Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
16-100954
CITY OF Federal CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor June 23, 2016 Ms. Christine Phillips BCRA 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 FILE Re: File #16-100954-00-UP; PROCESS II SITE PLAN APPROVAL Telecare Residential Treatment Facility, 13te Place South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Phillips: The City of Federal Way's Community Development Department has completed administrative review of the proposed Telecare Residential Treatment Facility located off of 13th Place South (parcels 7681900010 & 7681900020). The Process II land use application submitted on February 22, 2016, is hereby conditionally approved as the proposal meets site plan and community design guidelines approval criteria set forth in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.60.050, as found in the enclosed ExbibitA, Findings for Process II Site Plan Approval, and incorporated into this decision. The remainder of this letter outlines the zoning and development review process required for this proposal, conditions of approval, and a summary of appeal procedures. REQUIRED REVIEW PROCESS The proposed improvements to the site are subject to Process II Site Plan Review pursuant to the hospital facility use requirements set forth in FWRC 19.220.070. The proposal does not exceed the city -adopted flexible thresholds set forth in FWRC 14.15.030(1)(c), and therefore, is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) Telecare shall immediately notify the Federal Way Police Department, the Federal Way Public Schools security office, and KinderCare in the case of all elopements. The facility's operational procedures manual, or similar instrument, shall instruct staff to make the required notifications. 2) Telecare shall make sure there are adequate safeguards/procedures in place both internally and externally to prevent a patient from escaping. 3) The landscape plan submitted with the building permit shall comply with FWRC 19.125.070(5) (a). 4) Deterrent type landscaping shall be incorporated in the landscaping plan submittal, with the building permit, along the property line between Telecare and KinderCare. 5) Building permit plans shall implement two or more of the following items near the building's main entrance: bench seating, trash receptacles, and lighting. 6) Building permit plans for the trash/recycling enclosure shall demonstrate compliance with FWRC 19.115.050(6)(a)(iii). (Service yard walls, enclosures, and similar accessory site elements shall be consistent with the primary building[s] relative to architecture, materials, and colors.) Ms. Christine Phillips Page 2 June 23, 2016 7) The chain link fence shall consist of vinyl -coated mesh, powder -coated poles, dark color(s), and contain architectural element(s), such as pole caps and/or a decorative grid pattern. 8) Prior to issuance of the building permit, the approved BLA/LLE must be recorded at King County Records at the expense of the applicant. APPROVAL DURA_TLON „ - J Unless modified or appealed, the Process II decision is valid for five years from the date of issuance of the decision per FWRC 19.15.100.2. Time extensions to the decision may be requested prior to the lapse of approval following the provisions listed in FWRC 19.15.110. The improvements must be substantially completed within the five-year time period or the land use decision becomes void. APPEALS The effective date of this decision is June 27, 2016, or three days from the date of this letter per FWRC 19.05.360. Pursuant to FWRC 19.60.080, the applicant, any person who submitted written comments or information, any person who has specifically requested a copy of the decision, or the city may appeal the decision to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner by July 11, 2016. Any appeal must be in the form of a letter delivered to the Department of Community Development with the established fee. The appeal letter must contain a statement identifying the decision being appealed; along with a copy of the decision, a statement of the alleged errors in the director's decision (including identification of specific factual findings and conclusions of the director disputed by the person filing the appeal); and the appellant's name, address, telephone number, fax number, and any other information to facilitate communication with the appellant. CLOSING This land use decision does not waive compliance with future City of Federal Way codes, policies, and standards relating to this development. This Process II approval does not constitute approval of a building permit or authorize any other on -site work. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Senior Planner Stacey Welsh at 253-835-2634, or Stacey.welsh@cityoffederalway.com. Acting Commu(Kity Development Director enc: Exhibit A `Findings for Process II Site Plan Approval' May 12, 2016, Letter from Christine Phillips, BCRA, to Senior Planner Stacey Welsh Approved Site Plan, Landscaping Plan, and Elevations Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Lindsey Sperry, Crime Prevention Analyst, Federal Way Police Vince Faranda, South King Fire & Rescue Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Sally McLean, Federal Way Public Schools, 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Cameron Coltharp, Telecare Corporation, 1080 Marina Village Parkway, State 100, Alameda, CA 94501 Celia Hartman Sims, KinderCare Education, LLC, 1012 14th Street NW, Suite 305, Washington, DC 20005 File #16-100954-00-UP Doc. I.D. 73869 41k CITY OF Federal Allay EXHIBIT A Findings for Process II Site Plan Approval Telecare Residential Treatment Facility File #16-100954-00-UP The Director of Community Development hereby makes the following fmdings pursuant to content requirements of the Process II written decision as set forth in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.60.070. These findings are based on review of existing city documents and submitted items by the applicant received February 22, 2016, March 11, 2016, April 6, 2016, and May 12, 2016. 1. Proposal — The applicant proposes to construct a new 11,500 square foot, 16-bed residential treatment facility and associated site improvements. I Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Designation — The residential treatment facility is considered a hospital facility use per FWRC 19.05.080: "Hospital" means an institution providing primary health services and medical or surgical care to persons, primarily inpatients, suffering from illness, disease, injury, deformity and other abnormal physical or mental conditions, and including, as an integral part of the institution, related facilities such as laboratories, outpatient facilities, extended care facilities and/or training facilities. Per FWRC 19.05.050, a mental health facility is considered a Class 1I Essential Public Facility. Per FWRC 19.105.020(1)(b), Class H facilities are reviewed under the zoning provisions and processes found in their respective zoning districts. The subject property has a Community Business (BC) comprehensive plan and zoning designation. The property's proposed use as a hospital facility is a permitted use within the BC zoning designation and requires a Process H application pursuant to FWRC 19.220.070. Review Process — Hospital facility uses located in the BC zone are subject to development review procedures of Process 11, Site Plan Review, set forth in FWRC Chapter 19.60. Process H review requires no public notice and concludes with a written decision issued by the Director of Community Development. The applicant agreed to public notice; therefore, a Notice of Application was distributed on April 1, 2016, in accordance with FWRC 19.65.070(2). Appeals of the director's decision are conducted by the city's Hearing Examiner. 4. Environmental Review — The proposed improvements are exempt from environmental review. The new building will be less than 12,000 square feet and does not impact the on -site stream. The improvements are consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) "minor new construction" flexible thresholds as set forth in FWRC 14.15.030(1)(c). 5. Height — The proposed height of the building is 22 feet above average building elevation and the project includes a 10 foot fence, which is below the 35-foot height maximum. 6. Setbacks — The required front yard for hospital facility use is a 20-foot setback; there is no side and rear yard setback. The new building is greater than 20 feet from all property lines, which exceeds the requirements. 7. Lot Coverage — No maximum lot coverage applies. Instead, the buildable area is determined by other site development requirements, i.e., required buffers, parking lot landscaping, surface water facilities, etc. Parking — Pursuant to FWRC 19.220.070, hospital facility use shall provide one parking space for each three beds, plus one for each staff doctor, plus one for each three employees. The 16 beds require 5.3 spaces, and estimated staffing levels of 3 doctors and 45 employees require 18 spaces, for a total of 23 spaces. The proposal includes 36 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum requirement. 9. Landscaping — FWRC 19.125.060(6) contains required widths for landscaping in the BC zone. The required landscaping is five feet of Type III along all property lines. The site plan shows five feet of Type III landscaping as stated above and five feet of Type 1 landscaping around the new trash/ recycling enclosure. Interior parking lot landscaping is required per FWRC 19.125.070 and is detailed on the site plan. FWRC 19.125.070(5)(a) states: "Parking areas adjacent to public right-of-way shall incorporate berms at least three feet in height within perimeter landscape areas; or alternatively, add substantial shrub plantings to the required perimeter landscape type, and/or provide architectural features of appropriate height with trees, shrubs and groundcover, in a number sufficient to act as efficient substitute for the three-foot berm, to reduce the visual impact of parking areas and screen automobiles, and subject to approval by the director of community development." The proposal includes parking stalls adjacent to 13t' Place South, which need additional screening. The applicant proposes to use a deciduous shrubs and trees to provide screening and not incorporate a berm. This would not provide year-round screening. The berm is meant to be landscaped, so it would be a three-foot tall berm (or acceptable equivalent) plus landscaping planted in the berm. A condition of approval shall require the landscape plan submitted with the building permit comply with FWRC 19.125.070(5)(a). 10. Tree Density — Each development must maintain a minimum tree unit density composed of retained trees and/or replacement plantings per FWRC 19.120.130. Per FWRC 19.120.130(2), the minimum tree density in the BC zone is 20 tree units per acre. The subject property's required density is 47 tree units (20 tree units x 2.37 acres). The proposal includes removal of 90 trees, retains 86, with 50 to be planted, exceeding the requirement. 11. Stream — In December 2015, the city received a request for third party review of a Critical Area Report/Stream Determination for the subject property, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. According to that report the site contains a Type Ns stream, which requires a 35-foot buffer. The site also contains another drainage feature which is not a stream. The city forwarded the report to our consultant, Otak, for their review. Otak completed a site visit and reviewed relevant documents. Otak's January 20, 2016, technical memorandum states: "We agree with the stream classification (Type Ns) and buffer width determination (35 feet) for the stream on the project site per FWRC Findings for Process II Site Plan Approval Page 2 Telecare Residential Treatment Facility File #16-100954-00-UP/Doc. I.D. 73866 19.145.270. We also agree that the second drainage feature shown on the City map does not qualify as a stream per FWRC 19.145.260." As shown on the Telecare site plan, the project will not impact either the stream or its buffer. 12. Community Design Guidelines — The proposed building, as conditioned, complies with the provisions of FWRC Chapter 19.115, "Community Design Guidelines" as detailed below: a. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Guidelines — The applicant submitted a CPTED checklist, which was reviewed by police staff who have the following comment that will become conditions of approval: Federal Way Police would like the facility to make sure there are adequate safeguards/ procedures in place both internally and externally to prevent a patient from escaping. If a patient does leave the premises with any conditions that affect public safety, Federal Way Police should be contacted immediately. b. Site Design — The parking area and building are to be located on the front two-thirds of the property, with the rear retaining the existing vegetation. Implementation of pedestrian areas and amenities is limited, given the nature of the use. Access controls will be implemented. The parking lot is designed consistent with requirements. The existing site driveway off of 13ffi Place South will be eliminated and the access easement along the north property line will be used for site access, with a new site driveway to be located along the north property line. c. Pedestrian Circulation and Public Spaces — The primary entrance to the building will be visible from the right-of-way. Pedestrian pathways are incorporated into the site design, connect the building to the street, will be accessible, and clearly delineated using exposed aggregate or stamped and colored concrete. The applicant's submitted design narrative states that, "elements to be explored as future site development are bench seating, trash receptacles, and lighting located adjacent the primary entrance." A condition of approval shall require implementation of two or more of these items in the building permit submittal. d. Commercial Service and Institutional Facilities — Service yard walls, enclosures, and similar accessory site elements shall be consistent with the primary building(s) relative to architecture, materials, and colors. A new trash/recycling enclosure is proposed. The trash/recycling enclosure plans show a split face CMU wall with a painted metal gate. No color selections are listed, so it is unclear whether there is consistency between the colors of the primary building and the trash/recycling enclosure. A condition of approval of this Use Process decision shall state that the building plans for the trash/recycling enclosure must demonstrate compliance with this guideline. e. Building Design — There are no building facades that are both longer than 60 feet and visible from either a right-of-way or residential use. The western facades are considered visible from 13t" Place South, and articulation includes modulation, material variation, roof overhang, and doors and windows. The building entrance is oriented to the right-of-way. f. BC District Guidelines — The parking lot is located adjacent to the right-of-way and maximizes pedestrian access and circulation as detailed in criteria (c), above. The entrance facade is clearly recognizable from the right-of-way, is architecturally emphasized with a canopy and glazed vestibule. A 10-foot tall chain -link fence with vinyl slats is proposed around the exercise yard area, which could be visible from adjacent properties, and is not proposed to be screened by Findings for Process II Site Plan Approval Page 3 Telecare Residential Treatment Facility File #16-100954-00-UP/Doc. I.D. 73866 Type I landscaping. No barbed or razor wire is proposed. Per FWRC 19.115.090(1)(fl, a condition of approval shall require use of vinyl -coated mesh, powder -coated poles, dark color(s), and architectural element(s), such as pole caps and/or a decorative grid pattern. The 10-foot tall fence requires a building permit, including submittal of plans and structural engineering. g. Institutional Uses Guidelines — Per FWRC 19.05.090, institutional uses include hospitals; therefore, FWRC 19.115.100 is applicable to the project. The building design contains significant structural modulations. The proposal includes a varied gable roof design. The proposal states that project lighting will be shielded and not exceed 30 feet in height. 13. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment — Per FWRC 19.110.070, vents and similar appurtenances that extend above the roofline must be surrounded by a solid sight -obscuring screen that is integrated into the architecture of the building and obscures the view of the appurtenances from adjacent streets and properties. Mechanical equipment will be located in a mechanical attic within the building with the use of louvers. 14. Lot Line Elimination — The subject property consists of two separate parcels. The site plan shows the building is to be constructed over the common property line. In order to remove the interior lot line, a Lot Line Elimination (LLE) by way of a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) application is required and must comply with the standards of FWRC Chapters 18.10 and 18.15. A condition of approval shall state, prior to issuance of the building permit, the approved BLA/LLE must be recorded at King County Records at the expense of the applicant. 15. Public Comments — Two written comments were received and were provided to the applicant, who was asked to address the comments. The city received a May 12, 2016, written response (enclosed). The public comments, Telecare responses, and city responses as appropriate are cited below: Federal Way Public Schools (FWPS) requested the District Security Office be notified in the event an elopement occurs. Telecare indicated they will agree to provide notice of elopements when, in their sole clinical judgment, notice is warranted. When providing notice they can indicate a client has eloped but cannot provide any private health information (including names) to third parties. A condition of approval shall require notification be made to the FWPS Security Office, KinderCare, and the Federal Way Police Department in the case of all elopements. KinderCare provided site specific and operational comments: KinderCare requested that any patient known to be a registered sex offender or known to pose a risk to children be sent to another facility. Telecare responded that they cannot agree to this as the facility is an emergency service and the legal status of transfers is unknown to staff upon arrival. The city has no authority to dictate who can and cannot be seen at such a facility. KinderCare requested that patient intake occur out of sight of their facility and to limit the use of sirens. Telecare responded that the orientation of the building will not allow for the admission area to be seen. The use of sirens is dictated by practices of emergency personnel and outside of the Department of Community Development's control. KinderCare requested Telecare have additional staff on the night shift for the hours KinderCare is open. Telecare responded they will not agree as proposed staffing is both operationally and clinically appropriate. The city has no authority to dictate staffing levels of a medical facility. Findings for Process Il Site Plan Approval Page 4 Telecare Residential Treatment Facility File #16-100954-00-UP/Doc. I.D. 73866 KinderCare requested a plan be formalized regarding elopements. Telecare's response is the same as that provided to FWPS on this issue (see above). A condition of approval shall require notification be made to the FWPS Security Office, KinderCare, and the Federal Way Police Department in the case of all elopements. KinderCare provided comments and requests pertaining to facility lockdown procedures in case of the loss of power, fire, or other emergencies. Telecare responded they are agreeable if the condition is code compliant and approved by the Building Official, Fire Marshall, and State Department of Health. The city's Building Division reviewed the letter and has the following comment: Item number 5 on page 5 is requesting the facility to be built as an I occupancy so that fire alarms will not automatically unlock all the doors. The use of this building will be classified as an I-2 occupancy. Wanting the doors not to automatically unlock in the event of a fire is a direct conflict with the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) sections 1008.1.9.6, 1008.1.9.7, and 1008.1.9.8. Any delayed egress, controlled egress, and special locks shall unlock when the fire alarm is activated, when the sprinkler system is activated, or there is loss of power. There are no exceptions to this code section. KinderCare requested the city allow a fence height of 10-12 feet. Telecare responded that they are agreeable to a fence along the property line. The project submittal includes a fence around the exercise yard. Per FWRC 19.125.160.5, fences and railings not over six feet in height may be located in required yards subject to the fence regulations contained within this chapter. The BC zone has no side yard setback and the front yard setback is 20 feet. Outside of the 20-foot front yard setback, a 10-foot tall fence could be approved with a building permit if it meets the design guidelines in the zoning code (see condition of approval pertaining to chain link). Staff understands there is ongoing deliberation regarding fencing options for the site and is interested in the final outcome. Staff reserves the right to condition the building permit regarding fencing requirements and installation. KinderCare requested that the current bramble between their center and the Telecare site be left in place to serve as a deterrent, and they encourage the city to retain the bramble in any approved landscaping plan. Telecare responded that they are agreeable to retaining the blackberry bramble on the northeast corner of the KinderCare fence. The city would typically recommend removal of blackberry, a Class C noxious weed, to help stop the spread of this species on and off site. Five feet of Type III vegetation is required along the property line. The city would prefer the blackberry be removed and is amenable and encourages use of other non -noxious weed, non-invasive, deterrent type landscaping such as thorny plants. 16. Transportation — For concurrency, a Capacity Reserve Certificate was issued in May 2016 for the project. The number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by the project is 10. Regarding street improvements, in March 2016 the project was granted a Right -of -Way Modification in accordance with FWRC 19.135.070(1). A traffic impact fee is required and will be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time a building permit application is filed and must be paid prior to permit issuance. 17. Stormwater — Stormwater improvements are required. The walls shown within the bioretention will require outside peer review. Additional review time and fees will be required on the building permit. 18. Water/Sewer — Lakehaven Utility District is the water and sewer service provider. Application to Lakehaven is required for any new or modified water or sewer service connections. Findings for Process II Site Plan Approval Page 5 Telecare Residential Treatment Facility File #16-100954-00-UP/Doc. I.D. 73866 19. Fire — Fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required. 20. Miscellaneous —At time of future permit submittal, correct the cross reference note on Sheet C2.01, it should reference Sheet CO. 01. 21. Decision Criteria — Staff finds the proposal is consistent with applicable site plan and community design guideline decisional criteria required for Process II as set forth in FWRC 19.60.050. The proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan; applicable provisions of FWRC Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code"; and public health, safety, and welfare. The streets and utilities in the area are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal, and the proposed access is at the optimal location and configuration. Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with Community Design Guideline decisional criteria set forth in FWRC Chapter 19.115, including the site design standards for all zones contained in FWRC 19.115.050 and applicable supplemental guidelines for the BC zone contained in FWRC 19.115.090.1. Final construction drawings will be reviewed for compliance with specific regulations, conditions of approval, and other applicable city requirements. These findings shall not waive compliance with future City of Federal Way codes, policies, and standards relating to this development. Prepared by: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh Findings for Process II Site Plan Approval Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Date: June 22, 2016 Page 6 File #16-100954-00-UP/Doc. I.D. 73866 Telecare King County E&T Acute Inpatient Care for Residents of South King County r � s Program Overview: The Telecare King County E&T program is scheduled to open in mid-December2017. The 16-bed program will provide inpatient mental health services to adults ages 18 and above who are experiencing acute psychiatric symptoms and require a secure environment. Telecare will provide 24-hour support in order to stabilize symptoms and prepare individuals served to return home, or, to lower levels of care in the community as appropriate. The estimated average length of stay will range from 10-15 days. South King County Focus: Ok 20-25% of all King County acute referrals come from South King County. • Until now, there were no E&T beds south of Tukwila to serve this area. South King County residents had to go to distant parts of the county to get care, which meant longer ambulance rides and more difficulty for family and community connections. • This new program will bring 16 beds serving approximately400 individuals per year in a recovery -based environment closer to home. Program Location: 33480 13th Pt S., Federal Way, WA 98003 R L ANF C.I.brat— Park o St Francis Hospital m - a West Hylebos Werlarrds Perk totlU Reamer High Srhuoi IM The Cwnmorn AI Ferlarm Wit 0 F�lin�i Faik Gall d Cuur�Lry Cluh �xNsa l xb rl..a. v A KITS CORNFR Walmart Suppercenter �aa . 0 ciamco Wholesale v L- Telecare Corporation I Respect. Recovery. Results. 1 www.te[ecarecorp.com Frequently Asked Questions The King County E&T will provide a healing environment to help individuals recover their health, hopes and dreams. Telecare's culture of recovery includes wrap -around support from a multi -disciplinary staff who constantly engage with clients to maintain a safe environment. Common questions are below. Admission Requirements • Clients admitted into the E&T will be adults aged 18 and above diagnosed with a severe mental illness. • Each referral will be screened for medical care needs, safety, and security to ensure appropriate admission to the E&T. Family Engagement • With the consent of the individual served, family and significant others are also included in treat- ment and discharge planning. Working with Police & ERs • Telecare ensures direct lines of communication with local police and has a history of maintaining excellent relationships. • Many referrals to the E&T come from local emergency departments. Telecare works with local EDs to establish transfer protocols and review the needs of each referred individual. The Importance of Acute Care Service Resources Staffing • Services are provided by or under the direction of licensed psychiatrists, advanced -trained mental health nurses, and mental health professionals. • Certified Peer Support Specialists are on staff and provide a living experience of hope and recovery. Integration of Care • Telecare ensures channels of communication and service coordination strategies are established between the E&T facility and other community resources, inpatient and outpatient community providers, law enforcement, hospital emergency departments, county courts, and other allied service providers. Facility Security • Telecare's acute inpatient facilities are designed with secure locks on all doors and windows. • The client recreation area will be secured with a high fence specifically designed for anti -climbing. Facility Campus • The Telecare King County E&T will be a single, standalone mental health facility. One in four adults are diagnosed with a mental illness in the United States. These individuals are our family members, our friends, our colleagues, and our neighbors. Without proper treatment, the severity of symptoms can increase, making it necessary for them to receive treatment in a mental health facility. When appropriate inpatient facilities are not available, individuals experiencing a mental health crisis are often in- voluntarily detained and forced to wait for treatment in hospital emergency departments. This practice is known as "psychiatric boarding." It has became a more prominent practice in recent years as the number of available psychi- atric beds significantly declined across the state. For people who desperately need services, psychiatric boarding can be physically and emotionally difficult. In response to the critical needs of the community, and a Washington State Supreme Court ruling making psychiatric boarding unlawful, Washington State and counties are investing millions of dollars to create more psychiatric beds to meet the growing demands for proper treatment of those with mental illness. In 2015, King County approved the funding for two 16-bed Evaluation and Treatment (E&T) programs to serve adults with serious mental illness, and identified Telecare as one of the service providers. Telecare Corporation Respect. Recovery. Results. www.telecarecorp.com KORSM0 C 0 N S T R U C T 1 0 N REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Project: Telecare — Federal Way REQUEST RFI No.: 983-034 Originator (Company Name): John Korsmo Construction, Inc. Item (Topic): Federal Way Site Concrete Color Requirement Referenced Drawing(s): N/A Referenced Spec Section: N/A Descri tion: _ Upon coordination with the City of Federal Way regarding requirements to acquire a temporary certificate of occupancy, it was brought to Korsmo's attention that all pedestrian pathways must be installed with an approve method of delineation. Approved methods of delineation include exposed aggregate; or stamped and colored concrete. The concrete is currently broom finished. Attached below is the color chart for the proposed colored sealer. Please advise with color moving forward. Date Reply Required Cost Effect? Yes 12-4-2017 Estimated Cost Increase? $ Estimated Cost Decrease? $ Subcontractor: Company Na No Signature Critical to Schedule? Yes Time Effect? Yes Estimated Time Increase? Estimated Time Decrease Date No No General Contractor: Daniel Velasco Project Superintendent 12-1.2017 Signature Title Date RESPONSE It shall be acceptable to provide concrete stain as proposed. Provide color: HC125 NEUTRAL TAN. Install per manufacturer's recommendations 01 DEC 2017 Days Days It is our opinion that this work is not extra to the contract and you are to proceed as directed. If you consider the direction given to be a change to the contract, written notification shall be provided to both the Owner and Architect within the number of days required by the contract fallowing receipt of this document. It is our opinion that this is extra to the contract and request that you prepare and submit a detailed cost proposed in accordance with the contract specifications. Approved By: _ Company Name Signature Date Create a beautiful landscape that is completely unique with H&C® COLORTOP" SOLVENT -BASED SOLID COLOR CONCRETE SEALER. This opaque, waterproofing sealer is formulated to bond with exterior bare concrete and masonry surfaces. It provides a long-lasting yet decorative finish. COLORTOP SOLVENT - BASED SOLID is available in over 30 tintable colors and a variety of popular prepackaged semi -gloss colors, as well as clear, which has a gloss finish. FEATURES & BENEFITS: a Decorates, seals and protects bare concrete surfaces e Sotvent-based silicone acrylic formulation • For use on bare exterior horizontal or vertical surfaces a Resistant to salts, acids, alkalis, water, LIV rays, oil, wet or dry abrasion and premature color loss v Available in a variety of ready -to -use and tintable colors - see page 17 9 Suitable for vehicular traffic RECOMMENDED USES: Driveways * Stadium supports Patios and walkways ■ Bridges/structures Pool decks v Parking garages a Garage floors a Block and stucco walls v Concrete athletic courts PRODUCT INFORMATION: COVERAGE & DRYING TIME: 'Coverage: sq. ftJgal Concrete floors 200-250 Porous concrete 150-200 Concrete block 125-150 Split faced block 100125 Fluted block 75-100 Brick (clay) 100-150 `Coverage will vary depending on the porosity and texture of the substrate Drying time, @ 771% 50% RH: temperature and humidity dependent Touch: 15 minutes Light foot traffic 1 hour Light traffic & recoat 12 hours Heavy traffic 72 - 96hrs Static coefficient of friction: .6 VOC: 542 g/L; 4.52 lb/gal" "May vary by color llesedptloc MN un = Peck 111FA1pibn sxur 1119 W Peah ftermtaan um saes Pads 1 Gallon -Tint Base -Extra While 10.1401416 035A1I18104 65WI 0 4 1 Gallon — Bombay 10.100054-16 03511T12M 65011RD 4 1 Gallon — Pearl Gray 10.10011446 03 M11678 1011310 4 5Gallon-Tint Base -Extra White IOINO15-20 DEMO 650n1427 1 5Gallon —Bombay 10.lo0055-20 Oi TM269 65 M29 I 5Gallon—PeadGrav 10.100115-20 039M28685 650M B I 1Gallon-Tint Base -Deep 10.116014-16 03SIIR2BHlB 650435 4 1Gallon —BdckRed 10.100064-16 03912VA 650TUR 4 1Gallon —Sandstone 10.10012416 0397TO8692 650111A6 4 5Gallon-Tint Base -Deep 10.116015-20 O3Sri S845 650211443 1 5Gallon —Brick Red 10.100065-20 03511R28543 6SOM45 1 5Gallon —Sandstone 10.100125-20 03522R2B100 650711344 1 1Gallon-(lean 10.10000416 0357173281DI 650922974 4 1Gallon —(harcoal 10.100074-16 035T7M16 65OhM 4 1Gallon —Silver Gray 10300144-16 D3577R28715 650hM 4 5Gallon-(lear 10.100005-20 OMZ8118 6509R982 1 5Gallon —Charcoal 10.100075-20 035080 6507050 1 5Gallon —SBverGray 10.100145-20 035TM722 6507IN 1 tGallon-Black 10.100024-16 039TIM017 65011079 4 1Gallon —Gull Gray 1o.100084-16 039TI228M 65=78 4 1Gallon —Terracotta 10.100154.16 03511R28139 650MO 4 5Gallon —Black 10.100025-20 035TMOB4 65071M 1 5Gallon —Gull Gray 10.100095-20 035108647 6SOMM 1 5Gallon —Terracotta 10.100155-20 03517MOM 650711385 1 1Gallon —Autumn Brown 10.100034-16 030228548 65 M95 4 1Gallon —Patio Green 10.100104-16 03971228654 650MZ94 4 lollon—Tile Red 10.100164-16 03M28760 650M3 4 5Gallon —Autumn Brown 10J00035-20 035M555 65071203 1 5Gallon —Patio Green IOJODIOS-20 035177=1 650 M I 5Gallon —Tile Red IOJO0165-20 OETM28M 650111401 i For more information, about H&C" products call1-800-867-8246. GOLORTOP" & AGRYLA-DE J AVAILABLE COLORS Tintable palette colors for COLORTOP'" and A(RYLA-DECK° Systems are a representation. Actual color will vary due to the concrete finishing method (how smooth or porous the surface is), producing a mottling or distressed appearance. Tile Red* H(110 Naturally Red HC126 Terracotta** Terracotta Orange H(159 White -Washed HC135 Aztec Sand Terracotta Sandstone* HC157 Bombay* H(133 Cemented Deal Hint of Gray HC156 Muddy Gray* H(172 Autumn Brown Gray Horizons H(140 Gull Gray* Brick Red H( Charcoal H(132 Pearl Gray HCiG1�4oi au tR'—Hfi Terra HC102 Extra White* HC148 i Neutral Balance Tan HC125 S' Chocolate HC117 Fall Grass H(145 HC141 Siberian Haze H(149 Fresh Concrete H(165 Patio Green* HC105 HC101 Charred Walnut HC109 Cabernet Brown** HC107 Bombay Breeze HC146 H(164 Silver bray* HC Austrian Evening HC154 Miami Accent HC124 Black* HC108 Drive -In Twilight** HC155 HC153 Sunset Terrain HC169 F Colors available in COLORTOP Solid Color, A(RYLA-DECK 100% Acrylic Deck (oating Color available only in Color Top Water -Based Solid Color and ACRYLA-DECK (OOL FEEL'". COOL FEEL Technology helps enable a surface temperature reduction, **May be available as pre -mixed colors M 2 FIND YOUR INSPIRATION AT MACCONCRETE.C1om CITY OF �. . Federal Way April 28, 2016 Ms. Christine Phillips BCRA Design 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Re: File #16-100954-00-UP; TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS Telecare Residential Treatment Facility, 33430 13th Place South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Phillips: City departments/divisions have the following comments that will need to be addressed prior to land use application approval, or as otherwise noted. The Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) is available online (%vww cade�ublishu7g�comlWA Federal%Vay ). Questions regarding the technical review comments should be addressed to the staff representative. Stacey Welsh — Planning Division, (253) 835-2634, stacev.welsh mlciiyoffederahvay.com 1. Sheet CO. 01 (Cover Sheet) a. Easements should not be subtracted from net site area, only the critical area should be deducted. 2. Sheet C1.01 (TESC & Demolition Plan) a. Are the dark lines proposed finished contours? Are retaining walls proposed (also see Comment #7 below)? 3. Sheet CO. 01 & Sheet C2.01 (Cover Sheet & Site Plan) a. Both sheets function as a site plan due to the nature of their contents; either merge the documents or have a cross reference note. b. The drive aisle width needs to be 25' per Bulletin 042,' for 90-degree 9'x18' parking stalls. c. The resubmittal shows the exercise yard has been moved and now there is no exit from the building directly into the yard area. Staff verified that there are no changes proposed to the floor plan. Please address safety in regards to accessing the exercise yard area. d. What is the height of the proposed exercise yard fence? Per FWRC 19.125.120, `Barbed wire is permitted only atop a fence or a wall at least six feet in height or between two agricultural uses." Razor wire fences are prohibited in the city per FWRC 19.125.140. e. Per FWRC 19.115.050(4)(b), pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas should be delineated by separate paved routes using a variation in paved texture and color; and protected from abutting Ms. Christine Phillips Page 2 April 28, 2016 vehicle circulation areas with landscaping. Approved methods of delineation include: stone, brick, or granite pavers; exposed aggregate; or stamped and colored concrete. Paint striping on asphalt as a method of delineation is not encouraged. Revise plans as necessary to meet this standard. 4. Sheet L1.01 & L2.00 (Ca6vi Plan & Landscape Plan) a. Remove the bark mulch and landscaping shown along the southern and eastern property lines of the eastern parcel within the stream and buffer area. i. In the October 29, 2015, preapplication summary, on page 5 it states: "Retaining existing vegetation behind the building in the eastern portion of the site. The question was asked if required landscaping will need to be placed in front of the retained vegetation. The response is no, unless additional plantings are warranted to achieve the equivalent of the Type III landscaping (see FWRC 129.125.040[1])." b. Label the screening around the trash enclosure as five feet of Type I landscaping. c. The parking stalls located off of 13th Place South need additional screening from the right-of-way per FWRC 19.125.070(5)(a). d. Five feet of landscaping is required on all property lines except the area within the stream and buffer. Landscaping is missing from the northern property line. Note where placement of landscaping is not possible due to easement(s) and show the location(s) where landscaping is provided instead. 5. Elevations a. On the west view there is a windowless section that needs to meet FWRC 19.125.040(22), screening of blank walls. b. No detail is provided for the trash enclosure to ensure compliance with FWRC 19.125.150(6). On page 3, under item 3(a) of the Site Plan Review Criteria Narrative, it states that, "...trees on the east side of the property will be maintained and cleared of dense undergrowth and invasive species, such as blackberry, to improve safety and create a pleasant setting for the clients and employees, while also providing screening." Review FWRC 19.145.110(7) and 19.145.120(6) and (7) with regard to vegetation clearing and invasive species removal within critical areas and their buffers. Clarify what, if anything, is planned for this activity, especially as it pertains to the stream and buffer, and submit information to obtain any necessary critical area approval as part of this Use Process II review. 7. On page 2 of the Design Narrative, it mentions retaining walls. Provide further detail on the location, purpose, height, and design of any planned retaining walls. Please review FWRC Section 19.120.120(3)-(7) for zoning code requirements for retaining walls. 8. See the enclosed letters from the Federal Way School District (March 9, 2016), and from KinderCare, (April 18, 2016). BCRA has indicated they will be addressing these comments; please provide that response with the resubmittal. Peter Lawrence — Building Division, (253) 835-2621, eter.la ence ci of£ederalwa m No building comments at this time; will comment when building permits are applied for. File #16-100954-00-UP Doc. I.D. 72809 Ms. Christine Phillips Page 3 April 28, 2016 Ann Dower - PW Development Services Division, (253) 835-2732, ann. dower ci ❑€federalway.com The following technical comments must be addressed: Technical Information Report Infiltration testing must be completed per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDNI) before the stormwater treatment and flow control can be approved. Please contact SWM Engineering Technician Paul Heller at haul.lyeller@dtyoffederalway.com, or (253) 835- 2754 to complete the information gaps in the downstream analysis. Assumptions are not necessary as the information is available and must be included. In Figure 7, show the downstream manhole location. Indicate how far this is from the site. Include information for the drainage system for a distance of'A mile downstream of the site. Interviews with downstream property owners and/or information from other technical information reports may be used. Stormwater calculations will be reviewed during the building permit review. Pollution -generating pervious surface (lawn), unless fully dispersed, is required to be treated. Please explain why 0.38 acres of lawn in Basin 2 does not require treatmerit (page 35). Provide a basin asap showing all basins on this site. Plans Provide two cross-section views of the bioretention and flow control system. Sarady Long - Public Works Traffic Division (253) 835-2743, sarady.long�7c[�MXoffederalway.com Comments to follow at a later date. Brian Asbury - Lakehaven Utility District, (253) 946-5407, hashurv@_lakehaven.org Upon review of the submittal and the recorded private sewer easement shown on the plans (Sheet C3.01, KCAF 20070619000569)., it does provide a path from the subject property and new building to the existing 40' wide ingress/egress/utilities easement along the north 20' of the subject property and the south 20' of the adjacent parcel (7681900045). At that point, there is direct path/access east in the 40' wide easement to parcel 7681900030. All that is needed from Lakehaven will be any new/modified water or sewer service connections. Reference the October 29, 2015, preapplication conference summary for additional project comments. Vince Faranda - South King Fire & Rescue, (253) 946-7242, vince.faranda&outhldn __ org- Fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required. Doc. I.D. 72809 File #16-100954-00-UP Ms. Christine Phillips Page 4 April 28, 2016 CLOSING Please submit revised application materials as appropriate, accompanied by the completed "Resubmittal Information Form" (enclosed). Pursuant to FWRC 19.15.050, if an applicant fails to provide additional information to the city within 180 days of being notified that such information is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the city shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decisions with respect to such an application. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at stacey.welsh@ci offederalway.com, or (253) 835-2634. Sincerely, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner enc March 9, 2016, Letter from Federal Way Public Schools April 18, 2016, Letter from KinderCare Resubmittal Information Form c: Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Vince Faranda, South King Fire & Rescue Cameron Coltharp, Telecare Corp., 1080 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 100, Alameda, CA 94501 File #16-100953-00-UP Doc. I.D. 72809 Federal Way Public Schools i • March 9, 2016 Stacy Welsh, Planner City of Federal Way 33325 St'' Ave S Federal Way WA 98003-6325 RE: Telecare Residential Treatment Facility, Application No. 16-100954-UP Dear Ms. Welsh: Business Office This letter is in response to the Development Review Committee Transmittal on the proposed Telecare Residential Treatment Facility. The proposed facility will provide mental health treatment services. This site is located near Federal Way Public Schools' Support Services Center, 1211 S 332Id St, Federal Way 99003, & Nutrition Services facility,1214 S 332"d St, Federal Way 98003. The District understands and supports the needs for such facilities and has appreciated the early conversations with City staff and Telecare represenatives. but has concerns related to the safety of our employees at these sites. We understand that this facility is still in the review process but would like to comment on enhancement related to elopements which was discussed with Telecare representatives during our earlier conversations. We understand that in the event of client elopement local law enforcement would be called per the pre -established directive of local law enforcement. Our specific concern is that the District facilities may not be notified in a timely fashion to provide safety for our employees. We request that the District security office also be notified in the event an elopement occurs so that District protocols can be initiated. The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed facility and reserves the right for further comment as additional information becomes available. Sincerely, (3 "1 6 & 0�w Sally D. McLean Assistant Superintendent: Finance & Operations cc: Dr. Tammy Campbell, Superintendent Dr. Dani Pfeiffer, Deputy Superintendent Cindy Wendland, Director of Support Services Dave Remmen, Security & Safety Manager Tanya Nascimento, Student & Demographic Forecaster Federal Way Public Schools — All Means All 33330 8" Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 1 p.253.945.2071 j f.253.941.04421 www.fwps.org rKinderCare EDUCATION'" April 18, 2016 Michael Morales Director Department of Community Development City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave. S. Federal Way, WA 98003 Dear Mr. Morales: I am writing today to offer KinderCare Education's comments on the Notice of Master Land Use Application for the Telecare Residential Treatment Facility proposed for location off of 13' Place South, Parcels 768190-0010 and 768190-0020. We presently operate the West Campus KinderCare Learning Center located at 33504 131 Place South, Federal Way, Washington 98003, which is immediately next door to the proposed Telecare Residential Treatment Facility referenced above. Our West Campus KinderCare Learning Center provides high -quality early care and education to infants as young as six weeks of age and children up to age 12 through our before and after school and summer programs. While we certainly understand the need for the City to better provide for those experiencing an immediate mental health crisis, we hope the City can understand and appreciate the safety concerns the proposed Telecare facility poses for the parents of the very young and vulnerable children whom we serve. On Thursday, April 14, 2016, we had our first detailed conversation with representatives from Telecare concerning its proposed application. While we gained much needed clarification on several points, several questions and concerns remain that we must raise to address concerns for the safety of our children. We have committed to meeting with Telecare on site on Tuesday, May 10, 2106, when we hope to gain further clarification on the operation of the proposed facility and to discuss in more depth potential needed processes as well as building design and layout features that address the safety needs for our children. Should the City proceed with approval of the Master Land Use Application for the Telecare Residential Treatment Facility, we sincerely hope that the City will help us and the children we serve in ensuring that Telecare addresses each of our concerns in a comprehensive and forthright manner. Please find below a listing of our outstanding questions and concerns. Past Patient History We understand from Telecare that the majority of its anticipated patients pose a greater risk to themselves than to others. Although indicating they were highly doubtful, when asked Telecare was unable to answer whether any patients would be registered sex offenders or would have committed or pose a risk to committing harm against a child. For the safety of children, we most strongly request that any patient known to be a registered sex offender or known to pose a risk to children be sent to another facility that is not located next to a child care facility. Patient 'T"rarisport We understand from Telecare that all patients will be transported to the proposed Telecare facility via ambulance or law enforcement vehicle. While it appears that patient intake will be out of sight from our facility, we wish to ensure that remains the case and that our children either inside or outside of our facility are not exposed to the sight of patients restrained on a gurney or in handcuffs. Additionally, we have questions on sound and request to limit the use of sirens which can be alarming and disruptive to young children. Staff to Patient Ratios We could like to better understand the direct care staff -to -patient ratios that will be followed for all shifts at the proposed facility. Telecare has indicated to us that it operates well above State requirements, but indicated it would need to follow up with us regarding what the State specifically requires. From a staffing count Telecare provided to us, it seems the night shift maintains the lowest staff -to -patient ratio. We would like to discuss with Telecare having additional staff on the night shift for the hours we are open. Our center welcomes children as early as 6:00 AM. Notification upon Patient Escane/Elonement Telecare has indicated to us that a small number of patients have escaped/eloped from another of its facilities in the past and that most patients who escape/elope typically seek to get as far away from the facility as possible. Telecare also indicted that it would be willing to put into place notification procedures with KinderCare should a patient escape/elope from its facility. Prior to the City approving this Master Plan application, we believe it is essential that such a plan be formalized and agreed to by KinderCare that clearly lays out the process for notification and the steps to be taken by Telecare and/or local law enforcement to ensure that an escaped/eloped patient is no longer in the immediate area and poses no danger to our children or staff. Facility Lockdown Procedures in Case of Toss of Power Fire or Other Eme encies Telecare has indicated to us that should there be a loss of power, the proposed facility will have an emergency generator that kicks on within six seconds of a power loss. Additionally, Telecare has indicated that a battery backup system will keep the facility doors locked until the generator kicks on. In the case of a fire alarm, however, the doors will automatically unlock unless the City approves the facility for an "I" occupancy. We strongly encourage the city to approve the facility for an "I" occupancy. While we most certainly understand the real and immediate need to evacuate patients in the case of an emergency, prior to approving Telecare's application we believe it essential that Telecare present a formalized plan, to be agreed to by KinderCare, that clearly lays out the process for notification in the case of an emergency and the steps to be taken by Telecare and/or local law enforcement to ensure that patients do not pose a flight risk. Additionally, in the event of a patient escaping/eloping .during an evacuation procedure we ask that the plan include the steps to be taken by Telecare and/or local law enforcement to ensure that an escaped/eloped patient is no longer in the immediate area and poses no danger to our children or staff. Fencing, Visibility, and Landscaping Telecare has indicated to us that fencing will be built between its facility and our center. Telecare has also indicated that the proposed site will have one outdoor courtyard for patients that will be fenced. Although it is our understanding that standard fence height is 6 feet tall, Telecare has indicated that it is willing to ask the City to approve a fence height of no less than 10 feet tall. To ensure the safety of our children and to limit visibility, we most strongly encourage the City to approve a fence height of 10-12 feet tall. Additionally, we have discussed with Telecare our desire that the approved fencing have screens or slats to limit patient visibility of our children and vice versa. From the way that the building is proposed to sit, it is our understanding that three patient rooms may potentially have visibility into our playground. Again, to limit visibility of our children, we ask that fencing with screening or slats be allowed. Finally, we have asked Telecare that the current bramble between our center and its proposed site be left in place as it could serve as a deterrent to entering into our facility should a patient leave the proposed site unsupervised. We strongly encourage the City to retain the bramble in any approved landscaping plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Master Land Use Application for the Telecare Residential Treatment Facility proposed for location off of 13' Place South, Parcels 768190-0010 and 768190- 0020. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly by phone at (703)789-7969 or by email at esims@kc-edLication.com kc-education.com Sincerely, Celia Hartman Sims Vice President, Government Relations CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL RESUBMITTAL DATE: 5-24-16 TO: Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Vince Faranda, South King Fire & Rescue Tanya Nascimento, Federal Way School District Lindsey Sperry, Public Safety Officer Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer FROM: Stacey Welsh, Planning COMMENTS: Please provide any comments/conditions by 6-7-16. FILE NUMBER(s): 16-100954-00-UP RELATED FILE NOS.: 15-105024-PC, 16-100956-SM, 16-100955-CN PROJECT NAME: TELECARE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY PROJECT ADDRESS: 13th PL S, (parcels #7681900010 & 7681900020) ZONING DISTRICT: BC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed 11,500 square foot, 16-bed treatment facility with associated site improvements. LAND USE PERMITS: Use Process II PROJECT CONTACT: BCRA DESIGN CHRISTINE PHILLIPS 2106 PACIFIC AVE, SUITE 300 TACOMA WA 98402 MATERIALS RESUBMITTED: Response Letter TIR Updated drawings: civil, landscaping, elevation, floor plan 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 May 12, 2016 MAY 12 2016 Stacey Welsh City of Federal Way CITY OF FEL)ERAL WAy 33325 8th Avenue S CDs Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 RE-. File #16-100954-00-UP; Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Response to TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS, dated April 28, 2016 Dear Stacey, Attached please find 8 copies of updated plans with revisions bubbled. Also included are 4 copies of the Preliminary Technical Information Report, referenced in the Public Works comments. The following comments are laid out to follow your Technical Review Comment letter of April 26, 2016. Planning Comments 1. Sheet C0.01 a. Easements should not be subtracted from net site area. Only the critical area should be deducted. Response: Net site area has been recalculated and modified on Sheet CO.01. 2. Sheet C1.01 a. Are the dark lines proposed finished contours? Are retaining walls proposed? Response: Yes, the dark lines shown on C1.01 are proposed finished contours and retaining walls are proposed. See response to Comment #7 below. 3. Sheet C0.01 & Sheet C2.01 a. Both sheets function as a site plan due to the nature of their contents; either merge the documents or have a cross reference note. Response: A cross reference note has been added to sheets CO.01 and C2.01. b. The drive aisle width needs to be 25' per "Bulletin 042", for 90-degree 9'x18' parking stalls. Response: Drive aisle widths inside the proposed parking area have been adjusted to 25 feet. BCRADESIGN.COM Zi - r M 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 c. The resubmittal shows the exercise yard has been moved and now there is no exist from the building directly into the yard area. Response: Floor plans and civil drawings have been updated to odd a direct door to the exercise yard. What is the height of the proposed exercise yard fence? Per FWRC 19.125.120, "Barbed wire is permitted only atop a fence or a wall at least six feet in height or between two agricultural uses." Razor wire fences are prohibited in the city per FWRC 19.125.140. Response: Height offence is proposed to be 10 feet. No barbed or razor wire is proposed. Per FWRC 19.115.050(4)(b), pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas should be delineated by separate paved routes using a variation in paved texture and color; and protected from abutting vehicle circulation areas with landscaping. Approved methods of delineation include: stone, brick, or granite pavers; exposed aggregate; or stamped and colored concrete. Pain striping on asphalt as a method of delineation is not encouraged. Revise plan as necessary to meet this standard. Response: A note has been added to Sheet C2.01 stating that pedestrian pathways and pedestrian areas should be exposed aggregate or stamped and colored concrete per FWRC 19.115.050(4)(b). 4. Sheet L1.01 & L2.00 Remove the bark mulch and landscaping shown along the southern and eastern property lines of the eastern parcel within the stream and buffer area. Response: Removed mulch and landscaping from the plans in this area. b. Label the screening around the trash enclosure as five feet of Type I Landscaping. Response: Have added label to plan. c. The parking stalls located off of 13th Place South need additional screening from the right-of- way per FWRC 19.125.070(5)(a). Response: After reviewing the code, we believe we are in compliance with FWRC 19.125.070(5)(a). We have screened these stalls with trees and shrubs that provide more screening than a 3' berm would, as the Clethra olnifolia shrubs along this area reach 4' in height. Five feet of landscaping is required on all property lines except the area within the stream and buffer. Landscaping is missing from the northern property line. Note where placement of landscaping is not possible due to easements and show the location(s) where landscaping is provided instead. Response: We have added a note indicating that screening was not feasible along the north property line due to a 40' ingress/utility easement, and that we have placed the screening just to the south of this easement. We have added 3 additional trees to the screening in this area to fully achieve the screening requirement. The screening requirement for the north property File #16-100954-00-UP; Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Response to TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS, dated April 28, 2016 Page 2 of 5 .� 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 line of the eastern parcel closer to the stream is met by all the existing trees and vegetation, so we have not added additional screening in this area, per FWRC 129.125.040(1). 5. Elevations a. On the west view there is a windowless section that needs to meet FWRC 19.125.040(22), screening of blank walls. Response: A window has been added to this wall to comply with minimum blank wall requirements. See revised Elevation drawing. No detail is provided for the trash enclosure to ensure compliance with FFWRC 19.125.150(6). Response: Trash enclosure details have been added to drawings. See sheet A1.51. 6. Site Plan Review Narrative, page 3. Response: Landscaping plans have been revised and no activity is planned for the stream buffer area. Invasive species will be removed only from the outer edges of the wooded area and be maintained so that it doesn't intrude into the yard area of the property. Also see extent of Clearing Limits (CL) line indicated on C1.01. 7, Design Narrative, page 2. Response: A retaining wall is proposed along three sides of the bioretention cell. Additional information regarding the proposed wall has been added to the plan and section views. See Civil Drawing sheets C3.01, C3.02 & C3.03. 8. Letters from Federal Way School District and KinderCare. Response: See detailed responses at end of this document. Buiidina Cornrnents No comments until Building Permit. Public Works— Development Services Comments 1. Technical Information Report: 4 copies of updated Preliminary TIR is included with submittal. A geotechnical report showing infiltration test data has been included as Figure 13. • The downstream analysis has been completed due to information provided bySWM Engineering Technician Paul Heller. Refer to Section 3.0 for an updated downstream narrative. It is understood that stormwater calculations will be revised during the building permit review. Pollution -generating pervious surfaces are now shown discharging to the proposed bioretention cell. File #16-100954-00-UP; Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Response to TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS, dated April 28, 2016 Page 3 of 5 T 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 I� Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 2. Plans: • Two cross-section views of the bioretention cell and flow control system have been added to the drawings. Public Works — Traffic Division Comments No comments from traffic at the time of the comment letter. Lakehaven Utilit District Comments 1. Water and sewer service improvements will be coordinated with Lakehaven Utility District at the same time as the building permit review. South King Fire & Rescue Comments 1. Fire sprinkler and fire alarms systems will be provided in the building as is required by code. Public Comments Federal Way Public School District 1. FWSD security office would like to be notified in the event of an escape/elopement due to proximity of facility to their Support Services Center. Response: Telecare will agree to provide notice of elopements when, in their sole clinical judgement, notice is warranted. That is, if a patient represents a potential risk to the community. When providing such notice, they will indicate that a client has eloped but cannot provide any private health information (such as the patient's name) to third parties. KinderCare 1. Requests that known sex offenders be sent to another facility. Response: Telecare cannot agree to this, the facility is an emergency service and the legal status of transfers is unknown to staff upon arrival. 2. Requests that patient transport into and out of the facility be not visible from the KinderCare site. Response: Cameron Coltharp met with KinderCare on 5110116 and walked the site, demonstrating the location of the patient transport area. KinderCare is comfortable that the orientation of the building will not allow for the admission area to be seen. 3. Requests that extra staff be added to the night shift during the times that KinderCare is open to children. Response: Telecare will not agree as proposed staffing is both operationally and clinically appropriate. File #16-100954-00-UP; Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Response to TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS, dated April 28, 2016 Page 4 of 5 �y 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 l J Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 4. Requests that Telecare formalize a client escape plan and that KinderCare agrees to. Response: Telecare will agree to provide notice of elopements when, in their sole clinical judgement, notice is warranted. That is, if a patient represents a potential risk to the community. When providing such notice, they will indicate that a client has eloped but cannot provide any private health information (such as the patient's name) to third parties. 5. Requests City to require the facility to be built based on an I occupancy so that fire alarms will not automatically unlock all the doors. Response: Telecare is agreeable to having the building remain locked upon fire alarm activation provided the condition is code compliant and approved by the City Building Official, City Fire Marshall and State Department of Health. 6. Requests that City allow a fully screening, 10' tall fence around the outdoor recreation area. Response: Telecare is agreeable to a screened (interwoven vinyl slats) along the property line area (final placement to depend on the location of the underground storm drain). 7. Requests that existing blackberry brambles between Telecare and KinderCare be left in place to discourage escape through to KinderCare. Response: Telecare is agreeable to allowing the blackberry brambles to remain (on the Northeast corner of the KinderCare fence. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Christine Phillips, Senior Planner BCRA File #16-100954-00-UP; Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Response to TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS, dated April 28, 2016 Page 5 of 5 CITY of --_. Estimate of Development Traffic Impact Fees 2017 Federal Way Scroll down and complete the steps outlined below: Please fill in the required information in the yellow highlighted boxes. STEP 91: General Information Enter information Project Name Telecare Treatment Faci File Number 16-105024-00-CO Street Address 33430 13th PI S City, State Zip Federal Way, WA 98003 Parcel Number (s) Traffic Impact Fee Estimated By SL Is this project locate within the City Center Zone? If "YES", please use City Center Impact Fee sheet. STEP #2: Land Use Type Select the proposed Land Use Type(s) from the drop down memu below. Enter the proposed number of units for the Project 1) 1 Drug Treatment Center (Telecare) 2) "'NONE"` 3) *'NONE*" 4) '"NONE'* Unit of Measure sf/GFA N/A N/A N/A Number of Unit(s) 11470 9 Impact Fee Rate per Preliminary Impact 3.81 $ 43,705.15 $ 43,705.15 STEP #3 - Credit/Change in Use (If Applicable) This step applies to development proposal to change existing building or dwelling use. Provide any impact fee previouly paid for the land use category of the prior use IMPACT FEE AMOUNT PAID FOR (Do not include administration fees). PRIOR USE For a change in use of an existing building, the impact fee will be assessed based on the difference between the new uses and the prior use. If no impact fee was required for the prior use, the impact fee for the new use shall be reduced by the amount equal to the current impact fee rate in affect for the prior use. Fill out the lines below of the prior use. Unit of Number of Impact Fee Rate per Preliminary Impact Proposed Land Use rype (s) Measure Unit(s) Unit of Measure Fee Amount 1) "`NONE" N/A $ $ 2) '"NONE'* N/A $ $ 3) 'NONE"' N/A $ $ STEP #4: Total Impact Fee Calculate estimated Total Traffic Impact Fee payment amount, including Administrative Fees. (8036) - Traffic Impact Fee (Before adjustment) $ 43,705.15 Credit/Adjustment including Change of Use $ (8036-1) Administrative Fee (3%) $ 1,311.15 TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PAYMENT ESTIMATE $ 45,016.31 19.100.070 - Timing of Fee:Trans ortation Impact Fee Payment FWRC 19.100.070 3(a) - For commercial developments, fees shall be calculated based on the impact fee schedule in effect at the time a completed building permit application is filed and paid prior to permit issuance. For a change in use for which no building permit is required, the fee shall be calculated and paid based on the impact fee schedule in effect on the date of an approved change of use. FWRC 19.100.070 3(c) - For all applications for single-family, multifamily residential building permits, and manufactured home permits, the total amount of the impact fees shall be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit is issued, using the fee schedule then in effect. 19.100.075 - Option for Deferred Payment of Transportation Impact Fee An applicant may request, at any time prior to building permit issuance, and consistent with the requirements of this section, to defer to final building inspection the payment of a transportation impact fee for a single-family residential dwelling unit. Refer to defer payment of impact fee code for process. 31919 11t Ave S, Suite 101 Federa , Way, WA 98003 1 253.925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way - Community Development as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive week(s), commencing on the 1st day of April 2016, and ending on the 1st day of April 2016 , both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of 1$ 06.71, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.020. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 15th day of AA riQ i 2016. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Buckley •w`FER A AND "�. ��� ��j5sioh ��A'� �J!•� PUBLIC ' k % r a "fill 11 wA�H��" `��� Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Telecare Residential Treatment Fa- cility Project Description: Proposed 11,500 square foot, 16-bed residential treatment facility and associated site improvements. Agent: BCRA, 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300, Ta- coma, WA 98402 Project Location: Off of 13th Place South; Parcels 768190-0010 & 768190-0020 Date of Application: February 22, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 1, 2016 Public Comments Due: April 18, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: The applicant requests a Use Process II decision (file #16-100954-00-UP) is- sued by the Director of Community Development pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.60. Additional permits and/or approvals in conjunction with the Use Process II decision in- clude Concurrency (file #16-100955-00-CN) and a Street Modification Request (file #16-100956-00- SM). Environmental Documents: Stream Report and Technical Information Report. Development Regulations to Be Used for Project Mitigation: FWRC Title 16, "Surface Water Management"; and Title 19, "Zoning and Develop- ment Code." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regula- tions: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC, 2009 King County Surface Water De- sign Manual as amended by the City of Federal Way, and the Public Works Department Develop- ment Standards. Public Comment & Appeals: The official project file is available for public review at the Community De- velopment Department (address below). Any per- son may submit written comments on the Use Pro- cess II application to the Director of Community Development by April 18, 2016. Only the applicant, persons who submit written documents to the di- rector, or persons who specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the director's decision. Availability of File and Environmental Documents: The official project file and referenced environmen- tal documents are available for public review dur- ing normal business hours at the Community De- velopment Department, 33325 8th Avenue South, 2nd Floor, Federal Way, WA 98003. Staff Contact: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh, 253- 835-2634, stacey.welsh@cityoffederalway.com Printed in the Federal Way Mirror April 1, 2016. FWM 2335 _t t 40k CITY Federalo. Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, Stacey Welsh hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/orxosted to or at each of the attached addresses on April 1st , 2016. Project Name Telecare Residential Treatment Facility File Number(s) # 16-100954-00-UP; file # 16-100955-00-CN; file # 16-100956-00-SM Signature �"� Date C:\Users\swelsh\Desktop\Declaration of Disthbution.doc/Last printed 4/1 /2016 2:15:00 PM Posted Sites: Federal Way City Hall: 33325 8th Ave South Federal Way Library: 34200 1 It Way South Federal Way 320th Library: 848 S. 320th St Site Parcels: 768190-0010 & 768190-0020 C:\Users\swelsh\Desktop\Declafation of Distdbution.doc/Last printed 4/1 /2016 2:15:00 PM CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Project Description: Proposed 11,500 square foot, 16-bed residential treatment facility and associated site improvements. Agent: BCRA, 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402 Project Location: Off of 13"' Place South Parcels 768190-0010 & 768190-0020 Date of Application: February 22, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 1, 2016 Public Comments Due: April 18, 2016 HFI S 332ND S C U�.... , a SITEFA7— Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: The applicant requests a Use Process 11 decision (file 416-100954-00-UP) issued by the Director of Community Development pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.60. Additional permits and/or approvals in conjunction with the Use Process 11 decision include Concurrency (file #16-100955-00-CN) and a Street Modification Request (file #16-10095.6-00-SM). Environmental Documents: Stream Report and Technical Information Report. Development Regulations to Be Used for Project Mitigation: FWRC Title 16, "Surface Water Management"; and Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC, 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Federal Way, and the Public Works Department Development Standards. Public Comment & Appeals: The official project file is available for public review at the Community Development Department (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the Use Process II application to the Director of Community Development by April 18, 2016. Only the applicant, persons who submit written documents to the director, or persons who specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the director's decision. Availability of File and Environmental Documents: The official project file and referenced environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, 33325 8"' Avenue South, 2"d Floor, Federal Way, WA 98003. Staff Contact: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh, 253-835-2634, stacey.welsh@cityoffederalway.com Printed in the Federal Way Mirror April 1, 2016. .4k CITY 10'::tSP OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffedo.ralway.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION 1, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a. 19 Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was L ❑mailed ❑ faxed X e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on L]rrr . 3-1 2016. Project Name File Number(s) I `I ` 6- I� � J �G ��� 223 Signature . Date 3 -31- lZ( K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 3/31 /2016 8:19:00 AM A�k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Project Description: Proposed 11,500 square foot, 16-bed residential treatment facility and associated site improvements. Agent: BCRA, 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402 Project Location: Off of 13`h Place South; Parcels 768190-0010 & 768190-0020 Date of Application: February 22, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 1, 2016 Public Comments Due: April 18, 2016 Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: The applicant requests a Use Process II decision (file #16-100954-00-UP) issued by the Director of Community Development pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.60. Additional permits and/or approvals in conjunction with the Use Process 1I decision include Concurrency (file #16-100955-00-CN) and a Street Modification Request (file #16-100956-00-SM). Environmental Documents: Stream Report and Technical Information Report. Development Regulations to Be Used for Project Mitigation: FWRC Title 16, "Surface Water Management"; and Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC, 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the C its of Federal Way, and the Public Works Department Development Standards. Public Comment & Appeals: The official project file is available for public review at the Community Development Department (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the Use Process II application to the Director of Community Development by April 18, 2016. Only the applicant, persons who submit written documents to the director, or persons who specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the director's decision. Availability of File and Environmental Documents: The official project file and referenced environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, 33325 8`h Avenue South, 2A Floor, Federal Way, WA 98003. Staff Contact: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh, 253-835-2634, Stacey.welsh@cityoffederalway.com Printed in the Federal Way Mirror April 1, 2016. Tina Piet From: Jennifer Anderson <jnderson@fedwaymirror.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:15 PM To: Tina Piety Subject: Re: Legal Notice Got it, thanks! Jennifer Anderson Advertising Sales Consultant Direct: 253-946-2890 Internal: 35602 Fax: 253-925-5750 31919 1st Ave S, Ste 101, Federal Way, WA 98003 101- Sound Publishing Map printRatq Online Rates Media Kit Sound lnro On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Tina Piety alway.com> wrote: Hello, Please publish the attached legal notice (Telecare Residential Treatment Facility NOA, 16-100954-00-UP) in Friday's (411116) issue. Please furnish an affidavit of publication. Thank you, Tina E. Tina Piety Administrative Assistant II �_. Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2601 Fax: 253/835-2609 ww w. c ity offederalwa. +�com 1 41k CITY 10'::tSp OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit offederalwa .corn DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, E. Tina Piety hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: vz Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2016. Project Name File Number(s) Signature Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 4/1 /2016 10:59:00 AM 441k CITY OF Federal Way NOTICE OF MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Project Description: Proposed 11,500 square foot, 16-bed residential treatment facility and associated site improvements. Agent: BCRA, 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402 Project Location: Off of 13d' Place South Parcels 768190-0010 & 768190-0020 Date of Application: February 22, 2016 Date of Notice of Application: April 1, 2016 Public Comments Due: April 18, 2016 �S 332.Nr'l S t ul. J O_ 33M"i T SITE 2L Requested Decision and Other Permits Included with this Application: The applicant requests a Use Process II decision (file # 1 6-190954-00-UP) issued by the Director of Community Development pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.60. Additional permits and/or approvals in conjunction with the Use Process II decision include Concurrency (file #16-100955-00-CN) and a Street Modification Request (file #16-100956-00-SM). Environmental Documents: Stream Report and Technical Information Report. Development Regulations to Be Used for Project Mitigation: FWRC Title 16, "Surface Water Management"; and Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWRC, 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Federal Way, and the Public Works Department Development Standards. Public Comment & Appeals: The official project file is available for public review at the Community Development Department (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the Use Process II application to the Director of Community Development by April 18, 2016. Only the applicant, persons who submit written documents to the director, or persons who specifically request a copy of the original decision may appeal the director's decision. Availability of File and Environmental Documents: The official project file and referenced environmental documents are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, 33325 8"' Avenue South, 2nd Floor, Federal Way, WA 98003. Staff Contact: Senior Planner Stacey Welsh, 253-835-2634, stacey.welsh@cityoffederalway.com Printed in the Federal Way Mirror April 1, 2016. Tina Pie From: Stacey Welsh Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 9:22 AM To: Tina Piety Subject: additional labels needed Hi, I'll be over with the labels from GIS, here are a few additional related to this project. 7681900010 CELEBRATION TERRACE LLC c/o Mr. Tom Pierson PO BOX 502 MILTON, WA 98354 7681900020 SHAO DAVID S 9414 POINTS DR NE YARROW POINT, WA 98004 Christine Phillips BCRA Design 2106 Pacific Ave, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 Cameron Coltharp Telecare Corp. 1080 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cityofFede ra lwaY• com 1 N d N N .a .0 C Y m N m Z L. m Q x m 1— O tm C N J a C" m o O o O Mo V ON W R W R Q m N °O O� d N 6 °Q R Q O . O� NCC R R = M N V 00 - 00 R d OO R Q d 3¢ 3 3¢ a 3 Z w d w¢ w w w w o w. w r� L Do o x � o CD 11 co� r. U d omo w W J r/7 W > U J d cn w0�'aQ ] (+� ery N .M• to M M CD M CA �'+ C'1 M I m MO M R- W w O 04 3 � o � P+ p-i o • C7 N � J U U U U F W U O v� W [r� P. F U a W 0 U w G4 O GC Z u 0. P. CIO_ jj 5 a � x x H 1 + O W Y 0.� cW`. qq w a0 O � U lD N l� V N_ O m O V Vl V O t- kn In C -0 C7 V'1 '...7 M Yi "7 R R CD CD CD CD CD O CDO O d O L7 CD0 O C O O O C7 CDC C:� CDQ� CD 0 't 0 7 owl O R O rn O rn O rn o M 0 M 0 M 0 [n o rn M M M [� 'El: N I� "I [� o0 'o 00 \O 00 �o 00 �o �O N N N N N N N � CA(V � c- N M V LO m I- w m O N M V CO * - r r 03/31/2016 Way City of 300" Tax Parcel Notification area 33325lthAvety of S. 33325 6th Ave S. for Parcels . 7681900010 & 0020 (206)- 35-7 Federal Way 9718 Federal Way Wa 98063 (206) - 835 - 7000 www.cRyoffederaNvay.com [i rr of Legend Scale. Federal Way Subject Site ® 300' Notification Area N o 100 200 Feet I f I This map is•nt_•no�d for v:ea:agraph�c.J represenra:cn only. Notified Tax Parcels C King County Tax Parcels The City of Fcftao--Way mar.es no vrd -ty as to ks.-cu acy. A�kCITY OF Federal Way March 24, 2016 Christine Phillips BCRA Design 2106 Pacific Ave, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 1FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Jim Ferrell, Mayor Re: File #16-100954-00-UP; NOTICE OF APPLICATION Telecare Residential Treatment Facility, 131h Place South, Federal Way Dear Ms. Phillips: The Community Development Department is in receipt of your February 22, 2016, project submittal. The application was placed on hold on February 25, 2016, at the request of Telecare Corporation until a resubmittal was received on March 11, 2016. Your proposed project includes constriction of an 11,470 square -foot, 16-bed treatment facility with associated site improvements. NOTICE OF APPLICATION While not required by the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) for Use Process II applications, you have agreed to do public notice. Therefore, a Notice of Application will be posted on site and on the city's official notice boards, published in the Federal Way Mirror, and mailed to the persons within 300 feet of each boundary of the Subject property within 14 days of the date of this letter. Technical review comments from staff will follow after the conclusion of the public comment period. If You have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at stace .welsh.cr!cit offederaINvay.com, or (253) 835-2634. Sincerely, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner Cameron Coltharp, Telecare Corp., 1080 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 100, Alameda, CA 94501 Doc I D 72772 Ak CITY 6F Application for Land Use / Federal Way Development Project Mailing Labels 33325 8" Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 tvtrw.e a vulrcJeCa {_n•a�• Boni Please Note: This application for mailing labels can only be used in conjunction with City of Federal Way land use or development applications. Mailing labels received from this application shall only be for the applicant or property owner and shall not be used for commercial purposes. Requestor's Name: 1 �'`" Date: 3-22_-1-1(o Address: Phone Number: City: E-Mail Address: Subject Property's Tax-Lot#(s)': _ (10-digit number) State: Zip Code: -76 J9/ 70 0 oa 0 Mailing Notification Radius: feet Number of Mailing Label Sets: � 2 3 4 (Please circle the number of sets needed) Within seven working days from submittal of application form, you will receive the following: 0et(s) of mailing labels (envelopes not included) and for each parcel within the mailing notification radius of the subject property. Each label will include the parcel number, property owner's name, and mailing address. Set(s) of City of Federal Way return address labels. • report listing parcel numbers, property owner names, and mailing addresses. • A map delineating the parcels within the mailing notification radius of subject property. The costs for the mailing labels will be based on the number of parcels located within the mailing notification radius of the subject property. The cost will be $.70/mailing label for the first Mailing Label Set and $0.35/mailing label for each additional Mailing Label Set. There is no additional fee for the return address labels, report, and map. MAILING LABEL DISCLAIMER The undersigned applicant acknowledges that the mailing labels will be produced with the most current and accurate information available to the City at the time of the request. Property ownership and mailing address information is maintained by the King County Assessor's Office and the City of Federal Way is providing this information as a convenience and service to its customers. The City makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the information contained on the mailing labels. Mailing labels cannot be provided for parcels located in Pierce County. The undersigned further acknowledges and represents that the mailing labels can not be used for "commercial" purposes, and that the mailing labels are being used only for the purpose of notifying property owners of pending land use or development related actions and projects. Dated this day of 20 (Signature of Applicant) (Printed Name of Applicant) Pursuant to FWRC 19.05.190, subject property means the entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity or use exist or will occur, or on which any activity or condition subject to development regulations exist or will occur. Bulletin #002 — January 1, 2011 Pa2e 2 of 3 k:\Handouts\Mailing Labels Application CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: 2-24-16 TO: E.J. Walsh, Development Services Manager Peter Lawrence, Plans Examiner Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District Vince Faranda, South King Fire & Rescue Tanya Nascimento, Federal Way School District Lindsey Tiroux, Public Safety Officer Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator Rick Perez, City Traffic Engineer FROM: Stacey Welsh, Planning 1-1 FOR DRC MTG. ON: 3-)Q-16 FILE NUMBER(s): 16-100954-00-UP RELATED FILE NOS.: 15-105024-PC, 16-100956-SM, 16-100955-CN PROJECT NAME: TELECARE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY PROJECT ADDRESS: 13t' PL S, (parcels #7681900010 & 7681900020) ZONING DISTRICT: BC PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed 11,500 square foot, 16-bed treatment facility with associated site improvements. LAND USE PERMITS: Use Process II PROJECT CONTACT: BCRA DESIGN CHRISTINE PHILLIPS 2106 PACIFIC AVE, SUITE 300 TACOMA WA 98402 MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Master Land Use Application AD Approval & Stream Report Design Narrative Certificates of Water & Sewer Availability Code Criteria Response Operational Characteristics Narrative Title Reports (two parcels) CPTED Checklist Site Photos TIR Plans: civil, landscaping, elevation, floor plan CITY 4�� OF Federal Way T LAND USE APPLICATION T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South FEB 2 2016 Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com CITY ®� FEDERAL WAY CDS APPLICATION NO(S) U/ (D / —U/ 10 Project Name Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Property Address/Location 33500 13th PI S, Federal Way, WA Parcel Number(s) 7681900010 & 7681900020 Date February 17, 2016 Project Description Construction of 16 bed RTF of approximately 11,500 GSF with associated site development of parking, landscaping, utilities, etc. PLEASE PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director's Approval) X Process II (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information Community Business (BG Wing Designation Community B�1SolmpreRensive Plan Designation $100,000 Value of Existing Improvements $2,000,000 Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): 1-2, per pre-app Occupancy Type VA, sprinkiered Construction Type Applicant Name: BCRA/ Am W91G t�s Address: 2106 Pacific Ave., Suite 300 City/State: Tacoma, WA Zip: 98402 Phone: (253) 627-4367 Fax: (253) 627-4395 Email: jwoich@iacradesigtcom Signature: K, Q„ — . � Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Owner Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: 19fl'f-F Telecare Corp / Cameron Coltharp 1080 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 100 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 717-2107 cell (510) 5653 fax --- 2 Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page I of 1 k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application RECEIVED Dr. David Shao MAR 91 2016 9414 Points Drive NE Yarrow Point, WA 98004 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Date: 2/25/16 ' 1 Re: Proposed Telecare Residential Treatment Facility 33500 13t' PI S, Federal Way, WA Parcels: 76819100020 This letter is to confirm that we are the owners of one of the parcels listed above, specifically Parcel 16819100020, that are being considered for development by Telecare Corporation and that we are under contract with Telecare for their purchase of this parcel. As such we are in support of the applications that Telecare is making to the City of Federal Way for a Process II review, Traffic Currency review and, subsequently, either a Lot Line Elimination or Adjustment as deemed appropriate. Also included would be any related permits that are required in support of those major applications. This letter also recognizes BCRA of Tacoma WA as an Authorized Agent for the project listed above. SIGNATURE I hereby state that I am the owner listed above, and certify that all information contained above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the processing of these applications may require additional supporting material upon request to City staff. RIGHT OF ENTRY: By signing this application the owner grants unto the City and its agents the right to enter upon the premises for purpose of conducting all necessary inspection to determine compliance with applicable laws, codes, and regulations. This right of entry shall continue until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the property or the property is no longer under this ownership. Signature of Property Owner: f Date: Celebration Terrace LLC c/o Mr. Tom Pierson, manager PO Box 502 Milton, WA 98352 Date: 2/25/16 Re: Proposed Telecare Residential Treatment Facility 33500 13t' Pi S, Federal Way, WA Parcels: 76819100010 RECEIVED MAR � 12016 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS This letter is to confirm that we are the owners of one of the parcels listed above, specifically Parcel 76819100010, that are being considered for development by Telecare Corporation and that we are under contract with Telecare for their purchase of this parcel. As such we are in support of the applications that Telecare is making to the City of Federal Way for a Process it review, Traffic Currency review and, subsequently, either a Lot Line Elimination or Adjustment as deemed appropriate. Also included would be any related permits that are required in support of those major applications. This letter also recognizes BCRA of Tacoma WA as an Authorized Agent for the project listed above. SIGNATURE I hereby state that I am the owner listed above, and certify that all information contained above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the processing of these applications may require additional supporting material upon request to City staff. RIGHT OF ENTRY: By signing this application the owner grants unto the City and its agents the right to enter upon the premises for purpose of conducting all necessary inspection to determine compliance with applicable laws, codes, and regulations. This right of entry shall continue until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the property or the property-i� no longer under this ownership. Signature of Proper y Owner: r" Date: f. �4.Ys• Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. PO Box880 Phone:753,&99-0515 FaUQty, WA98M4 December 7, 2015 Jim Wolch BCRA 2106 Pacific Ave suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 RE: Telecare Stream Determination - 768190-0010 & 768190-0020 City of Federal Way, Washington SWC Job # 15-187 Dear Jim, This report describes our observations of jurisdictional streams and/or buffers on or within 100' of Parcels #768190-0010 &v 768190-0020. These parcels are located on the east side of 13th Place S in the City of Federal Way, Washington (the "site"). Above: Vicinity Map of site The purpose of our investigation was to review the drainage features on the site to determine which if any, are jurisdictional streams. The City of Telecare/#15-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 7, 2015 Page 2 Federal Way Commercial Site Inspection Maps for the site depict a south flowing drainage entering the eastern side of the site, as well as a westerly flowing drainage along the south boundary of the eastern parcel. 4-1 !4 ... Above: City of Federal Way mapping of drainages on the east side of the site. OBSERVATIONS The site consists of an abandoned paved area on the western parcel, as well as a disturbed forested area on the east. Several abandoned vagrant camps with associated trash and debris were noted in the forested area. A deeply dug ditch enters the east side of the site and flows into a culvert with a trash rack which enters an underground storm system and is assumed to flow westerly in a culvert. The ditch contains several check dams, and based upon the low flows observed during our site visits in November following periods of heavy rain, this appears to be an t Telecare/#15-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 7, 2015 Page 3 intermittent flowing feature. Although this feature has been channelized, it does appear to contain some natural flow and appears to be a ditched stream. Given its apparent seasonal flow, lack of fish access to the channel, this stream appears to best meet the criteria of a Type Ns water. According to FWMC 19.145.270.1, Type Ns streams have a 35' buffer measured from the OHWM. Type Ns stream on east side of site looking north from culvert. As previously described, a second mapped drainage is shown on the City of Federal Way maps along the south side of the eastern parcel. This consists of a poorly defined artificially created overflow from the Type Ns stream. On the east side of the Type Ns stream about 15' north of the Telecare/#15-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 7, 2015 Page 4 culvert, is a rip -rap lined overflow area cut in the top of the ditch. There is no well-defined drainage to the west as shown on the City map. There are several trash rack lined catch basin type features on an asphalt lined depression along the southeast side which appear to enter a vault. 0' 0 r ti5 +[lwdm r . 1 '� r1�Cscusl dreira�e `x � Y . t is not :1-W errd a water � f die state/stream .+� r VMFW i ? t In order to get a definitive determination on these features I had Larry Fisher, the area habitat biologist for WDFW visit the site with me on November 12, 2015 to determine which if any of these features meet the definition of a stream. As detailed in the email follow up to our site visit (attached), Larry agreed that only the eastern ditch contained a stream and the one depicted flowing west is an artificial overflow feature and not a stream. Telecare/# 15-187 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 7, 2015 Page 5 If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at csewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: email correspondence with WDFW Page 1 of 4 Ed Sewall From: "Fisher, Larry D (DFW)" <Larry.Fisher a dfw.wa.gov> Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 7:53 AM To: "Ed Sewall' <esewall(a),sewallwc.com> Subject: RE: Federal Way Ed Thanks for summarizing our meeting so effectively. I agree with what you wrote below. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <')((}}>< <N1) >< From: Ed Sewall [mailto:esewall@sewallwc.com] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:24 AM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Subject: Re: Federal Way Larry, Thanks for meeting me on the Telecare site in Federal Way last week to review the mapped streams/drainages as shown on the below City of Federal Way map. This email is to confirm that you are in agreement that the only stream on the site is the drainage that crosses from north to south along the eastern edge of the site. After our site visit you confirmed that the drainage shown below on the City map going from east to west across the south end of the site is a totally artificial feature and would not be considered a stream by WDFW. Thanks! Ed Sewall Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (253) 859-0515 12/7/2015 Page 2 of 4 From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:32 AM To: Ed Sewall Subject: RE: Federal Way OK, Ed, see you about 1:45. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 1775 12th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <')If)}>< <')(0 >< From: Ed Sewall frnailto:esewall sewailwc.com Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:20 AM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Subject: Re: Federal Way Larry, you can park right along road on 13th Place if front of the site. Ed 12/7/2015 Page 3 of 4 From: Fisher. Larry D (DFW) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:44 AM To: Ed Sewall Subject: RE: Federal Way I have the address. I think we need to identify a parking location. Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 177512th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <'){{}}>< <'){{}}>< From: Ed Sewall [mailto:esewall(&sewallwc.com) Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:41 PM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Subject: Re: Federal Way Yes, that will work, was the map I sent you good enough so you can find the site? Ed From: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 4:09 PM To: Ed Sewall Subject: RE: Federal Way Hi Ed: I can meet you there at 1:45 Thursday. Will that work for you? Larry Fisher WDFW Area Habitat Biologist 177512th Ave NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-313-5683 FAX 425-427-0570 Cell: 425-449-6790 <'){{1}>< <'){{}1>< From: Ed Sewall rmailto:e5ewall2sewaliw4xom1 Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:13 AM To: Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Subject: Federal Way Larry, I have a site in Federal Way that's in the Hylebos drainage (see attached map). There is a stream along the east side of the site, but then there is this odd constructed overflow the City thinks is possibly a stream. Doesn't look it to me and I wanted to see if you had time to meet there and take a look at it with me. Let me know what would work. 12/7/2015 Page 4 of 4 Ed Sewall Sewall Weiland Consulting, Inc. PO Box 880 Fall City, WA 98024 (253) 859-0515 12/7/2015 Technical Memorandum . To: Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, City of Federal Way From: Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Biologist 11241 Willows Road NE Kevin O'Brien, Senior Ecologist Suite 200 Copies: File Redmond, WA 98052 Phone (425) 8224446 Date: January 20, 2016 Fax (425) 827-9577 Subject: Telecare — Stream Determination 33430 13"' Place South, Federal Way Parcels: #768190-0010 & #768190-0020 Project No.: 032285.0 At the request of the City of Federal Way (City), Otak, Inc. biologists reviewed the Stream Determination report (dated December 7, 2015) prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. for parcels #768190-0010 and #768190-0020 located at 33430 13`h Place South in Federal Way, Washington. The report was reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, "Environmentally Critical Areas," especially FWRC 19.145.270 (Stream Buffers). A site visit to the subject properties was conducted on January 14, 2016 to inspect the stream and drainage features identified in the report, and identify any other potential regulated features per FWRC Chapter 19.145. This memorandum presents the findings of our review. Summary of Applicant's Stream Determination Report The Stream Determination report from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. documents a southerly flowing stream on the east side of parcel #768190-0020 that flows into a culvert with a trash rack. The stream is described as an intermittently flowing system based on the low flows observed during site visits in November 2015 following periods of heavy rain. Due to the apparent seasonal flow and lack of fish access, the stream is suggested to meet the criteria of a Type Ns (non -fish habitat, seasonal) water, which has a 35-foot buffer measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). A second mapped drainage shown on the City map is described in the report as an artificially created overflow from the southerly flowing Type Ns stream. It is lined with riprap, and connects to the Type Ns stream approximately 15 feet north of the where the Type Ns stream enters the culvert and flows underground. The report states there is no well-defined drainage to the west of the Type Ns stream as shown on the City maps, and that it is an artificial overflow feature rather than a stream. Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, City ofFederal Way Page 2 33430 13`h Place South, Telecare — Stream Determination _jaiwary 20, 2016 Background Review and Field Inspection The Type Ns stream identified in the report is an unnamed tributary to West Fork Hylebos Creek. It flows into a culvert as described in the report, and then west toward 13"' Place SE in an underground pipe. It is situated high in the watershed, and receives stormwater runoff from the surrounding urban landscape. Regarding flow regime, the Type Ns stream is not mapped per the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool, nor by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape mapping application that utilizes the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Salmonscape shows an unnamed tributary with an intermittent flow regime beginning approximately 1000 feet south of the project site, which is also shown on WDNR's mapping tool as fish presence "Uknown". During the site inspection in January 14, 2016, the Type Ns stream was inspected for the presence of benthic macroinvertebrates that would potentially indicate the presence of perennial flows. Three separate sections of the stream in the project area were inspected, but no benthic macroinvertebrates were observed. Due to the stream reach's location high in an urbanized watershed and lack of observed benthic macroinvertebrates in the stream reach, Otak agrees that the stream has an intermittent flow regime. Regarding fish presence in the stream reach on the project site, WDFW's Salmonscape application shows two total fish passage blockages south of South 336`h Street due to dams that were previously constructed for flood control. It is highly unlikely that anadromous fish from the main stem of West Fork Hylebos Creek can reach the project site. Resident fish are also not likely present due to the intermittent flow regime of the Type Ns stream, and the apparent lack of aquatic habitat refugia available during low flow conditions north of South 336`h Street, as the stream is mainly piped underground. The other drainage feature (i.e., pathway) identified in the report and shown on the City map was not identified as a stream in the field due to the absence of an OHWM. Indicators of an OHWM, such as defined bed and banks and gravel sorting, were not observed. Additionally, no evidence of erosional scour or rilling was observed as English ivy (Hedera helix) was growing within the drainage feature. English ivy typically grows in upland habitats. The drainage feature directs overflow water from the Type Ns stream to three inlets that drop into the underground piped system presumably during storm events of sufficient magnitude, but not at a frequency to make an impression on the landscape separate from the surrounding uplands (see Photo 1). Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner, City ofFederal Way 33430 13"' Place South, Telecare — Stream Determination Summary of Findings Page 3 January 20, 2016 We agree with the stream classification (Type Ns) and buffer width determination (35 feet) for the stream on the project site per FWRC 19.145.270. We also agree that the second drainage feature shown on the City map does not qualify as a stream per FWRC 19.145.260. The OHWM along the Type Ns stream should be delineated in the field and shown on any development proposal to ensure compliance with FWRC 19.145. Photo 1. Photo of drainage pathway (indicated by the blue arrow) that is indistinct from the surrounding uplands and overgrown with English ivy; view east. Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Taco i�E- w y � Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 FEB 2 2 2016 CM Of FeDERAL WAY Telecare Federal Way WA — Design Narr6Me of Community Design Guidelines Address: 3350013th PI S, Federal Way, WA 98003 Parcels: 7681900010 & 7681900020 Total Site Area: 103,098 SF, 2.36 acres 19.110 Density and Dimensions 19.210.070 Rooftop appurtenances —Required screening Response: All mechanical equipment to be located in mechanical attic within the building. Louvers will be located as required. 19.115 Community Design Guidelines 19.115.050 Site design (1) General criteria. Response: This project is designed for the building to be set back in the site into the edge of the existing wooded area. Parking and pedestrian areas are logical and obvious in location and linkages. Pedestrian areas are open with a few trees but more low level landscaping. Public areas are all to the front side of the building with the rear of the building not easily accessed due to position of building on property and treed areas. (2) Surface parking lots. Response: The parking lot has been arraigned for maximum efficiency with parking off central loop. Parking is accessed via existing shared driveway to minimize curb cuts and is visible from right-of-way. (4) Pedestrian circulation and public spaces. Response: A clearly delineated accessible pathway from the right-of-way to the primary entrance is provided and enhanced by landscaping. Elements to be explored as future site development are bench seating, trash receptacles, and lighting located adjacent the primary entrance. It is not anticipated to include bicycle racks due to the occupancy type. (5) Landscaping. Response: Landscaping to comply with Chapter 19.125 FWRC, see landscape plans for proposal. BCRADESIGN.COM .MAOM&MW. 7► -i ce _� rn 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 (6) Commercial service and institutional facilities. Response: The service drive and trash enclosure are located as to not impede parking or access to the primary entrance. Trash and Recycling will be in a fully enclosed area with surrounding landscape screening. Building utilities have dedicated rooms located within the building and site utilities have appropriate landscape screening. (7) Miscellaneous site elements. Response: Lighting will be shielded to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. Shielded lighting will be provided along pathway from right-of-way to the primary entrance along with service areas and exercise yard. 19.115.060 Building design (1) General criteria. Response: The building pad was located on a portion of the site with minimal slope. Retaining walls utilized will compliment features used in the building design. (2) Building facade modulation and screening options. Response: There are no portions of the building that are greater than 60' and are visible from the right-of-way or residential use. Although not required, fagade modulations and extended roof overhangs have been incorporated into the design. (3) Building articulation and scale. Response: The building has various architectural features incorporated in the design to enhance its presence. These features include: - Building modulation. - Window openings with trim. - Variety of overhangs. - Material variation. - Varied roof line. 19.115.070 Building and pedestrian orientation (1) Building and pedestrian orientation. Response: The building and primary entrance have been oriented to the right-of-way. The primary entrance, which is enhanced with canopy, material variations and prominently glazed vestibule allow visibility into the interior lobby area. Telecare Federal Way, WA — Design Narrative Prepared by C Spadafore / BCRA, February 22, 2016 Page 2 of 3 • f 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 J 19.115.090 District guidelines. (1) Professional office (PO), neighborhood business (BN), and community business (BC). Response: Surface parking adjacent the right-of-way has maximum pedestrian access to the primary entrance. The building and primary entrance are visible to the right-of-way. The primary entrance is enhanced with canopy, material variations and prominently glazed vestibule. Exercise yard to utilize black vinyl coated chain -link fence. 19.115.100 Institutional uses. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) & (7) Response: There are no portions of the building that are greater than 120'. Although not required, fagade modulations and extended roof overhangs have been incorporated into the design. The gable roof is varied to add architectural interest. Landscaping to comply with Chapter 19.125 FWRC, see landscape plans for proposal. All lighting to be shielded and will not exceed 30' in height. 19.125 Outdoor, Yards, and Landscaping 19.125.035 General landscaping requirements. (4) Response: Trash enclosure to be fully enclosed and constructed in a manner to compliment the architectural features of the building. Telecare Federal Way, WA — Design Narrative Prepared by C Spadafore / BCRA, February 22, 2016 Page 3 of 3 b fi r k9l� 'rr ni� CM OF FMERAL WAY CD$ WX-MR CERTOIMA E - YA W Lakehaven Utility District - Development Engineering Section 31623 - 1st Ave S # PO Box 4249 * Federal Way, WA 98063-4249 Telephone: 253-945-1581 * Email: cjenkinshouse@Lakehaven.org This certificate is intended to provide the applicant, land use agencies &/or public health departments with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Lakehaven Utility District, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to delay, or deny, water service based upon capacity &/or supply limitations in Lakehaven's or Other Purveyor's system facilities. Proposed Land Use: ❑ Building Permit-SFR ❑ Building Permit-MFR ® Building Permit -Other ❑ Subdivision ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Boundary Line Adjustment ® Other (specify/describe) Prccc5s iz Review & Lot Line EliminaUi W Tax Parcel Number(s): Z.Q8J900 J Q & 76819o002a Site Address: 335XX 13th PIS Lakehaven Grid: J-10 Ex. Bldg. Area to Remain: N/A sf New Bldg. Area Proposed: 11.000 sf Applicant's Name: 1gl9care CorpCameron WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION 1. ® Water service can be provided by service connection to an existing J2_" diameter water main that is on the site. 2. ® Water service for the site will require an improvement to Lakehaven's water distribution system of: ❑ a. feet of " diameter water main to reach the site; and/or ® b. The construction of a water distribution system on the site; and/or ❑ c. A major portion of Lakehaven's comprehensive water system plan would need to be Implemented and/or constructed; and/or ® d. Other (describe): Developer ExLCnsign Ag =ment 3. ® a. The existing water system is in conformance with Lakehaven's Comprehensive Water System Plan. ❑ b. The existing water system is not in conformance with Lakehaven Is Comprehensive Water System Plan and an Amendment to this Plan will be required. This may cause a delay in issuance of land use approvals or permits. 4. ® a. The subject property is within the corporate limits of Lakehaven Utility District, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of water service outside of Lakehaven's water service area. ❑ b. Annexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be necessary to provide service. S. Water service is subject to: ® a. Payment of connection charges (to be determined by Lakehaven); ® b. Proof or reservation of easement(s) as required by Lakehaven (public, if item#2 above required, see below); ® c. Other: Water Service Conn e ticzn ADnlirx7tiorts required nee r do is irri ian & fiorotectio0l. Comments/special conditions: ahnve oniv aonlicanle If newladdition 1 Qn i e 17 rent{s) required by ties fire mars�l. The nearest fire hydrant is on the Property (as shown on map on the back of this page). Fire Flow at no less than 20 psi available within the water distribution system is 3.40Q gpm (approximate) for two (2) hours or more. This flow figure depicts the theoretical performance of the water distribution system under high demand conditions. Hydraulic model results (FF#213) indicate that Lakehaven's standard maximum allowable velocity of 10 ft/s is exceeded at a fire flow rate above 3.400 gpm. Fire flow rates greater than this may be accommodated through water distribution system Improvements, contact Lakehaven for additional information. 538 Pressure Zone Property Elevations (GIS): High 360+/-, Low 330+/- Est. Pressures (psi): Min. 68, Max. 90 I hereby certify that the above water system Information is true. This certification shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of signature. Name: BRIAN AERM Tip : DEVELO. I NT NG NEEIRING SU RVIS i:f- Signature: Date: Telecare Corp wtr 7681900010_0020.docx (9/21/15) Page 1 of 2 Telecare Corp wtr 7681900010_0020.docx (9/21/15) Page 2 of 2 Lakehaven Utility District - Development Engineering Section 31623 - 1st Ave S # PO Box 4249 * Federal Way, WA 98063-4249 Telephone: 253-945-1581 # Email: cjenkinshouse@Lakehaven.org This certificate is intended to provide the applicant, land use agencies &/or public health departments with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Lakehaven Utility District, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to delay, or deny, sewer service based upon capacity &/or supply limitations in Lakehaven's or Other Purveyor's system facilities. Proposed Land Use: ❑ Building Permit-SFR ❑ Building Permit-MFR 0 Building Permit -Other ❑ Subdivision ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Binding Site Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Boundary Line Adjustment ® Other (specify/describe) Process 11 Review & Lot Line_Cllrnination Tax Parcel Number(s): 768 00010 & 76PI900020 Site Address: 335XX 13th PI S Lakehaven Grid: 1-10 Ex. Bldg. Area to Remain: N/A sf New Bldg. Area Proposed: 11.000 sf Applicant's Name. TelecaLg Caru / Cameron Colthar_r� SEWER SYSTEM INFO Tx N 1. ® Sewer service can be provided by service connection to an existing $' diameter sewer main that is on the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed land use. 2. ❑ Sewer service for the site will require an improvement to Lakehaven's sanitary sewer system of: ❑ a. feet of " diameter sewer main or trunk to reach the site; and/or ❑ b. The construction of a sanitary sewer collection system on the site; and/or ❑ c. A major portion of Lakehaven's comprehensive wastewater system plan would need to be implemented and/or constructed; and/or ❑ d. Other (describe); 3. ® a. The existing sewer system is In conformance with Lake haven's Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan. ❑ b. The existing sewer system is not In conformance with Lakehaven's Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan and an Amendment to this Plan will be required. This may cause a delay in issuance of land use approvals or permits. 4. ® a. The proposed site land use is within the corporate limits of Lakehaven Utility District, or has been granted Boundary Review Board apprnval for extenslon of sewer service outside of Lakehaven's sewer service area. ❑ b. Annexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be necessary to provide service. S. Sewer service Is subject to: 0 a. Payment of connection charges (to be determined by Lakehaven); ® b. Proof or reservation of easement(s) as required by Lakehaven (private, for parcel 7681900030); ® c. Other: 5 r Service Cone i n Permit r fired. Comments/special conditions: r houl b en to v id encro e n exl5ting gg�6Ler mein ore en s on the site. I hereby certify that the above sewer system information is true. This certification shall be valid for one (1) year from the date of signature. Name: BRIAN ASBURY Title: UPERVISOR Signature: Telecare Corp swr 7681900010_0020.docx (4/6/15) Date: !� Page 1 of 2 Telecare Corp swr 7681900010_0020.docx (4/6/15) Page 2 of 2 RECE,IVFD W 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 FEB 2 2 2016 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Telecare Federal Way WA — Process II, Site Plan Review Criteria Responses Address: 33500 131h PI S, Federal Way, WA 98003 Parcels: 7681900010 & 7681900020 Total Site Area: 103,098 SF, 2.36 acres Process II Site plan and community design guidelines approval criteria. 19.60.050 (2) Site plan criteria. (a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; Response: This site is zoned Community Business (BC) which allows for broad mix of uses including general, specialty, and service retail, commercial, office; mixed -use commercial/residential and supportive uses. The site is not right on Pacific Highway and so is not in a prime retail location but still close enough for easy access from major roads and highways. This facility is consistent with the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive plan and will add 38 jobs, requiring various skill levels in healthcare services, to the city and increase the city's economic base. It also is a private redevelopment just off 336th, an area that the comprehensive plan has designated for such growth. This facility is also an Essential Public Service and helps to provide an additional range of services within the city and allow coordination with other jurisdictions for sharing of similar resources. (b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title; Response: The proposed site plan is consistent with all requirements of Title 19 Zoning and Development Code, including development standards such as setbacks, lot coverage and height limits, landscape requirements and parking standards. The proposed Residential Treatment Facility is a permitted use (hospital/medical use) in the Community Business Zone. The front yard minimum setback is 20. but the building is set back over 170' from the front property line. All other required yards are 0' with the building being no closer than 25' to a side property line and 55' from the rear property line. The internal property line will be removed through a boundary line adjustment process. Allowable building height for the zone is 35'. The proposed building will be a single story structure with a maximum height to the ridge line of about 18'. BCRADESIGN.COM 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 Landscape buffers along property edges and landscaping within parking areas will be as required by city code. Per City of Federal Way zoning code, Parking is required for a Hospital use at a minimum level of 1 space for each 3 beds, plus 1 for each doctor and 1 for each 3 employees. The facility will have 16 beds, 1 doctor on staff and a maximum of 15 employees on site at one time. This would require 12 parking spaces. Additional spaces are desired to accommodate the overlap of staffing during shift changes and 36 spaces are currently planned. (c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare; Response: The proposed building and site will be designed in compliance with all life safety codes, especially as pertains to fire access and separation requirements. The proposed facility will be licensed under the WA State Department of Health and will be reviewed as required to maintain licensing. The proposed site will be consistent with City of Federal Way CPTED requirements and a completed checklist is included with the application. (d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; Response: The project will be a mild generator of traffic with an estimated 4 new trips to the site during PM peak hours and the local streets are adequate (see Heath & Associates Traffic Impact Assessment). Utilities already exist to the site for the previous development and are adequate. Letters of Water and Sewer availability have been obtained from Lakehaven Utility District. (e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access; and Response: The existing south access point will be eliminated and the shared access drive to the north will be the only access and will continue to serve both properties. The north access is also aligned with a similar joint access drive across the street, which is preferred for control of access points. (f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated. Response: There is a clear drop-off at the front entrance to the building that, along with nearby ADA stalls, create a safe accessible entrance. A pedestrian walkway extends from the Telecare Federal Way, WA — Compliance with Process II Criteria Prepared by C Phillips / BCRA, February 1, 2016 Page 2 of 3 •� 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 T (253) 627-4367 entrance connecting the ADA stalls, continues alongside one row of parking, and out to the street edge sidewalk. (3) Community design guideline decisional criteria. (a) It is consistent with site design standards set forth in FWRC 19.115.050 for all zoning districts; Response: In general the site is designed to have a logical flow through the site so that both cars and pedestrians can easily navigate the site safely. Public entrances are clearly identified and restricted areas such as the outdoor exercise yard are located behind the facility. Trash and mechanical equipment areas will be fenced and screened from view. The trees on the east side of the property will be maintained and cleared of dense undergrowth and invasive species, such as blackberry, to improve safety and create a pleasant setting for the clients and employees, while also providing screening. (b) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in FWRC 19.115.090; and Response: While the parking area is located adjacent to the street, pedestrian access is provided directly from the street to the front entrance without crossing the parking area. The public entrance has a welcoming covered area with full glass doors for viewing. (c) For development applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing development, it is consistent with those provisions of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines, identified by the director as being applicable. Response: Not applicable. Telecare Federal Way, WA —Compliance with Process II Criteria Prepared by C Phillips / BCRA, February 1, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Telecare King County Operational Characteristics Overview FEB 2 2 2016 aTY OF FEDERAL WAY ODS Telecare-King County E&T will provide a 16 bed facility with Evaluation and Treatment (E&T) services exclusively for individuals within the boundaries of King County. The proposed site for this service will be located at 33500 1311 PI S, Federal Way, WA 98003. The individuals requiring services will be experiencing a mental health crisis, with an exacerbation of their mental health issues, concerns and/or symptoms that require the supports of a short-term inpatient stay. Typical lengths of stay will vary from 3 to 14 days. The purpose is to stabilize the individual's life and mental health issues in order for that person to be returned to the least restrictive living environment and to avoid involuntary hospitalization and/or incarceration. Services are tailored to accommodate an individual's immediate needs and level of emotional distress and discomfort. The maximum number of clients at any given time is limited to 16 with anticipated average daily census of 14. The staffing model outlined below includes leadership positions and direct care staff. It excludes back office support staff. The ratios provided assume maximum unity capacity. • Days: 11 staff with a staff -to -client ratio of 1:1.45 • PM: 6 staff with a staff -to -client ratio of 1:2.66 ■ NOC: 4 staff at a staff -to -client ratio of 1:4 The environment will be a secure/locked setting designed to maintain health and safety standards, manage risk, and provide education and treatment while minimizing trauma and discrimination for individuals aged 18 and older. The clients will pose an actual or imminent risk or danger to self, others, or property due to a life or mental health related issue (defined as a mental disorder in RCW 71.05 or 71.34), or who have experienced a marked decline in their ability to care for self, due to the onset or exacerbation of a mental health related situation. The E&T services at a minimum include evaluation, stabilization, and treatment provided by or under the direction of licensed psychiatrists, certified psychiatric Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (as allowed pursuant to RCW 71.05), nurses, mental health professionals, peer support staff, and discharge planning involving the individual, as well as family and/or significant others with the consent of the individual, so as to ensure continuity of mental health care. Services will include diagnostic assessment, health screening, current medication assessment and adjustment as necessary. In addition, they will receive individual therapy, group and family therapies an activities of daily living (ADLs) rehabilitation services. In conjunction with the clinical teams treatment plan, the individual is to be discharged from the E&T Services as soon as a less -restrictive plan for treatment can be safely implemented. To effectively coordinate aftercare services, Telecare will develop collaborations with human services organizations Telecare King County —Operational Characteristics Page 1 of 4 and systems, community -based housing, employment, substance abuse, education, outpatient mental health, physical health, self-help, peer support, and benefits assistance providers. Telecare E&T staff will provide follow-up for individuals that have minimal knowledge of how to effectively access and navigate the system of care, and to offer them the greatest chance of succeeding in the community and avoiding situations that could lead to a relapse and potential readmission to the E&T facility. Telecare will ensure channels of communication and service coordination strategies are established with other community resources, including Mobile Outreach Crisis Team (MOCT), Crisis Triage Center, Consumer Warm Line, inpatient/outpatient providers, law enforcement, hospital emergency departments, King County courts, and other allied service providers. Transportation Plan Admissions: It is anticipated that most of the clients admitted to the E&T unit will be transfers from acute hospital emergency rooms, direct from law enforcement or from other mental health service providers. Clients received shall be received through the patient entrance which shall be equipped with a sally port separating it from the main unit. The use of a sally port shall reduce elopement risks associated with the admission and discharge processes. Discharges: Clients that have completed their evaluation and treatment will be transported per their discharge plan. No clients will be discharged to the street and the majority will be transported to their community of origin. Exceptions to the community of origin rule would include when clients are placed at others locations for continuing treatment or residential living support. The discharge planning process shall include provisions for transportation which might include transportation by cab (for stabilized clients only), relatives, Telecare staff or other care facilities that are accepting a client placement at their facility. Clients that are being returned to custody shall be transported by law enforcement. Safety and Security Plan Telecare recognizes that the safety and security of clients, staff, visitors and the local community is of the utmost importance. For this reason a comprehensive, multi -faceted safety and security plan has been developed. It includes the following: Behavioral Assessments: During the initial admission, each client is assessed to determine their current mental condition. Included is an assessment of their risk of self harm, assaultive behavior and elopement. Client placement within the facility and their privileges will be based on the findings of the initial assessment and regular Telecare King County — Operational Characteristics Page 2 Of 4 reassessment while in treatment. Clients that are identified as having a potential for self harm shall be placed in a safe room and may be assigned staff checks and/or one on one monitoring. Clients that are identified as potentially combative or destructive shall be placed in a high acuity room. Clients that are identified to be an elopement risk shall be placed in a high acuity room and have their secure yard privileges restricted until such time that the elopement concerns diminish. Staff Training: Telecare personnel are routinely trained to interact with clients of varied levels of acuity. Telecare has adopted Crisis Prevention Institutes (CPI) model as the standard for use in the management of disruptive behavior. CPI is known worldwide for its behavior management best practices and is recognized as an international standard for crisis prevention and intervention training. Through this training staff are taught to identify escalating clients early and are provided with strategies for de-escalating these situations in a no force first manner. Should these interventions not be successful, all staff, including back office support, are capable of participating in team based seclusion and restraint procedures. Telecare personnel are well trained and have a proven record of being able to handle assaults and other disruptive behavior in house. Telecare does not rely on local law enforcement to assist with restraint and seclusion activities. The only time that local law enforcement assistance would be required would be if a life and death situation had developed, in which case 911 would be called. Physical Plant Features: The facility shall be operated as a Residential Treatment Facility per WAC 246-337 which allows for the locking of all perimeter doors and windows. A sally port door shall be installed to separate the entrance from the main unit, thus reducing the opportunity for elopement during admissions, discharges, etc. All of the windows at the facility are tempered laminated glass to reduce the chance of elopement and to prevent injury should they break from impact. The facility shall be equipped with one seclusion and restraint room. Theses rooms are capable of high acuity confinement both for safety and security purposes. An exterior secure yard area shall be provided for fresh air, therapy activities, and recreation purposes. The fence shall be an appropriately designed security fence incorporating climb resistant materials. Elopements: While elopements are rare, they could occur under unforeseeable circumstances at which time local law enforcement would be called. The method of such notification (911) would be per the pre -established directive of local law enforcement. Sex Offenders: The E&T is not intended to be a primary treatment facility for registered sex offenders. That said, some clients admitted to the unit may have previous offenses on their record and therefore may be categorized as such. Given the short term nature of the program and the confidential nature of private Telecare King County — Operational Characteristics Page 3 Of 4 health information, Telecare does not plan to notify the community of every sex offender that is admitted to the program. However, Telecare will notify local law enforcement of the sex offender status should an elopement occur. Telecare remains open to discussing any additional concerns or procedures that local law enforcement may require. Community Cooperation: Telecare currently operates inpatient and outpatient treatment facilities in approximately 50 communities and is well respected as a good neighbor who works closely with the community to limit or resolve any concerns related to our programs. We have extensive experience in working with local law enforcement and city planning departments and welcome the opportunity to meet regularly to review performance and identify opportunities for improvement. Telecare King County —Operational Characteristics Page 4 Of 4 Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No.: NCS-755537-WAl c� '%MCA' COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by FEB 2 2 2016 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By - Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." First American Title Insurance Company C-UnIs j Pres4ent Jeffrey S RdAnson SKFetary First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) File No.: NCS-755537-WAl Commitment Page No. 1 cY A�f6kf 3XP-ie�_4�e First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 818 Stewart Street, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98101 (206)728-0400 - (800)526-7544 FAX (206)448-6348 Chantale A. Stiller -Anderson Terri Nugent (206)448-6286 (206)615-3041 cstiller@firstam.com tnugent@firstam.com Chantale A. Stiller -Anderson (206)448-6286 cstiller@firstam.com Terri Nugent (206)615-3041 tnugent@firstam.com To: NI Commercial File No.: NCS-755537-WAl 2144 Westlake Ave N, Ste A, Your Ref No.: 33500 13th Place South Federal Way Seattle, WA 98109 Attn: Norm Ives SCHEDULE A 1, Commitment Date: September 23, 2015 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Extended Owner's Coverage $ 600,000.00 $ To Be Determined $ To Be Determined Proposed Insured: Telecare Corporation and/or assigns 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: Chang -Jung Shao and Ai -Ching Shao, husband and wife 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: File No.: NCS-755537-WAI Page No. 2 LOT 2, SECOMA BUSINESS PARK, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 113 OF PLATS, - PAGES 37 THROUGH 40, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.: NCS-755537-WAI Page No. 3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mort a ors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will et an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS File No.: NCS-755537-WAI Page No. 4 Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Federal Way is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 1205 For all transactions recorded on or after July 1, 20OS: • A fee of $10.00 will be charged on all exempt transactions; • A fee of $5.00 will be charged on all taxable transactions in addition to the excise tax due. 2. General Taxes for the year 2015. Tax Account No.: 768190-0020-08 Amount Billed: $ 5,517.18 Amount Paid: $ 2,758.59 Amount Due: $ 2,758.59 Assessed Land Value: $ 388,400.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 0.00 3. Potential charges, for the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charge, as authorized under RCW 35.58 and King County Code 28.84.050. Said charges could apply for any property that connected to the King County Sewer Service area on or after February 1, 1990. Note: Properties located in Snohomish County and Pierce County may be subject to the King County Sewage Treatment Capacity Charges. To verify charges contact: (206) 296-1450 or CapChargeEscrow@kingcounty.gov. 4. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, if any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Secoma Business Park recorded in Volume 113, Pages 37 through 4p, in King County, Washington. 5. Easement as delineated and/or dedicated on the face of the plat: Purpose: 10 foot sanitary sewer Area Affected: Easterly portion of said premises Said easement was also received under Recording No. 7703080765, recorded March 08, 1977. 6. Restrictions, easements and liability to assessments contained in declaration of protective restrictions, easements and assessments, as hereto attached: Declaration dated: December 26, 1979 Recorded: December 26, 1979 Recording No.: 7912260134 7. The terms, provisions and easement(s) contained in the document entitled "Temporary Construction Easement, Reciprocal Access and Utility Easement" recorded July 25, 2007 as Recording No. 200707250o1740 of Official Records. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) File No.: NCS-755537-WAl Commitment Page No. 5 8. The effect of a document entitled "Quit Claim Deed", recorded December 07, 2012 as Recording No. 20121207000424 of Official Records. Said deed is not signed by all parties of record A Certificate of Good Standing from the State of not disclosed for Telecare Corporation, should be submitted prior to closing, together with evidence of the authority of the officers thereof to execute the forthcoming instrument. 10. A Certificate of Incorporation for Telecare Corporation is not currently on file with the Secretary of State, as required by statute. 11. Title is also to vest in persons shown as "and/or assigns" on the application for title insurance, whose identity has not been revealed and when so vested will then be subject to matters which may be disclosed by a search of the records against their names. 12. Matters of extended owner/purchaser coverage which are dependent upon an inspection and an ALTA survey of the property for determination of insurability. Please submit a copy of the ALTA Survey at your earliest convenience for review. Our inspection will be held pending our review of the ALTA Survey and the result of said inspection will be furnished by supplemental report. 13. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 14. Prior to issuance of an extended coverage policy, the Company will require an Owner's Affidavit be completed and submitted to the Company for approval prior to closing. The Company reserves the right to make any additional requirement as warranted. First American Tit/e Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment INFORMATIONAL NOTES File No.: NCS-755537-WAI Page No. 6 A. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. B. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. C. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Lot 2, Secoma Business Park, Vol. 113, Pgs. 37-40 APN: 768190-0020-08 D. According to the application for title insurance, title is to vest in Telecare Corporation. Examination of the records discloses no matters pending against said party(ies). A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. cc: Norm Ives, NI Commercial END OF SCHEDULE B First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment s� ��teke First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NCS-755537-WAl Page No. 7 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information File No.: NCS-755537-WAl Page No. 8 In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner In which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of Its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.Firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and, Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the Information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our afi5iiated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access W nonpublic personal information about you to those indlviduals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations W guard your nonpublic personal information. c 2001 The First American Corporation - All Rights Reserved First American Title Insurance Company 07 J� mmk.- CITY OF VMM*� Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8"' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffedem way.caM FEB 2 2 2016 CM OF FMERAL WAY CDS Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Checklist Directions Please fill out the checklist to indicate which strategies have been used to implement CPTED principles in your proposed project. Please check all strategies that are applicable to your project for each of the numbered guidelines. You may check more than one strategy for each guideline. Your responses will be evaluated by City Staff, and will be integrated into the Site Plan and/or Building Permit review process. Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ! Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Section 1.0 Natural Surveillance 1.1 Blind Corners Conforms Avoid blind corners in pathways and parking lots. _ Revise NA Comments: Me Pathways should be direct. All barriers along pathways should be permeable (see (hrough) including landscaping, fencing etc. ■ ❑ Consider the installation of mirrors to allow users to see ahead of them and around corners. e Other strategy used: 1.2 Site and Building Layout Conforms Allow natural observation from the street to the use, from the ,Revise use to the street, and between uses _NA Comments. Bulletin #022 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Standard Strategy 2 Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review ❑ Orient the main entrance towards the street or both streets on For Non -Single corners. ■ Family Development Position habitable rooms with windows at the front of the N/A dwelling. ■ Access to dwellings or other uses above commercial/ retail development should not be from the rear of the building. ■ Offset windows, doorways and balconies to allow for natural observation while protecting privacy. ■ Locate main entrances/exits at the front of the site and in view of the street. ■ For Commercial/ Retail/ Industrial If employee entrances must be separated from the main and Community ❑ entrance, they should maximize oppc"ities for natural Facilities surveillance from the street. ■ ❑ In industrial developments, administration/offices should be located at the front of the building. ■ N/A Avoid large expanses of parking. Where large expanses of For Surface ❑ parking are proposed, provide surveillance such as security Parking and cameras. ■ Parking Structures Access to elevators, stairwells and pedestrian pathways should be clearly visible from an adjacent parking area. ■ ❑ Avoid hidden recesses. ■ Recesses have windowson to space for visibility. Locate parking areas in locations that can be observed by adjoining uses. ■ Open spaces shall be clearly designated and situated at For Common/ locations that are easily observed by people. Parks, plazas, Open Space ❑ common areas, and playgrounds should be placed in the front Areas of buildings. Shopping centers and other similar uses should face streets. ■ Other strategy used: Private open sace is enclosed by fence and has full visibility from ❑ Day Room during use times. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Bulletin #022 — January 1, 2011 Page 2 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review { 1.3 Common/Open Space Areas and Public On -Site Open —Conforms Space —Revise Provide natural surveillance for commonlopen space areas. `NA Comments: Position active uses or habitable rooms with windows adjacent if to main common/open space areas, e.g. playgrounds, swimming pools, etc., and public on -site open space. ■ Design and locate dumpster enclosures in a manner which Or screens refuse containers but avoids providing opportunities to hide. ■ Locate waiting areas and external entries to elevators/stairwells close to areas of active uses to make them visible from the building entry. e ❑ Locate seating in areas of active uses. e Other strategy used: 1.4 Entrances _Conforms Provide entries that are clearly visible. __.Revise _NA Comments: Design entrances to allow users to see into them before entering. ■ Entrances should be clearly identified {Signs must conform to FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. (Applicable during Certiftcare of cCadnaaacy btsnectiaiz). Other strategy used: 1.5 Fencing _Conforms Fence design should maximize natural surveillance from the _Revise street to the building and from the building to the street, and _NA minimize opportunities for intruders to hide. Comments: Bulletin #022 — January 1, 2011 Page 3 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Standard Strategy 0 Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review N/A ❑ Front fences should be predominantly open in design, e.g. pickets or wrought iron, or low in height. e Design high solid front fences in a manner that incorporates N/A ❑ open elements to allow visibility above the height of five feet. e If noise insulation is required, install double -glazing at the N/A ❑ front of the building rather than solid fences higher than five feet. e Evaluation for Agency Use Only Other strategy used: 1.6 Landscaping —Conforms Avoid landscaping which obstructs natural surveillance and Revise allows intruders to hide. _NA Comments: Trees with dense low growth foliage should be spaced or their crown should be raised to avoid a continuous barrier. ■ Use low groundcover, shrubs a minimum of 24 inches in Mr height, or high -canopied trees (clean trimmed to a height of eight feet) around children's play areas, parking areas, and along pedestrian pathways. ■ Avoid vegetation that conceals the building entrance from the street. ■ Other strategy used: 1.7 Exterior Lighting _Conforms Provide exterior lighting that enhances natural surveillance. _Revise (Refer to FWRC 19.115.050(7)(a) for specific lighting —NA requirements.) Comments: Prepare a lighting plan in accordance with Illuminating Engineering Society of America (IESA) Standards, which ❑ addresses project lighting in a comprehensive manner. Select a lighting approach that is consistent with local conditions and crime problems. ■ Lighting Plan is not being submitted at this time. However, light will be designed in accordance with requirements and with safety and visibility in mind. Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 4 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and Performance Standard Functional Area Performance Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Locate elevated light fixtures (poles, light standards, etc.) in a ❑ coordinated manner that provides the desired coverage. The useful ground coverage of an elevated light fixture is roughly twice its height. ■ For areas intended to be used at night, ensure that lighting ❑ supports visibility, Where lighting is placed at a lower height to support visibility for pedestrians, ensure that it is vandal - resistant. e El Ensure inset or modulated spaces on a building facade, access/egress routes, and signage is well lit. e ❑ In areas used by pedestrians, ensure that lighting shines on pedestrian pathways and possible entrapment spaces. e Place lighting to take into account vegetation, in its current and ❑ mature form, as well as any other element that may have the potential for blocking light. e Avoid lighting of areas not intended for nighttime use to avoid El giving a false impression of use or safety. If danger spots are usually vacant at night, avoid lighting there and close them off to pedestrians. e ❑ Select and light "safe routes" so that these become the focus of legitimate pedestrian activity after dark. ■ ❑ Avoid climbing opportunities by locating light standards and electrical equipment away from walls or low buildings. e ❑ Use photoelectric rather than time switches for exterior lighting. e In projects that will be used primarily by older people ❑ (retirement homes, congregate care facilities, senior and/ or community centers, etc.) provide higher levels of brightness in public/common areas. e Other strategy used: Facility will be staffed 2417 ❑ however lighting will also be designed for site visibility and safety. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1.8 Mix of Uses _Conforms In mixed use buildings increase opportunities for natural —Revise surveillance, while protecting privacy. _NA Comments: Bulletin #022 — January 1, 201 t Page 5 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Performance Performance Standard Standard N/A 1.9 N/A Strategy r Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Where allowed by city code, locate shops and businesses on lower floors and residences on upper floors. In this way, ❑ residents can observe the businesses after hours while the residences can be observed by the businesses during business hours. ■ ❑ Include food kiosks, restaurants, etc. within parks and parking structures. t Other strategy: Evaluation for Agency Use Only Security Bars, Shutters, and Doors _Conforms When used and permitted by building and fire codes, security _Revise bars, shutters, and doors should allow observation of the street _NA and be consistent with the architectural style of the building. Comments: Security bars and security doors should be visually permeable (see -through). e Other strategy used: Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Section 2.0 Access Control 2.1 Building Identification —Conforms Ensure buildings are clearly identified by street number to —Revise prevent unintended access and to assist persons trying to find _NA the building. Identification signs must conform to FWRC Comments: 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. Street numbers should be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. e Signage is not being submitted at this time, however, signage will be designed according to code and to be visible from street. Bulletin #022 — January 1, 2011 Page 6 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy a Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review In residential uses, each individual unit should be clearly numbered. In multiple building complexes, each building entry N/A ❑ should clearly state the unit numbers accessed from than entry. In addition, unit numbers should be provided on each level or floor. e u✓ Street numbers should be made of durable materials, preferably reflective or luminous, and unobstructed (e.g. by foliage). e For larger projects, provide location maps (fixed plaque N/A ❑ format) and directional signage at public entry points and along internal public routes of travel. e Other strategy used: 2,2 Entrances —Conforms Avoid confusion in locating building entrances. __Revise NA Comments: Entrances should be easily recognizable through design Ef features and directional signage. (Signs must conform to FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt Signs. ■ Minimize the number of entry points. ■ Other strategy used: 2,3 Landscaping _Conforms Use vegetation as barriers to deter unauthorized access. Revise _NA Comments: ❑ Consider using thorny plants as an effective barrier. e Other strategy used: Landscaping will be heavy at �] the rear of the property and along the side and rear property lines. 2.4 Landscaping Location _Conforms Avoid placement of vegetation that would enable access to a Revise building or to neighboring buildings. _NA Comments: Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 7 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Avoid placement of large trees, garages, utility structures, N/A ❑ fences, and gutters next to second story windows or balconies that could provide a means of access. ■ 13 Other strategy used: 2.5 Security —Conforms Reduce opportunities for unauthorized access Revise _NA Comments: Consider the use of security hardware and/or human measures ❑ to reduce opportunities for unauthorized access. (Applicable during Certif cute of Occupancy MWection). Other strategy used: Staff will be on site 24/7. 2.6 Signage .Conforms Insure that signage is clearly visible, easy to read and simple to Revise understand [Signs must conform to FWRC 19.140.060. Exempt ._.NA Signs]. Signage is not being submitted at this time, Comments: however, signage will be designed according to code. 0 Use strong colors, standard symbols, and simple graphics for informational signs. e Upon entering the parking area, provide both pedestrians and For Surface ❑ drivers with a clear understanding of the direction to stairs, Parking and elevators, and exits. e Parking Structures In multi -level parking areas, use creative signage to distinguish between floors to enable users to easily locate their cars. e ❑ Advise users of security measures that are in place and where to find them, i.e. security phone or intercom system. e ❑ Provide signage in the parking area advising users to lock their cars. e Bulletin #022 —January 1, 2011 Page 8 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist Section and ✓ Functional Area Evaluation for Performance Performance Standard Agency Use Only Standard Strategy ■ Applicable during Site Plan Review e Applicable during Building Permit Review Where exits are closed after hours, ensure this information is indicated at the parking area entrance. e Other strategy used:_ Signage is not being submitted at this time, however, signage will ❑ be designed according to code. Section 3.0 Ownership 3.1 Maintenance _Conforms Create a "cared for" image _Revise _NA Comments: Ensure that landscaping is well maintained, as per FWRC 19.125.090, in order to give an impression of ownership, care, and security. (Ongoing). Where possible, design multi -unit residential uses such that no N A ❑ more than six to eight units share a common building entrance, ■ Other strategy used: El 3.2 Materials `Conforms Use materials, which reduce the opportunity for vandalism. TRevise _NA Comments: Consider using strong, wear resistant laminate, impervious glazed ceramics, treated masonry products, stainless steel 5( materials, anti -graffiti paints, and clear over sprays to reduce opportunities for vandalism. Avoid flat or porous finishes in areas where graffiti is likely to be a problem. e ..f Where large walls are unavoidable, refer to FWRC L! 19.125.040(21) regarding the use of vegetative screens. e Common area and/or street furniture shall be made of long ❑ wearing vandal resistant materials and secured by sturdy anchor points, or removed after hours. e Other strategy used: Ad Bulletin #022 — January 1, 2011 Page 9 of 9 k:\Handouts\CPTED Checklist ,,,ry nr- F:EpERAL WAY looking east from street edge Telecare Evaluation & Treatment Center 33500 13th Place South, Federal Way, WA 4dr ooking towards street at south property line within parking lot �.T'�\:•: •� ter. ._ Y _ ti•717 v Jng area el L t ell �f� Irdr ly Y t7 . �' xt •fir � 1 � 'f ,�[ a.V ' \ M �• Ottt � 's �- :.•?i - � ' � r 1 - r ` art :: f • "ILb i"a"'�-- .. .. _Fr J _ :; yr � � • . •� 1 �� - S�1y�yrr �Z -- � •` `_ �• !'�$ � �' WI Telecare King County Evaluation and Treatment Facility 3350013th Place South The project consists of the development of two vacant parcels (2.36 acres) and construction of an approximately 11,000 square foot new Evaluation and treatment facility with related sitework and parking for approximately thirty-four stalls. The Telecare King County E&T shall admit adults (age 18 and over) in crisis, and/or representing a significant danger to self/others or are gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder who may present voluntarily or involuntarily for Evaluation and Treatment. The Telecare King County E&T shall be comprised of a maximum occupancy of 16 beds. The facility includes client bedrooms, kitchen and dining, day room, outdoor exercise area, Services and activities to be provided to clients of the E&T are medical screening, psychiatric screening, risk screening, complete psycho-bio-social evaluation, peer support and treatment with the intent of stabilization, improvement in mental status, behavior and adoption of recovery principles to the extent that the client may be returned to their previous, or another, less restrictive living arrangement with appropriate integration into aftercare services. Materials and Type of Construction The building will be slab on grade, wood framed with plywood siding, manufactured wood trusses and asphalt shingle roofing. It will comply with Type 5B construction with Fire sprinklers. Areas of Concern We would like to confirm the use classification, zoning and land use requirements, site development and frontage requirements and understand timelines for site development permits and building permits. 10.01.15 33500131h Place S, Federal Way Telecare Evaluation and Treatment Facility STATEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN INTENT The building is a simple wood framed gabled roofed structural with four projecting wings around a central control axis. The gables are roofed with composition laminated shingles. The exterior walls are detailed with a Cement plaster wainscot and plywood or Hardi-panel above with wood battens. The walls will be painted with an earth tone palette to fit in with the neighboring buildings. Windows will be aluminum framed. At the entry, the building will have concrete columns and an exposed decorative wood truss. The site will feature native plantings, bike rack and a seating bench. FEDERAL WAY EVALUATION & TREATMENT CENTER TELECARE CORP. 33500 13TH PLACE SOUTH, FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 VICINITY MAP: PROJECT TEAM: OWNER TELECARE CORP. 7080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY, SUITE 100 A[AMEI IA, CA 94501 CONTACT: CAMERON CpLTHARP EMAIL 000flharp�59fecarecorp.Com CELL510-717-2T07 FAX 510-550-2653 ARCHITECT BCRA, INC 2106 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 300 TACO MA WA 98402 CONTACT: JIM WOLCH EMAIL:1+7WcII{crad-i gn.com PHONE: 253.6�hP7,4367 PROJECT DATA: PROJECT DESCRIPTION, NEW EVALUATION AND TREATMENT FACILITY. ACRES: 2 36 (103,098 SQUARE FEET) BUILDING DATA PARCEL 766190-0010 768190-0020 SITE ADDRESS:30.400I PLAC@ SOUTH FELFiyy, WAY, WA 96003 LOCAL JURISDICTION: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA SINGLE STORY-10,964 GSF CONSTRUCTION TYpE TYPE V -1HOUR OCCUPANCYTYPE: I-2 FULLYSPRMED PROJECT GENERAL NOTES: 1. THE CONTRACTOR L9 RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING DIMENSIONS AND E10STING 2- FIET.D E)aSSTjNGCONOlTIpNSa�ND NOTIFY THE OVINER OF ANY OISCRFPANCIES mom CgkDmOHS SAPPEASRHODyN k 3- NOTEWSTART OF WCRKVp DRAWINGS FOR DIFFEREfyT SYSTEMS AND MATERIALS. REVIEW ALL SHEETS AND APPLY NOTES TO REIATED BVICDING COAOPONENTS. 4. RGFER 70 COMPLETE S"ET OF LSSUEO OOH7RAC7DOCUMENTSFOR OTHER APPLICABLE NOTES, ABBREV Wr1ONS, qNp SYMBOLS. 5. WHERE M4-TER4ILSARE APPLIED TO, ORARE INDIPZ-CT CONTACT WITH WORK INSTALLED $Y 6. SANOTHERSU@CONTRACTOR COMMENCEMENT OF UaSTRATEASWORKIh1PUES ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOLA QiSSIM4AR-EALS PREVEk7QUOgLYA�NIC CORROSIOk. W-ErveD OCT 01 20I5 C'Ty OF FEnF CDC RAC WFlY w 06 Z o 0 _p Q > >w wVLU LL 0-Z a w O w U I` U a W¢0 U m w it o LU a F- d M 0.01.2015 4224 mrne army OVER BCRA G1.00 0 W w U d 2 M I � r r' f r I ! PROJECT DATA: (26 f t PRo.rFcrrmc,�,,,L.. C M R IA US 4 '' NEW EVALUATION AND TREATMENT FACILITY. ACRES: 2.36 (103,098 SQUARE FEET) COMMERCIAL LiSE BUILDING DATA 1f PARCEL 768190-0010 768190-0020 LL I LL I EXISTING DRNEAND PART NG SITE ADDRESS: 3350013TH PLACE SOUTH t (EXISTWG ROAD EASEMEH FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 f m g S•0' TYPrCAL I LOCAL JURISDICTION: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ~ ' TYPE �N65CAPE BUFFER, BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA SINGLE STORY- 10,9y1 GSF w TYPICAL (V UAL BARRIER] A � CONSTRUCTION TYPE; TYPE V-iHOUR OCCUPANCY TYPE: I-2 r I TRASH GENERATOR / FULLYSPRINKLED / I I I b w I � I � 9'-0' 9'-0• 9'-0• AMBULANCE /r Y l •I PG'�')'�: ENTRANCE f7 (�15iA71pARp STALLS I �'-0' LE5PALE5 I IXERCISE YARD � I' •-0•TYp r-0• [r/ a ✓ MAIN ENTRANCE � a / cla T-T L ml r 3 -o-TYPW--L f /� Z) W w Q Z L >Wo ------- I W U W LL TYPE III LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BARRIER) '------ I ^ Z U +�BONDON E]OSTING ACGEBg Pp1NT !, i LL 1 Q. ~W W,1 OEIiSE LANDSCAPE SUFFER 11 r /i / I // w cr J f o O POTENTIAL STORY DRAINAGE ❑ U Q ~ PACOUtT' LOCATION L U W N 101'35/B• / O LL o w d COMMERCIAL USE ! i (KINDER RE) COMMERCIAL USE I , f � ' 1001.2015 I I II 14= I r, SITE PLAN i f I , I , 1 � I I BCRA 11 IoE•PLAN PLVJNORTN sea a .10 r xa m do (t A1.01 OFFICE 209 168 SF 210 123 SF k EXERCISE YARD k 1 Ijk 1 I NF. DAY L�304 LOBBY 159 I STORAGE S F SE]A416H6 1 0S F LJ LJ J LJ EXAM z 191 SIN OLE RM,. L. A B L I J 190 1263 � 1 187 leg 1B9 ` T �y ARF7N'C 116 SF 111 SF ��IJI t� 135E tt3 � PARENT 1 TOILET CORRIDOR ' ■ ' 186 ® 1 51 SF —NJit ES - - J ,� SECL STATION ROOM 161 I RM. 1111 PATI J DOUBLE L �SINGLE�TROON. SINGLE r BESF 194 BEDRML I BEDRM. IDRM. j� 182 eS L 1g4 TB I IIYyI SF 121 BREAK 1 1 SF 175 SF 106 ROOM L :a 205 I RM 0o 237 SF I I L_J L' 1 MEDICATION 162 76 SF HKISTORGAE ® 1 86 SF 79 r-I r 1 r r �136 SF 1 CORRIDOR ,- - ' III' 69�SF I I 1 I I -L LJ ]L �LJ ACCESSIBLE OFFICE DDUBI.E BEDRM. DOUBT 215 167 ^�> l5B 158 SF 172 SF T- 232 SF CORRIDOR 1k 200 ` L_JL _JL___ ACC ACCESSIBLE 213 PAT£NT DOUBLE 30 SF BEDRM. I&S 159 OFFICE 1D4 SF 232 SF 211 123 SF lAMBULANCE ENTRANCE STAFF JJ116SF ROOMA2101 192 CONSULT198 SF 17S 92 SF MECH. PATIENT SPRINK ROOM 180 179 t 57SF — 936E ----------- CONFERENCE FACILMY 11 DIRECTRECTOR 304 SF IF 1n i 127 SF 1 , MEDICAL k OFFICE RECORDS 176 175 1 132 SF 213 SF k MAIN FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL 118" = 1'-0" RM 195 WAITING I 67 F17. 2B9 SF RECEPTION STORAGE BOON I! DATA 197 211 CLOSET 1S6 log SF 64 SF SF _ fBU _ _ — — — — ! — — — — I 79 SF � I TOTAL SF: 10, 465 MAIN ENTRANCE PLAN NORTH C7© 0 13 D a 16 SCALE: 1I8' =1'-0' GENERAL NOTES 1 DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRID, OR FACE OF STUD, UNO. 3 REFER TO ENLARGED PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL AND DIMENSIONING 4 ALL CONDITIONS ARE EXISTING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 5 LOER TOG1.()j FOR CODE INFORMATION AND OGATTIONOF SMOKE RARRIERAPEWOR FORE RATED WALLS. 6 PROVIDE SMOOTH AND SEAMLESS TRANSITIONS BETWEEN NEW AND EXISTING. 7 FORWFORMATON ON MECHANICAIIELECTRICALIPLUMBING, REFER TO MEP DRAWINGS. a PROTECT EXISTING SYSTEMS, FINISHES, AND ACCESSORIES. 9 RFJMOVE rSYSTEMS ANO ACCE950FUES REOUIFiED TO PFJRFPRM WORK PROTECT WNO REINSTALL 10 ANY CONSTRUCTION AFFECTED BY THE RETAOVAL OR DEMOLITION CF EXISTING BUDDING SYSTEMS SripVLp BE pATCNEI]ANO RFPA1RI7i TO MATCH APJIIC@dT BUEDING FINISHES IN A CON54TI=NT MANNER 11 REFER TO f.lEGi37d1GN.. R,UM6DNG, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR DEMOLITION GCOROLNATION REOUIRED LEGEND ® FLOOR DRAY{ REFER TO F4UMBDn NEW FRAMED WALL DOUBLE 2A WD. STU" a 24" o.0. W1 S6' GWB EACH SOE MEW FRAMED WALL- ZA W D STUDS 2 2P O.C. WI SIC GYf6 EACH SIDE UNO. IIr-��1I EXISTING PARTIITON BED, 36' x 80- r - WARDROBE, 18' x 30' L_J r -I NIGHTSTAND, 22' x 22' LJ r l EXISTING DESK FLATSCREEN TV 0 MAIN FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES 1 FULL HEIGHT FRAMED WALL- 2-4 WD STUDS @247 O.C. UNO. TYR 2 NEW WOOD FRAMED INFILL WALL REFER TO LEGEND FOR ASSEMBLY 3 EMERGENCY EXIT RAN 4 EXAM TABLE 5 EXAM LIGHT 6 LAUNDRY FOLD DOWN TABLE 7 REVERSE SWING ON EXISTING DOORS PROVIDE ANTI � ECLUSION RM. >�ESTROOMA Z0 Orn L Q r r J H -j W W U L1_ W I— a}W w UO� w�a OW WLU L H LL r M emwa .n taot-zD1s eauxo 14224 s@T Mi£ MAIN FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL BCRA sffr A2.01 PRELIMINARY NORTH ELEVAT 1/8" =1'-0" H G F I ! II l I I I I I C � A 1 I l I � I I � I I S I I I I i I I j ti I l i 1 I I I I SOUTH ELEVATfON 2 1 /8" = V-0. 1 eMlT 10R L[GKnWG MOUNTED AT F-(r DNO, AND CENTERED ABDVE DOOFR FiSF ER TO ELEC. _Y.O�ROOF FRAMIN[i r1 1r-0' FINISH FLOOR h 0- S� -w LL L2 �LL 06 M Z O O O W Z W W wU LL w F-- } W W .0F O g a Q a LU d Cl)10.01.2015 —W 14224 umrvt vffTm� EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BCRA A3.01 PRELIMINARY M AST ELEVATION II l 11 I 4 3 I I 1 I I I I I I l I I 1j I l I I I I t I i WEST ELEVATION 1 E1REIWFt UGH7INCMOt1NTFAATV4rUNO, AND CENTERED ABOVE DOOR, REFERTO ELEC- I 1 i T-0- F FRW4rr- o FINISH R2 OR_1't Q' 06 m Z0 O Q Y J H 3 QZ LIS W W WU LL WH 0 } W w o 0 g U d F It ~ Q M a 0 LLI wad co �swic as 10.01.2015 corm. 14224 cmn s�nnx EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BCRA 12 .w-p�..� A3.02 PRELIMINARY HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2549: 14 Av S & S 312 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SSR Lane Configurations 01 0 4o. +T iff Traffic Volume (vph) 73 590 34 26 808 45 52 15 16 58 9 64 Future Volume (vph) 73 590 34 26 808 45 52 15 16 58 9 64 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1787 3408 1770 3376 1764 1761 1536 Fit Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 432 3408 713 3376 1764 1761 1536 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.84 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 75 608 35 30 929 52 83 24 25 69 11 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 641 0 30 979 0 0 126 0 0 80 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8 20 20 27 39 8 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Split NA Split NA Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 6 6 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8 97.2 93.9 4 97.2 83.2 14.2 10.6 10.6 Effective Green, g (s) 97.2 93.9 97.2 83.2 14.2 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.67 0.69 0.59 0.10 0.08 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 435 2285 519 2006 178 133 116 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.19 0.00 c0.29 c0.07 c0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.06 0.49 0.71 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 15.2 9.3 6.8 16.2 62.7 60.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.60 1.00 19.9 1.00 15.2 1.00 10.1 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.7 9.9 5.2 0.1 Delay (s) 15.3 9.7 3.1 10.5 70.8 67.8 60.1 Level of Service B A A B E E E Approach Delay (s) 10.2 10.2 70.8 64.1 Approach LOS B B E E fnfarspr:finn Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2550: Pacific Hwy S & S 312 St 4/28/2016 t --1. 4- �+-- 4- it #1 t �► Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU N6L NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations +I TT� M ttlt, Zi Traffic Volume (vph) 201 345 120 143 481 117 30 202 883 80 78 134 Future Volume (vph) 201 345 120 143 481 117 30 202 883 80 78 134 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 1% 0% polo Total Lost time (s) 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1733 3250 1754 3267 3439 4982 1773 Fit Permitted 0.19 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow(perm) 353 3250 617 3267 3439 4982 1773 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 218 375 130 157 529 129 31 208 910 82 85 146 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 15 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 218 479 0 157 643 0 0 239 985 0 0 231 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 30 33 18 64 15 52 34 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Bus Blockages #/hr 6 2 4 4 4 6 4 4 6 2 6 2 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 50.6 41.0 51.1 36.5 13.2 42.4 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 48.6 40.0 49.1 35.5 13.2 42.4 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.29 0.35 0.25 0.09 0.30 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 251 928 290 828 324 1508 341 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.15 0.04 0.20 0.07 c0.20 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.52 0.54 0.78 0.74 0.65 0.68 Uniform Delay, dl 52.3 41.9 33.0 48.6 61.7 42.4 52.5 Progression Factor 0.84 0.87 0.72 0.83 0.62 0.83 0.74 Incremental Delay, d2 24.4 0.2 1.1 4.2 6.5 2.0 3.6 Delay (s) 68.3 36.7 25.0 44.7 44.6 37.0 42.1 Level of Service E D C D D D D Approach Delay (s) 46.2 40.9 38.5 Approach LOS D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 22.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2550: Pacific HwyS & S 312 St 4128/2016 Movement SBT SBR LanEMonfigurations ttt Traffic Volume (vph) 1195 220 Future Volume (vph) 1195 220 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 Grade (%) 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.93 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 At Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 5108 1460 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(Perm) 5108 1460 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1299 239 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 48 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1299 191 Confl. Peds. (#mr) 45 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages (#Ihr) 4 4 Turn Type NA pm+ov Protected Phases 6 7 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 56.2 70.3 Effective Green, g (s) 56.2 68.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2050 712 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.03 vls Ratio Perm 0.11 vlc Ratio 0.63 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 33.6 21.1 Progression Factor 0.62 0.61 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 22.0 12.9 Level of Service C B Approach Delay (s) 23.4 Approach LOS C Intersection Surnm Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2552: 20 Av S & S 312 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SET SBR Lane Configurations 'AT+ I tT+ *? r 4 Traffic Volume (vph) 4 361 129 109 489 23 177 37 125 21 24 4 Future Volume (vph) 4 361 129 109 489 23 177 37 125 21 24 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 11 12 11 12 Grade (%) 5% 4% -1% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1737 3183 1816 3478 1831 1517 1774 Fit Permitted 0.42 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.69 Satd. Flow(perm) 759 3183 812 3478 1386 1517 1257 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 _ 0.94 0.76 0.76 _ 0.76 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 397 142 124 556 26 188 39 133 28 32 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 107 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 4 524 0 124 581 0 0 227 26 0 62 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 7 6 7 1 9 3 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bus Blockages #/hr 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 97.6 88.3 98.1 96.6 27.9 27.9 28.4 Effective Green, g (s) 97.6 88.3 98.1 96.6 26.9 26.9 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.63 0.70 0.69 0.19 0.19 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 536 2007 639 2399 266 291 246 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.16 c0.01 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.12 c0.16 0.02 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.01 0.26 0.19 0.24 0.85 0.09 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 7.7 11.4 9.2 8.1 54.6 46.5 47.6 Progression Factor 0.83 0.94 0.68 0.67 1.30 3.57 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 21.2 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 6.4 11.0 6.4 5.7 92.2 166.0 47.8 Level of Service A B A A F F D Approach Delay (s) 10.9 5.8 119.5 47.8 Approach LOS B A F D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 15.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2554: 23 Av S & S 312 St 4/2s/zols Mw ept. _ EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations + r t It Traffic Volume (vph) 329 143 49 399 210 65 Future Volume (vph) 329 143 49 399 210 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 12 12 12 11 Grade (%) -8% 8% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1891 1552 1702 1791 1755 1464 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow erm 1891 1552 1702 1791 1755 1464 Peak -hour factor, PH 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 366 159 54 443 226 70 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 57 0 0 0 59 Lane Group Flow (vph) 366 102 54 443 226 11 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 6 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 2% 2% Bus Blockages #/hr 0 2 2 2 2 0 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 89.7 89.7 13.2 108.4 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g (s) 89.7 89.7 12.2 108.4 21.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.09 0.77 0.15 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1211 994 148 1386 270 236 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 0.03 co.25 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.10 0.36 0.32 0.84 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 11.2 9.7 60.2 4.7 57.5 49.6 Progression Factor 0.59 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.96 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 18.7 0.0 Delay (s) 7.2 6.5 60.8 5.3 73.7 97.4 Level of Service A A E A E F Approach Delay (s) 7.0 11.4 79.3 Approach LOS A B E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 J Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2652: 20 Av S & S 314 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL INBT WBR NBL NST NBR 5BL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T. l T. T. Traffic Volume (vph) 22 9 73 110 16 33 56 273 45 27 204 11 Future Volume (vph) 22 9 73 110 16 33 56 273 45 27 204 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) 3% 1% 4% -5% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1743 1485 ' 1767 1624 1759 1747 1822 1845 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.50 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm)_1320 1485 1027 1624 1072 1747 964 1845 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.88 0.88 _ 0.88 0.82 0.82 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 26 11 87 131 19 39 64 310 51 33 249 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 80 0 0 33 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 18 0 131 25 0 64 358 0 33 261 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 8 4 9 4 9 5 8 Heavy Vehicles % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 12.7 26.3 22.0 94.7 92.3 95.7 89.6 Effective Green, g (s) 24.3 11.7 24.3 21.0 92.7 91.3 93.7 88.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.15 0.66 0.65 0.67 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 239 124 244 243 729 1139 659 1167 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.05 0.02 cO.00 c0.21 0.00 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.04 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.15 0.54 0.10 0.09 0.31 0.05 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 59.5 51.7 51.4 8.3 10.7 8.0 11.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.78 0.70 0.75 1.12 1.02 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 Delay (s) 48.6 59.7 46.3 40.0 5.8 8.7 9.0 11.7 Level of Service D E D D A A A B Approach Delay (s) 57.4 44.4 8.2 11.4 Approach LOS E D A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay CM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 4.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 23.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2654: 23 AV S & S 314 St 412s12o1 s --t -*� T --* -0. 4- ti4averienk EBL EBT EBR WBL WET WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 7 0 160 2 2 4 71 271 7 3 194 15 Future Volume (vph) 7 0 160 2 2 4 71 271 7 3 194 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) -6% 6% 7% -7% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.90 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.87 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) - 1520 1623 1653 1713 1785 1832 At Permitted 0.98 0.80 0.61 1.00 0.57 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1499 1321 1067 1713 1072 1832 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 0 239 3 3 6 80 304 8 3 216 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 226 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 0 0 6 0 80 312 0 3 232 0 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 3 20 4 13 16 14 10 19 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages #mr 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 9.0 117.0 117.0 118.0 111.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 8.0 115.0 116.0 116.0 110.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.06 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.79 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 80 75 895 1419 888 1445 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.18 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.00 0.07 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.08 0.09 0.22 0.00 0.16 Uniform Delay, dl 63.7 62.5 2.3 2.5 2.1 3.6 Progression Factor 1.28 1.00 0.62 0.67 1.64 1.96 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 82.3 62.7 1.5 2.0 3.4 7.2 Level of Service F E A A A A Approach Delay (s) 82.3 62.7 1.9 7.2 Approach LOS F E A A Intersection Sumrnary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2750: Pacific Hwy S & S 316 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR INBL WBT WBR NBU N$L NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations T+ I 73 A ttll� Zi Traffic Volume (vph) 73 60 104 126 80 107 76 208 1112 91 42 77 Future Volume (vph) 73 60 104 126 80 107 76 208 1112 91 42 77 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -2% 0% 2% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.5 6.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.99 1..00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1759 1560 1698 1584 1769 4941 1737 Flt Permitted 0.37 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow(perm) 682 1560 737 1584 1769 4941 1737 Peak -hour factor, PH 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 71 124 140 89 119 86 236 1264 103 45 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 48 0 0 38 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 147 0 140 170 0 0 322 1362 0 0 127 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 33 18 16 15 28 10 Heavy Vehicles(%) 1% 1% 1% 4% 4% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% Bus Blockages #/hr 6 7 4 4 0 6 4 0 6 7 6 7 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 24.3 29.5 22.7 32.5 77.5 14.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 23.3 27.5 21.7 32.5 77.5 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.23 0.55 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 259 173 245 410 2735 173 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.09 0.02 c0.11 c0.18 0.28 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.57 0.81 0.69 0.79 0.50 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 47.9 53.7 58.6 56.0 50.5 19.3 61.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.53 1.60 0.93 0.86 0.70 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 1.7 21.4 6.3 7.4 0.5 10.7 Delay (s) 48.7 55.4 111.1 96.0 54.3 17.0 53.8 Level of Service D E F F D B D Approach Delay (s) 53.3 102.1 24.1 Approach LOS D F C intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 21.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2750: Pacific HwyS & S 316 St 4/28/2016 Movement SBT SBR LanEMonfigurabons tTll� Traffic Volume (vph) 1397 56 Future Volume (vph) 1397 56 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 Grade (%) -2% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5061 At Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow erm 5061 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 1486 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1543 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#Ihr) 4 0 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 59.0 Effective Green, g (s) 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 _ Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2132 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 33.7 Progression Factor 0.61 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 Delay (s) 22.4 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 24.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2752: 20 Av S & S 316 St 4/28/2016 _A { 4\ t / 41 Movemefrt EBL EBT EBR W8L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBIL 5BT SSR Lane Configurations Vi T T 3 T, I 1� Traffic Volume (vph) 46 113 65 39 165 100 40 202 45 67 260 33 Future Volume (vph) 46 113 65 39 165 100 40 202 45 67 260 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) 1% 1% 4% -6% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1708 1539 1712 1545 1668 1706 1772 1825 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.54 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 419 1539 796 1545 829 1706 1007 1825 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 131 76 46 194 118 44 224 50 84 325 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 19 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 189 0 46 293 0 44 270 0 84 364 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 20 9 15 11 18 9 17 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 7 0 0 10 0 10 0 7 7 0 10 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 31.9 38.0 31.4 83.0 76.7 84.0 77.9 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 30.9 36.0 30.4 81.0 75.7 82.0 76.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.22 0.26 0.22 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 159 339 238 335 504 922 624 1002 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.12 0.01 c0.19 0.00 0.16 c0.01 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.56 0.19 0.88 0.09 0.29 0.13 0.36 Uniform Delay, dl 41.1 48.5 40.0 53.0 13.2 17.5 12.8 17.8 Progression Factor 1.05 1.07 0.98 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.25 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.0 0.1 21.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 Delay (s) 43.4 52.7 39.3 74.9 13.2 18.3 15.6 23.2 Level of Service D D D E B B B C Approach Delay (s) 50.8 70.3 17.6 21.8 Approach LOS D E B C Jntersection-%= HCM 2000 Control Delay L/ HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 23.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2754: 23 Av S & S 316 St 4/2812016 Mayh EBL IWBR SBL SBR NWL NWR Lane Configurations if y if Traffic Volume (vph) 52 135 353 18 182 330 Future Volume (vph) 52 135 353 18 182 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 11 12 12 11 Grade (%) 0% -7% 4% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1722 1382 1744 1520 1473 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1812 1382 1744 1600 1473 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 55 142 388 20 190 344 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 121 1 0 0 61 Lane Group Flow (vph) 55 21 407 0 190 283 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 22 22 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% Bus Blocky es(#/hr) 2 2 2 0 0 2 Turn Type custom pm+ov Prot D.P+P Prot Protected Phases 3 1 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 22.3 102.7 110.2 116.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 20.3 101.7 108.2 115.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.15 0.73 0.77 0.82 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 96 259 1266 1232 1212 vls Ratio Prot co.03 0.00 c0.23 0.01 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.01 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.08 0.32 0.15 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 64.5 51.8 6.8 4.1 2.7 Progression Factor 1.25 2.70 1.04 0.51 0.13 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 Delay (s) 85.7 139.9 7.8 2.1 0.8 Level of Service F F A A A Approach Delay (s) 124.8 7.8 1.2 Approach LOS F A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24 ' HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio D.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) %Sum of lost time (s) 23.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2855: 23 Av S & S 317 St 4/28/2016 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SER NWL NWT NWR Lane Configurations 4 T tT t Traffic Volume (vph) 10 12 11 311 25 145 120 626 11 16 368 161 Future Volume (vph) 10 12 11 311 25 145 120 626 11 16 368 161 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 14 12 11 11 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 Grade (%) 0% -3% 0% -1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.5 4.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 932 1509 1140 1597 3252 1491 1761 1403 Fit Permitted 0.91 0.73 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow erm 865 1162 1140 669 3252 527 1761 1403 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 14 13 327 26 153 130 680 12 18 418 183 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 30 0 327 76 0 130 692 0 18 418 92 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 29 47 49 20 76 47 20 Heavy Vehicles (%) 92% 92% 92% 8% 8% 8% 9% 2% 25% 4% 4% 4% Bus Blockages #/hr 2 7 20 20 34 2 7 20 34 34 2 7 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Perm Protected Phases 8 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 46.4 45.9 45.9 80.1 77.7 80.1 70.7 70.7 Effective Green, g (s) 45.4 45.9 45.9 78.1 76.7 79.1 70.2 70.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.55 0.56 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 380 373 428 1781 310 883 703 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.02 c0.21 0.00 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.28 0.15 0.03 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.86 0.20 0.30 0.39 0.06 0.47 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 33.1 44.1 33.9 16.0 18.2 13.8 22.8 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.77 0.59 0.76 0.57 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 17.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.4 Delay (s) 33.2 61.2 34.0 12.6 14.7 8.2 19.0 11.0 Level of Service C E C B B A B B Approach Delay (s) 33.2 51.6 14.3 16.3 Approach LOS C D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio t7.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3048: 11 PI S & S 320 St 412s12o16 --,* --I. --v 4- *.-- *-- 4\ t 4 l 41 Movement _ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL N8T NBR SSL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +11' I t14 Vi T T Traffic Volume (vph) 32 1101 210 66 1613 6 410 3 105 39 1 5 Future Volume (vph) 32 1101 210 66 1613 6 410 3 105 39 1 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 2% -1% 2% -3% Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.73 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3251 1778 3381 1672 1528 1739 1200 Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow 140 3251 252 3381 1327 1528 1830 1200 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 1101 210 66 1613 6 410 3 105 39 1 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 1302 0 66 1619 0 410 15 0 39 1 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages #!hr 0 4 0 0 8 0 8 0 4 4 0 8 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 89.4 84.2 89.4 86.1 36.6 16.4 16.4 1.2 Effective Green, g (s) 89.4 84.2 89.4 86.1 36.1 15.9 14.4 0.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.60 0.64 0.61 0.26 0.11 0.10 0.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 127 1955 217 2079 415 173 178 1 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.40 0.01 c0.48 c0.21 0.01 0.02 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.18 c0.04 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.67 0.30 0.78 0.99 0.09 0.22 1.01 Uniform Delay, d1 35.6 18.5 13.4 19.9 50.3 55.5 55.8 69.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.93 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.8 0.2 1.6 40.3 0.1 0.2 904.8 Delay (s) 36.0 20.4 6.9 20.1 91.7 58.3 56.1 974.7 Level of Service D C A C F E E F Approach Delay (s) 20.7 19.5 84.8 178.6 Approach LOS C B F F HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3050: Pacific Hwy S & S 320 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBIJ EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Avi tti� 1) ttt if M tti� Traffic Volume (vph) 49 356 837 71 39 445 1417 220 60 227 792 226 Future Volume (vph) 49 356 837 71 39 445 1417 220 60 227 792 226 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -6% 0% 2% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3536 5140 3433 5031 1548 3344 4842 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3536 5140 3433 5031 1548 3344 4842 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 356 837 71 39 445 1417 220 60 227 792 226 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 36 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 405 901 0 0 484 1417 126 0 287 982 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) _ 8 0 4 0 4 0 8 0 0 8 0 4 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 1 1 6 5 5 2 3 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.5 40.6 22.0 43.6 43.6 15.7 41.9 Effective Green, g (s) 18.5 40.6 22.0 43.6 43.6 15.7 41.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.29 0.16 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 467 1490 539 1566 482 375 1449 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.18 0.14 c0.28 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.87 0.60 0.90 0.90 0.26 0.77 0.68 Uniform Delay, dl 59.5 42.8 57.9 46.2 36.1 60.4 43.1 Progression Factor 0.79 0.71 0.63 0.54 0.32 0.98 1.36 Incremental Delay, d2 13.0 1.5 13.4 6.9 1.0 6.6 2.1 Delay (s) 59.9 31.9 49.7 31.8 12.5 65.5 60.5 Level of Service E C D C B E E Approach Delay (s) 40.6 33.9 61.6 Approach LOS D C E Intersection Su HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 21.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3050: Pacific HwyS & S 320 St 4/2812016 L# � Movement 5BU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M ttf r Traffic Volume (vph) 52 252 1008 315 Future Volume (vph) 52 252 1008 315 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -2 0 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ftt 1.00 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3440 5136 1510 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3440 5136 1510 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 52 252 1008 315 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 120 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 304 1008 195 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 4 0 8 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 7 4 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 41.2 41.2 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 41.2 41.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 368 1511 444 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.67 0.44 Uniform Delay, dl 61.2 43.4 40.0 Progression Factor 0.67 0.54 0.37 Incremental Delay, d2 9.7 1.6 2.2 Delay (s) 50.5 24.9 16.9 Level of Service D C B Approach Delay (s) 28.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3052: 20 Av S & S 320 St 4/28/2016 '# -,* (j� j' 4--- 4, 4� T �► M eme>it EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WSL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations M W. M ttT+ T. Traffic Volume (vph) 9 213 970 73 10 57 1696 102 134 83 64 160 Future Volume (vph) 9 213 970 73 10 57 1696 102 134 83 64 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 11 11 12 11 11 11 12 11 11 12 11 Grade (%) -3% 2% -1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3368 4901 3285 4791 1690 1673 1700 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.50 Satd. Flow (urm) 3368 4901 3285 4791 319 1673 898 Peak -hour factor, PHF ?.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 213 970 73 10 57 1696 102 134 83 64 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 22 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 222 1038 0 0 67 1794 0 134 125 0 160 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages #/hr 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 4 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA D.P+P NA D.P+P Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 1 6 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 80.3 7.9 74.7 33.3 22.9 33.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 80.3 7.9 74.7 32.3 22.4 32.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.57 0.06 0.53 0.23 0.16 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 324 2811 185 2556 171 267 263 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.21 0.02 c0.37 c0.06 0.07 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.37 0.36 0.70 0.78 0.47 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 61.2 16.1 63.6 24.3 46.1 53.4 46.4 Progression Factor 0.60 0.36 •0.68 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.3 0.3 1.3 19.1 0.5 2.7 Delay (s) 40.1 6.1 43.9 24.9 65.2 53.9 49.2 Level of Service D A D C E D D Approach Delay (s) 12.1 25.6 59.3 Approach LOS B C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 19.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3052: 20 Av S & S 320 St i 4/ 4/28/2016 Movement SBT SBR Lanetonfigurations '+ Traffic Volume (vph) 81 206 Future Volume (vph) 81 206 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 11 12 Grade (%) -3% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.89 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1601 At Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1601 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 81 206 RTOR Reduction (vph) 71 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 216 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 4 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 57.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 21.4 Delay (s) 78.6 Level of Service E Approach Delay (s) 68.1 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3055: 23 Av S & S 320 St 4/28/2016 ---* -t --* f- -+-- A_ 41 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR $3L SBT Lane Configurabons A) W4 M fTll� V, t If M T+ Traffic Volume (vph) 7 137 1037 21 353 1527 166 71 165 284 476 270 Future Volume (vph) 7 137 1037 21 353 1527 166 71 165 284 476 270 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 5% -5% 1% 0% Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 6.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3240 4901 3448 5094 1733 1735 1517 3392 1686 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) _ _3240 4901 3448 5094 1733 1735 1517 3392 1686 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 7 137 1037 21 353 1527 166 71 165 284 476 270 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 69 0 14 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 144 1057 0 353 1685 0 71 165 215 476 391 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hQ 4 16 6 10 10 _ 4 16 4 16 6 6 10 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 54.0 17.9 61.4 7.9 23.1 41.0 25.0 40.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 54.0 17.9 61.4 7.4 22.6 41.0 24.5 39.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.39 0.13 0.44 0.05 0.16 0.29 0.18 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 1890 440 2234 91 280 444 593 478 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.22 0.10 c0.33 0.04 c0.10 0.06 0.14 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.56 0.80 0.75 0.78 0.59 0.49 0.80 0.82 Uniform Delay, d1 62.7 33.7 59.3 33.0 65.5 54.4 40.8 55.4 46.8 Progression Factor 0.73 0.65 0.99 0.39 1.17 0.71 0.98 0.80 0.73 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.1 7.3 1.8 31.7 2.0 0.3 6.7 9.1 Delay (s) 48.3 23.0 66.0 14.7 108.4 40.8 40.3 51.0 43.5 Level of Service D C E B F D D D D Approach Delay (s) 26.0 23.6 49.7 47.5 Approach LOS C C D D lntersection.:Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) %Sum of lost time (s) 21.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3055: 23 Av S & S 320 St 4/2f3/2o1s 4/ Movement SBR LanEtiConfigurations Traffic Volume (vph) 135 Future Volume (vph) 135 Ideal Flow (yphpi) 1900 Grade (%) Total Lot time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, pedbkes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flaw (pro() Fit Permitted Satd. Flaw (verm) Peak -hour factor. PH 1.00 Adj. Ftow (vph) 135 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#!hr) 10 Bus Blockages #fhr 4 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension (s) Lane Grp Cap (vph) Ws Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection SummarY Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3056: 25 Av S/Gateway Center Blvd S & S 320 St/ S 320 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL N$T NBR SHL Lane Configurations Zi f ti� N ++T T 1i Traffic Volume (vph) 9 79 1622 10 3 28 1940 192 25 9 88 133 Future Volume (vph) 9 79 1622 10 3 28 1940 192 25 9 88 133 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 2% -1 % 2% Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.86 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4988 1778 5007 1724 1558 1724 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.65 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 4988 1778 5007 1279 1558 1172 Peak -hour factor, PH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 9 79 1622 10 3 28 1940 192 25 9 88 133 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 78 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 88 1632 0 0 31 2125 0 25 19 0 133 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages #/hr 2 0 6 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 6 6 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot Prot NA D.P+P NA D.P+P Protected Phases 5 5 2 1 1 6 7 4 3 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 89.2 4.9 81.5 26.4 16.6 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 89.2 4.9 81.5 24.4 15.6 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.64 0.04 0.58 0.17 0.11 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 157 3178 62 2914 236 173 238 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.33 0.02 c0.42 0.00 0.01 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.51 0.50 0.73 0.11 0.11 0.56 Uniform Delay, dl 61.0 13.7 66.3 21.2 48.7 55.9 54.4 Progression Factor 0.86 0.75 1.03 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.5 2.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.6 Delay (s) 54.8 10.7 70.5 17.1 48.7 56.0 56.0 Level of Service D B E B D E E Approach Delay (s) 12.9 17.9 54.6 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) .0 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3056: 25 AV S/Gateway Center Blvd S & S 320 St/ S 320 St 4/28/2016 Movement SBT SBR Lane'Lonfigurations '+ Traffic Volume (vph) 3 77 Future Volume (vph) 3 77 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade (%) -1% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.86 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1563 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1563 Peak -hour factor, PH 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 66 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Bus Blockages #mr 0 2 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 21.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 223 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 51.9 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 Delay (s) 51.9 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 54.5 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3057: 1-5 SIB Ramp & S 320 St/S 320 St & 1-5 SIB Ramp 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR SWL2 SWL SWR Lane Configurations ttt r Vii ttf I W Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1491 347 100 1315 0 0 0 517 3 898 Future Volume (vph) 0 1491 347 100 1315 0 0 0 517 3 898 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1% 0% 2% 2% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.76 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5046 1460 1741 5072 1651 1664 3564 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 5046 1460 1741 5072 1651 1664 3564 Peak -hour factor, PH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1491 347 100 1315 0 0 0 517 3 898 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1491 198 100 1315 0 0 0 258 262 846 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 4 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot custom Protected Phases 2 1 6 4 4 45 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 76.9 76.9 12.3 82.9 35.8 35.8 47.1 Effective Green, g (s) 76.9 76.9 12.3 82.9 35.8 35.8 47.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.59 0.26 0.26 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot A Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS In�umm 2771 801 152 3003 c0.30 c0.06 0.26 422 425 1199 0.16 0.16 c0.24 0.14 0.54 0.25 0.66 0.44 0.61 0.62 0.71 20.2 16.5 61.8 15.7 46.0 46.0 40.4 0.59 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.7 0.7 7.6 0.5 1.8 1.9 1.6 12.5 16.5 69.4 16.2 47.8 47.9 42.0 B B E B D D D 13.3 19.9 0.0 44.1 B B A D HCM 2000 Control Delay ` 0.8� HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio ✓ Actuated Cycle Length (s) CSum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: All Traffic Data Services - 11/4/04 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3255: 23 AV S & S 322 St 412812016 �' #- 4\ T �► 1 --* --. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ 11 T +I fl, Traffic Volume (vph) 41 1 39 43 12 86 26 389 10 42 464 24 Future Volume (vph) 41 1 39 43 12 86 26 389 10 42 464 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% -3% 0% -2% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Ftt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1720 1577 1705 1601 1773 3485 1788 3512 At Permitted 0.56 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.51 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1013 1577 1312 1601 867 3485 966 3512 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 1 39 43 12 86 26 389 10 42 464 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 79 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 4 0 43 19 0 26 398 0 42 487 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages #/hr 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 13.0 19.5 13.2 102.0 97.4 102.0 98.7 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 12.0 17.5 12.2 101.0 96.9 101.0 98.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.72 0.69 0.72 0.70 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 153 135 179 139 643 2412 720 2463 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.11 c0.00 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 vlc Ratio 0.27 0.03 0.24 0.14 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.20 Uniform Delay, dl 54.9 58.7 55.0 59.1 5.5 7.5 5.6 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.01 2.20 2.03 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 55.3 58.7 55.2 59.2 5.7 7.7 12.3 14.8 Level of Service E E E E A A B B Approach Delay (s) 57.0 58.0 7.6 14.6 Approach LOS E E A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay / HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio QP •/ Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 23 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3348: 13 PI S/11 PI S & S 324 St 4/28/2016 4-_ t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t if t Traffic Volume (vph) 179 200 209 186 142 167 Future Volume (vph) 179 200 209 186 142 167 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 2% 0% -2% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1567 1863 1583 1787 1881 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1567 1863 1583 1119 1881 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 179 200 209 186 142 167 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 156 0 54 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 179 44 209 132 142 167 Turn Type Prot pt+ov NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 8 81 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.8 30.8 99.2 99.2 111.2 111.2 Effective Green, g (s) 18.8 30.8 99.2 99.2 111.2 111.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.22 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 344 1320 1121 _ 922 1494 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.03 c0.11 c0.01 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 58.4 43.8 6.7 6.5 3.3 3.3 Progression Factor 0.64 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 45.7 26.3 7.0 6.7 0.4 0.5 Level of Service D C A A A A Approach Delay (s) 35.5 6.8 0.4 Approach LOS D A A Intersection 5umma HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3350: Pacific HwyS & S 324 St 4/2812016 Mov4arrier>t' EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations I T r t TTT :1i Traffic Volume (vph) 85 179 130 431 167 54 167 156 1195 228 50 100 Future Volume (vph) 85 179 130 431 167 54 167 156 1195 228 50 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -1 % 1 % 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1778 1812 1516 3375 1761 1755 4924 1713 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow(perm) 1778 1812 1516 3375 1761 1755 4924 1713 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 85 179 130 431 167 54 167 156 1195 228 50 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 109 0 9 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 85 179 21 431 212 0 0 323 1406 0 0 150 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 8 6 6 2 0 6 2 0 8 0 8 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.6 22.6 22.6 18.0 22.0 26.0 64.8 14.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.1 22.1 22.1 17.5 21.5 26.0 64.8 14.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.46 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 286 239 421 270 325 2279 178 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.10 c0.13 0.12 c0.18 0.29 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.63 0.09 1.02 0.78 0.99 0.62 0.84 Uniform Delay, dl 55.7 55.1 50.3 61.2 57.0 56.9 28.3 61.6 Progression Factor 1.04 1.03 1.68 0.92 0.96 0.80 0.60 1.24 1.24 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 3.1 0.1 50.0 12.8 44.8 1.1 20.7 Delay (s) 58.4 59.6 84.8 106.2 67.5 90.4 18.0 96.9 Level of Service E E F F E F B F Approach Delay (s) 67.6 93.1 31.4 Approach LOS E F C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0,8 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 21.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 25 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3350: Pacific Hwy S & S 324 St 4/28/2016 Movermnt SBT SBR LandMonfigurations '}"0 Traffic Volume (vph) 1368 93 Future Volume (vph) 1368 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4981 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4981 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 _ 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1368 93 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1456 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Bus Blockages (#/hQ 6 2 Turn Type NA ' Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 53.4 Effective Green, g (s) 53.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1899 v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 Progression Factor 0.34 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 Delay (s) 15.1 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) 22.7 Approach LOS C Intersection 5ummary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2250: Pacific HwyS & S 308 St 4I2812o1s -'* --I. f- ~ *-- fl 4\ t 1` L* \I,. Wyeme EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations 4�, 4 A W.) Traffic Volume (vph) 75 19 32 28 19 70 108 48 1108 26 50 61 Future Volume (vph) 75 19 32 28 19 70 108 48 1108 26 50 61 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 14 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 4% 2% 1% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1810 1803 1761 5002 1796 Flt Permitted 0.62 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.20 Satd. Flow(prim) 1160 1598 1761 5002 383 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 107 27 46 34 23 84 114 51 1166 27 54 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 43 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 170 0 0 98 0 0 165 1192 0 0 120 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 2 13 13 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages #Ihr) 6 0 11 11 0 6 11 0 6 0 6 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Prot Prot NA D.P+P D.P+P Protected Phases 4 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 22.8 20.5 95.7 101.7 Effective Green, g (s) 21.8 21.8 20.5 95.7 101.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.68 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 248 257 3419 338 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.24 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.06 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.39 0.64 0.35 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 58.5 53.2 56.3 9.2 11.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.37 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 50.2 0.4 3.3 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 108.7 53.5 51.8 3.7 11.5 Level of Service F D D A B Approach Delay (s) 108.7 53.5 9.5 Approach LOS F D A Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2250: Pacific Hwy S & S 308 St 4/28/2016 i 4/ Movement SBT SBR Lan&onfigurations +tT+ Traffic Volume (vph) 1459 92 Future Volume (vph) 1459 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 12 Grade (%) -1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.99 Fit Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5040 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 5040 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 1586 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1682 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % Bus Blockages (#/hr) 11 0 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 81.2 Effective Green, g (s) 81.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2923 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 Delay (s) 19.4 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) 18.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3540: 1 Av S & S 328 St 4/28/2016 jy jjt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SK 56T 5BR - Lane Configurations '* 1i ll� al�' ti. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 56 0 11 0 976 92 4 816 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 56 0 11 0 976 92 4 816 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 i900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% 1% 2% -3% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1694 1498 3434 1793 3592 At Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1783 1498 3434 464 3592 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 56 0 11 0 976 92 4 816 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 56 1 0 0 1065 0 4 816 0 Confl. Peds. #/hr 10 10 10 10 Turn Type D.P+P D.P+P NA D P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 14.8 109.2 110.2 115.2 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 14.8 109.2 110.2 115.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.11 0.78 0.79 0.82 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 119 158 2678 374 2955 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.00 c0.31 0.00 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.01 0.40 0.01 0.28 Uniform Delay, dl 62.6 56.0 4.9 3.5 2.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 63.7 56.0 1.9 3.5 3.1 Level of Service E E A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 62.4 1.9 3.1 Approach LOS A E A A lntersedon Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay 4JL HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3640: 1 Wy S/1 AV S & SW 330 St/S 330 St 4/28/2016 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T. Vj T. +It+ I tt Traffic Volume (vph) 179 9 148 4 8 12 369 858 13 14 685 243 Future Volume (vph) 179 9 148 4 8 12 369 858 13 14 685 243 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 4% 3% 7% -5% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1786 1590 1734 1643 1708 3405 1810 3430 Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.28 1.00 Satd. Flow erm 1399 1590 904 1643 378 3405 540 3430 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 179 9 148 4 8 12 369 858 13 14 685 243 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 124 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 179 33 0 4 9 0 369 870 0 14 908 0 Confl. Peds. #/hr 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.6 24.0 25.1 14.6 95.4 91.9 95.9 67.7 Effective Green, g (s) 23.6 23.0 23.1 13.6 95.4 91.9 95.9 67.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.10 0.68 0.66 0.69 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 261 149 159 520 2235 406 1658 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.02 0.00 0.01 c0.14 0.26 0.00 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.00 c0.34 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.13 0.03 0.06 0.71 0.39 0.03 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 53.9 49.9 52.1 57.4 14.0 11.1 11.5 25.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 3.6 0.5 0.0 1.3 Delay (s) 59.5 50.0 52.1 57.4 17.6 11.6 9.0 26.7 Level of Service E D D E B B A C Approach Delay (s) 55.1 56.5 13.4 26.4 Approach LOS E E B C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) .0 Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3650: Pacific HwyS & S 330 St 4I2812016 Movement _ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WOR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations 'i T+ °ii T Zii ttT Traffic Volume (vph) 48 18 80 38 16 24 45 55 1471 46 172 34 Future Volume (vph) 48 18 80 38 16 24 45 55 1471 46 172 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 4% 0% 2% Total Lost time (s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1745 .1633 1715 1669 1752 4963 1787 Fit Permitted 0.73 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd Flow (perm) 1343 1633 1148 1669 1752 4963 1787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 18 80 38 16 24 45 55 1471 46 172 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 72 0 0 22 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 26 0 38 18 0 0 100 1515 0 0 206 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blocka es #/hr) 6 0 6 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 6 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 15.7 20.0 15.5 14.0 79.8 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 14.7 18.0 14.5 14.0 79.8 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.57 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 176 171 160 172 175 2828 251 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.06 c0.31 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.15 0.24 0.11 0.57 0.54 0.82 Uniform Delay, dl 55.6 57.0 55.9 56.9 60.1 18.6 58.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.59 0.81 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.5 11.6 Delay (s) 55.9 57.1 56.2 57.0 48.7 11.6 59.1 Level of Service E E E E D B E Approach Delay (s) 56.7 56.6 13.9 Approach LOS E E B Irltel��an:5um HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3650: Pacific Hwy S & S 330 St 4/28/2016 Movement SBT SBR Lan&onfigurations ttT4 Traffic Volume (vph) 1858 55 Future Volume (vph) 1858 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade (%) -2% Tio Lost time (s) 5.5 Larle Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt � 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 5064 Fit Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (Perm) 5064 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1858 55 RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1911 0 Confl. Peds. (Mr) 10 Bus Blockages #1hr 6 0 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 85.5 Effective Green, g (s) 85.5 Actuated gr'C Ratio 0.61 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3092 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.62 Uniform Delay, dl 17.0 Progression Factor 1.31 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 Delay (s) 23.0 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) 26.5 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3741: 1 Wv S & BPA Trail 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBR SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR SWL SWR Lane Configurations tt tt Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -8% 6% -5% -2% Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes r Frt ' Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prot) Fit Permitted Satd. Flow(perm) Peak -hour factor, PH 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 Vol 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. #hir 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Protected Phases 6 2 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension s Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary_ HCM 2000 Control Delay 0.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3842: S 333 St & 1 Wy S 4/28/2016 Movement SEL SET 5ER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations +T' t')ni 43, f, Traffic Volume (vph) 93 711 10 5 1033 40 34 5 19 71 19 245 Future Volume (vph) 93 711 10 5 1033 40 34 5 19 71 19 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -3% 4% -6% 1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.86 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1780 3568 1727 3442 1742 1722 1551 Fit Permitted .0.24 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.20 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 443 3568 667 3442 367 1310 1551 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 93 711 10 5 1033 40 34 5 19 71 19 245 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 181 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 93 721 0 5 1072 0 0 43 0 71 83 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blocka es #/hr 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 110.5 109.5 110.5 104.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Effective Green, g (s) 110.5 109.5 110.5 104.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.78 0.79 0.75 0.11 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 406 2790 534 2569 40 145 171 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.20 0.00 c0.31 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.01 c0.12 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.26 0.01 0.42 1.07 0.49 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 3.9 4.2 3.2 6.5 62.2 58.5 58.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 164.4 0.9 0.8 Delay (s) 4.0 4.4 3.6 7.0 226.7 59.5 59.3 Level of Service A A A A F E E Approach Delay (s) 4.3 7.0 226.7 59.4 Approach LOS A A F E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay _ HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4043: 1 Wy S & S 336 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL W8T WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations °i T 4 ff I fl� I f1; Traffic Volume (vph) 74 80 41 462 29 566 12 347 135 317 468 21 Future Volume (vph) 74 80 41 462 29 566 12 347 135 317 468 21 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -6% -1 % 3% -5% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1808 1805 1676 1703 2746 1730 3303 1811 3581 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.29 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1808 1805 1676 1703 2746 805 3303 562 3581 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 80 41 462 29 566 12 347 135 317 468 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 0 286 0 29 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 107 0 245 246 280 12 453 0 317 487 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hQ 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type Split NA Split NA pm+ov D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 17.5 24.4 24.4 69.2 78.6 33.8 78.6 76.4 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 16.5 24.4 24.4 69.2 78.6 33.8 78.6 76.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.49 0.56 0.24 0.56 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 213 212 292 296 1357 466 797 715 1954 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.06 c0.15 0.14 0.07 0.00 c0.14 c0.14 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.50 0.84 0.83 0.21 0.03 0.57 0.44 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 57.9 55.9 55.8 19.9 13.7 46.7 17.2 16.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.61 1.64 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.88 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.7 15.8 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.3 Delay (s) 57.2 58.6 49.9 48.9 32.7 13.7 47.2 14.9 15.0 Level of Service E E D D C B D B B Approach Delay (s) 58.1 40.5 46.4 15.0 Approach LOS E D D B Intersection Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4046: 9 AV S & S 336 St 4/28/2016 r .4- 4- h T Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WST WBR NBL NST NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tT+ 0 "1 ', Traffic Volume (vph) 57 597 104 96 916 71 146 114 143 197 163 131 Future Volume (vph) 57 597 104 96 916 71 146 114 143 197 163 131 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% -1% 2% 4% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3419 1759 3502 1750 1664 1788 1737 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.21 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 402 3419 605 3502 356 1664 402 1737 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 57 597 104 96 916 71 146 114 143 197 163 131 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 3 0 0 36 0 0 24 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 57 693 0 96 984 0 146 221 0 197 270 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 2 0 �NA 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 81.9 75.1 81.9 77.9 39.1 23.1 39.1 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 80.9 74.6 80.9 77.4 38.1 22.6 38.1 25.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.53 0.58 0.55 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 1821 401 1936 218 268 262 _ 321 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.20 c0.01 c0.28 0.06 0.13 c0.08 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.38 0.24 0.51 0.67 0.82 0.75 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 24.9 19.2 20.5 19.5 41.7 56.8 42.6 55.1 Progression Factor 0.92 0.80 0.29 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.9 5.9 17.5 10.3 17.2 Delay (s) 23.0 16.0 6.1 8.2 47.6 74.2 52.9 72.2 Level of Service C B A A D E D E Approach Delay (s) 16.5 8.0 64.6 64.5 Approach LOS B A E E Intersection HCM 2000 Control Delay 2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.6 ) ) Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 21.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4049: S 336 St & 13 PI S 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Tt tT r Traffic Volume (vph) 33 1034 900 64 158 31 Future Volume (vph) 33 1034 900 64 158 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 2% 4% 0% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 6.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1749 3490 3545 1755 1571 Fit Permitted 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (Perm) 476 3490 3545 1755 1571 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 1034 900 64 158 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 1034 962 0 158 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 2 0 2 2 Turn Type D.P+P NA NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 98.4 103.4 94.9 16.9 28.1 Effective Green, g (s) 96.4 102.4 93.9 15.9 27.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.73 0.67 0.11 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 350 2552 2377 199 304 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.30 0.27 c0.09 c0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.41 0.40 0.79 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 7.5 7.2 10.4 60.5 45.7 Progression Factor 0.94 0.74 0.70 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.4 0.4 18.1 0.0 Delay (s) 7.0 5.8 7.7 78.5 45.7 Level of Service A A A E D Approach Delay (s) 5.8 7.7 73.2 Approach LOS A A E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 6.4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4050: Pacific Hwy S & S 336 St 4/28/2016 f � � � C 140, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations t r tTl M Wil Traffic Volume (vph) 409 375 421 184 403 116 14 290 1098 86 27 84 Future Volume (vph) 409 375 421 184 403 116 14 290 1098 86 27 84 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1% 1% 3% Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1717 1853 1516 1731 3373 3368 4897 1796 Fit Permitted 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 446 1853 1516 388 3373 3368 4897 1796 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 409 375 421 184 403 116 14 290 1098 86 27 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 21 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 409 375 293 184 498 0 0 304 1178 0 0 111 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 6 0 4 4 2 6 4 2 6 0 6 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA Perm D.P+P NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.9 36.1 36.1 48.9 30.4 13.0 58.1 12.5 Effective Green, g (s) 48.9 36.1 36.1 48.9 30.4 13.0 58.1 12.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.35 0.22 0.09 0.42 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 323 477 390 258 732 _ 312 2032 160 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.20 0.07 0.15 c0.09 0.24 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.19 0.18 v/c Ratio 1.27 0.79 0.75 0.71 0.68 0.97 0.58 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 48.4 47.8 35.3 50.3 63.3 31.5 61.9 Progression Factor 1.07 0.98 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.15 0.84 0.68 Incremental Delay, d2 140.8 7.2 6.6 7.5 2.1 38.9 1.0 8.7 Delay (s) 183.5 54.5 58.0 42.8 52.4 111.9 27.5 50.8 Level of Service F D E D D F C D Approach Delay (s) 99.5 49.9 44.7 Approach LOS F D D Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay v/ HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4050: Pacific HwyS & S 336 St 4/28/2016 i 4/ Movement SBT SBR LaneMonfigurations ttt if Traffic Volume (vph) 1555 352 Future Volume (vph) 1555 352 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade (%) -3% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Ftt 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5134 1556 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5134 1556 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1555 352 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 61 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1555 291 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Bus Blockages (#fhr) 4 2 Turn Type NA pm+ov Protected Phases 6 7 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.6 76.1 Effective Green, g (s) 57.6 76.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2112 845 vls Ratio Prot c0.30 0.05 vls Ratio Perm 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.34 Uniform Delay, dl 34.8 17.9 Progression Factor 0.49 0.21 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.1 Delay (s) 19.1 3.9 Level of Service B A Approach Delay (s) 18.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4250: Pacific Hwy S & S 340 PI/16 Av S 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR N8L NBT NBR S8L SBT SBR Lane Configurations % I t rif D tf1� )) W. Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 26 43 86 1355 82 605 26 1130 1230 2 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 26 43 86 1355 82 605 26 1130 1230 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% -5% 2% -2% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1583 1799 1909 2752 1752 4972 3454 5121 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1583 1799 1909 2752 266 4972 3454 5121 Peak -hour factor, PH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 26 43 86 1355 82 605 26 1130 1230 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 0 0 0 170 0 4 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 3 0 43 86 1185 82 627 0 1130 1232 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 4 2 2 2 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov D.P+P NA Prot NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 35.3 54.5 94.4 70.0 30.1 39.9 62.2 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 35.3 54.5 92.4 70.0 30.1 39.9 62.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.39 0.66 0.50 0.22 0.28 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 453 743 1944 215 1068 984 2275 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.02 0.05 c0.17 0.02 c0.13 c0.33 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.09 0.12 0.61 0.38 0.59 1.15 0.54 Uniform Delay, dl 56.6 40.1 27.3 13.5 20.3 49.4 50.0 28.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.12 1.18 1.58 0.90 0.76 0.70 0.67 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 76.1 0.7 Delay (s) 56.6 44.9 32.3 21.7 18.7 38.1 111.0 19.7 Level of Service E D C C B D F B Approach Delay (s) 56.6 23.0 35.8 63.4 Approach LOS E C D E Intersection Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4549: Pacific Hwy S & S 344 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST 5BR Lane Configurations 3 T+ T� ) TAT ) ++1. Traffic Volume (vph) 14 15 62 66 27 23 26 649 83 39 1249 28 Future Volume (vph) 14 15 62 66 27 23 26 649 83 39 1249 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 2% -3% 2% -2% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1694 1557 1745 1720 1750 4890 1775 5096 Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.35 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 1292 1557 1173 1720 344 4890 661 5096 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 14 15 62 66 27 23 26 649 83 39 1249 28 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 58 0 0 21 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 19 0 66 29 0 26 725 0 39 1276 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages #mr 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 8.9 16.9 14.3 103.1 98.8 103.1 99.9 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 8.9 16.9 14.3 103.1 98.8 103.1 99.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.71 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 163 98 174 175 285 3450 520 3636 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.01 c0.02 0.02 0.00 0.15 c0.00 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.02 0.07 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.19 0.38 0.17 0.09 0.21 0.07 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 54.6 62.1 56.2 57.4 5.3 7.1 5.0 7.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.08 0.35 0.43 0.15 0.10 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 54.7 62.5 60.6 62.4 1.9 3.2 0.8 1.0 Level of Service D E E E A A A A Approach Delay (s) 61.3 61.4 3.2 1.0 Approach LOS E E A A Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4550: 16 Av S & S 344 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T T. tT +T Traffic Volume (vph) 6 36 72 134 34 90 65 898 47 139 954 19 Future Volume (vph) 6 36 72 134 34 90 65 898 47 139 954 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 2% -5% 3% -1 % Total Lost time (s) 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1724 1630 1787 1665 1743 3437 1777 3528 Flt Permitted 0.59 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.24 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1072 1630 1072 1665 420 3437 447 3528 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 6 36 72 134 34 90 65 898 47 139 954 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 57 0 0 71 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 6 51 0 134 53 0 65 943 0 139 972 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 _0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 4 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.1 18.9 30.1 29.0 90.9 82.7 90.9 81.7 Effective Green, g (s) 30.1 18.9 30.1 29.0 90.9 82.7 90.9 81.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.13 0.22 0.21 0.65 0.59 0.65 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 220 287 344 359 2030 368 2058 _ v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.03 c0.04 0.03 0.01 c0.27 0.02 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.06 0.11 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.23 0.47 0.16 0.18 0.46 0.38 0.47 Uniform Delay, dl 43.3 54.1 46.7 45.5 18.4 16.2 10.8 16.8 Progression Factor 1.19 1.17 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.55 0.69 0.63 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 51.4 63.5 47.1 45.5 11.6 9.3 7.5 10.6 Level of Service D E D D B A A B Approach Delay (s) 62.9 46.4 9.4 10.2 Approach LOS E D A B Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4840: 1 Av S & SW Campus Dr/S 348 St 4/28/2016 --* --I. ti -� Mmment _ ESL EBT £BR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +I+ tt r I ti +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 87 679 79 367 1120 159 80 175 50 207 545 177 Future Volume (vph) 87 679 79 367 1120 159 80 175 50 207 545 177 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 4% -1% 7% -3% Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3351 3390 3436 3543 1544 1694 3269 1782 3578 1558 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3351 3390 3436 3543 1544 1694 3269 1782 3578 1558 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 679 79 367 1120 159 80 175 50 207 545 177 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 51 0 21 0 0 0 69 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 753 0 367 1120 108 80 204 0 207 545 108 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages #/hr 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 5 2 1 6 7 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.9 61.5 18.7 72.3 94.9 10.3 18.2 22.6 30.0 37.9 Effective Green, g (s) 7.9 61.5 18.7 72.3 94.9 10.3 18.2 22.6 30.0 37.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.44 0.13 0.52 0.68 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 1489 458 1829 1046 124 424 287 766 421 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.22 c0.11 c0.32 0.02 c0.05 0.06 0.12 c0.15 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.51 0.80 0.61 0.10 0.65 0.48 0.72 0.71 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 64.0 28.3 58.8 23.9 7.8 63.1 56.5 55.7 51.0 40.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.2 9.2 1.5 0.0 7.5 0.3 7.4 2.6 0.1 Delay (s) 64.6 29.5 68.0 25.5 7.8 59.3 47.1 63.1 53.6 40.1 Level of Service E C E C A E D E D D Approach Delay (s) 33.1 33.3 50.3 53.1 Approach LOS C C D D HCM 2000 Control Delay J HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0..0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4848: Pacific Hwy S & S 348 St _ 4/28/2016 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NET NBR 5BL SBT Lane Configurations h ' +T. 1) ++T-1� !i) Tfit r �) ttT+ Traffic Volume (vph) 45 117 1081 280 620 1329 83 235 519 500 163 904 Future Volume (vph) 45 117 1081 280 620 1329 83 235 519 500 163 904 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 4% 1% 2% -3% Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.97 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1720 4808 3402 4995 3385 4483 1334 3485 4988 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1720 4808 3402 4995 3385 4483 1334 3485 4988 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 117 1081 280 620 1329 83 235 519 500 163 904 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 0 5 0 0 65 55 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 162 1328 0 620 1407 0 235 704 195 163 1078 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 46.2 29.1 58.9 11.7 28.4 57.5 15.8 32.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 46.2 29.1 58.9 11.7 28.4 57.5 15.8 32.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.21 0.42 0.08 0.20 0.41 0.11 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1586 707 2101 282 909 595 393 1157 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.28 c0.18 0.28 0.07 c0.16 0.07 0.05 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.84 0.88 0.67 0.83 0.77 0.33 0.41 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 59.8 43.4 53.7 32.7 63.2 52.8 28.1 57.8 52.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.50 Incremental Delay, d2 16.1 5.4 7.4 1.0 17.9 3.8 0.1 0.2 12.6 Delay (s) 75.9 48.9 38.1 16.9 81.1 56.6 28.2 32.1 38.9 Level of Service E D D B F E C C D Approach Delay (s) 51.7 23.3 55.5 38.1 Approach LOS D C E D Intersection Summ HCM 2000 Control Delay ,I HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 21.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4848: Pacific H S & S 348 St 412s12o1s 4/ Movement SBR LtWonfigurations Traffic Volume (vph) 199 Future Volume (vph) 199 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Grade (%) Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor Frpb, ped/bikes Flpb, ped/bikes Frt Fit Protected Satd. Flow (prat) Fit Permitted Said. Flow(perm) Peak -hour factor, PH F 1.00 Adj, Flow (vph) 199 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Bus Blockages #Ihr 2 Turn Type Protected Phases Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, g (s) Actuated gIC Ratio Clearance Time (s) Vehicle Extension s Lane Grp Cap (vph) v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, dl Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 Delay (s) Level of Service Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4850: Enchanted Pkw S/16 Av S & S 348 St/SR 18 4/28/2016 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations !ii W r ))) f f¢ r M ft. r Traffic Volume (vph) 4 109 1192 333 985 1543 459 162 303 593 527 520 Future Volume (vph) 4 109 1192 333 985 1543 459 162 303 593 527 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 2% 4% 2% Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1738 5034 1519 5077 5173 1559 3385 3206 1408 3467 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1738 5034 1519 5077 5173 1559 3385 3206 1408 3467 Peak -hour factor, PH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 109 1192 333 985 1543 459 162 303 593 527 520 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 100 0 0 230 0 0 19 29 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 113 1192 233 985 1543 229 0 465 758 314 520 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages #/hr 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA pm+ov Prot Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 3 1 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 37.5 37.5 28.0 53.0 53.0 21.7 33.0 61.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 37.5 37.5 28.0 53.0 53.0 21.7 33:0 61.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.15 0.24 0.44 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0_ 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 1348 406 1015 1958 590 524 755 613 544 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.24 c0.19 0.30 0.14 c0.24 0.10 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.15 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.88 0.57 0.97 0.79 0.39 0.89 1.00 0.51 0.96 Uniform Delay, d1 62.1 49.2 44.4 55.6 38.5 31.7 58.0 53.5 28.7 58.5 Progression Factor 0.88 0.61 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.98 1.15 Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 6.2 4.0 21.2 3.3 1.9 15.1 32.4 0.3 26.6 Delay (s) 64.0 36.1 21.8 76.8 41.8 33.6 61.7 86.1 28.5 94.0 Level of Service E D C E D C E F C F Approach Delay (s) 35.1 52.1 66.5 Approach LOS D D E Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.0% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4850: Enchanted Pkw S/16 AV S & S 348 St/SR 18 4/28/2016 Movement SBT SBR Laftonfigurations ttT+ Traffic Volume (vph) 776 150 Future Volume (vph) 776 150 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade (%) -2% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4981 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (Perml 4981 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 776 150 RTOR Reduction (vph) 20 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 906 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Bus Blockages (#Ihr) 2 2 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 32.8 Effective Green, g (s) 32.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1166 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 vls Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.78 Uniform Delay, dl 50.2 Progression Factor 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 Delay (s) 35.5 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 56.5 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5047: Pacific Hwy S & S 352 St 4/28/2016 Movement �- WBL VVBR t NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations I r t4T 11 T+T Traffic Volume (vph) 2 2 35 3 16 87 Future Volume (vph) 2 2 35 3 16 87 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% 2% -2% Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 4975 1787 5136 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 4975 1373 5136 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 2 35 3 16 87 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 1 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 0 37 0 16 87 Turn Type Prot Perm NA D.P+P NA ._ Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 3.2 87.8 101.8 106.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 3.2 87.8 101.8 106.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.03 0.73 0.85 0.89 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 47 42 3640 1213 4571 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 0.01 0.00 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 56.9 56.8 4.4 1.4 0.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 57.0 56.8 4.4 1.4 0.7 Level of Service E E A A A Approach Delay (s) 56.9 4.4 0.8 Approach LOS E A A Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio fl.0 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5050: Enchanted Pkw S & S 352 St 4I2812o16 -.* -,* f I T '< --p. Movement ESL EBT EBR VVBL VVBT VVBR NBL N8T NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ i r 1 +4 f T r Traffic Volume (vph) 26 6 30 253 8 313 7 895 218 205 1411 40 Future Volume (vph) 26 6 30 253 8 313 7 895 218 205 1411 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1% -11% 0% 1% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fr{ 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1730 1588 1835 1965 1636 1770 3391 1760 3507 1497 Flt Permitted 0.75 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1370 1588 1417 1965 1636 255 3391 344 3507 1497 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 26 6 30 253 8 313 7 895 218 205 1411 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 0 0 266 0 11 0 0 0 13 Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 9 0 253 8 47 7 1102 0 205 1411 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages #mr 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA pm+ov D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 1 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 3 4 3 6 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.4 15.1 24.4 9.3 22.8 96.1 82.6 96.1 95.1 95.1 Effective Green, g (s) 22.4 14.1 22.4 8.3 20.8 96.1 82.6 96.1 95.1 95.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.15 0.69 0.59 0.69 0.68 0.68 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 159 251 116 313 185 2000 372 2382 1016 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.33 c0.05 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.10 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.06 1.01 0.07 0.15 0.04 0.55 0.55 0.59 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 50.1 56.9 56.9 62.2 51.9 9.5 17.4 11.0 12.0 7.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.71 1.76 0.64 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 58.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 50.2 57.0 115.8 62.3 52.0 8.4 13.5 19.9 8.3 7.4 Level of Service D E F E D A B B A A Approach Delay (s) 54.1 80.2 13.5 9.7 Approach LOS D F B A Intersection Summary_ HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 22.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Description: c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 23 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5228: 21 Av SW & SW 356 St 4/28/2016 �t ~ #% t /I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL N8T NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ tt, ►j T, +T F Traffic Volume (vph) 458 401 3 64 927 240 46 48 15 235 73 415 Future Volume (vph) 458 401 3 64 927 240 46 48 15 235 73 415 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 0% -1 % 0% 1 % Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3426 1846 1778 3404 1748 1789 1785 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3426 1846 1778 3404 1748 1789 1785 1504 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 458 401 3 64 927 240 46 48 15 235 73 415 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 8 0 0 0 314 Lane Group Flow (vph) 458 404 0 64 1153 0 46 55 0 0 308 101 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 1 2 0 0 3 1 3 1 2 2 0 3 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 1 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 76.4 7.6 63.9 11.5 11.5 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 76.4 7.6 63.9 11.5 11.5 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.55 0.05 0.46 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 491 1007 96 1553 143 146 344 290 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.22 0.04 c0.34 0.03 c0.03 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.40 0.67 0.74 0.32 0.37 0.90 0.35 Uniform Delay, dl 59.3 18.5 65.0 31.3 60.6 60.8 55.1 48.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.5 1.2 11.2 2.8 0.5 0.6 23.8 0.3 Delay (s) 83.8 19.7 73.8 28.5 61.0 61.4 79.0 49.2 Level of Service F B E C E E E D Approach Delay (s) 53.8 30.8 61.3 61.9 Approach LOS D C E E Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay V/ HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) o Sum of lost time (s) 17.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5240: 1 AV S & SW 356 St/S 356 St 4/2812o1s jyM.Mt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 5BR Lane Configurations t r tT t r t r Traffic Volume (vph) 182 545 29 60 875 143 31 35 55 281 57 661 Future Volume (vph) 182 545 29 60 875 143 31 35 55 281 57 661 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 4% 5% 3% 1% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1791 1900 1530 1725 3341 1710 1820 1489 1729 1853 1546 At Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 228 1900 1530 495 3341 1296 1820 1489 1337 1853 1546 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 182 545 29 60 875 143 31 35 55 281 57 661 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15 0 8 0 0 0 50 0 0 81 Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 545 14 60 1010 0 31 35 5 281 57 580 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 Turn Type D.P+P NA Perm D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Perm D.P+P NA pm+ov Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 8 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 90.4 65.6 65.6 90.4 55.2 30.1 13.4 13.4 30.1 21.5 56.7 Effective Green, g (s) 90.4 65.6 65.6 90.4 55.2 30.1 13.4 13.4 30.1 21.5 56.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.47 0.47 0.65 0.39 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.15 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 540 890 716 537 1317 304 174 142 334 284 686 vls Ratio Prot 0.08 0.29 0.02 c0.30 0.01 0.02 c0.10 0.03 c0.21 vls Ratio Perm 0.13 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.61 0.02 0.11 0.77 0.10 0.20 0.04 0.84 0.20 0.85 Uniform Delay, dl 30.9 27.7 19.9 22.5 36.8 44.2 58.4 57.4 50.9 51.7 37.7 Progression Factor 0.54 1.09 1.00 0.80 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.53 0.29 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 14.0 0.1 7.6 Delay (s) 16.8 33.4 20.0 18.0 27.0 44.2 58.6 57.5 49.4 27.7 18.3 Level of Service B C B B C D E E D C B Approach Delay (s) 28.9 26.5 54.4 27.6 Approach LOS C C D C fnteisecTi©n,.Sumlmae: HCM 2000 Control Delay / HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 �/ Actuated Cycle Length (s) 0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 25 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5246: Pacific Hwv S & S 356 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBt. EBT EBR WBL WBT N/BR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations + r tt M +t% A Traffic Volume (vph) 282 351 333 246 523 44 2 217 660 60 2 104 Future Volume (vph) 282 351 333 246 523 44 2 217 660 60 2 104 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) -1 % -3% 2% Total Lost time (s) 7.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3436 1872 1537 1782 3544 3399 4946 1787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3436 1872 1537 1782 3544 3399 4946 1787 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 282 351 333 246 523 44 2 217 660 60 2 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 117 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 351 216 246 563 0 0 219 713 0 0 106 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#mr) 2 0 2_ 2 0 2 2_ 0 2_ 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 32.1 32.1 20.0 35.8 9.5 54.0 11.9 Effective Green, g (s) 15.3 32.1 32.1 20.0 35.8 10.5 55.0 11.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.26 0.08 0.39 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 7.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 375 429 352 254 906 254 1943 151 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.19 c0.14 0.16 c0.06 0.14 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.82 0.61 0.97 0.62 0.86 0.37 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 51.2 48.4 59.7 46.1 64.0 30.2 62.3 Progression Factor 0.78 0.77 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 9.5 1.9 46.9 1.0 23.9 0.5 11.4 Delay (s) 53.5 48.8 40.3 106.6 47.1 88.0 30.7 73.7 Level of Service D D D F D F C E Approach Delay (s) 47.3 65.1 44.0 Approach LOS D E D Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s) 23.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5246: Pacific HwyS & S 356 St 4/28/2016 i 4/ Movement SBT SBR LanEMonfigurations ++T. Traffic Volume (vph) 1293 253 Future Volume (vph) 1293 253 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Grade (%) -2% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4972 At Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4972 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 1293 253 RTOR Reduction (vph) 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1527 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 Turn Type NA Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 56.4 Effective Green, g (s) 56.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2003 v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 36.0 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.8 Delay (s) 38.8 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) 41.1 Approach LOS D Intersection Surnmary Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 27 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5251: Enchanted Pkwy S & S 356 St 4/28/2016 --* --0- * t Movement EBL EST EBR N1BL WBT WBR NSL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r T I) tl. I 4T Traffic Volume (vph) 225 10 278 30 72 6 422 1056 53 9 1244 6 Future Volume (vph) 225 10 278 30 72 6 422 1056 53 9 1244 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Grade (%) 1% 0% -1% 1% Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1746 1525 1743 1837 3450 3509 1761 3504 Flt Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1131 1525 693 1837 3450 3509 1761 3504 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 225 10 278 30 72 6 422 1056 53 9 1244 6 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 215 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 235 63 30 76 0 422 1108 0 9 1250 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.8 30.8 31.3 31.3 20.0 92.7 2.0 74.7 Effective Green, g (s) 31.8 31.8 33.3 33.3 22.0 93.7 2.0 76.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.67 0.01 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 256 346 164 436 542 2348 25 1919 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.12 0.32 0.01 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.04 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.78 0.47 0.36 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 43.6 42.5 42.4 56.7 11.2 68.4 22.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 34.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 6.4 0.7 3.2 1.7 Delay (s) 87.0 43.7 42.7 42.5 63.0 11.9 71.6 24.0 Level of Service F D D D E $ E C Approach Delay (s) 63.6 42.5 26.0 24.3 Approach LOS E D C C Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.7 Actuated Cycle Length (s) .0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5335: 8 Av SW & SW 356 St 412s12o16 MmmmeM ESL EST EBR WBL WST WBR NBL NST NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 't`i. 0 4o. +T+ Traffic Volume (vph) 11 657 25 67 1293 31 19 2 34 23 6 28 Future Volume (vph) 11 657 25 67 1293 31 19 2 34 23 6 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 12 15 12 12 15 12 Grade (%) -3% 3% 1% -1% Total Lost time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1814 3469 1760 3376 1869 1903 At Permitted 0.15 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.88 0.86 Satd. Flow(perm) 282 3469 643 3376 1667 1667 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.68 0.68 0.68 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 684 26 73 1405 34 22 2 39 34 9 41 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 708 0 73 1438 0 0 29 0 0 56 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 2 5 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 Turn Type D.P+P NA D.P+P NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 106.5 88.4 106.5 104.5 17.5 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 106.5 88.4 106.5 104.5 16.5 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.63 0.76 0.75 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.5 Vehicle Extensions 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 2190 633 2519 196 196 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.20 c0.01 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.07 0.02 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.32 0.12 0.57 0.15 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 10.9 11.9 6.9 7.8 55.4 56.4 Progression Factor 1.15 0.98 0.98 0.90 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 12.5 12.1 6.8 7.6 55.6 56.7 Level of Service B B A A E E Approach Delay (s) 12.1 7.5 55.6 56.7 Approach LOS B A E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) i Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 29 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2350: Pacific Hwy S & S 310 St 4/28/2016 f- 4- t Movement VVBL VVBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t+T eft Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 50 1125 55 1 1692 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 50 1125 55 1 1692 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 1% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 64 1197 59 1 1880 Pedestrians 16 16 12 Lane Width (ft) 10.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 660 662 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.84 0.84 vC, conflicting volume 1887 456 1272 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 299 0 679 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 93 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 572 902 759 Direcfion; Lane # WB 1 H$ 1 NB 2 N8 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 64 479 479 298 377 752 752 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Right 64 0 0 59 0 0 0 cSH 902 1700 1700 1700 759 Q0 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.00 Q: �P 0. Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2551: 18 Av S & S 312 St 412812o1s Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +k +T4 4 1 14* Traffic Volume (veh/h) 30 452 95 9 565 49 68 12 12 28 16 49 Future Volume (Veh/h) 30 452 95 9 565 49 68 12 12 28 16 49 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 5% -5% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 098 0.98 0.98 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly flow rate (vph) 32 476 100 9 577 50 88 16 16 35 20 61 Pedestrians 11 12 10 12 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 11.5 10.0 Walking Speed (f /s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 631 659 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.96 vC, conflicting volume 639 586 988 1257 310 954 1282 336 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 600 600 632 632 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 388 657 322 650 vCu, unblocked vol 552 373 682 969 73 645 995 238 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 99 80 96 98 92 95 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 977 1084 440 389 885 444 395 729 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 ES 3 WB 1 WS 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 32 317 259 9 385 242 120 116 Volume Left 32 0 0 9 0 0 88 35 Volume Right 0 0 100 0 0 50 16 61 cSH 977 1700 1700 1084 1700 1700 544 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.19 0.15 0.01 0.23 0.14 0.24 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 20 Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 15.0 13.4 Lane LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.1 15.0 13.4 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2553: S 312 St & 22 Av S 4/28/2016 .,* --► 4, \I. 4/ Movement EBL EST WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations TT t�, y Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 481 607 18 15 8 Future Volume (Veh/h) 13 481 607 18 15 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -3% 4% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.75 Hourly flow rate (vph) 15 553 646 19 20 11 Pedestrians 11 11 11 Lane Width (ft) 11.3 11.0 10.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 671 315 pX, platoon unblocked 0.98 vC, conflicting volume 676 984 354 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 666 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 318 vCu, unblocked vol 676 944 354 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 95 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 911 434 637 Direction, Lane* EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 NIB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 15 276 276 431 234 31 Volume Left 15 0 0 0 0 20 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 19 11 90 170� 1714 90 Vol Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.1 0.25 0.14 .06 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 5 Control Delay (s) 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 12.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2753:21 PIS&S316St 4/28/2016 --IN. Z f- I*,- 4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'l + if Traffic Volume (vehlh) 140 64 49 160 194 42 Future Volume (Vehlh) 140 64 49 160 194 42 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0%, 1% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.92 0.92 0.72 0.72 Hourly flow rate (vph) 169 77 53 174 269 58 Pedestrians 20 21 21 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 2 2 2 Right turn flare (veh) 12 Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 523 460 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 267 528 250 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 228 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 300 vCu, unblocked vol 267 528 250 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 96 57 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 1274 629 752 Direction, Lane # EB f WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 Volume Total 246 53 174 327 Volume Left 0 53 0 269 Volume Right 77 0 0 58 1714 Volume to Capacity Vol 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 7.9 0.0 14.1 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 14.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3053: 21 PI S & S 320 St 4/28/2016 # � (j: fl � � 4� t Moveinerii . EBU EBL EBT E8R WBU WSL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 5BL Lane Configurations h tO Zi W-) it Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 56 1065 60 74 1579 88 0 0 131 0 Future Volume (Veh/h) 3 56 1065 60 1 74 1579 88 0 0 131 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 5% 2% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 56 1065 60 0 74 1579 88 0 0 131 0 Pedestdans Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 641 567 pX, platoon unblocked 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.91 0.78 0.78 0.91 0.78 vC, conflicting volume 0 1667 0 1125 2079 3022 385 2369 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 632 0 771 574 1783 0 946 tC, single (s) 0.0 4.1 0.0 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 p0 queue free % 0 92 0 90 100 100 87 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 0 693 0 760 204 52 981 127 Direction, Lane # EB 1 ES 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 56 426 426 273 74 632 632 404 131 198 Volume Left 56 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 88 131 198 cSH 693 1700 1700 1700 160 1700 981 794 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.10 0.37 0+37 0.24 0.13 0.25 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 8 0 12 25 Control Delay (s) 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 11.0 Lane LOS B B A B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.4 9.2 11.0 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary_. Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3053: 21 PI S & S 320 St i 4/ Movp.ment SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vd*) 0 198 Future Volume (Veh1h) 0 198 Sign Control Stop Grade 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 198 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Watking Speed (ftfs) Percent Blockage Hight turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked 0.78 0.73 vC, conflicting volume 3008 570 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1765 0 tC, single (s) 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 &V (s) tF (s) 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 75 cM capacity (veh/h) 54 794 Direction, Lane 4/28/2016 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3451: 17 AV S & S 324 St 4/28/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NST NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r +TtT4 r r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 399 91 148 553 5 0 0 151 0 0 92 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 399 91 148 553 5 0 0 151 0 0 92 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 2% -1 % -1 % -1 % Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 399 91 148 553 5 0 0 151 0 0 92 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 383 pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 568 500 991 1273 419 1422 1362 207 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 409 409 862 862 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 582 864 560 500 vCu, unblocked vol 568 417 949 1254 330 1415 1350 207 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 86 100 100 75 100 100 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 992 1042 319 289 605 175 263 786 Direcfion, Lane:# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WH 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 399 91 286 276 143 151 92 Volume Left 0 0 148 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 91 0 0 5 151 92 cSH 1700 1700 1042 1700 1700 5-. 786 Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.05 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.25 0.12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 12 0 0 10 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 12.9 10.2 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.2 12.9 10.2 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3550: Pacific HwyS & S 328 St 4/2812o1s ---* .4\ t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT 5BT SBR Lane Configurations if ttt +0 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 52 0 1668 2055 37 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 52 0 1668 2055 37 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% -2% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 52 0 1668 2055 37 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 641 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 2650 724 2102 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2237 724 2102 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 86 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 29 362 256 direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 3133 Volume Total 52 556 556 556 822 822 448 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 52 0 0 0 0 0 37 cSH 362 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.48 0.48 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach Delay (s) 16.6 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3638: 3 Av SW & SW 330 St 412812016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL W6T VVSR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Right Turn Channelized Traffic Vokrme (vehA) 5 278 3 49 600 31 0 1 35 3 1 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 278 3 49 600 31 0 1 35 13 1 1 Peak How Faces 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ix 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 278 3 49 600 31 0 1 35 13 1 1 Approach Volume (vehlh) 286 680 36 15 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 63 6 296 649 High Capacity (veh/h) 1318 1378 1098 928 High v/c (veh/h) 0.22 0.49 0.03 0.02 Laic Capacity (veh/h) 1101 1155 901 661 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.26 0.59 0.04 0.02 Intersection SumTarl Maximum v/c High 0.4 Maximum v/c Low 0.59 Intersection Capacity Utilization o ICU Level of Service D Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3750: Pacific Hwy S & S 332 St 4/28/2016 Movement ESL EBR NBU NBA NBT SBT SSP Lane Configurations r ttt ttl+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 39 52 40 1731 2066 31 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 39 52 40 1731 2066 31 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 2% -2% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 39 0 40 1731 2066 31 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 680 pX, platoon unblocked 0.76 0.76 0.00 0.76 vC, conflicting volume 2738 704 0 2097 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2190 0 0 1349 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 0 90 cM capacity (veh/h) 26 827 0 386 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 N8 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 39 40 577 577 577 826 826 444 Volume Left 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 cSH 827 386 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.34eO.49 0.49 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 9 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.6 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 9.6 0.3 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary: Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3850: Pacific Hurry S & S 333 St 4/28/2016 ,f- t 1' 14 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations r ttT., Zi TTt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 62 1568 42 93 64 1939 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 62 1568 42 93 64 1939 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade -2% 2% -2% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 62 1568 42 0 64 1939 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 890 1110 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.83 0.00 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 2383. 564 0 1620 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 745 0 0 1037 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 0.0 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 0.0 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 93 0 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 263 887 0 549 Direcfron, Lane# WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 62 627 627 356 64 646 646 646 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 Volume Right 62 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 cSH 887 1700 1700 1700 549 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.21 0.12 0.38 38 0.3$ Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 0 0 10 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3942: S 334 St & 1 W S 4/2s12o1s movement.. SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER S'WL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 41� V1 tTT +T+ 4 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 745 58 12 1030 3 55 0 45 2 0 1 Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 745 58 12 1030 3 55 0 45 2 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade -1 % 0% -8% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 745 58 12 1030 3 55 0 45 2 0 1 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (f /s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 358 764 pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 1043 813 1334 1851 422 1493 1878 536 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 882 689 995 1538 276 1162 1567 334 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 70 100 93 98 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 699 846 182 106 672 128 101 601 nfrartinn. Lane # SE 1 SE 2 NW 1 NW 2 NW 3 NE 1 SW 1 Volume Total 372 430 12 687 346 100 3 Volume Left 0 0 12 0 0 55 2 Volume Right 0 58 0 0 3 45 1 cSH 699 1700 846 1700 271 173 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.40 0.20 0.37 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 41 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 25.8 26.1 Lane LOS A D D Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 25.8 26.1 Approach LOS D D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4242: 1 Wy S & S 340 St 4/28/2016 1 t Movement NBL NET SBT SBR SEL SER Lane Configurations j tT t1+ if Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 439 990 35 23 21 Future Volume (Veh/h) 19 439 990 35 23 21 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 3% -1 % -1 % Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 19 439 990 35 23 21 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) 2 Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1146 pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.95 0.95 vC, conflicting volume 1035 1285 532 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 931 1194 402 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 86 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 688 163 559 Direction, Lane# NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SE 1 Volume Total 19 220 220 660 365 44 Volume Left 19 0 0 0 0 23 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 35 21 cSH 688 1700 1700 U 1700 312 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.13 0.13 0,39 0.21 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 12 Control Delay (s) 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 21.6 Approach LOS C In#erse6bon Summary _ Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4341: S 342 St & 1 W S 4128/2016 Mwemajit- EBT EBR WBL WBT NWL NWR Lane Configurations +T- ++ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 416 46 45 994 55 54 Future Volume (Veh/h) 416 46 45 994 55 54 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 3% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 416 46 45 994 55 54 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1264 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 472 1046 251 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 472 1046 251 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 74 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 1077 211 736 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NW 1 NW 2 Volume Total 277 185 45 497 497 55 54 Volume Left 0 0 45 0 0 55 0 Volume Right 0 46 0 0 0 0 54 cSH 1700 1700 1077 211 736 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.29 1 0.29 0.26 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 25 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 28.0 10.3 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 19.2 Approach LOS C intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4350: 16 Av S & S 341 PI 4/28/2016 f- t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL 3BT Lane Configurations "? tt4 Vi tt Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 40 960 43 31 1066 Future Volume (Veh/h) 48 40 960 43 31 1066 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% -5% -1% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 48 40 960 43 31 1066 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 805 701 pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 0.85 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 1596 522 1013 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 992 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 605 vCu, unblocked vol 1351 88 666 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 85 95 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 325 797 776 Direction, Lane A WB 1 'NB 1 NB 2 SB' SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 88 640 363 31 533 533 Volume Left 48 0 0 31 0 0 Volume Right 40 0 43 0 0 0 cSH 444 1 1700 776 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.38 0.21 0.04 0.31 0.31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 18 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.1 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 15.1 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS C Summary Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4441: 1 W S & 1 PIS 412s12o16 *-- *-- \P. -V -0. move EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Tt 0 y Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 451 1031 20 10 52 Future Volume (Vehlh) 61 451 1031 20 10 52 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% -7% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 61 451 1031 20 10 52 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 926 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1061 1408 546 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1061 1408 546 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 91 91 89 cM capacity (vehlh) 647 116 475 Oirection, Lane# EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 61 226 226 687 364 62 Volume Left 61 0 0 0 0 10 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 20 52 cSH 647 1700 1700 j41JO-) 1700 317 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.13 0.13 l/ O.rO 0.21 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 0 0 18 Control Delay (s) 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 Lane LOS B C Approach Delay (s) 1.3 0.0 19.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5229: 20 Av SW & SW 356 St 4/28/2016 --10. -�* #,' '*-- 4\ /0, Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBI NBR Lane Configurations tT4 ++ y Traffic Volume (veh/h) 652 35 48 1291 6 29 Future Volume (Veh/h) 652 35 48 1291 6 29 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade -2% -1% 0% Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 652 35 48 1291 6 29 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 330 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 697 1431 364 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 680 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 752 vCu, unblocked vol 697 1431 364 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 95 98 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 888 316 623 Direction, Lane # EB 1 ES 2 WB 1 WB 2 WS 3 NB 1 Volume Total 435 252 48 646 646 35 Volume Left 0 0 48 0 0 6 Volume Right 0 35 0 0 0 29 cSH 1700 1700 888 0 534 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.15 0.0 Q.3 0.3 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4- 0 5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 12.2 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 12.2 Approach LOS B Intersec 9arr Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 17 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5231: 14 Av SW/13 W SW & SW 356 St 4/2s12o1s Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi t1* t% 4 4# Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 618 5 10 1278 63 5 4 3 41 1 26 Future Volume (Veh/h) 34 618 5 10 1278 63 5 4 3 41 1 26 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade -2% 0% 1 % -1 % Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 34 618 5 10 1278 63 5 4 3 41 1 26 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1351 633 1394 2070 332 1732 2040 690 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 698 698 1340 1340 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 696 1371 392 701 vCu, unblocked vol 1351 633 1394 2070 332 1732 2040 690 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 93 99 98 97 100 73 99 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 501 938 253 160 653 150 189 381 17ii i i-.lalta# EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 S£ 1 Volume Total 34 412 211 10 852 489 12 68 Volume Left 34 0 0 10 0 0 5 41 Volume Right 0 0 5 0 0 63 3 26 cSH 501 1700 1700 938 7RQ-r1700 243 196 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.24 0.12 0.01 0.50 .29 0.05 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 1 0 0 4 36 Control Delay (s) 12.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 20.6 32.8 Lane LOS B A C D Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.1 20.6 32.8 Approach LOS C D lnt&.sedan,Summaq Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Telecare 16-100955-CN PW - SL 2017 Horizon Year Page 18 A�k Federal Way May 12, 2016 BCRA Attn: Christine Phillips 2106 Pacific Ave, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98042 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffedera)way.com Re: 16-100955-00-CN; Telecare Residential Treatment Facility Concurrency The Public Works Traffic Division has completed the Concurrency test for the subject project, consisting of 11,500 sq. ft. (16 beds) treatment facility. Based on the submitted information, the project "PASSED" the Concurrency test. A Capacity Reserve Certificate (CRC) and traffic Concurrency test summary for the project are attached. The CRC certificate allows your project to proceed with other applicable permit processes. The CRC is valid until the development permit expires, is withdrawn or canceled, whichever occurs first. The CRC cannot be sold or transferred to property not included in the legal description provided by the applicant in the application for a CRC. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 835-2743 or sari.ulv,lun��n�ilyc7llcicr,l�4�ly core. Sincerely; Sarady Long Senior Transportation Planning Engineer SL:su Enclosures: Traffic Concurrency Test Summary Capacity Reserve Certificate cc: Project File Day File 1Adept\pw\tra\concurrency\20I6 en projects\I6100955_telecare treatment racilty\cn determination - telecare.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF 33325 81h Avenue South .� Federal Way 98003-6325 Federal Way 253-835-2700;Fax Fax 253-835-27092709 www. c i tvoffedem l way. cnm CAFAan RESER vE CERTIFICATE (CRC This CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION is made this P day ofMay 2016 by the City of Federal Way (COFW), a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter called the "City"). WHEREAS, the developer intends to develop the property described as Telecare Residential Treatment Facility reviewed under City file CN Number(s) 16-100955-CN (hereinafter called the "development"); and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A requires that the City adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of the development are made concurrent with the development; and WHEREAS, the City adopted its comprehensive plan in November 1995; and WHEREAS, Chapter 19 of the COFW Revised Code was amended by the creation of Chapter 19.90 Division III on June 10, 2006 by Ordinance 06-525 effective January 1, 2007; and NOW, THEREFORE, a concurrency certificate is issued for the development of 11.500 s . Lt. 16 beds treatment facility based on the facts and conditions set forth herein. Development Parameters This CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION is based on the following development: Development type: Medical/Office Development size: 11,500 sq. ft. (16 beds) treatment facility Property address: 33500 131h Pl S Federal Way, WA 98023 Parcel No. (s): 768190-0010 and 768190-0020 Number of New PM Peak Hour Vehicles Trips Generated: 10 Validity of Concurrency Determination This CAPACITY RESERVE CERTIFICATE is valid only for the specific development approval consistent with the development parameters and the City file number contained within this certificate. If the development is changed, expired, cancelled or withdrawn, it will be subjected to reevaluation for concurrency purposes. Terms of the Capacity Reserve Certificate This CAPACITY RESERVE CERTIFICATE is valid until the underlying development permit expires, is withdrawn or cancelled, whichever occurs first. Approved By: Date: 10 14-7y Z c:_ t 6_ Printed Name: Richard A. Perez, RE Title: Citv Traffic Engineer