22618 HIGHWAY 99 (2).pdfOV ED
A
CITY OF EDMONDS
$1. 1*9 121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA gao2o (425) M.0220
z
RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
UJI
cc X
W
REVISED MITIGATED DETERmINATIoN OF NONSIGNI]FICANCE
Description -of proposal: Development of a currently vacant site into a 34,2 1 00 square foot grocery and retail
U) Lui
complex with I I I parking stalls (City of Edmonds File NO. ADB-97-90).
_J t
Ln Li.
LU 01
Proponent: Arch/Tech International - Yun's Construction
P.O. Box 1114
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
LL
In
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 22618 Hwy 99, Edmonds
X
z
Lead agency: CM OF EDMONDS
L
z
LU t"i
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
2 _Jz
environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43. 21.030(2)(c). This decision was
made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
0
information is available to the public on request.
W Lu
There is no comment period for this DNS.
0
z
XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will n t act on this proposal for 14 days from
the date below. Comments must be submitted
0
Responsible Official: S .
z
-Je-ff-re-y _Wilson
Position/Title: Planning Supervisor, Department of Development Services - Planning Division
Phone: (425) 771-0220
Address: City of EdMonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
Date: �Q_[2.Sfj? Signature.
0
XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North,
Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than MarCh 10 .1999, by filing a written appeal citing the
reasons.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read 'or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals.
XX Posted on rebrua,,4 Z3, 1999, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmond s Community Services
Building, and the EdmoAds Post Office.
XX Distribute to "Checked", Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist.
Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist:
8"X
80ORWADNSIDW
2MM-SEPA
0
xx Environmental Review Section XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation
De nt of Ecology
rtme TSM&PAL;and Developer
TBo,
P 47703 15700 Dayton Avenue North
Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Seattle, WA 98133
xx Ted Litzenberger
P.O. Dox 1114 XX Boo Han
Gig Harbor, WA 98335 9122 S. Tacoma W ay
Tacoma, WA`98499
xx Yuns Construction Attn: Nick Yun
1600 Graham St XX Community Transit
Seattle, WA 98108 Attn.: Brent Russell
7100 Hardeson
Rd
Everett, WA 98203
LU
LL
.0
XX MITTGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL:
Prior to issuance of the building permit
I - TRAFFIC MITIGATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,64 IS TO BE PAID PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMrr
ISSUANCE.
Z
OR
Prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy
2. A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE IS TO BE INCREASED FROM 10 FEET
TO 15 FEET IN WIDTH PER EDMONDS COMMUNITY CODE CHAPTER 16.60.020.A (FOOTNOTE
No.1) AND 16.60.020.C.
Ll
L
01
3. THE DEVELOPER IS TO INSTALL A 6-FOOT HIGH SOLID WOOD FENCE ALONG THE ENTTRE
.z
WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
4. A MINIMUM OF 21 LEYLAND CYPRESS TREES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING TO THE
LANDSCAPE PLAN RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON JANUARY 26,1999i EACH TREE IS
TO BE A MflqlMUM OF 12 FEET IN HEIGHT AT TBE TIME OF INSTALLATION. SPACING..
REQUIREMENT TO BE DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONAL AT THE TIME OF
PLANTING TO ATTAIN EQUAL SCREENING ALONG THE ENTIRE AREA IDENTIFIED B Y THE
LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT. ALL GROUND COVER AND SHRUBS IDENTIFIED ON THE ABOVE
NOTED LANDSCAPE PLAN ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED
Attachments
pc: File No. ADB-97-90
SEPA Notebook
Building Permit File Plan Review No. 98-76,
ED
0
MEMORANDUM
6�
0� Date: February 23, 1999
Luf
X"
�-t To: ADB-97-90 Boo Han Plaza
U.
01
�- 11 From: Karissa Kawarnoto, Planner
d! -i "
U. <
Via: Jeffrey S. Wilson, Responsible Official
X
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR: THE GROCERY AND
Z I.-
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT 22618 HWY 99 KNOWN
0;
Z
AS BOO RAN PLAZA.
LU Ui�
Q:
HISTORY-
W
0
El
The Boo Han Plaza was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design Board in late 1997/carly 1998.
The SEPA
0
threshold determination (MDNS) issued at that time was based upon an environmental checklist
LU uj
X 0
which contained inaccurate and/or misleading information regarding the existence of a stand of mature
evergreen trees located generally along the western perimeter of the site. The site is adjacent to an existing
LL
single family residential neighborhood to the west, The mature tree stand was removed without
LU
environmental review or permitting to consider impacts to adjoining residential properties as required by
L)
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Z
Following removal of the tree stand, residents of the single family neighborhood to the west raised
significant concerns regarding the potential adverse noise and visual (aesthetic) impacts caused by the
removal of the tree stand without adequate environmental review and mitigation. In response to the
neighbors complaints and the discovery of the inaccurate information contained in the SEPA Checklist
submitted by the project applicant, the City withdrew the original MDNS pursuant to WAC 197-11-
350(3)(a)(iii) and prepared a revised checklist on behalf of the applicant. City Staff then retained the
professional services of an acoustical engineering consultant and registered landscape architect to review
the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project, in consideration of the removal of the tree stand.
SUMMARY OF CONSULTANT ANALYSIS:
0
Acoustical Review: The acoustical engineering consultant reported that a negligible amount of sound
attenuation would have been provided by the existing tree stand. The consultant relied upon industry
standard studies in arriving at this conclusion. The consultant further concluded that the daily activity
associated with a grocer and retail was not expected or probable to exceed state or local noise thresholds
requiring mitigation. Therefore, no specific mitigation measures were recommended by the acoustical
consultant.
Landscape Architect: The registered landscape architect considered potential mitigation measures to
reduce any adverse visual or aesthetic impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood caused by the
removal of the tree stand. The architect recommended the planting of a row of the fast growing Leyland
Cypress evergreen tree along the west and a portion of the south property line. Leyland Cypress are known
to be very effective screening trees which grow fast and tall, and would be expected to mitigate any adverse
City of Edmonds cza Planning Division
BOO HMSEPAIDOC
=3M.
visual or aesthetic impacts. While Leland Cypress is not -specifically required in the landscaping standards,
it is recommend that they be required along the western perimeter of the site.
Review of the requirements of the ECDC also indicates that in addition to a minimum fifteen -foot vegetated
buffer along any property line adjacent to residential zoning, the project applicant must also install a
minimum six-foot high fence, wall or solid hedge within the setback area. This should further nuitigate and
reduce the potential for adverse noise or visual impacts to the residential neighborhood. An error in the
original approval was discovered which allowed only a 10-foot landscape buffer where a 15-foot buffer is
required.
Ile previous SEPA determination included the traffic study performed by the Transpo Group dated
November 26, 1997. The grocery and retail complex will generate an estimated 61 new, peak PM trips.
This information is not dispute and is therefore adopted.
Based on my review of all available information and adopted policies of the City, I recommend that an
environmental mitigated determination of nonsignificance be issued for the projeet.
Recommended Mitip-ation Measures
Prior to building permit issuance:
I. TRAFFIC MMGA71ON IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,643 IS TO BE PAID PRIOR TO BUILDING
PERMIT ISSUANCE.
This recommendation is based on adopted policies of the City as found in the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan. The City of Edmonds Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (June 20, 1995)
discusses Level of Service (LOS) in Chapter 2.
Prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy
2. A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE IS TO BE INCREASED FROM
10 FEET TO 15 FEET IN WIDTH PER EDMONDS COMMUNITY CODE CHAPTER 16.60.020.A
(FOOTNOTE No. 1) AND 16.60.020.C.
This recommendation is based upon the requirement found in the Edmonds Community Development
Code Chapter 16.60.020.A. footnote No. 1.
3. THE DEVELOPER IS TO INSTALL A 6-FOOT HIGH SOLID WOOD FENCE ALONG THE
ENTIRE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
This recommendation is based upon the requirement found in Edmonds Community Development
Code Chapter 16.60.020.C. Locating the fence on the property line will ease landscape and irrigation
maintenance. The trees to be planted within the landscape buffer will rise a full 6 feet above the
landscape fence to help screen the development below from the residential neighborhood.
Page 2 of 3
800 HANSEPAIDOC
T
4. A MINIMUM OF 21 LEYLAND CYPRESS TREES SHALL BE PLANTED ACCORDING To THE
LANDSCAPE PLAN RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON JANUARY 26,1999. EACH
TREE IS TO BE A MINRVIUM OF 12 FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE TIME OF INSTAI.LATION.
SPACING REQUIREMENT TO BE DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE PROf%SSIONAL AT THE
TIME OF PLANTING TO ATTAIN EQUAL SCREENING ALONG THE ENTIRE AREA
IDENTWIED BY THE LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT. ALL GROUND COVER AND SHRUBS
IDENTFIED ON THE ABOVE NOTED LANDSCAPE PLAN ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE
INSTALLED.
This recommendation provides suitable mitigation for potential adverse visual and aesthetic impacts to
Uji the residential neighborhood located west of the site. The condition is supported by the
:ci
I— Comprehensive Plan policy forcommercial land use No. C12, "...protect residential areas (multi-
U. farnily and single family housing) from the noise and pollution of heavy traffic, and from invasion of
.0 0 incompatible land uses." and by the report prepared by the landscape architect.
Review by Responsible official
Lj I
concur: 1—�
Us Lul I do not concur:
Comments:
0
Uj W
X
0
-Z
LU
z
e S. Wilson, AICP
Date
PC: ADB-97-90
Attachments: MDNS
Environmental Checklist
Noise Study dated January 15, 1999
Landscape Plan dated January 26, 1999
Transpo Traffic Study dated November 2ra, 1997
Pap3oO
BOO HANSEPAIDOC
02rim.
9
2�
0
Z
E
M
6TY OF EDMONb--.,,S
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of Checklist.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental
impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with
probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help
you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to
help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructionsfor Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agAcies use this
checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer
the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer
the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if
a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may
avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if
you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of
land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you
submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there
may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklistfor nouproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete
the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Boo Han Plaza
2. Name of applicant: City of Edmonds.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
425-771-0220
Karissa Kawamoto, Planner
4. Date checklist prepared: February 16, 1999
5. Agency requesting checklist: City ofEdmonds.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction in Summer 1999.
Page I of 12
BOO HAN CHWIDW18-FEB-99
SEPAWCHKLT
p
7*
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
8.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will he prepared, directly related
to this proposal.
LUI
Critical Area Checklist
L<
U 0:
Acoustical analysis performed by the Greenbusch Group dated January 15, 1999.
ri 01
Traffic study provided by the Transpo Group dated November 26, 1997.
to
Cn LU
9.
Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting
(0 U.
the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
—0
UJ
No.
:3
LL <
U) M
10.
List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
— 0
x ul
Building permits
Z
11.
Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site.
C);
There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You
LU UJ!
do not need to repeat those answers on this page.
LL
The Boo Han Plaza project involves the development of a currently vacant site into a 32,200 square foot grocery and
0
retailfloor space with I I I parking stalls. The property is approximately 2.12 acres in size.
UJ W
X Q
12.
Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your
U-
proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
Z
Nvould occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan,
LU U)
vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
0
Z
to this checklist.
Site address: 22618 Hwy 99, Edmonds
S.E. 114 Section 30, Township 27N., R4E. W.M.
TO BE
COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. EN"RONMENTAL ELEMENTS
f
1.
Earth
0
a. General description of the site (circle one): Fl hilly, steep slopes'L mountainous, other:
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
20%
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? N you know
the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
PF
Alderwood Urban Land Complex 2-8% slopes
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Page 2 of 12
BOO HAN CHWIDGM18-FES-99
SEPA\STCHKLT
TiF
77
M4
0
':2� V
Jlr� "na" "kFF& 4""� any Ra"126 'JU saawng Flupu3cu, Allumatc 5vurce
of fill.
-1
The site slopes down towards the east. The architect has shown a 10+.foor retaining wall cut into the hill along
line.
the west property
LU,
Grading quantity: 5,017 cubic yards
Fill quantity. 4,610 cubic yards
UJ!
E
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
_J t--
V) LL
Yes, short term erosion potential increases due to exposed soil during clearing and excavation.
—0
LU
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
U_
Approximately 90% of the site will be covered with impervious surface.
X Lai
h.
Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
01
A City approved Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan will be part of the building permit approval and
Ui uAt
must be installed prior to any earth movement.
U (A
0—
2. AIR
W LAJ
a.
What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial
3: u
wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
LL 0
z
approximate quantities if known.
Large, gas powered construction equipment during- construction, typical motor vehicle emissions after
construction.
z
b.
Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None known.
C.
Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any:
None.
3. WATER
a.
Surface*
(1)
Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and
seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? N yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
No.
(2)
Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If
yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No.
(3)
Estimate the amount of 01 and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill
material.
Page 3 of 12
noo; RAN CHWID0018-FED-99
SEPAXSTCHKLT
:00, . ..... . 't"', 53M. 7", 19Z 1 Mt
Nk
�k'
Z
Not applicable.
(4)
Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
(5)
Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
LU
No.
tj;
U01
0�
Cn i
(6)
Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? IT so, describe the
I . I -�
(n uj�
11,
-J
type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
LL
LU 01
No.
71
b. Ground:
LL
C)
(1)
Will ground water be withdrawn, or win water be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Z
NO.
01
LU LU;
(2)
Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if
any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural;
U U)
etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
0—
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
LU LU
3:
Not applicable.
LL 01
Zt
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any
(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water, flow into other waters?
N so, describe.
Storm water runoff will be collected from the building and the new parking lot into a 20 foot x 88 foot
concrete detention vault before dispersal into the storm water infrastructure in Hwy 99.
(2)
Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? N so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
The asphalt will be designed to direct the flow of storm water into the nearest catchbasin. The entire parking lot
will be enclosed with extruded curb to prevent runoff onto adjacent properties.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other:
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: existing mature stand of evergreen trees located on western
portion of site were removed without permit or other authorization.
shrubs
grass
pasture
Page 4 of 12
BOO HAN CHKUMM18-FEB-99
SEMSTCHMT
I "'MilK775t,
""Tw
-1 C'7�
LA.
0
ui
U-
z
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other:
water plants: water fily, eelgrass, milfbil, other:
other types of vegetation:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation win be removed or altered?
All existing trees and vegetation has already been removedfrom the site.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,
if any:
The project will incorporate all new landscaping along the west, east and south property lines and within the
parking lot. No existing vegetation will be retained. The previously existing stand of evergreen trees located
along the western edge of the property served as a natural buffer to singlefamily residential uses located to west
and provided some aesthetic qualities to the site. 7he landscaping re I quired for the western portion of the site
should be conditioned to mitigatefor the loss of the aesthetic value andfinctional buffer of the previously existing
stamd of evergreen trees.
S. Animals
a. Check or circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle,<96BEMMU, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small rodents, squirrels
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Unknown.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the c I ompleted
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Heating and air conditioning will use electicity.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
No.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed
measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Page 5 of 12
BOO HAN CHMT2MOLMS-FEB-99
SEPAXMHKLT
gt;.......... `7
Lit
UJ
0
Z
Not applicable.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? H so describe.
Noneknown.
(1) Describe special emergency set -vices that might be required.
None.
(2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
None.
b. Noise
(1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
Noise pollution createdfrom Highway 99 and the surounding commercial land uses.
(2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or
a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise
would come from the site.
Short term: large construction equipment, and construction activities
Long term: automobile traffic, delivery trucks, mechanical equipment. A analysis of the noise impacts likely
to be caused by the long term opertaion of the project indicates that expected noise levels are not likely or
probable to exceed state and local thresholdsfor required mitigation measures, such as soundwalls, etc.
(3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
The large commercial building and parking lot will be approximately 10 feet lower than the residential
neighborhood to the west. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.60.020 requires a
minimum 15 foot setback front the residential uses to the west. The setback area is required to be
landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the project proponent. In
addition, a six-foot minimun height fence, wall, or solid hedge is required to be provided in the setback
area to provide for additional screening to the residential uses. An acoustical analysis (attached) has
indicated that even in the absence of the required landscaping and screening, the potential adverse noise
impacts from the proposed project are not likely or probable to exceed state or local thresholds requring
mitigation measures such as soundwalls.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is currently vacant. Previously, the site was occupied by a music store.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Not to my knowledge.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
All structures have been demolishedfirom the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Page 6 of 12
BOO HAN CHKLT2.DOL-%18-FEB-99
SEPA'STCHKLT
LU 1
2 :
D
0
0
LU
X
F-
0
Z
A music store was once located on the site.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
General Commercial (CG)
E What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site9
This site is within the Highway 99 corridor development area of the Comprehensive Plan.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No.
L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
A previous SEPA checklist provided by the applicant indicated approximately 2 dozen employees would be
employed by businesses in the Boo Han Plaza.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
L Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, N any:
Not applicable.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if
,any:
The City of Edmonds has reviewed the projectfor compliance with existing and proposed land uses. The Edmonds
Community Development Code requires a minimum 15 foot setback from all lot- lines adjacent to residential
zoned property. ECDC 16.60.020. The setback area is required to be Ian dscaped and permanently maintained by
the project proponent with trees and ground cover. In addition, a six foot minimum height fence, wall, or solid
hedge is also required in the setback area.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
None.
b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None.
10. Aesthetics
2. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle
exterior building material(s) proposed?
Page 7 of 12
BOO HAN CHM72MOM18-MR-99
SEPA%STCHKLT
b.
The building will be approximately 28 feet tall. Proposed exteriorfinish materials are stucco for the store fronts
and CMU on the sides and rear.
What views in the immediatevicinity would be altered or obstructed?
As previously noted in Section 4, a mature, tall stand of evergreen trees has been removed from the western
perimeter.of the site. The views from the residential properties to the west of the site are altered and potentially
adversely affected by the removal of the tree stand. The proposed commercial building and parking lot will be
approximately 10feet lower than the residential uses to the west and not likely or probable to have a significant
adverse impact on existing views.
LU C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
J t—t The Edmonds Community Development Code requires a minimum 15foot setbackfrom all lot lines adjacent to
LO u.
LU 0 residential zoned property. ECDC 16.60.020. The setback area is required to be landscaped and permanently
maintained by the project proponent with trees and ground cover. In addition, a six foot minimum height fence,
wall, or solid hedge is also required in the setback area. Typical commercial landscaping on the east and south
LL property perimeters and within the parking area are proposed. Enhanced landscaping to include the planting of
CJ suitable and commercially available tree species to mitigate for the loss of the aesthetic value of the mature tree
stand on the west perimeter would reduce any potential adverse impact to views
from the residential properties to
Z the west. A registered landscape architect has reviewed the site conditions and recommended the planting of
;70i
- Leyland Cypress trees, a fast growing and tall evergreen species, along the west perimete.,
Z
LU uj�
11. Light and Glare
0— a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
a L;
LU Lu
X The parking area will have 18 pole lightfixtures and numerous lights will be affixed to the building. The light
will befocused down and will not cause glare onto neighboring properties.
�L- 01
ZI
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views9
No.
Z
C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None to my knowledge.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
The lights will be downcast towards the parking lot.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
There are no parks within the immediate vicinity. Lake Ballinger is towards the southeast and provides numerous
recreational opportunties.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? N so, describe.
No.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None proposed.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Page 8 of 12
BOO HAN CHMIDMI8499-99
SEPANSXHKLT
Mm
'77,71
"n,
2
D
U
0
a
W
LL
0
z
E7
14.
Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street
system. Show on site plans, if any.
The subject site is directly adjacent to Hwy 99 and has proposed 2 points of entrylexit.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
Yes.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
J I I parking spaces will be provided.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so,
generally describe.
No.
E How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
A traffic study provided by The Transpo Group dated November 26, 1997 (attached) has shown an estimated 61
net new PM peak trips will be generated by the proposal.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Traffic mitigation fees in the amount of $15,643 will be assessedand required as a condition of approval, in
accordance with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire. protection, police
protection, health care, schools, other)? N so, generally describe.
Police andfire protection may be impacted by the development of the site.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any:
The sales tar revenue generated by the grocery and retail complex may offset the impacts to public services.
Page 9 of 12
1300 HAN CHKOIDOLA18-FEB-99
SEPA%STCHKLT
o
.. ... . .....
01/22/99 MR FAX 2085240030 1901
Greenbusch Groip
The
GRaMUSCH
FAX TRANSMITTAL Group,
Date* January 22,1999
UJI
TW. Karissa Kawamoto, Fax: (425) 771-0221
City Of Edmonds, Planning
Re: Boo Han Plaza Noise Study
LU
From.* Ellzabel:6 Bogomolov Fax- (206) 524-0630
u �I
Phone- (206) S24-'OS93
n U.
0
Number of Pages (including cover page):
:3
Comments
r ul
Enclosed is a mvised noise study report which includs the sectionof noise level kedictionsf-Pre-
existing condidtions when the removed vegetation was in place..
0,
Please call if you have any further questions or concerns.
.0 LW
J,
0 L
t
LU ul
X
U.
Z
Please call (206) 524-0595 if not all pages are received.
copy to. File
Hard copy to follow via mai I.
9 NE 71 st Street Seattle, WA 98115 - Phone (206) 524.093 Fax 1206) 524-06.30,- %wwgreenbu5Ch.COM
121 51� Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
R E.- Vehicle and Mechanical System Noise Analysis
Boo Han PLm
Dear Ms. Kawamoto:.
We have completed our study of noise issues associated with the Boo Han Plaza project.
Please find enclosed a draft of the noise study report for the Boo Han Plaza. No Migation
is required for compliance with the City of Edmonds Noise Code.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional Information.
Sincerely,
The Greenbusch rou Inc.
9M -up-, -1
Ju Wiebusch
Post-W Fax Note 7671
rD;;,i—,
To!
F
pftne W
ra—xv
7"� zaT/77
ax
-
Amustical & Machanica) Eroneering Comultants
919 NE 71st Street See"e, Wgghirqpn 9EMIS
e
Phme (206) 524,0593
Fax (206) 5244DO30
%�Uvfvl% aptimtwic Usufficumm CUIU rU1U=J1f1%::P- I fit: JACUMMU "015e IMPaCES a55OCJaJeG
with the proposal are assessed.
J
The predominant existing noise�sources in the study area include traffic on Aurora Avenue
n U.1
I
—0�
and operation of nearby commercial facilities.
.0
For the purpose of this report, anticipated future noise sources due to proposed Boo Han
SILO
Plaza include vehicle movement on the project property, including automobiles and
delivery
0,
trucks and exposed mechanical equipment on the rooftop oi the new structures.
X 01
�- X;
Slight increase of traffic due to Boo Han Plaza operation is not expected to affect existing
Z �—
traffic noise on nearby streets (Aurora Avenue) and is not taken into consideration for the
0�
Z ;
purpose of this study.
UJ LU!
2 Mi
Noise levels from activity at the loading zone of the new market and from the mechanical
:3 0)�
equipment located on the rooft6p of the proposed new structures were predicted and the
0
noise exposure at the nearest residences was projected.
i
LU Uj
X Q,
The following report details the 'results of our analysis.
�- 1-n
U- 01
Z
..
LU Cn�
U =
NOMENCLATURE
P
0
Noise is generally considered unwanted sound. The noise level is characterized by the
magnitude of pressure intensity� fluctuations. Decibel (dB) levels are a form of shorthand
that characterize, with a convenient numerical scale, the auditory response to the broad
range of perceptible pressure intensities. The decibel scale is logarithmic: a doubling or
halving of energy causes the sound level to change by 3 dB; it does not double or halve
the original level.
The minimum sound level variation perceptible to a human observer is approximately 3
decibels; a 5 decibel change is clearly perceptible and an 8 to 10 decibel change is
associated with a perceived doubling or halving of loudness. Table I below shows
0
common sounds and their perceived loudness.
The human ear has a unique response to sound pressure fluctuations. It is less sensitive to
higher and lower frequencies .,those sounds failing outside the speech frequency range.
Sound level meters and monitors utilize a weighting system to approximate human
perception of sound, Calculations made utilizing this weighting system are referred to a,
"A weighted" and are called 'dON'. Most applicable regulatory criteria are written using
the A weighting; therefore, all S�ound levels presented are A weighted. The W may be
dropped from the decibel notation for convenience.
0
Igical Sound
Sound Pressure
Level, dBA
Sub"ective lingression
Jet Takeoff
140
Potential Hearing loss
Siren at 100 ft.
120
Threshold of pain
Accelerating Motorcycle
110
Threshold of discomfort
Power Lawnmower—
100
Very Loud
Train Whistle
90
Loud
Busy Street
80
Intolerable for communication
AveLafae Street Noise
70
Moderately Loud
Normal Conversation
60
Usual Background
Quiet Street Noise
50
Moderately Quiet
Private Office
40
Noticeably Quiet
EmDtv Auditorium
30_
Very Qu let
5ource. various
Metrics
Responses to noise are subjective and unique to each listener. Metrics have been
developed to provide 'More convenient descriptors of sounds that vary with time and with
human responses to them. The following descriptor was usm to characterize various
components of sound.
Equivalent Sound Level; Lq
L,.q is the level of a constant sound having the same energy content as the
actual time -varying level during a specified interval. The Lq is used to
characterize complex, fluctuating sound levels with a single number. Typical
intervals for L are hourly, daily and annually. The pertinent interval for this
eq
project is hourly.
REGULAWRY CRITERIA
Noise level restrictions at this site are governed by two sources:
• City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance,
• Washington State Administrative Code
Z
Lu Lu�
U LA,
0
a �__
LU UA
LL
Z
LU Cn
U
0
Z
01/22/99 15:51 FAX 2085240630 Greenbusch Group
Boo Han Plaza Noise Analysis
January 1 S, 1999
Cily of Edmonds Noise Ordinan
City of Edmonds Noise Control Ordinance 5.30 states that noise from vehicles operating
on public roads should comply with regulations described in sections 5.30.060 and 5.30.
070 of the Ordinance. These regulations relate to all vehicles operating on the public
roads. The noise level limits for these vehicles as measured at a distance of 50 feet are
shown in Table 2 below.
our study focuses on potential noise impact on the nearby residential properties due to
operation of the proposed facility. Noise from vehicles located on private property is
regulated by the City of Edmonds Noise Control Ordinance, chapter 5.30.040, Maximum
Permissible Sound Levels.
Community sound level limits are established based upon the land use zone of source
and receiving properties, time of day and the duration of sound. The Boo Han site is
zoned commercial. The noise level limits for this site are shown in Table 3 below.
T,ama j jrt#u itf rAmnnAe iL4n#nr vahirlou Nn1cm. (ARAI
Vehicle Category
Speed 45 m.p.h. or
less
Speed over 45
D.h.
Motorcycles
78 dBA
82 dBA
Motor vehicles
over 10 000
22unds
86 dBA
90 dBA
All other vehicles
72 dBA
78 dBA
Source., City ot Edmonds Wde
Table 3 Citv of Seattle Environmental Noise Limi-tse WBA)
District of Sound
District of Receiving
roperty
Source __
—Residential
usiness I
I Commercial
55
57
60
FReBu7s&nflal
ness
57
60
65
C051
mmercial
60
65
70
Source. City of Edmonds Code
0 Noise levels between a commercial site and a residential receiving site are limited to 60
dBA during the daytime hours, and 50 dBA between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PNI,
and 7-00 AM (10:00 PM to 9!00 AM on the weekends). Noise levels between two
commercial properties are limited to 70 dB. These noise levels can be exceeded,
intermittently by not greater than:
Q 5 dB for a total of 15 minutes in any one hour period, or
. 10 dB foratotal of 5 minutes in any one-hourperiod, or
0 lSdBforatotalof 1.5 minutes in anyonehourperiod.
0
7M. �MF
0
Q
LU
U-
di
U
8
Z
Greenbusch Group
SUPPLEMENIORY NON -REGULATORY CRITERIA
EnvImnMeVUI Protedion Ann
Other agencies have developed guidelines and criteria,by which to evaluate noise level
and the effect on communities. These are included for purposes of comparison only. N
jurisdictional regu!ation is implied.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no regulations governing environmenta
noise. It has, however, conducted extensive studies to identify the effects of certain soun
levels on public health and welfare and has developed noise guidelines (U.S
Environmental Protection Agency 1974). Perception of loudness is based on the relativ
sound level change compared to existing conditions, as well as the absolute magnitude
the sound level. Recognizing this, EPA identified a relationship between a sound leve
increase and the significance of the response as follows:
Tnhla &r-PA raddaNno fnr Parranfinn nf 1-nudnpqq
Change in dBA
Resulting Imeact
0-5
Slight
5-10
Significant
>10
Very Serious Impact
5outce. L15 EPA
NOISE ANALYSL$
Site Descrip—tion
The Boo Han Plaza is located in the City of Edmonds on a commercially zoned properti,
The site is bordered on the north and south by commercial facilities. Residenti
properties botd(.,.r the west side of the proposed site.
Measurement-;' of Existing NoIsg Levels
Noise monitoring and analysis equipment was set up for a 24-hour continuo
measurement, and was located on the west boundary of the proposed site abutting tk
adjacent residential property line. The measurement location was chosen to characterb
the existing no';se environment at the location closest to the proposed project. Figure
depicts a graphical representation of the noise measurement location (Location A) on d
proposed project site,
s
0
d
if
11
After the nuist- level data were collected, the noise monitoring equipment automatically
co I mputed staiistical noise descriptors and equivalent sound level (L.J.
All measurements were conducted using a Larson/Davis 700 type 2 integrating sound
ty
level meter. All measurements were calibrated prior to and following data acquisition.
The results of the measurements are presented in Table 5.
0
0
01
LU
UA WI
0
OL
t=
01/22/99 16:51 FAX 2065240030 Greenbusch Group
IM 07
Boo Han Plaza Noise Analysis Page 6
January 15, 1999
Table S-Existinma AlmnWi nt Noise Levels, Location (dBA)
Irterval
L"
Look
49.0
69.5
41.0
01:00
59.5
37.5
02:OD
48.5
59.0
03:OD
52.0
72.5
43.5
04:00
50.5
62.5
42.5
05:00
54.5
74.5
45.5
06:00
S7.S
79.0
47.0
07:00
57.5
69.5
48.5
08:00
57.5
66.5
49.5
09:00
57.5
68.5
10:00
58.0
71.0
silo
11:00
58.5
72.5
51.5
12:00
56.5
70.0
49.5
13.00
55.5
79.5
47.5
14:00
56,5
64.0
51.0
15:00
56.5
67.0
SO.0
16:00
56.0
67.5
49.5
17:00
SS.5
67,S
49.5
18:00
56.5
62.5
48.5
19-00
66.5
48.5
20:00
55.5
63.0
40.5
21:OD
S4.0
62.5
46.5
22:OD
S2.5
61.5
".5
23:OD
51.0
67.0
42.5
5i F
Ui LU!
2 =)�
n cl
U Ln
0
6 L-1
Ui Lul
Z
LU (A
0
Z
Lfj
M
Prediction of Pre-existing Noise Levels
The measurements conducted by Greenbusch, to document the preconstruction noise
levels, were made after the removal of the vegetation for the site. According to
information supplied by David Bisom, the project Landscape Architect, the trees, prior to
clearing, consisted of large coniferous trees of a height in the range from 40 to 60 feet,
located at about 25 feet apart along the west and south property lines. The majority of the
site was covered with small, wild berry trees and bushes of about 10 feet high.
Predictions of pre-existing conditions, when vegetation was in place, incorporated
attenuation factors typically associated with this type and density of vegetation. These
factors are based on industry wide field studies of the attenuation effect provided by
vegetation. These studies have shown that approximately 3 dB noise reduction can be
anticipated when the noise propagation path includes over 100 feet of dense wooded
areas where trees intervene between noise source and receiver. A reduction of 3 c1B is
barely perceptible to the human ear.
Considering the type and density of the pre-existing vegetation and also relative elevations
of the noise source (traffic on Aurora Avenue) and receiver (west boundary of the site)
locating the receiver approximately 20 feet above the roadway, the noise model
prediction of the attenuation effect of the trees and bushes showed a negligible amount of
attenuation was provided by the trees, prior to their removal. In our professional opinion,
the measured noise levels documented in this report are very representative of the pre-
existing condition, as well.
Prediction of FmWre Noise Leveh
&E&C—lions of Noise Generated ty Patronage- and Emvl_oy_ee 7),aft and De&m Vwcks on
Boo Han Plaza
Some noise will be created by automobiles, pick-up trucks, and delivery trucks using the
proposed project while the vehicles are on the Boo Han property.
Analysis of the noise associated with delivery vehicles at Boo Han Plaza was performed
by means of computer models.
Noise levels associated with delivery traffic were calculated using a proprietary
Greenbusch Group model. increase of traffic due to Boo Han Plaza operation is
negligible and the increase in the existing traffic noise is considered slight for the purpose
of this study.
The receiver location was chosen to represent the most noise sensitive adjacency around
the proposed project. Location A (as indicated on the attached site plan) is situated on the
west boundary of the proposed site and abuts the residential property. A loading zone for
the proposed Boo Han Market is located at a distance of 30 feet from receiver location A.
Other residential property lines are located farther away from the proposed site,
Noise levels from patronage and employee traffic are not expected to exceed levels
measured at the property boundary of typical shopping center. Based on previous
measurements by Greenbusch Group, noise levels at the property boundary of typical
shopping centers averages roughly So dBA, due to patronage and employee traffic. These
0
noise levels are expected to occur on the south and east boundaries and a portion of the
west boundary which is exposed to the parking lot (the other portion of the west boundary
of the site will be shielded by the proposed building).
Trucks making deliveries to the Boo Han Market will create noise near the expected on -
site delivery route. According to information submitted by Yuri's Company (Boo Han
general contractor of the project), deliveries will occur in the loading zone and through
the front doors as well. The front door deliveries will not affect noise environment at
receiver location A and closest residential properties,
Delivery trucks will range in size from passenger vans to medium size trucks and will
operate only during daytime (from 7 a.m. till 9 p.m.). Night deliveries are not scheduled
according to information submitted by Yun's Company. No deliveries will be provided by
commercial freight companies using semi -trucks.
i,_
On -site delivery truck routes will occur on the south and west property boundaries, and
Z
1-0.
will pass residential properties on the west boundary.
Z
LU W
Expected noise levels from deliveries by medium size trucks are based on truck reference
sound levels measured by Greenbusch Group for a number of previous, unrelated,
projects. Sound level measurements produced a reference level of 65 dBA at a distance
of 50 feet, due to a medium size truck accelerating.
LU
The closest adjacent property line is located west of the proposed site at a distance of
0i
about 30 feet from the truck route. The maximum noise level originated by the delivery
Zr
trucks is expected to be 70 d8A. Deliveries are expected to be twice a day at a
LU W�
maximum. The time duration of the maximum noise levels ranges from 20 to 30 second
per hour (not more than one delivery at any hour). In accordance with the City of
Z
Edmonds Noise Ordinance, these operating conditions result in levels below the
maximum permissible level of 75 d13A for daytime (60 dBA limit from commercial source
to residential receiver + 15 dBA due to short duration).
The results of the modeling of the predicted noise levels due to deliveries and patronage
traffic at the proposed Boo Han Market are shown In table 6.
Tmhix-,7_ na-liwary vaharia nind Pnframap Tr2frrr Mnirp I avall C.nillp- Cnimnfiranep
F*_
m7ximum
—geTivery Vehicle Noise
Maximum
Patronage Traff ic
Predicted Noise
Level
Predicted Noise
Noise Level
Level from
Compliance �vith City
Level due to Patronage
Compliance with City
Delivery
Noise Ordinance
Traffic, dBA
Noise Ordinance
Vehicles, dBA
5 minute
1.5 minute
General R_=edance
Receiver
Exceeclance
Exceedance
Umit
Location
Limit
L
Limit
(60 dBA)
(70 dBA)
(75 dBA)
A__J_
70
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source: The Cmenhusch Croup
Noise levels calculated for this project reflect the peak delivery times. Calculated levels
from delivery vehicles will be consistent with the current maximum noise levels at this
J location. The existing maximum noise levels measured at Location A during proposed
hours of operation for Boo Han averaged an L,. of 71 dBA. The equivalent noise
0
JL
Z �-
1.- 0
Z 1--
LU LW
L
0
UJ UJ
X U
Z
LU CD
0
Z
1*1
Boo Han Plaza Noise Analysis
January 15, 1999
Pap 9
levels (Lq) for this site will remain unchanged with the operation of Boo Han Plaza. This
would correlate to an impact of 'slighf', according EPA guidelines (see table 5).
Pre&Lon gf Noisc Generated bX fWg-sed Rooft MechantrAl Eguipwgat
Noise would be generated by exposed (outdoor) rooftop mechanical equipment
associated with the development. Once installation of the equipment Is complete, this
noise would generally be of a constant nature, both in level and in quality (spectrum)
during equipment operation. Times of day and duration of equipment operation would
be dictated by the heating, cooling, and ventilation requirements, on a daily basis, of the
building.
Preliminary development plans were examined for worst -case situations of noise source -
receiving property proximity; i.e., the shortest distances between rooftop equipment
locations and the adjacent closest residential property line.
According to the mechanical system design, the following mechanical equipment is
supposed to be installed on the rooftop of the proposed structures:
1. One unit model HP SOTJQ007 and 13 units model HP SOHJ030 manufactured by
Carrier will be installed on the rooftops of retail building (along the north site
boundary).
2. Four Gas/Electrical Units model 48TJF006 manufactured by Carrier will be installed on
the rooftops of on the Boo Han Market building.
The manufacturers sound data, in ten-ns of sound power levels for the scheduled
mechanical equipment, were used for our analysis. The noise levels produced by the
mechanical equipment were predicted by computer model at the closest residential
property line. The analysis of the predicted levels takes into account relative locations
and elevations of noise sources and sound receiver (Location A on the site plan) at a 6-
foot elevation above grade.
The combined level generated by all rooftop mechanical equipment is expected to be 46
dBA at the closest residential property line without any mitigation measures.
Table 8 correlates levels from the mechanical equipment at the nearest property line with
code compliance.
nn-cn- a 10--d— W-11.. I —I 91-A. VnmAii."ra
Rmcivor LocAado
Ma-Aimum Predicted Noise
echanical Sygtem Noise
Lcvcl from Mechanical
Lovel Compliance, with City
Egutipmont, dBA—
Noise Oidinauce
A
—
46 dBA
Yes
SM=.' 7hE Greenbumh Group
SLIMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
impacts from patronage traffic at the proposed Boo Han property are expected to be
negligible, since expected levels are less than existing levels and less than the allowable
levels per the City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance.
r
0
M,
40
01/22/99 16: 51 PAX 2005240830 Greenbusch Group
Boo Han PlaZa Noise Analysis Page 10
January 15, 1999
Expected maximum noise level of delivery truck engine pasting by at a constant rat I e of
speed or accelerating is 70 dBA at the property line west of the project. Taking,into
account a maximum of one delivery per hour during daytime' the total duration of
maximum sound level does not exceed 30 seconds per hour. In accordance with the City
of Edmonds Noise Ordinance, these operating conditions result in a maximum
permissible level of 75 dBA. The maximum predicted noise levels from delivery
operation are in compliance with the City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance.
U) LUI
Noise levels generated by exposed mechanical air -handling units associated with the Boo
T)
Han proposed buildings will meet the day and night time (assuming for the worst case that
0
W
some mechanical equipment is operating during nighttime) limits (nighttime limit of 50
dBA) Imposed by the City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance.
U)
Predicted noise levels from all noise sources associated with Boo Han Plaza operation are
2F
in compliance with the City of Edmonds Noilse Ordinance. Noise impact on the existing
environment is considered slight in accordance with EPA classification, No mitigation is
Z 1--
required.
L" LUI
0
UA LU
LL 0
ZI
ai
Z
0
ER
Nil
22 /1''
%�F
meta
UK
Irl
0'"
WLLMM
LAW
4 amm
sm
(AVIWAMM.,
rIT2-1
V I we4
OL11-
M1W
_6
01/22/99 15.51 FAX 2005240030 Greenbusch Grou I p
Draft Noise Study
Boo Han Plaza
Edmonds, Washington
1 LU
January 15,
LU
0.
PREPARED FOR
Z!
City of Edmonds
121 P Avenue Notth
Z
Edmonds, Washington 98020
PREPARED BY
Bw Han Plaza NoisL.allysls Page 2
January 15, 1999
This report documents the results of an environmental noise study for the proposed Boo
<
n
Han Plaza, located at the 2226 Aurora Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. Covered within
Lul
this report are: existing noise environment based on field measurements, predictions of
future noise levels and the comparison of predicted noise levels with existing noise levels
—
and current applicable ordinance and guidelines. The predicted noise impacts associated
01
with the proposal are assessed.
LU;
LU
The predominant existing noise sources in the study area include traffic on Aurora Avenue
and operation of nearby commercial facilities.
LU 0i2 �:
For the purpose of this report, anticipated future noise sources due to proposed Boo Han
CE -J
Plaza include vehicle movement on the project property� including automobiles and
u-
delivery trucks and exposed mechanical equipment on the rooftop of the new structures.
Ln cl
X q
Slight increase of traffic due to Boo Han Plaza operation is not expected to affect existing
traffic noise on nearby streets (Aurora Avenue) and is not taken into consideration for the
purpose of this study.
LU Lui
2 :D;
Noise levels from activity at the loading zone of the new market and from the mechanical
:D 931
U
equipment located on the rooftop of the proposed new structures were predicted and the
0—
noise exposure at the nearest residences was projected,
C3 t=
LU LU
The following report details the results of our analysis.
ZI
NOMLN_CLATURE
Xe
F-1
Lida
0
Z I
Noise is generally considered unwanted sound. The noise level is characterized by the
magnitude of pressure intensity fluctuations. Decibel (dB) levels are a form of shorthand
that characterize, with a convenient numerical scale, the auditory response to the broad
range of perceptible pressure intensities. The decibel scale is logarithmic. a doubling or
halving of energy causes the sound level to change by 3 dB; it does not double or halve
the original level.
The Pfinimum sound level variation perceptible to a human observer is approximately 3
decibels, a 5 decibel change is clearly perceptible and an 8 to 10 decibel change is
associated with a perceived doubling or halving of loudness. Table 1 below shows
0
common sounds and their perceived loudness.
The human ear has a unique response to sound pressure fluctuations. It is less sensitive to
higher and lower frequencies - those sounds failing outside the speech frequency range,
sound level meters and monitors utilize a weighting system to approximate human
perception of sound. Calculations made utilizing this weighting system are referred to as
"A weighted", and are called 'dBN'. Most applicable regulatory criteria are written using
0
the A weighting; therefore, all sound levels presented are A weighted. The "All may be
'I
dropped from the decibel notation for convenience.
:7,
0,
Typical Sound
Sound Prasure
Level, dBA
Subi ve Imeression
Jet Takeoff
140
Potential earing loss 1
Siren at 100 ft.
120
Th res �@—d —0f pa i n I L -
Accelerating Motorcycle
110
Threshold of disco;—fOrL I
Power Lawnmower
100
Ve!Y Loud
Train Whistle
90
Loud
Busy Street
80
intolerable for communication
Average Street Noise
70
Moderate� Loud
Normal Conversation
60
Usual Background
Quiet Street Noise
50
Moderately Quiet
Private Ottice
40—
NoRfic—eWy Quiet- 1
Empty Auditorium
30
Very Quiet
Source. Various
:Metrigs
Responses to noise are subjective and unique to each listener. MetricsI have been
. . . . ........
d eveloped to provide filore convenient descriptors of sounds that vary with time and With
.
human responses to them. The following descriptor was used to characterize various
components of sound.
Equivalent Sound Level; Lq
L.9 is the level of a constant sound having the same energy content th e
actual time -varying level during a specified interval. The L,, is use C�to
I
characterize complex, fluctuating sound levels with a single numbe. T ypical
intervals for L are hourly, daily and annually. The pertinent inter�,al forthis,
project is hour
REGULATORY!CRffERI
Noise level restrictions at this site are governed by two. sources:
• City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance,
• Washington State Administrative Code
LU
t-�
Z
0
a
LU
Z
Fil
LVI
01/22/99 13:51 FAX 2085240830 Creenbusch Group
Boo Han Plaza Noise Analysis Pa
January 15, 1999
QtXAFdnqonds Noise Ordinance
City of Edmonds Noise Control Ordinance 5.30 states that noise from vehicles operating
on public roads should comply with regulations described in sections 5.30.060 and 5.30.
070 of the Ordinance. These regulations relate to all vehicles operating on the public
roads. The noise level limits for these vehicles as measured at a distance of So feet are
shown in Table 2 below.
our study focuses on potential noise impact on the nearby residential properties due to
operation of the proposed facility. Noise from vehicles located on private property is
regulated by the City of Edmonds Noise Control Ordinance, chapter 5.30.040, Maximum
Permissible Sound Levels.
Community sound level limits are established based upon the land use zone of source
and receiving properties, time of day and the duration of sound. The Boo Han site is
zoned commercial. The noise level limits for this site are shown in Table 3 below.
Tahle 2 C11tv of Fdmnnds Mintm, Whiripc Nn1cm. MRA)
Vehicle Category
Speed 45 m.p.h. or
less
Speed over 45
m.12.n.
Motorcy5les
78 dBA
82 dBk
Motor vehl
over 10, 00
pounds
86 dBA
go dBA
All other vehicles
72 dBA
78 dBA
Source: City ot h1mond5 Code
TAllas *1 Cifv &%F Ca:kffla Vnwirinnmantal FUnlea I jtm.'fc� 1ARA1
District of Sound
District of Receiving
roperty
Source
Residential
I Business I
I Commercial
Residential
55
57
60
Business
57
60
65
Com nercial
60
65
70
5ource: Caty of tdrnonds Code
Noise levels between a commercial site and a residential receiving site are limited to 60
dBA during the daytime hours, and 50 dBA between the nighttime hours of 10.00 PM,
and 7:00 AM (10:00 PM to 9:00 AM on the weekends). Noise levels between two
commercial properties are limited to 70 clB. These noise levels can be exceeded
Intermittently by not greater than:
0 5 d8for a total of 15 minutes in anyone hourperiod, or
0 10 dB fora total of 5 minutes in anyone -hour period, or
0 is dBfora total of 1.5 minutes in anyone hourperiod.
01/22/99 13: 51 FAX 2065240630 Greenbusch Group lim 08
Boo Han Plaza Noise Analysis Page 5
January 15, 1999
SUPPILMENTORY NON-REGLILMORDY CRITERIA
Environmental Pmtection A
Other agencies have developed guidelines and criteria by which to evaluate noise levels
and the effect on communities. These are included for purposes of comparison only, No
jurisdictional regu!ation is implied.
0,
0i
Lui
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no regulations governing environmental
I .: - .:
noise. It has, however, conducted extensive studies to identify the effects of certain sound
I U.
levels on public health and welfare and has developed noise guidelines (U.S.
;01
Environmental Protection Agency 1974). Perception of loudness is based on the relative
sound level change compared to existing conditions, as well as the absolute magnitude of
the sound level. Recognizing this, EPA identified a relationship between a sound level
increase and the significance of the response as follows:
uh
Tfthla A.FPA ramlAal;na inr Parronfian nf I navainfs-mr
M
U
0
LL
0
Z
ELajne In dOA
Resulting Imeact
0-5
Slight
5-10
Significant
>10
Very Serious Impact
SoutCe: LF5 kPA
NOISE ANALY-5.1
Site DescrlpfigA
The Boo Han Plaza is located in the City of Edmonds on a commercially zoned property.
The site is bordered on the north and south by cownercial facilities. Residential
properties bordvr the west side of the proposed site.
Measurements'of Exist vels
--- las.Nghuke—
Noise monitoring and analysis equipment was set up for a 24-hour continuous
measurement. and was located on the west boundary of the proposed site abutting the
adjacent residential property line. The measurement location was chosen to characterize
the existing no'�se environment at the location closest to the proposed project. Figure 1
depicts a graphical representation of the noise measurement location (Location A) on the
proposed project site,
0
After the naisf, level data were collected, the noise monitoring equipment autornatIcally
co . mputed s1wistical noise descriptors and equivalent sound level (W.
All measurements were conducted using a Larson/DaVis 700 type 2 integrating sound
level metter. All measurements were calibrated prior to and following data acquisition.
The results of the measurements are presented in Table 5.
0
M'-d
N"
tuCP, �Z"4�-v�P-
4
Z'4'
01/i7i7W-ir.-.ri IFAX ��2 0 0 6 2 4'0 8 3 0" Greenbusch Group 07
Boo Han Plaza toolse'J'al
ysis
Page 6
January 15, 1999
Table S-ExIstlim AarnbW11 nt Noise LevelL Location A WDA)
cr. 2
1
uj
La LA.
LU 0
LL.
V)
Z I-
LU LU
0-
a I=-
W'UA
U. Ot
Z'
Interval
2ELRU
L"
L=x
00:00
49.0
69.S
41.0
01;00
46.5
29.5
37.5
02:00
46.5
.59.0
39.5
03:00
52.0
n.s
433
04.,OD
so's
62.5
42.5
05:00
54.5
74.5
45.5
06:00
SM
79.0
47.0
07:00
S7.5
69.S
48.5
08:00
SM
66.5
49.5
09:00
57.5
68.5
50.0
10:00
58.0
71.0
S1.0
11:00
Sas
n-s
51.5
12:00
56.5
70.0
49.5
13:00
55-5
79.5
47.5
14:00
56.5
64.0
51.0
15:00
S6.5
67.0
SO.0
16:00
56.0
67.5
49.5
17:00
5S.S
67.5
49.5
18:00
56.5
62.5
48.5
19:00
55.3
66.5
48.5
20:00
55.5
Q'OL
is's
21:00
S4.0
62.5
46.5
22:00
S2.5
61.5
44.5
23:00
51.0
42.S
0
Lq &y 56.5, d8A (7 a.m. - 10 P.M,)
Z
Laq nigm 52.5 dBA (10 p.m. - 7 a,m,)
Lmax av, day 71.0 dBA (7 a.m. - 10 p.m,)
Note: Lrqqj is the maximum sound pressure level (rms), and L,,,,, Is the minimum sound
pressu re level (rms) re 20 m cropascals.
f
0
-5
41�
M.AA
Mill
Page 7
0
Prediction of Pre-exisiting Noise Levell %
The measurements conducted by Greenbusch, to document the preconstruction noise
Z
levels, were made after the removal of the vegetation for the site. According to
UJI
information supplied by David Bisom, the project Landscape Architect, the trees, prior to
<
.0
clearing, consisted of large coniferous trees of a height in the range from 40 to 60 feet,
_J
located at about 25 feet apart along the West and south property lines. The majority of the
:n LU:
site was covered with small, wild berry trees and bushes of about 10 feet high.
.0 X
_J �_.
n LL�
Predictions of pre-existing conditions, when vegetation was in place, incorporated
Ok
attenuation factors typically associated with this type and density of vegetation. These
factors are based on industry wide field studies of the attenuation effect provided by
vegetation. These studies have shown that approximately 3 dB noise reduction can be
M
anticipated when the noise propagation path includes over 100 feet of dense wooded
areas where trees intervene between noise source and receiver. A reduction of 3 dB is
Z I.—
barely perceptible to the human ear.
Z
Considering the type and density of the pre-existing vegetation and also relative elevations
LU Lui
2 =):
of the noise source (traffic on Aurora Avenue) and receiver (west boundary of the site)
:D c3i
locating the receiver approximately 20 feet above the roadway, the noise model
U U)l
0
prediction of the attenuation effect of the trees and bushes showed a negligible amount of
0 �-
LU LUJ
attenuation was provided by the trees, prior to their removal. In our professional opinion,
the measured noise levels documented in this report are very representative of the pre-
existing condition, as well.
Z
Ui M
Prediction- of Mre -Noise Levels
U 3!
�- J�
0
&Ldictions of Xoise Generated t!y Piar-on-age and EmpWm 7�n& and-DeRmy 7�ucb on
Z
Boo Han Plaza
Some noise will be created by automobiles, pick-up trucks, and delivery trucks using the
proposed project while the vehicles are on the Boo Han property.
Analysis of the noise associated with delivery vehicles at Boo Han Plaza was performed
by means of computer models.
Noise levels associated with delivery traffic were calculated using a proprietary
Greenbusch Group model. Increase of traffic due to Boo Han Plaza operation Is
negligible and the increase in the existing traffic noise is considered slight for the purpose
0
of this study.
The receiver location was chosen to represent the most noise sensitive adjacency around
the proposed project. Location A (as indicated on the attached site plan) is situated on the
west boundary of the proposed site and abuts the residential property. A loading zone for
the proposed Boo Han Market is located at a distance of 30 feet from receiver location A.
other residential property lines are located farther away from the proposed site.
0
Noise levels from patronage and employee traffic are not expected to exceed levels
measured at the property boundary of typical shopping center. Based on previous
measurements by Greenbusch Group, noise levels at the property boundary of typical
shopping centers averages roughly So dBA, due to patronage and employee traffic. These
i �Y
END Ow
ZR4
LU UJ.
2 n'
D cl:
U"I
Z
LU (D
0
Z
E
M
Boo Han Plaza NoisC.'Llysis Page 8
January 15,1999
noise levels are expected to occur on the south and east boundaries and a portion of the
west boundary which is exposed to the parking lot (the other portion of the west boundary
of the site will be shielded by the proposed building).
Trucks making deliveries to the Boo Han Market will create noise near the expected on -
site delivery route. According to information submitted by Yun*'s Company (Boo Han
general contractor of the project), deliveries will occur in the loading zone and through
the front doors as well. The front door deliveries will not affect noise environment at
receiver location A and closest residential properties,
Delivery trucks will range in size from passenger vans to medium size trucks and will
operate only during daytime (from 7 a.m. till 9 p.m.). Night deliveries are not scheduled
according to information submitted by Yun's Company, No deliveries will be provided by
commercial freight companies using semi -trucks.
On -site delivery truck routes will occur on the south and west property boundaries, and
will pass residential properties on the west boundary.
Expected noise levels from deliveries by medium size trucks are based on truck reference
sound levels measured by Greenbusch Group for a number of previous, unrelated,
projects. Sound level measurements produced a reference level of 65 dBA at a distance
of 50 feet, due to a medium size truck accelerating.
The closest adjacent property line is located west of the proposed site at a distance of
about 30 feet from the truck route. The maximum noise level originated by the delivery
trucks is expected to be 70 dBA. Deliveries are expected to be twice a day at a
maximum. The time duration of the maximum noise levels ranges from 20 to 30 second
per hour (not more than one delivery at any hour). In accordance with the City of
Edmonds Noise Ordinance, these operating conditions result in levels below the
maximum permissible level of 75 dBA for daytime (60 dBA limit from commercial source
to residential receiver + 15 dBA due to short duration).
The results of the modeling of the predicted noise levels due to deliveries and patronage
traffic at the proposed Boo Han Market are shown In table 6.
iawe7, eiovervyenicieancratronaceirattic
oise Level ILOUC ILO
itance
Maximum
Delivery Vehicle Noise
Maximum
Patronage Traffic
Predicted Noise
Level
Predicted Nolse
Noise Level
Level from
Compliance with City
Level due to Patronage
Compliance with City
Delivery
Noise Ordinance
Traffic, dBA
Nolse Ordinance
Vehicles, dBA
—5--minute
—1.5 minute
Gan-CRUEZt—dance
Receiver
Exceedance
Exceedance
Limit
Location
Limit
Limit
(60 dBA)
.MABA)
75 clBA)
(7
A
70
Yes
Yes
so
Yes
Sourca: Um Gmenbusch G=p
Noise levels calculated for this project reflect the peak delivery times. Calculated levels
from delivery vehicles will be consistent with the current maximum noise levels at this
location. The existing maximum nolse levels measured at Location A during proposed
hours of operation for Boo Han averaged an L,,. �,. of 71 dBA, The equivalent noise
0 r
Z1—i
01
Lu Lu:.
0
Lu LU
Z
UJ (A
U!E
t5 �-
Z
E
Boo Han Plaza Noise A jsis Page 9
January 15, 1999
levels (4.) for this site will remain unchanged with the operation of Boo Han Plaza. This
would correlate to an impact of "slight', according EPA guidelines (see table 5).
Prediction of Noise GengLated by fWosed Rooftog Mec
b Faujament
Noise would be generated by exposed (outdoor) rooftop mechanical equipment
associated with the development. Once installation of the equipment Is complete, this
noise would generally be of a constant nature, both in level and in quality (spectrum)
during equipment operation. Times of day and duration of equipment operation would
be dictated by the heating, cooling, and ventilation requirements, on a daily basis, of the
building.
Preliminary development plans were examined for worst -case situations of noise source.
receiving property proximity; i.e., the shortest distances between rooftop equipment
locations and the adjacent closest residential property line.
According to the mechanical system design, the following mechanical equipment is
supposed to be Installed on the rooftop of the proposed structures:
1. One unit model HP SOTJQ007 and 13 units model HP SOHJ030 manufactured by
Carrier will be installed on the rooftops of retail building (along the north site
boundary).
2. Four GaVElectrical Units model 48TJF006 manufactured by Carrier will be installed on
the rooftops of on the Boo Han Market building.
The manufacturers, sound data, in temns of sound power levels for the scheduled
mechanical equipment, were used for our analysis. The noise levels produced by the
mechanical equipment were predicted by computer model at the closest residential
property line. The analysis of the predicted levels takes into account relative locations
and elevations of noise sources and sound receiver (Location A on the site plan) at a 6-
foot elevation above grade.
The combined level generated by all rooftop mechanical equipment is expected to be 46
dBA at the closest residential property line without any mitigation measures.
Table 19 correlates levels from the mechanical equipment at the nearest property line with
code compliance.
Tahla A- *A4"-hsxnieA1 RvRfam KnInvi 1rAwol VaAa rnmriliance
Rccrivar LAwation
Maidimum Pradiated Noise
Mechanica tam Noise
Level from Mechenical
Level Compliance with City
EQuipmont dRA
Noise 01dinance
A
46 dBA
Yes
Source: 7he Greenhumh Group
SUMMARY AND CONaUSM
impacts from patronage traffic at the proposed Boo Han property are expected to be
negligible, since expected levels are less than existing levels and less than the allowable
levels per the City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance.
M
01/22/99 15.51 FAX 2005240030 Green�usch Group
Boo Han aza a se Page 10
PI N I CAI' ysis
January 15, 1999
Expected maximum noise level of delivery truck engine passing by at a constant rateof
speed or accelerating is 70 dSA at the property line west of the project. Taking into
account a maximum of one delivery per hour during daytime, the total duration of
maximum sound level does not exceed 30 seconds per hour. In accordance with the City
M
Of Edmonds Noise Ordinance, these operating conditions result in a maximu
permissible level of 75 dBA. The maximum predicted noise levels from delivery
U, 0j operation are in compliance with the City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance.
U1
Noise levels generated by exposed mechanical air -handling units associated with the Boo
LU
Han proposed buildings will meet the day and night time (assuming for the worst case that
Ln U.
0 some mechanical equipment is operating during nighttime) limits (nighttime limit of So
dBA) Imposed by the City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance.
U. < Predicted noise levels from all noise sources associated with Boo Han Pima operation are
0 in compliance with the City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance. Noise impact on the existing
environment is considered slight in accordance with EPA classification. No mitigation Is
z I-
- i required.
Of
LU LUI
Ln
LU W
3: u;
zi
...............
0
z
P
0':
W
a
t
ff I
Jl�
Transportation and Traffic Enqinee� 'i
PLANNING - DESIO,,�'
Iranspo
Group
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jamal Mahmoud
DATE: November26,1997
City of Edmonds
FROM: Tasha Leshefka RAAOI� TG: 97293.01
The TRANSPO Group, Inc.
SUBJECT: BOO HAN PLAZA —REVISED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 97
This memorandum summarizes the traffic characteristics and potential impacts of the
proposed Boo Han Plaza development in Edmonds, Washington. It updates the August 26,
1997 memorandum prepared by TRANSPO; and provides a more specific basis for estimating
project -related traffic associated with the proposal. Instead of the nationally -based trip
generation data used as the basis for the August.26 analysis, this traffic study is based on
information collected at a similar local development. The scope of this analysis has been
refined through discussions with the City and project team, based on the City's Initial reaction
to the Augus!�26 preliminary traffic analysts. Detailed discussion regarding project
description, trip generation and distribution, and potential traffic impacts is provided below.
Project Description
The project site is located on the West side of SR 99 just north of 22e Street SW, in the City of
Edmonds. The proposed development would include approximately 2 1,000 square feet (sf) of
grocery and 13,200 sf of other retail space. Boo Han Market would Occupy the grocery space,
providing Asian grocery materials and goods. 7he retail tenants wo d so pro de se ces
ul al vt rvi
designed for an Asian market. Access to the site would be provided through two full -access
driveways located on SR 99. A total of 114 parking sialls would be provided on -site. 7he
project site currently contains a music retail store, which would be removed with the proposed
0 development. 7be development Is scheduled for completion and occupancy in late 1998.
Existing and Forecast Background Conditions
The proposed Boo Han Plaza Is located on SR 99, a state highway carrying appro)dma I
te y
0 35.000 vehicles per day In the vicinity of the site. Traffic volumes range between 3,loo and
3,300 vehicles per hour during the PM peak period, with approximately 60 percent of traffic
traveling in the northbound direction and 40 percent In the southbound direction. Adjacent to
the site, SR 99 is a five -lane roadway with a center, two-way left -turn lane. The posted speed
limit is 45 mph.
The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14335 N.E. 24th Street, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98007-3737 FAX 425/747-3688 425/641-3881
0
Jamal Mahmoud
November 26, 1997
Page 2
In order to determine traffic conditions with the proposed project, it was necessary to first
identify the eidsting PM peak hour traffic volumes at intersections adjacent to the project site.
Traffic growth trends were evaluated, based on historical traffic data provided by the City of
Edmonds and WSDOT. The most recent PM peak hour turning movement counts in the site
vicinity were collected for the Top Foods Market traffic analysis in 1990. An average three
percent growth rate was determined from the historical data, and applied to the 1990 traffic
data to estimate existing 1997 and future 1998 traffic volumes without the project. The fore-
cast 1998 traffic volumes were used as a base of comparison for project impacts.
Ln i! 1:
Trip Generation
U1
Z
M-As traffic analysis is focused on documenting potential traffic impacts that would occur at
!i
site access driveways, as well as at three off -site intersections identified by City of Edmonds
LU U1
staff. Since the proposed Boo Han Market and related ancillary retail is considered a unique
2 =1
land use, an effort was made to understand the actual traffic characteristics of the proposal.
0-1
After discussions with the project sponsors and the City, a similar land use was identified
type market and location
locally that shares many of the same attributes related to of served
X 11L �i
along a busy major arterial. Actual traffic surveys were undertaken at the Hyundai Foods
Center, located on Pacific Highway South (SR 99) near S. 3 W Street, in Federal Way. This
locally -collected data provides a better predictive basis for estimating the amount and
character of traffic expected at the Boo Han Plaza proposal than generic national data
available in standard trip generation reference materials.
0 A
Z
Trip Generation Study Site — Hyundai Foods Center
Hyundai Foods Center Location and Description. Approximately 31,000 vpd occur on SR
99 in the site vicinity. PM peak hour traffic volumes range between 2,400 and 2,500 vph, with
approximately 44 percent In the northbound direction and 56 percent in the southbound
o-way, left -
direction. Adjacent to the site, SR 99 is a five -lane roadway with a center, tw turn
lane. The posted speed limit Is 40 mph.
The Hyundai Foods Center and the proposed Boo Har� Plaza are owned and operated by the
0
same company, and would be directed at serving the same r-riarket. The center includes
bilingual store fronts and Korean products. The center includes Hyundai Foods, a Korean
grocery store that occupies approximately 15,000 sf. Other tenants in the center include a
restaurant, a beauty salon, a video store, a CPA office, and a furniture store. 7hese retail
tenants occupy a total of 5,700 sE The neighborhood surrounding the Hyundai Foods Center
has demographics similar to the proposed Boo Han Plaza. The traffic characteristics of the
adjacent street, local customer base, and land use character are remarkably similar to those
0
associated with the proposed Boo Han site.
Trip Generation Survey. Daily invoice totals for grocery component of the site development.
Hyundai Foods, were obtained from J&S Distribution andrrading to estimate the daily trip
generation. Since hourly Information was not available, the PM peak hour trip generation for
Hyundai Foods was assumed to be 10 percent of the total trip daily trip generation, which is
0
UJJ6
_J �-i
____ - - --- ___ - __X_ --- --- - ---- --- A.V
be 10 percent of the daily trip generation, typical to retail developments and consistent with
V) LL
0
the methodology used to estimate Hyundai Foods trip generation. This approach allows the
determination of trip rates unique to the grocery and other retail components of the Center,
:3
which can then be applied to the Boo Han Plaza, which would consist of somewhat different
U_
amounts of grocery and other retail space.
0
Hyundai Foods Data. A summary of invoice records between January and September, 1997
Z
was provided by J&S Distribution for the Hyundai Foods store in Federal Way. The month of
iOR
July was chosen to represent average sales. Data collected by ITE for shopping centers (pg.
UJ LW
1233, Fifth Edition) reflects the monthly variation in sales in terms of percent, wt th July being
2 =)!
the closest sales month to the annual average.
0
An average of the weekday Invoice totals during the month of July was calculated to be 237.
LU LU
Each Invoice represents one visit to the market, which equates to two trips (one trip entering
X U
�_ �_- I
the site, and one trip exiting the site). A factor of 5 percent was added to the invoice totals to
Oi
account for trips to the site and no purchase was made. Thus, an average of 237 invoices per
Z!,
weekday equates to an average of 498 trips per weekday. For analysis purposes, this can be
rounded up to 500 daily vehicle trips. Assuming 10 percent of the daily grocery activity occurs
in the PM peak hour, approximately 50 grocery -related trips are estimated in the PM peak
0
Z
hour.
A total of 68 vehicles entered and eidted the site during the PM peak hour, which represents
the total PM peak hour trip generation for the center, including Hyundai Foods. Hyundai
Foods was calculated to generate 50 PM peak hour trips. The remaining 18 PM peak hour
vehicle trips would thus be attributable to the retail component of the total Hyundai Foods
Center trip generation. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation associated with the Hyundai
Foods Center, based on the Invoice data and PM peak hour traffic data collected.
Table 1. Hyundai Foods Center Trip Generation
0
Daily
PM Peak Hour
Land Use size (So
Rate
Trips
Rate Trips
HyundaiFoods 15,000
33.2
Soo
3.30 50
Retail 5,700
32.0
180
3.20 18
Total Center 20,700
32.9
680 -
3.29 68
The trip generation rates shown in Table 1 are then applied to the proposed land use
quantities (grocery and retail) proposed as part of the Boo Han project to determine drive I way,
trip generation at the proposed site,
. ..........
.....
..........
Jamal Mahmoud The
November 26, 1997 w1canspo
Page 4
Group
Proposed Project - Boo Han Market
The total daily and PM peak hour total driveway trip generation for Boo Han Plaza was
calculated using the rates identified from data collected at the Hyundai Foods Center in
Federal Way (from Table 1). Total trip generation occurring at the driveways of a retail
development can be categorized into three components to fully understand their traffic impact
characteristics. The three trip components that make up the total driveway trip generation are
pass -by, diverted, and net new trips, and each has a unique traffic characteristic. The
following describes the three trip types included in the total trip generation.
=QJ
x 'j4' Pass -By Trips -Pass-by trips are those'that are already on the roadway network
�- 3::� en route to another destination. For example, a trip to the store made on the way
Z I— home from work because it is convenient, is a pass -by trip. Pass -by trips do not
Z impact the streets adjacent to a retail facility, but would impact the turning
movements at the site driveways.
Diverted Trips - Diverted trips are those that would already be on the roadway
0
a network en route to another retail center with similar services. For the purposes
LU W of this study, diverted trips were not included In the project trip generation since
7: Ly
no known similar retail centers are within the Immediate vicinity of the project. To
U- 0' the extent that the targeted market is meeting their shopping needs at random
Z:
W Wz I locations throughout the study area, assuming no diverted trips could result in
U traffic impacts being slightly overestimated.
Z New Trips - A single -purpose trip generated by the proposed center. New trips
generally begin and end at home, although some new trips could originate at work
or other locations. New trips Impact the adjacent road system as well as the site
driveways.
A conservative estimate of each of these trip components was made based on background
information about characteristics unique to the proposed Boo Han Plaza as well as nationally
recognized published data for retail centers. The equation for shopping center pass -by rates
provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and depicted in Figure Vll- 1A, indicates a 65
A percent pass -by rate for a shopping center of 34,200 if. As agreed upon by the project team
and the City of Edmonds, the proposed Boo Han Plaza varies from the typical study sites
0 observed and represented in the ITE Manual. As a specialty center with a more refined market
base, Boo Han Plaza would most likely have a lower percentage of pass -by trips. However, due
to the high traffic volumes on the adjacent highway and in the site vicinity, a substantial
portion of the PM peak hour trip generation can be still be assumed as pass -by trips. Thus, a
40 percent pass -by rate was assumed to account for a less -than typical pass -by rate, yet
account for the high adjacent street volumes and cornmute period travel patterns. With no
diverted trips, the remaining 60 percent of project trips were assumed to be new trips to the
roadway network.
As mentioned In the project description, a music retail store currently exists on the project
site. A PM peak hour count was conducted on August 12. 1997 between 4 and 6 p.m. at the
music store. Turning movements to and from the music store site were recorded to determine
0
JamalMahmoud
November 26, 1997
Page 5 ranspo
Group
U1
the peak hour site generation. A total of 10 PM peak hour trips were observed. Since the
LU
music store would be removed with the proposea development, the associated volumes were
0!
credited against the proposed development trip generation. Table 2 summarizes the Boo Han
Cn
Plaza daily and PM peak hour trip generation.
Cn UL
0
Table 2. Boo Han Plaza Trip Generation Summary
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Daily In Out Total
:C U1,
I Boo Han Market (21,000 sQ 697 35 34 69
Z
01
Retail (13,200 sQ 422 21 21 42
Z
Less Existing Land Use 1001 6 4 10
UJ LUI
SubTotal 11019 to 51 101
0
Trip Type
Pass -By (40%) 408 20 20 40
U. 0
Net Now Trips (60%) 611 30 31 61
ZI
I Value was estimated assuminq PM peak hour eLuafs about 10 pament of total daily traffic
Z
Based on the traffic generation estimates above, a total of 61 new trips and 40 pass -by trips
were assigned to the surrounding streets and intersections in the study area.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The project trip distribution identified for the Top Foods Market was used as a base for
evaluation. Because the proposed project is within several blocks of the Top Foods market,
the distribution of new project trips would be very similar. To account for the smaller market
share and more localized influence area, less traffic was assumed to originate north or south
0
of the project site via SR 99. This traffic was assigned to residential areas east and west of the
'X.'
project site, assuming that more trips would be generated from these local areas.
Distribution of pass -by trips was determined through review of e)dsting travel patterns on SR
99 adjacent to the project site. The PM peak hour trafllc volumes Indicated that 39 percent of
SR 99 traffic Is travelling in the southbound direction, while 61 percent is travelling in the
northbound direction. Figure I in Attachment 1 summarizes the project dis bu on for new
tri ti
trips, and project assignment of new and pass -by trips to the site access driveways.
Jamal Mahmoud the
November 26, 1997 *%AMP()
Page 6 WIN 10
Group
Site Access
.0
A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate the operating conditions of the site access
LU,
Intersections on SR 99. Methodologies consistent with the 1994 Highway Capacitij Manual.
were used for the analysis. Level of service values range from LOS A, which indicates free -flow
Ln U. traffic conditions, to LOS F, which indicates extreme congestion and long delays. At both
Ji 0 signalized and unsignalized Intersections, level of service is measured In terms of average
vehicle delay. Forecast 1998 with -project traffic volumes were used to evaluate the site drive-
LL < way operating conditions, which are unsignalized. The results are outlined in Table 3 and
Un D
details of the analysis calculations are provided in Attachment 2.
Z
�_ 0 Table 3.1998 With -Project Level of Service Summary
Z �_:
W Lu� 1, 1998 With Project Conditions
Intersection/Movement LOSI Delay2
0-1
North Site Drivewayll 99
NB Left Turn C 16.4
LU LU
EB Left Turn F >60.0
0;
Z South Site Driveway/SR 99
NB Left Turn C 16.4
P: EB Left Turn F >60.0
0
1 Level of Senl (LOS)
2 Ave= Vehide Delay (second&Vehicle)
As shown in Table 3. the eastbound left-tum movement from the project site onto northbound
SR 99 is estimated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. However, the HCM method-
ology does not account for the storage space provided in the existing center, two-way, left-tum
lane on SR 99. Vehicles making a left-t= from the site can complete the movement in a two.
V step process by first crossing the southbound SR 99 b-affic and using the center lane to wait
for a gap in the northbound traffic stream. If these steps are evaluated as two discrete move-
ments, the level of service results in LOS E for the first movement, and LOS F for the second
movement. This methodology also accounts for left -turning traffic competing with total north.
bound traffic in the second step. In reality, left -turning itraffic primarily looks for g laps in
oncoming northbound traffic in the inside lane, which carries between 50 to 70 percent of
total northbound traffic volumes. Thus, the analysis provides a conservative es mateof
tl the
delay experienced by left -turning vehicles.
It is recognized that left turn movements currently occurring from nearly all driveways along
SR 99 during the PM peak hour would be calculated to operate at LOS E or LOS F,! While this
condition is not desirable, it reflects the priority of moving through traffic on major I arteries
during commute periods. To the extent that accessing a site located along SR 99 during the
PM peak hour is perceived as difficult, it supports the assumption that 60 percent "new" trips
during the PM peak hour may overestimate actual conditions. Nevertheless, 60 percent new
JL
0
trips was used as the foundation for this analysis and reflects a reasonable worst case for
decision -making.
LU; 1 1
Traffic Volume Impacts
Based on the forecast 1998 traffic volumes and the project trip generation, the project related
traffic volume Impacts have been evaluated. Table 4 summarizes the net Increase in intersec-
tion entering volumes as a result of the proposed development.
Table 4. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Impacts
z
0'
Z
Location ProjectTrips Total Trips Net % Increase
LU LU:
U
S :D!
SR 99/224th Street SW 23 4,448 016%
0i
SR 99/220th Street SW 21 6,106 0.3%
76th Avenue W/220th Street SW 9 2,799 0.3%
U.
As shown in Table 4, project trips account for less than 1 percent of entering traffic volumes
UJ Lao)
Ty. I
during the PM peak hour at adjacent intersections. Impacts within this range are unlikely to
be perceived by the average observer, since traffic volumes can vary by as much as plus or
0
Z
minus 5 percent from one day to the next.
Project Impacts and Mitigation
The level of service analysis and traffic volume comparisons have indicated that the proposed
project would not significantly Impact the site vicinit3r. The project related impacts are limited
to the site access Intersections. The operational analysis estimated high delay for left -turn
movements from the project site, due to high trafftc.volumes on SR 99. However, additional
analysis indicates that these left -turn movements could operate somewhat better than the
HCM analysis has forecast. They are forecast to operate at a level consistent with the
01 operation of essentially any other existing unsignalized driveway providing direct access to
SIR 99.
The City of Edmonds has Identified two transportation improvement projects within the site
vicinity in their Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The City has developed a
developer contribution system to these TIP projects, but the basis for determining the amount
of developer contribution has not been formally adopted by the City. Thus, the following
section describes the Improvement project limits and the development -related impacts to these
projects, and recommends a methodology for developer contribution.
SR 99 (24e Street SW to 2 31o' Street SW) —This project includes
reconstruction of SR 99 to provide 7 lanes, curb, gutter, and sidewalks.
W�'77
- vk
0
Ygi
r
Jamal Mahmoud The
November 26, 1997
Page 8 irans 0
6roup
r
estimated cost borne by the City of Edmonds is estimated at' 1.2 million dollars.
For previous development projects In the site vicinity, the City has Identified a
JJ
contribution rate of $240.66 per PM peak hour trip through �he project limits. The
proposed development would generate approximately 14 PM peak hour trips
LUj
.0 3:
through the SR 99 project limits, which equates to a contribution of $3,369.24.
J 1-1
Z LL
0
7e Avenue W (SR 104 to 22e Street SW) - This project has been Included in
the City's Six -Year TIP, currently estimated at $220.000 of local funding.
Currently, the local funding component has not been identffle�d. The proposed
U.
development would generate a maximum of 3 PM peak hour trips through the
improvement project limits. Considering that the basis for e6timating traffic
Impacts Is conservative, and likely overestimates actual traffic impacts during the
Z �-1
PM peak hour; and considering that the three trip impact is �o low; it appears that
;7- Oi
no mitigation should be assessed for Impacts at this location. Overall, the
I
Z
assessment for the SR 99 improvement above, should more t han fully mitigate the
noticeable impacts that would be generated as a result of site development.
Ui
Conclusions
U- 0
Z
LU
An estimated 61 net new PM peak hour trips are expected to be generated by the proposed
Boo Han Plaza, which would distribute onto the adjacent roadway system. Traffic volume
forecasts indicate that project trips would account for less than 1 percent of total traffic
Z
volumes at any one location within the project vicinity. Therefore, the prbposed project Is not
expected to adversely impact traffic operations on the adjacent roadway system. Based on the
results of the analysis, no project -related impacts warrant specific mitigation. However,
Oh
developer contribution to the SR 99 and 7 Avenue W improvement protects has been
assessed by the City in the amount of 22 total trips. at a rate of $240.66 1per project trip. It is
our understanding that the City's estimation of project impacts Is based on a proportionate
share approach, and results in mitigation for 18 project trips through th6 SR 99 widening
p roject and 4 project trips through the 7e Avenue W project limits. While the City recognizes
the approach used to calculate project related Impact� In this analysis as' valid, the City has
sessed their own methodology to identify the actual mitigation requirements. Thus, based
on the Citys estimation of Boo Han Plaza impacts to the Identified Improvement projects, the
0
developer contribution equates to $5,294.52.
TL/lmm
Attachments
OMOMWPW20MDM
.0
eg� n7
NOTIM, IF. THE qQCUMIENT IN T�N RRME IS LEM UEAKJ MAN
TO
DUE
%
'Its
two
lt5
co
Z TV
mrl- Olt
SAM,
N
MOM
Mm VMS&
V"-
oil ANTRA:
I L3 01
LUi
U-jj �li
LU,
U:F
HCS:` UhSignaliZed Intersections' Release 2.1d
FUTSDWY. HCO Page 2,
Worksheet f or. TWSP intersection .
I
I
------------------------------------ a ---------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB
-------
EB
-------------------------------------------------
..,C6hf licting I Flows: (vph)
799
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
545
UJ
r
movement Capacity: (pcph)
545,
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
-------------------------- : ----------------- ------------
-
.581
2: LT from Major Street SB
NB,,'
'Step
-------------------------- ------
X,
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
isqs
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
238z
0
n
Moveme t Capacity: (pcph)
238,
.0
Prob.,,of Queue -Free State;
0. §2
------------------------- 7 ------ ------------
-------
<
�Step,4:1 LT from minor Street WB.-
0
--------------------------------------------------------
-
Conflicting Flows:. (vph)
4088
Z
.!Potential Capacity: (pcph)
3,
Major LT,,Minor TH
UJ
pedance Factor.
LU
Adjusted Imp6dance Factor.
G� 92
Capacity -Adjustment Facto�
U
due to impeding Movements,
0.92
ap
Movement C acity: (Pcph),
3
LU
X
------------------------ ... .. ....................
U.
In terSe6tion Performance Summary
z
ul
Avg.
Flow Move shared,, Total Queue
Approach,
Rate, , Cap ., Cap Delay Length.
LOS Delay
z
movement (pcph):, (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh)_(,,Veh)
i;sec/veh)
--------- ------ ---- -- ------ ------- ------- ---
EB L 19 3 >
------
12 .5
F
R 10 54S >
NE L. 18 23 8 01.
0A
�InterSeCtion Delay: 9: sec/v6h,�
The calculated value was greater than 999.9'.
o,
LU U
L . u
(4)
z
HCS Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.ld kru =WY.HCO_ Page 2
77
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
.. .. L
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------------------------------------
StepL RT from Minor Street
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1900
P6tential Capacity: (pcph)
544L
movement Capacity: (pcph)
544
�'Prob. of Queue -Free State:
. . . I
0.'98
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Step 2:LLT from Major Street SB L L L
-
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph) L
1599
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
238L
Prob. of QueUe-Free State:
0 . 92
-------------------------------------- _L ------
Step 4: IT from minor Street L L WB
L
EA
------------------------------- -------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
4090.
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
3
Maj or IT,' Minor TH
impedance Factor:
�0.92
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
O�92
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
6.92
Movement Capacity:,(pcph)L
------------------- ------------------- ------ -------
3
L
-Intersection Performi=6 summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move LShared Total. LQueue-
Approach
-Rate Cap L Cap Lnelay Length LOS
Delay, .
mo I veme L nt (pcph) (pCph) (pcph) (sec/veh) .(veh)
(sec/7eh
-------- ------ ------- ------ ------- ------- .....
EB L 2 0 3 >
.........
4 13.4 F
EE R 10 544 >
L C
14B 16.4
0.1
Intersection Delay 90, .1 sec/veh
-The calculated value was greater' than .999.9
CO
LM
PINAM
13
�
M.
':k 5�
�',4�4 N
g
-s
MOREM OINNERS LIST
Attach this, notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list.
UJ
-J
On my oath, I. certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties
0
located within.1300 feet of the subject property.
U.
La
zI--
PpTicant or*licanfs Representative
LU Lui
Subscribed and sworn to before me this -?ay of 1999
0;:
LU
La
Ro—ta'ry F-Uglic in and for the State of a i gton
Residing at
SI0'V
%k0TA
A 40SM
ATempWorins
APO.doc%.
UJ LU
X
z
Lu (A
z
To: ZA1.4
zn!�: 5.jw:� -
weceptionVanaftaxsheet.doc
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Building-Plaueleg-Em9ineer1mg
121-Stb Avenue Nortb 0 Zmd Floor
Edmombl, WA 98020
FAX COVER PAGE
From:
j,
�x
5278000027�00,-
5278 000028 00
5278 00002900
Low-s Jones Sr
�,Harry,Bo Ila
]Richard & Tracie Ebel
PO Box, 8014..
22711 -78Th Ave W:
227037MAveW,.
Ketchikan, AK, 99901
Edmo,nds,-WA'98026
Edmonds, WA 98026
5278 00003000
576171000 002,02
5767 000!..W 04
Vernon & Tran Ibi Elder Jr.
:4ay W at6rs
y W rs
jt
22701 781b Ave W.
3305 Oakes Ave
Ave
i
Edmonds, WA 98026
Everett, WA 98201
'�00�akes
verett, I
verett, WA 98201
Lu.
5767 000003 02
767 000 003
5767000003
5842 OW 008 W
Larry & Barara Jones,
Larry & B Jones
&B a Jone,.
Trasit & Yaeko Roinuckarin
14118 2Nd Ave,N,w
'1411 d Ave N*
4 11 8�
d Ave Nw
7820 225fb PI Sw
Marysville, WA 98271
sville, WA 982
sville WA 98271
onds
Edin WA 98026
3
A
z
awi
z
tz'
2927 043 0�74 00 2927 043 078 00 2927 043 084 00
L =ranklin-Edmonds Lp Lessor Franklin -Edmonds Robert Can
I
Transitory
T
NO SVZ T NAME or NUMBER MCDONALDS CORPORATIO 2190UM Ave W
I Mcdonalds Piz jWe—r, WA 98036
Oak Brook, IL 60523
2927 043 085 00 2927043086 2927 043 086 00
Robert Canaan C rl
Charles S ssIII Charles Stropgril
10
21902 381b Ave W 4610 Ave Ne 4610 214#rg Ave Ne
cc Re W go
Brier, WA 98036 -R dmoM,WA 98053 ond, WA 98053
Wi 2927 043 08600 3027 044 02100 044022 00
x Charles Strouss Ul Craig Yoshino
I— Ted& Mary. Daniels
W LL 4610 2441b Ave Ne 22600 787b Ave W 22602 781b Ave W
0
W Redmond, WA 98053 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
3027 044 032 00
3027,044 033 00 t3027 044 034 00
Up SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS I SHURG��RAGE CENTERS I SHURGARD GE CENTUERS I
1 01 jt4�0
v
1201 3Rd Ave #2200 1201,W ve#2200 12013 ve #2200
t W 98101
01 Seattle, WA 98101
jWtde,WA 98101 1 e, WA 98101
'S M!
5 3027 044 03600 3027 044 037 00 3027 044 04100
u
'u"
0 Boo Nam & Bang Kang Han Boo Nam &,,P�g Han U-SAVE 0
an Rd Nw
a 7416 100Th Ave Sw 7416 lom Ave Sw 9076
304 W 9 11
W LU Tacoma, WA 98498 a, WA 98498 e, WA 98117
�L- 0
Z
3027 044 042 00 3027 044 044 00 3027 044 045 00
ul CA
U-SAVE OIL CO Lippman Robert Armstrong
9076 Holman Rd Nw 22727 Highway 99 22717 Highway 99
Z Seattle, WA 98117 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
5278 000 00100 5278 000002 00 5278 000003 00
Dan Conley Marlene Green Georgia & Cheryl Grant
22604 78Th Ave W 22612 78Th Ave W 227Tb PI Sw
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
5278 000004 00 5278 000005 00
5278 000006 00
Racheal Martin Ryan & Brenda Nash Patricia Smith
O� 7825 227Th PI Sw 22613 78Th PI W
22607 78Th PI W
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
5278 00002100 5278 000022 00 5278 000 023 00
Pauline Leland Bill & Pat Whitis John & Bernice Marquardt
7830 227Th PI Sw 22702 78Th Ave W 22708 78ThAve W
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, *A 98026
5278 000024 00 5278 000025 00
5278 00002600
Scott Douglas & Dori Lee Bowen Clifford Dedmore & David Williams Gurudas &, Chhaya Kode
22716 78Th Ave W 16626 6Th Ave W #K201 22725 78Th Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98026 Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026
-4,
CORPORA6710IN
January 25, 1999
0i
cn a!
W U11
CITY OF EDMONDS PROJECT:
j �_
Community Services Department BOO HAN PLAZA
U) U.
121 Fifth Avenue North 23xxx - ffighway 99
Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edmonds, Washington
Atta.: Karissa Kawarnoto and Jeffrey Wilson
U.
D
RE: SCREEN PLANTING @ WEST PROPERTY LINE
X ul
z
SUBJECT: BOO HAN PLAZA
0i
Edmonds, Washington
LU LAI:
Greetings,
0
Based on discussions with Elizabeth @ GREENBUSCH ENGINEERS, we have REVISED the Landscape Plan
Uj
to focus on evergreen screening along the western and southern property lines. These screen planting wiH exceed
the Type 11 Barrier as follows:
z
LWU
U
SPACING
i=
ON CENTER BOTANICAL/ COMMON SIZE INSTALLED SIZE (&- 5 YEARS
0
Evergreen Screen Trees
20 ft Cuprossus loylandii / LEYLAND CYPRESS 6' ht 16-20 feet ht.
Eveween Screen Shrubs
!.5 ft Photonla frased / FRASER'S PHOTINIA 5 gallon 24/30" 6-8 feet ht.
Prunus lusitanica /PORTUGUESE LAUREL 18/24" B&B L 6-8 feet ht
Prunue louroccra.9us / ENGLISH LAUREL 5 gallon 24/30" . 840 feet ht
Please contact our office should have any fiirther questions or require additional information reguding these
proposed revisions.
Sincerely,
MIGIMMDGE RP_QRATION
David Bisom -License No. 480
REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Ml
X,;
. . . . . . . . .
01/22/90 15:51 PAr 2086240630 Greenbusch Group 11101
The
C1 A
FAx T,.,-,NSMITTAL
Group
Date: January 22, 1999
TW. Karissa Kawarnoto Fax (425) 771-0221
City Of Edmonds, Planning
5
LU
I Q1
E3 0!
Re: Boo Han Plaza Noise Study
V)
LOAU
From! Elizabeth Bogomolov. Fax: (206) 524-6630
LU
-j
Phone- (206) S24-OS93
U),U.
0
W
Number of Pages (including cover page): 4/
Comments
U.
Z LL?
I--
Enclosed is a revised noise study report which includs the section of noise level predictions for pm-
X
existing condidtions when the removed vegetation was in place..
Z 1-1
0
L2 PI
Please call if you have any further questions or concerns.
LU UJI
U
0
LU ul
X
uj
Z
Please call (206) 524-0593 if not all pages are ;iFeived.
Copy to: File
Hard copy to follow via mail.
919 NE 71 st Stmwd Seattle, WA 98115 - Phone (206) 524-OS93 - Fax (266) U4.0630 - www.'greenbu h
sc COM
R".
01/22/99 13:51 FAX 2069240630 Greenbusch G 002
roup
z
Dran Noise Study
p
Boo Han laza
LU
Edmonds, Washinpton
.
V)
V) U.
U.�
z
z
LU UJI
2
January 15, 1999
0
CO
UJ LU
3:
PREPARED FOR
—0
ZI
City of Edmonds
121 5" Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020:.
Z
PREPARED By
The
GRENBUOi
Group
919 N E 71 Street
Seattle, Washington 98115
11 IM
-77777�� II! , p l�� 0:7iiP: ':i ;' ;:i::!: 1 11
INTROQUCTIQON
This report documents the results of an environmental noise study for the proposed Boo
Han Plaza, located at the 2226 Aurora Avenue in Edmonds, Washington. Covered within
us!
xl
this report are: existing noise environment based on field measurements, predictions of
future noise levels and the comparison of predicted noise levels with existing noise levels
U�
0;
and current applicable ordinance and guidelines. The predicted noise impacts associated
0!
LU!
with the proposal are assessed.
X'
P;1
The predominant existing noise sources in the study area include traffic on Aurora Avenue
LL I
0 and operation of nearby commercial facilities.
2 P
9
For the purpose of this report, anticipated future noise sources due to proposed Boo Han
g
U.
Plaza include vehicle movement on the project property, including automobiles and
W 01
delivery trucks and exposed mechanical equipment on the rooftop of the new structures.
Slight increase of traffic due to Boo Han Plaza operation is not expected to affect existing
Z
traffic noise on nearby streets (Aurora Avenue) and is not taken into consideration for the
Z
purpose of this study.
W UJI
Noise levels from activity at the loading zone of the new market and from the mechanical
U (n
equipment located on the rooftop of the proposed new structures were predicted and the
0
noise exposure at the nearest residences was projected.
UJ LU
The following report details the results of our analysis.
Z,
LU rn,
U
NOMENCWTURE
X11
LI&A
Z
Noise is generally considered unwanted sound. The noise level is characterized by the
magnitude of pressure intensity fluctuations. Decibel (dB) levels are a form of shorthand
that characterize, with a convenient numerical scale, the auditory response to the broad
range of perceptible pressure intensities. The decibel scale is logarithmic! a doubling or
halving of energy causes the sound level to change by 3 dB; it does not double or halve
the original level.
The minimum sound level variation perceptible to a human observer is approximately 3
decibels, a 5 decibel change is clearly perceptible and an 8 to 10 decibel change is
associated with a perceived doubling or halving of loudness. Table 1 below shows
0
common sounds and their perceived loudness.
The human ear has a unique response to sound pressure fluctuations. It is less sensitive to
higher and lower frequencies - those sounds failing outside the speech frequency range,
Sound level meters and monitors utilize'a weighting system to approximate human
perception of sound. Calculations made utilizing this weighting system are referred to as
"A weighted" and are called fidBA". Most applicable regulatory criteria are written using
the A weighting; therefore, all sound levels presented are A weiShted. The 'All may be
dropped from the decibel notation for convenience.
0,
7
7A
Group
Page 3
Tahle 1! Cnmmnn hinhe Snurem
b2ical Sound
:=Sotummnd Pree irure
LevJeld A
Lwjbective 11maression
Jet Takeoff
140
Potential Hearing loss
Siren at 100 ft.
1201
Threshold of pain
Accelera
1101
Threshold of discomfort
Power Lawnmower
100 i
Very Loud
Train Whistle
90 i
Loud
Busy Street
80
Intolerable for communication
AveLa Street Noise
70
Moderately Loud
.Se
Normal Conversation
60
Usual Background
guiet Street Noise
50
Moderate v Quiet
Private Office
40
Noticeably Quiet
Empty Auditorium W I very yuiet
Source. Various
Metric$
ue to each listener. Meteics have been
Responses to noise are subjective and uniq
developed to provide 'more convenient descriptors of sounds that vary with time and with
escriptor was used to characterize various F:
human responses to them. The following
components of sound.
Equivalent Sound Level; L.,
L.q Is the level of a constant sound �aving the same energy content as the
actual time -varying level during a s cified interval. The L. is used to
characterize complex, fluctuating sbund levels with a single number. Typical
intervalsforl. are hourly, daily and annually. The pertinent interval for this
eq
project is hourly.
R ULMRY CRITERIA
Noise level restrictions at this site are governed by two sources.-
e City of Edmonds Noise Ordinance,
01/22/99 15:51 PAX 2005240630 Greenbusch Croup
C,
Boo Han Plaza Noise Analysis
January 15, 1999
dmonds Noise ordinance
J's City of Edmonds Noise Control Ordinance 5.30 states that noise from vehicles operating
on public roads should comply with regulations described in sections 5.30.060 and 5.30.
070 of the Ordinance. These regulations relate to all vehicles operating on the public
roads. The noise level limits for these vehicles as measured at a distance of 50 feet are
0! shown in Table 2 below.
LU Our study focuses on potential noise impact on the nearby residential properties due to
operation of the proposed facility. Noise from vehicles located on private property is
U.
0 regulated by the City of Edmonds Noise Control Ordinance, chapter 5.30.040, Maximum
Permissible Sound Levels.
Community sound level limits are established based upon the land use zone of source
and receiving properties, time of day and the duration of sound. The 800 Han site is
Lull zoned commercial. The noise level limits for this site are shown in Table 3 below.
0,
0
0
LU
U.
di
0
Z
E4
E
Tnhlp 9 Cltw nf FrImnnella Uninp Wphirlpa Nnorp-q. (dRA)
Vehicle Category
Speed Ar.
I m-p.h. or
ess
Speed over 45
m.o.h.
Motorcycles
78 dBA
82 dBA
Motor vehicles
over 000
n s
86 dBA
go dBA
_22u
All other vehicles_L
72 dBA
78 dBA
Source: Uty or tarnonM LOae
T.L11-1 jr1#yftfCgsa*#lgb rnOrnnmantal hIntap I I'mift. IdRA)
District of Sound
District of Receiving
roperty
Source
Residential Business I
I Commercial
Residential
55
57
60
Business
57
60
65
Commercial
60
63
70,
Source: city or tafmoncis Looe
Noise levels between a Commercial site and a residential receiving site are limited to 60
dBA during the daytime hours, and 50 dBA between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM,
and 7:00 AM (10:00 PM to 9-00 AM on the weekends). Noise levels between two
commercial properties are limited to 70 dB. These noise levels can be exceeded
Intermittently by not greater than:
5 A for a total of 15 minutes in any one hour period, or
10 dB for a total of 5 minutes in any one -hour period, or
15 dB for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one hour period.
�01