 feet of depth
and uniformly exhibited a dense to very dense condition. Under the
circumstances, it appears that the footings could be supported by the fill
soils utilizing a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3000 psf with less
than 1 inch of settlement. However, the owner should be aware that there
is always a risk of additional settlement due to i rregul dri ti es in existing,
unmonitored fill soils.
o Alternatively, to reduce the potential for irregular settlement, the
footings should be founded on the native, undisturbed, glacially
consolidated soils below the fill soils. In this case, a maximum allowable
bearing pressure of 6000 psf could be utilized for design. Ideally, the
footings should bear upon similar bearing soils to reduce differential
settlement potential. For either case, we recommend a minimum footing
width of 18 inches.
O In order not to impose downdrag loads on the existing building's foundation
- stemwalls, any new footings directly adjacent to existing footings should
be constructed at the same elevation.
O The proposed finished -floor subgrade elevation is above the existing
asphalt parking lot grade. The asphalt concrete surfacing is in relatively
good condition. We recommend a "clean structural fill" be placed over the
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion
31 October 1986
W -5024
Page 2
existing asphalt concrete to achieve slab subgrade elevation unless
considerable utility installation or other complications would arise from
leaving the existing pavement section. The footing locations should be
saw cut through the asphalt if it remains in place.
This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in
conjunction with the full text of this report. The project description, site
conditions, and our detailed design recommendations are presented in the text'of
the report. The exploration procedures and logs are presented in Appendix A.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located on the north side of the existing Nordstrom store in the
Southcenter Shopping Mall in Tukwila, Washington. The project is to consist of
expanding the existing Nordstrom store approximately 96 feet to the north. The
existing store is approximately 192 feet across the east /west dimension. We
understand the structure will be three stories with a slab -on -grade finished -floor
elevation of 28.5 feet. Based on preliminary discussions with the structural
engineer, maximum isolated column loads are anticipated to be on the order of
160 kips. The proposed location of the expansion as well as approximate locations
of the explorations accomplished for this study are shown on the Site and Exploration
Plan, Figure 1.
The purpose of this study was to establish general subsurface conditions at the
site from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and
construction for the expansion could be formulated. The scope of work consisted
of field explorations, geotechnical engineering analyses, laboratory analyses, and
report preparation. In the event of any changes in the nature, design or location
of the structure, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report
should be reviewed and modified if necessary, to reflect the changes. This report
has been prepared for the exclusive use of Nordstrom, Inc. and their agents, for
specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices.
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion W -5024
31 October 1986 Page 3
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The site conditions were evaluated for this study in October 1986. The surface
and subsurface conditions are described below, while the exploration procedures
and interpretative logs of the explorations are presented in Appendix A. The
proposed site development and approximate locations of the explorations are
indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1.
3.1 Surface Conditions
The project site is primarily an asphalt- concrete surfaced parking lot and fire
lane. A sidewalk exists along the north margin of the existing Nordstrom building.
Several utilities are located within the proposed expansion area. Based on a
7 January 1986 photogrammetry map prepared by Walker and Associates, the existing
parking lot grade ranges from about elevation 26 -1/2 to 27 -1/2 feet.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions were noted to be quite variable across the site. Based on
a "Report on Foundation Investigation for the Shell Structure, Southcenter Shopping
Center, Tukwila, Washington ", dated 5 August 1966 by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., the
area of the existing Nordstrom store as well as the proposed expansion area was
originally cut to slightly below current grades. However, the cut /fill boundary
is close to or maybe within the northeast corner of the existing building. According
to the referenced investigation report, the original hillside was cut to an
approximate elevation of 25 feet and then filled to present grades.
Our subsurface exploration program disclosed conditions in general agreement with
the apparent historical grading activities. All borings were advanced through
asphalt- concrete pavement. Borings B -2, B -3 and B -4 encountered between 3 -1/2 and
5 feet of fill below the pavement section. The fill at the boring locations was
generally a dense to very dense, fine to medium sand with trace silt, although it
was a fine sandy silt to silty fine sand at the location of boring B -3. Based on
the results of our study as well as the 1966 study, the site fill soils possess
an unusually high relative density and exhibited no debris or organics. Boring B -1
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion
31 October 1986
W -5024
Page 4
disclosed dense to very dense fine to medium sand with a trace silt to a depth of
20 feet where it graded to a silty, sandy gravel. The upper portion of this sand
could be fill soils, but it was not readily apparent based on the drilling and
sampling procedure.
The other borings disclosed various soil types below the fill soils. Boring B -2
encountered hard silt grading to a fine sandy silt /silty fine sand to the bottom
of the exploration. Boring B -3 disclosed dense, gravelly, silty sand which was
interpreted as glacial till from 12 to 18 feet of depth. Boring B -4 encountered
very dense, glacial till immediately below the fill soils. The top few feet of
the till in boring B -4 was mottled and exhibited some weathered characteristics.
It appears that all these soils encountered below the fill soils have been glacially
overridden. The soils at this project site location do not appear to be as dense
as those encountered south of this location during the aforementioned study.
Nonetheless, these glacially consolidated soils possess high shear strength and
low compressibility characteristics.
3.3 Ground Water
Ground water was encountered at approximately 18 feet and 7 -1/2 feet below the
existing ground surface in borings B -1 and B -3, respectively. Groundwater was
noted near the original ground surface prior to any grading at the site in the
1960's. We anticipate a "perched" ground water condition may occur during the
wetter winter seasons in the granular fill overlying the dense, silty, glacially
consolidated soils. It should be noted that fluctuations in the ground water
level, especially within the fill soils, should be anticipated due to season,
precipitation, site utilization, and other factors.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand the proposed expansion is to consist of a three -story structure with
a finished -floor elevation of 28.5 feet. Our subsurface exploration program
disclosed very dense fill soils overlying very dense or hard glacially consolidated
soils. Due to the very dense nature of the existing fill soils, we have provided
for the necessary excavation. It would be especially prudent under these
circumstances to abandon all existing utilities under the expansion area since
post- construction access would be difficult. In this case, site preparation would
be limited to placement of "structural fill" as described below.
Alternatively, if the existing asphalt- concrete surface is removed, we recommend
the surface of the exposed subgrade soils be prerolled to reduce any disturbance
from construction activities, such that the subgrade surface is in a firm and non -
yielding condition. We recommend that the subgrade surface possess a minimum
' density of at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as
determined by the ASTM:D 1557 test procedure. Any excessively soft or yielding
' areas exposed by the prerolling procedure should be overexcavated and backfilled
with "structural fill ". It should be noted that some of the subgrade soils will
possess a considerable silt content such that these soils will be susceptible to
disturbance when wet. Therefore, it would be prudent to schedule working with
these soils during dry weather conditions. If rain occurs while a silty subgrade
' is exposed, or during placement of silty material, the wetted material must be
allowed to dry prior to additional filling. It may be necessary to scarify the
upper layer, allow i t to dry and compact prior to additional filling. Overexcavation
or removal of wet soils may be necessary if it is not practical to dry and compact
them.
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion W -5024
31 October 1986 Page 7
from any water influx. If the existing asphalt- concrete surface is removed, a
primarily granular soil free of organics and deleterious material may be imported
for structural fill. If construction proceeds during the wetter portions of the
year, the use of this same, "clean" granular soil would expedite construction.
This type of material can be placed and suitably compacted under a wider variety
of weather conditions and generally does not "soften" when wet.
4.3 Shallow Foundations
Isolated spread or continuous spread footing support is feasible for the proposed
expansion. Our study as well as the previously referenced foundation investigation
disclosed on the order of 3 to 5 feet of existing fill soils across the site. The
fill soils encountered at the boring locations were free of organics and other
deleterious materials and possessed an unusually high relative density adequate
for shallow spread footing support. However, it must be recognized that there is
always a risk of irregular foundation settlement due to "pockets" of organics or
other hidden deficiencies when founding footings above or within undocumented fill
masses. Based on our study, the risk appears to be relatively low. If the owner
wishes to assume this risk, we recommend utilizing a maximum allowable bearing
pressure of 3000 psf (pounds per square foot) for design with a minimum footing
width of 18 inches. This maximum allowable bearing pressure would also be
appropriate for footings founded on structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent
(ASTM:D 1557). We wish to emphasize that it is particularly critical that all
footing subgrades be individually evaluated under these circumstances. Based on
the soil conditions encountered during our exploration program, it is our opinion
that maximum total settlement would be limited to 3/4 inch, with differential
settlement limited to approximately one -half the total.
Alternatively, to reduce the risk of potentially irregular settlement, the footings
could be extended through the existing fill soils to bear upon the native,
undisturbed, glacially consolidated soils. Based on our study, the footings would
have to be extended to a depth on the order of 4 to 5 feet below existing parking
lot grade, except in the southeast corner where slightly deeper footings may be
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion
31 October 1986
W -5024
Page 8
necessary. In this case, we recommend a maximum allowable bearing pressure of
6000 psf and a minimum footing width of 18 inches for design purposes. It is our
opinion that settlements would be less than 1/2 inch. Due to the potential for
differential settlement of footings founded on different bearing soils, the footings
should be founded in soils with similar bearing characteristics as much as
practicable.
These allowable soil bearing pressures may be increased by up to one -third to
accommodate transient or seismic loads. All footings should have a minimum width
of 18 inches. Exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below adjacent
ground surface or top of slab surface, whichever is lower. However, all footings
should bear upon the appropriate bearing soils for the assumed design conditions.
We recommend that the asphalt- concrete surfacing be removed from all footing
locations if they are to be founded on existing or new structural fill. The
proposed expansion is near the original cut /fill boundary for the site and fill
soils were placed within the foundation area. Therefore, it is imperative that
the soil conditions be evaluated at all footing locations to verify that they are
consistent with the recommendations contained within this report. This is
especially true should the footings be founded within the existing fill soils.
The condition of the existing fill soils could be better evaluated once the footing
excavations are accomplished although deleterious conditions may not be apparent
even then. It should be noted that it may be necessary to deepen footing excavations
at some locations within the existing fill soils due to unsuitable bearing
conditions. Footings could also be designed for 3000 psf and placed upon new
structural fill. However, the condition of existing fill soils should be evaluated
prior to placing structural fill over these materials, or the structural fill
should be placed directly above the native, undisturbed, glacially consolidated
soils. Any structural fill below a footing should extend beyond the footing
subgrade at a minimum slope of 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) below the edge of the
footing.
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion
31 October 1986
W -r0,4
Page 9
We have reviewed an original foundation plan for the Nordstrom Best store:
"Foundation Plan & Details ", drawing S -3 dated 29 May 1967 by John Graham and
Company. This drawing indicates that the existing building's footings were
generally to be constructed with a bottom footing elevation of 25.0 feet. An
exception was within the northeast corner where the footings were to extend slightly
deeper with a minimum elevation of 21.0 feet. In order not to impose downdrag
loads on the existing foundation stem walls, footings for the expansion located
directly adjacent to existing footings should be constructed at the same elevation.
The footing subgrade soil conditions will be quite variable across the site.
Depending upon the footing design, the footings may be founded within very silty
subsoils. In this case, the footing subgrades would be very susceptible to
disturbance when wet. It may be necessary to pour a lean concrete "mud mat" or
place a layer of compacted "clean" sand and gravel or rock on the bottom of these
footings to protect the footing subgrade from water and /or wet weather during
forming and /or reinforcement bar placement. Any overexcavation below the design
footing subgrade elevation for footings designed with the 6000 psf allowable bearing
pressure should be backfilled with lean or structural concrete. We emphasize again
that the condition of all footing excavations should be observed by a representative
from our firm prior to placement of concrete to confirm that the bearing soils are
undisturbed and consistent with recommendations contained within this report.
4.4 Slab -On -Grade
The slab -on -grade subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the previously
described site preparation and structural fill recommendations. We recommend a
minimum of 4 inches of compacted, clean well - graded sand and gravel or crushed
rock be placed beneath the slab to provide a working surface and /or a capillary
break. If a clean structural fill material is used, the top 4 inches should consist
of 3/4 inch minus -type material. The slab should also be protected from moisture
by an impervious moisture barrier.
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion
31 October 1986
W -5024
Page 10
4.5 Drainage Considerations
The silty subsoils can impede surface water infiltration and /or produce a "perched"
ground water condition. Any depressions or low areas can lead to ponded water
within the silty soils. At this time, it appears that the finished -floor elevation
will be approximately 1 to 2 feet above surrounding grade. Therefore, perimeter
footing drains may not be necessary. However, if the existing asphalt- concrete
surfacing is left within the building slab area, it may be prudent to install an
inside perimeter drain that drains through the foundation stemwall to allow drainage)
should any internal influx of water into the structural fill occur. Specific
footing drain recommendations could be made once the final design becomes available.
Grades should be planned such that surface water does not collect around the
building and provide a positive slope away from the building. Roof and surface
runoff should not discharge into a footing drain system should it be provided.
Instead, splash blocks or a separate tight -line drain network should be provided
as required.
5.0 CLOSURE
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the
explorations accomplished for this study as well as a previous foundation
investigation in the immediate area. The number, location and depth of the
explorations were completed within the site and scope constraints so as to yield
the information to formulate our recommendations. If any significant modifications
of the design as discussed in our report are made, we recommend that we be provided
the opportunity to review the recommendations and considerations provided herein
to determine whether any changes are appropriate.
Considerable past grading activities have resulted in a variable depth and
distribution of existing fill soils across the site. The integrity and performance
of the foundation system depends greatly on proper site preparation and construction
procedures. It appears at this time that considerable judgement will be necessary
in the field to determine the adequacy of any foundation support system. Therefore,
we recommend that we be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services
Nordstrom, Inc. /Southcenter Expansion
31 October 1986
W -5024
Page 11
during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If
variations in the subsurface conditions are observed at that time, we would be
able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations to the
contractor and design team in a timely manner as the foundation construction
progresses.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you on this portion of the
.project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or other aspects
of the project, please do not hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
J. R•.ert Gordon, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
Alvin R. Zema
EXISTING BUILDING
1
1
1
1
IOTE: BASE MAP FROM SEPT 18, 1986 SITE PLAN BY THE CALLISON PARTNERSHIP
PROPOSED EXPANSION
SB -4
- SIDEWALK
40
80 FEET
L E G E N D
B -4 INDICATES BORING NUMBER AND
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
NORDSTROM
SOUTHCENTER EXPANSION
SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN
FIGURE 1
w.o. W-5024
JRG
OCTOBER 1986
Scale NOTED
By
Date
RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN &
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants
1400 140th Avenue N. E.
Bellevue, Washington 98005
RZA
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
APPENDIX A
W -5024
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The field exploration program conducted for this study consisted of advancing a
series of four hollow -stem auger borings. One boring was terminated at
approximately 2 -1/2 feet of depth and relocated due to a concrete obstruction.
Although not shown on the utility plan, it appears that this may have been a
concrete cover fora utility of some sort. The approximate locations are illustrated
on the site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. The locations were obtained in the
field by taping from existing site features. The exploration locations were limited
by existing utilities and other conditions, and were established with the
cooperation of Southcenter Mall personnel.
The borings were drilled on 8 October 1986 by a local exploration drilling company
under subcontract to our firm. The borings consisted of advancing a 4 -inch inside
diameter, hollow -stem auger with a truck - mounted drill rig. During the drilling
process, samples were obtained at generally 2.5 or 5.0 foot depth intervals. The
borings were continuously observed and logged by an engineering geologist from our
firm.
Disturbed samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test Procedure
as described in ASTM:D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a
standard 2 -inch outside diameter split barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into
the soil with a 140 pound hammer free falling a distance of 30 inches. The number
of blows for each 6 inch interval is recorded. The number of blows required to
drive the sampler the final 12 inches is considered the Standard Penetration
Resistance ( "N ") or blow count. The blow count is presented graphically on the
boring logs in this appendix. If a total of 50 blows is recorded within one 6 inch
interval, the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of
penetration. The resistance, or "N" value, provides a measure of the relative
density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils.
Appendix A (continuation)
Page 2, W -5024
The soil samples obtained from the split - barrel sampler were classified in the
field and representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples
were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and
laboratory testing. Samples are generally saved for a period of 30 days unless
special arrangements are made.
The boring logs presented in this appendix are based on the drilling action,
inspection of the samples secured, laboratory results and field logs. The various
types of soils are indicated as well as the depths where the soils or characteristics
of the soils changed. It should be noted that these changes may have been gradual,
and if the changes occured between sample intervals, they were interpreted.
RZA
rela•AT....:. RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOC., INC.
Geotechnicnl / Il�drogeologicnl Consultnnts
BORING NUMBER 8 -1 w o. W -5024
PROJECT NAME Nordstrom Southcenter Expansion
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Ground Surface Elevation Approximate
Feet
SAMPLING
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
A BLOWS PER FOOT
(140 Ib. hammer, 30 Inch drop)
Very dense, moist, brown. fine to medium
_ SAND with trace silt -
_ (Note: Top few feet could be fill soils -
see text)
-
r
r-15
- becomes saturated
—
1
I
=
I
_2_
ATD
-
-
-
-
•
50%6"
50/5
A
".I�
—20
Grades to gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL
_,
..r...-
._.
—..r_
y.
..--
....__.
Boring terminated at 23 -1/2 feet -
Completed 8 October 1986 1.25
NOTE: Asphalt concrete pavement section
not indicated on log.
X30
-35
J 40
SAMPLING
2 OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
11 3' OD SHELBY SAMPLE
fR 2.5 ID RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
* SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
GROUND WATER
WATER LEVEL
AT TIME OF DRILLING ATD
SEAL
DATE
OBSERVATION
WELL TIP
LABORATORY TESTS
• % WATER CONTENT
NP NON PLASTIC
• �•— LIOUID LIMIT
/ I --- NATURAL WATER
CONTENT
PLASTIC LIMIT
0
RZA
re RITTENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOC., INC.
lo�m Geotechuicnl / Ilydrogeologicnl Consultants
BORING NUMBER B-2 w O. W -5024
PROJECT NAME Nordstrom Southcen_ter Expansion
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Ground Surface Elevation Approximately
Feet
1¢
O a
n 3
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
A BLOWS PER FOOT
(140 Ib. hammer, 30 Inch drop)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1
Very dense, moist, brown, fine to medium SAND 0
with trace silt (Fill)
IA
Hard, moist, gray, SILT with trace fine sand r
-5
90
9"
- grades to fine, sandy S(t 7sifry finANdr—\-
•
50)5"
-10
- becomes wet
___
_
...i
.___
___.
.__
__.
1
Boring terminated at 14 feet -15
----•
—
- - -•
— •
---
--
- - -•
--
_
Completed 8 October 1986
NOTE: Asphalt concrete pavement section
not indicated on log.
-20
i-25
_.._
-. -
_
—..
_ _
--
---
x-30
- ._..._..._.
_..
_ _
..
-35
40
SAMPLING
1 2 OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
11 3' OD SHELBY SAMPLE
2.5 ID RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
* SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
GROUND WATER
WATER LEVEL
AT TIME OF DRILLING ATD OBSERVATION
WELL TIP
SEAL
DATE
LABORATORY TESTS,
• % WATER CONTENT
NP NON PLASTIC
l • +— LIOUID LIMIT
— NATURAL WATER
CONTENT
PLASTIC t LIMIT
1
RZA
r RI1TENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOC., INC.
Geotechnical / Il�rirogeological Consultants
BORING NUMBER B-3 w O, W -5024
PROJECT NAME Nordstrom Southcenter Expansion
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Ground Surface Elevation Approximately
Feet
SAMPLING
1¢
O
o 3
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
A BLOWS PER FOOT
(140 Ib. hemmer, 30 Inch drop)
0 10 20 30 4
Dense, moist, brown, silty fine SAND to fine
sandy SILT (Fill)
-
_
Dense, moist, brown, gravelly. silty SAND
-5
27_.
ATD
•
n /ll °/
-10
.
Very dense, moist, gray, gravelly, silty
SAND (Glacial till)
-15
_ .
_
_ _
__
..
...
........
....
90/10"/
Z
+
Boring terminated at 17 -3/4 feet
Completed 8 October 1986
.
-20
___
._ ._
.__—
--
NOTE: Asphalt concrete pavement section
not indicated on log.
-25
-30
_
__
_.
�__
....
_
r35
_40
SAMPLING
1 2' OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
11 3' OD SHELBY SAMPLE
2.5' ID RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
* SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
GROUND WATER
WATER LEVEL
AT TIME OF DRILLING ATD OBSERVATION
WELL TIP
SEAL
DATE
LABORATORY TESTS
• % WATER CONTENT
NP NON PLASTIC
1: —�•— LIQUID LIMIT
�— NATURAL WATER
CONTENT
PLASTIC LIMIT
RZA
roIAV RI7TENHOUSE -ZEMAN & ASSOC., INC.
Ceoteclruicnl / Il�rlrogeological Consultants
BORING NUMBER B -4 W O W -5024
PROJECT NAME Nordstrom Southcenter Expansion
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Ground Surface Elevation Approximately
Feet
rn
m
0 5
z
0.
i
co
Sa
o a
✓ 3
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
A BLOWS PER FOOT
(140 lb. hammer, 30 Inch drop)
0 1
Very dense �-0
y ( ?), moist, brown, fine to medium
' SAND with trace silt (Fill) `
50/2"
i.
(rock
?)
- Very dense, moist, orange -brown mottled, silty -5
79
SAND (Weathered glacial till)
11 "4
- - grades to gray, gravelly, silty SAND
(Glacial till)
I
i•..
76
11"A
-10
_
-
• ........
86/11
"A
�
89%11
"A
Boring terminated at 14 feet "-IS
-
—__.
_.-_
. ___..-
_....__
Completed 8 October 1986
NOTE: Asphalt concrete pavement section
not indicated on log.
-20
-25
-30
_
—_
...
__
.,.._-
...
._ ...
F
4
-35
40
SAMPLING
2' OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
11 3' OD SHELBY SAMPLE
2.5' ID RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
* SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
GROUND WATER
SEAL
DATE
WATER LEVEL
AT TIME OF DRILLING AID OBSERVATION
WELL TIP
LABORATORY TESTS
• % WATER CONTENT
NP NON PLASTIC
LIOUID LIMIT
LJ IL— NATURAL WATER
PLASTIC LIMIT CONTENT
.1.
SOLITHCENTER..• 'PARKWAY
:
OP R F ARCFEL
NELSON
DEPT. STORE ..
3. FLOORS
LEASE. PARCEL
1.72 ACRES
'ONE1LEVEL• ENCLOSED MALL
NORDSTROM
DEPT. ST011E-
3 FLOORS I. PROPOSED
1 EXPANSION
. ,I 'FLOORS
SITE LOCATOR MAP-
EXISTING .
ROPERTV LINE
MALI...'
BHOPB
MALL. SHOPS.•
SHOPS
;MALL -
SHOPS
DEVELOPER PARCEL�� -�
J.C. PENNEY
DEPT. STORE '>
3- FLOORS
LEASE PARCEL :.
i, SITE STATISTICS
SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT
NORDSTROM- 103.788 11
EXPANSION 67,027 et
THE BON 258,944 a1
J.C. PENNEY 251,753 cI
T.B.A 20,989 a1
FREDERICK -B: NELSON .174,830 a1
TOTAL DEPT. STORE. AREA 877.111 of
MALL SHOPS G.L.A 323,802 : of -_
TOTAL SHOPPING CENTER AREA 1,200,913 sf
ENCLOSED MALL AREA 96,380 at
F. TOTAL. S/C PARKING SPACES 8421
:...S /C- PARKING RATIO. 5.35 - CARS /1000 at
FRINGE LAND DEVELOPMENT
.THEATER (1200 sEATB) 26,877 31
' UNION OIL. ` , 1,810 at
'POST OFFICE., . 4,650 31
O4VELOP4R
BANK LEASE PARCEL
:.A8 .ACRE 20 CARS!
sJPUOET • 0U0 (
MUTUAL BANK
J.0 PENNEY T.B.A LEASE PARCEL
.MOTEL (200 900138). 100,000 81
TOTAL FRINGE LAND DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL. F/L PARKING SPACES 714
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA -.
TOTAL PARKING SPACES 7135
; SIC AREA 79.82 ACRES -
F/L AREA 4:87 ACRES
TOTAL AREA OF SITE
e. WWF
11/21/66
137,363 11
1;338,306..1
• .uP A G
INYWINO
12/30/86.
SK -1..
84'.69 -ACRES .
CE.ZTER RIDGE DESJGN SERVICES
No, 00473
INVOICE DATE
INVOICE NUMBER
NET AMOUNT
INVOICE DATE
INVOICE NUMBER
NET AMOUNT
$100.00