Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-156-81 - THE FOOD GROUP / WENDY'S - SHIMATSU REZONEWENDY'S SHIMATSU REZONE SOUTHCENTER PY EPIG156 -81 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Franchise Restaurant Proponent The Food Group, Inc. Location of Proposal Lead Agency Southcenter Parkway @ Minkler Blvd. City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 156 -81 This proposal has been determined to ( t /not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS ('h/is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Position /Title Brad Collins Planning Director Date 13 May 1981 Signature (3. Cep COMMENTS: Stipulations affecting Declaration of Non - Significance as follows: 1) On -site storm drainage improvements shall be constructed above the elevation of the hydraulic gradient line. The lowest elevation of any detention facility should be above the elevation of the hydraulic gradient in front of the site. Requirement for use of . mechanical backflow devices shall be at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. 2) Adequacy of parking area lighting to be determined by the Tukwila Police Dept. prior to issuance of building permits. City SI Tukwila ;. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor 13 May 1981 The Food Group, Inc.. 1660 Professional Plaza, Suite D Columbus, Ohio 43220 Subject: Environmental Threshold Determination - Proposed Wendy's Restaurant Enclosed is a copy of the Declaration of Non - Significance for-the pro- posed. Wendy's restaurant. This document evidences completion of the Environmental Review Process prescribed by the Washington State Environ- mental Policy Act. We appreciate your cooperation in completing this process. BC/blk cc: BLSPA Architects A. Shimatsu Tukwila Planning Dept. Brad Collins Planning Director 1908 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Collins, SEPA Responsible Offie FRO nn: Mark Caughey, Associate Planner DATE: 13 May 1981 SUBJECT: Wendy's Restaurant Project Declaration of Non - Significance (EPIC - 156-81) INTRODUCTION In February, 1981, a Threshold Determination was made by this office regarding the adequacy of information provided by the project proponent leading to an understanding of the environmental implications of develop- ing a take -out restaurant on the Shimatsu rezone site. We determined at that time that the information relating to the environmental aspects of the restaurant project itself was not adequate to complete the Threshold Determination process. On the basis of authority provided in WAC 197 -10- 330 (la) , an "expanded checklist" was requested from the applicants, •: • covering topical areas of traffic, storm water management, lighting and air quality. The expanded checklist was reviewed on 23 March 81, and the information contained therein was used by the Board of Architectural Review in approving the "Wendy's" site and architectural concept, and stipulations related to traffic control were incorporated into their decision action. 'DISCUSSION The final Declaration.of Non - Significance for the restaurant project itself should pick -up certain recommendations contained in the expanded checklist as stipulations thereto. The City's SEPA enabling ordinance requires that each proposed stipulation be supported by findings which identify a) The specific environmental impact which the proposed stipu- lations addresses; b) the appropriate comprehensive plan policy which ad- vocates envirnonmental control of the identified impact topic. Refer to the Declaration of Non - Significance form for wording of the stipulations to which the following analysis refer: 1) Stipulation 1: (Storm Drainage) a) Impact Mitigation: Achieve adequate control of project's surface water run -off and minimize adverse incremental effects on City's drainage system. Page -2- •Brad Collins b) Comprehensive Plan Reference: "Transportation /utilities ", objective 6, policy 2 (encourage structural /retention storm water control facility); objective 6, policy 4 (control peak flow runoff at rates simulating natural conditions). 2) Stipulation 2: (Lighting) a) Impact Mitigation: Enhancement of business security through adequate on -site lighting. b) Comprehensive Plan Reference: While no .specific policy on lighting of city business areas is mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan, objective 4, policy 6 of the "Residential" dement of the document speaks to adequacy of lighting as a means of promoting motorist and pedestrian safety. The same principles reasonably apply to business areas as well. CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Rezone from R -1 to C -2 Proponent The Food • Group, Inc. Location of Proposal Southcenter Parkway @ Minkler Blvd. Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 156 -81 • This proposal has been determined to (n/not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (? /.is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on, file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Mark Caughey Position /Title Acting Planning D Date COMMENTS: Signature ' 1) This Declaration -of Non Significance is.issued for the Legislative action of rezone only. A . Seperate Declaration will be required for any project proposed on this site subsequent to the rezone approval 60111N6WI04 4q- 9` »7 • • BALZHISER, LONGWOOD, SMITH, PAUL & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS A.I.A. 800 Securities Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 (2061682-4544 March 20, 1981 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Mark Caughey RE: Wendy's Restaurant 17275 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, Washington Gentlemen: This letter and enclosed exhibits are in response to the City of Tukwila's desire for additional information sub- stantiating the applicant's request for a declaration of Non - Significance pursuant to construction of a proposed Wendy's Restaurant to be located at 17275 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, Washington. Checklist Section II -1 Earth The attached Exhibit "A" indicates existing and proposed contours, elevations at property corners, finish floor and limits of fill activity. Due to lack of bearing quality of the existing on site soils material it will be necessary to remove 1000 cubic yarc1s of peat within and extending 5' -0" beyond the building line. The resulting excavation will be filled with approx- imately 430 cubic yards of 4" minus rock and structural fill. The total requirement for imported structural fill material needed to revise the finish grade to conform with that of the street and adjoining property to the South and placed and compacted as required to support the structure and finished grading materials shown on Exhibit "A ", is approximately 7700 cubic yards. The Contractor proposes to secure this fill material from a borrow pit located at 5800 South 316th Street, Auburn, Washington. Checklist Section II -2 Air See Exhibit "B ", as prepared by R.W. Thorpe & Associates. PRINCIPALS Thomas A. BalzhiserAJA James C Longwood AlA Darrell L. Smith AIA James R. Paul ALA ASSOCIATES Philip A. Giuntoli AIA James B. Maxwell CSI Leo V. Stauher AIA , CSI Portland Office: 1800 S. W. First Ave., Suite 225, Portland, Oregon 97201 • (503) 222 - :138.1 Eugene Office: 725 Country Club Road, Eugene, Oregon 97401 • (503) 687 -1010 Planning Deparlant liWendy's Restaurant City of Tukwila Page 2 Checklist Section II -4 Water See Exhibit "C ",as prepared by Cole and Associates, Consulting Engineers. Checklist Section II -4 Flora In reference to Exhibit "A ", the cluster of 8" to 20" maples between the 26 foot and 30 foot contours will be selectively removed where they interfere with the parking area. The growing habits of the southerly cluster of maples is such that it may be necessary to totally remove this single rooted nest of trees. All other vegitation will be left in its natural state above the toe of the hill. Checklist Section II -7 Light and Glare See Exhibit "A" for location of parking area light fixtures and Exhibit "D" for catalogue information. Fixtures to be "Gardco" H1913 -400MV -BRA, Type III with C49 -206 -2.0 BRA poles. Checklist Section II -13 Transportation See Exhibit "E ", as prepared by Cottingham Transportation Engineering. Checklist Section II -15 Energy See Exhibit "B ", as prepared by R.W. Thorpe & Associates. ectfull R. PAUL, AIA er iNk44.I4 ,►.ill 2 4'1 ;;.�! ( ';)c-,SN't -� 7/6 Hj..1 G�k�; .C. i t r't'e'. • `��� .� ! `,r .0 t r ---1 --. ;gdii4191HX3 A' T 00, `eeri r1CG 117 ..gii Ari.4.760-tor env -,r4,4; Ina 3, F S 3C Car-LsiN� s• c ''9 - 1/■Y .47h1_,Lrav • C;ii1lt�vy;�rJ S' ( tJ 0 t-ta- NVU � D r ;)ri 7 +� • sr- 41-i !7 jl • . . Lt 11 N r` flaw" - - �S1 •� • `� -- r... --- - 'S3 MVP' S 1 141.1041 AI it .■ S, 1,1 V V4 erll w' Sa`1dVW r 7,i V•rR;'t • • t4V Pd. ., fi7r1Pi,,i I;Gr 1 1; r'yi Q.,. 4., ••t } 3 4S - • - 1-rdf1W „09 • Al R The site is located in the Green River Valley and has a typical Northwest Pacific Coast marine climate. During the fall and winter, prevailing winds are from the southwest, and during the late spring and summer from the northwest. Low level temperature inversions may occur in the Valley which, coupled with low wind speed, can result in the trapping of pollutants. This condition is most prevalent during the winter months. Data accumulated by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) indi- cates that the concentration of suspended particulates in the Tukwila area has generally increased with increased urbanization of the Valley. The following table summarizes data collected at a number of air monitoring stations in the general vicinity. SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS TUKWILA AREA Suspended Particulates micrograms per cubic meter Distance From Site Wa. State Location (# on map) (mi.) 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 Standard Renton Municipal Building Southcenter 3.25 52* 59 55 51 50 37 60 .75 48* 50 46 48 45 34 60 12026 42nd Ave. S. K.C. 3.50 58 52 60 (Source: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Data Summary- - 1977, 1978, 1979; 1980 Quarterly Air Monitoring Data Summary; Department of Ecology, State of Washington.) *Based on less than 12 months data. EXHI B 1 T- r"B" • 81 5 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 981 01 • (206) 624 -6239 r,.w.ThorpeSAssocie BS Pollutant Concentrations parts - -per million (ppm) Carbon Hydro- Nitrogen Monoxide Carbons Dioxide (PPm) (PPm) (PPm) Distance Study From Site Period 1 Hour 8 Hour 6 -9 AM Period Location (# on map) (Mi.) (mo., yr.) Max. Max. Avg. Avg. Puget Power 6 -7, 1977 3.2 2.0 0.37 0.02 Transformer Yard 3 -4, 1977 4.2 3.3 0.28 -- (Renton) 2.33 10 -11, 1976 8.1 6.6 0.01 6 -7, 1976 2.2 1.3 0.04 (Source: Washington State Department of Transportation 1977 Monitoring) Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards Carbon Monoxide - 1 Hour Standard - 35 ppm Carbon Monoxide - 8 Hour Standard - 9 ppm Hydrocarbons - 3 Hour Average - 0.24 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide - Annual Average - 0.05 ppm (Source: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Data Summary, 1979.) The table indicates the particulate levels are approaching but are still within the Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Carbon monoxide levels were within the standards. However, other automobile related pollutants, particularly hydrocarbons, were in excess of the Washington State standards. Based on the proximity of the site to the monitoring stations, it is expected that the air quality conditions are similar to those recorded. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has been designated as the re- sponsible agency to obtain statewide air quality monitoring data needed to de- termine the status of compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. DOE's monitoring sites are located where worst air quality conditions exist. The nearest station monitoring sulfur dioxide is located at the Duwamish Pump Station, 4500 East Marginal Way, Seattle, approximately 8 miles from the site. • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 9B101 • (2061 624 -6239 w Thorpe Assooec.e • SULFUR DIOXIDE 1980 • LOCATION QTR. # HRS. # DAYS 1 HR. 1st MAX 2nd # 1 HR. >.40 3 HR. 1st MAX. 2nd # 3 HR. >50 24 HR >.10 AVGS. ;,..14 Seattle, Duwamish Pump Station 4500 E. Marginal Way 1st 1778 82 9 7 0 6 6 0 0 0 2nd 2077 90 11 10 0 9 8 0 0 0 3rd 2062 90 15 12 0 8 7 0 0 0 (Source: 1980 Quarterly Air Monitoring Data Summary, Washington State Department of Ecology.) SULFUR DIOXIDE 1979 LOCATION NO. 1 HR. NO. 3 HR. 24 HR. AVGS. 1 HR. MAX. )•.40 3 HR. MAX. ›.50 24 HR. MAX. '1..10 x6.14 King County, McMicken Heights .19 0 .11 0 .03 0 0 (Source: Washington State Air Monitoring Data for 1979, Washington State Department of Ecology.) This station is no longer in operation. WASHINGTON STATE SULFUR DIOXIDE LEVELS STANDARDS 1 Hour Average 1 Hour Average 24 Hour Average Annual Average 0.40ppm - not to be exceeded more than once per year 0.25ppm - not to be exceeded more than twice in 7 days 0.loppm 0.02ppm (Source: 1980 Quarterly Air Monitoring Data Summary, Washington State Department of Ecology.) • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (206) 624 -6239 aw Thorpe &Associates • • Based on the "Simplified Analysis Technique for Establishing Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Highway Facilities," the maximum levels of carbon monoxide during the peak traffic movement hour (12:00 to 1:OOp.m.) created solely by the proposed project will add approximately 1.8ppm of carbon monoxide to the exist- ing levels. (Based on information provided on site.) Levels will decrease with wind speeds in excess of 2mph and with distance from Southcenter Parkway. (Source: EPA "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factor" with revisions.) These addition- al increments of particulates will be slight, when compared to the existing con- ditions. Sulfur dioxide levels are well below Washington State standards. According to Stuart Clark of DOE, sulfur dioxide is not anticipated to be a problem in Tukwila. Levels in Tukwila should be equal or better than those recorded at the Duwamish Pump Station. Sulfur dioxide levels are typically high near pulp mills, or smelters; automobiles emit very little sulfur dioxide and are not considered as a source by the Department of Ecology. (Source: Telephone conversation with Stuart Clark, Department of Ecology, March 2, 1981.) Impacts Short -term generation of particulates will occur as construction commences. Dust particles would be raised by earth- moving activities. Noxious odors would be emitted by diesel powered vehicles and from asphalt paving operations. Some long -term increases in motor vehicle generated pollutants will also occur as local traffic levels increase. Impacts would be most severe at identified points of congestion and where traffic volumes are increased. Higher pollu- tant concentrations could cause air quality standards violations to occur or persist longer than if no development were constructed. However, as indicated above, the additional increments of pollutants caused by this development will be slight when compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, as more stringent federal motor vehicle emissions controls take effect, there could be an overall decline in vehicle - related pollutants. Mitigating Measures a. Low- emission construction equipment could be used whenever feasible. b. Measures to control construction dust such as watering, cleaning and sweep- ing of streets at the end of hauling activities could be performed by the contractor. c. Unnecessary motor vehicle engine idling during construction could be elim- inated; engines could be shut off except when moving vehicles. Energy In all probability, construction of Wendy's Restaurant will result in the re- distribution of existing motor vehicle use, rather than creating additional use. Further, an analysis of fuel consumption by these vehicles is difficult be- cause respective destinations cannot be precisely confirmed. • B15 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (206) 624 -6239 a.w Tho Po&Aeeocietas • HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS for THE FOOD GROUP WENDY'S SITE Cole & Associates LTD. Surveyors Engineers Planners RECEIVED TUKWILA, WASHINGTON APR 2 1981 MARCH, 1981 BALZHISER, LONGWOOD, SMITH PAUL & ASSOCIATES Job No. 81642 EX.H-1.B.IT �' C'_' 8215 - 166TH AVE. N.E. • REDMOND, WA 98052 • (206) 883 -9241 This storm drainage analysis is,a requirement of the City of Tukwila Public Works Department.. The existing storm drainage line passing by the front of the site is said to surcharge during times of peak flow. This analysis of the drain- age basin of that line will quantify the amount of surcharge and the elevation of the hydraulic grade line of the storm sewer in front of the site. References used in compiling this report are as follows: 1) King County Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Practices Manual, May 1979 2) Seelye Design Manual 3) Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55 - Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds 4) Soil Conservation Service - Soil Survey, King County, Washington 5) Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, Merritt The project site. is located within the city limits of Tukwila in the South - westQuarter of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. just south of the Southcenter Mall. It is located on the west side of Southcenter Parkway, ap- proximately 1. /2mi:; south of Strander Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the location of the site and the sizes and slopes of the storm drain lines in Southcenter Parkway adjacent to the site. As can be seen in Figure 1, a 42 -inch diameter line coming from the North and a 42 -inch line coming from the South tie into a 54 -inch diameter line, which runs eastward. The drainage basins tributary to the two 42 -inch lines are shown in Figure 2. The drainage basins shown on Figure 2 are divided into sub -areas based on terrain, ground cover and state of development. The basin to'the North is divid- ed into five sub -areas and the basin to the South into four. Figure 3 shows the King County Soil Survey soil type classifications for the drainage basins. The soilsare composed of three classifications: AkF - A combination of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and Kitsap silt loam. Runoff is rapid to very rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe to very severe. Slopes generally range from 25 to 70 percent. This classification is contained in the SCS Hydrologic Soil Group C. Wo - Woodinville silt loam generally level or undulating, slopes are less than two percent. This classification is rated as a combination of SCS Hydrologic Soil Groups C &,D. Ur - Urban Land is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accomodate large industrial and housing instal- lations. In the Green River Valley the Fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sand loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. Western Washington is part of a small region of the country which is in a Type IA Storm Dristribution Area; as shown in Figure 4. Table 1 shows the Runoff Curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land uses for the Type IA Storm Distribution Area. These runoff curve numbers are used to calculate the peak runoff rates from the watershed as shown below. A discussion of the SCS Method used is presented on a following page. Background curves and tables are presented in Appendix A. North Drainage Basin Area Acres CN A steep open areas - low growing brush and grass; soil group C 3.09 89 meadow or pasture type areas with lot sizes 3.345 86 2 acres; soil group C/D (6.69 acres total) 3.345 90 C wood or forest land: young second growth or brush, steep; soil group C 16.20 81 D commercial and business areas, small businesses with landscaping 3.35 95 E urban area, commercial and business 85% impervious area 41.52 96 70.85 weighted CN for North Drainage Basin = 3.09(89) + 3.345(86 +90) + 16.20(81) + 3.35(95) + 41.52(96) = 91.46 70.85 use 91 South Drainage Basin Area Acres CN A steep wood or forest land: young second growth or brush; soil group C 54.74 81 B urban area, commercial and business 85% impervious area 58.44 96 C flat area, little cover, dirt and grass; soil group C .97 90 D paved area through steep wooded area .85 98 115.00 weighted CN for South Drainage Basin = 54.74(81) + 58.44(96) + .97(90) + .85(98) - 88.82 115.00 use 89 TABLE 1 Runoff Curve Numbers for Selected Agricultural, Suburban and Urban Land Uses Type 'IA Storm Distribution Areas HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP, D LAND USE DESCRIPTION A B C Mountain Open Areas - Low Growing Brush and Grass Lands' 74 82 89 92 Meadow or Pasture 65 78 85 89. Wood or Forest Land: Orchard with cover crop 81 88 92 94. Fir Forest - good cover 2/ - Undisturbed 42 64 76 81 Young second growth or brush Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemetaries, etc. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% or the area 68 77 80 85 86 90 90 92 Commercial and businees areas (85% impervious) 92 94 95 96 Industrial districts (75% impervious) 88 92 94 95 Residential:3/ Average lot size Average % Impervious4/ 86 90 93 95 1/8 acre or less 65 1/4 acre 38 77 85 90 92 1/3 acre 30 75 84 89 91 1/2 acre 25 73 83 88 91 1 acre 20 71 82 88 90 Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. 5/ 98 . 98 98 98 • For these calculations, all precipitation amounts are taken from the 10 year recurrence interval 24 hourIsopluvial Map for Washington, generated by the U.S. Department of Commerce Environmental Science Services Administration for the Soil Conservation Service. For the Tukwila area a total precipitation of 3.0 inches is indicated. Using the area of the watershed, a quick and reliable method of computing peak _discharges from agricultural or undeveloped drainage basins from 5 to 2,000 acres in size is available by using the ES -1029 curves in Appendix A. These peak dis- charges obtained from the curves must be adjusted in order to reflect the increase in peak discharge due to urbanization of the watershed. Three adjustment.factors are needed. First, the ES -1029 curves have been gen- erated based on a specific slope and watershed size, and must be modified if the actual conditions vary from these. A' table giving slope adjustment factors is included in Appendix A. Second, the peak runoff must be adjusted based on the percentage, of impervious area in the watershed, and third, the peak discharge must be adjusted based on the percentage of hydraulic length modified. The hydraulic length in an SCS analysis is analagous to the overland flow path used in a Rational Method analysis. Urban- ization alters the natural flow path by channelization, by terracing areas for building lots, and'by diverting flows through gutters, storm sewers, etc. Figures showing the peak discharge adjustment factors for the last two cases are also shown in Appendix A. Table 2.below summarizes the values obtained from these various tables and shows the peak runoff expected from the North and South drainage basins. TABLE 2 Summary of Values Used to Determine Peak Flow North Drainage Basin South Drainage Basin 70.85 acres AREA 115.00 acres 91 CN 89 2800' Hydraulic length 4600' 95% % Modified 85% 1.39 Adjustment factor 1.39 63% Impervious area 47% 1.22 Adjustment factor 1.17 12.3% Average watershed slope 12.4% (Area weighted) .925 Slope adjustment factor .92 25.6 cfs Unadjusted peak flow 29.0 cfs 40.2 cfs Adjusted peak flow 43.4 cfs • • The 42 -inch diameter lines in Southcenter Parkway are illustrated on Figure 5 Based on information furnished by the City of Tukwila, the line from the North has a slope of 0.0011 feet /foot and the line from the South has a slope of 0.0008 feet/ foot. Flowing full without surcharge the lines (assuming an n of 0.012) have capa- cities of 37 cfs and 31 cfs respectively. It is apparent that both of these lines are surcharged during a 10 year design storm. As stated before, both of these lines tie into a 54 -inch diameter line that'flows to the East. The 54 -inch diameter line through this area has a minimum slope of 0.002 feet /foot. This gives a capa- city of 95 cfs which is more than adequate to carry the combined flows from both the North and South drainage basins, even assuming that the peak flows would occur at the same point in time. The elevation of the hydraulic gradient is calculated as shown below and is represented on Figure 5 . Assuming that the depth of water in the culverts at their discharge ends are slightly below the top of the culvert (because they empty into a line able to carry the flow by gravity), there is a range of unstable flow fluctuating between pressure and open channel flow. For this analysis we will assume that they flow full for their entire length because this will give a more conservative value for the elevation of the hydraulic gradient. The equation used is: V2 + V2n2L H = (1 +Ke) 2g 2.21 R1.333 where H = elevation difference between headwater and tailwater, ft V = velocity in culver, fps calculated from V = Q/A g =acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft per sec Lt Ke= entrance -loss coefficient, assumed to be 0.2 n = Manning's roughness coefficient, assumed to be 0.012 L = length of culvert, ft R = hydraulic radius of culvert, ft For the 42 -inch line from the North, the highest elevation of the hydraulic gradient is at the North end of this reach of line and would equal the elevation of the crown of the pipe at the South end of the line plus H or 14.22 + 3.5 + H. • H = (1 + ,2) 4.182 + 4.182(.0122)385 0.85 64.4 2.21 (.875 1.333 Therefore, the hydraulic gradient elevation is 18.57. As can be seen on Fig - ure 4, this is still below the existing ground level. For the 42 -inch line from the South, the highest elevation of the hydraulic gradient is at the South end of this reach of line and would equal the elevation of the crown of the pipe at the North end of the line plus H or 14.43 + 3.5 + H. H = (1 + .2) 4.512 + 4.512(0.122) (313) - 0.87' 64.4 2.21 (.875.1.-333 Therefore, the hydraulic gradient elevation is 18.80. Again, as can be seen on Figure`,5', this is below the existing ground level. Conclusion Based on the findings presented previously in this report, the storm system in Southcenter Parkway does surcharge during the 10 year design storm. However, the magnitude of this surcharge is such that the hydraulic gradient is always below the existing ground surface. Two other factors also affect the elevation of the hydraulic gradient near the project site, but they are impossible to quantify within the scope of this analysis. First, the State Highway Department has some storm lines that pass underneath Interstate 5 and tie into a 66 -inch line running South on Southcenter Parkway and then East along 180th Street to outfall into the Green River. This system is separ- ate from the City of Tukwila system, except for an overflow from a 48 -inch line which ties into the City of Tukwila system approximately 500 feet south of the pro - ject site. This overflow is designed as a 100 year design storm overflow, so it should have no effect on the City of Tukwila system during a 10 year design storm, unless the overflow does not in fact act as a 100 year overflow due to siltation, lack of maintenance or other causes. Secondly, the as -built drawings of the City of Tukwila system show varying lengths of subsurface drain pipe stubbed out of some of the catch basins at var- ious locations. If areas of the North and South drainage basins have a high water table elevation, this could contribute significantly to the flow in the storm sys- tem. Infiltration into the system through broken lines, poor .. connections, etc., could also contribute to the flow. The magnitude of the possible infiltration into the system could only be eval- uated with a comprehensive infiltration study and /or network of observation wells throughout the drainage basins. This obviously would be quite expensive and is far beyond the scope of this analysis. Recommendations Due to the fact that the existing storm line in front of the project site appears,to surcharge during the 10 -year design storm, the improvements on the site should be constructed above the elevation of the hydraulic gradient line. In order to prevent backflow from the City's system into the storm system on the project site, the lowest elevation of the detention facility (whether it be underground storage, parking lot ponding or whatever) should be above the elevation of the hydraulic gradient in front of the site. This would eliminate the need for the use of any mechanical backflow prevention device. PRosEcT S I NO SCALE Ig, Lo fit! a MIAIKLER BLVD. PROJECT SITE SCHEMATIC FIGURE 1 PROJECT 3/TE .3TRANDER BLVD. NORTH DRAINAGE 8/9.51N SOUTH DRAINAGE BASIN i_. • TREET TOPOGRAPHY AND SUB -AREAS OF NORTH ..50UTH DRAINAGE 3A5 /NS FIGURE E LEGEND— Storm Distribution D. Type IA ® Type I STORM DISTRIBUTION REGIONS PACIFIC COAST STATES F CURE .4 . EXISTING i GROUNb ELEVATION ozE______,\ ALONG SOIA'TH CENTER PARKWAY 1 HYDRAU . `.0 GRADIENT SCHEMATIC ( NOT TO SCALE- EX I STI NG CALE FIGURE 5 • APPENDIX A PEAK RATES OF 'CHARGE FOR SMALL WATER EDS TYPE I A STORM DISTRIBUTION PEAK DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND h �O 1000 900 800 •700 600 500 400 200 190 90 80 70 60 50 40 • 30 10 9 8 7 6 • T 2121121323 118111111111 IMMORMEMEMIN HUM EMU - 11111 - O .11 00015017r.r/A00°. 4A000, -4,4. r60 egoillizingrA A /®® • - T r` 010 L l 3 $ °85i8 DRAINAGE AREA IN ACRES Exhib)E 2 12 SLOPES - STEEP CURVE NUMBER -. 85 24. HOUR RAINFALL FROM US WB TP -40 Rev,aeC ) 8 2000 1000 900 800 /00 600 S00 300 100 200 .100 90 :80 • : 70 . • 60 • 50 • 30 • 20 10' 9 8 6 .1 5 '••' N REFERENCE U. Y. UF:PAHTMF :NT OE AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ENGINEERING UIVINIuN • 11YDR(q.(N:Y NI(ANCH ',rANoAW0 OWG NO ES 1029 SHEET 22 or 24 OAK 1.1541 PEAK RATES OPTISCHARGE FOR SMALL WATRHEDS TYPE I A • STORM DISTRIBUTION • SLOPES - STEEP CURVE NUMBER - 90 24 HOUR RAINFALL FROM US W8 TP -40 (Revised/ zoao'" r. out-. R 2 S 2 8 ° 2R? 8 & § UI 82oao . Ildr.- 800 ' 8 s 0 osoo U 2_sa1a11:1a=11111_ 2211 1 =M111 > ® a_1•11_ 1111.sr•a tea woo o0 goo Sao >O.w I I�_eSV' P�s� AAP AVA asaU s���o • . • . .r o�:1.�s IMMQ� 211x11_ ®- • - al�0 � • .11 . Analre r ■ M : - - .a - i1 . 400 IMIN : ,.4 .I , ., I . , .. 200 xs 213111 11111=11�=111t11MIIM/20.ro2111i 1►�aalamallttaenavun 100 a=s:UaN� :�MIPTZ,J292W P' . ®i•>•usv�aa . - 90 mlinii3 =111W. rr.p�� 411111111111,511111111 • Bo ►liMia .2111111 • all. MINIM ---- 111174/ �yPEAK DISCH IT O, -40.3•06 N- IS S n'NIIIaaIIMP. aii11a�.�ARI/VaI1p 1 !IYAiiiii'!.JI 1 -sure: �i'�msai♦.s11oosii NWrile: .411111111 u1ai� 1111111111/111 : .. ,1111 a11r.= .z:�.s111 anana O namostttvaatalas .� au s�o MU �� Io 8 8 tr.: Td;Qao7.2== .iii PAITr�:��ilisii11ii n �m®'�YAiiumi APTAN �s�aaa10oaaa rllloaoaaa • ' lE=11 11asaar 11 111111 ... 6 in 42 Ps ocAo eQi DRAINAGE • i Si $ ° R8 g AREA IN ACRES Exhibit 2 -12 :X § n§§ REFERENCE • 11. 9. DEPARTMENT OF AGiucul.TTIRE . SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE ENGINEERING DIVISION . HYDROLOGY BRANCH STANDARD OwG. N0. ES. 1029 SHEET 23 of 24 • DATE 1 -IS•n •PEAK RATES O ISCHARGE FOR SMALL WAT HEDS _ TYPE 1 A STORM DISTRIBUTION SLOPES - STEEP CURVE NUMBER - 95 24 HOUR RAINFALL FROM US W8 TP -40 ( Revised) zoaoin t. Na° N ° S S 2 2.2R? 8 & § § §.1 8 1003 • 7 r Z 500 WV 443° o� 300 W 200 U m m U 190 90. Z o W < 50 291E818810 T - _.i -----,-.------7- • 2000 1000 900 800 100 4 • 300 200 100 70 so °° ... : : : :. =MINION 51111111111 aa11a� ' ... 4. . .. .:.: .. .: ���� 1 , t = ssonnn 111 1 i I I. . � _+ I it 1 1 • I • _ _ : . { -t• Y-t I • 1 1 L � 1 ® m r % . /'� %r°i�� do . — Al Is -� -- - -..... . 'i �o�.a`° � YO go z:aa= N w =_ __= �_.. �iif ! ni roan� . . . . a 30111! a 20lIN11� 10 8 5 IMMI Pg00100 • .9.ii.il�iivnncsl�nal• 5=paran.��:a nii.% 2'r r 901 i .� .. . r f� Apr 311 =V=7..71111: L� / ... 30 , I ■ • • ' • M-: • :. w : �. » , . t 90 - :. :. ___.._�.._ ;1 t ; 8 It- • .... 1 6 1-.41 ; I/Mi.MM� FISIGNP�M�� . IP 0 . . .n ■o r. Sao <Q, DRAINAGE $� ° 2 `�_ 8 QQ AREA IN ACRES Exhibit 2 - 12 Q Q iX� $5 REFERENCE . (1 S. 14:1•A ■ 4' AGRICULTURE 5011. CONSERVATION SERVICE ENGINEERING DIVISION, HYURUUR:Y BRANCH . STANDARD OWG NO ES. 1029 SHEET 24 (0 24 DATE I.15 -l1 Table E-1.--Slope.adjustment factors by drainage areas FLAT SLOPES Slope (per- 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 cent) acres acres acres acres acres acres .acres acres 0.1 0.49 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.2 .61 .59 .56 .55 .54 .53 .53 .52 0.3. .69 .67 .65 .64 .63 .62 .62 .61 0.4 .76 .74 .72 .71 .70 .69 .69. .69 0.5 .82 .80 .78 .77 .77 .76 .76 .76 0.7 .90 .89 .88 .87 .87 .87 .87 .87 1.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.5 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.17 2.0 1.21 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.31 MODERATE SLOPES 3 .93 .92 .91 .90 .90 .90 .89 .89 4 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 1.04. 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.09 6 • 1.07 1.10 1.12. 1.14 1:15 1.16 1.17 1.17 7 1.09 1.13 1.18 1.21 ,1.22 1.23 1.23 1.24 STEEP SLOPES 8 .92 .88 .84 .81 .80 .78 .78 .77 9 .94 .90 .86 .84 .83. .82 .81 .81 10 .96 .92 .88 .87 .86 .85 .84 .84 11 .96 .94 .9L .90 .89 .88 .87 .87 12 .97 .95 .93 .92 .91 .90 .90 .90 13 .97 .97 .95 .94. .94 .93 . .93 - .92 14 .98 .98 .97 .96 .96 .96 .95 .95 15 .99 .99 .99 . .98 .98 .98 .98 .98 16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 - 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 25 1.06 1.08 1.12 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 • 1.19 30 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.20 , 1.22 L.23 1.24 40 1.12 1.16 1.20 1.24 1.29 1.31. 1.33 1.35 50 1.17 1.21 1.25 1.29 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.0 1.2 1.4 PEAK FACTOR 1.6 Factors for adjusting peak discharges for a given runoff curve number based on the percentage of impervious area in the watershed. 1.8 Factors for adjusting peak discharge for a given runoff curve number based on the percentage of hydraulic length modified. Form Ten encompasses a variety of product styles designed for energy- efficient site - confined glare -free lighting. Catalog No. Size Configuration Reflector Type" Lamps A1411 14" 1 I 70 W H.P. Sodium 100 W H.P. Sodium 100 W Mercury 150 W HP. Sodium' 175 W Mercury 250 W Mercuryf 175 W Metal Halide 250 W Metal Halidef A1421 14" 2 1 A1413 14" 1 III A1423 14" 2 III A144T3 14" 4T III A142Q 14" 2 VQ _ A144Q 14" 4 VO A1911 19" 1 I 250 W H.P. Sodium 250 W Mercury 250 W Metal Halide 400 W H.P. Sodium 400 W Mercury 400 W Metal Halide A1921 19" 2 I A1913 19" 1 III A1923 19" 2 III A194T3 19" 4T III A192Q 19" 2 V Q A194Q 19" 4 VQ A2611 26" 1 I 1000 W H.P. Sodium 1000 W Mercury 1000 W Metal Halide A2621 26" 2 I A2613 26" 1 III A2623 26" 2 III A264T3 26" 4T 111 A262Q 26" 2 VQ A264Q 26" 4 VQ EH1411 14" 1 I 70 W H P. Sodium 100 W H.P. Sodium 100 W Mercury 150 W H.P. Sodium' 175 W Mercury 175 W Metal Halide EH1421 14" ' 2 1 EH1413 14" 1 111 EH1423 14" 2 111 EH144T3 14" 4T III EH142Q 14" 2 VQ EH144Q 14" 4 VQ EH1911 19" 1 1 250 W H.P. Sodium 250 W Mercury 250 W Metal Halide 400 W H.P. Sodium 400 W Mercury 400 W Metal Halide EH1921 - 19" 2 1 EH1913 19" 1 III EH1923 19" 2 111 EH194T3 19" 4T 111 EH1920 19" 2 VQ EH194Q 19" 4 VQ To order, please add abbreviations for ballast voltage, Tamp and finish to catalog number. Example: EH 1923 120 400 MH BRA. 'Supplied with ballast to operate 55 volt ballast unless specified other- wise. t250 watt mercury and 250 metal halide are available in configurations 1 and 2 only. "See back page for light distribution descriptions. H1411 14" 1 I 70 W H.P. Sodium 100 W H.P. Sodium 100 W Mercury 150 W H.P. Sodium' 175 W Mercury 175 W Metal Halide H1421 14" 2 I H1413 14" 1 III H1423 14" 2 111 H144T3 14" 4T III H142Q 14" 2 VQ H1440 14" 4 VQ H1911 ' 19" 1 I 250 W H.P. Sodium 250 W Mercury 250 W Metal Halide 400 W H.P. Sodium _.,1921 19" 2 1-'� {� H1913) 19" 1 i-lll / H1923 19" 2 III H194T3 19" 4T III 60-W MMercury) 400 W Me`tarr Halide / H192Q 19" 2 VO H194Q 19" 4 VO H2611 26" 1 I 1000 W H.P. Sodium 1000 W Mercury 1000 W Metal Halide H2621 26" 2 I H2613 26" 1 III H2623 26" 2 III H264T3 26" 4T III H2620 26" 2 VO H264Q 26" . 4 VQ ID6g1Z The Form Ten family of luminaire styles add ver- satility to outdoor lighting applications. Light- ing performance to match site considerations in the most energy efficient manner has domi- nated the design intent of the product line. The variety of mounting arrangements determine to a great extent the intensity of the illumination. Select a suitable optical system and mounting configuration then tailor the luminaire package to the architecture and geometry of the site. Gardco Lighting EXHIBIT "D'_' Gardco Manufacturing Inc. 2661 Alvarado St., San Leandro, Calif. 94577 Phone 415 - 357 -6900 3 • Form Ten Type I, Bedlam Caton • Type IIF Medium Caton Typo V p.adnts Caton Optical Systems are interchangeable in any product style. Form Ten A: A handsome group of rectilinear style luminaires. Crafted from aluminum extrusions. Corners are precisely mitered, all fasteners and welds are concealed. Luminaires are equipped with internal slip filters for pole top • mounting and are available in one -way, two -way and four -way configuration proportionately scaled in three sizes with H.I.D. lamps from 70 to 1000 watts. �-- a j Interior east - T aluminum Plug -In unitized ballast, 1 A fitter hest- .inked capacitors 2 4 O -I . E -k. - D • Top pan interlocks with sides to provide a weather -proof mid. Extruded Ij aluminum housing with mitered comers. concealed fasteners C and welds. ear tempered glassware Easily- removable hinged door and field rotatable reflector. 'Tenon De 4T a tI .•Tenon Diapmeter Configurations Longitudinal Section Finish: Bronze anodize: BRA Black anodize: BLA Bronze painted: BRP Black painted: BLP B Silicone gaskets Dimensional Data Lamp Abbreviations: Mercury: MV High pressure sodium: HPS Metal Halide: MH Extruded aluminum arm Top pan interlocks with sides to with hand -hole, cover & wire tie provide a weather -proof seal. 2 ■ ttt Pole bolster '1■ plate with ` -- strain- relief Form Ten EH: Arm mounted square architectural luminaires gracefully proportioned and carefully crafted from aluminum extrusions. Corners are precisely mitered and all fasteners and welds are concealed. Units are available in one -way, two - way and four -way configurations in two sizes with H.I.D. lamps from 70 to 400 watts. IT Configurations Longitudinal Section T Extruded aluminum I housing with mitered corners, a concealed fasteners and welds. Easily- removable Silicone hinged door & field gaskets rotatable reflector. Flat tempered glassware' J- A —I } A Dimensional Data A14 A19 A26 'A 14' 19' 26' B 21' 29' 39' C 7' 10' 10' D (tenon depth) 4' 6" 8' E (tenon diameter) 23/4' 4' 4' Lamp Abbreviations: Mercury: MV High pressure sodium: HPS Metal Halide: MH Extruded aluminum arm Top pan interlocks with sides to with hand -hole, cover & wire tie provide a weather -proof seal. 2 ■ ttt Pole bolster '1■ plate with ` -- strain- relief Form Ten EH: Arm mounted square architectural luminaires gracefully proportioned and carefully crafted from aluminum extrusions. Corners are precisely mitered and all fasteners and welds are concealed. Units are available in one -way, two - way and four -way configurations in two sizes with H.I.D. lamps from 70 to 400 watts. IT Configurations Longitudinal Section T Extruded aluminum I housing with mitered corners, a concealed fasteners and welds. Easily- removable Silicone hinged door & field gaskets rotatable reflector. Flat tempered glassware' J- A —I } A Dimensional Data Form Ten HI Simplicity of form combined with aero -space design concepts achieve great strength to weight ratios resulting in a family of luminaires with aesthetic appeal and unusual durability. Luminaires are arm mounted and are available in one -way, two -way and four -way configurations in three sizes with H.I.D. lamps from 70 to 1000 watts. Extruded aluminum arm with hand-hole, cover & wire tie • r� yl \ Pole bolster li -- I plate with strain - relief 11 Configurations 2 Copyright ®1977 Gardco Manufacturing Inc., San Leandro, California Longitudinal Section Easily- removable Silicone hinged door and gaskets field rotatable reflector. Flat tempered glassware A —I T A Top pan Interlocks with sides to provide weatherproof seal One place multi- formed "aluminum sides with an integral reinforcing o spine and a single 1 concealed Joint provides s very tw rigid ligheight housing Dimensional Data EH14 E1419 A 14' 19' B 7' 10' C' Arm length 6' 9' D••Arm height 5" 5' Form Ten HI Simplicity of form combined with aero -space design concepts achieve great strength to weight ratios resulting in a family of luminaires with aesthetic appeal and unusual durability. Luminaires are arm mounted and are available in one -way, two -way and four -way configurations in three sizes with H.I.D. lamps from 70 to 1000 watts. Extruded aluminum arm with hand-hole, cover & wire tie • r� yl \ Pole bolster li -- I plate with strain - relief 11 Configurations 2 Copyright ®1977 Gardco Manufacturing Inc., San Leandro, California Longitudinal Section Easily- removable Silicone hinged door and gaskets field rotatable reflector. Flat tempered glassware A —I T A Top pan Interlocks with sides to provide weatherproof seal One place multi- formed "aluminum sides with an integral reinforcing o spine and a single 1 concealed Joint provides s very tw rigid ligheight housing Dimensional Data H14 1119 H28 A 14' 19' "26' B r 10' 12' C' Arm length 6' 9' 12' 0° °Arm height 5' _ 5' 8" . . 174.- t. ; 1:!.tertiaif, Trif; ;11N7■1::4•■•`..%°, r:ILLAt1), trifi stiP ' • :„..!",.1.3.41o.r.,?; peak f101.30rNilf, !;.1.,....1c : utopt3::,erity-114 • " • ' ,!,i•i;1'2W114.41PCS641*40*1104410144014#.1100611,1,1 rt .• • 6,1' • .'" • • "'• ""Pd Uf' riLar:.;AN ••.• Clii•frii3i1v.ZLki,,.1,1itiff s?rt.:0':4.ttat, r 6143.;:gititha iit epti-Ats • 4-4..rkgar9 ftv-tri ore?: • Aaif.?-01.0;"tr... • t'Aizeti• • .., (1-;r.-)2,1f,11;6 •:1'•••• • . . •• . • „..• . . az ft ;air. V. ;*'.!.4z,•,.:kitter' c.1,41:2:41004 • • ,:. • ;;;•• 1:•mtstc.:'1,.1 • • '` ••• • • •iin • st.:k.r.t. eig.rito-7 • • • , • • 4,.•. • r tIV4/4. . ..-.• • to* • • '4 .re, yoto V .. • . • :•", - • . • -• • ' • . -",5 • " •• . : ; . . • . . • iz • ttized hitOgy pi:;t:T. 41:9 z.,rikao.P.4..4i'.coil-,414. • 'EtEm.f.,..40 rnqtafti?k4; i*Ozioi"0: Or, P51);O: grrci gof 141.111t8itt..z:',4.PaArecniftnt'fariffat.. • . . . . .1"'ilz • • tr4 4T'',1' t 1464: 19; .ktii:...ty.19; Nei vioix , , ort,•9:,,rtior.t P4r. cortivjrition , • • • : • .:; • itiff1,..1401:pf ii.14;fr Isf;i9Pid i i •i'T.,-.j.r$F.(4 /404iv••,',1•40.4.0P,011$.4 . — • • COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING EXHIBIT E WENDY'S RESTAURANT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON APRIL, 1981 TRAFFIC STUDY - INTRODUCTION As shown on the enclosed Vicinity Map, the proposed Wendy's Restaurant in Tukwila will be situated on the west side of Southcenter Parkway immediately north of the Union Pacific Railroad spur. Situated across or east of this location is the parking lot for GM Emerson Diesel and a south grassy area . bordering the north side of the Union Pacific tracks. South of this point, and still on the east side of the parkway is Eucalyptus Records which enjoys_:parking in the front of the building, all off - street, and parking to the south of their building. On the west side of the parkway, (and south of the proposed Wendy's site), is Zach's Country Inn, a restaurant utilizing parking off - street along the front, rear and a small lot to the northwest accessible across the railroad • grade crossing of the UPRR. Southcenter Parkway is in a 72 -foot right -of -way with 60 -foot of street that utilizes four lanes of through traffic, two northbound and two south- bound, and a center left -turn lane for both directions of traffic. The next signalized intersection is at Strander Boulevard and is northerly of this site approximately 3000 feet. To the south, the next signalized intersection, is at Parkway Plaza and is approximately 600 feet. From the configuration of the street system, the development along the parkway, the capacity of the parkway, and the spacing of the existing traffic signals, it does not appear that additional signalization will be warranted or required in the foreseeable future. Traffic operations were investigated on several occasions and specifically during a traffic count on a Friday in March and the following Saturday. Geometrics of the roadway were checked against present drawings and previous work done in the area. A copy of the architect's proposed Wendy's Restaurant showing driveway locations, driveway width, parking stalls, building size and location, shrubbery and landscaping, and total development within the lot lines was utilized to assist in evaluating the efficiency of the proposed operation and as it would relate to the traffic control and level of service on Southcenter Parkway. -1- EXHIB..IT__« E �� Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents, Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. • • COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Previous work done by the author in the area for the City of Tukwila has spanned over a period of time of ten years. Projects for the City and for private developers within the City of Tukwila have been successfully consummated that involved close attention to traffic signal timing and phasing, level of service, volume /capacity ratios, and, peak as well as off - peak traffic operations for shopping, commercial, industrial, and pedestrian movements. It was therefore with this background this study was undertaken for a thorough evaluation of any possible conflicts with the traffic flow, any impacts that may require mitigating features in the design. Also the total impact on the traffic flow including level of service evaluation, peak: and off -peak operational reviews, and total traffic adequacy was analyzed with a view toward safety to the traveling public as well as any detrimental or advantageous impacts on adjacent properties and other traffic operations in the immediate vicinity. Additionally the internal circulation and traffic movements are assessed in this study and with comments as to the adequacy of parking, the drive -in window location, queing length of stopped vehicles. With these traffic - parameters in mind, it should be possible to reach a "threshold determination" as to the transportation, "quantitative traffic analysis" and specifically as addressed in the Checklist Section, II -13, of the City of Tukwila. Preliminary Opinions and Conclusions Regarding Traffic Adequacy In summary, and after field investigation, evaluation of the planned Wendy's Restaurant, a review and research to the standards of traffic generation and capacity including level of service, it would appear that no mitigating areas arise. The layout is one of those unusual ones that needs no further clarification as to the movement of traffic to the motorist, nor to the internal circulation. The motorist will find it immediately accessible, with proper signing, from either northbound or southbound on Southcenter Parkway and requirements for turning, into and out of the driveways, are provided within the driveway geometrics which are more than ample. Internal circulation both considering on -site parking spaces and the drive -in window queing space are more than adequate and should fulfill all future require- ments for vehicle movements and storage on site. No off -site queing or parking will be required or induced due to internal traffic confusion. The site is well located between traffic signals such that no effect on adjacent traffic signals will be incurred. With the level approaches both from street and on -site, the width of approaches more than adequate, and the one -way counterclockwise circulation both for parking and drive -in window, this restaurant fits in the upper 10% for traffic adequacy based on the present design. -2- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents, Volumes, Signa /s, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. • 1 COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Based on this author's experience with similar drive -in restaurants that include inside. dining as well as car drive -up windows, and based on experi- ence in the Tukwila area with other traffic generators for the last ten years, it would appear that no adverse impacts.will be generated by construction of this restaurant. We have addressed to the geometrics of Southcenter Parkway, the driveway locations adjacent to and on the proposed Wendy's Restaurant site, and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad spur. We have also reviewed the level of service, the volume /capacity ratios, and the peak.and off -peak traffic volumes. There appears to be no traffic problems that will be associated with this development that need additional remedial action or continued surveillance. We feel that this is .a well thought -out plan and the location speaks for itself in being away from any other major generators which.helps to delete the problems before.they are developed. The 5 -lane section of Southcenter Parkway also aids in avoiding problems before they surface. Also enclosed are the following documents that assisted us in making• this traffic analysis and may be reviewed for further detailed analysis. 1. Vicinity Map of Tukwila 2. Traffic CountYofMarch 13, 1981, to March 14, 1981 3. Traffic Generation for Drive -In Restaurants. by ITE 4. .Highway Capacity Manual - Levels of Traffic'Service Proposed Curb. Cuts as Related. to Geometrics of Parkway The proposed development borders the UPRR grade crossing immediately to the south. This is a spur single track line that fortunately has been provided with overhead cantilevered standard railroad flashing lights over the through lanes of the parkway, an additional set of flashing 'lights on the vertical support post in the sidewalk area, the standard railroad grade crossing crossbuck, and the pedestrian bell on each side, east and west, installation. The exiting traffic from Wendy's will utilize a 24 -foot "Exit Only" driveway, the south edge of which is approximately 35 feet.from the railroad signal. Vehicles leaving the driveway will be positioned in such a way that the driver will be 45 feet from the signal. Visibility of the signal will be enhanced by the fact that railroad signals are also post mounted as well as overhead mounted, and.the post mounted ones will be in direct line of sight to an exiting driver. Additionally, the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS, 1978 EDITION, specifies that signals shall be at least 40 feet and no more than 120 feet from drivers that would be stopped for the signal. Therefore, this 45 feet fits within the criteria -3- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents, Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. • • COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING for good visibility. The pedestrian bell will be clearly audible to exiting drivers and this should provide the maximum of safety for the railroad grade crossing at this point. It should be also noted that the clear visibility of any train or related movements on the track is given because of the absence of any sight obstructions in the quadrants needed for exiting vehicles, namely the northwest and northeast sight quadrants for railroad grade crossing visibility. Geometrics of turning vehicles from this driveway were analyzed and utilizing standard turning templates by the "American Association of State Highway Officials, 1965 Edition," it has been determined that.an exiting vehicle can turn into the nearest or. curb lane to go south or right without encroaching on the adjacent lane. This is primarily due to the added width of driveway for a- single exiting maneuver that allows good turning without encroachment on either curbs or .adjacent lanes. The entering driveway1 :is similarly constructed as a 24 -foot entering driveway and in checking the geometrics of turning for passenger vehicles similarly provides for the best entering without encroachment to other lanes or striking the entering curbs. The separation of entering and exiting driveways is accommendable use of judicious traffic design and will negate many of the difficulties encountered in two- direction driveways and driveways of insufficient width... These two driveways will also improve the operations on'Southcenter Parkway by negating infringement into adjacent lanes during the turning maneuvers. The longer radius turns from the driveway exiting to turn left orr north and from northbound traffic in the two -way left -turn lane to turn left are of course more easily accommodated and represent less of a problem in the analysis of the vehicle geometrics in turning. The adjacent driveway of Zach's Country Inn restaurant to the south has a provision for an 18 -foot driveway and it begins only 6 feet south of the southernmost track of the UPRR. This is a two -way driveway and operations at this driveway have noted problems in entering and exiting traffic unable to utilize the same space. It is anticipated that the Wendy's separated driveways will operate much better than Zach's, but should have no conflict with the Zach's drive -in other than the fact that exiting vehicles right turning may encounter a slowing down of traffic attempting to use the Zach's drive -in at a much lower speed and possibly infringing on the adjacent Parkway lane in order to make the radius of curve required when entering. -4- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents, Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Other adjacent driveways are on the east side of the Parkway and include GM Emerson Diesel, approximately opposite the north property line of Wendy's, and Eucalyptus Records with a driveway approximately opposite the Zach's Country Inn restaurant. The parking for GM Emerson Diesel is a sporatic parking, very low volume, and with very little activity including weekends and peak hours. It is a wide driveway creating no geometric problems in turning and it would be a rare occasion for a vehicle from the GM Emerson driveway to utilize the Wendy's driveway. Therefore, a cross traffic between the two driveways. would be negligible and was not considered further in this analysis. To the south of Emerson Diesel and paralleling the UPRR tracks is a.local access road that could be used for parallel parking, but is' dead -ended 300-to 400 feet to the east. Very little activity was noted on the field trips to this area and only sporadic parking was noticed on any of the trips. It is therefore felt that no influence to the Wendy's drive -ins will accrue from this paved driveway area. The Eucalyptus Records enjoys its own parking in front of the building, two rows of 90 degree parking, and with parking to the south of the building served:by their driveway approximately opposite the Zach's restaurant. It can be anticipated that.some cross traffic will develop between this record store and.the Wendy's Restaurant. Fortunately, the two properties are on opposite sides. of the street and offset by sufficient distance to allow traffic to proceed through the lane changes necessary; and enter'the two -way left-turn-lane. At that time turning can be made adequately into, the one -way driveway of Wendy's. and with little interference.to other traffic. Also,. waiting time is available' in the two -way left -turn lane. in the event that traffic is southbound on.the.parkway. Similarly, exiting Wendy's 'traffic will.have the opportunity to merge and lane change and enter the two -way . left -turn lane and hold while making a left turn into the record store driveway. Traffic volumes noticed. in the peak hour and off -peak and including Saturday afternoon operation verify that these maneuvers would not be hazardous to the motorist-nor lower the level of.service or affect the capacity of the parkway. Additionally, since there are no traffic signals in close proximity . to any of these driveways; the ability to enter and leave driveways with minimum friction to the through traffic stream, and. the ability to turn left across the moving lanes of traffic with sufficient gaps provided for the remote traffic signals, will exist. This can be assumed as an ideal condition and one that is not normally expected on projects of this type. -5- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents, Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. • • COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Traffic Flow. and Level of Service on Southcenter Parkway In order to properly assess the impact to the existing:traffic flow, a traffic count was done in the .peak hours as well as recording for 15 minute periods the separate northbound and southbound traffic for 24 hours. This was done on a peak day of Friday, March 13, 1981 beginning at 3:00 p.m. in the after- noon, and continuing through to the following Saturday at 6:00 p.m. Copies are included, attached, of the actual traffic count and showing the 24 hour total of 8,555 in the northbound direction, and 10,125 in the southbound direction, 24 -hour periods that includes Friday afternoon and night as well as Saturday morning and afternoon. This total traffic volume for a 24 -hour period of 18,680 for two direction would be more than could be normally anticipated on any one day's count and is high because of the period taken. Nevertheless, for traffic adequacy, it should be noted that this will occur for 52 times a year and that normally the peak design period would be the 30th highest peak hour for the year. Therefore, in order to look at the worst condition, the traffic counts were taken accordingly, and this period used in the following analysis. During the. traffic count 24 -hour period, the highest hourly volumes were northbound at 827 vehicles per hour, which occurred between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on Friday the 13th of.March. The corresponding southbound volume was 609 with the prior hour of 3 to 4 p.m. showing 687 vehicles per hour. For design purposes, therefore, the 687 southbound and the 827 northbound are utilized, although they fall in separate hours. These :traffic volumes represent two lanes of traffic for each of the stated figures and therefore the hourly lane volumes can be approximated as one-half.of each figure and namely 414 per lane per hour northbound and 344 per lane per .hour southbound. In order to properly evaluate these traffic volumes, a discussion of hourly lane volumes is appropriate. Normally headways measured in seconds between vehicles is an appropriate measure of the adequacy of a facility to handle traffic when compared against actual measured volumes. . A traffic volume of 1200.per lane per hour, (with 3600 seconds per hour), represents a.vehicle headway of 3 seconds, namely that time for one vehicle to pass a given point before the next vehicle passes the same point. Volumes above 1200 per lane per hour start the congestion that can be attributed to service levels worse than, (or poorer than), Service Level C. In order to keep service levels of C or better, namely higher, such as B or A, headways should not be less than 3 seconds per vehicle. In an urban area it is easier to attain the 1200 per lane per hour criteria than it is in a rural area. Also at lower speeds, the 3 second headway rule, resulting in 1200 per hour per lane, is easier to achieve than in the higher speed areas. Therefore, for this study, -6- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents, Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING in the - opinion of.the� :author, and based on his experience with traffic flow , in other areas as well as specifically the Tukwila area, the 1200 as a service level of .0 is selected and evaluated for flow on Southcenter Parkway. (The Highway. Capacity Manual nearly agrees with this figure for average conditions and for approach widths of 24 feet, no signal interruptions, and 2500 in two lanes per hour.) Evaluating the southbound traffic flow of 344 as actually counted on March 13 of this year, and comparising it to the 1200 capacity. for service level of C shows that this ratio of actual volume to capacity is 29% of the actual capacity.' Therefore a volume /capacity ratio of .29 would be appropriate for this section of road as -it existed on that day of the count:in 1981. In the northbound direction, the traffic volume of 414 when compared to the vehicle capacity for Service Level C equals 35% of.the capacity. and therefore the volume /capacity ratio for this direction would be .35. These volume /capacity ratios are considerably below criteria that would, indicate confusion, congestion, or hindrance to traffic flow. When volume/ capacity ratios reach .80 to 1.0, it can be. expected. that the capacity of the facility will.be exceeded on some occasions. With these low volume/ capacity ratios (under .40), the serviceability-and traffic service level and capacity.service level will be easily acceptable for some period to'come, even with normal traffic growth experienced in the area. The Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 87, indicates levels of service for urban arterial streets as follows: Service Level of C should have a volume /capacity ratio equal to or less than 0.80. Level of Service B should.have a volume /capacity ratio equal to or less than 0.70, and Level of . Service A, the highest and best level of service, should be equal to or less than 0.60. The calculated volume /capacity ratios for Southcenter Boulevard therefore, at.less.than 0.40, will provide, for many years, Service Level A. The description for Service Level A is "free- flow'," for Service Level B is "stable flow," and' for Service Level C is "stable flow with acceptable delay." Based on the review made both peak and' off-peak hours, it is the author's . opinion that the Service Level A was met and the capacity calculation shows that this should be met for many years to come provided that no traffic signal is installed'in. the immediate proximity of the Wendy's Restaurant. -7- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. • • COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Internal. Circulation ,,Drive -In Window,.Queing of - Traffic The internal circulation begins with the entering driveway, .the northerly driveway, and from that point to the centerline of drive -in window is approxi- mately 350 feet, depending . on -the exact course of driving, but limited by the building and the other parking stalls, and assuming all parking stalls are full. This distance utilizing just under 22 feet from front bumper to front bumper would accommodate 16 vehicles. Based on observations of drive -itt :.windows at similar type restaurants, most orders are filled in a 20- second period at the window under peak conditions. Some take longer, and on occasions, the operators; if during the peak operating hours, will follow the car through and service the car after the drive -in window in order.to.keep traffic moving. For this study we are using 30 seconds per car,.and based on two cars per minute, a backup of 16 cars • represents 8- minutes of service at the window. Should the window operate at.this maximum capacity for an.hour,.and utilizing the two cars per minute concept, a traffic volume of 120 vehicles per hour could be developed. Although this would be nearly unattainable under normal arrival. conditions, it is nevertheless used for design purposes. The traffic . feeding this 120. cars per hour would come from only the north and the south and for design purposes we have, assumed two- thirds of that traffic from one direction, namely the peak direction, the northbound. Therefore two - thirds of 120 or.80 vehicles per hour could be anticipated left - turning from the northbound traffic of.the parkway to go into.the drive -in window. This represents approximately 10% of the.nor.thbound traffic in the peak hour on the Parkway which wascounted.at 827. This turning movement represents a light turning movement and just. slightly over one car per minute crossing over the southbound traffic flow, which should be easily accommodated under the standards of the Highway Capacity Manual. The exiting drive- in:vehicles would be similarly treated, whereas the 120 could be expected to developati:traffic volume of one- third ,,turning.right and.two- thirds.turning left. Once again the. 80 vehicles exiting the drive -in window area and leaving the driveway to turn :left would approximate a little over one vehicle per minute left turning, and the other'30'or one vehicle per 2 minutes,right turning. Based on the availability of the center median lane, the left turning vehicles need only cross one direction of traffic at a time and may 'hold in the center lane before merging into northbound .traffic. This represents an acceptable and easily accomplished traffic flow, and in the event that a vehicle should have to wait in the.driveway before making the left turn, it would not cause a backup problem within Wendy's parking lot since nearly 40 feet is provided for backup to the'drive -in window, should cars not be able to leave immediately from the driveway. -8- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. • • COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING During the course of the traffic analysis for this project, the . McDonald's restaurant to the north, on Southcenter Parkway, was reviewed as to its operations. Based on the length of queing, the service, and the other traffic flow conflicts associated with the McDonald's,-and being in close proximity to the Strander Boulevard traffic signal, it was felt that Wendy's would provide less of an impact to the Parkway by having additional storage, less turning conflict with traffic on the Parkway, and provided better approach grades to the street for both the entering and exiting driveway. During the course of this same investigation at McDonald's, at no time did traffic ever back out onto the Parkway. Careful attention to overload peaks was demon- strated by "doubling -up" on the drive -in window personnel and by moving persons ahead through the line that had orders taking longer than normal. By this method peak demands can be accommodated by careful attention by operating personnel of the restaurant and should so be considered for the Wendy's Restaurant. The stall parking includes 48 marked spaces on the perimeter, and 9 marked spaces on the interior for a total of 57 parking places. The driving lane width along this parking is 31 feet on the north side and 22 feet on the south side. These isle widths are more than daequate and exceed the recom mended minimums as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE.) The assignment of adequacy for this number of spaces as compared to the size of the building is also assessed by comparison to TRIP GENERATION provided by ITE. According to the trip generation rates of ITE Technical Committee 6A -6, and as published in July 1975, drive -in restaurants were used in the data that included McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, Burger Chef, and some other small drive -ins. It should be noted that only_the.P.M. would be applicable in the case of the Wendy's which indicates approximately 40 entering between 12 and 1 for the afternoon peak hour, and 42. exiting. This is a figure based on per 1,000 square feet of drive -in restaurant. In the project at hand, the restaurant approximates 2600 square feet and therefore could expect 100 entering and 100 exiting in that peak hour. With the average stay in the restaurant between 15 and 20 minutes, it appears reasonable to assume that the designed 57 parking stalls could serve three times that many vehicle loads per hour, or approximately 171 vehicles. Therefore the entering of 100 should be exceeded by the capacity of 171 providing an excess parking capacity and assuming a normal turnover rate. Since a portion and up to 40% of the entering vehicles will be drive - through, the need for parking of the 100 entering vehicles reduces to approximately 60 in the full hour and makes the parking stall count more than adequate or nearly three times what will be required in the peak of 12 to 1 p.m. according to the ITE Technical Committee Report. „ enneth G. CoiingI&ain, -9- Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents` Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING VICINITY MAP' Traffic and Transportation Planning, Design, Operations, Maintenance, Accidents, Volumes, Signals, Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicycles and Surveillance. Date I3�Day4iWeFy I_ocation .�oafi�C�a l� Y J IV$I /'7Z73- dI'csJ Checker Weather . 7.J4'w7 Station Number Checker Checker Surface Control Station Summary Sheet_Lof sheets Vehicular Volume Count COT77NGHAM 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 4 Min. N°rt4loom,- Z/asar — IN* r}*4oaw'- 2/anti _ • Nori-1►6.an/ Z far/ci _ /yip/46./0(.1- 2 /as : Totals Entering Intersection Interval Ending /S«u1+ 1i%w' Interval j _ 1 Interval I Interval '; + Interval _ _ -- _ /5�++.ar f/ourij I, /r..��r /�r /r yrms'N , /S�wil» /y0u/�y Total E - W N - S Total 3:0op STA1.7 11 -p zs 704 I,$29 3- - 1 0 i s 141 JO q )a 39 )° /4 r 30 135 4r 13 4S" 46 43 2q 6 4r 2-19 1200. Is 58 t\0 0,q s7 zoo 4 =p 't11 Pot I:099 too •81 IT 37 1r 41 c3 /S 269 15^ 1,41 T 14 3o S3 70 Z24 3o 701 4r 9 4r rg 4r /84 4r rao 142p C cr. 9°°.4 74 224 jc;ao1, /6Z (4I s2 p 1as dzi rs 3 is . ', 196 r 168 ' 3° 7/ 7° 171 30 1s4 4r z 41 84 43" i 5 4r l43 2:12p Z 11 /O 'Lsl 19 30S `° - p )34 66 0 G °s I2.8 Sgt rr c rr 89 6 a /3S 1T It8 70 9 7° 1/4 70 (3f 47 1 4r 128 4r Ic0 31"A 2 It 11 °44 135 471 7—°°), 1 t,3 .54C /i. S' ir 172. • tr MS JO 0 74 116 3o • 1 SZ 4l 4 4r Z13 4r goo Q% 2 /1 1Z 22A1 /29 7/a t p 114 46 9 Is" 4 is tar 1 r t7 3o Z 10 Zo8 32 1 a 4r 3 43- fill 47 19 5"5-"-q 2 11 I °% p 187 74/ , 9 itgp Y8 39l :IS o is 210 rr Ha :3o Z ,' 210 - 7° 71 :41 6 +r !4z 4r 41 ‘:"A 7 /s- ZdD 9 173 VS- (On, t7 2s7 it 6 IF /7• 1s 3C 3° f 3 .O 203 30 tq 4r 7s 45 187 4r 31 7 S3 9 7 � '' 3° . 1(9 72'. .1119. 2S IL1 Date 4 n* IZ 7/ Day, /24`, Location - 5474'Y4ilt*A•s- Airk*czy c /7Z7T,:gdli/rrt Checker Weather Ticifrmy Station Number Checker Surface Control Station Checker Summary Sheet 2 of Sheets Vehicular Volume Count COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Min., Interval Ending , S O c / 7 % j b e c , S - V a rn e . / . S p 4.,/ 4 , 4 4 , 0 ' -7 / 4 N e f ISOfI aisd - Z /Ow .c04116./ts+d- 24v# f - Totals Entering Intersection Interval Total Interval Total Interval Total Interval Total E - W N - S Total 3 °19? /2s //' it 7 04 19r 35' lre 7° /6J" i' 1'j 3° 183 3° ) 90 4r /87 4r /4 43- 1s' 4r 193 ¢=p /Go 6t2 /2■14 /1 6� °PA 1S3 686 13p 173 744 /r /rig, is 2.2 Is /04 Ir 1‘S' 2O A/ 30 /0 70 71 3' 174- 45- /41 43" 1 4-5- 4r 181 46 60? I JaiA . 1 4: y °' 7 9 343 S-%1 /71 G9/ /r 171 73- 0 is- PI' 15 140 '" /6/ 7u di. I° 84 l6l `.r /63 4r 3 45- /o7 4s /78 6 'p /d/ 141 683 2, Z 9 /0 °s` /1'1 3 !l & °- b9 172 701 Ir 3 O' Al ►S. 171. 3� 143 30 7 70 13T 4- /63 4r 3 41- 141 7--1) /s� 601 .31'5 o /3 // 29 /z say /s /s9' is 177 • Iv 114 30 . c �'' /q2 4r of 45- 1 `fc- vs 21p 12, S70 4-0g 0 p )1%/t1 131 137 1` /o7 13- z. it 2r3 3. 84 ,u Z 3,, �8g • 4T n 4r- 4 r 2s7 9'f°' 9? 370 c, v),42 6 12. 1(1-=p ZT8 /041 i r /01 !s z rr 231 79 IF 34 230 4r 321 4r Y 41- /49 10 -6—.--. 3 2-6L 6 ii / 1 z4 Z� Z16. 8111_ is 28 rr Z2 it 17f X' 13 )v 48 3° 1 p, 4r 3 / 4r 124 4r /6 0 // 9S 7 q rp 4 CZ 3 scY / 7r 704 Total 1 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Drive -in Restaurant S33 Land Use /Building Type ITE Land Use Code __ _ ____ __ —____— _ __._ _ __._..__ Independent Variable —Trips per 1 ,000 Square Feet. Average Trip Rate Maximum Rate Minimum Rate Correlation Coefficient Number of Studies Average Size of Independent Variable /Study Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 553 828 376 6 2.68 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street • Traffic A.M. Between 7 and 9 Enter 49.7* 1 1.59 Exit 40.2* 1 1.59 Total 89.9* 1 1.59 P.M. Between 4 and 6 Enter 17.0 4 3.57 Exit 14.6 4 3.57 Total 31.6 73.0 21.1 4 3 57 Peak Hour of Generator A.M. Enter Exit Total P.M. Between 12 and 1 Enter 44.4 4 4 3.57 3.57 Exit 41.9 Total 78.8 194.7 37.0 11 7.98 Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Generator Enter Exit Total Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour of Generator Enter Exit Total Source Numbers 4, ITE Technical Committee 6A -6 —Trip Generation Rates July 1975 Date' *Represents Dunkin Donuts Restaurant • HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD Special Report 87 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL 1965 HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD of the Division of Engineering and Industrial Research National Academy of Sciences — National Research Council Washington, D. C. 1965 TABLE 10.13 --- LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIAL STREETS LEVEL OF • SIiR V ICI: A B C D E' 1: TRAFFIC FLOW CONDITIONS (TYPICAL APPROXIMATIONS, NOT RIGID CRITERIA) DESCRIPTION AVERAGE" OVERALL TRAVEL SPEED (MPII) I,OAD" FACTOR LIKELY PEAK -HOUR FACTOR" SERVICE VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO"'" Free flow (relatively) Stable flow (slight delay) Stable flow (acceptable delay) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay) Unstable flow (congestion; intolerable delay) Forced flow (jammed) 530 525 520 515 0.0 <0, 70 <0.60 • (0.80) <0.I (0.85) Approx. 15 <15 (0.90) 0.7 <0.90 <0.90 (0.95) (0.85 typical)" (Not (Not (Not meaningful) meaningful) meaningful)' ^ Operating speed and Cie ratio ,ue independent Inca st •es of level of service: both limits should he satisfied in any deternmina- Iwu o1 levels, with due .onstdci,,u,ni gnu to the Ia.% that Ilk) Lugely'outmalv,tuo's. Lurid l actor, ,, uteasulc or individual intersection level of service, can he used as a supplemental criterion whet necessary. �• I his is the 1w'.,k •1 1,.101. ly ,55151.11,1 Willi the sIle.1l1ed C ' ~lions, III pI,wti.e, consilel,Ible v.uiation is possible. Values in p;ut•nlhesis refer to near perfect progression. .1 I.natl Iactor nt I.11 is Infrequently Irund, even under capacity operation. due In inherent fluctuations in !tan: flow. Capacity. Iknwnd volume /capacity ratio may well exceed L(X), indicating overloading. City of Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington'98188 433 -1845 Office of Community Development 10 February 1981 B.L.S.P.A. Architects 800 Securities Bldg. Seattle, WA. 98101 Attn: Wm. Olson Subject: SEPA threshold Determination (EPIC- 156 -81) Enclosed is a copy of the Threshold Determination for the Shimatsu Rezone Application, and for the proposed Wendy's take -Out restaurant on Southcenter Parkway. A Declaration of Non - Significance for the legislative action to rezone the property only is also included. • Please note that the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission for the Rezone Application 81 -3 -R will be held at 8:00 PM, Thursday 26 February 1981 in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Please plan to join us at that time. cc: A. Shimatsu Coldwell- Banker The Food Group TUKWI Caughey Associate Planner ING DEPT. Threshold Determination Shimatsu Rezone (81 -3 -R) , and "Wendy's" Restaurant The environmental checklist submitted in conjunction with the proposed rezone of 0.89 acres on Southcenter Parkway from R 71 to C -2 has also been reviewed in support of the proposed take -out restaurant to be built on the site subsequent to the grant of rezone. We have reached the following conclusions regarding the adequacy of in- formation furnished: Adequate -- Inadequate To determine the impacts of the legislative act of rezone from residen- tial to commercial use. -- To fully assess the implications of constructing a take -cut franchise restaurant on the rezone site. Recommendation regarding rezone action: Responsible official should issue a Declaration of Non- Significance for the legis- lative action of rezone, with the stated intent to pursue further environmental investigation of the Wendy's Restaurant project. Declaration of Non - Significance should be based on the following findings: A) Rezone action is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and its anticipated impacts. B) Emerging commercial Character of the area surrounding the proposed development. Recommendation regarding "Wendy's" restaurant project:. Prior to completing threshold determination, the applicantshould provide additional research on the following points:. The information should be provided in reasonably- sufficient detail for the City of Tukwila, as lead agency, to determine the environ- mental significance of your project. Information should be formatted in a manner which discusses the source and magnitude of each potential impact, and then identi- fies possible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to off -set that impact. Checklist Section II -1 Earth Response to questions B & C indicate substantial encroachment upon the adjoining slope area and disturbance of stable vegetation. This occurs despite advice to ap- plicants that such encroachment on a designated environmentally - sensitive area will require waiver approval by the City Council. The following information is required: -- Grading Plan Depicting existing and proposed contours, elevations at top -of -curb, property corners and finish floor; limits of fill . activity, source and quantity of fill materials to be placed on site. Page -2- • Checklist Section II -2 Air Justify "no" response to questions 2(a) and 2(b), especially in relations to localized air quality deterioration affects associated with use of a drive -up window. Analyze quantitatively the component automobile pollution products (especially carbon monox- ide and sulfur oxides) generated during peak -hour use of the proposed project, and compare the resultant figures with local air quality attainment standards for the Tukwila /Southcenter area as published by the Puget Sound Air Polution Control Agency (PSAPCA). Checklist Section II -3 Water Justify "no" response to questions 3(b) and 3(c) -- The Public Works Department has identified the local drainage facilities available to this project as inadequate in capacity and function. The department has requested, therefore, a comprehensive storm drainage study including calculations for assessing on -site storm water reten- tion capacity. Also discuss the impact of site - paving on ground water recharge. Checklist Section II -4 Flora Justify "no" response to'quesiton 4(a); provide inventory of all vegetation to be removed above toe -of -slope at west end of site. Checklist Section 1I -7 Light & Glare Provide catalogue illustration and specifications for parking area lighting fixtures for security review by Tukwila Police Dept. Checklist Section II -13 Transportation Provide justification for "no" responses to questions 13(a),(b),(c), $ (f) by pre- paring a quantitative traffic analysis of project- generated vehicle movements: Discuss safety of proposed curb cuts in relation to geographic proximity of railway crossing and other nearby driveway openings. Discuss impact of project - related traffic on service level of Strander /South- center Parkway intersection. - Justify adequacy of queing space provided for drive -up window. Checklist Section II -15 Energy Justify "no" response to question 15(a) by analyzing increase incidence of auto- motive fuel consumption associated with peak -hour customer use of the drive -up window. Page -3- The foregoing information must be presented for the responsible official's review before further analysis of the Wendy's project can go forward. MC /blk • Threshold Determination Shimatsu Rezone (81 -3 -R), and "Wendy's" Restaurant The environmental checklist submitted in conjunction with the proposed rezone of 0.89 acres on Southcenter Parkway from R -1 to C -2 has also been reviewed in support of the proposed take -out restaurant to be built on the site subsequent to the grant of rezone. We have reached the following conclusions regarding the adequacy of in- formation furnished: Adequate -- To determine the impacts of the legislative act of rezone from residen- tial to commercial use. Inadequate -- To fully assess the implications of constructing a take -out franchise restaurant on the rezone site. Recommendation regarding rezone action: Responsible official should issue a Declaration of Non - Significance for the legis- lative action of rezone, with the stated intent to pursue further environmental investigation of the Wendy's Restaurant project. Declaration of Non - Significance should be based on the following findings: A) Rezone action is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and its anticipated impacts* B) Emerging commercial character of the area surrounding the proposed development. Recommendation regarding "Wendy's" restaurant'project: Prior to completing threshold determination, the appl'i'cant should provide. additional research on the following points: The information should be provided in.reasonably .sufficient detail for the City of Tukwila, as lead agency, to determine the environ- mental significance of your project. Information should be formatted in a manner which discusses the source and magnitude of each potential impact, and then identi possible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to off -set that impact. Checklist Section II'I Earth Response to questions B:$ C indicate substantial encroachment upon the adjoining slope area and disturbance of stable vegetation. This occurs despite advice to ap- plicants that such encroachment on a designated environmentally - sensitive area will require waiver approval by the City Council. The following information is required: .-1-,Grading Plan Depicting existing and proposed contours, elevations at top -of -curb, property corners and finish floor; limits of fill activity, source and quantity of fill materials to be placed on'site. Page - 2 - • • Checklist Section II -2 Air Justify "no" response to questions 2(a) and 2(b), especially in relations to. localized air quality deterioration affects associatedith-:userof a drive -up window. Analyze quantitatively the component automobile pollution products (especially carbon Monox- ide and sulfur oxides) generated during peak -hour use of the proposed project, and compare the resultant figures with local air quality attainment standards for the • Tukwila /Southcenter area as published by the Puget Sound Air Polutien-. Control Agency (PSAPCA) . Checklist Section II -3 Water Justify "no" response to questions 3(b) and 3(c) -- The Public Works Department has identified the local drainage facilities available to this project as inadequate in capacity and function. The department has requested, therefore, a comprehensive storm drainage study including calculations for assessing on -site storm water reten- tion capacity. Also discuss the impact of site - paving on ground water recharge. Checklist Section II -4 Flora Justify "no" response to quesiton 4(a); provide inventory of all vegetation to be removed above toe -of -slope at west end of site. Checklist Section II -7 Light $ Glare Provide catalogue illustration and specifications for parking. area lighting fixtures for security review by Tukwila,:. Police Dept. Checklist Section I.I =T3 Transportation Provide justification for "no" responses to questions 13(a),(b),(c), f (f) by pre- paring a quantitative traffic analysis of project - generated vehicle movements: - Discuss safety of proposed curb cuts in relation to geographic proximity of railway crossing and other nearby driveway openings. - Discuss impact of project - related traffic on service level of Strander /Southc: center . • P, arkway ;: int e r s ec t i on . - Justify adequacy of queing space provided for drive -up window. Checklist Section TI =15 Energy Justify "no" response to question 15(a) by analyzing increase incidence of auto- motive fuel consumption associated with peak -hour, customer use of the drive -up window. Page -3- • • The foregoing information must be presented for the responsible official's review before further analysis of the Wendy's project can go forward. MC /blk ity ofiTukwila 6200 Southcenter Bou Tukwila Washington 9818E) T K" •. OCATION z; kt 6f er f lcv f above mentioned applicant has 'submitted: the following plans or materials or the above reference project nvironmental Checklist U Preliminary Plat Environmental Impact State= ❑ Final Plat ment , - Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request Shoreline Permit Application Variance Request Conditional Use Permit °-...00ther: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept.. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. sk Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: *=Review Department Comments:ThP''traffir partPr„ proposed appears sufficient for The area lights do not appear tb'be adequate. At least four additional lights should be added. Two -;.for each of`--the e ast perimeter corners and two each for the mid perimeter. Each ::sight should"_be. of` "sufficient heighth and lumination so as to light the entire ':parking lot.' The proposal does not appear to address the problem of sidewalks for the safe movement of pedestrain traffic. By: �e.R Date: --/Ci �" I City of Tuka 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL I - • KW( 'ATE OF TRANSMITTAL !Zl /OW/81 T1: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. 11111iOLICE DEPT. • E] FIRE DEPT. Ell RECR ' T ' 'EPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: LOCATION: aT. Fee At4e, pon4. Hies l or 1K es' The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: a vironmental Checklist ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request ❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: I/. / rr,6 / 8l Review Department comments: The traffic pattern proposed appears sufficient for the safe and expiditious flow of vehicles through the area. The area lights do not appear to be adequate. At least four additional lights should be added. Two for each of the east perimeter corners and two each for the mid perimeter. Each light should be of sufficient heighth and lumination so as to light the entire parking lot. The proposal does not appear to address the problem of sidewalks for the safe movement of pedestrain traffic. CDit/S/ M 770A/ 5"7v4, '- By: Sgt. M.E. Baskett Date: 2 -10 -81 City of Tukwil• 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL ?i1 /j41 / eA TO: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. EIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: 51`11M.p.1-5U ?--EZO 4 1"•12 "vlEtw-.c 5 g2--.:5T1\o irko r LOCATION: kD2l-t The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: ironmental Checklist ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑Environmental Impact State- ❑ Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ❑ Rezone Request ❑Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: it- / riF0 /g1 Review Department comments: aPPAtitlelvi By: QY U14u�� Date: /- Z a- P1 190$ City of TukwiS 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 21 / JA.& / 51 TO: PROJECT: RECEIVED PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA mil 2 1 1981 ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ •lIMbT 'E'Zoi i roK V.t % x'(5 a WrOs•Nr LOCATION: ,o Tg' 1:7\Arf kerCrg pF " IS" The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ❑ Rezone Request ❑Shoreline Permit Application Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. • Requested response date: 12 freo /at* Review Department comments: `iYGb.YI( wl M11J iQ� COrti5 Y1.Aatr1 4Thc.,V) 1 AG41�C / 11740W/sal ) ul c tl) rs e%r '?fie cmJ (, STn iu kr. (IT\ 93 Oral dA- v7,-- g S t b� t S m l ! h , l KJ p ct> 0 Fkn , 117 By: Date: City of Tukwill 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 21 /34i / SI TO: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. 746atRECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: IIN� g ) rOK \kiraMp& IZC ,00.01' LOCATION: 5C F Wcf ``zAl. S P The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above refe ence project: ironmental Checklist OPreliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request ❑ Shoreline Permit Application Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: iL /1— / $t Review Department comments: Ao sc.t, " ••••.• : y'S-• By: pa- Date: f f . City of Tu ila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL Ll / JA.N / 81 TO: g.BUILDING DEPT. ❑POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: sµ1pT gEIUDOE Fenc "WEaJDiS h -)T- LOCATION: Tlet Ptdq.`f Norm or %2:',64.14/l5'' The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: :tigvirolnmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑Site /Development Plans DRezone Request ['Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ['Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Applical on The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 1' / FQ S /51 Review Department comments: �%� ,/re --2 By: Date: a/r I b f °.,% __a � -if ',a d ©T V' ll OF U VGaeOlL ,1 4 MORM LEGS R-A RESIDENTIAL- AGRICULTURAL P-1 -72 ONE R-I98 ONE R -1.120 ONE R -2 -84 TWO FAMLY DWELLINGS FAMLY DWELLINGS FAMILY DWELLINGS FAMILY DWELLINGS R3 THREE FAMILY DWELLINGS R-360 THREE CR FWR FAMILY R-4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MOLT RESIDENCE HIGH DEN PF PUBLIC FACILITIES NEIGHBCFPDOD PETAL BUSINESS 0-2 I ()CAL RETAIL BUSINESS CPR PLANNED BUSINESS CENTERS CM INDUSTRIAL PARK M-I LIGHT INDUSTRY M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY C-I M OCtrxA REZONE _ 0.89 Acres FROM R I TO :C2 ZONING PLAT MAP 50UTNIYE5T CORNER NE 4. i" 3w 4 , SEC. Z' TESN, R4 N D'SO'36 "E Z55. 0' t 0- LOT l NO1'O5'Z'.!"E 0 0 a - -t t. AO— -7" /305.7/ A 3 Y X65 sji ''SOUTHcE �' R a1 a 'o LEGEND • 1/2" rebar with I -D Cap and 2" x 3" white guard stake O Tack in lead plug O Previously set corners Calculated position SCALE r'= too' MERIDIAN : K.CA. S. Fie UTILJTY EASEMENT soeo8 '4,5"w NOTE: A PORTION OF SURVEY AECORDED UNDER . AUDITOR :s FILE No. 8008E09001 4b rhgr4 r crezAr 'z he14,5W14, sec 26 T26N,R4E • • A • $1 is II • • C.15 1411'7 12 ■$ ..... ..... is.._T c.c.,..4.0e PF: Lul-ces41UFT-15- t), ...... -- 4 cau7T cim 'OP; --. Exir owLy 0 / 2 0 a -'. .- 1 ligir ESCI'4"1" L'irri'li i A , • Uwe c*.u.y 2.4,6 \ 1-1614Teo 41e,4 ...,1 =Ng "nub u.INpolvir- 525f ..z....: • siV 4?; \ g i AIL______ \ 5OUT44CENIE02.. PARK-WAN _ • CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that t e_ empt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previou i.04 ironmental Impact Statement needs to be ompleted. CITY OF TUKWILA fir,,`:, . A' fee of $50.00 MVOIXM lMOMP6Thy the filling of the Environmental Oue t'ic nna,i r-e� ' to cover costs of the threshold determination. kaicA. I. BACKGROUND we 4110 IP it OS 1. Name of Proponent : THE FOOD GROUP, INC. trw 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1660 Professional Plaza Suite D, Columbus, Ohio 43220, (614) 457 -3688 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: November 1980 City of Tukwila, Planning Division 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): A 0.89 acre: ite, a 2650 sq /ft restaurant with parking for 36 autos including a drive -thru window with an additional 12 auto .411 0 OR 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): Site is at the southerly end: of an underdeveloped strip of land extending approximately 1300 feet to the North and running parallel: to South Center Parkway. Properties to the North, South and across South Center Parkway are all ready rezoned and developed as commercial properties. The parcel directly South of this parcel is zoned C -2. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: 90 days after issuance of the building permit. 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES x NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES x NO (c) Building permit YES x NO • • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO X (e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO (f) Sign permit YES X NO (g) Water hook up permit YES X NO (h) Storm water system permit YES X NO (i) Curb cut permit YES X NO (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES X NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) - YES X NO (1) Other: 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Provisions for an 8 foot x 46 foot addition to the dining area. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: NO 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed., but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: NONE II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YES MAYBE NO (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? X (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ -2- X _x_ YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x Explanation: B) . N z of site is marsh, which after. soils inves- tigation, might require some removal of unsuitable soil, with import of compactible material. C). The West 50' (rear) of the lot is heavily treed with the most westerly 30 feet rising sharply to the West. The eas rly -15' of this treed area, being relatively level will be 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: cleared and graded with a slight rise up to the toe at the steeper incline. (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? x (b) The creation of objectionable odors? x (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x Explanation: 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( )C) x (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? x 1 -3- • • YES MAYBE . NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? x (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? x Explanation: 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: x 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a). Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? x (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? x (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation: x YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? x Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X' Explanation: Area lighting to be shielded for down lighting only. Certain lighted signs will not exceed zoning code requirements. Dining room lighting to be 2 x 4 recessed fluorescent fixtures, which may, be visable thru dining room windows. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: • 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? x Explanation: 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals . or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: x • YES MAYBE NO 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: x 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, - or create a demand for additional housing? x Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? x (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? x (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? -6- • • • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or . require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: x x x 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? x (b) Communications systems? x (c) Water? x (d) Sewer or septic tanks? x (e) Storm water drainage? x (f) Solid waste and disposal? x Explanation: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in -the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: x 18. Aesthetic. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: YES MAYBE NO I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lac ,o ull disclosure on my part. /Afil illr, ' i lIgnature and Title x x x