The URL can be used to link to this page

Brackett's Corner SEPA checklist with attachments.pdfW71 RECEWED NOV 0 5 2015 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the leasd agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposalFor nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Brackett's Corner, 2. Name of applicant: Brackett's Corner, LLC„ 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jake I.vnn /4251 422-0053 :_::_..._.._.....mm _ _. 320 Davton Street Suite 108 Edmonds. Wa 98020 4. Date checklist prepared: September 29, 2015 5. Agency requesting checklist: C rtyITmr l drnora Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Pagel of 27 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):_ Phase 1: Construction heginning snring 2016 ending Fall 2016 (The 7 most southerlv lots) Phase 2 Beginning fall 2016 ending„summer 2017 (The remaining 7 northerly lots) (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No (T F L°C) 1': i'1 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None (STAFF COt M 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. (STAFF F CO Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 2 of 27 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. uA.W.W&l? c��dt,,O le work e atr% ino,penilit,�i�i Xl �f-way p ��r��t, Ar�l,t�tec��t�t� ��i��vievy Board Al royal (STAF 41 COMM 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Remove ove two existing office bWldin.ware,..(... ig 1 .1 x11,1% -,louse combiae tltie Q ee eltearte is �.rccl rltta,lmmtax l)arcel. The ppjO...Prois cornposed of 14 detached condomi m units h �trawts rrrsITll �s �t e ill sire orn Lip prox imatel ? 100 scluaref atm t ,LOQ.square feet. Ogee the three current tAX parcels rc _ t0klm�,� the site will N annmximately 1.03 acres - (STAFF COMMEN 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 4trPPt Address: 8090-9010 212th St SW Fdmnnds. WA. 98026 „/ 21216 R(Ith ,Ave W Edmonds- Wa_ OR026 Legal Description: LOT L BLOCK 3,__,ALIIFRWOOD MANOR NO. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS IIIAGE, to RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASIIINGTC7�N E CEP"I" °I1- E WEST 453.56 FElgT AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH LINE.. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS COUNTY OF SNOIIOMISII STATE QF WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS. RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RF,CORD. Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 3 of 27 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): lg rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: (STAFF COMMENTS), . . ..... _....... _�._ ......._._.............. _.. ...�..�... b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of longterm commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Please see attached soils and drainaee report for exact soil conditions from test nit-, that were dug (STAFF COMMENTS) f>e-- lb � � .� ��®q� ��b�� ,,��`S'. Z. q 9-c�^ 8 �l.® .,/ 1 4� ( �E E:J Qi Caa P` 4.�d®�P r^.- id+ -SA �F9 Q✓ ^' �1.................... .�.............._..............r......_........_._....._--------- _»-,...----------------------------------- .._----------- _---.....------------._------- .......... � u d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None ...noted ...or.. known. ._._................_.............._......_........._........�..�.... .... Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklist-doc Page 4 of 27 (STAFF COMMENTS) ........................ e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Please refer to the attached eneineers drainaee report. (STAFF COMMENT. , . .,, r w M., � , ,a.. I,.. .� f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 74.8% impervious (;STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Silt fence. construction entrance. stockpiles covered with clear mastic (STAFF COM 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Normal e mtrr s s ns from m_ITccsr st a lin a� I ent and somedust will be generated during construction deyending n weather mmconditions. _After comp etion ofconstruction normal automobile cmissions will be cnerated by on - Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 5 of 27 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS)- __ ... __............. _ .__ C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Constroctiotaijn°a. vDlll not _pta ntA; !LLC to beIT carried off-sile off-site1 trucks s wi91 be controlled. Water will be used for dust control if needed. (STAFF COMMENTS)_ . ..... ... .- 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. (STAFFCOMM (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. (STAFF COM 1 1ENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 6 of27 [fa yj 1!1'IIItAam, III I al►Y 16-1 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COMMENTS (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 7 of 27 (STAFF COMMENTS), ... ............ (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. (STAFF C l'M1 C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. I'E1c arml; aar -ALL tuft" si �r t uvater. Hi will be collected in catch basins a�rucl � c�iat t'l to infiltration trPnnhec with ()vPrflows cnnnected to the c 1v ctnrm (STAFF AFF COMMpl� T . ..... _. ...... — (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinityof the site? If so, describe. (STA FF COMCMS'. Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checkliszdoc Page 8 of 27 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: New QvStf-.m will fidly infiltrate water and rednee impact on dnvvnQtrP.nrn 9jirne..-, (STA "ECO MMEli Ts) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: YES evergreen tree: (5 cedar, (me) other: (At some existing landscape areysl YES shrubs (At some existing landst ape areasi . .... . . ------ YES grass (At some existing landscape areas) pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.. .........wawa wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: ............................... (STAFF COMMENTS),,,,,,-,,,,,,– .... . ....................... b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Ul"UZO ty ALMIke C—le-ILILLAo—fAll—cxLstinayggL.,.LiCiotisos qt I – Pine- I – Cedar- 26 – Fir&.These trees range in apprnximpte height of 70' - 120' ---------- --- (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 4115114 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 9 of2 7 C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None knnwn (STAFF" f.:C`tNiliME [T )...-.. .. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: ,2°fir qf tLic.ove:rall sitewill bem N aii itped atthe n leLicn caf the_lsr at c t. The_landsca_,pin6 w It e i sla'Il d to be c n�( v..�niC ative jantts will utilized withip tto landapp wm &%i . Tl�tq-- l Larjwill rnchide, d cii i �rrp , vurgA' n, Vinci str t z� e t iq 1 ll.. y e l..l . y r n 1 b V landscaUina,�_ ..... _... (STAF"F"COMMENTS)—... _............. . ._..-.......... . e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Nnne knnwn, (STAF°F" COMM 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, . stn ltird. , other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:_ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklist doc Page 10 of 27 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF" COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: (STAFF COM. M e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known, (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 11 of27 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. F,,lectric for building lights and nower. Natural gas for heat and cnma nnnlinnrPc (STAFF CO6Vll+il'ENT ) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 9w o t'._ tkspra eclmlL�t,� l rl a m_a?ttmit dt the City of Edmond's height restrictions ns art 6s 2 stories. 1 t ITpa -grty...t _thee wc..5L6iAlaQ 2.!!1�LjftQq11.and the west ofthe si jec�t ropegy is bordered by roads. ]'he pro ertie� tla_the south will not be affected due to setbacks. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: High efficiency HVAC systems Use of LED huhtine fixtures throughout (STAFF F 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 12 of 27 ( 'l'AFlU C" 1i+11"M ENTS)_ ........_ ..w ................ ........_ ..... . (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known; No phase 1 assesment has been coin ieteci for the nrnnPrty, (STA FF CO M (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes undergrand hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. Existing natural gas lines to he cut & canned by PSF, (STAFF COMM ENTS). (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None. (STAFF COMMENTS)—,,—.,,, ----- � _..�. (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. (STAFF COMM Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 13 of27 (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic from 212t` St SW and ROth Ave W (STAFFCOMM (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. Nonnal construction noises will occur during constroction of the pLojg_q1,_d34Jn, construction hours that art- annroved by the Citv nfFdmnnd.-,_ . . . . . . ...................... (STA FF CO M M ENTS)._ ..................... (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS)_,,,,,_.,,,,, . . ...... . ..... . Revised on 4115114 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 14 of2 7 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The current use of thesttac i�mr two s tl1_a� Cir pct a�' are raLQlice. T1_lJ1rcl, str g tK r _ lllg is kWi essecl afi of �0's Ave MMS is a shat 1 ..darn ly IiL usp,' he jurro��r�1� ..1�i° �e�°t�es are :s I an -Lily nd apar'tawnt crwtllalt C" p!nl2oscd pr . i Atili 111L)tc se# i Jps;513Li ate th the surrondi� g is � �°tins tlzetw tl r _ tucrerr: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfrom or nonforest use? (STAFF COM (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: !�,, �[l17'iI'M'itwl`lr"9 C. Describe any structures on the site. Two existing commercial office buildings built in the 1950's esidence built in the 1950's _ ww m w mmmmmmmITITIT One, single family r�mmITITIT Assnniatp.d narkino .......... .. _............................ (STAFF Cttl'w+ME Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 15 of 27 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Ve.q Al hidiffino-,and nnrkincy (STAFFCOMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M111ti-fihmi1v — RM -14 . I . .... . ..... ------- I Malail What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? To i-eserve and revulat areas Or ��V'l 11im -Y "freatg densities than are available in nmen the single-familv residential zones. while Still MaintainiLig.a re-,idential environment w . --- -- — - 1 0 t Multi -Family Medium Density g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? (STAFFCOMgr ENT S) . . ...................... . . ........... -- h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. Revised on 4115114 Brackett's Comer - SEPA Checklist doc Page 16 of27 (STAFF C;C'1'M Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 14-56 — their will be (14)3 bedroom units (STAFF COMM ENTS)_..._, j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Approximately 10 office em �Is1 aVecs that work in the two exi� office buildings and 1 single far ;iii r�st�le�tc � (STAFF COM k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: (STAFF COMM ENTs) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: ( TAF'F C:C11 lME1" T) w� In. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long- term commercial significance, if any: Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 17 of 27 (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. calx Middle me.nmP hnncina nstrt�cted and ayaila_ le Etat _.._ .......................... (1,41 3 hedrnnm iintt� will he cn,„ (STAFF COMMEN b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. (1) sinsle family residence will be eliminated. Middle income housing (STAFF CO C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: (STAFF COMMENTS) ) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? `balle t hej&1jta1.., ai laM osed structure is 28.5' the principle exkerioi ITbuimldhts ; IT aler?als shall be ll,s.r ie [a siddine and veneer stone. Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 18 of27 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? (STAFF COMMENTS) . . . . ....... . ... ... C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: A variation of materials will be used on the structures and also a wide variation of plants will be used fo (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Limited light or glare is anticipated, unitii_yi1t.. gygs Mglerio N,t ltts butIT, will be attractivel lit at niahahne. (STAFF COM b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. (STAFF C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Revised on 4115114 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklist doc Page 19 of2 7 XJ Vr,1ll KW3151 Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Useofonly down or un -down liehts so as not to affectQ�t prune, tied 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Lynnwood Kw Lii i N Q&_2ggi:ss , l cln�ar��sµmi "c�odw l ihschool fields, College place MiddlemenSchool fields, Yost Park. Pine Ridee Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklist doc Page 20 of 27 (STAFF CCS±% 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. (STAFF COMMENTS)-.--,,,,, .............. ... b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. (STAND COMM 1 �P"IS)._� �................................ �........................... C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. Checked with the Citv of Edmonds nlannine division on 10/1 /15 (STAN" COMME d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 21 of 27 (STAFF COMMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Currenit 212 1h St SW gnd 80"' Ave W serve the tpr erty, WepEq-p r (STAFF COMMENTS), b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. the nearest bus Ston is across the street approximately 100 feet. awav .... . . ....... . . .. ............... .................. (STAFF COM C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? The completed ptp)posed ,lectwtitildhave 391?iirk.iiisl)aces gi ag i"sw csWbeing ----CZ5 qf -c -q-p.ArkjL -AIL- exterior narkiniz between units). The current site has approximately 24 parking spaces; Revised on 4115114 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 22 of 27 d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilityes not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). (STAFF C('IM'. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and anpassenger vehicles). What data or transporation models were used to make these estimates? Please refer to the attached traffic impact analvsis worksheet. under 25 peak hour tries. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. (STAFF °f)I'1r1MENTS). ..... _._. ... ___.............. ... Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 23 of27 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: (STAFF CO 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. p Pffart nn nnhhr cPrvirP.e a rnnnceri nrn�iectwnitici he 14 homes_ unable to auantftl�lw wm_IT,. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: (STAFF COM1ti7ENTS). �... ._..._ __. _..�. .�.._. � _ .......................... 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: _ � itnry ePwar Flectrici - natural ga _water_ refute service telenhone �::��' ita. � wwwwwwwwq wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww_„ww__ _ Revised on 4/15/14 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklistdoc Page 24 of27 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. )Mater. sanitary sewer. and storm are Lmovided through the City of Edinonds dal ectricity j� ovided through Snohomish PUD. -natural gas is trovided throe telephone and cable I1ira it9crz lLirqugh Qqmqqs1.iLe jgjk service is provided throuiah Republic Services (STA FFCOMMEETS) C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. S�Ignat, c of Proponent Reviewed by Sean Conrad, AICP City of Edmonds Development Services Department 1110s'lig Date Submitted t 2— / 1 -7 /1 S - Revised on 4115114 Brackett's Corner - SEPA Checklist doc Page 25 of2 7 eL 0 C) 0 U) 43) \ \ \\0 * 0 (D \ \ � -D 0Fj j 0 ®® 5 --E 10 Co 2 �ID 0 ca E E�§E ID C,5 , LU (D 53.LooE\\\¥\k wo�=0p —�C)0 ) § / § § —0 Cc, a) za Z V _(D CO ( \ \ S ) ` 0 0, -0 > 0 a) < a- � 0 76 = E '0 -c� 2 E (D m Z E 'R 3: E co \ \ ) \ \ \ 0 0 # — C*J 04 % M -PCO -P CO T OC 00 /\\§f U) v; a) ZZ (D Z5 0 �s z M U) 1 uj w -:F. (2,G; .2 a) (D E . G - 4) t; a) 020.4 Wo I-- NJ cli I-- LLJ V m t- Emilbort'lls= MI M WE (AS— SM"D Cad Q➢N) (U ......, 133i' BSTSt li3N 3NL dq lu '��1� � I 3N0'� ASvg 3H1 fJNC9® Oi'Nb I U w g r o a I y i X . .. . . . . .......... . . — ----- :v oy c 6 � Z � b 82 �xk r � m S;v Fr �. oAa J is, IN� 14, 111 12 W M R ■►x'11 I . � '' MI M WE (AS— SM"D Cad Q➢N) (U ......, 133i' BSTSt li3N 3NL dq lu '��1� � I 3N0'� ASvg 3H1 fJNC9® Oi'Nb I U w g r o a I y i X . .. . . . . .......... . . — ----- :v oy c 6 � Z � b 82 �xk r � m S;v Fr �. oAa J is, IN� 14, 111 12 W M R GTC Gibson Traffic Consultants 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 rac ett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared For: Pride Ventures, LLC Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds December 2015 GTC 415-260 Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................. 1 2. TRIP GENERATION_ .................... ......................,.................................................... 1 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ....................... ___ ................ ....,.................................................,, 3 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY ..........................<,..................... 6 4.1 Sight Distance Requirements...............................................................................<......... 6 4.2 Channelization Warrants ..................... ....................................................... ......... 6 4.3 Access Separation....... ............... ....._.................... .................. ........,.......... ......... 6 4.4 Access Level of Service Analysis ....................... .................. .......................... __...... ..... 7 4.5 Collision Summary........................................................................... ........»,.................. 8 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LEVEL OF SERVICE .............. ........................................... ....... 9 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS...................................................................................... 15 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................. 16 8. CONCLUSIONS ..................... ....................................................... ........................... 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Site Vicinity Map ...................... ....__ ,„.........,....... ......... ......... .............................. 2 Figure 2: AM Peak -Hour Trip Distribution ................... „............, ......... ......... ........ ___ 4 Figure 3: PM Peak -Hour Trip Distribution.................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: 2015 Existing PM Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes ................................................... 10 Figure 5: 2 -Year Future Baseline PM Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes .............................__., 11 Figure 6: 2 -Year Future with Development PM Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes .................... 12 Figure 7: 5 -Year Baseline PM Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes ................................................ 13 Figure 8: 5 -Year Future with Development PM Peak -Hour Intersection Volumes .................... 14 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Trip Generation Summary............................................................................................ 1 Table 2: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ....... .................. ......... ........ .....,............ 7 Table 3: 5 -Year Collision Rate and Frequency — January 1, 2010 to Available 2015 ................... 8 Table 4: 2017 & 2022 Future Level of Service Summary —PM Peak -Hour ................................ 15 Table 5: Traffic Mitigation Fee Calculation .................. ......... ...... ............... ................. 16 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com i GTC #15-260 Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis ATTACHMENTS TripGeneration Calculations ..................... ......... ............................ ................ .......... ........... - A CountData .................................................................................. ......,............. ................. B 2017/2018 Turning Movement Calculations .................. ......... ....................................... C 2022/2023 Turning Movement Calculations .................. ......... ....... ................,. D Existing PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis ......... .._........................ ..........__......................B 2017/2018 Baseline PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis...................................................... F 2017/2018 Future With Development PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis ........................ G 2022/2023 Baseline PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis .................................................... H 2022/2023 Future With Development PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis .......................... I WSDOTCollision Data ............................................... .„.....,.............................. . _ ................ .e.... J Channelization Warrants.......................................................................................... ......,.__ ..... K SitePlan ......................................................................................... ......... ................................. . L Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com ii GTC #15-260 Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Brackett's Corner residential development is located along the west side of 80th Avenue W, south of 212th Street SW. A site vicinity map that shows the study intersection is included in Figure 1. The development will consist of 14 single family dwelling units. The development is proposed to be constructed in one phase with build -out and occupancy scheduled for the year 2016. The site currently has a total of 5,346 square feet (sf) of general office and one single family dwelling which the development will receive credit for. The development is proposing to have two access points to 801h Avenue W. There are currently two curb -cuts on 212th Street SW which will be removed with the redevelopment and there are two on 80th Avenue W which will be relocated with the redevelopment. 2. TRIP GENERATION The daily, AM peak -hour and PM peak -hour trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed development were estimated by trip generation data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9,"' Edition (2012). The ITE land use code 210, Single family Dwelling and LUC 710, General Office, were used for the proposed development. The proposed development will generate fewer trips during the AM peak -hour than the PM peak -hour; this confirms that the PM peak -hour is the critical commuter peak for the level of service and channelization analysis. Brackett's Corner will be receiving credit for the removal of the single-family house already on site along with 5,346 sf. The development will generate 64.79 ADT with 1.41 AM peak -hour trips (4.90 inbound/6.31 outbound) and 5.03 PM peak - hour trips (6.84 inbound/ -1.81 outbound). A Trip Generation summary has been included in Table 1. Table 1: Trip Generation Summary The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 1 GTC #15-260 Average AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Use Units Daily Tris Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Single Family 14 Units 133.28 2.63 7.87 10.50 8.82 5.18 14 Dwelfin Single Family Dwelling -1 Unit -9.52 -0.19 -0.56 -0.75 -0.63 -0.37 -1.00 (Removed) General Office 5.346 ksf -58.97 -7.34 -1.00 -8.34 -1.35 -6.62 -7.97 (Removed) Total - 64.79 -4.90 6.31 1.41 6.84 -1.81 5.03 The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 1 GTC #15-260 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS BRACKETT'S CORNER LEGEND 13 NEW SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SITE RESIDENCES CITY OF EDMONDS STUDY INTERSECTION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #15-260 FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP Brackett's Corner Traffic l rnpact Analysis 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of trips generated by the Brackett's Corner development is based on the existing turning rnoven encs at the study intersections located around the development. Although there will be two accesses on 80th, just the northern access was loaded with trips to simulate a. worst case scenario, The trip distribution for the development assumes that 40% of the site traffic will travel to and frons the north on 801h Avenue W and 60% to and from the south on 80th Avenue W The forty percent would spilt with twenty percent heading west on 212th Street SW and twenty percent heading east on 212th Street SW. The distributions of AM and PM peak -hour trips generated by the development are shown in Figure 2 and 3 respectively. ..Gibson _..... ,.W,,, ..��.__.._..........._ . ,�. _...�...�_........_...�.� .��..................._ ��.�_._....... Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #15-260 212TH STREET SW SITE 10 (0 13 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS 2 BRACKETrS CORNER LEGEND 13 NEW SINGLE FAMILY AVVDT AM PEAK E RESIDNCES.......... CITY OF EDMONDS 13 4,.�-�. 2 I C4 ('00 _2 NEW DAILY TRAFFIC NEWAM PEAK HOUR TRIPS TRIP DISTRIBUTION % TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #15-260 FIGURE 2 AM PEAK -HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact. Analysis 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY The developinent is proposing to have two access points to 80th Avenue W, one between the two northern accesses on the opposite side of 80th Avenue W for private condos and one directly across from the third access point traveling south for the private condos. The northern access will have 61 feet of corner to corner clearance from 212st Street SW. There will be about 90 feet between the two site accesses. The southern access will have about 161 feet of corner to corner clearance from 213th Street SW. There are currently two curb -cuts along 212th Avenue W which will be removed with the development. The frontage of the development currently has curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north side and a rolled curb and sidewalk along the east side. 4.1 Sight Distance Requirements Sight distance analysis was performed at the proposed site access point according to current AASHTO standards. The entering sight distance was measured from 10 feet back of the pavement from an eye height of 3.5 feet to and eye height of 3.5 feet. The stopping sight distance was measured from an eye height of 3.5 feet to an object height of 2 feet. On 80th Street W the sight distance is based on a posted speed of 25 mph. The required entering sight distance is 280 feet and the required stopping sight distance is 155 feet per AASHTO requirements. There is over 300 feet of stopping and entering sight distance to the north and south of the proposed accesses. The sight distance is met for both accesses. 4.2 Channelization Warrants The WSDOT Design Manual Exhibit 1310-I5a, Left -Turn Lane Guidelines show that left -turn channelization is not required at the proposed access as the intersection Design Hour Volume does not meet the required minimum number of vehicles. Also, the WSDOT Design Manual Exhibit 1310-19, Right -Turn Lane Guidelines show that right -turn channelization, either a pocket or lane, is not required until there are 20 right -turning vehicles. The access is not anticipated to have 20 right -turning vehicles during the PM peak -hour and therefore the accesses to the Brackett's Corner would not warrant right -turn channelization. 4.3 Access Separation The development is proposing to have two access points to 80th Avenue W just south of the existing access from private condos located on the east side of 80th Avenue W. The northern access will have about 61 feet of corner to corner clearance from 212th Street SW. There is approximately 90 feet of clearance between the two access points. The southern access will have 161 feet of corner to corner clearance from 213th Street SW located to the south of the development. The proposed access improves the existing access where vehicles are backing out on to 801h Avenue W. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 6 GTC #15-260 Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis 4.4 Access Level of Service Analysis The analysis of the study intersections and site access has been performed using the Synchro 9. 0, Build 903 software. Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service (LOS). In accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced now or over -capacity conditions. The level of service at signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections is measured in terms of average delay per vehicle in seconds. The level of service for two-way stop -controlled intersections is determined by the worst case of all the calculated lane groups at the intersection. A summary of the level of service criteria has been included in Table 2. Table 2: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections t Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010. LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 7 GTC #15-260 Intersection Control Delay Level of Expected(Seconds ei• Vehicle) Service Delay Unsignalized Signalized Intersections Intersections A Little/No Delay <10 <1.0 B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20 C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35 D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55 E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80 F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80 t Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010. LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 7 GTC #15-260 Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis Per the November 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan; the acceptable level of service for City of Edmonds intersections is LOS D or better for arterials and LOS C or better for collectors. The level of service analysis shows that the access to 80th Avenue W will operate at LOS A with 8.8 seconds of delay even with all of the development traffic loaded on the single access. 4.5 Collision Summary The latest 5 -year collision history from January 1, 2010 through Available 2015 was obtained from WSDOT. There were a total of 8 collisions within 100 feet of the intersection of 212th Street SW and 80th Avenue W in the 5 -year reporting period within the study area. The data is summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3: 5 -Year Collision Rate and Frequency — January 1, 2010 to Available 2015 Collision "1" r - - Collision Location Rear�Entert Opposite 5 -Year ADT3 Rate Direction Others !Total Frequency 1. 212°"" Street SW 4 2 0 2 8 1.6 11,500 0.38 @ 801h Avenue W The WSDOT 2008 Washi,n ,,,Ion State Collision Data k5"za nniai), the most recent one available from WSDOT, shows that the collision rate for an Collectors, w rich are roadways similar to 80th Avenue W, is 1.62 collisions per million vehicle miles of travel. The collision rate at the primary study intersections should therefore be considered acceptable since the collision rate is below the state average. Only 1 of the 8 collisions identified 80th Avenue W as the primary roadway where the collision occurred. The collision occurred outside the shoulder of the primary roadway and the vehicle struck an object. None of the 8 collisions involved a fatality as the most severe injury type. 3 The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) assumes a design K -value of 10. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 8 GTC #15-260 Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES & LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing PM peak -hour counts were collected at the off-site study intersection: 212th Street SW at 80th Avenue W These counts were performed by Traffic Data Gathering (TDG) on December 1, 2015. The existing turning movements are shown in Figure 4. Due to how close the change of year was, this report will state the future year as 2017/2018. A full two years of growth was still added from December of 2015 to December of 2017. The 2017/2018 baseline traffic volumes were determined using a 2% annually compounding growth rate to account for other developments in the site vicinity. The 2017/2018 baseline turning movements are shown in Figure 5. The 2017/2018 future with development traffic volumes were calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2017/2018 baseline traffic volumes after zeroing out any trips coming to or from the site. The 2017/2018 future with development turning movements are shown in Figure 6. The 2022/2023 baseline turning movements are shown in Figure 7. The 2022/2023 future with development traffic volumes were calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2022/2023 baseline traffic volumes after zeroing out any trips coming to or from the site. The 2022/2023 future with development turning movements are shown in Figure 8. The traffic volume calculations are included in the attachments. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 9 GTC #15-260 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS BRACKETT'S CORNER 13 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND XXX PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #15-260 FIGURE 4 2015 EXISTING PM PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS BRACKETT'S CORNER 13 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND XXX PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #15-260 FIGURE 5 2 YEAR FUTURE BASELINE PM PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS BRACKETT'S CORNER 13 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND XXX - PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #16-260 FIGURE 6 2 YEAR FUTURE WITH DEVELOPMENT PM PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS BRACKET'S CORNER 13 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND XXX PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #15-260 FIGURE 7 202212023 BASELINE PM PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS BRACKETT'S CORNER 13 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES CITY OF EDMONDS LEGEND XXX - PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC #15-260 FIGURE 8 202212023 FUTURE WITH DEVELOPMENT PM PEAK -HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES Brackett's Corner Traffic Impact Analysis 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The future with development level of service analysis has been performed for the additional 5 new PM peak -hour trips that would impact the study intersections. The development's trips were added to the baseline turning movements to determine the future with development turning movements. Counts were collected by GTC staff at the two driveways opposite of the developments north driveway to check for any turning conflicts. The driveway northern driveway of the two had inbound traffic, but no outbound while the southern of the two had no inbound or outbound traffic during the PM peak -hour. Due to this, both driveways will operate at a LOS A with 0 seconds of delay. The intersection of 212th Street SW at Wh Ave W will remain at LOS D but the delay will increase to 27.5 sec with the development with two years of growth and 28.2 sec with the development in seven years. For this intersection, for the seven years of growth, a beak lour Factor of 0.92 was used to account for the traffic growth at this intersection this far in the future. The intersection of the existing/ftiture driveway and 80"' Avenue W will remain at LOS A with the delay increasing to 8.8 sec in 2017/2018 and 2022/2023. The 2017/2018 & 2022/2023 Future with development level of service has been shown in Table 4. All of the study intersections will remain at acceptable LOS per city standards with the development and background traffic forecasts for the 2022/2023 concurrency forecast year. Table 4: 2017 & 2022 Future Level of Service Summary —PM Peak -Hour 2017/2018 Future Conditions 2022/2023 Future Conditions Existing Intersections Conditions without With without with Development Develonment Development Develo "Icni LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 212''°' Street SW at 1. 212 'StreAvenee W D 25.4 sec D 27.3 sec D 27.5 sec D [2&1 sec A 28.2 sec m_....._.�. 2 Ext sting/Future Dwy at A 8.7 sec A 8.7 sec A 8.8 sec A 8.7 sec A 8.8 sec 80 Avenue W The projected northbound queuing at the intersection of 212th Street SW at 80th Avenue W in the Future With Development conditions extends for I vehicle. This will not impact the proposed access location and will allow for all movements out of the proposed northern access. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 15 GTC #15-260 Brackett's Corner Traffic l nnpact Analysis 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The applicable % New Trips and Trip Length Factors are from Table 4 of the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The traffic mitigation fee calculation for the Brackett's Corner development is summarized in Table 5. The total traffic mitigation fee of $6,231.64 is required for the Brackett's Corner development. Table 5: Traffic Mitigation Fee Calculation Total 8. CONCLUSIONS $6,231.64 The development will consist of 14 new single family residences. The development is proposing to have two access points to 80th Avenue W which will have adequate sight distance and will operate at an acceptable level of service. The development is anticipated to generate 64.79 new average daily trips with 5.03 PM peak -hour trips (6.84 inbound/ -1.81 outbound). The development will have traffic mitigation fees of $6,231.64; based on the methodology outlined in Table 4 of the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The development will not have a significant impact on the adjacent intersection. Also, based on the low volume utilizing the accesses, the existing low collision history, and low conflicting volumes from the accesses on the east side of 80`" Avenue W the accesses would operate safely in the proposed site layout configuration. ..... Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 16 GTC #15-260 Number Trip % Trip Net New Trips Impact Fee Land Use of Units Rate New Length per Unit of per Unit Total Trips T Factor Measure Single $1,196.33 Family 14 Units 1.01 100% 1.13 1.14 per dwelling per dwelling $16,748.62 Residence unit Single $840.72 per Family -1 Unit 1.01 o 100% 1.09 1.10 per 1,000 SF dwelling -$840.72 Residence unit General Office -5,346 SF 1.49 100% 1.59 2.37 per 1,000 SF $1.81 per SF -$9,676.26 Total 8. CONCLUSIONS $6,231.64 The development will consist of 14 new single family residences. The development is proposing to have two access points to 80th Avenue W which will have adequate sight distance and will operate at an acceptable level of service. The development is anticipated to generate 64.79 new average daily trips with 5.03 PM peak -hour trips (6.84 inbound/ -1.81 outbound). The development will have traffic mitigation fees of $6,231.64; based on the methodology outlined in Table 4 of the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The development will not have a significant impact on the adjacent intersection. Also, based on the low volume utilizing the accesses, the existing low collision history, and low conflicting volumes from the accesses on the east side of 80`" Avenue W the accesses would operate safely in the proposed site layout configuration. ..... Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. December 2015 info@gibsontraffic.com 16 GTC #15-260 Trip Generation Calculations A A-1 jCD O N M F f00 Z LU W z' Z C co 0) m O O '.. N M LUN 0000 J Z ', J O O O O C......... H O O O O wIL W 7 O O O O mi O O O O O F N } m a e o 0 0 0 W o 0 0 0 IL R IoNom° M LU X Z J O o o0 o 0 0 o 0 0 W Cl) O + 0 0 0 0 0 Z w w Z v w o o w o C ¢.z c) In F 7 O +�•Q O O O O Om m C O O O O Z N a c o �.•p na:') e w F J .-. N M r O 0 F M O N C a � a0+o o0 0000 0 0 ;e>�c�00'00 E o a 5 ala V o a Q 'o O r',,,,r 7 CO U O n 0 F M m O E D a ?�r o~ o 0 0 Q O Lo Lo CD uo , a a a •i eo _ a' n rc ro a'a (7 ilA'r uxy ¢ b ¢,u a w G H � c�H asw lC w ~ Y v d 3 w J rtCA 44A �> �a L z> O E �A h," k CA "'mia ""cum d a S air N A-1 A-2 7 W H Cl O M 3 o q I JI r1(6 W WZ M rn z N O n w7 00 1 0 O O O O ZO 00 Z W O 'DC, . O O 0 0 0 0 r a m D � p 000 O a e o 0 0 0 00 O O p _ os CD Lf� Lo. ^ui C', � J Z C 0 00 Q 0 F r � i Z m W Z r �+ .•. O O O 0 I0 0 O O J W U) ',, D Z +� C r .. 0 0 0 O O. r p ' r W cj LU W e W F O 0 0 Q 3 01 O m Q O O O O � N ea a r e d 0 .. O+ p o n chi 0 p O O r C O m'a0« O o'o0 o 0 0 0 2 c r C F O O O O d �0 O� V c o aao o o'o 0 e (7 !0 F- o u! in n chi O O y T r+ fn a r e e o e in Lol d w 0 c IM p ? Cl IV) co C+JI NII W Q O C d CL�' Ro p uo as L. O �C 2 LU 00 0 CL r J V N N f- I (L Q W m .N �_ N Y IM A YY Q C C CO v_,'i 33 L::: � Y Ed O cc Im cm c C Im 0 0I O f' W m m :3 LL LL m A-2 a A-3 Brackett's Corner GTC #15-260 AM Peak -Hour A-4 New New AM Peak Hour Trips % ADT In Out Total 100% 65 -5 6 1.41 1%1 0.65 -0.05 0.061 0.01 2% 1.30 -0.10 0.1 0.03 3%1 1.94 -0.15 0.19 0.04 4% 2.59 -0.20 0.25 0.06 5%1 3.241 -0.25 0.32 0.07 6% 3.89 -0.29 0.38 0.08 7% 4.54 -0.34 0.44 0.10 8% 5.18 -0.39 0.50 0.11 9° 5.83 -0.44 0.57 0.13 10% 6.48 -0.49 0.63 0.141 11 % 7.13 -0.54 0.69 0.16 12% 7.77 -0.59 6.76 0.17 13% 8.42 -0.64 ! 0.82 0.18 14%1 9.07 -0.69 0.88 0.20 15% 9.72 , -0.74 0.95 0.21 16% 10.37 -0.781 1.01 0.23 17% 11.011 -0.83 1.07 0.24 18% 11.66 -0.88 1.14 0.25' 19% 12.31 -0.93 1.20 0.27 200/6 12.96 -0.98 1.26 0.28 21% 13.61 -1.03 1.33 0.30 22% 14.25 -1.08 1.39 0.31 23% 14.90 -1.13 1.45 0.32 24% 15.55 -1.18 1.51 0.34 25% 16.20 -1.23 1.58 0.35 260/. 16.85 -1.27 1.64 0.37 27% 17.49 1.32 1.70 0.38 28% 18.14 -1.37 1.77 0.38 29% 18.7911-1.42 -3.87 1.83 0.41 300/0 19.44 -1.47 1.89 0.42 31'% 20.08 -1.52 1.96 0.44 32% 20.73 -1.57 2.02 0.45 33% 21.38 -1.62 2.08 0.47 34% 22.03 -1.671 2.15 0.48 350/6 22.68 -1.72 2.21 0.49 36% 23.32 -1.76 2.27' 0.51 37% 23.97 -1.81 2.33, 0.52 38% 24.62 1.86 2.40 0.54 39% 25.27 j -1.91 2.46 0.55 40% 25.92f-3.1961 -0.41 2.52 0.56 41% 26.56 , -0.46 2.5 0.58 42% 27.21 -4.51 2.65 0.59 43% 27.861 -4.56 2.71 0.61 44°/a 28.51 -4.61 2.78 0.62 45% 29.161 -0.66 2.84 0.646% 96% 29.805 -4.70 2.9 0.65 7% 30.450 -4.75 2.97 0.631.105 98% 63.49 -4.80 3.0 0.68 99%1 31.750 -4.85 3.0 0.69 100%1 32.405 -4.90' 3.16 0.71 A-4 New New AM Peak Hour Trips ADT In Out Total 100% 65 -5 6 1 51% 33.04 -2.50 3.22 0.72 52% 33.69 -2.55 3.28 0.73 53% 34.34 -2.60 3.34 0.75 54%a 34.99 -2.65 3.41 0.76 55% 35.63 -2.70 3.47 0.78 56% 36.28 -2.74 3.53 0.79 57% 36.93 -2.791 3.60 0.80 58% 37.58 -2.841 3.66' 0.82 59% 38.23 -2.89 3.721 0.83 60% 38.87 -2.94 3.79 0.85 61% 39.52 -2.99 3.85 0.86 62% 40.17 -3.04 3.91 0.87 63% 40.82 -3.09 3.98 0.89 64% 41.47 -3.14 4.04 0.90 65% 42.11 -3.19 4.10 0.92 66% 42.76 -3.23 4.16 0.93 67% 43.41 -3.28 4.23 0.94 68% 44.06 -3.33 4.29 0.96 69% 44.71 -3.38 4.35 0.97 70% 45.35 -3.43 4.42 0.99 71% 46.00 -3.48 4.48 1.00 72% 46.65 -3.53 4.54 1.02 73% 47.30 -3.58 4.61 1.03 74% 47.94 -3.63 4.67 1.04 75% 48.59 -3.68 4.73 1.06 76% 49.24 -3.72 4.80 1.071 77% 49.89 -3.77 4.861 1.09 78% 50.54 -3.82 4.92 1.10 79% 51.18 -3.87 4.98 1.11 80% 51.83 -3.92 5.05 1.13. 81% 52.48 -3.97 5.11 1.14 82% 53.13 -4.02 5.17 1.16 83°/u 53.78 -4.07 5.24 1.17 84%,' 54.42 x.12 5.30 1.18 85%1 55.07 -4.17 5.36 1.20 86% 55.72 -4.21 5.43 1.21 87% 56.37 -4.26 5.49 1.23 88% 57.02 -4.31 5.55 1.24 89% 57.66 -4.36 5.62 1.25 90% 58.31 -0.41 5.68 1.27 91% 58.96 -0.46 5.74 1.28 92% 59.61 -4.51 5.81 1.30 93% 60.25 -4.56 5.87 1.31 94% 60.90 -4.61 5.93 1.33 95% 61.55 -0.66 5.99 1.34 96% 62.20 -4.70 6.06 1.35 97% 62.85 -4.75 6.12 1.37 98% 63.49 -4.80 6.18 1.38 99%1 64.14' -4.85 6.25" 1.40 100%1 64.7?1___ -4.90' 6.31 1.41 A-4 Brackett's Corner GTC #15-260 PM Peak -Hour %° New New PM Peak Hour Ups % ADT In Out Total 100.1 65 7 -2 5.03 1% 0.65 0.07 -0.02 0.05 2% 1.30 0.14 -0.04 0.10 3% 1.94 0.21 -0.06 0.15 4% 2.59 0.27 -0.07 0.20 5% 3.24 0.34 -0.09 0.25 6% 3.89 0.41 -0.11 0.30 7% 4.541 0.48 -0.13 0.35 8% 5.18 0.55 -0.14 0.40 9% 5.83 0.62 -0.16 0.45 ° 10 r'a 6.48 0.68 -0.18 ', 0.50 11% 7.13 0.75 -0.201 0.55 12% 7.77 0.82 -0.22 0.60 13% 8.42 0.89 -0.24 0.65 14% 9.07 0.96 -0.25 0.70 15% 9.72 1.03 -0.27 0.75 16% 10.37 1.09 -0.29 0.80 17% 11.01 1.16 -0.31 0.86 1 18% 11.661 1.23 -0.33 0.91 19% 12.31 1.30 -0.34 0.96 20% 12.96 1.37 -0.38 1.01 21% 13.61 1.44 -0.38 1.06 22°/a 14.25 1.50 -0.40', 1.11 23% 14.90 1.57 -0.42 1.16 24% 15.55 1.64 -0.43, 1.21 25°/a 16.20 1.71 -0.45 1.26 26°/a 16.85 1.78 -0.47 1.31 27% 17.49 1.85 -0.49 1.36 28% 18.14 1.92 -0.51 1.41 29% 18.79 1.98 -0.52 1.48 30°/a 19.44 2.05 -0. 1 1.51 31% 20.08 2.12 -0.5 1.56 32% 20.73 2.19 -0.5 1.61 33% 21.38 2.26 -0.6 1.66 34% 22.03 2.33 -0.62 1.71 35°Ca 22.68 2.39 -0.63 1.76 36% 23.32' 2.46 -0.65; 1.81 37°/a 23.97 2.53 -0.67 1.86 38% 24.62' 2.60 -0.69 1.91 39% 25.27 2.67 -0.71 1.96 40% 25.92 2.74 -0.72 2.01 41% 26.56 „� .. 2.80 -0.74 2.06 42% 27.21 2.87 -0.76 2.11 43% 27.86 2.94 -0.78 2.16' 44% 28.51 3.01 -0.80 2.21 45% 29.16 3.08 -0.81 2.26 460/a 29.80 3.15 -0.83 2.31 47% 30.451 3.21 -0.85 2.36 48°/a 31.101 3.28 -0.87 2.41 49°/a 31.751 3.35 -0.89 2.46 500 32.40 3.42 -0.91 2.52 A-5 New New PM Peak Hour Trips % ADT In I Out Total 100% 65 7 51% 33.04 3.49 -0.92 2.57 52% 33.69 3.561 -0.94 2.62 53% 34.34 3.63 -0.96 2.67 54% 34.99 3.69 -0.98 2.72 55% 35.63 3.76 -1.00 2.77 56% 36.28 3.83 -1.01 2.82 57% 36.93 3.90 -1.03 2.87 58% 37.58 3.97 -1.05 2.92 59% 38.23 4.04 -1.07 2.97 60% 38.87 4.10 -1.09 3.02 61%. 39.52 .-..... ..,. 4.17 -1.10 3.07 62°/a 40.17 4.24 -1.12 3.12 630/. 40.82 4.31 -1.14 3.17 64% 41.47 4.38 -1.16 3.22 65% 42.11 4.45 -1.18'' 3.27 66% 42.76 4.51 -1.19''', 3.32 67% 43.41 4.58 -1.211 I' 3.37 68% 44.06 4.65 -1.23 3.42 69% 44.71 4.72' -1.25 3.47 70% 45.35 4.79 -1.27 3.52 71% 46.00 4.86 -1.29 3.57 72% 46.65 4.92 -1.30 3.62 73% 47.30 4.99 -1.32. 3.67 74% 47.94 5.06 -1.34 3.72 75% 48.59 - 5.13 -1.36 3.77 76% 49.24 5.20 -1.38 3.82 77% 49.89 5.27 -1.39 3.87 78% 50.54 5.34 -1.41 3.92 79%1 51.18 5.40 -1.43 3.97 80% 51.83 5.47 -1.45 4.02 81% 52.48 5.54 -1.47 4.07 82% 53.13 5.61 -1.48 4.12 83% 53.78 5.68 -1.50 4.17 84% 54.42 5.75 -1.52, 4.23 85°/Q 55.07 5.81 -1.54 4.28 86% 55.72 5.88 -1.56 4.33 56.37 5.95 -1.57 4.38 57.02 6.02 -1.5 4.43 F 57.66 6.09 -1.61 4.48 58.31 6.16 -1.63 4.53 a 58.961 6.22 -1.65 4.58 92% 59.61 i 6.29 -1.67' 4.63 93% 60.25 6.36 -1.68 4.68 94% 60.90 6.43 -1.70 4.73 950 61.55 6.50' -1.72 4.78 96% 62.20 6.57 -1.7 i' 4.83 97% 62.85 6.63 -1.76 4.88 98% 63.49 6.70 -1.77mi, 4.93 99% 64.14 6.77 -1.7 4.98 100% 64.79 6.84 -1.811 5.03 A-5 PC TRAFFIC DATAGA77ERNG TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM ............ds = 2_ c N Q 0 0 L i ao 12 4 7 546... i1 aU -Tum r" 0 18 498 461 Bicycles 0 19 INTERSECTION 1 2 a� ¢> PEAK HOUR VOLUME � 11 0 IN 1,150 °D OUT 1,150 13 L_ 8 I 47 0 0 42 68 E ............................Peds = 3 F 212th Street SW @ 80th Avenue W Edmonds, WA COUNTED BY: JH REDUCED BY: CN REDUCTION DATE: Wed. 12/2/15 21 0 Bicycles 521 561 19 0U -Tum u v N a 515 SB HV 4.3% PHF L 0.72 NB 1.6% 0.68 WB 1.4% 0.82 EB 2.4% 0.92 INTRS. 1.9% 0.91 PHF = Peak Hour Factor HV = Heavy Vehicle DATE OF COUNT: Tue. 12/1/15 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Overcast B-1 RIM +rx aM a z - � O N r N w � rp ra M� cw I e'a N O W 6Y LW d Yf CM Gd d µ"pl Gtl C" a9 ��uut Ky µk,M' G da did +"t4 Gf iM C>. u. eS k"F x e^di +m BMs �y z 3 o N O i 0 n„x � r 0 ca rp d rv. a d ca cu : W Ku GY wm w� a r d", r � Z,, G o ; u 14 -�d rc.4 A C.JI d G'X 'vA ITwn CA M Gy , d Iif C:1 d d GIw CM xry N CA FAm da r ,tl. CN ry ur � d n a cx Cu a ... H r O Z Y Q, a d w 0 E a a a .2l & a s W a RIM H �''(5 IS "Fake- roi,� td 4-5 wnx^mmm v�^ r ww vs~w ^MY 'k' b�rva'nw....„y ..�,..._ �.w ^ p. xm rN . m w,,., iw✓""-ra wy�. wm^aw..rt«�w..r.r.on^',..�'.. x—�^ irv^t mmn^�^"+^.m^r.«n.ymr.r. arvrwxrvunrx ^vr+Gx'nui mmrv'mr w.. ^ws^^,m+w; x" rn mm i � �..��_ �.�.�.T _.w„��.,W.. r~- ��.�m�m� .�e..w•M.w� ._..�� . �..^�ww.�,�.�^,wrv..��.��.,�.. �^�,....^_.^..w-.,.�.w_ m�, - �,ww��,�, ..�w� � ...�H._ �w.ww��,��.w. ^ r +�acktl e 1 x?s rtrwavd far " B-3 2017/2018 Turning Movement Calculations c 1 128th St SE @ 3rd Ave SE Existing 23 70 47 I Average Weekday 12 1 4 W W 7 PM Peak Hour 0 b 80th Avenue W R 21 Year. 1211115 546 a 521 561 a 19 T Data Source: TDG 1.044 212th Street SW 1,150 212th Street SW 1.076 North 18 498 461p 515 I ti 801h Avenue W 13 42 '...110 61 8 1 Future without Project 23 72 49 Average Weekday 124 7 PM Peak Hour "n 80th Avenue W R 22 Year: 2017 568 a 542 584 Growth Rate = 2,0% 20 T Years of Growth = 2 1.087 212th Street SW 1,197 212th Street SW 1.120 North Total Growth = 1.0404 19 a 1 519 480 b 536 20 c 80th Avenue W 1 el 8 49 78 a o Avera Weekday 0 Total Project Tris 0 Average y 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour .' 0 b 80th Avenue W a 0 p a 0 L2 2 T 1 212th Street SW 212th Street SW 1 North 0 I 1 0 a 1 1 b 80th Avenue W (1 0 m 1 Future with Project 23 72 49� Average Weekday 12 4 7 PM Peak Hour ,2 0 80th Avenue W a 22 568 a 542 586 p 22 T 1 088 212th Street SW f 1„199 212th Street SW 1,121 North 19 a I 520 480 b 535 21 0 80th Avenue W a f 14 8 48 V 47 117 70„ Page 1 of 3 C-1 2 Existing Driveway Synchro ID: 2 Existing I 43 112 69 Average Weekday 1 �J 42 __ 0 PM Peak Hour ra 0 80th Avenue W 0 Year: 12/2/15 2 0 0 rx 0 T Data Souroe: GTC 7 Existing Dwy 117 — 0 North 1 � I 5 0 0 4 80th Avenue W a tt rr 68 0 46._. ..... 1 �_,.,.,� 115 69 e vAthout 45 FuAverage Peak Weekday a 1 i" ur 61 44 T 0117 72 a J 80th Avenue W R 0 Year: 2017 2 0 0 Growth Rate= 2,0% 0 T Years of Growth = 2 7 Existing Dwy 1'2?- 0 North Total Growth = 1.0404 % I 0 E5N cI 80th Avenue W 48_120 72 Total Project Trips 3 4 1 M M A Average Weekday 3 0 0 PM Peak Hour ✓ 0 b 80th Avenue W 0 7 0 0 0 ✓x 0 T 7Access Driveway 7 0 North � o I 0 0 a 0 1 b 80th Avenue W a m ra 40 I0 p" Future with Project 48 121 73 Average Weekday 4 44 0 PM Peak Hour 0 b 80th Avenue W�> 0 9 o o 1. 12 0 u 14 Access Driveway 129 — 0 North 3 S.t 80th Avenue W 6 11 !a 5 71 0 3 76 Page 2 of 3 C-2 3 Opp side N Dwy SynchroID: 3 Existing .".... 66 t �1 46 114 Average Weekday 0 42 4 PM Peak Hour r 4 1�1 80th Avenue W 0 Year: 12/2/15 0 t: 0 0 r o T Data Source: GTC 0 116 North Opposite Driveway 6 North o q 0 0 r.y 6 0 80th Avenue W R fi U 0 68 42 112 70 I Future without Project 48 119 71 Average Weekday 0 44 4 PM Peak Hour 6 4r 80th Avenue W R0 Year: 2017 0 G.I 0 0 Growth Rate = 20% r✓ 0 T Years of Growth = 2 0 121 North Opposite Driveway 6 North Total Growth = 1,0404 0 I 0 0 6 0 'L. sy 80th Avenue W 0 7EEI:] 17 1 173 f � Total Project Trips 0 o 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour :r. (k b 80th Avenue W R 0 0 a 0 0 r o T 0 North Opposite Driveway 0 North o 0 0 , o 0 80th Avenue W R k 0 0 0. I ��0��0 0 Future withat I 48 119 71 Average Weekday 0 44 4 PM Peak Hour 4 b 80th Avenue W 0 0 G= 0 0 r o T 0 121 North Opposite Driveway 6 North E0 0 <<� I 6 o W0 80th Avenue W R Tri 0 44 117 73 Page 3 of 3 C-3 2022/2023 Turning Movement Calculations u 1 128th St SE @ 3rd Ave SE SynchroID: 1 Existing 23 70 47 Average Weekday 12 4 PM Peak Hour ✓r 1.1+ 80th Avenue W `'�t521 Year. 12/1/15 546 r=li 561 T Data Source: TDG 1.044 212th Street SW 1,150 212th Street SW 1,o76 North 18 C 498 461 515 19 80th Avenue W 13 647 42 ' 110 68 Future without Project 27 81 54 Average Weekday 14 5 8 PM Peak Hour 1 b 80th Avenue W D 24 Year: 2022 627 a i 598 644 Growth Rate = 2.0% a 22 T Years of Growth = 7 1,200 212th Street SW 1,322 212th Street SW 1,236 North Total Growth = 1.1487 21 L 573 530 a 592 22 c, 80th Avenue W 4 tC 15 9][:54J -� 49 127 78 Total Project Aver geWe kday 0 t ..0 o 0 _ PM Peak Hour b 80th Avenue W a 0 0 a 0 2 2 T. 1 212th Street SW 2 2121h Street SW 1 North 0 o 1 0 a 1 b 80th Avenue W 4 a ti 0 0 -1 3 Future with Project 27 81 54 Average Weekday 14 5 8 PM Peak Hour 0� ' ti 80th Avenue W24 627 aBL646 t2 T 1,201 212th Street SW 1,324 212th Street SW 1.237 North 21........ P 574 530 b 591 23 0 80th Avenue W o U r 15 1 9 1 53 52 129 77 Page 1 of 3 D-1 2 Existing Driveway Synchro ID: 2 43 1 12 �69 Existing � Average Weekday 1 42 0 PM Peak Hour 2 80th Avenue W 0 Year: 12/2/15 2 0 0 0 " o T Data Source: GTC 7 Existing Dwy 117 0 North 1 I 5 > 0 a E4 s 80th Avenue W a IP 46 115 69 Future without Project 49 128 79 Average Weekday 1 1 48 0 PM Peak Hour 4y 80th Avenue W 0 Year: 2022 2 0 0 0 Growth Rate = 2.0% 0 T Years of Growth = 7 8 Existing Dwy 134 0 North Total Growth = 1.1487 1 s g 0 4, 0 5 sw 80th Avenue W 53�� 132 79 Total Project Trips 1� Average Weekday 3 0 0 PM Peak Hour ra 0 ti 80th Avenue W 0 7 0 0 r✓ 0 T 7 Access Driveway 7 0 North 1 ra 0 0 I> 0 -1 80th Avenue W a ft a a 0 0 Future with Project52 132 60 �. Average Weekday 4 46 0 PM Peak Hour 80th Avenue W 1S 0 9 0 0 0 rs 0 T 15 Access Driveway 941- 0 North g 0 y 0 4 c, 80th Avenue W Q f.R r' 52 78 0 35 � 83 1„ 5 Page 2 of 3 D-2 3 Opp side N Dwy Synchro ID: 3 Existing 46-1 114 IF69 Average Weekday 0 42�i 4 PM Peak Hour 0 4 ti 80th Avenue W 11�0.... Year. 12015 0 < 0 0 0 T Date Source: GTC 0 _a 116 North Opposite Driveway 6 North 0 41 U 0 0 6 0 s 80th Avenue W a r � 0 00 2 42 112 70 Project 3 ..... .. Future without Pect 53 Average Weekday0 48 5 PM Peak Hour 0 80th Avenue W 0 Year: 2022 0 0 0 Growth Rate = 2,0% 0 ] 11 Years of Growth = 7 0 F1 33 North Opposite Driveway 7 North Total Growth = 1,1467 0 o I 0 0 7 0 80th Avenue W a cr AA 48 0 76 2 1 28 1_. 80 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour 4 80th Avenue W u0 Kr 0 T 0 North Opposite Driveway 0 North r L0A s 80th Avenue W 0 0 0 �� 0 0 0 Future with Project 53 131 7 Average Weekday L_LJ 48 L58 PM Peak Hour 4 1�1 80th Avenue W 0 0 c:, 0 0 d2 0 T 0 133 North Opposite Driveway 7 North 0 ra I 0 0 7 0 80th Avenue W a 0 L 48— 128 0 1 78 2 80 Page 3 of 3 D-3 Existing PM Peak-Hour 0 A 'm Level of ServiceAnalysis w H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\2015 Existing Conditions.syn 1: 80th Avenue W & 212th Street SW Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 461 19 19 521 21 13 8 47 7 4 12 Future Vol, veh/h 18 461 19 19 521 21 13 8 47 7 4 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - None - - None - - None Storage Length 60 - - 60 - - - - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 82 82 82 68 68 68 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 20 501 21 23 635 26 19 12 69 10 6 17 Maior/Minor Majorl Ma ort Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 662 0 0 523 0 0 1259 1260 515 1253 1258 652 Stage 1 - - - - 552 552 - 696 696 - Stage 2 - _ _ 707 708 - 557 562 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.11 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.209 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 927 - - 1049 - 147 170 560 147 169 464 Stage 1 - - - - 518 515 - 429 440 - Stage 2 - - - - - 426 438 - 511 506 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 924 - 1046 133 162 558 117 161 462 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 133 162 - 117 161 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 506 503 - 419 430 - Stage 2 - _ - 395 428 - 427 495 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.3 20 25.4 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLnl NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 143 558 924 - - 1046 - 208 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.216 0.124 0.021 - - 0.022 - 0.154 HCM Control Delay (s) 37 12.4 9 - 8.5 - 25.4 HCM Lane LOS E B A - - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0.4 0.1 -- - 0.1 - - 0.5 Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] 2015 Existing E-1 H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\2015 Existing Conditions -syn 2: 80th Avenue W & Existing Driveway Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 68 42 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 68 42 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 4 1 74 46 1 Maior/Minor Minor2 Maiorl Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 122 46 47 0 - 0 Stage 1 46 - - Stage 2 76 - _ Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 873 1023 1560 - - Stage 1 976 - - - - - Stage 2 947 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 872 1023 1560 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 872 - - Stage 1 976 - - - - Stage 2 946 - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1560 - 989 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.005 - µ HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - HCM Lane LOS A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] 2015 Existing E-2 H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\2015 Existing Conditions.syn 3: 80th Avenue W & 0[mosite Drivewav Brackett's Corner (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 68 2 4 42 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 68 2 4 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 74 2 4 46 Maior/Minor Minor1 Maior1 Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 129 75 0 0 76 0 Stage 1 75 - - - - Stage 2 54 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 865 986 - _ 1523 Stage 1 948 - - - - Stage 2 969 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 862 986 - - 1523 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 862 - - - - - Stage 1 948 - - - - - Stage 2 966 - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0.6 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) - - - 1523 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] 2015 Existing E-3 WIMP4111:29� wm"m . Level of Service Analysis HA2015\15-260\Synchro\Future Baseline Conditions.syn 1: 80th Avenue W & 212th Street SW Brackett's Corner (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 480 20 20 542 22 14 8 49 7 4 12 Future Vol, vehlh 19 480 20 20 542 22 14 8 49 7 4 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - None - - None - - None Storage Length 60 - - 60 - - - - 50 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 82 82 82 68 68 68 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 21 522 22 24 661 27 21 12 72 10 6 17 Major/Minor Majorl Maior2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 689 0 0 544 0 0 1310 1313 537 1305 1310 678 Stage 1 - - - 575 575 - 724 724 - Stage 2 - - - - 735 738 - 581 586 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 4.11 - w 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 w - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - 2.209 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 905 - 1030 - - 136 158 544 136 158 449 Stage - - - - - 503 503 - 414 427 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 411 424 - 496 494 Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 902 - - 1027 - 122 150 542 107 150 447 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - 122 150 - 107 150 - Stage 1 - - - - 491 491 - 404 417 - Stage 2 - - - - - 380 414 - 409 482 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.3 21.6 27.3 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 131 542 902 - - 1027 - - 193 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.247 0.133 0.023 - - 0.024 - - 0.166 HCM Control Delay (s) 41.3 12.7 9.1 - - 8.6 - - 27.3 HCM Lane LOS E B A - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 0.5 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.6 Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future Baseline Conditions F-1 HA2015\15-260\Synchro\Future Baseline Conditions.syn 2: 80th Avenue W & Existina Drivewav Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Traffic Vol, vehlh 1 4 1 71 44 1 Future Vol, vehlh 1 4 1 71 44 1 Conflicting Peds, #!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 4 1 77 48 1 Maior/Minor Minor2 Ma"or1 Malor2 Conflicting Flow All 127 48 49 0 - 0 Stage 1 48 - - - - - Stage 2 79 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 868 1021 1558 - - Stage 1 974 - - - - Stage 2 944 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 867 1021 1558 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 867 - _ - Stage 1 974 - - - Stage 2 943 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehm) 1558 - 986 - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.001 - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future Baseline Conditions F-2 H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\Future Baseline Conditions.syn 3: 80th Avenue W & Oeeosite Drivewav Brackett's Corner (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Traffic Vol, vehlh 0 0 71 2 4 44 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 71 2 4 44 Conflicting Peds, #!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 77 2 4 48 Major/Minor Minor1 Maior1 Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 135 78 0 0 79 0 Stage 1 78 - - - _ Stage 2 57 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - _ - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 859 983 - - 1519 - Stage 1 945 - - - - - Stage 2 966 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 856 983 - 1519 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 856 Stage 1 945 - - - Stage 2 963 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0.6 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) - - 1519 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future Baseline Conditions F-3 IMOSIM, 11'a .Level of Service Analysis G H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\Future With Development Conditions.syn 1: 80th Avenue W & 212th Street SW Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 480 21 22 542 22 14 8 48 7 4 12 Future Vol, veh/h 19 480 21 22 542 22 14 8 48 7 4 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - None Storage Length 60 - 60 - - - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 82 82 82 68 68 68 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 21 522 23 27 661 27 21 12 71 10 6 17 Major/Minor Major1 Maior2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 689 0 0 546 0 0 1315 1317 537 1310 1316 678 Stage 1 - - - - - - 575 575 - 729 729 Stage 2 - - - - - 740 742 - 581 587 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - 4.11 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.209 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 905 - 1028 - - 135 157 544 135 156 449 Stage - -- - - - 503 503 - 411 425 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 409 422 - 496 493 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 902 - - 1025 - 121 149 542 106 148 447 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 121 149 - 106 148 - Stage 1 - - - 491 491 - 401 413 - Stage 2 - - - - - 377 410 - 410 481 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 03 03 21.7 27.5 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 130 542 902 - - 1025 - 192 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.249 0.13 0.023 - - 0.026 - - 0.166 HCM Control Delay (s) 41.6 12.6 9.1 - - 8.6 - - 27.5 HCM Lane LOS E B A - _ A D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 0.4 0.1 - 0.1 - - 0.6 Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future with Development Conditions G-1 H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\Future With Development Conditions.syn 2: 80th Avenue W & Development Driveway Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Traffic Vol, vehlh 2 3 5 71 44 4 Future Vol, vehlh 2 3 5 71 44 4 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 3 5 77 48 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Ma ort Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 138 50 52 0 - 0 Stage 1 50 - - - Stage 2 88 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - Follow -up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 855 1018 1554 Stage 1 972 - - - - - Stage 2 935 - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 852 1018 1554 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 852 - - - Stage 1 972 - - - - - Stage 2 932 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.8 0.5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1554 - 944 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future with Development Conditions G-2 H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\Future With Development Conditions.syn 3: 80th Avenue W & Opposite Driveway Brackett's Corner (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Traffic Vol, vehlh 0 0 71 2 4 44 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 71 2 4 44 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 77 2 4 48 MaiodMinor Minor1 Ma ort Ma'or2 Conflicting Flow All 135 78 0 0 79 0 Stage 1 78 - - - - - Stage 2 57 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 859 983 1519 - Stage 1 945 - - - - Stage 2 966 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 856 983 - 1519 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 856 - - - - Stage 1 945 - - - - Stage 2 963 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0.6 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) - - - 1519 - HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - 0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 0 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future with Development Conditions G-3 2022/2023 Baseline PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis IF H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\Future Baseline +5 yr Conditions.syn 1: 80th Avenue W & 212th Street SW Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, vehlh 21 530 22 22 598 24 15 9 54 8 5 14 Future Vol, veh/h 21 530 22 22 598 24 15 9 54 8 5 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - None - - None Storage Length 60 - - 60 - - - - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 23 576 24 24 650 26 16 10 59 9 5 15 Maior/Minor Maiorl Malor2 Minorl Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 677 0 0 601 0 0 1357 1360 592 1352 1359 667 Stage - - - - - 635 635 - 712 712 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 722 725 - 640 647 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.11 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5,54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.209 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 915 - 981 - - 126 148 506 126 147 455 Stage 1 - - - - _ - 467 472 - 420 433 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 418 430 - 460 463 Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 912 - - 978 - 113 140 504 101 140 453 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - - - 113 140 - 101 140 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 455 460 - 409 422 - Stage 2 µ - - 388 419 - 387 451 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.3 22.1 28.1 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 122 504 912 - 978 - 185 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.214 0.116 0.025 - - 0.024 - - 0.159 HCM Control Delay (s) 42.4 13.1 9 - - 8.8 28.1 HCM Lane LOS E B A - A - - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0.4 0.1 - 0.1 - 0.6 Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future Baseline +5 yr Conditions H-1 H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\Future Baseline +5 yr Conditions.syn 2: 80th Avenue W & Existing Driveway Bracketfs Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Traffic Vol, vehlh 1 5 1 78 48 1 Future Vol, veh/h 1 5 1 78 48 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 5 1 85 52 1 Maior/Minor Minor2 Maiorl Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 140 53 53 0 0 Stage 1 53 - - - Stage 2 87 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 _ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 853 1014 1553 - Stage 1 970 - - Stage 2 936 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 852 1014 1553 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 852 - - - - - Stage 1 970 - - - - - Stage 2 935 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1553 - 983 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A T - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future Baseline +5 yr Conditions H-2 H:12015\15-260\Synchro\Future Baseline +5 yr Conditions.syn 3: 80th Avenue W & Opposite Driveway Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 78 2 5 48 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 78 2 5 48 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 85 2 5 52 Maior/Minor Minor1 Ma ort Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 149 86 0 0 87 0 Stage 1 86 - - - - Stage 2 63 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 843 973 - - 1509 - Stage 1 937 - - - Stage 2 960 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 840 973 - 1509 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 840 - - - - Stage 1 937 - - - - Stage 2 957 - - - - ADDroach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - - 1509 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future Baseline +5 yr Conditions H-3 2022/2023 Future i h Development eo PM Peak -Hour Level of Service Analysis H:\2015\15-260\Synchro\Future With Development +5 yr Conditions.syn 1: 80th Avenue W & 212th Street SW Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 530 23 24 598 24 15 9 53 8 5 14 Future Vol, veh/h 21 530 23 24 598 24 15 9 53 8 5 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - None - - None Storage Length 60 - - 60 - - - - 50 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 23 576 25 26 650 26 16 10 58 9 5 15 Maior/Minor Maior1 Maior2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 677 0 0 602 0 0 1362 1364 593 1356 1364 667 Stage 1 - - - - 635 635 - 716 716 - Stage 2 - - - - 727 729 - 640 648 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.11 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.14 6.54 6.24 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.14 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.209 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.536 4.036 3.336 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 915 - - 980 - - 125 148 506 125 146 455 Stage - - - - - 467 472 - 418 431 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 415 428 - 460 463 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 912 - - 977 - - 112 140 504 100 138 453 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 112 140 - 100 138 - Stage 1 - - - - - 455 460 - 407 419 - Stage 2 - - - 384 416 - 388 451 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.3 22.3 28.2 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 121 504 912 - - 977 - - 184 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.216 0.114 0.025 - - 0.027 - 0.159 HCM Control Delay (s) 42.7 13.1 9 - - 8.8 - - 28.2 HCM Lane LOS E B A - - A - D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - 0.6 Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future with Development +5 yr Conditions I -I HA2015\15-260\Synchro\Future With Development +5 yr Conditions.syn 2: 80th Avenue W & Development Drivewav Brackett's Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 4 5 78 48 4 Future Vol, veh/h 2 4 5 78 48 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 4 5 85 52 4 Maior/Minor Minor2 Ma orl Maior2 Conflicting Flow All 150 54 57 0 - 0 Stage 1 54 - Stage 2 96 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - _ - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 842 1013 1547 - - Stage 1 969 - - - Stage 2 928 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 839 1013 1547 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 839 - - - - - Stage 1 969 Stage 2 925 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.8 0.4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1547 - 947 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - 0.007 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.8 - HCM Lane LOS A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future with Development +5 yr Conditions I-2 HA2015\15-260\Synchro\Future With Development +5 yr Conditions.syn 3: 80th Avenue W & Opposite Driveway Brackeffs Comer (15-260) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 78 2 5 48 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 78 2 5 48 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 85 2 5 52 Major/Minor Minorl Maiorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 149 86 0 0 87 0 Stage 1 86 - - - - - Stage 2 63 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 612 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 843 973 - - 1509 - Stage 1 937 - - - Stage 2 960 - - - Platoon blocked, % _ Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 840 973 - - 1509 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 840 - - - - Stage 1 937 - - - Stage 2 957 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0.7 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 1509 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 0 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0 - Gibson Traffic Consultants [SF] Future with Development +5 yr Conditions I-3 WSDOT Collision Data. Channelization Warrants K :901 BuiuJni AHa IB40l % Ca G LO N E E E J E a g to m a� 00 CL m 2 O 0 H 't rn o N o r � 0 Z K-1 0 O , N d tl O q O m o N v O ->- O 0p Q N , , b N O O � rn � M X q q 11YIYYYI ■� X X tl O 0 o q 0 Z X ' X X d r.. q ' O O L ' O q n AMA N O d o , co L r , Lo CL 'A CL u..� g it $ �_O v P m C 4 5 co cM 0 0 0 0 0 0 In O LO O LO O N N Tl- T :901 BuiuJni AHa IB40l % Ca G LO N E E E J E a g to m a� 00 CL m 2 O 0 H 't rn o N o r � 0 Z K-1 Brackett's Corner GTC #15-260 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS 80th Avenue W @ Site Access - 2018 Right -Turn Lane Guidelines Posted Speed 25 Right Turn Volume: 4 [DDHV] Adjusted Right Turn Volume: 4 [DDHV] Pk Hr Curb Ln Approach Vol: 48 [DDHV] [1 ] For two-lane highways, use the peak hour DDHV (through + right turn). For multilane, high speed highways (posted speed 45 mph or above), use the right -lane pec hour approach volume (through + right turn). [2] When all three of the following conditions are met, reduce the right -turn DDHV by 20: The posted speed is 45 mph or less, the right -turn volume is greater than 40 VPH, the peak hour approach volume (DDHV) is less than 300 VPH. [3] For right -turn corner design, see Exhibit 1310-11. [4] For right -turn pocket or taper design, see Exhibit 1310-16. [5] For right -turn lane design, see Exhibit 1310-17. For Multilane, low speed highways (posted speed is less than 45 mph), no right -turn lane taper is required. Based on WSDOT July 2010 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-19, Page 1310-40. K-2 Site Plan L A .� NOIDNHSVM WINnoo mwioNs � � I I �`r SONONO3 AD KID ■ a aq MM "as '.z 1 12 mums 7N I/WN M � v 377 T f.2 V. IA Na.j NVAd WARM BA30 MIS (INV IOVNIV?JU AJVNMI 13Hd A .� Vq I I it, Val 10 all a P N IV YIN I Emp 0 1 u 2 - not I u."IM L - 1 .. ... . . . . . � ( � I I �`r 4 Y^� aq Vq I I it, Val 10 all a P N IV YIN I Emp 0 1 u 2 - not I u."IM L - 1