Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MISC - 3 of 3
Planning Studies West Coast 606 South Olive Street, Suite 1 100 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Office: 213.488.4911 October 17, 2016 Mr, Daniel Pedersen Project Manager Valley Medical Center 400 S 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center Parking Planning Study Renton, CA Dear Mr. Pedersen: Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present this draft report of the parking study for Valley Medical Center. The attached report provides our analysis of current and near- term parking conditions for the campus. We look forward to receiving feedback on the parking planning study from VMC and the City of Renton and pushing forward with a parking alternatives analysis and construction phasing analysis. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Jeff Weckstein Parking Consultant Seattle Office WALKER 2101 Fourth Avenue Suite 1210 PARKING CONSULTANTS Seattle, WA 98121 Office: 206.745.9555 Planning Studies West Coast 606 South Olive Street, Suite 1 100 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Office: 213.488.4911 October 17, 2016 Mr, Daniel Pedersen Project Manager Valley Medical Center 400 S 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center Parking Planning Study Renton, CA Dear Mr. Pedersen: Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present this draft report of the parking study for Valley Medical Center. The attached report provides our analysis of current and near- term parking conditions for the campus. We look forward to receiving feedback on the parking planning study from VMC and the City of Renton and pushing forward with a parking alternatives analysis and construction phasing analysis. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Jeff Weckstein Parking Consultant PARKING STUDY VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared for: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER OCTOBER 17, 2016 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 39-1037.00 PARKING STUDY VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared for: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER OCTOBER 17, 2016 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98121 Contact: Jeffrey Weckstein Parking Consultant Phone: 206.745.9555 E-mail: jeff.weckstein@walkerparking.com A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III KEY FINDINGS INTRODUCTION 2 STUDY AREA 2 SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY METHODOLOGY 4 DESIGNDAY.................................................................................................................................. 4 CURRENT CONDITIONS PARKING INVENTORY EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY PARKING OCCUPANCY INGRESS/EGRESS OBSERVATIONS SURVEY DAY ACTIVITY USER GROUP DEMAND RATIOS DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY OF CURRENT CONDITIONS Valley Medical Center Campus Medical Office Buildings FUTURE CONDITIONS 2019 DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND/PARKING SUPPLY 2019 DESIGN DAY PARKING ADEQUACY ............................................. 2021 DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND/SUPPLY 2021 DESIGN DAY PARKING ADEQUACY ............................................. 2026 DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND/SUPPLY 2026 DESIGN DAY PARKING ADEQUACY ............................................. SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FUTURE CONDITIONS ADA PARKING ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON MINICPAL CODE PARKING ANALYSIS APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS APPENDIX B: STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS 6 6 9 10 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 ................. I................... 18 19 ........I ............................ 20 21 ................................. 21 23 24 27 A-1 B-1 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY A# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . Table - Summary o Sing an Design Day Parking Supply &Demand................................................................................................in. Table 1: VMC Campus Detailed Parking Inventory Summary ............................................................................................................................8 Table 2: Effective Parking Supply by User Group,. ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 3: Peak Parking Occupancy and Adequacy -Tuesday August 2, 2016............................................................................................12 Table 4: Survey Day Parking Demand and Demand Ratios..........................................................................................................................14 Table 5: 2016 Design Day Parking Demand -- Valley Medical Center............................................................................................................15 Table 6: Design Day Parking Occupancy by User Group............................................................................ ..................15 Table 7: 2016 to 2026 Medical Center Population Statistics.............................................................................................................................17 Table 8: Projected 2019 Design Day Parking Demand......................................................................................................................................18 Table 9: Projected 2019 Design Day Occupancy and Adequacy.................................................................................................................19 Table 10: Projected 2021 Design Day Parking Demand....................................................................................................................................20 Table 11: Projected 2029 Design Day Adequacy..............................................................................................................................................20 Table 12: Projected 2026 Design Day Parking Demand....................................................................................................................................21 Table i 3: Projected 2026 Design Day Adequacy..............................................................................................................................................22 Table 14: Summary of Design Day Parking Supply & Demand - Current and Future Conditions..............................................................23 Table 15: Summary of Design Day Parking Supply & Demand - Current and Future Conditions..............................................................24 Table 16: Summary of ADA Parking Requirements for Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................25 Table 17: Summary of ADA Parking Requirements with New MOB and Parking Structure.........................................................................26 Figure 1: Location Map / Study Area / Parking Inventory ..................................................................................................................................3 Figure2: Adequacy Flow Chart..............................................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Parking Ak ocation by User Group -- Main Campus.............................................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Valley Medical Center General Parking Assignment by User Group................................................................................................9 Figure 5: Valley Medical Center Parking Utilization...........................................................................................................................................1 1 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY 44 PARKING CONSWANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Valley Medical Center engaged Walker Parking Consultants to conduct a parking supply/demand analysis, ADA analysis and Municipal Code analysis at Valley Medical Center related to a proposed 150,000 square foot medical office building and parking structure. The primary purpose of the study is to evaluate current parking conditions, project 3, 5 and 10 -year parking needs. KEY FINDINGS Valley Medical Center currently has adequate parking for all user groups. The construction of an 1,136 space parking structure in conjunction with construction of a new 150,000 square foot medical office building, should provide the campus with enough parking to cover near and medium-term growth. Table ES -1 summarizes existing and future projected parking demand at Valley Medical Center. Table ES- 1: Summary of Existing and Design Day Parking Supply & Demand Medical Center Total Total Spaces Elfec#v* Supply 0ccupancy Vaticles % Adequacy Existing (Survey Day) 2,531 2,404 2,140 79% 304 2016 Design Day 2,531 2,404 2,269 90% 135 2019 Design Day no Structure 2,531 2,404 2,565 101% (161) 2019 Design Day With Structure 3,436 3,265 2,565 1 75% 700 2021 Design Day 3,436 3,265 2,740 80% 525 2026 Design Day 3,436 3,265 3,261 95% 4 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. By 2019, assuming no changes to the existing parking supply, VMC is projected to experience a parking shortage. With construction of the proposed medical office building and parking structure, VMC is projected to have adequate parking capacity to accommodate the new MOB use and ambient growth in other hospital services over the near- and medium-term. While the net parking capacity added by the MOB/parking structure project (905 net new parking spaces) exceeds the City's maximum parking requirement for the proposed 150,000 square foot medical office (750 parking spaces), the additional parking is crucial for accommodating projected growth in parking demand at the VMC campus as a result of ambient growth in hospital and outpatient activity. Currently, VMC appears to provide less ADA accessible parking on a per parking lot basis than appears to be required based on interpretation of the Washington State Barrier -Free Standards. INTRODUCTION WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY 4 PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 INTRODUCTION Valley Medical Center ("VMC") is located at 400 South 43rd Street in the City of Renton. VMC is a 303 -bed, fully accredited acute care hospital serving South King County. VMC is the oldest and largest public district hospital in the State of Washington and is affiliated with University of Washington Medicine. The Medical Center provides a wide variety of inpatient and outpatient services including emergency and urgent care services. In addition to the main medical center campus, VMC utilizes several medical office building in the vicinity of the medical center on Talbot Road and 43rd Street. VMC engaged Walker to conduct a parking supply/demand analysis, parking alternatives analysis, and parking operations/best practices analysis of VMC campus as well as an analysis of site ingress/egress during construction of the proposed medical office building. The primary purpose of the study is to evaluate current parking conditions, project near and medium-term parking needs and provide recommendations to address current and future parking demands and effectively manage patient and employee parking. STUDY AREA VMC is located approximately 15 miles southeast of downtown Seattle and four miles east of Seattle -Tacoma International Airport. The main campus is generally bound by SR -167 to the west, S 43rd Street to the south, Talbot Road to the east and 38th Court to the north. Access to the main parking areas on the hospital campus are provided on Talbot Road and S 43rd Street. VMC owns or leases several medical office buildings to the south and east of the main campus along Talbot Road. There is one employee parking area located south of the main campus across S 431d Street. Parking for employees and visitors is provided in two parking structures as well as several surface lots. Parking is free throughout the entire campus for patients, visitors and employees. The south parking garage has a functional parking access and revenue control system in place that requires visitor to pull a ticket upon entry and insert it upon exit; however, parking is free. Currently, the only controlled access parking is at the Doctor's parking lot on top of the south parking structure, and the South Staff Parking Lot located south of S 431d Street where employee parking is gated and accessible with the use of a proximity -based technology access card. Figure 1 shows the general location of VMC and the building and parking areas under its sphere of influence, along with a table with an overview of the number of parking spaces in each parking area. N VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 Figure 1 : Location Map / Study Area / Parking Inventory A& WALKER PARKING CONSUJANTS 39-1037.00 Parking Lot/Area Total Parking Structure (W) 515 Parking Structure (E) 546 West Overflow 34 East Overflow 29 Lot D 158 Contractor Gravel 30 VPCN Parking 37 Gravel Behind Pharmac 56 HR Lot & Gravel 38 TPC 179 Parking Lot A 137 Parking Lot B 136 MR1 Lot 54 VMC Garage 232 Physician Lot 45 South Staff Lot 303 Other 2 Medical Center Total 2531 17910 Talbot (PRC) 64 17820 Talbot 75 4445/4361 Talbot 117 401 S 43rd St (VPP) 1 56 Source: Google Earth Pro, Walker Porking Consultants, 2016. VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 SUPPLY/DEMAND STUDY METHODOLOGY �4WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 The methodology of this study consists of the following: 1 j reviewing background information and data provided by the hospital administration, and 2) conducting and utilizing the physical surveys of all campus parking spaces collected on the survey day. This data is used to develop parking demand ratios for various user groups, which are considered to be representative of overall parking demand. These ratios are used to project current parking adequacy, and are also applied to future statistics in conjunction with anticipated changes in the parking space supply to project future parking adequacy. DESIGN DAY It is important to define the conditions to which a parking system should be designed. Some organizations intend to provide adequate parking for every potential parking facility user, every day of the year. Consequently, a substantial number of parking spaces are vacant throughout most of the year. The benefit of such a parking system is that parkers, whether employees, visitors, or patients, always have adequate parking. More commonly, most organizations would rather have fewer of their assets utilized as parking; therefore, these organizations plan for a parking system that meets the needs of its parking patrons most days of the year, but less than every day of the year. The disadvantage of this type of parking system is that from time to time, parking demand may exceed the effective parking supply. This could become critical when a large event is scheduled at times when parking demand is expected, under normal conditions, to be at its highest. Ultimately, the level at which parking demand should be accommodated is a policy decision that must be made by the hospital administrators. For this analysis, we define adequate parking conditions as those that satisfy the projected demand on all days with the exception of a few days per year. For this study, the process for projecting parking demand consists of the following steps: Walker performed inventory and occupancy counts on Tuesday, August 2, 2016. Occupancy counts were collected at 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM, consistent with the typical peak periods of parking demand at medical centers. 2. The data collected on the survey day, along with hospital activity information provided by VMC for the survey day, were used to develop peak parking demand ratios. Parking demand ratios reflect the number of parking spaces required per unit statistic during the peak period of parking demand. An example of a unit statistic is the number of parking spaces needed for each employee during the peak hour. 4 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 �' WALKER PARK NG CON5UI7A.K.75 39-1037.00 3. Walker reviewed VMC's Key Performance Indicators reports for a 3 -year period between June 2014 and May 2016 to better understand seasonal fluctuations in staffing and patient encounters at the medical center. 4. Parking demand ratios for each type of parking patron are adjusted to model the observed peak parking demand on the survey day. The flow chart in Figure 2 depicts the process used to determine the existing parking adequacy on the hospital campus. Figure 2: Adequacy Flow Chart Inventory parking supply Conduct parking occupancy counts Compare the typical peak hour design day occupancy to the effective supply .Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 20 i6. Classify parking supply by user group - Staff, Visitor, etc. Determine typical peak hour parking demand for a survey and design day Determine the "effective" parking supply Adjust survey day metrics to represent a design day 5 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY 4& PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 CURRENT CONDITIONS The following section includes our evaluation of the current parking conditions observed on campus. PARKING INVENTORY Parking areas were observed to determine the number of spaces, user assignment (e.g. employee, physician, patient/visitor, reserved, disabled parking (ADA), etc.) and restrictions that pertain to parking on the campus. This inventory includes all marked parking spaces designated and used by identified user groups of the hospital and the associated administrative and outpatient buildings, as well as observed parking in gravel parking lots west of VCPN and west of Lot D. The VMC campus has two parking structures and several surface lots surrounding the existing hospital and outpatient facilities. Additionally, the medical center has an additional parking lot for employees south of S 43,d Street. In addition to the main campus, the medical office buildings at 401 S 43,¢ Street (Valley Professional Plaza), 4445/4361 Talbot, 17820 Talbot (PRC) and 17910 Talbot have their own surface parking lots. The total inventoried parking supply at the campus excluding the standalone MOB buildings is 2,531± spaces. This total includes a projection of the inventory of the gravel parking lots and striped parking spaces that are currently blocked by construction activity and equipment, but does not include unmarked spaces where vehicles were observed parking, and does not include on -street parking on Talbot Road S and Davis Avenue S that employees may or may not be using for parking. Figure 3 summarizes parking supply by user group. The parking areas at the medical center campus generally do not have any type of control, such as card access, except for the south staff lot on Davis Road S and the Physician parking lot adjacent to the south tower. The South Parking garage has parking access and revenue control equipment installed, and requires visitors to pull a ticket to enter the facility; however, parking in the South Garage is currently free. The total parking supply by area and user designation at the main campus is summarized in the Table 1. 11 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY 49 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 3: Parking Allocation by User Group - Main Campus Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. ■ Employee ■ ADA Physician ■ Patient Observations suggest that parking is generally aliocated appropriately, although there is co -mingling of user groups in both parking garages. VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 Table 1 : VMC Campus Detailed Parking Inventory Summary WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Parking Lot/Area Employee Carpool ADA Non C ADA Physician Golden Care Patient EV Valet Reserve d Total Parking Structure (W) 228 17 0 10 0 4 247 3 0 6 515 Parking Structure (E) 340 0 0 0 54 0 152 0 0 0 546 West Overflow 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 East Overflow 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Lot D 95 0 16 0 0 0 41 0 0 6 158 Contractor Gravel 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 VPCN Parking 15 0 13 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 37 Gravel Behind Pharmoc 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 HR Lot & Gravel 33 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 38 TPC 162 0 14 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 179 Parking Lot A 126 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 137 Parking Lot B 9 0 25 4 10 7 15 8 58 0 136 MRI Lot 10 0 6 0 7 0 22 0 0 9 54 VMC Garage 0 0 8 0 0 4 211 0 0 9 232 Physician Lot 0 0 1 0 41 0 0 3 0 0 45 South Staff Lot 292 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303 Other 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Medical Center Total 1459 28 86 14 112 28 702 14 58 30 2531 17910 Talbot 64 17820 Talbot 75 4445/4361 Talbotl 17 401 S43rd St 56 Source; Walker Parking Consultants, 20 i 6. In general, the first three levels of the north garage and both levels of the south garage are intended for use by patients and visitors. Physician parking is provided next to the south tower and in the north parking structure. The upper levels of the north parking structure are designated for any user. The Talbot Professional Center lot and parking lot AIB are likely intended as patient/visitor parking, however the current reality is that it is utilized by a mix Of employees and patients. Figure 4 shows the general parking assignments by user group on the VMC campus, based both on posted signs and Walker's observations at the medical center. 111 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY A# PARKING MNSiATANTS OCTOBER 2015 39-1037.00 Figure 4: Valley Medical Center General Parking Assignment by User Group Source. Google Earth Pro, Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. EFFECTIVE PARKING SUPPLY Walker projects the effective parking suppiy by applying an effective supply factor to the actual physical parking supply within each area in the parking system inventory. It is a generally accepted principle in parking supply/demand analyses that a supply of parking operates at optimum efficiency when occupancy is no more than 90% to 95% of the total supply. The excess stalls provide a cushion to allow for the dynamics of vehicles moving in and out of parking stalls and to reduce the time required to search for the last few available spaces. This cushion also allows for daily, weekly and seasonal variations as well as vacancies created by restricting facilities to certain users, improperly parked vehicles, and minor maintenance issues. v VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER�4WALKED PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 When occupancy exceeds this optimum level, patrons may experience delays and frustration finding a space, or may be forced to use an undesirable space, such as one located at a greater or uncomfortable walking distance from the main entrance of their destination, or may park improperly or illegally. In these instances, the parking supply may be perceived as inadequate even though a few vacant spaces are still available throughout the system. As a result, the effective parking supply is used for analysis of the adequacy of the parking system rather than the actual total supply. This cushion typically varies between 5% and 15% of the total parking capacity depending on the type of parking supply and type of user. Based on the observed conditions and parking patterns, the effective parking supply has been adjusted to 95 percent of capacity (effective supply factor = 0,95). After the effective supply adjustment is applied, the resulting effective parking supply for the medical center campus is calculated at 2,404 spaces. Table 2: Effective Parking Supply by User Group User Group supply Effective Supply Supply Cushion Patient/Visitor 888 844 44 Emplcyee 1531 1454 77 Physician 112 106 6 Medical Center Total 1 2531 1 2404 1 127 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. PARKING OCCUPANCY Walker staff visited the Valley Medical Center campus, off-site parking lots and surrounding medical office buildings on Tuesday August 2, 2016 to collect parking demand counts during the peak period of parking demand. Counts were conducted at 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM, consistent with the known peak periods of parking demand at the campus. On the survey day, the overall peak occupancy observed at the Medical Center campus was 83% of the total campus parking supply at 1 1 :00 AM. At 2:00 PM, the total campus parking supply was 77% utilized. In general, surface parking lots, including the gravel parking areas, were fuller than the parking structures and filled up first. The exception to this is spaces marked for valet parking in parking lots B and D, which were underutilized, and the VCPN lot. The south staff parking lot filled up slower than the rest of the campus, but did fill to over 85% of capacity. The south garage and doctor parking lot on top of the south garage, were the two least utilized parking areas on the medical center campus. Figure 5 shows parking utilization by parking area. 10 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY AV PARKINGCONsutrnNrs OCTOBER 2016 34-1037.00 Figure 5: Valley Medical Center Parking Utilization U Medical Center 1 2531 1 2100 1 83% Outlying MOBS 1 312 1 187 1 60% Source: Google Earth Pro, Wacker Parking Consultants, 2016. As shown in Figure 5, the parking lots serving Valley Medical Center are generally well utilized. At 11:00 AM there was available parking on the upper and lower levels of the parking structure, on both levels of the south garage, in the doctor parking area, the south staff parking lot, the MRI lot and parking lot B. Competition for parking spaces was most intense in the TPC lot and parking lot A. Table 3 summarizes parking adequacy during the peak period of parking demand both on a lot -by -lot basis and by user group. VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 Table 3: Peak Parking Occupancy and Adequacy - Tuesday August 2, 2016 WALKER PP,RK',NG CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Parking Lot/Area Total Spaces ec ve Supply Occupancy Vehicles % Adequacy Parking Structure (W) 515 489 454 88% 35 Parking Structure (E) 546 519 485 89% 34 West Overflow 34 32 34 100% (2 East Overflow 29 28 29 100% (1; Lot D 158 150 134 85% 16 Contractor Gravel 30 29 27 90% 2 VPCN Parking 37 35 22 59% 13 Gravel Behind Pharmac 56 53 56 100% (3) HR Lot & Gravel 38 36 34 89% 2 TPC 179 170 178 99% (8) Parking Lot A 137 130 132 961 {2) Parking Lot B 136 129 95 70% 34 MRI Lot 54 51 37 69% 14 VMC Garage 232 220 97 42% 123 Physician Lot 45 43 22 49% 21 South Staff Lot 303 288 264 87% 24 Other 2 2 2 100% 0 Medical Center Total 2531 2404 2100 83% 304 17910 Talbot 64 61 54 84% 7 17820 Talbot 75 71 36 48% 35 4445/4361 Talbot 117 111 71 61% 40 401 S 43rd St 56 53 19 34% 1 34 User Group Total Spaces Effective Supply Occupancy Adequacy Vehicles % Patient/Visitor 888 844 648 73% 196 Employee 1531 1454 1,367 89% 87 Physician 1 112 106 1 85 76% 1 21 Medical Center Total 1 2531 1 2404 1 2100 83% 1 304 Source: Walker Parking Consuifants, 2016. INGRESS/EGRESS OBSERVATIONS Walker staff also visited the site early in the evening on Wednesday August 31, 2016 and Thursday September 1, 2016 to observe traffic flow during the peak period of employee ingress and made the following observations: • While there is some effort to prevent employees form parking in Lot A, there is no such restrictions in the TPC lot. This lot appears to primarily be used by employee for parking. • The signage in the parking structure deters some, but not all, employees from parking on the first three levels. 12 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY 4# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 • Except for spaces specifically designated for patients, Lot D appears to be utilized by employees. • Surface parking lots fill up first, with the parking structures seen as more of a last resort for all user groups. • Both parking structures had availability throughout the day, and no significant ingress/egress issues were observed. • Some circling/waiting for spaces by patient/visitors was observed in the TPC lot. SURVEY DAY ACTIVITY Walker collected activity data for the survey day of August 2, 2016. The activity data included the inpatient bed census for that day, outpatient visits for that day, the total number of employees, and the total number of physicians. The activity data for the campus is as follows: BED CENSUS Data delivered from VMC indicated that the bed census on Tuesday August 2, 2016 was 221 beds. OUTPATIENT VISIT'S VMC provided information on outpatient visits for the medical center campus on the survey day. The total number of outpatient visits and emergency department registrations equaled 801. STAFF For purposes of this analysis, the total number of employees of the Valley Medical Center campus on the survey day was 3,453. The number of employees included (1) the total number of individuals employed on a full-time basis by the Medical Center (1,826 full-time employees); (2) the total number of individuals employed on a part-time basis (1,597 part-time employees), and (3) the total number of non-employee contractors working at the campus (30 contractors). The number did not take into account how many employees were necessarily present at the time of the occupancy counts. The parking ratio takes into account that only a percentage of the total employees are present at the peak hour. PHYSICIANS The total number of physician employees at VMC on the survey day was 364. These physicians were likely not all on campus at the some time. USER GROUP DEMAND RATIOS To model the number of parking spaces required to meet the parking needs of all parking patrons at the VMC campus, parking occupancy at the campus was compared to the various hospital user -group population statistics provided by VMC, including visitors/patients, employees (excluding physicians), and physicians. User group parking demand ratios are the product of the peak parking occupancy data and the user group statistics. The breakdown of occupancy by user group was structured to be as representative of the subject property as possible. From this comparison, a parking demand ratio was determined for each group. 13 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY 4# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 For example, there were 364 reported physician employees of Valley Medical Center on the survey day, and the peak observed parking demand in the designated physician parking areas was 85 parked vehicles. Therefore, the parking demand ratio for physicians was 0.23 parked vehicles per physician (85 parked vehicles / 364 physicians). The parking demand ratio developed for each user group was used to project the number of parking spaces needed for each type of patron on the Design Day. The resulting parking demand ratios are summarized in the following table: Table 4: Survey Day Parkinq Demand and Demand Ratios User Group User Statistic Pa r* Demand Ratio Survey Day Demand Patient/Visitor 1022 x 0.63 spaces/total patient census' = 648 Employee 3453 x 0.40 spaces/ Employee = 1,367 Physician 364 x 0.23 space/physician on staff = 85 Totals 2,100 Note: 1 = total patient census equals outpatient visits, ED registrations, and bed census Note: 2 = employees equal full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND Walker frequently recommends that hospitals design their parking supply to satisfy at least the 95th percentile level of activity. This level is usually equivalent to a very busy day that may occur once or twice a month. Designing parking to meet the absolute peak level of parking would leave many unused spaces during the majority of the year. Conversely, designing for the average level would mean inadequate parking about half the year. The 95th percentile level of parking demand is typically designated as the "Design Day." During times when the demand exceeds the effective parking supply, users will park within the effective parking supply cushion or park in other designated areas, and likely experience some difficulty in locating an available parking space. To estimate current design day parking demand, the previously -determined parking demand ratios for each type of parking patron are multiplied by the design day user -group population statistics. Walker researched the prior three years of Key Performance Indicator (KPI) reports on VMC's website to gain an understanding of the seasonality of both employment and patient visits at VMC. August, the month during which Walker completed its survey of the campus, is typically a below average month for both employee and patient activity, while March appears to be the peak month. To simulate design day conditions, patient/visitor encounters were increased 15% and employee/physician levels were increased by 5%. The following table shows the design statistics and demand ratios used to estimate parking demand under "Design Day" conditions. 14 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY A# PARKING CONSUITANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Table 5: 2016 Design Day Parking Demand - Valley Medical Center User Group User Statistic Parking Demand Ratio Design Day Demand Patient/Visitor 1 175 x 0.63 spaces/total patient census' = 745 Employee 3626 x 0.40 spaces/ Employee2 = 1,435 Physician 382 x 0.23 space/physician on staff = 89 Totals 2,269 Note: 1 - total patient census equals outpatient visits, ED registrations, and bed census Note: 2 = employees equal full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 Table 6 summarizes design day parking occupancy by user group based on the adjustments discussed above. Table 6: Design Day Parking Occupancy by User Group User Group Total Spaces Effective Supply Occupancy Adequacy Vehicles % Patient/Visitor 888 844 745 84% 99 Employee 1531 1 1454 1 1,435 9476 19 Physician 112 106 89 1 79% 17 Medical Center Total 2531 2404 2269 1 90% ] 35 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. The projected current design day parking demand for the Medical center is 2,269± parking spaces, as shown in Table 6. Parking Adequacy represents the ability of the parking supply to accommodate the design day parking demand. By comparing the design day parking demand projection to the calculated effective supply, the adequacy of the existing system can be calculated. Our analysis indicates the overall current parking supply is sufficient for current design day conditions for all user groups. SUMMARY OF CURRENT CONDITIONS Valley Medical Center Campus Overall, current parking conditions at the Medical Center are considered to be adequate for all user groups. During busy days if is likely that more employees park in patient parking areas of both garages, however a small overall parking surplus is project for the campus on the design day. Ingress/egress from the main parking structure appears to be adequate, with no large entry or �7 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 AtWALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 exit queues observed. The Valet parking offered at VMC appears to be only lightly utilized, with the valet parking area in parking lot B representing the largest source of unused surface parking for current conditions. Medical Office Buildings With the exception of the PRC Building ( 17910 Talbot), the MOBS surveyed had adequate parking, although several of the buildings appeared to be operating at less than full occupancy. The poorly maintained parking area behind the 17820 Talbot building appears to serve as overflow parking for the PRC building, and is a potential source of overflow/construction parking for the main campus as well. V VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 FUTURE CONDITIONS A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 In the following table Walker shows the anticipated changes to employment and patient activity volumes over the 2017-2026 planning horizon, as provided by VMC. Table 7: 2016 to 2026 Medical Center Population Statistics Hospital Statistic Current Year 1 Year Projection 3 Year Projection 5 Year Projection 10 Year Projection Total Number of Full-time Employees 1,826 1,917 2,049 2,177 2,590 Growth From Existing 5% 1217 19% 42% Total Number of Part-time Employees 1 1,597 1,677 1,792 1,904 2,265 Growth From Existing 5% 12% 19% 42% Total FTEs (Full -Time Equivalent Employees) 1 3,423 3,594 3,841 4,080 4,855 Growth From Existing 570 1270 19% 42% Total Number of Outside Contract Employees 1 30 32 34 36 43 Growth From Existing 5% 127o 19% 42% Total Number of Stott Physicians 364 402 486 577 687 Growth From Existing 10,70 34% 59% 897 Source: Valley Medical Center, Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 In recent years, outpatient visits have grown at a 3-10% annual rate based on available Key Performance Indicator reports on the Valley Medical Center website. This report assumes that outpatient growth occurs at a rate equal to the projected growth in full time employee levels at VMC. Utilizing the assumptions in Table 7, the following sections calculate design day parking demand for 2019, 2021 and 2026, representing short-term, near-term and medium-term conditions. 17 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY A# PARKINGCONSUITANT5 OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 2019 DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND/PARKING SUPPLY Future Design Day parking demand for Year 2019, a three-year planning horizon, is projected using the parking demand ratios developed for 2016 Design Day conditions. These parking demand ratios are applied to projected 2019 employment and patient activity levels. These projections assume the following changes to employment and patient activity volumes over from 2016 to 2019: • Outpatient/ED volumes increase 12.2% from existing levels over the three-year period; • Full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors increase 12.2%a from existing levels over the three-year period • Physicians increase 33.5% from existing levels over the three-year period. There is one potential planned change to the parking supply on campus over the 2016-2019 timeframe. The construction of a new MOB in the TPC parking lot would displace 126 net parking spaces, while construction of a 1,136± space parking structure adjacent to the existing parking structure would create 1,031 net new parking spaces (1,136 new spaces less 105 spaces displace in the east overflow lot, gravel lot behind VCPN and the western part of the VCPN lot), for an overall net increase of 905 parking spaces. The projected 2019 Design Day parking demand is summarized in Table 8. Table 8: Projected 2019 Design Day Parking Demand User Group User Sialisilc iParking Demand ll Design Day Demand Patient/Visitor 1318 x 0.63 spaces/total patient census' = 836 Employee 4068 x 0.40 spaces/ Employee = 1,610 Physician 510 x 0.23 space/physician on staff = 119 Totals 2,565 Note: 1 = total patient census equals outpatient visits, ED registrations, and bed census Note: 2 = employees equal full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors Source. Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. 2019 DESIGN DAY PARKING ADEQUACY Table 9 shows projected 2019 Design Day parking adequacy both without and with the proposed changes to the parking supply on campus. The new parking structure is assumed to be allocated between patients (44%), employees (50%) and physicians (6%). IN VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY A# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Table 9: Projected 2019 Design Day Occupancy and Adequacy User Group Total Spaces ec a I Supply ccupancy Adequacy Vehicles Assuming Existing Parking Supply Patient/Visitor 888 844 836 94% 8 Employee 1,531 1,454 1,610 105% (156) Physician 112 106 119 106% (13) Medical Center Total 2,531 2,404 2,565 101% (161) With Construction of New Parking Garage Patient/Visitor 1,386 1,317 836 60% 481 Employee 1,868 1,775 1,610 86% 165 Physician 182 173 119 65% 54 Medical Center Total 3,436 3,265 2,565 75% 700 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. As shown in Table 9, absent any capacity enhancements, VMC is projected to experience both an effective and absolute parking supply deficit by 2019. With the construction of the new parking structure, adequate parking is projected for all user groups. 2021 DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND/SUPPLY Future Design Day parking demand for Year 2021, a five-year planning horizon, is computed using the parking demand ratios developed for 2016 Design Day conditions. These parking demand ratios are applied to projected 2021 employment and patient activity levels. These projections assume the following changes to employment and patient activity volumes from 2016 to 2021: • Outpatient/ED volumes increase 19.2% from existing levels over the five-year period; • Full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors increase 19.2% from existing levels over the five-year period • Physicians increase 587o from existing levels over the five-year period. This analysis assumes no additional changes to the parking supply beyond what was discussed in the 2019 design day scenario. IM VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Table 10: Projected 2021 Design Day Parking Demand I Usm Group User St�afisfic I Pafng Demand RatDem io DDay Demand Patient/Visitor 1401 x 0,63 spaces/total patient census = 888 Employee 4322 x 0.40 spaces/ Employee` = 1,711 Physician 604 x 0.23 space/physician on staff = 141 Totals 2,740 Note, 1 = total patient census equals outpatient visits, ED registrations, and bed census Note: 2 = employees equal full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. 2021 DESIGN DAY PARKING ADEQUACY The projected 2021 Design Day parking adequacy is summarized in Table 11. Table 11: Projected 2021 Design Day Adequacy tiser'Group Tofte Spaces Effective SuPW Occupancy Adequacy ve Patient/Visitor 1,386 1,317 888 64% 429 Employee 1,868 1,775 1,711 92% 64 Physician 182 173 141 77% 32 Medical Center Total 3,436 3,265 2,740 80% 525 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. As shown in Table 11, the parking supply will continue to be adequate for all user groups in 2021. 20 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 2026 DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND/SUPPLY A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Future Design Day parking demand for Year 2026, a fen -year planning horizon, is projected using the parking demand ratios developed for 2016 Design Day conditions. These parking demand ratios are applied to projected 2026 employment and patient activity levels. These projections assume the following changes to employment and patient activity volumes from 2016 to 2026: • Outpatient/ED volumes increase 42% from existing levels over the ten-year period; • Full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors increase 42% from existing levels over the ten-year period • Physicians increase 89% from existing levels over the ten-year period. This analysis assumes no additional changes to the parking supply beyond what was discussed in the 2019 design day scenario. Table 12: Projected 2026 Design Day Parking Demand User Group !User Stafiistic Parking Demand Ratio Design DayDemand Patient/Visitor 1667 x 0.63 spaces/total paTienT census = 1,057 Employee 5143 x 0.40 spaces/ Employee` = 2,036 Physician 721 x 0.23 space/physician on staff = 168 Totals 3,261 Note: 1 = totai patient census equals outpatient visits, ED registrations, and bed census Nate: 2 = employees equal full-time employees, part-time employees and contractors Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016. 2026 DESIGN DAY PARKING ADEQUACY The projected 2026 Design Day parking adequacy is summarized in Table 13. 21 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 Table 13: Projected 2026 Design Day Adequacy 4# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 User Group Total Spaces ective supply Occupancy Adequacy Vehicles % Patient/Visitor 1,386 1,317 1,057 76% 260 Employee 1,868 1,775 2,036 109% (261) Physician 182 173 168 92% 5 Medical Center Total 3,436 3,265 3,261 95% 4 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015. As shown in Table 13, the parking supply will continue to be adequate for the campus as a whole; however, some parking will need to be reallocated from patient parking to employee parking to meet employee parking needs. 22 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY 4# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FUTURE CONDITIONS Table 14 summarizes the projected parking inventory, effective supply, parking occupancy and parking adequacy for existing, 2019, 2021 and 2026 design day conditions. Table 14: Summary of Design Day Parking Supply & Demand - Current and Future Conditions Medical Center Total Total Spaces Effective Supph► Occupancy Adequacy Vehicles % Existing (Survey Day) 2,531 2,404 2,100 79% 304 2016 Design Day 2,531 2,404 2,269 90% 135 2019 Design Day 3,436 1 3,265 1 2,565 75% 700 2021 Design Day 3,436 3,265 1 2,740 1 807. 525 2026 Design Day 3,436 3,265 1 3,261 1 95% 4 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 With the proposed parking structure, adequate parking capacity is projected over the 10 -year planning horizon. The next section of this report discusses various options for increasing the parking supply and reducing the parking demand at the Medical Center. 23 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 ADA PARKING ANALYSIS AtWALKER PARKING CONSUITANT5 39-1037.00 This section quantifies the number of accessible parking spaces needed at the various VMC parking lots based on current local, state and federal guidelines. Requirements for the provision of accessible parking are governed by the Washington State Barrier -Free Standards requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Renton by reference. These standards are generally consistent with 2010 Federal ADA standards. Table 15 summarizes the ADA guidelines for the minimum number of accessible parking spaces required for the parking facilities serving VMC. Table 15: Summary of Design Day Parking Supply & Demand - Current and Future Conditions Total Number of Parking Spaces Provided in Parkin Facil Minimum Number of Required Accessible Parking Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 501 to 1000 2 percent of total 1001 and over 20, plus 1 for each 100 or fraction thereof over 1000 Jource: uepartmenT oT Jusflce, 2010 Other Requiements 208.2.1 Hospital Outpatient Facilities. Ten percent of patient and visitor parking spaces provided to serve hospital outpatient facilities shall comply with 502. 208.2.2 Rehabilitation Facilities and Outpatient Physical Therapy Facilities. Twenty percent of patient and visitor parking spaces provided to serve rehabilitation facilities specializing in treating conditions that affect mobility and outpatient physical therapy facilities shall comply with 502 208.2.4 Van Parking Spaces. For every six or fraction of six parking spaces required by 208.2 to comply with 502, at least one shall be a van parking space complying with 502 Source: 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (Department of Justice. September 15, 20101 In the State of Washington, the 20% requirement noted for rehabilitation and outpatient physical therapy facilities appears to extend to inpatient hospital facilities as well. 24 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY 49 PARYNGCONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 The tables below are based on Walker's interpretation of the existing and proposed future parking supply at VMC. VMC staff should review these tables carefully to determine if the allocation of parking spaces between inpatient/visitor parking, outpatientivisitor parking and employee parking, as well as the delineation of parking areas is consistent with their understanding of the parking supply and should suggest changes as necessary. Table 16 summarizes the existing parking supply, projected number of ADA spaces required and number of ADA spaces supplied on campus. For the purposes of the Table, all spaces marked as ADA with signage were counted towards the ADA parking supply; however, not every marked ADA space on the campus may meet all ADA criteria. Table 16: Summary of ADA Parking Requirements for Existing Conditions Exlstlna Allocation of Parkina Spaces Parking Lot/Area Total Parking Spaces Employee Outpatient Parking/Visitor Inpatient Parking/Visitor Projected ADA Spaces Required APA Spaces Provided Parking Structure (W&E) 1061 646 415 55 10 West Overflow 34 34 2 0 East Overflow 29 29 2 0 Lot D 158 101 57 11 16 Contractor Gravel 30 30 2 0 VPCN Parking 37 15 22 4 13 Gravel Behind Pharmacy 56 56 3 0 HR Lot & Gravel 38 38 2 1 TPC 179 162 17 8 14 Parking Lot A 137 126 11 7 0 Parking Lot B 136 27 109 13 29 MRI Lot 54 26 28 5 6 VMC Garage 232 232 47 8 Physician Lot 45 45 2 1 South Staff Lot 303 303 8 0 Other 2 0 1 2 1 2 Medical Center Total 1 2531 1 1638 1 661 232 172 100 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 Table 17 summarizes the projected future parking supply and projected number of ADA spaces required based on the proposed changes to the campus with the construction of a new medical office building and parking structure. 25 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING STUDY OCTOBER 2016 4# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Table 17: Summary of ADA Parking Requirements with New MOB and Parking Structure Future Allocation of Parking Spaces Parking Lot/Area Total Employee Outpatient Parking/Visitor inpatient Parking/Visitor Projected ADA Spaces Required Parking Structure (W&E) 1061 646 415 55 West Overflow 34 34 0 2 East Overflow 0 0 0 0 Lot D 158 101 57 11 Contractor Gravel 30 30 0 2 VPCN Parking 17 7 10 2 Gravel Behind Pharmacy 0 0 0 0 HR Lot & Gravel 38 38 0 2 TPC 53 36 17 4 Parking Lot A 137 126 11 7 Parking Lot B 136 27 109 13 MRI Lot 54 26 28 5 VMC Garage 232 0 232 47 Physician Lot 45 45 0 2 South Staff Lot 303 303 0 8 Other 2 0 2 1 Structure 3 1 136 638 498 63 Medical Center Total 3436 2057 1147 232 224 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 With changes to existing parking facilities and construction of the new parking structure, it is projected that a total of 224 ADA parking spaces will be required on the VMC campus based on the current assumptions regarding patient/visitor and employee parking areas. 26 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY A# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 CITY OF RENTON MINICPAL CODE PARKING ANALYSIS The City of Renton Municipal Code sets forth the number of parking spaces required for different land uses in the City. For the Medical Office land use, the City of Renton Municipal Code lists a parking maximum of 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Based on the City's maximum parking requirements for the medical office land use, the proposed 150,000 square foot medical office building, as a stand-alone use, would be allowed to have a maximum of 750 parking spaces. As discussed in the supply/demand analysis, the proposed medical office building and parking structure will displace approximately 231± existing parking spaces, therefore, the proposed 1,136± parking structure would provide approximately 905± net new parking spaces. The proposed net increase in parking supply of 905± parking spaces exceeds the maximum parking requirement of 750 parking spaces. However, based on the supply/demand analysis, the additional parking being propose din the structure is likely to be needed over the medium term due to ambient growth in hospital activity. Additionally, the ADA requirements analysis indicated that several of the existing facilities on the VMC campus may not be in compliance with the number of accessible spaces required. The potential creation of additional accessible parking spaces in other parking area will decrease the overall parking supply on the VMC campus, which could be offset by the construction of the proposed 1,136± space parking structure. 27 APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY i# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 DEFINITION OF TERMS DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 39-1037.00 Several terms are used in this report that may be unfamiliar to readers as they relate to parking. To help clarify these terms and enhance understanding by the reader, definitions for these terms are presented below. • Adequacy - A figure expressing the number of parking spaces remaining when demand is subtracted from effective supply. A negative adequacy indicates a parking space deficit; a positive result shows a surplus. • Demand Ratio - The ratio of the observed number of occupied parking spaces compared to a reference statistic. For example, if there are 1,000 employees and an observed peak of 400 occupied spaces in the employee parking areas, the demand ratio is 0.40 spaces (400/1000) per employee. • Design Day - The day that represents the level of parking demand the parking system is designed to accommodate. This level of activity is typically represented by the 95+n percentile of patient activity levels. A parking supply designed to handle the absolute peak level of demand typically contains too many spaces that remain unused most of the time. Adequate parking conditions may also be defined as those that satisfy the design requirements of the owner. • Effective Supply - The total supply of parking spaces, adjusted to reflect the cushion needed to provide for vehicles moving in and out of spaces, spaces unavailable due to maintenance or poorly parked vehicles, and to reduce the time necessary for parking patrons to find the last few available spaces on the campus. The effective supply varies by user group and type of parking, but typically the effective supply is 85% to 95% of the total number of spaces. The adjustment factor is known as the Effective Supply Factor. • Parking Inventory - The total number of marked parking spaces within the study area during survey day operations. • Parking Occupancy - The number of observed vehicles parked on a survey day. • Patron or User - Any individual parking in a study area. • Peak Hour - The peak hour represents the busiest hour of the day for parking demand. On a medical campus, this usually occurs between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. when staffing and outpatient activity is the highest. • Survey Day - The day set aside for observation of parking trends and recording of parking data within the study area. • User Group - Group of similar porkers using the campus. Typical hospital user groups include Patients/Visitors, Employees, and Physicians. APPENDIX A - 1 APPENDIX B: STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS At WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER WALKER PARKING STUDY PARK INC, CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 STATEMENT OF GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. This report is to be used in whole and not in part. 2. Walker's report and recommendations are based on certain assumptions pertaining to the future performance of the local economy and other factors typically related to individual user characteristics that are either outside Walker's control or that of the client. To the best of Walker's ability, we analyzed available information that was incorporated in projecting future performance of the proposed subject site. 3. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is within the boundaries of the property described, and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted. 4. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. are assumed to be true and correct. We can assume no liability resulting from misinformation. 5. Unless noted, we assume that there are no encroachments, zoning, violations, or building violations encumbering the subject property. 6. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless specified otherwise. 7. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission, and the report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media. 8. We are not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this analysis without previous arrangements, and only when our standard per diem fees and travel costs are paid prior to the appearance. 9. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent to the date of our field inspections_ 10. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. All opinions, recommendations, and conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment are rendered by the staff of Walker Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as individuals. 1 1. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were reached based on Walker's analysis of the information obtained from the client and our own sources. Information furnished by others, upon which portions of this study are based, is believed to be reliable, however, it has not been verified in all cases. No warranty is given to the accuracy of such information. Any significant differences between these assumptions and actual performance may have an impact on the financial projections of the subject parking operation. Appendix B- i Geotechnical Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Parking Garage Renton, Washington for Valley Medical Center August 2, 2016 GEOENGINEERS� 8410154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnical Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2417 Proposed Parking Garage Renton, Washington Prepared for: Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98005 Attention: Becky Hardi Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Daniel P. Ciani, PE eniorGeotechnical Engineer -4f /Shaun D. Stauff r, PJEIV) AP Principal DTM:DPC:SD5:nld File No. 2202-024-00 August 2, 2016 vI { Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document(email, text, table, 2nd/or figure), if prodded, and anyatta0impnts are only copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. GWENGINEER� Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................................................1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................................1 FieldExplorations................................................................................................................................1 LaboratoryTesting..............................................................................................................................1 PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATI ONS..................................................................................................................................................2 SITECONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................................................2 RegionalGeology................................................................................................................................2 Surface Con itions........................................................................................................................ •.....2 SubsurfaceConditions........................................................................................................................2 Fill..................................................................................................... ........ .........3 Glacially Consolidated Soils...........................................................................................................3 SandstoneBedrock......................................................................................................................3 GroundwaterConditions......................................................................................................................3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................3 EarthquakeEngineering......................................................................................................................4 Liquefaction.................................................................................................................................4 LateralSpreading.........................................................................................................................4 SurfaceRupture........................................................................................................... OtherSeismic Hazards..................................................................................................................4 2012 IBC Seismic Design Information............................................................................................5 Excavations........................................................................................................................................5 Excavation Considerations.............................................................................................................5 TemporaryCut Slopes...................................................................................................................5 Soldier Pile and Tieback Walls.......................................................................................................6 ShallowFoundations ........................................................................................................................... 9 Allowable Bearing Pressure...........................................................................................................9 Settlement.................................................................................................... ...10 .......................... LateralResistance...................................................................................................... ..10 Construction Considerations........................................................................................................11 Slab -on -Grade Floors.........................................................................................................................11 SubgradePreparation.................................................................................................................11 DesignParameters.....................................................................................................................11 Below -Slab Drainage...................................................................................................................12 Below -Grade Walls............................................................................................................................13 Permanent Below -Grade Walls.....................................................................................................13 OtherCast-ir►-Place Walls.............................................................................................................13 Drainage.......................................................................................................... GMENGINEERS August2,2016 Pagei File MD. 2202 024-00 Table of Contents (continued) Earthwork........................................................................................ Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing ................................................ Erosion and Sedimentation Control ............................................. Subgrade Preparation........................................................ StructuralFill.............................................................................. Permanent Slopes........................................................... Pavement Recommendations............................................................ Subgrade Preparation................................................................. New Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement .................................................... Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services.. .............................. LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................ REFEREN CES............................................................................................................... .......................... ... .................. 14 ...............................................14 ...............................................14 ...............................................15 ...............................................15 ...............................................17 ...............................................17 ...............................................17 ..........................................18 ...........................................18 ..............................................................18 ..............................................................18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Earth Pressure Diagrams - Permanent Soldier Pile & Tieback Wall Figure 4. Earth Pressure Diagram - Permanent Below Grade Walls Figure 5. Recommended Surcharge Pressure APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1- Key to Exploration Logs Figu res A-2 th rough A-8 - Log of Borings Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Appendix C. Boring Logs from Previous Studies Appendix D. Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines GEoENGINEERAugust2,2016 Pageii Fier. No 2202 -ma -00 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services for the Valley Medical Center (VMC) FY 2017 Parking Garage project in Renton, Washington. The site is irregular in shape and is located in the northern portion of the VMC campus at 404 South 43rd Street The site is bordered to the west by an existing parking garage, to the north by a steep -sided ravine, to the east by medical office buildings and to the south by a VMC campus access road off Talbot Road South. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the planned parking garage development GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services have been completed in general accordance with our signed agreement executed on March 21, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GeoEngineers understands that the Parking Garage project will be an expansion of the existing parking garage at the north end of the campus. The new garage will be directly east of the existing garage and will be up to eight levels above -grade. The lowest levels of the garage will be partially below grade adjacent to the existing garage and may require excavations up to 25 feet below grade along the north end of the garage. Additionally, based on our understanding of the project temporary and/or permanent soldier pile retaining walls will be used to support some of the excavations. We also understand that the permanent wall, where present, will be offset 3 to 5 feet from the new garage structure. Variable soil conditions are present at the anticipated foundation elevation; therefore, shallow foundations bearing on native or structural fill are anticipated for foundation support. FIELD EXPLORATIONSAND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling seven borings, GEI-1 through GEI-7, to depths of approximately 151/2 to 353/4 feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Descriptions of the field exploration program and the boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples were obtained during drilling and were taken to GeoEngineers' laboratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of fines content and grain -size distribution (sieve analysis). A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. GEoENGINEER� August2, 2016 Pagel rile Na. 2202-024 00 PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS In addition to the explorations completed as part of this evaluation, the logs of selected explorations from previous site evaluations in the project vicinity were reviewed. The logs of explorations from previous projects referenced for this study are presented in Appendix C. SITE CONDITIONS Regional Geology Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes a geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle (Mu Ilineaux 1965). The geologic map of the project area identifies subsurface soils to consist primarily of glacial till deposits of the Vashon Drift Also mapped in the area are Renton Formation sandstone with interbeds of siltstone, claystone and coal. Glacial till typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, cobbles and occasional boulders in a silt and clay matrix that was deposited beneath a glacier. Because glacial till has been overridden by thousands of feet of ice, it is typically dense to very dense. Renton Formation sandstone consists of irregularly cemented arkosic sandstone, mudstone and shale and locally contains coal deposits. Geologic map notes maximum thicknesses of approximately 2,500 feet. Subsurface soils encountered in our explorations are consistent with the geologic mapping. Specific details of subsurface conditions encountered in the field explorations are presented in the "Subsurface Conditions" section below. Surface Conditions The site is currently occupied by asphalt and gravel surfaceparking, landscaped parking islands and several mature coniferous and deciduous trees. The site steps down from east to west, with a total change in elevation of approximately 20 feet. Generally, the site appears to be clear of public utilities. The utilities on site consist of private stormwater, power for the parking lot lights, and sewer services. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by completing seven geotechnical borings (GEI-1 through GEI-7) completed for the currentstudy, and reviewing logs of explorations completed by others immediately adjacent to the project site. The approximate locations of the explorations in the site vicinity are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The geologic units encountered in the explorations consist of fill, glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock. Each of these units is described below in order of deposition starting with the most recent. GMENGINEERAugust2,2016 Page2 File Na. 2202024 OQ Fill Fill was encountered below the asphalt pavement or gravel in the explorations completed for this study and previous studies. The fill typically consists of loose to dense silty sand or medium stiff to very stiff sandy silt with variable gravel content and extends to depths ranging from 3 and 14 feet below existing site grades. Glacially Consolidated Soils The glacially consolidated soils encountered below the fill consist of weathered and unweathered glacial till. The glacial till encountered consists of silty sand or sandy sift with variable gravel content. A medium denseto very dense weathered zone nearer the surfacetransitions to the denseto very dense unweathered glacial till below. The transition between weathered and unweathered glacial till was observed at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 12 feet below site grades. Glacial till extended approximately 22 to 24 feet below site grades in borings GEI-1, GEI-2 and GEI-5 and to the depths explored in borings GEI-3, GEI-4, GEI-6 and GEI-7. Sandstone Bedrock Sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation) was encountered below the glacially consolidated soils in borings GEI-1, GEI-2, and GEI-5 and consists of very dense cemented silty sand with occasional coal deposits. Where encountered, the Renton formation extended to the depths explored. Groundwater Conditions Perched water was encountered at various depths in borings GEI-2, GEI-3, and GEI-4. The groundwater observed in these borings was confined to wet, loose soils overlying dense to very dense soils with relatively high fines content. The perched groundwater encountered is likely associated with seasonal rainfall. Perched groundwater is expected to fluctuate as a result of season, precipitation, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. ■ The site is designated as Site Class C per ASCE/SEI 7-10 and the 2012 International Building Code (I BC). ■ The grou nd water table is likely well below the base of the excavation. Minor seepage inflows may be expected where excavations intercept perched groundwater zones. We estimate flow rates from incidental seepage may be on the order of 5 to 10 gallons per minute (gpm). n Temporary excavations may be completed with open cuts or with temporary and/or permanent soldier pile and tieback walls. Soil nail walls are not recommended due to the thickness and variability of the existing fill soils. GMENGINEERS August2, 2016 Page3 F.le Na. 2202-024-00 ■ Shallow foundations may be used and shall bear on either dense to very dense glacial till and/or sandstone bedrock, on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense glacial till and/or sandstone bedrock, or on a 2 -foot -thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly weathered glacial soils: ■ For shallow foundations bearing directly on dense to very dense glacial till or sandstone bedrock, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 10 kips per square foot (ksf) may be used. ■ For shallow foundations bearingonstructuralfill extendingdown todense to very denseglacial till or sandstone bedrock, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. ■ For shallow foundations bearing on a 2 -foot -thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly weathered glacial soils, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used. ■ The majority of the on-site soils generally contain a high percentage of fines and are highly moisture -sensitive. The on-site soils may be used as structural fill duringdry weather conditions only (typically Junethrough September) provided the soils are properly moisture conditioned for compaction. Imported granular soils with a low percentage of fines should be used as structural fill during wet weather conditions and during the wet season (typically October through May). Our specific geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report. Earthquake Engineering Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to the condition by which vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils with subsequent loss of strength. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include very loose to medium dense, clean to silty sands that are below the water table. Our analysis indicates that the soils that underlie the proposed building area have a low risk of liquefying because of the density and gradation of these soils. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as the underlying soil layer liquefies. Because the buildings will bear on non -liquefiable soils, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be low for the project site. Surface Rupture The Renton Formation has many small faults with generally low displacement (Mullineaux 1965). However, the nearest mapped fault, the Sunbeam fault is approximately V2 mile north of the site. Based on the distanceto this known fault zone, and lack of other known fault zones near the site, it is our opinion that there is a low to moderate risk of surface rupture at the site. Other Seismic Hazards Due to the location of the site and the site's topography, the risk of adverse impacts resulting from seismically induced slope instability and differential settlement is considered to be low. GEOENGINEERS Augmt2.2016 Page4 Fie no M2 -0,24-o;3 2012IBCSeismic Design Information The following 2012 IBC parameters for site class, short period spectral response acceleration (Ss), 1 -second period spectral response acceleration (SI) and seismic coefficients (FA and Fv) are appropriate for the project site. TABLE 1. 2012 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2012 IBC Parameter Site Class Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss (percent g) 1 -Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S, (percent 10 Seismic Coefficient, FA Seismic Coefficient, Fv Excavations Recommended Value C 140.1 52.2 1.0 1.3 We u nderstand that the planned building will have up to two below -grade levels and that the excavations may extend upto 25 feet below site grades. Temporary cut slopes may be used for shallow excavations or where there is sufficient space to complete cut slopes. Temporary shoring may also be used for excavations where there is not sufficient space for cut slopes. The following sections provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for temporary cutslopes and temporary shoring, specifically soldier pile and tieback walls. We understand that permanent soldier pile walls with tiebacks may be used along the northern portion of the new garage. We provide geotechnical recommendations for permanent soldier pile walls with tiebacks below. Excavation Considerations The site soils may be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers. It may be necessary to rip the glacially consolidated soils locally to facilitate excavation. The contractor should be prepared for occasional cobbles and boulders in the site soils. Likewise, the surficial fill may contain foundation elements and/or utilities from previous site development, debris, rubbleand/or cobbles and boulders. We recommend that procedures be identified in the project specifications for measurement and payment of work associated with obstructions. Temporary Cut Slopes Temporary slopes may be used around the site where space allows, to facilitate early installation of shoring, or in the transition between levels at the base of the excavation. We recommend that temporary slopes constructed in the fill be inclined at 11/21-1: 1V (horizontal to vertical) and thattemporary slopes in the glacially consolidated soils be inclined at IH: IV. Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that ■ no traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or build ingsupplies be allowed at the top of the cutslopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut; ■ exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic sheeting; GEOENGINEERSr August2.2016 Pages File No. 2202-024-00 ■ construction activities be scheduled so that the length oft me the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ surface water be diverted away from the slope; and ■ the general condition of the slopes be observed periodically bythe geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability. Because the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Shoring and temporary slopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. Soldier Pile and Tieback Walls Based on the subsurface information obtained from the borings, we recommend temporary or permanent cantilever soldier pile walls or soldier pile with tieback walls be used for excavation support where temporary slopes are not possible. Soil nail walls are not recommended due to the thickness and variability of the existingfill soils. We provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for cantilever soldier pile and soldier pile with tiebacks walls below. Soldier pile walls consist of steel beams that are concreted into d rilled vertical holes located along the wall alignment, typically about feet on center. After excavation to specified elevations, tiebacks are installed, if necessary. Once the tiebacks are installed, the pullout capacity of each tieback is tested, and the tieback is locked off to the soldier pile at or near the design tieback load. Tiebacks typically consist of steel strands that are installed into pre -drilled holes and then either tremie or pressure grouted. Timber lagging is typically installed behind the flanges of the steel beams to retain the soil located between the soldier piles. Geotechnical design recommendations for each of these components of the soldier pile and tieback wall system are presented in the following sections. Soldier Piles We recommend that temporary and permanent soldier pile walls be designed using the earth pressure diagrams presented in Figure 3. The earth pressures presented in Figure 3 are for full -height cantilever soldier pile walls and soldier pile walls with single or multiple levels of tiebacks, and the pressures represent the estimated loads that will be applied to the wall system for various wall heights. Seismic earth pressures are included in Figure 3 for design of permanent walls. The seismic earth pressure does not need to be included in the design of temporary walls. Theearth pressu res presented in Figure 3 includethe loading from traffic surcharge. Othersu rcharge loads, such as buildings, cranes, construction equipment or construction staging areas, should be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the recommendations presented in Figure 5. We recommend that the embedded portion of the soldier piles be at least 2 feet in diameter and extend a minimum distance of 14 feet below the base of the excavation to resist "kick -out." The axial capacity of the soldier piles must resist the downward component of the anchor loads and other vertical loads, as GEOENGINEERS August2,2016 Page6 rile Nu.22a2-02400 appropriate. We recommend using an allowable end bearing value of 40 ksf for piles supported on the glacially consolidated soils. The allowable end bearing value should be applied to the base area of the drilled hole into which the soldier pile is concreted. This value includes a factor of safety of about 2.5. Thealiowable end bearing value assumes that the shaft bottom is cleaned out immediately prior to concrete placement. If necessary, an allowable pile skin friction of 1.0 ksf may be used on the embedded portion of the soldier piles to resist the vertical loads. For permanent walls, the exposed portion of the solider pile (e.g. if exposed to weather) should be painted with a coat of inorganic zinc primer to reduce the risk of corrosion. Additionally, structural concrete should be used for the embedded portion of the soldier pile. Temporary Lagging We recommend that the temporary timber lagging be sized usingthe procedures outlined in the Federal Highway Administration's Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4. The site soils are best described as competent soils. Table 2 presents recommend temporary lagging thicknesses (roughcut) as a function of soldier pile clear span and depth. TABLE 2. RECOMMENDED TIMBER LAGGING THICKNESS Depth (feet) 5 feet o to 25 2 inches Recommended Lagging Thickness (roughcut) for clear spans of: 6 feet 7 feet 8 fed 9 feet 3 inches 3 inches 3 inches 4 inches 10 feet 4 inches Permanent Lagging Permanent lagging may consist of timber, cast -in-place concrete or pre -cast concrete. if timber is used for permanent lagging, it must be adequately treated for protection against water and decay. We recommend that the permanent lagging be designed for a pressure equal to two-thirds the pressures depicted in Figure 3. Surcharge loading should also be considered as appropriate. The one-third pressure reduction is based on a maximum center -to -center pile spacing of 8 feet. If a wider spacing is desired, GeoEngineers should provide guidance on modifying the lagging pressures. Lagging Installation Lagging should be installed promptly after excavation, especially in areas where perched groundwater is present or where clean sand and gravel soils are present and caving soils conditions are likely. The workmanship associated with lagging installation is important for maintaining the integrity of the excavation. The space behind the lagging should befilled with soil as soon as practicable. Placement of this material will help reduce the risk of voids developing behind the wall and damage to existing improvements located behind the wall. Material used as backfill in voids located behind the lagging should not cause buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Lean concrete is a suitable option for the use of backfill behind the walls. Lean concrete will reducethe volume of voids present behind the wall. Alternatively, lean concrete may be used for backfill behind the upper 15 to 20 feet of the excavation to limit caving and sloughing of the upper soils, with on-site soils used to backfill the voids for the remainder of the excavation. Based on our experience, GEOENGINEER� August2, 2016 Page 7 Fie Nu. 2202-024-00 the voids between each lean concrete lift are sufficientfor preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Tiebacks Tieback anchors can be used for wall heights where cantilever soldier pile walls are not cost-effective. Tieback anchors should extend far enough behind the wall to develop anchorage beyond the "no-load" zone and within a stable soil mass, as shown on Figure 3. The anchors should be inclined downward at 15 to 25 degrees below the horizontal. The inclination of the anchors should match or exceed the inclination of the adjacentslope. The anchors should havea minimum of 5 feet of vertical soil coverage abovethe strands throughout the length of the anchor and at least 10 feet of horizontal soil coverage at the tip of the anchor. Additional vertical and horizontal coverage may be required if the tiebacks will be post -grouted. Double corrosion protection is required for the permanent tieback anchors. Corrosion protection is not required for temporary tieback anchors. Centralizers should be used to keep the tieback in the center of the hole during grouting. Structural grout or concrete should be used to fill the bond zone of the tiebacks. A bond breaker, such as plastic sheathing should be placed around the portion of the tieback located within the no-load zone if the shoring contractor plans to grout both the bond zone and unbonded zone of the tiebacks in a single stage. If the shoring contractor does not plan to use a bond breaker to isolate the no-load zone, GeoEngineers should be contacted to provide recommendations. Loose soil and slough should be removed from the holes drilled for tieback anchors prior to installing the tieback. The contractor should take necessary precautions to minimize loss of ground and prevent disturbance to previously installed anchors and existing improvements in the site vicinity. Holes drilled for tiebacks should be grouted/filled promptly to reduce the potential for loss of ground. Tieback anchors should develop anchorage in the glacially consolidated soils. We recommend that spacing between tiebacks be at least three times the diameter of the anchor hole to minimize group interaction. We recommend a preliminary design load transfer value between the anchor and soil of 4 kips per foot for glacially consolidated soils and 1.5 kips per foot for fill deposits. The tieback anchors should be verification- and proof -tested to confirm that the tiebacks have adequate pullout capacity. The pullout resistance of tiebacks should be designed using a factor of safety of 2. The pullout resistance should be verified by completing at least two successful verification tests in each soil type and a minimum of four total tests for the project. Each tieback should be proof -tested to 133 percent of the design load. Verification and proof tests should be completed as described in Appendix D, Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program. The tieback layout and inclination should be checked to confirm that the tiebacks do not interfere with adjacent buried utilities. Drainage Drainage for soldier pile and lagging walls is achieved through seepage through the timber lagging. Seepage flows at the bottom of the excavation should be contained and controlled in order to prevent loss of soil from behind the lagging, Drainage should be provided for permanent below -grade walls as described below in the "Below -Grade Walls" section of this report. C7EOENGINEER� August 2, 2016 PageS File. No. 7107-07J-00 Constnicdon Consfd"atkms Temporary casing or drilling fluid may be required to install the soldier piles and tiebacks where: ■ loose fill is present; and ■ the native soils do not have adequate cementation or cohesion to prevent caving or raveling, and/or perched groundwater is present. GeoEngineers should be allowed to observe and document the installation and testing of the shoring to verify conformance with the design assumptions and recommendations. Shallow Foundations Subgrade soils at foundation elevation level for the project will be dependent on the depth of excavation and the finish floor elevation. The soils at the anticipated foundation elevation vary across the site and may consist of existing fill or glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock, as such, the bearing capacity and subgrade preparation will vary. Where foundations bear on competent glacially consolidated soils or bedrock a high allowable bearing capacity value can be used. Where fill is present at foundation subgrade elevation, a lower allowable bearing capacity should be used. Where the west side of the proposed garage is adjacent to the existing garage, the planned shallow foundations should extend to a depth such that the loads are not transferred to the existing garage foundations. A line of influence extending at a 1H:1V slope from the bottom of the planned garage foundations should not interceptthe existing garage foundations or structure. A controlled density -fill (GDF) bearing pad can be used below the planned garage foundations to lower the effective bottom of foundation. The CDF bearing pad shall extend a minimum of 2 feet beyond the edges of the new footing. More detail regarding recommended subgrade preparation and allowable bearing pressures for shallow foundations are presented below. Allowable Bearing Pressure We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 10 ksf for mat foundations and isolated spread footing foundations bearing on the dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils or sandstone bedrock For foundations bearing on properly compacted structural fill extended down to dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils or bedrock, an allowable bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. The estimated depth to the dense to very dense glacially consolidated soils are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3. ESTIMATED DEPTH TO DENSE TO VERY DENSE GLACIALLY CONSOLIDATED SOILS FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT Approximate Depth to Competent Glacialy Consolidated SoW &*ration Number (feet) GEI-1 10 GEI-2 14 GEI-3 10 GEI-4 12 GEI-5 11 GMENGINEER-S August2,2016 Page9 File Nn_ J2071]24-00 Approximate Depth to Competent Glacially Consolidated Soilsl Exploration Number (feet) GEI-6 5 GEI-7 Notes: 'Depth below existing ground surface 5 Where foundations are planned to bear on existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils (elevations higher than shown in Table 3), we recommend a minimum of 2 feet be overexcavated below the foundation elevation and replaced with compacted structural fill. Existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils will still remain for this condition; therefore, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf be used. The zone of structural fill below the foundation should extend beyond thefaces of thefooting a distance at least equal to the thickness of the structural fill. The zone of structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. If loose existing fill is encountered, further overexcavation may be necessary. The allowable soil bearing pressures provided above apply to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by upto one-third for wind or seismic loads. The allowable soil bearing pressures are net values. We recommend that conventional shallow foundations be a minimum of 36 inches wide and continuous wall footings be a minimum of 16 incheswide. Exterior footings should befounded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Interior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below top of slab. Settlement Provided that all loose soil is removed and that the subgrade is prepared as recommended under "Construction Considerations" below, we estimate that the total settlement of shallow foundations will be about 1 inch or less. The settlements will occur rapidly, essentially as loads are applied. Differential settlements between footings could be half ofthetotal settlement. Note thatsmaller settlements will result from lower applied loads. Lateral Resistance Lateral foundation loads may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of footings and by friction on the base of the shallow foundations. For shaliow foundations supported on native soils or structural fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead -load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 390 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (triangular distribution). This value is appropriate for foundation elements that are poured directly against undisturbed glacial till or surrounded by structural fill. The allowable passive resistancefor structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal to 21/2 times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD in accordance with ASTM D-1557. GEoENGINEER5r August2, 2016 Page 10 Fl, Na. 2202-024.00 The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. Construction Considerations We recommend that the condition of all subgrade areas be observed by GeoEngineers to evaluate whether the work is completed in accordance with our recommendations and whether the subsurface conditions are as anticipated. If foundation construction is completed during periods of wet weather, foundation subgrades are recommended to be protected with a rat slab consisting of 2 to 4 inches of lean or structural concrete. If soft areas are present at the footing subgrade elevation, the soft areas should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or structural fill at the direction of GeoEngineers. We recommend that the contractor consider leaving the subgrade for the foundations as much as 6 to 12 inches high, depending on soil and weather conditions, until excavation to final subgrade is required for foundation reinforcement. Leaving subgrade high will help reduce damage to the subgrade resulting from construction traffic for other activities. Slab -on -Grade Floors Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade should be evaluated after site grading is complete. Proof -rolling with heavy, rubber -tired construction equipment should be used for this purpose during dry weather and if access for this equipment is practical. Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather or if access is notfeasiblefor construction equipment The exposed soil should befirm and unyielding, and without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if possible or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The site should be rough graded to approximately 1 foot above slab subgrade elevation prior to foundation construction in order to protect the slab subgradesoils from deterioration from wet weather or construction traffic. After the foundations have been constructed, the remaining soils can be removed to final subgrade elevation followed by immediate placement of the capillary break material. In areas were existing fill is present below buildings, the existing soil may be left in place below the slab provided the slab is founded on at least 1 foot of structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the MDD in accordancewith ASTM D1557. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 1 -foot -thick layer of structural fill. Design Parameters Conventional slabs may be supported on -grade, provided the subgradesoils are prepared as recommended in the "subgrade Preparation" section above. For slabs designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for slabs supported on glacial till. For slabs supported on a 1 -foot layer of structural fill overlying existing fill soils, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci. GEOENGINEEAS Augu.02,2o16 Pagell Fle No, 2202-02400 We recommend that the slab -on -grade floors be underlain by a 6 -inch -thick capillary break consisting of 11/2 --inch minus clean crushed gravel with negligible sand or silt meeting the requirements Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-O3.1(4)C, grading No. 57 or Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (3/a -inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. Provided that loose soil is removed and the subgrade is prepared as recommended, we estimate that slabs -on -grade will not settle appreciably. Below -Slab Drainage We expect the static groundwater level to be located well below the slab -on -grade level for the proposed building; however perched groundwater may be present above theslab subgrade elevation. We recommend installing an underslab drainage system to remove water from below the slabs -on -grade. The underslab drainage system should include an interior perimeter drain and one or more longitudinal drains with transversepipes placed at a nominal spacingof 2Ofeet. The location of the longitudinal drain(s)will depend on the foundation and below -grade structure design and may need to be modified totwo or moretransverse drains or drains located behind interior cast -in-place walls. The civil engineer should develop a conceptual foundation drainage plan for GeoEngineers to review. The drains should consist of perforated Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes with a minimum diameter of 4 inches placed in a trench at least 12 inches deep. The top of the underslab drainage system trenches should coincide with the base of the capillary break layer. The underslab drainage system pipes should have adequate slope to allow positive drainage to the sump/gravity drain. The drainage pipe should be perforated. Perforated pipe should have two rows of 1/2 -inch holes spaced 120 degrees apart and at 4 inches on center. The underslab drainage system trenches should be backfilled with Mineral Aggregate Type 22 or Type 5 (1 -inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The underslab drainage system pipes should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. The flow rate for the planned excavation in the below -slab drainage and below -grade wall drainage systems is anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 10 gpm. If no special waterproofing measures are taken, leaks and/or seepage may occur in localized areas of the below -grade portion of the building, even if the recommended wall drainage and below -slab drainage provisions are constructed. If leaks or seepage is undesirable, below -grade waterproofing should be specified. A vapor barrier should be used below slab -on -grade floors located in occupied portions of the building. Specification of the vapor barrier requires consideration of the performance expectations of the occupied space, the type of flooring planned and other factors, and is typically completed by other members of the project team. If partial below -grade waterproofing is specified (for instance, for elevator pits), the waterproofing should extend to at least the elevation of the lowest finished floor so that the waterproofing will be located above the elevation where foundation drainage is provided. GEoENGiNEERS August2,2016 Page12 file Vu. 2202-024-00 Below -Grade Walls Permanent Below -Grade Walls Permanent below -grade walls constructed in front of temporary shoring walls should be designed using the earth pressures presented in Figure 4. Foundation surcharge loads and traffic surcharge loads should be incorporated into the design of the below -grade walls using the surcharge pressures presented in Figure 5. Other surcharge loads, such as from construction equipment or construction staging areas, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We can provide the lateral pressures from these surcharge loads as the design progresses. The soil pressures recommended above assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressurebehindthewalls, as described above in the"Excavation Support" section of this report, and tied to permanent drains to remove water to suitable discharge points. Other Gast -In -Place Walls Conventional cast -in-place walls may be necessary for small retaining structures located on-site or where temporary open cuts are used for excavation support. The lateral soil pressures acting on conventional cast -in-place subsurface walls will depend on the nature, density and configuration of the soil behind the wall and the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed. For walls that are free to yield at thetop at least 0.1 percent of the heightof the wall, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Assuming that the walls are backfilled and drainage is provided as outlined in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (triangular distribution), while non -yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf (triangular distribution). For seismic loading conditions, a rectangular earth pressure equal to 14H pounds per square foot (psf) (where H is the height of the wall in feet) should be added to the active/at-rest pressures. A traffic surcharge pressure of 70 psf should also be included in the design, as appropriate. Other surcharge loading should be applied as appropriate using the recommendations provided in Figure 5. We recommend that below -grade wall or other retaining wall foundations be designed using the foundation recommendations provided above under "Shallow Foundations." For retaining walls independent of building structures (grade -transition walls), the retaining wall footings may be supported on 2 feet of structural fill placed over the existing fill soils. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 2 -foot -thick layer of structural fill. An allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used for this foundation support condition. Lateral resistance for conventional cast -in-place walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall. For walls founded on native soils or structural fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead -load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid densities of 390 pcf (triangular distribution). The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal to 21/2 times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD in accordance GEoENGINEERS August2.2416 Page13 Rl No. 2202-024-04 with ASTM D-1557. The above coefficient of friction and passive eq uivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as discussed below. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided behind cast -in-place retaining wails by placing a minimum 2 -foot -wide zone of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that the percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve is to be less than 3 percent. Alternatively, the 2 -foot -wide zone of material may consist of gravel backfill for walls in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(2). A perforated drainpipe should be placed near the base of the retaining wall to provide drainage. The drainpipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (3/4 -inch crushed gravel) or Type 5 (1 -inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meetingthe requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The wall drainpipe should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger -diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. Earthwork Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing We recommend that all new pavement and structure areas be stripped of organic -rich soils (sod, grass, topsoil), and vegetation. Based on our observations, we anticipate that stripping depths will generally be about 6 to 12 inches. Stripping depths will be locally greater where large trees are cleared and grubbed. The stripped organic soil may be stockpiled for later use as topsoil for landscaping purposes. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing, and weather. The project's impact on erosion -prone areas can be reduced by implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable City and/or county standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles including: ■ scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure; ■ retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible; ■ revegetating or mulching denuded areas; ■ directing runoff away from denuded areas; ■ minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils; ■ decreasing runoff velocities; GEoENGINEl:R AugustZ 2016 Page 14 File No. 2202-024-00 ■ confining sediment to the project site; ■ inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently; ■ covering soil stockpiles; and ■ implementing proper erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce the potential for erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas. Temporary erosion protection should include the construction of a silt fence around the perimeter of the work area prior to the commencement of grading activities. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by reestablishing vegetation using hydroseeding and/or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade in structure and hardscape areas should be evaluated after site excavation is complete. Disturbed areas below slabs and foundations should be recompacted if the subgrade soil consists of granular material. If the subgrade soils consist of disturbed soils, it will likely be necessary to remove and replace the disturbed soil with structural fill unless the soil can be adequately moisture - conditioned and compacted. Structural FII Fill placed to support structures, placed behind retaining structures, and placed below pavements and sidewalks will need to be specified as structural fill as described below: ■ Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas and below foundations should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT common borrowas described in Section 9-03.14(3). Common borrow is only suitable for use during dry weather. If fill is placed du ring wet weather, WSDOT gravel borrow should be used, as described in Section 9-03.14(1). ■ Structural fill placed as capillary break material should meet the requirements of Type 22 (3/a -inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (1Y2 -inch minus crushed gravel), ■ Structuralfill placed behind retainingwalls should meet the requirementsof Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for walls Section 9-03.12(2). ■ Structural fill placed around perimeter footing drains, underslab drains and cast -in-place wall drains should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 5 (1 -inch washed gravel) or Type 22 (3/a -inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for drains Section 9-03.12(4). GEoENGINEERS- August2, 2016 Page 15 rile No. 2202-02400 ■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (11/a -inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. On-site Sats The on-site soils are moisture -sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. As a result, the on-site soils will likely require moisture conditioning in order to meet the required compaction criteria during dry weather conditions and will not besuitable for reuse during wet weather. Furthermore, mostof the fill soils required for the project have specific gradation requirements, and the on-site soils do not meet these gradation requirements. If the contractor wants to use on-site soils for structural fill, GeoEngineers can evaluate the on-site soils for suitability as structural fill, as required. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non -yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each liftshould be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: ■ Structural fill placed in building areas (supporting or adjacent to foundations or slab -on -grade floors) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. ■ Structural fill placed within 10 feet of the back of subgrade and retainingwalls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of the MDD. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid over -compaction and hence overstressingthe walls. Structuralfill beyondthis 10 -foot zone should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. ■ Structural fill in new pavement and roadway areas, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD, except that the upper 2 feet of fill below final subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. ■ Structural fill placed as crushed rock base course below pavements should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present duringprobingof the exposed subgradesolls in buildingand pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture -density tests in the fill to verify compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. GEoENGINEER� August2,2016 Page 16 Gee Nu. 2202-02 1-00 Weather Considerations The on-site soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (slit and clay) to be moisture -sensitive. When the moisture content of these soils is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, these soils become muddy and unstable, and operation of equipment on these soils is difficult. Additionally, disturbance of near -surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather. During wet weather, we recommend that: ■ The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed away from the work area. The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do not develop. The contractor should take measures to prevent surface water from collecting in excavations and trenches. Measures should be implemented to remove surfacewater from the work area. ■ Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means. ■ The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by rolling with a smooth -drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these soils become wet or unstable. ■ Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance. ■ Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practicable. Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly (1 to 2 feet) and subsequently cut backto expose properly compacted fill. We recommend thatthe finished slope faces be compacted bytrack walking with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track grouser marks help provide an erosion -resistant slope texture. To reduce erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as clear heavy plastic sheeting jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior or straw/coconut matting, should be used to protect the slopes during periods of rainfall. Pavement Recommendations Subgrade Preparation We recommend that the subgrade soils in new pavement areas be prepared and evaluated as described in the "Earthwork" section of this report. We recommend that the subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD per ASTM D 1557 prior to placing pavement section materials. If the subgrade soils are loose or soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. A layer of suitable woven geotextile fabric may be placed over soft subgrade areas to limit the thickness of structural fill required to bridge soft, yielding areas. The depth of overexcavation or fabric placement should be evaluated by GeoEngineers during construction. GWENGINEER� August2,2016 Page17 rile No. 2202 024-W New Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement At a minimum, paved areas exposed to automobile traffic only should consist of 2 inches of hot -mix asphalt (HMA) (Class 1/2 inch, PG -58) over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. In areas of truck traffic, new pavement sections should consist of at least 3 inches ofHMA over 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course. The crushed su rfacingbase course shouId meetthe requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (11/4 -inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. Any changes in design, especially the incorporation of elements that deepen the required depth of excavation, will likely go below the water table and could require additional temporary construction dewatering measures. During construction, GeoEngineers should observe the installation of the shoring system, review/collect shoring and groundwater monitoring data, evaluate the suitability of the foundation subgrades, observe installation of subsurface drainage measures, evaluate structural backfill, observe the condition of temporary cutslopes, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers construction phase services are to confirmthat the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix E, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center and their authorized agents for the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project in Renton, Washington. With in the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix E titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. REFERENCES City of Seattle, 2014, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." International Code Council, 2012, "International Building Code." Mullineaux D.R., 1965 "Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington." USGS 6EQENGINEERS� August2,2016 Page 18 IeNa 2202020-00 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, 1999, "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems," FHWA Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015. U.S. Geological Survey - National Seismic hazard Mapping project Software, "Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.9x," 2002 data, 2009. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." GEoENGINEERS August2, 2016 Page 19 Fife No. 2202-02409 GMENGINEER� Ii .0 ., 5 198th 5t i� m a w ] 5200th St a n Iii S 200th St S 2001h 5t 5E 200th SI SE 200th Sr G AM V N r WNnkR tmy , 4 Notes: n 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. it is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. Geo Engineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GecEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: open Street Map, 2016. Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 North arrow oriented to grid north N WE 5 2,000 0 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington GE4ENGINEER Figure! Paget Dr S 21st Sr m SE 21 n fu4wiN i a ,�. 515 d• SE 22nd PI n = 3 SW 23rd St 5W 23rd 51 1� 5 23rd 5t ry av+ ti � SE 162nd St SE 16 SW 27th St 1 i SpnnRhrook Yraii SW 27th St SW 271h St �.,} y,t�th PIY 0 a p JF SE 144th StSE 1 S 27th 51 a n 4` 2I v a~�54 n � � vwi ,Wii P � O 167 p n u+ s O 6 Q ° a�R r c' a a2 a Al w I I ii 77 53151 5[ �o $ SE 168th St q � w p 't W 5E 1 m SE 170th 51 a a = O � n n SW 34th Sr SW 34th St SE 172nd 5t ,7311 „ S,Syth Sr c 'a 3 ? 11 i 1 SE 173rtl Si N D N?; 0 S 3B1hP 515 5 SW 34th St I Smith 1 dg 157 CE N N N N p' SW 41st Sr SW 415[5; /rI yyI{ �'f c Jll� � a 4 a' ¢' y Ca 7 Y ORILLIA lkta a6 f 5 carr tii ;31 BENSON HILL Msw43rost SW 43rd $[ j ? SE 1800, St _ w 5E i80 a d s SE 181st`°! 5 182nd St 5 192nd St167 �� r% SE 182nd $[ 5E 182 4, S 45th PI < 5 194th Sr i S 184th St S 47th St 4 a r ath St SE 196rh St SE 195 S 186th Pi d7 5 187th St 55 h St .4 d 0th St a a 5 188th St S 190[, St 5 190th St 167 a oSE 1901, Std — a £ ,r29 f f 1 l 5t ryb St a S 192nd St n SE F92ntl St M SE 192nd St � � N E o SE 1941 C S 192nd Si a S1 961h St 5 1%th 5t iyT < SE 196th 5t Ii .0 ., 5 198th 5t i� m a w ] 5200th St a n Iii S 200th St S 2001h 5t 5E 200th SI SE 200th Sr G AM V N r WNnkR tmy , 4 Notes: n 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. it is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. Geo Engineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GecEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: open Street Map, 2016. Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 North arrow oriented to grid north N WE 5 2,000 0 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington GE4ENGINEER Figure! - f1 - °s peoa loal�1 = Q) 0 N W �A U- Q] co Q% .0 W 0 W v' � 7 z Y 0 (13 w 0 00 00 W . r-1 z o o 0 0 Y Lo cn -J N N m o c N m w O 0 0 o��� a) j N M D N N _0 'tin ui ° w � cn (n c c!} ai _ °' L1J Q Q c co O U O 4-- @ w 0 U 76 N " c3 v (D w X��0- c v a) c O o.��td �° o iao cn Q c/�n� Salo O /a) 0 — � OL Y a) a w E z In c W ca 4! � / � W > c w �, Z V) m UJ ry Y al U N `� N c O i C c O O LL cn O �p ca OCL o— a) 0 O [a 0 F- U 0 � C3 q) m = 0a) � � a a no w to neo ro 0 0YY�� m c6 =_0 o = C c CZ _ Q 3 E = m = o L oD L i L N O O � O m U c6 Q C J C[3 m m co H m = Cl- c in 0 :3 m N U CO C to U') U+ 00 o._0a) � m J U Q Z N m � 0 o -L L m L L 7 �,J H• ta0 D [Y6 .� Oi--• Z .4 c� n a` - f1 - °s peoa loal�1 = co! III- ' rl _ �_•_.. I O CL O O 1 4J ' f O VJ `+J O rt - \ -_ -. -- _ ' 1 fff�■�■�■ (d [ ''a. VjI r r O "� `� _ ..- - IU Wo i M Qi Lo C4---------------- - - Q% ,ma k -------------- --_ f r , CD LLJ ell ois -06 __.._ --- A, r � ,�_' ;ham_ ___ J' I y t. -i �V" ; •. C. W �'' i, \ `:�r> N, " �. .y✓ TL O O oco _' a4 v ? L oz Lf) 04 CN 2i o CV z ;; ,� 2 m 1 i CV100 p9.� v�1�- 7 t) t) -l'J 1 a,t_�:.t 'D U f /! I 7 a /r/ m ' �i ori :. a m 0 Lo >,� �, i, ,' a o IN ca Z- 73 O m V I - - - - -. _--- t IaNDIISO Aq 6E7ZT - 9T/90/90 :PaVOdx3 alea Z3:9'dl SMP -Geld al!S Z03 00-VM',OZ tIZOZOZZ\Z\:d Q) 0 N W �A U- Q] co Q% r 0LLJ W 0 W Z 7 z w 0 W co! III- ' rl _ �_•_.. I O CL O O 1 4J ' f O VJ `+J O rt - \ -_ -. -- _ ' 1 fff�■�■�■ (d [ ''a. VjI r r O "� `� _ ..- - IU Wo i M Qi Lo C4---------------- - - Q% ,ma k -------------- --_ f r , CD LLJ ell ois -06 __.._ --- A, r � ,�_' ;ham_ ___ J' I y t. -i �V" ; •. C. W �'' i, \ `:�r> N, " �. .y✓ TL O O oco _' a4 v ? L oz Lf) 04 CN 2i o CV z ;; ,� 2 m 1 i CV100 p9.� v�1�- 7 t) t) -l'J 1 a,t_�:.t 'D U f /! I 7 a /r/ m ' �i ori :. a m 0 Lo >,� �, i, ,' a o IN ca Z- 73 O m V I - - - - -. _--- t IaNDIISO Aq 6E7ZT - 9T/90/90 :PaVOdx3 alea Z3:9'dl SMP -Geld al!S Z03 00-VM',OZ tIZOZOZZ\Z\:d r Q1 Qi w as � o W � � � V W W V C G LL `` LJ _ � I ca �- r� i rz Q (' Q m u, � oa - xa Qa; W a> v o U) U G x I- U; z U, MLil 2 I � � 1 S w O L m v a, m i a) L U7 v 47 0 03 I v CD o U Q f7 a C. n n ani 0 t a> O a o m V) a} a' a u ❑ w E L U bi LLa LL-} Ver I- � - �7 _ � .� � c p — > j, a = a u J {V, O C', X LLI j N a) LLJ C7 C6 Q] O L N 4% � 7 N � 0 Q N E .N ID O 0 O w❑ O O c6 LLJ V O J Z 2 U/a ❑ a 2 0- n. Z o O I !I II I; II li J f X Ln I L ¢ Ir) W V i o w L LO —i w \ ? U l U O m C o 0 = a7 f XCL f �� mm c3 x ) $ L Q L) x � y .L-. CL RS N U W L) ci C a U o 0 .� _' i.. L a - j - as m — > a c c n i u z73 a$ w f� Q) 0 l Q) 1 .0 w U N v7 O C — r Q ns y Q � � � d } L� a fl] N 7 it J L- 0 ro �'a.N o _ co $ 0 IO v C 21� Q� aio �o m W _ � ] � � 1) � i I � �, .ate$ E >'Sa p Q _ \� -- L cn U -3 ca a a m � m ca) a O N -0 L O O �7 '� Cf) � a O 9Y y U C' 2Y 7 C 3 W Q) 0 w— a N Q E IR �, j [ti r C, to uJ N V Q3 Lo 2-2 s N Q�!� D u)— Lu, a X Gr Q) L LD N U 2M L L LL Q N 7 t6 X - 'N N C 7 43 _ 1 O N >CL O .? 2 a Q.� W iri 7 w m. '> N -o o 1 o¢a 3a¢ aFL-. QC7W Z r c� r-> v � co jaHw7sa R Z6 ZT - 9T/LQ/80 �PaUo x3 ale0 EA SVI MP sdd3 ROS -Ml -Co-hZOZOZZ\Uoa;oa� 00\OMJ\YZOZOZZ Z1 -d r Q1 Qi w as � o W � � � V W W V H PERMANENT BASEMENT WALL DESIGN PRESSURES FJ 51 J71 i.JJI -- Traffic Seismic Static tcu Surcharge Srcharge th Ec,Pressure Pressure Pressure NOT TO SCALE Notes 1. This pressure diagram is appropriate for permanent basement walls. If additional surcharge loading (such as from soil stockpiles, excavators, dumptrucks, cranes, or concrete trucks) is anticipated, GeoEngineers should be consulted to provide revised surcharge pressures. 2. The static earth pressure does not include a factor of safety and represents the actual anticipated static earth pressure. Legend - = Height of Basement Wall, Feet D — Foundation Embedment Depth, Feet P = Maximum Static Earth Pressure Pounds per Square Foot Earth Pressure Diagram Permanent Below Grade Walls Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington GMENGINEERS r Figure Z 0 z o Q U-0 0 LL- V7 LJ �J (3 — L7C� �QQ a J � ry � 0 Q cn 0 U c Z LTJ LL-0 C) C Z J DEW L a, C Q n 1 " G < L� .1 � w I_j wJ �< Z 7 / zs u Dz J , C IilS < � iI fO @ N UJ ui .O G7 � o W c � � Z O U C � 0.7 O W m N O ❑ Z U Q N _ I— j v 0 Q 0 z m m m rn m L. o 0 `m 0 Q o C) � CD �+ �� �� �U)� cc � � � � 5 O VI m N N — N 1 _ _ n O co _ 00 E ED v c m Fn C)L `m CL o `m i/) :X ! �7 - � CL) (LI a m ` r c zLLJ N z c� c c� CD S� N a ry �� C O C N U i O I r i_ JfY { _ U) I L� U U O is UJ Uri s U zEL w o � C Q LL v LL r K o w 7 x m _�I N m m r Q N Cy Oa n CL U) W w Z N M Q_ J I �QD 0 o L� - LL — cr. `.ai LLJ i � � \ o � � �` (D IVM _:G-i���.....� m Cl�' m VI !t a { t U-i Q a n ry wp i , o z e z Q rn Q _ � s. I �I LF) `O < O O <<X b_ r a d co ~ o o N m i J u W C x L.tJM Z �: �, O o a .5 a a� o N o cn J LL O O O a = m m � CL m .n C Cl- r s o ° E a In m O o O 41 N tU C C V C L - 5 .OI LL J W J U) Q ❑ II I y II I laHzll � 4 6T:ZS - 9T/96/SO =Patio x3 alpa 9�:ev1 MP Sad3 90d-EOd G"Z:()ZOZZ\4aaloa� Oo\ovoNt zOZOZZ.Z\.d m ti � L a, C Q a� � Lo fO .O G7 � o W c � � Z O U 0.7 O W GEOENGINEERL APPENDIX A Field Explorations APPENDIXA FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling seven borings (GE I-1 through GEI-7). The borings were completed to depths of approximately 151/2 to 35314 feet below existing site grades. The borings were completed by Geologic Drill, Inc. on April 4, 2018. The locations of the explorations were surveyed by Bush Roed & Hitchings, Inc. as part of the general project survey. The exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Borings The borings were completed using track -mounted, continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger drilling equipment, owned and operated by Geologic Drill, Inc. of Spokane, Washington. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer or geologist from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered in the borings were generally sampled at 21/r and 5 -foot vertical intervals with a 2 -inch outside diameter split -barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The disturbed samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140 -pound automatic hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count ("N -value") of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N -value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions precluded driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow cou nts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A-1. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2 through A$. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on the blow countdata obtained in the borings and judgment based on the conditions encountered. Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling. The groundwater conditions encountered during drilling are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling represent a short-term condition and may or may notbe representative of the long-term groundwater conditions at the site. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling should be considered approximate. GMENGINEER� August2.2016 PageA-1 F No. 2202-02' 00 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AC Asphalt Concrete CLEAN o a° ° Gw WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES CC GRAVEL GRAVELS HA Hydrometer analysis MC CR AND GRAVELLY SOILS (LInLE as N❑rwEsl p ❑ O a O o GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH FINES Topsoil/ Plasticity index GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THANE% OF COARSE FRACTION O GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL SAND - CLAY MIXTURES Triaxial compression RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE I,VRECNELE [�E rlNEsl VS CLEAN SANDS sw WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS No Visible Sheen MORI- TtkAh 50% SAND MS Moderate Sheen SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND RETAINER ON NO. 200 SIEVE AND SANDY (LInLE Oft NOFWES] SOILS SANDS WITH FINFS 5M SILTV SANDS, SAND - SILT MOURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE AW CWiLE AMOUNT OF FINEST {,. �+ CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK ML FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE GRAINED SILTS AND 01-AYS uQulO LIMIT LESS THAN rr �'L MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS SOILS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY I I j MH ORGANIC CUS OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY MLS MORE THAN 50% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE / CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY SILTS AND UOUlO LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 CLAYS41 OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT. HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions ® 2.4 -inch I.D. split barrel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ■ Shelby tube ® Piston K] Direct -Push ® Sulk or grab ® Continuous Coring Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 Inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. A'WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AL AC Asphalt Concrete Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test CS CC Cement Concrete Direct shear HA Hydrometer analysis MC CR Crushed Rock! Moisture content and dry density OC Quarry Spalls PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Topsoil/ Plasticity index TS Forest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or plezometer Measured free product In well or piezometer Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata Approximate contact between soil strata Material Description Contact Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same geologic unit Laboratory / Field Tests %F Percent fines %G Percent gravel AL Atterberg limits CA Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test CS Consolidation test DS Direct shear HA Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content MD Moisture content and dry density OC Organic content PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity PI Plasticity index PP Pocket penetrometer PPM Parts per million SA Sieve analysis TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression VS Vane shear Sheen Classification NS No Visible Sheen SS Slight Sheen MS Moderate Sheen HS Heavy Sheen NT Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GWENGINEER FIGURE A-1 Rev. 02116 5= EW Total 26 5 Drilled 41412016 4/4/2018 Depth (ft) Logged By SJB Checked By DTM Driller Geologic Drill, Inc.Drilling Method Hollow -Stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) 76.39 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Hammer Autohammer Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment Diedrich D50 Track Rig Easting (X) 1298926.83 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165386.17 Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth to Date Measured Water M Elevation fR5 !votes: Not encountered FIELD DATA m y MATERIAL a DESCRIPTION o REMARKS mL } o �, V C m d i a CL Dy m �`m c �m m m w ❑ 0 m m 00 6 V H f0 E C7 D' C7 V -o c 2 V s c LZ o AC 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement GP 3 inches base course 1h Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel SM (medium dense, moist) (fill) ML Brown to gray sandil(sti y t ff, moist) 18 14 s 35 %BF 53 - 16 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand (medium dense, moist) '5— 18 13 2 With occasional gravel Cbddation staining, till -fill [� ] SM I Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel 18 22 %1 (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial 13 46 "—t -o 18 1 66 1 4 "-tA 17185/11-1 5 "—t 0 18 1 71 I 6 Note: See Figure A-1 for e0anation of symbols. SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Log of Boring GEM Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R /// Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-02400 Task 100 Sheet 1 of G EO E N G I N E E RS Project: Project Location: Project Number: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project Renton, Washington Figure A-2 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2of2 Drilled 4/4/22016 4/4/2016 Total Depth (fl) 31 s L-og Check ed By DTM Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Method Hollow -Skein Auger Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 90.28 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track RI 9 o8 NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299094.03 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165403.44 DatumDepth NAD83 (feet) to Dare Measu ed Water fft1 Elrralinn fttl Notes: Q'N Q in Y C m 'p See remarks I a I 19 I 1 I ti I 11 I I I Oxidabon staininglorange mottling, till -fill I 5 0 27 2 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel Ondabon staining (medium dense, moist) `lNowcaunt overstated, sampler bourKdrg on 3 5013" 3 rod* during sampling Becomes gray id I 12 I %F I ILS I I I 14 i 34 18 1 14 1 5 1 II I I I I i 1 water in sampler ML f Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (very dense, wet) (glacial till) 15—t-0 18 1 75 I 6 2D --Z 18 1 54 1 7 1 1 1 r Becomes moist J I I I I I L I I I Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-2 FIELD DATA a s MATERIAL Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 m IL o8 1�- DESCRIPTION REMARKS L Q N VO N Vl #O C L R Q'N Q in Y C m 'p C m m �O W Q c Of m O @ U C7 0 U O 2r U ri U GP 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot SM surface) Brawn silty fine to medium sand with gravel and organics (medium dense, moist) (fill) I a I 19 I 1 I ti I 11 I I I Oxidabon staininglorange mottling, till -fill I 5 0 27 2 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel Ondabon staining (medium dense, moist) `lNowcaunt overstated, sampler bourKdrg on 3 5013" 3 rod* during sampling Becomes gray id I 12 I %F I ILS I I I 14 i 34 18 1 14 1 5 1 II I I I I i 1 water in sampler ML f Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (very dense, wet) (glacial till) 15—t-0 18 1 75 I 6 2D --Z 18 1 54 1 7 1 1 1 r Becomes moist J I I I I I L I I I Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-2 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G Eo E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 LVy VI r.Oww 11 ly `\.VI 1410 IVAM'Vr Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 0# 2 Drilled 41412016 Fxd 41412016 Total 31 5 Depth (ft) Figure A-4 Logged By SJB Driller Deal tc Drill, Inc. Checked By DTM Drilling Hollow -stem Au Method ger Surface Elevation (ft) 8792 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (x) 1299048.22 System WA State Plane,North Groundwal Northing (Y) 165275.15 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to Water [ft) Elevation (ft4 See remarks Notes: G M E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 _ _ sheet 1 ot2 VVtp V§ VVI JVVI0%44�MYMf Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G EQ E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of 2 Drilled 414/2016 Fwd Total 15 .5 41412016 Depth (ft) Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project Logged By 5JB Checked By DTM Driller Geologic Drill, inc. Drilling Method Hollow -Stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 96.7 Hammer Data Autohammer Drilling Diedrich Q50 Track Rig NAVD88 a 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299202 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165242.D5 Datum NAD83 (feet) Dale Meatura1 Depth to Wa[er lftl Elerabon fftl y C m Notes: p _m � tv m rp C1 2 Not encountered 18 ! 6 f 9.1 ! I I I I 20 I 49 5—ro 18 1 9 1 2 1 1H I 1— —1 1 1 Perched water ML Grayto brown silt with sand (medium stiff, 1 s s aA moist to wet) Dadabon staining e 313 a` e i Perched water 10 11 20 4B SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 8 38 5 i - SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) I i 15 3 5013' B Obstruction encountered Boring could not he advanced further; practicai refusal met Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-4 FIELD DATA Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 1 2 V m s m �, a MATERIAL o 8 w DESCRIPTION ::F REMARKS y C m a ¢� p _m � tv m rp C1 2 2 tp .o � W ❑ C d' m c V Ci C7U o �U o uU 0 GP1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot SM surface) —�1 Brown silty fine 10 medium sand with gravel (loose, moist) (fill) 18 ! 6 f 9.1 ! I I I I 20 I 49 5—ro 18 1 9 1 2 1 1H I 1— —1 1 1 Perched water ML Grayto brown silt with sand (medium stiff, 1 s s aA moist to wet) Dadabon staining e 313 a` e i Perched water 10 11 20 4B SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 8 38 5 i - SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) I i 15 3 5013' B Obstruction encountered Boring could not he advanced further; practicai refusal met Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-4 Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 1 BM LadTotal 35.8 G M E N G I N E E R S/ Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Hollow-Stem Auger Drilled 41412016 41412016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method°"ln Surface Elevation (ft) 98.02 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (Ibs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (x) 1299210.26 System WA State Plane, North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165309.34 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to ]blate�ffti Elevation ffll Not encountered Notes: ri Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R S/ Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 oft Log of Boring GEI-5 (continued) FIELD DATA Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of 2 sCL m S' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 7 m t a o ° ° c� m m a m a'N a m c w c me W O T m c U, F- U' ou�U o= 0 LL SM White to light gray silty fine to medium sand (very dense, moist) (Renton Formation 25 it-55075.5' 7 Sandstone) 10 I 30 10 5014" I h � I I 35 10 5014' 9 I. Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-5 (continued) Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R 5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of 2 Start End Total21 5 Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project Logged By SIBDriller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger DriEled 41412016 41412016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft) 75.8 Hammer Autchammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (Ibs)130 (in) Drop EquipmeRt Easting (x) 1298925.69 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165180,99 Datum NAD83 (feet) Dale k4eysured Depth to Water M) Elevation (M Not encountered Notes: Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project GM E N G l N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-7 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 1 Drilled 4141�2�Q16 Total 414 0�6 Depth (ft) 34 8 DATA ed By SJe Checked By DTM Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Method Hollow -Stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) 87.53 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299051.08 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater �; Northing (Y) 165090.91 Datum NAD83 (feet) Dale Measured Depth to Water Ifll E[evation (ft Not encountered Notes: Log of Boring GEI-7 FIELD DATA G M E N G I N E E R Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 � f Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 V n EE m $ 2 o MATERIAL o E p �; DESCRIPTION a o REMARKS y L C 2 0 _ m " w a m !^ `m N W ❑ m m C tY p M — m V F i9 � 2 (D 2 ofN (D' 0 p�p � U m e ii U D AC 2 inches asphalt concrete pavement GP \ 1.5 inch base course j Brown silty fine to coarse sand and gravel (very SM dense, moist) (fill) 5 5 5016 1 'Sampler bouncing on rock, blowcount overstated SM Brawn silty fine to medium sand with gravel 5 18 60 (very dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 10 28 O>adation staining 0 0 5013' 9 i i No recovery SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) 1D 6 MY 4 i 1 i Slow drilling 15-112 5016" 5 i, i i Rougher drilling I.' 20-114 56 6 li Becomes with occasional gravei Note: o e 5exp o Figure A-1 for explanation of m symbols. ybol Log of Boring GEI-7 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 � f Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 2 G M E N G I N E E R S� Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 sneei 2 of 2 APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers' laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to determine the moisture content, percent fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) and sieve analyses. The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. Moisture Content Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Percent Passing U.S. No. 240 Sieve (%F) Selected samples were "washed" through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages of coarse- and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the respective sample depths. GEOENG4NEER� AugusQ,2016 Page B-1 R 1 No. 2202-024-00 APPENDIX C Boring Logs from Previous Studies APPENDIX C BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES included in this section are logs from previous studies completed in the immediate vicinity of the project site: ■ The logs of four borings (GEI-8 through GEI-11) completed byGeoEngineers and presented in theValley Medical Center FY 2017 Medical Office Building Geotechnical Report dated May 6, 2016 as task two of this study. ■ The log of one boring (B-1) and eight test pits (21 through 28) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Garage project; ■ The log of one boring (13-2) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1989 for the Valley Medical Center Garage Phase II project; ■ The logs of seven borings (B-1 through B-7) completed by Terra Associates in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Office Building project; and ■ The logs of four borings (B-1 through B-4) and two hand augers (HA -1 and HA -2) completed by GeoEngineers in 2001 for the Warehouse Office Building project. August2,2016 PageC-1 GMENGINEER� Fle No. 2202 024M 51 -id Dulled 4/5/2016 Ead 4/5/2D16 /5/2 Total 21 5 Depth {ft) Logged By SIB Checked By DTM .J Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Dulling Hollow -Stem Auger Method Surface Elevation (ft) 82.72 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Ri g Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (Ibs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298995.48 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165009.65 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measuretl Depth to water fn Elevation IFtI Notes: Not encountered Log of Boring GEI-8 9 Project: Valley Medical Center- Medical Office Building Project G Eo E N G I N E S RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 1 5= Lnst Total 25.8 GEO E N G i N E E R 5 'Ogg' -'By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Drilled 4/5/2016 4/512016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Whod Surface Elevation (ft) 91.83 Hammer Autohammfr Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAV088 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299121.94 System WA State Plane,North Groun 7 i tt r Northing (Y) 165017.35 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to water fftl Elevation (ft) See remarks Notes: Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project GEO E N G i N E E R 5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 oft 21-f�n 9 15013- 1 6 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o aI REMARKS LD`m wm 45 03 l -U Log of Boring GEI-9 (continued) FIELD DATA G EQ E N G I N E S RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet2 oft a 2 y m _ m � Q C 21-f�n 9 15013- 1 6 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o aI REMARKS LD`m wm 45 03 l -U Log of Boring GEI-9 (continued) Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project G EQ E N G I N E S RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet2 oft a= fad Total 20.9 G Eo E N G I N E E R S Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hallow -Stern Auger Drilled 415!2016 4!5!2016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft) 86.23 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298928.15 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 164820.19 Datum NAD83 (feet) nate Measuretl Depth to W ater ift Elevation {ftl See remarks Notes: V{/'d VI Y I■IV V IV Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project G Eo E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 1 Drilled 4(sialt fild 415!2016 Total 26,5 Depth (ft) Logged By SJB Driller Geol lc Drill, Inc. Checked By DTM °g Drilling Methpd Hollow-5tem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 91.62 NAVD88 Hammer Data Autohammer Drilling 140 1130 (in) Drop Equipment Diedrich D50 Track Rig Easting (x) 1299044.81 System WA State Plane,North Qroundyate s Northing (Y) 1&4630.36 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to Water (ft) Elevabon (ft) Not encountered Note 5A 15 1 50 1 I II. 1 I 1 12 I W SMf Gray silty fine to medium sar dense, moist) (glacial till) 16J_J 7 15611"'1 3 1 1 1 II r i 'Sampler bourong an rock, Nowcount overstated 15-1 l 10 f 5014' I 4 1 [ 111 r Increasing gravel 20—t-0 6 I5616'I 5 Note: See Figure A-1 far explanation of symbols. Log of Boring 111 FIELD DATA Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project G EO E N G I N E E RJ //J Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 r ff Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet i of 2 2 _m s ;, o s MATERIAL o v w DESCRIPTION REMARKS } m CL 'a U N d7 O c m P 0 m �9 Q 2 aN 2 m J C m o C W ❑ m u � C7 t7 U I V U 6 AC 1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement No base course SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) 41 Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with SM 16 52 1 occasional gravel and coal fragments (very Wdabon staining dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 5A 15 1 50 1 I II. 1 I 1 12 I W SMf Gray silty fine to medium sar dense, moist) (glacial till) 16J_J 7 15611"'1 3 1 1 1 II r i 'Sampler bourong an rock, Nowcount overstated 15-1 l 10 f 5014' I 4 1 [ 111 r Increasing gravel 20—t-0 6 I5616'I 5 Note: See Figure A-1 far explanation of symbols. Log of Boring 111 Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project G EO E N G I N E E RJ //J Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 r ff Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet i of 2 G Eo E N G I N E E RS Project: Project Location: Project Number. Valley Medical Center - Renton, Washington 2202-024-00 Task 200 Medical Office Building Project Figure A-5 sneer 2 of 2 L DATE oR1LLfo: 12/23/86 SUMMARY: BORING NO. B_1 ELEVATION: TMIa {Oaa.AT a►►uaa O+{T AT V.6 koCATra■ Or TWO seal -me 600 AT TWO Tle{ Of {aKll+c y 0 �w y` TO{{V•.4C{ CONOITIO A{ 001 01►.a■ ,4T OT+ta LOCA TrO •a iaa ear ENIaO■ •f TNI{ IOEATIO+ �s ! 0 A WIT% IN@ ►iafAaa Of Tie{. INC OAT& ►{R{{+T{O is a {►SIf1CATIOr Of ACTOAI COMOIT.04S 4 'R6 g%; INCOMOTCOCK. 0113CRIPnom SYMOOL MOISTURE CONSISTENCY 5 10 soft_ 15 20 25 water level A. 2' spilt -spoon samoler Impervious seal O. 1' O.D. thin-wall somplar tr. 3-1/4' O.D. x 2- 1/2' liner f -A-Atterbero. C - Conaelld4tlaft, 03 —direct Shear, 0. 3- 112" 0.0. split barrel sampler X. sample not recovered 4 - grain six*. T - triaxial, P-.pernleaONltr plaxo/Ilatar tip PROPOSED VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GARAGE 7.7, N, Renton, Wasbington 86-35287 for-Mahlum and Nordfors Orawvt¢No. Gaatattsnleal Eng#n�elin� Converse Consultants and Applied Scloncts 0D _AZiD10PSD I;• v .mc l st loose 2 FILL 1A 1 SILTY SAND; mottled brown .& olive, SM very loose 2 fine to medium, trace coarse, some moist silt, trace gravel, occasional lumps of silt, organics, iron stain 2 medium 2A 10 color becomes olive dense 8 2 loose 3A 2 4 LACUSTRINE - SILT; mottled brown anc ML very blue -gray, trace fine sand, occ. moist organics (hard drilling @ 15') 6 scattered gravels; pockets of moist medium 4A 10 black organics stiff 31 BEDROCK - SILTY SAND; white to SM moist dense fight gray, fine to medium, some 12/26/8d 18 silt, occ. lumps of brown silt, 5A 41 poorly l ithi fied — very 50/5' dense 6A 37 50/3' Bottom of baring at depth 28.3' Piezometer installed to depth 28.3' water level A. 2' spilt -spoon samoler Impervious seal O. 1' O.D. thin-wall somplar tr. 3-1/4' O.D. x 2- 1/2' liner f -A-Atterbero. C - Conaelld4tlaft, 03 —direct Shear, 0. 3- 112" 0.0. split barrel sampler X. sample not recovered 4 - grain six*. T - triaxial, P-.pernleaONltr plaxo/Ilatar tip PROPOSED VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GARAGE 7.7, N, Renton, Wasbington 86-35287 for-Mahlum and Nordfors Orawvt¢No. Gaatattsnleal Eng#n�elin� Converse Consultants and Applied Scloncts oATz t 1/20/89 SUMMARY: BORING NO. B-2 navAnotl: Approx. 72 i ; 0 4 10 20 25 30 4 ♦�� �ytie q."o0 OV 11 TWI3 31 MMAXY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OFTNI! BORING AND ATTNE TIME OF DFAUANG. SNSURFAC11 CONOITIONS MAY DIFFEII AT OTNIA LOCATH74IND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TSML THE DATA PRESWTED !S A SIMPUFICATION OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. DESCRtr>rtOrt SYwoL 111110131 R1 Cat SVIII1 QtcY water level A. 2- 3pl'1t-spoon sampler impervious seal B. 3- O.D. tnin-wall sampler C. 1-1/4" O_Q, x 2-1/2- liner "A - Atterberg, C - =nsolidation. DS - direct shear, D_ 3-112" O.D. split barrel sampler %. sample not recovered G - grain size. T - triaxial, P - permeability piezometer tlp PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE - PHASE II Project No. Renton, Washington 86-352.87-03' for Valley Medical Center Figure No. 404 � Converse Consultants N W Geotechnical Engineering ^ and Applied SciencesG SILTY SAND (Fill); brown, fine to SM very loose 3 medium, trace coarse sand, little moist 1A 1 2 silt, trace fine roots, occasional 2 organics 26 moist dense SILTY SAND (Glacial Till); gray, SM 2A 15 fine to medium, trace coarse sand, 19 little to some silt, trace gravel 26 3A 34 - grades with gravel very 35 dense 4A 28 50/5' moist very SANDSTONE (Bedrock); light gray, 5A 50/5 fine to med- sand grains, with soft silt matrix, highly weathered slightly 6A 50/41' - grades moderately weathered moist soft Bottom of boring at depth 28 feet. No groundwater encountered, water level A. 2- 3pl'1t-spoon sampler impervious seal B. 3- O.D. tnin-wall sampler C. 1-1/4" O_Q, x 2-1/2- liner "A - Atterberg, C - =nsolidation. DS - direct shear, D_ 3-112" O.D. split barrel sampler %. sample not recovered G - grain size. T - triaxial, P - permeability piezometer tlp PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE - PHASE II Project No. Renton, Washington 86-352.87-03' for Valley Medical Center Figure No. 404 � Converse Consultants N W Geotechnical Engineering ^ and Applied SciencesG LOG OF TEST PIT NO, TP -21 Location: See Drawing I Elevatiorl: Approx. ag Surface Conditions: Sod, marshy ground NK k'U.�tll UF1 LLi i''1t.L11i.F1L LLNILA Utik,ibc Pro;eC:No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Crawin9 No Converse Consultants NW... Appilvid GaGlachnic,Eath'neofing 5cancea A-2 y u1 _ DESCRIPTION - REMARKS b y o SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, 1 some silt, few gravel, abundant organics, scattere fine roots; very moist, loose 2 SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled 3 1 gray to reddish -brown, fine to medium, trace seepage at 2' coarse, little silt, little gravel , occ. carbonize organics; moist, dense 4- 2 grades to gray -blue and very dense 5 Bottom of test pit at depth 5.0' Moderate seepage at depth 1-1/2' to 2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 NK k'U.�tll UF1 LLi i''1t.L11i.F1L LLNILA Utik,ibc Pro;eC:No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Crawin9 No Converse Consultants NW... Appilvid GaGlachnic,Eath'neofing 5cancea A-2 17-F." Surface Conditions: Sod LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -22 Elevation: Approx. 48 � V Location: See Drawing 1 17-F." Surface Conditions: Sod LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -22 Elevation: Approx. 48 PROPOSE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GAkAGE ProlectNo Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Drawing Na Converse Consultants NW ndAQPt,.eEa1h'Seieenes A-3 � V DESCRIPTIOPd REMARKS 1 Topsml FILL - SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, little s� t, trace to little gravel, occasional organics; 2 1 very moist loose occasional cobbles 3- 4- 1' diameter boulder at depth 4' 5 TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, 6- trace coarse, some silt, trace gravel, abundant organics, occasional fine roots; very moist, loose seepage at 5' GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled $ olive to reddish brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel; moist, dense occasional cobbles 2 1orades blue -gray. 9 Bottom of test pit at depth 9.0' Moderate seepage at depth 5' Completed and backfilled 12/29/85 PROPOSE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GAkAGE ProlectNo Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Drawing Na Converse Consultants NW ndAQPt,.eEa1h'Seieenes A-3 LOG OF TEST PIT NO.TP-23 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 59 Surface Conditions: Sod 4. 00 •- c o C � U CU v0 � �. cn DESCRIPTION REMARKS Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahl um TOPSOIL 1 NW ndAppliadEarthlScisn cgL-, Draw -ng No A -4- Q FILL - SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, some boulder at 11 silt, little gravel, occasional organics; very 2 1 moist, loose occasional cobbles 3 -TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, 4 some silt, trace gravel, abundant organics roots; seepage at 4' ver moist loose 5 2 GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND; mottled brown to reddish -brown, fine to medium, little silt, few to 6 3 little gravel: moist, dense grades blue -gray, and very dense occasional cobbles Bottom of test pit at depth 6.0' Moderate seepage at depth 4' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 I I. I {I { 1I I I I ' I{UF' SGU YHLLt T MLUIUAL G.' N I tK lif-IKAUL prole No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahl um and Nordfors Converse Consulants NW ndAppliadEarthlScisn cgL-, Draw -ng No A -4- Q 9 Location: See Drawing 1 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -24 Surface Conditions: Sod and bare ground Elevation: Approx. 70 4.., 4.J W REMARKS c ca ,� •r v c ro LM �, EA TOPSOIL I FILL - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel , 2 occasional organics; wet, loose to medium dense 1 3 TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, seepage at 3.5' 4 som�- a silt, few gravel s , abundant organics 5 GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND; mottled brown to caving from 5-6' 6 2 reddish -brown,, fine to medium, little to some silt, few to little gravel; very moist, medium 7 dense grades to dense 8 grades blue -gray 9 3 Bottom of test pit at depth 9.0' Heavy seepage at depth 3-1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PRUPUSED VALLtY MLOIGAL t.01tA GAKAUL pre,ecrNo Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors prawonq No Converse Consultants N W and Applied Earth Sc finers A-5 LOG OF TEST PIT N0, TP -25 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 59 Surface Conditions; Sod, marshy ground G7 w a� i r DESCRIPTION v � c N RFNARKs � U V1 1it�e SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, seepage to 2.5' to some silt, few to little gravel, abundant 2 organics, occasional fine roots; very moist to wet loose 3 SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled gray and reddish -brown, fine to medium, trace 4 coarse, some silt, little gravel; very moist, dens 5 grades blue -gray 2' dia. boulder i 6 i Bottom of test pit at depth 5.5' Heavy seepage from surface to depth 2-1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 i� PRUPU5ED V LL Y MEDICAL L i i tx UAKAba Proracrno Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Qra. ng Na Converse Consultants N W aced 4ppi •4 EarlhSciences A -C TILTY SAND; mottles brown & red -brown, f/m, trace coarse, little silt, few to little gravel; moist, 6PnsP- arades b1tie-gray, and very dense Bottom of test =_ No groundwater Completed and pit at depth 3.5' encountered backfilled 12/29/86 Project No - U t t L_ LUiLAL �A Ut 86-35287 Renton, Washington L; for Mahlum and Nordfors drdwing NO Geotechnical Engineering Converse Consultants N W end Appl!*d Earth Scienc re A-7 I� LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -26 Location; See A rox. 68 Drawing I Elevation: Approx. ` Surface Conditions: Sod DESCRIPTION REMARKS q' EE r- eo V) 7, in TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dk. brown, f/m, little to SM some silt , few gravels , abund . o_r4; wet , loose t.4 1 ML! GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILT W/SAND; streaked gray and ' i brown few to little f. sand thins bedded • stiff TILTY SAND; mottles brown & red -brown, f/m, trace coarse, little silt, few to little gravel; moist, 6PnsP- arades b1tie-gray, and very dense Bottom of test =_ No groundwater Completed and pit at depth 3.5' encountered backfilled 12/29/86 Project No - U t t L_ LUiLAL �A Ut 86-35287 Renton, Washington L; for Mahlum and Nordfors drdwing NO Geotechnical Engineering Converse Consultants N W end Appl!*d Earth Scienc re A-7 Q a) Q j r; LOG OF TEST PIT NO.TP-27 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 60 Surface Conditions: Sod F'KUY StU VH Lt f 'MEJiUAL Nroc Protect N DESCRIPTION REMARKS 86-33287 Ln a Ln and Nordfors V Converse Consultants NW Ora+ nng Na I and Applied eaIhSCene, ri LL -8 GRAVEL AND SAND FILL SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, f/m, little to seepage at .a' Some silt, few gravels, abund. ora.; wet, loose SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND; mottled brown and 1 orange, f/m, trace coarse, little to some silt, trace to few gravels; moist, medium dense grades dense occasional cobbles 21 1 grades blue-green, and very dense Bottom of test pit at depth 6.0' Light seepage at depth 1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 i F'KUY StU VH Lt f 'MEJiUAL l,r.l i tK l7 KH G Protect N Renton, Washington 86-33287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Converse Consultants NW Ora+ nng Na and Applied eaIhSCene, ri LL -8 tv -` LOG OF TEST PIT NQ.TP-28 Location: See Drawing 1 Surface Conditions: Sod Elevation: Approx. 46 REMARKS PKUVU,)LJ VALLLI M tU1l.H �.t, i tK GAkAut Project NO Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors priwing NO dpiConverse Consultants NWand Applied EarthSciences A—V DESCRIPTION [n cn � v SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dk. brown, f/m, little- to some silt, few gravel , abundant organics; very 1 moist- 1 oase _ - GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled 2 SM brown $ red -brown, f/m, tr, coarse, little silt, little gravel• moist, very dense; grades gray 3 Bottom of test pit at depth 3.0' No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 REMARKS PKUVU,)LJ VALLLI M tU1l.H �.t, i tK GAkAut Project NO Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors priwing NO dpiConverse Consultants NWand Applied EarthSciences A—V BORING NO. B-1 Logged By CRL Date 4/07/89 ELEV. 48 ± Graph CS Soil Description Depth( Sample N Blows (W) Ft. SM Grey, brown, silty fine SAND to sandy X. ML with varying .amounts of gravel, dense 50/6" 9 sieve moist to wet, very (TILL). I 5 I 50/4x, 12 10 .L 50/6" X. 15 50/4„ 13 20 50/611 5 Boring terminated at 23 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. BORING LOG TERRA Medical Office Building 11 ,.: ASSOCIATES Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Geotechnical Consultants Proj, No.T-996 Date 5189 Figure 4 BORING NO. B-2 Logged By GR' Date 4--7-89 Graph CS Soil Description SM Grey with orange stains, silty SAND, wet, medium deme. SM Grey silty SAND with varying amounts of gravel, moist to wet, very deme. (TILL) ELEV. --45±-- Depth 45}Depth (N) W (ft.} Sample Blows (} Ft. 5 10 15 11 55 1 9 1 Sieve I 1-%/6" Iia U. w Boring temar►ated at 18' below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proji. No.T--9961 Date 5/89 I Figure 5 BORING NO. B-3 Logged By , CRL Date 4-5-59 ELEV. 44± (N) w Graph CS Soil Description DF Iepth Sample Blows , I {% (3" A.C.) SM Tan -grey with orange strains silty fine to medium SAND, wet, loose to medium dense. IL4/4/89 11 21 Sieve x5 SM Grey silty SAND with varying amounts of gavel, moist to wet, very dense. (TII,L) 14 1.1- " -111 I F-- 10 ora 15 5013" 1 9 1 S: Boring te=uxated at 17.8 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 7 feet during drilling. 314 inch FVC standpipe irista17ed to bottan of boring. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants BORING LOG Medical Office Building 11 Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proj. No.T-996 Date 5189 Figure 6' BORING N4. B-4 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 42± Graph CS Soil Description D(ft �h Sample SN1 Slows W (%) Ft. PSL Brotin to brawn grey clayey SILT t,d,th organics, T wet, stiff. I s q0 1.0 tsf 5 Ic 66 SM Grey silty SAND with varying womts of gravel, 10 moist to tint, very dense. (TILL) 150/5,' 15 Passible boulder and/or cobbles encountered at 12' and 16'. 87/6' Boring terminated at 18' below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 8' during drilling. BORING LOG - TERRA Medical office Building 11 ASSOCIATES Valley Medical Center Renton Washington ,.., Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-995 Date 5/89 Figure 7 BORING NO. B-5 Logged By CRL Date 4-5-89 ELEV. 42t Graph CS Soil Description o(f�)h Sample N Blows (11/0) Ft. SM Brown silty SAND with nunerous cobbles, wet, medium dense. 16 20 r� SM Grey silty SAND i.rith varying amounts of clay and gravel, moist to wet, very dense. (TE-L) 63 13 10 = 5016' 9 Ui 15 80 Boring terminated at 19' below eG],.sting grade. No groundwater encountered during 'driLn.Q. BORING LOG TERRA Medical Office Building 11 Valley Medical Center. ASSOCIATES 9�0 Renton Washington Proj. No.T--996 Date 5189 Figure 8 Geotechnical Consultants BORING NO. B-6. Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 38:1ELEV. Graph CS Soil Description D(f .)h Sample N Blows c� ) Ft. • SM Br�a�(gyy mixed silty SAND and clayey SILT, wet, 1 • ML loose. 5 16 ML Grey -tan clayey SILT, wet, stiff. I�8qu =2.0tsE 10 : SM Grey silty SAND with varying amts of gravel I 92 and clay, wet, very dense. (TILL) 15 50/6" Boring terminated at 18.5 feet below wasting grade. Groemdieter erjcountered at 10' during drilling. BORING LOG • ' TERRA Medical Office Building Il ' -ASSOCIATES Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proi. No.T-996 Date 5/89 1 Figure 9 Geotechnical Consultants BORING NO. .13-7 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 3$±_____ Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample N Blows � �7 Ft. FILL: SM Grey brown silty SAM) with varying amom-its of gravel, moist to iet, medium dense. 414189 40 5 5 Mixed/bedded tan. SM Clayey SILT and grey silty SAND with clay, ►,et, loose to stiff. PSL I 13 24 qu 2.0 tsf 10 50/3" 12 SM Grey silty median SAND with gravel, tet, very dense. (TILL) 15 Boulder at lb'? X0/9" 18 Boring terminated at 18.7 feet below existing ng Bade. No grotm hAeter encountered during drilling. 3/4" ,standpipe installed to botun of baring. BORING LOG TERRA Medical Office Building II ' ASSOCIATES Valley Medical Center • Renton Washington prof. No.T-996 Date 5/897Figure 10 Geotechnical Consultants Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA Date Drilled 08/41101 Logged KHC Contractor Holt Drilling Drilld Hollow Stem Auger MethoSample Equipment Truck -mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig Drill Method D8M Sampler Hammer 300 Ib Data . hammer w130 inch drop X-coordinate: Not Determined Y-coordinate: Not Determined Total Depth (ft) 33 Elevation (ft) 44 Datum: Not Determined Svstem: of Determined U. a z _ Other Tests L E =�, E Material Description And z _ E M Q v, Notes a. o m c� o v 0 0SOO3 SM me sod zone FF0 Dark brown silty fine sand with gravel (medium dense moist) 100 1 12 ML Dark brown sandy silt (still; moist) (fill) 14 114 5 5 17 2 1 Becomes very soft with organic matter ML Gray sandy silt (sots to medium sti4 moist) 100 3 5 1Q 10 OL Dark gray sandy organic silt (medium still; moist) 100 4 7 0 23 99 15 15 SM Gray silty sand with organic matter (loose, moist) (root fragments) 56 5 8 20 ML Gray silt (medium stip moist) 20 100 6 8 SM Brown silty fine sand and gravel (loose, moist) Harder drilling at 25 feet 25 y 25— r SP-SM Gray tine sand with silt (very dense, moist) 4 1 00 7 5016" J i u 100 8 5014" 10 Boring completed at 33 feet on 8/01/0 1 135 Ground water encountered at 26 feet during drilling 35 Y Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols r �� 1 LOG OF BORING B-2 Li Geo 9,,Engineers FIGURE Q -a Li 9 Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA Date 08101101 Logged KHC Contractor Holt D611ing Drilled Drill Method Hollow Stam Auger Equipment Truck -mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig Drill Bit Sample Method D&M Sampler Hemmer 300 Ib Data . hammer w/ 30 inch drop X-coordinate: Not Determined Y-coordinate: Not Determined Total Depth (ft) 23.5 Elevation (ft) 36 Datum: Not etermined n System: Na Determined F LU LL oz U m c t Other Tests W z > r Material Description .� a U ! Q Arid a m CO rn y � Notes a o 0 cc � LU a SOL)3 inch sod laver ML Dark gray silt with organic with occasional tine to coarse gravel and organic matter (very soft, moist) (till) 56 1 2 14 120 5 Grades to dark brown and becomes medium stiff 5 100 2 8 SM Dark brown silty fine sand with occasional fine to coarse 100 3 3 grave] (loose, moist) (fill) 17 94 10 10 Black silty fine to medium sand with organic matter and 56 4 3 graves (loose, moist) (fill) 15 15 ML Gray sandy silt with occasional tine to coarse gravel (stiff, wet) Gravelly drilling at 16 feet 78 S 19 12 124 2a 20 Becomes hard and moist 83 6 5016" Boring completed at 23.5 feet on 8101/01 Ground water was encountered at 12 feet during drilling � 25 25 7 i J Y 3 30 —30 C i u 4 35 35 4 3 Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols J 7 r LOG OF BORING B-3 L Geo En 'veers FIGURE A-5 L :7 .-I Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA Date 08/01101 'Logged KHC Contractor Holt Drilling Drilled Drill Method Hollow Stem Auger Equipment Truck -mounted Mobile 8-58 drill rig Drill Bit Sample Method q&M Sampler Hammer 300 lb Data . hammer w130 inch drop X-coordinate: Not Determined Y-coordinate: Not Determined Total Depth (ft) 14 Elevation (ft) 41 Datum: Not Determined Svstem: Nat Determined r Lu W o z CL ; Other Tests Lu LL a z ¢ v Q�$ ro rn y Material Description .� U E a And ? T a E �, m N Notes a W w m t7 D a o SM Brown silty fine sand with organic matter (loose, moist) ASPHALT Fill to soil 3 inch asphalt concrete Davement SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) (Gll) 100 1 10 5 ML 5 Gray sandy silt (medium stif, moist) 100 2 6 28 91 100 3 26 Becomes very stili 10-10 100 4 53 Becomes hard Boring completed at 14 feet on 8/01 /01 15 No ground water encountered during drilling 15 20 20 25 25 V Y b �a 3❑ 30 i OL OL c� 35 o Dote: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols J U Z mel LOG OF BORING B-4 Cez GeoEngineers FIGURE A -s iD LD Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA LOG OF HAND AUGER HA -1 Date Excavated: 8/1/01 Logged by: KHC Equipment: Hanoi Equipment_ Surface Elevation (ft): 46 W z d� CL Other Tests w Material Description a:a S'F $ a z N N $ Notes a W m c7 � 8 a tat] 00 Brown silty sand with grave (loose to tum dense. f moist) (fill) 2 :_'•:.. Obstruction encountered (possibly rocks/cobbles) Hand auger completed at 4.5 feet on 8102101 5 No ground water seepage observed 5 No caving observed Notes; The depths of the hand auger logs are based on an average of measurements across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. LOG OF HAND AUGER HA -2 Date Excavated: 8/1/01 Logged by: KHC Equipment: Hand Equipment Surface Elevation (ft): 38 W CL z a fl o-- 02 i N� Other Tests z _ Material Description 0 And i 7 E co E a t o Notes h 0O � So Payer 0 ML Dark brown sandy silt with gravel and/or silty sand with gravel (soft, moist) (fill) 1 —,.Asphalt debris encountered Hand auger completed at 2 feet on 8102101 3 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed 7 i 7 i 'u L 7 Notes: The depths of the hand auger logs are based on an average of measurements across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. n J LOG OF HAND AUGER i Engineers FIGURE A-7 Geo ��� APPENDIX D Ground Anchor Load Tests and Shoring Monitoring Program APPENDIX D GROUND ANCHOR LOAD TESTS AND SHORING MONITORING PROGRAM Ground Anchor Load Testing The locations of the load tests shall be approved by the Engineer and shall be representative of the field conditions. Load tests shall not be performed until the tieback grout has attained at least 50 percent of the specified 28 -day compressive strengths. Where temporary casing of the unbonded length of test tiebacks is provided, the casing shall be installed to prevent interaction between the bonded length of the tieback and the casing/testing apparatus. The testing equipment small include two dial gauges accurate to 0.001 inch, a dial gauge support, a calibrated jack and pressure gauge, a pump and the load test reaction frame. The dial gauge should be aligned within 5 degrees of the longitudinal nail/tieback axis and shall be supported independently from the load frame/jack and the shoring wall. The hydraulic jack, pressure gauge and pump shall be used to apply and measure the test loads. The jack and pressure gauge shall be calibrated by an independent testing laboratory as a unit. The pressure gauge shall be graduated in 100 pounds per square inch (psi) increments or less and shall have a range not exceeding twice the anticipated maximum pressure during testing unless approved by the Engineer. The ram travel of the jack shall be sufficient to enable the test to be performed without repositioning the jack. The jack shall be supported independently and centered over the tieback so that the tieback does not carry the weight of the jack. The jack, bearing plates and stressing anchorage shall be aligned with the tieback The initial position of the jack shall be such that repositioning of the jack is not necessary during the load test. The reaction frame should be designed/sized such that excessive deflection of the test apparatus does not occur and that the testing apparatus does not need to be repositioned during the load test. If the reaction frame bears directly on the shoring wall facing, the reaction frame should be designed so as notto damage the facing. Verification Tests Prior to production tieback installation, at least two tiebacks for each soil type shall be tested to validate the design pulloutvalue. All test tiebacks shall be installed bythe same methods, personnel, material and equipment as the production anchors. Changes in methods, personnel, material or equipment may require additional verification testing as determined bythe Engineer. At leasttwo successful verification tests shall be performed for each installation method and each soil type. The tiebacks used for the verification tests may be used as production tiebacks if approved by the Engineer. GEoENGINEERS August2,2016 Pages -1 File No. 2202-024-00 The allowable tieback load should not exceed 80 percent of the steel ultimate strength. Tieback design test loads should be the design load specified on the shoring drawings. Verification test tiebacks shall be incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the following schedule: Load Holl Time Alignment Load 1 minute 025 Design Load (DL) 1 minute 0.5DL 1 minute 0.75DL 1 minute 1.ODL 1 minute 1.25DL 1 minute 1.5DL 60 minutes 1.75DL 1 minute 2.ODL 10 minutes The alignment load shall be the minimum load required to align the testing apparatus and should not exceed 5 percent of the design load. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the alignment load is applied. Nail/tieback deflections during the 1.5 Design Load (DL) test load shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 60 minutes. Proof Tests Proof tests shall be completed on each production tieback. The allowable tieback load should notexceed 80 percent of the steel ultimate strength. Tieback design test loads should be the design load specified on the shoring drawings. Proof tiebacks shall be incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the following schedule: Load Holl Time Alignment Load 1 minute 0.25 Design Load (DL) 1 minute O.5DL 1 minute 0.75DL 1 minute 1.ODL 1 minute 1.33DL 10 minutes The alignment load shall be the minimum load required to align the testing apparatus and should not exceed 5 percent of the design load. The dial gauge should be zeroed after the alignment load is applied. Nail/tieback deflections duringthe 1.33DL and 1.5DL test loads shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 minutes. Depending upon the tieback deflection performance, the load hold period at 1.33DL (tiebacks) may be increased to 60 minutes. Tieback movement shall be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 minutes. Ifthe tieback deflection between 1 and 10 minutes is greater than 0.04 inches, the 1.33DL load shall be continued to be held for a total of 60 minutes and deflections recorded at 20, 30, 50 and 60 minutes. GEOENGINEERS� August2,2016 Pagel) -2 Rte No. M2-024 )) Test Nail/Tieback Acceptance A test tieback shall be considered acceptable when: 1. For verification tests, a tieback is considered acceptable if the creep rate is less than 0.08 inches per log cycle of time between 6 and 60 minutes and the creep rate is linear or decreasing throughout the creep test load hold period. 2. For proof tests, a tieback is considered acceptable if the creep rate is less than 0.04 inches per log cycle of time between 1 and 10 minutes or the creep rate is less than 0.08 inches per log cycle of time between 6 and 60 minutes, and the creep rate is linear or decreasing throughout the creep test load hold period. 3. The total movement at the maximum test load exceeds 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation of the unbonded length. 4. Pullout failure does not occur. Pullout failure is defined as the load at which continued attempts to increase the test load result in continued pullout of the test nail/tieback. Acceptable proof -test tiebacks may be incorporated as production tiebacks provided that the unbonded test length of the tieback hole has not collapsed and the test tieback length and number of strands are equal to or greater than the scheduled production tieback atthe test location. Test tiebacks meeting these criteria shall be completed by grouting the unbonded length. Maintenance of the temporary unbonded length for subsequent grouting is the contractor's responsibility. The Engineershall evaluate theverification test results. Tieback installation techniques that do notsatisfy the tieback testing requirements shall be considered inadequate. I n this case, the contractor shall propose alternative methods and install replacement verification tiebacks. Shoring Monitoring Preconstructio n Survey A shoring monitoring program should be established to monitor the performance of the temporary and/or permanent shoring walls and to provide early detection of deflections that could potentially damage nearby improvements. We recommend that a preconstruction survey of adjacent improvements, such as streets, retaining walls, utilities and buildings, be performed prior to commencing construction. The preconstruction survey should include a video or photographic survey of the condition of existing improvements to establish the preconstruction condition, with special attention to existing cracks in streets, retaining walls or buildings. Optical Survey The shoring monitoring program should include an optical survey monitoring program. The recommended frequency of monitoring should vary as a function of the stage of construction as presented in the following table. GEoENGINEERS August2,2016 PageD-3 File No. 2202.024.00 Construction Stage Monitoring Frequency Dud ng excavation and until wall movements have stabilized Twice weekly During excavation if lateral wall movements exceed 1 inch and until wall Three times per week movements have stabilized Afterexcavation is complete and wall movements have stabilized,and before Twice monthly the floorsofthe buildingreach thetopof the excavation Monitoring should include vertical and horizontal survey measurements accurate to at least 0.01 feet. A baseline readingof the monitoring points should be completed prior to beginning excavation. The survey data should be provided to GeoEngineers for review within 24 hours. For shoring walls, we recommend that optical survey points be established: (1) along the top of the shoring walls and (2) on existing buildings located within a horizontal distance of the shoring walls equal to the height of the wall. The survey points should be located on every other soldier pile along the wall face for soldier pile and tieback shoring and the points along the existing buildings should be located at an approximate spacing of 20 feet. If lateral wall movements are observed to be in excess of 112 inch between successive readings or if total wall movements exceed 1 inch, construction of the shoring walls should be stopped to determine the cause of the movement and to establish the type and extent of remedial measures required. GEOENGINEERS August2, 2016 Page D4 File No 7202-Wd-N) APPENOIx E Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use APPENDIX E REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE' This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center (VMC) and other project team members for the VMG FY 2017 Parking Garage Project. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures ourservices to meetthe specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Is Based on a Unique Set of Project -specific Factors This report has been prepared for the VMC FY 2017 Parking Garage Project in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, ■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or ■ completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect ■ the function of the proposed structure; ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; 1 Developed based on material provided by GBA, GeoProfessional Business Association; www.geoprofessional.org. GEOENGINEERS August2,201.6 Page&l File No. 2?07-324 CO ■ composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the studywas performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions onlyatthose points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should notbe construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineeringor geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. GEcENGINEERS� August2,2016 PageE-2 Rle No. 2202-02400 Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boringand testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reducesuch risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. GEOENGINEERS� August2,2016 PageE-3 F1 i e No. 2202-024 o0 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. GWENGINEER� August2, 2016 Page E 4 Fie No. 2202-024-00 Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www.geoengineers.com/feedback. GMENGINEER� Geotechnical Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Medical Off ice Building Renton, Washington for Valley Medical Center September 16, 2016 GEOENGINEERS� 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnical Engineering Services Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Proposed Medical Office Building Renton, Washington Prepared for: Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton, Washington 98005 Attention: Becky Hardi Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Daniel P. Ciani, PE S for Geotechnical Engineer /Shaun D. Stauffe%LP Principal DTXDPC:5D5:nld File No. 2202-02400 September 16, 2016 I:. S r4 VA y O 332504 w� oIsr 1 St�NAL0 [ ��l•jo Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile a hard copy of the original document(email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record, GWENGINEER� Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................1 FieldExplorations.................................................................................................................................. 1 LaboratoryTesting.................................................................................................................................1 PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS....................................................................................................................1 SITECONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................2 RegionalGeology................................................................................................................................... 2 SurfaceConditions................................................................................................................................. 2 SubsurfaceConditions.......................................................................................................................... 2 Fill..................................................................................................................................................... 2 GlaciallyConsolidated Soils............................................................................................................ 3 SandstoneBedrock.............................................------..............................................................3 GroundwaterConditions........................................................................................................................ 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................3 EarthquakeEngineering........................................................................................................................4 Liquefaction..................................................................................................................................... 4 LateralSpreading............................................................................................................................4 SurfaceRupture........................................................................................•-----.................---------------4 OtherSeismic Hazards...................................................................................................................4 2012 IBC Seismic Design Information..........................................................................................4 Excavations..............................................................•---................................................................ ExcavationConsiderations............................................................................................................. 5 TemporaryCut Slopes........................•--.--•-----.--•.............................................................................5 ShallowFoundations................................................................................................................ Allowable Bearing Pressure............................................................................................................ 6 Settlement....................................................................................................................................... 7 LateralResistance.......................................................................................................................... 7 Construction Considerations..........................................................................................................7 Slab -on -Grade Floors......................................................................•-.--------------.....................................7 SubgradePreparation..................................................................................................................... 7 DesignParameters......................................................................................................................... 8 Below -Slab Drainage....................................................................................................................... S Below -Grade Walls.................................................................................................................................9 OtherCast -in -Place Wails............................................................................................................... 9 Drainage.........................................................................................................................•---...........10 Earthwork..........................................................••-------..........................................................................10 Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing .............................................. ................................................... 10 Erosion and Sedimentation Control.............................................................................................10 SubgradePreparation...................................................................................................................11 StructuralFill ....................... ................................................................................................ .......... 11 GMENGINEERS� September 16. 2016 Page i FilaW 2202-074-00 Table of Contents (continued) PermanentSlopes.........................................................................................................................13 PavementDesign.................................................................................................................................13 SubgradePreparation...................................................................................................................13 NewHot -Mix Asphalt Pavement...................................................................................................14 Infiltration.............................................................................................................................................14 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services .............................................................................15 LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................................................................15 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1- Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 through A-5 Boring Logs Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Figure B-1 - Sieve Analysis Results Appendix C. Boring Logs from Previous Studies Appendix D. Report Limitations and Guidelines GEoENGINEERS ra�j September 16, 2016 Page ii FIle N, 2202-424 UO INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services for the Valley Medical Center (VMC) Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Medical Office Building project in Renton, Washington. The site is trapezoidal in shape and is located in the northern portion of the VMC campus at 400 South 43,d Street. The site is bordered to the west by an existing medical office building, to the north by a VMC campus access road off Talbot Road South, to the east by a parking lot and to the south by the VMC. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the planned medical office building development. GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services have been completed in general accordance with our signed agreement executed on March 21, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GeoEngineers understands that Medical Office Building project will consist of up to eight levels above -grade and the ground floor will be at or partially below -grade. Based on our understanding of the project, temporary slope cuts along the perimeter of the proposed building will be sufficient to complete the excavation. Variable soil conditions are present at the anticipated foundation elevation; therefore, shallow foundations bearing on native or structural fill are anticipated for foundation support. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling four borings, GEI-8 through GEI-11, to depths of approximately 21 to 261/2 feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Descriptions of the field exploration program and the boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples were obtained during drilling and were taken to GeoEngineers' laboratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for soil moisture content, the determination of fines content and grain -size distribution (sieve analysis). A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. PREVIOUS SITE EVALUATIONS In addition to the explorations completed as part of this evaluation, the logs of selected explorations from previous site evaluations in the project vicinity were reviewed. The logs of explorations from previous projects referenced for this study are presented in Appendix C. GEoENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 1 F;e Sc. 2202-024-00 SITE CONDITIONS Regional Geology Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes a geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle (Mullineaux 1965). The geologic map of the project area identifies subsurface soils to consist primarily of glacial till deposits of the Vashon Drift. Also mapped in the area are Renton Formation sandstone with interbeds of siltstone, claystone and coal. Glacial till typically consists of a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, cobbles and occasional boulders in a silt and clay matrix that was deposited beneath a glacier. Because glacial till has been overridden by thousands of feet of ice, it is typically dense to very dense. Renton Formation sandstone consists of irregularly cemented arkosic sandstone, mudstone and shale and locally contains coal deposits. Geologic map notes maximum thicknesses of approximately 2,500 feet. Subsurface soils encountered in our explorations are consistent with the geologic mapping. Specific details of subsurface conditions encountered in the field explorations are presented in the "Subsurface Conditions" section below. Surface Conditions The site is currently occupied by asphalt surface parking, landscaped parking islands and several mature coniferous and deciduous trees. The site steps down from east to west, with a total change in elevation of approximately 9 feet. Generally, the site appears to be clear of public utilities. The utilities on site consist of private stormwater and power for the parking lot lights. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by completing four geotechnical borings (GEI-8 through GEI-11) for the current study, and reviewing logs of explorations completed by GeoEngineers immediately adjacentto the projectsite as part of the proposed parking garage as well as other explorations by others in the project vicinity. The approximate locations of the explorations in the site vicinity are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The soil units encountered in the explorations consist of fill, glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock, as described below. Asphalt concrete pavement was encountered at the ground surface at each boring location and ranged in thickness from 11/2 to 3 inches. The asphalt concrete pavement was underlain with up to 51/2 inches of base course consisting of crushed gravel, where encountered. Flll Fill was encountered below the asphalt pavement in the explorations completed for this study and previous studies. The fill typically consists of loose to medium dense silty sand with variable gravel content and extends to depths ranging from 1/2 to 91/2 feet below existing site grades. The deepest fill, approximately 91/2 feet, was encountered in boring GEI-10. The other borings in the building footprint (GEI-8, GEI-9, and GEI-11) encountered shallow fill up to 2 feet thick. GEoENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 2 =Hl No. 7tW 074 -Ill] Glacially Consolidated Soils The glacially consolidated soils encountered below the fill consist of weathered and unweathered glacial till. The glacial till encountered consists of silty sand or sandy silt with variable gravel content. A dense to very dense weathered zone near the surface transitions to the dense to very dense/hard unweathered glacial till below. The transition between weathered and unweathered glacial till was observed at depths ranging from approximately 5 to 9 feet below site grades. Glacial till extended approximately 201/2 feet below site grades in boring GEI-10 and to the depths explored in borings GEI-8, GEI-9 and GEI-11. Sandstone Bedrock Sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation) was encountered below the glacially consolidated soils in boring GEI-10 and consists of very dense cemented silty sand with occasional coal deposits. Where encountered, the Renton formation extended to the depths explored. Groundwater Conditions Perched water was encountered at various depths in borings GEI-9 and GEI-10. The groundwater observed in GEI-10 was confined to wet, medium dense soils overlying dense to very dense soils with relatively high fines content. The perched groundwater encountered is likely associated with seasonal rainfall. Perched groundwater is expected to fluctuate as a result of season, precipitation, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. ■ The site is designated as Site Class C per ASCE/SEI 7-10 and the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). ■ The groundwater table is likely well below the base of the excavation. Minor seepage inflows may be expected where excavations intercept perched groundwater zones. We estimate flow rates from incidental seepage may be on the order of 5 to 10 gallons per minute (gpm). ■ Temporary excavations may be completed with temporary open cuts. ■ Shallow foundations may be used and shall bear on either dense to very dense/hard glacial till, on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense/hard glacial till, or on a 2 -foot -thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly weathered glacial soils: ■ For shallow foundations bearing directly on dense to very dense/hard glacial till, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 10 kips per square foot (ksf) may be used. ■ For shallow foundations bearing on structural fill extending down to dense to very dense/hard glacial till, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. • For shallow foundations bearing on a 2 -foot -thick layer of structural fill placed over the existing fill and highly weathered glacial soils, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used. GEOENGINEEAS� September 16, 2016 Page 3 File Nu. 2202-024-00 ■ The majority of the on-site soils generally contain a high percentage of fines and are highly moisture - sensitive. The on-site soils may be used as structural fill during dry weather conditions only (typically June through September) provided the soils are properly moisture conditioned for compaction. Imported granular soils with a low percentage of fines should be used as structural fill during wet weather conditions and during the wet season (typically October through May). Our specific geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report. Earthquake Engineering Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to the condition by which vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils with subsequent loss of strength. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include very loose to medium dense, clean to silty sands that are below the water table. Our analysis indicates that the soils that underlie the proposed building area have a low risk of liquefying because of the density and gradation of these soils. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as the underlying soil layer liquefies. Because the buildings will bear on non -liquefiable soils, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be low for the project site. Surface Rupture The Renton Formation has many small faults with generally low displacement (Mullineaux, 1965). However, the nearest mapped fault, the Sunbeam fault is approximately 1/2 mile north of the site. Based on the distance to this known fault zone, and lack of other known fault zones near the site, it is our opinion that there is a low to moderate risk of surface rupture at the site. Other Seismic Hazards Due to the location of the site and the site's topography, the risk of adverse impacts resulting from seismically induced slope instability and differential settlement is considered to be low. 2012 IBC Seismic Design Information The following 2012 IBC parameters for site class, short period spectral response acceleration (Ss), 1 -second period spectral response acceleration (Si) and seismic coefficients (FA and Fv) are appropriate for the project site. TABLE 1. 2012 IBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2012 11113C Parameter Site Class Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss (percent g) 1 -Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Sl (percent g) Seismic Coefficient, FA Seismic Coefficient, Fv GWENGINEER� Recommended Value C 140.7 52.4 1.0 1.3 September 16, 2016 Page 4 Fie Na 2202.021 00 Excavations We understand that the ground floor of the planned building will beat or partially below grade and that the excavations may extend up to 4 feet below site grades for foundation installation. Temporary cut slopes may be used for shallow excavations or where there is sufficient space to complete cut slopes. The following sections provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for temporary cut slopes. Excavation Considerations The site soils may be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers. It may be necessary to rip the glacially consolidated soils locally to facilitate excavation. The contractor should be prepared for occasional cobbles and boulders in the site soils. Likewise, the surficial fill may contain foundation elements and/or utilities from previous site development, debris, rubble and/or cobbles and boulders. We recommend that procedures be identified in the project specifications for measurement and payment of work associated with obstructions. Temporary Cut Slopes Temporary slopes may be used around the site where space allows. We recommend that temporary slopes constructed in the fill be inclined at 11/21-11:1V (horizontal to vertical) and that temporary slopes in the glacially consolidated soils be inclined at 1H:1V. Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that: ■ no traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut; i exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic sheeting; ■ construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ surface water be diverted away from the slope; and ■ the general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability. Because the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Temporary slopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. Shallow Foundations Subgrade soils at foundation elevation level for the project will be dependent on the depth of excavation and the finish floor elevation. The soils at the anticipated foundation elevation vary across the site and may consist of existingfill or glacially consolidated soils, as such, the bearing capacity and subgrade preparation will vary. Where foundations bear on competent glacially consolidated soils a high allowable bearing capacity value can be used. Where fill is present at foundation subgrade elevation, a lower allowable bearing capacity should be used. GEOENGINEER� September 16,2016 Pages Fele Na. 2202 024 00 Once the lowest finish floor elevations have been established for the project, the type/location of foundation elements should be reviewed by GeoEngineers with the project team. Additional explorations can be completed to reduce uncertainty with regards to extent of overexcavation. More detail regarding recommended subgrade preparation and allowable bearing pressures for shallow foundations are presented below. Allowable Bearing Pressure We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 10 ksf for mat foundations and isolated spread footing foundations bearing on the dense to very dense/hard glacially consolidated soils. For foundations bearing on properly compacted structural fill extended down to dense to very dense/hard glacially consolidated soils, an allowable bearing pressure of 6 ksf may be used. The estimated depth to the dense to very dense/hard glacially consolidated soils are summarized in Table 3. TABLE 2. ESTIMATED DEPTH TO DENSE TO VERY DENSE/HARD GLACIALLY CONSOLIDATED SOILS FOR FOUNDATION SUPPORT Approximate Depth to Competent Glacially Consolidated Soils Exploration Number (feet) GEIS 1 G EI -9 3 G E I-10 10 G E I-11 2 Notes: 'Depth below existing ground surface Where foundations are planned to bear on existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils (elevations higher than shown in Table 2), we recommend a minimum of 2 feet be overexcavated below the foundation elevation and replaced with compacted structural fill. Existing fill or highly weathered glacial soils will still remain for this condition; therefore, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf be used. The zone of structural fill below the foundation should extend beyond the faces of the footing a distance at least equal to the thickness of the structural fill. The zone of structural fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. If loose existingfill is encountered, further overexcavation may be necessary. The allowable soil bearing pressures provided above apply to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by up to one-third for wind or seismic loads. The allowable soil bearing pressures are net values. We recommend that conventional shallow foundations be a minimum of 36 inches wide and continuous wall footings be a minimum of 16 inches wide. Exterior footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Interior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below top of slab. GEoENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 6 Fle No_ 2201 024 00 Settlement Provided that all loose soil is removed and that the subgrade is prepared as recommended under "Construction Considerations" below, we estimate that the total settlement of shallow foundations will be about 1 inch or less. The settlements will occur rapidly, essentially as loads are applied. Differential settlements between footings could be half of the total settlement. Note that smaller settlements will result from lower applied loads. Lateral Resistance Lateral foundation loads may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of footings and by friction on the base of the shallow foundations. For shallow foundations supported on native soils or structural fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead -load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 390 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (triangular distribution). This value is appropriate for foundation elements that are poured directly against undisturbed glacial till or surrounded by structural fill. The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element for a distance of at least equal to 21/2 times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. Construction Considerations We recommend that the condition of all subgrade areas be observed by GeoEngineers to evaluate whether the work is completed in accordance with our recommendations and whether the subsurface conditions are as anticipated. If foundation construction is completed during periods of wet weather, foundation subgrades are recommended to be protected with a rat slab consisting of 2 to 4 inches of lean or structural concrete. If soft areas are present at the footing subgrade elevation, the soft areas should be removed and replaced with lean concrete or structural fill at the direction of GeoEngineers. We recommend that the contractor consider leaving the subgrade for the foundations as much as 6 to 12 inches high, depending on soil and weather conditions, until excavation to final subgrade is required for foundation reinforcement. Leaving subgrade high will help reduce damage to the subgrade resulting from construction traffic for other activities. Slab -on -Grade Floors Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade should be evaluated after site grading is complete. Proof -rolling with heavy, rubber -tired construction equipment should be used for this purpose during dry weather and if access for this equipment is practical. Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather or if access is not feasible for construction equipment. The exposed soil should be firm and unyielding, and GEOENGINEER September 16, 2016 Page 7 File No. 7207-071-00 without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if possible or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The site should be rough graded to approximately 1 foot above slab subgrade elevation prior to foundation construction in order to protect the slab subgrade soils from deterioration from wet weather or construction traffic. After the foundations have been constructed, the remaining soils can be removed to final subgrade elevation followed by immediate placement of the capillary break material. In areas were existing fill is present below buildings, the existing soil may be left in place below the slab provided the slab is founded on at least 1 foot of structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the MDD in accordance with ASTM D1557. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 1 -foot -thick layer of structural fill. Design Parameters Conventional slabs may be supported on -grade, provided the subgrade soils are prepared as recommended in the "Subgrade Preparation" section above. For slabs designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for slabs supported on glacial till. For slabs supported on a 1 -foot layer of structural fill overlying existing fill soils, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci. We recommend that the slab -on -grade floors be underlain by a 6 -inch -thick capillary break consisting of 11/2 -inch minus clean crushed gravel with negligible sand orsilt meetingthe requirements Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specification 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 or Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (3/a -inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. Provided that loose soil is removed and the subgrade is prepared as recommended, we estimate that slabs -on -grade will not settle appreciably. Below -Slab Drainage We expect the static groundwater level to be located well below the slab -on -grade level for the proposed building; however perched groundwater may be present above the slab subgrade elevation. We recommend installing an underslab drainage system to remove water from below the slabs -on -grade. The underslab drainage system should include an interior perimeter drain and one or more longitudinal drains with transverse pipes placed ata nominal spacing of 20 feet. The location of the longitudinal drain(s) will depend on the foundation and below -grade structure design and may need to be modified to two or more transverse drains or drains located behind interior cast -in-place walls. The civil engineer should develop a conceptual foundation drainage plan for GeoEngineers to review. The drains should consist of perforated Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes with a minimum diameter of 4 inches placed in a trench at least 12 inches deep. The top of the underslab drainage system trenches should coincide with the base of the capillary break layer. The underslab drainage system pipes should have adequate slope to allow positive drainage to the sump/gravity drain. The drainage pipe should be perforated. Perforated pipe should have two rows of 1/2 -inch holes spaced 120 degrees apart and at 4 inches on center. The underslab drainage system trenches should be backfilled with Mineral Aggregate Type 22 or Type 5 (1 -inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard GEOENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 8 We No 2202-024.00 Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDDT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDDT) Standard Specification 9-33. The underslab drainage system pipes should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. The flow rate for the planned excavation in the below -slab drainage and below -grade wall drainage systems is anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 10 gpm. If no special waterproofing measures are taken, leaks and/or seepage may occur in localized areas of the below -grade portion of the building, even if the recommended wall drainage and below -slab drainage provisions are constructed. If leaks or seepage is undesirable, below -grade waterproofing should be specified. A vapor barrier should be used below slab -on -grade floors located in occupied portions of the building. Specification of the vapor barrier requires consideration of the performance expectations of the occupied space, the type of flooring planned and other factors, and is typically completed by other members of the project team. If partial below -grade waterproofing is specified (for instance, for elevator pits), the waterproofing should emend to at least the elevation of the lowest finished floor so that the waterproofing will be located above the elevation where foundation drainage is provided. Below -Grade Wafts Other Cast -In -Place Walls Conventional cast -in-place walls may be necessary for small retaining structures located on-site or where temporary open cuts are used for excavation support. The lateral soil pressures acting on conventional cast -in-place subsurface walls will depend on the nature, density and configuration of the soil behind the wall and the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Assuming that the walls are backfilled and drainage is provided as outlined in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (triangular distribution), while non -yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf (triangular distribution). For seismic loading conditions, a rectangular earth pressure equal to 14H pounds per square foot (psf) (where H is the height of the wall in feet) should be added to the active/at-rest pressures. A traffic surcharge pressure of 70 psf should also be included in the design, as appropriate. Other surcharge loading should be applied as appropriate using the recommendations provided in Figure 5. We recommend that below -grade wall or other retaining wall foundations be designed using the foundation recommendations provided above under "Shallow Foundations." For retaining walls independent of building structures (grade -transition walls), the retaining wall footings may be supported on 2 feet of structural fill placed over the existing fill soils. The upper foot of existing fill should also be recompacted to a firm condition prior to placement of the 2 -foot -thick layer of structural fill. An allowable bearing pressure of 3 ksf may be used for this foundation support condition. GMENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 9 ReNo 2202.024.00 Lateral resistance for conventional cast -in-place walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall. For walls founded on native soils or structural fill, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead -load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid densities of 390 pcf (triangular distribution). The allowable passive resistance for structural fill assumes that the structural fill extends out from the face of the foundation element far a distance of at least equal to 21/2 times the height of the element and is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as discussed below. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided behind cast -in-place retaining walls by placing a minimum 2 -foot -wide zone of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that the percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve is to be less than 3 percent. Alternatively, the 2 -foot -wide zone of material may consist of gravel backfill for walls in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(2). A perforated drainpipe should be placed near the base of the retaining wall to provide drainage. The drainpipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (3/a -inch crushed gravel) or Type 5 (1 -inch washed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or gravel backfill for drains in conformance with WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4). The material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The wall drainpipe should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger -diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. Earthwork Stripping, Clearing and Grubbing We recommend that all new pavement and structure areas be stripped of existing pavements, concrete and vegetation in landscape areas. The asphalt pavement thickness in the project area is generally between 11/2 and 3 inches of asphalt concrete as encountered in the borings. The stripped organic soil from the landscape areas may be stockpiled for later use as topsoil for landscaping purposes. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing, and weather. The project's impact on erosion -prone areascan be reduced by impiementingan erosion and sedimentation control plan. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable City and/or county standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles including. ■ scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure; ■ retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible; GEOENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 10 File No 2202-024-00 ■ revegetating or mulching denuded areas; ■ directing runoff away from denuded areas; ■ minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils; ■ decreasing runoff velocities; ■ confining sediment to the project site; ■ inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently; ■ covering soil stockpiles; and ■ implementing proper erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce the potential for erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas. Temporary erosion protection should include the construction of a silt fence around the perimeter of the work area prior to the commencement of grading activities. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by reestablishing vegetation using hydroseeding and/or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and repair and/or modify there as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade in structure and hardscape areas should be evaluated after site excavation is complete. Disturbed areas below slabs and foundations should be recompacted if the subgrade soil consists of granular material. If the subgrade soils consist of disturbed soils, it will likely be necessary to remove and replace the disturbed soil with structural fill unless the soil can be adequately moisture - conditioned and compacted. Structural Fill Fill placed to support structures, placed behind retaining structures, and placed below pavements and sidewalks will need to be specified as structural fill as described below: a Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas and below foundations should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3). Common borrow is only suitable for use during dry weather. If fill is placed during wet weather, WSDOT gravel borrow should be used, as described in Section 9-03.14(1). ■ Structural fill placed as capillary break material should meet the requirements of Type 22 (3/a -inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.1(4)C, grading No. 57 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (11/cinch minus crushed gravel). ■ Structural fill placed behind retaining walls should meetthe requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or WSDOT gravel backfill for walls Section 9-03.12(2), GEOENGINEER September 16, 2016 Page 11 File No. 2202.024-00 ■ Structural fill placed around perimeter footing drains, underslab drains and cast -in-place wall drains should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 5 (1 -inch washed gravel) or Type 22 (3/4 -inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.1.6, or WSDOT gravel backfill for drains Section 9-03.12(4). ■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (11/4 -inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, or Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. On-site Soils The on-site soils are moisture -sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. As a result, the on-site soils will likely require moisture conditioning in order to meet the required compaction criteria during dry weather conditions and will not be suitable for reuse during wet weather. Furthermore, most of the fill soils required for the project have specific gradation requirements, and the on-site soils do not meetthese gradation requirements. If the contractor wants to use on-site soils for structural fill, GeoEngineers can evaluate the on-site soils for suitability as structural fill, as required. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non -yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: ■ Structural fill placed in building areas (supporting or adjacent to foundations or slab -on -grade floors) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. ■ Structural fill placed within 10 feet of the back of subgrade and retaining walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of the MDD. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid over -compaction and hence overstressing the walls. Structural fill beyond this SO -foot zone should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. ■ Structural fill in new pavement and roadway areas, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD, except that the upper 2 feet of fill below final subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. w Structural fill placed as crushed rock base course below pavements should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present during probing of the exposed subgrade soils in building and pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture -density tests in the fill to verify compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. GEoENGINEER� September 16, 2016 Page 12 Fiic Ion. 7 7 111 -117 1 -CO Weather Considerations The on-site soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay) to be moisture -sensitive. When the moisture content of these soils is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, these soils become muddy and unstable, and operation of equipment on these soils is difficult. Additionally, disturbance of near -surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather. During wet weather, we recommend that: ■ The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed away from the work area. The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do not develop. The contractor should take measures to prevent surface water from collecting in excavations and trenches. Measures should be implemented to remove surface water from the work area. ■ Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means. ■ The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by rolling with a smooth -drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these soils become wet or unstable. ■ Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance. ■ Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practicable. Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly (1 to 2 feet) and subsequently cut back to expose properly compacted fill. We recommend that the finished slope faces be compacted by track walking with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track grouser marks help provide an erosion -resistant slope texture. To reduce erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Until the vegetation is established, some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as clear heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior or straw/coconut matting, should be used to protect the slopes during periods of rainfall. Pavement Design Subgrade Preparation We recommend that the subgrade soils in new pavement areas be prepared and evaluated as described in the "Earthwork" section of this report. We recommend that the subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD per ASTM D 1557 prior to placing pavement section materials. If the subgrade soils are loose or soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. A layer of suitable woven geotextile fabric may be placed over soft subgrade areas to limit the thickness of structural fill required to bridge soft, yielding areas. The depth of overexcavation or fabric placement should be evaluated by GeoEngineers during construction. GEoENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 13 File No. 2202.024-00 New Hot -Mix Asphalt Pavement In light-duty pavement areas (e.g., automobile parking), we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 2 -inch thickness of 1/2 -inch HMA (PG 58-22) per WSDOT Sections 5-04 and 9-03, over a 4 -inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock Mase course per WSDOT Section 9-03.9(3). In heavy-duty pavement areas (e.g., truck traffic areas, materials delivery, forklifts) around the building, we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 4 -inch thickness of 1f2 -inch HMA (PG 58-22) over a 6 -inch thickness of densely compacted crushed rock base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). We recommend that a proof -roll of the compacted base course be observed by a representative from our firm prior to paving. Soft or yielding areas observed during proof -rolling may require over -excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill. The pavement sections recommended above are based on our experience. Thicker asphalt sections may be needed based on the actual subgrade conditions, traffic data and intended use. Infiltration In the northern portion of the proposed MOB building footprint, native glacially consolidated soils and sandstone bedrock were encountered and consisted of dense to very dense silty sand and gravel with varying silt content. In the southern portion, mainly near GEI-10, fill overlies the glacially consolidated soils. The fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sand. The fill contains a significant portion of fines. The glacially consolidated soils are compact and contain a significant percentage of fines, which limits the infiltration capacity. Additionally, the cemented nature of the glacial till and sandstone bedrock typically does not allow for infiltration. Grain size analyses were completed on two soil samples, GEI-8 at a depth of 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) and GEI-10 at 5 feet bgs. GeoEngineers determined preliminary long-term design infiltration rates in general accordance with the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual of Western Washington (SMMWW) using the simplified Soil Grain Size Analysis Method. The method consists of correlations based on sieve analysis results, as discussed in Section 3.3.6 of the SMMWW manual. Based on this analysis, we estimate a preliminary long-term design infiltration rate of 0.5 inches per hour in the southern portion of the site for depths of 2 to 5 feet bgs where fill is present. Infiltration is not considered feasible in the glacial soils encountered in the northern portion of the site and below a depth of about 2 to 5 feet in the southern portion of the site, due to the presence of glacial soils below this depth. It should be noted that the City of Renton has adopted and amended sections of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and it specifies that the measured infiltration rate be measured in accordance with the EPA Falling Head Method or the Double Ring Infiltrometer Method. However, the City of Renton amendments states "For some soils, an infiltration rate of less than 9 inches per hour may be assumed based on soil texture determination rather than a rate measurement." Based on this exception, the value of 0.5 inches per hour can be used for design, unless a measured value using one of the methods referenced above is completed in the field. It is our opinion that the on-site soils provide low infiltration capacity and extensive stormwater infiltration facilities are not recommended for the site. GEoENGINEER September 16, 2016 Page 14 File fin. 77:17-:)74CO Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. Any changes in design, especially the incorporation of elements that deepen the required depth of excavation, will likely go below the water table and could require additional temporary construction dewatering measures. During construction, GeoEngineers should evaluate the suitability of the foundation subgrades, observe installation of subsurface drainage measures, evaluate structural backfill, observe the condition of temporary cut slopes, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix D, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center and their authorized agents for the VMC FY 2017 Medical Office Building Project in Renton, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix D titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. REFERENCES City of Renton Public Works Department, 2010 "Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual." City of Seattle, 2014, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." International Code Council, 2012, "International Building Code." King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, 2009 "Surface Water Design Manual." Mullineaux D.R., 1965 "Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington." USGS. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration, 1999, "Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4, Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems," FHWA Report No. FHWA-IF-99-015. GEoENGINEERSeptember 16, 2416 Page 15 File No. 2202 U2400 U.S. Geological Survey - National Seismic hazard Mapping project Software, "Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.9a," 2002 data, 2009. Washington State Department of Ecology, "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington," 2012. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2014, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." GMENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page 16 File No ?202074 UQ GEOENGINEERSL SW 27th St X_- 0 0 y G o M a c rx c a SE 21 m J m c J L o LU m in Tukwila D C R 515 SW 23rd St SW 23rd St S 182nd St 'D S 182nd St %A a N J � N S 184th St SW 27th St X_- 0 0 Springbrook Trail SW 27th St SW 27th St 0 167 N Cra v v a R > dc ,y C w L SW 43rd St SW 43rd St o, SSOth St SE 21 m c J L o LU m s C R 515 W N S 182nd St 'D S 182nd St %A m N J L o S 184th St N C ,Z' W ✓1 N LA a -4 S 184th St d v p =r N Q E+G C 4 L S Y n a, N S 186th PI SE 182nd St N � L N N St j v SE 192nd St N ro W N S 188th St Qj ¢' C tq i Q L n C b L �� 0 � OD SE 18E SE 164th StSE 16 S 190th St �. a Springbrook Trail SW 27th St SW 27th St 0 167 N Cra v v a R > dc ,y C w L SW 34th St a� � �Ct N a m 4i�i`c4o SW 39th St R d pSW 41stSt a oc SW 34th St d m W SW 41st St Ikea SW 43rd St o, SSOth St SE 21 m c J L o LU m s 515 W N W W N Ln %A n N J L o S 184th St SW 34th St a� � �Ct N a m 4i�i`c4o SW 39th St R d pSW 41stSt a oc SW 34th St d m W SW 41st St S 190th St S� 9 N °d St a, a' 06 C S 192nd St t4 S 196th St m S 196th St S 198th St U 0 i o < _N [00 C4 r 00 SJR V U- SrS 200th St a C O rr IT N UNIX NBainorfte P%WW ' N k M itsaP Lake N So4gie c� gal B"'� N 0 N O N N T a r Enumclaw Lak cu Notes: IL 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: Open Street Map, 2016. Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 North arrow oriented to grid north S 21st St w Ikea SW 43rd St o, SSOth St SE 21 m c J L o LU m s 515 W N W W N Ln %A SE 22nd Pl [Pp L o S 184th St s ,Z' W ✓1 N LA S 23rd St co ^t r '0 aa` BENSON HILL H � aleo S 187th St c SE 180' 190th St— �aA N w SE 182nd St SE 162nd St SE 16 � L N N SE 192nd St v S 190th St S� 9 N °d St a, a' 06 C S 192nd St t4 S 196th St m S 196th St S 198th St U 0 i o < _N [00 C4 r 00 SJR V U- SrS 200th St a C O rr IT N UNIX NBainorfte P%WW ' N k M itsaP Lake N So4gie c� gal B"'� N 0 N O N N T a r Enumclaw Lak cu Notes: IL 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: Open Street Map, 2016. Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 North arrow oriented to grid north S 21st St w SE 173rd St N SSOth St SE 21 c J L o LU m S u' 515 W N W W N Ln %A SE 22nd Pl � L o $ s W ✓1 N LA S 23rd St co ^t r sa BENSON HILL SE 180th St N i NSE tl SE 180' 190th St— SE 181st5t a SE 182nd St SE 162nd St SE 16 � S 192nd St N N SE 192nd St v SE 192nd St m 4 N W N 13 a R o i Q r C b L �� 0 W SE 18E SE 164th StSE 16 p1 �. a 5 27th St Ll ynth 4 >LA S 1s c t 9P -5 00 > > �^ A''Ps 515 Ras75 �m X w m W N �y Q r S 31st St ; W v SE 168th St O T s 4 � R SE 1 m SE 170th St m 0 � N N S roo St m N S 360 P� s'lath Ct Site LS Cart 0 1 N A c N H , a� 13S 45th P1~ S 47th St S bXh St SE 172nd St SE 173rd St N SSOth St )� 515 c J L o LU m S u' N W N W W N Ln %A � L o $ s W ✓1 N LA r r co ^t r BENSON HILL SE 180th St N i NSE tl SE 180' 190th St— SE 181st5t N SE 182nd St SE 18: � S 192nd St SE 192nd St v SE 192nd St m 4 N W N V R o i Q r o b L �� 0 SE 186th St SE 18E (i! .il/,._ �i 2,000 1 2,0Feet ll Vicinity Map Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington GEoENGINEER S Figure 1 SE 1 a SSOth St LU m %A W r a W ✓1 N LA co ^t r Q a C N i NSE tl 190th St— N r � S 192nd St SE 192nd St v SE 192nd St N V o a a 7o 2 b L �� 0 S 4 N 0' Ll 4 S a SE 196th St �m m W N S Q S � CA S 240th St S 200th St SE 200th St SE 200th St a Un l (i! .il/,._ �i 2,000 1 2,0Feet ll Vicinity Map Valley Medical Center Renton, Washington GEoENGINEER S Figure 1 SE 1 l— -a c 00 00 00 (15 .o C)) 0) N '� o c W E 07 z z rzn O O si CD 0)s` .� o co H o 0 `� � � 0O o ai c `m u) o •— N p N C ai -0 N O O U O c o o ¢ N °n �, o (D �o o.N�tp S o a� a� (D I` (3 _ CL � a) a> w n z Q} i O � o 0 o �70 C'3 U U 0 q) m c�-0cj v� -O in in -0 -0 D ai o� LAJ c U) 4J (D }' Q cA cLn c L) o 4r 0 riD �0 a h�0 Q Ln .� 0 3 0 O O O O O O N O o i0 m fl � J m m m m �- m 2 a' � iv O ) O Q co00 00 C: _c D ULJ LSD Q w ON(!3 N m Q I o o U c� w N m t7 0 46 � � F— tw 0 z i � a a 44noS peva logle L _ O - I' , E!) �� Lu f r �l I'\_. _ .•li _I 1, x LLJ O 1` ,Ill \ \\ ' / { I _ /'l1 /1 i I I 0 1 , ----- yl ' ` i' - 1i; ! 1., _ V—, 10--------------------- I I ^ I r\` CL 00 LJ LLI -------------- 00 to IN 1 a a ` Tq f -- (+7 , o LAJ '`rJ i,r loll/ _ _ lJ/ _ .-�•,.__� _ ------ os, ,� Jl` `\ � •\ �y ` � _�') ` _ 06 LU 1 5 1 I -L_ i I I , I ! - LU N / CN I` N j. LO f N . N�� , 9 I N <� 00 O9IN t i N VA I +— -.k - A LO Off. ` m m I u1i f M (D � i T, r t i CD A. -- ------ - -- - la�io!lso hq 6£-ZT - 9T/90/S0=papodx3 ale© Zd;Bdl �imp-ueld 91!S Z03 00 bZOZOZZ\4aaloa�\OO14t/0\bZOZOZZ Z\=d i � O � N bIA �L U o W � � V 0 W l— -a c 00 00 00 (15 .o C)) 0) N '� o c W E 07 z z rzn O O si CD 0)s` .� o co H o 0 `� � � 0O o ai c `m u) o •— N p N C ai -0 N O O U O c o o ¢ N °n �, o (D �o o.N�tp S o a� a� (D I` (3 _ CL � a) a> w n z Q} i O � o 0 o �70 C'3 U U 0 q) m c�-0cj v� -O in in -0 -0 D ai o� LAJ c U) 4J (D }' Q cA cLn c L) o 4r 0 riD �0 a h�0 Q Ln .� 0 3 0 O O O O O O N O o i0 m fl � J m m m m �- m 2 a' � iv O ) O Q co00 00 C: _c D ULJ LSD Q w ON(!3 N m Q I o o U c� w N m t7 0 46 � � F— tw 0 z i � a a 44noS peva logle L _ O - I' , E!) �� Lu f r �l I'\_. _ .•li _I 1, x LLJ O 1` ,Ill \ \\ ' / { I _ /'l1 /1 i I I 0 1 , ----- yl ' ` i' - 1i; ! 1., _ V—, 10--------------------- I I ^ I r\` CL 00 LJ LLI -------------- 00 to IN 1 a a ` Tq f -- (+7 , o LAJ '`rJ i,r loll/ _ _ lJ/ _ .-�•,.__� _ ------ os, ,� Jl` `\ � •\ �y ` � _�') ` _ 06 LU 1 5 1 I -L_ i I I , I ! - LU N / CN I` N j. LO f N . N�� , 9 I N <� 00 O9IN t i N VA I +— -.k - A LO Off. ` m m I u1i f M (D � i T, r t i CD A. -- ------ - -- - la�io!lso hq 6£-ZT - 9T/90/S0=papodx3 ale© Zd;Bdl �imp-ueld 91!S Z03 00 bZOZOZZ\4aaloa�\OO14t/0\bZOZOZZ Z\=d GEOENGINEER� APPENDIX A Field Explorations APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling four borings (GEI-8 through GEI-11). The borings were completed to depths of approximately 21 to 261/2 feet below existing site grades. The borings were completed by Geologic Drill, Inc. on April 5, 2016. The locations of the explorations were surveyed by Bush Roed & Hitchings, Inc. as part of the general project survey. The exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Borings The borings were completed using track -mounted, continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger drilling equipment, owned and operated by Geologic Drill, Inc. of Spokane, Washington. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer or geologist from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered in the borings were generally sampled at 21/r and 5 -foot vertical intervals with a 2 -inch outside diameter split -barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The disturbed samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140 -pound automatic hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count ("N -value") of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N -value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions precluded driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A-1. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2 through A-5. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on the blow count data obtained in the borings and judgment based on the conditions encountered. Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling. The groundwater conditions encountered during drilling are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling represent a short-term condition and may or may not be representative of the long-term groundwater conditions at the site. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling should be considered approximate. GEOENGINEER5� September 16.2016 PageA-1 File No 2202-024-00 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER Shelby tube ® CLEAN poo GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES Bulk or grab GRAVEL GRAVELS HA Hydrometer analysis MC CR AND GRAVELLY (LRTLE ORHOFINES7 U U O o�P Quarry Spalls POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, Permeability or hydraulic conductivity SOILS Plasticity Index o O Forest Duff/Sod GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH FINES SA Sieve analysis TX GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SILT MD(TURES COARSE GRAINED SOILS OF COARSE FRACTION O GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES RETAINED ON NO. a SIEVE (AP CtMFa INr EwE57 CLEAN SANDS SW GVGLLYSN5NDS, RAEA0. MORE THAN sax SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND RETAINED ON NO. 200SIEVE AND SANDY (LITTLE DR NO FINES) SOILS SANDS WITH FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. a SIEVE (, rc,w rA NT5. OF FINEST c CLAYEY SA NDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS. ROCK ML FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE GRAINED SILTSL AND CLAYS LIDUIO LIMIT LESS THAN T MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS. LEON CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF Low SOILSOL PLASTICITY I I I MH INORGANIC SOIL.T..E..SICASOUS MORE 714N sax PASSING NO. 20a SIEVE } CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY SILTS AND L14UI0 DMT GR£ATERTHAN 50 CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH WITH HIGH ORGANID CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple Symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions ® 2.4 -inch I. D. split barrel GRAPH Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ■ Shelby tube ® Piston UDirect -Push ® Bulk or grab ® Continuous Coring Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 Inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AL AC Asphalt Concrete Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test CS CC Cement Concrete Direct shear HA Hydrometer analysis MC CR Crushed Rock/ Moisture content and dry density OC Quarry Spalls PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Topsoil/ Plasticity Index TS Forest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer IF Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Lop Contact Distinct contact between soil strata /Approximate contact between soil strata Material Description Contact Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same -- geologic unit Laboratory 1 Field Tests %F Percent fines %G Percent gravel AL Atterberg limits CA Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test CS Consolidation test DS Direct shear HA Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content MD Moisture content and dry density OC Organic content PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity PI Plasticity Index PP Pocket penetrometer PPM Parts per million SA Sieve analysis TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression VS Vane shear Sheen Classification NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GWENGINEERS� FIGURE A-1 Rev. 02116 NS No Visible Sheen A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the SS Slight Sheen drill rig. MS Moderate Sheen HS Heavy Sheen A "WOH" Indicates sam pier pushed using the weight of NT Not Tested the hammer. NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GWENGINEERS� FIGURE A-1 Rev. 02116 5= Drilled 41512016 End 41512p1fi Total 21 .5 Depth (ft) G M E N G I N E E R S Logged By SJB Checked By DTM Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Method Hollow -Stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) 82.72 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)) 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (x) 1298995.48 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165009.65 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to wati:r_(n) Elevation fft) Not encountered Notes: Log of Boring GEI-8 FIELD DATA G M E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 sheets of m E MATERIAL o w DESCRIPTION REMARKS y > Vi B Tj C L Q'N m 5 C C m W ❑ m c {r o m c ro U io ro a� oc 20 cc it U AC �3 inches asphalt concrete pavement GP 3 inches base course SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) 16 56 SAi 8 31 Light opdabon staining 5 12 5076" i 5 21 1h 10-115 73 s Becomes with occasional gravel 1� 5 g 5015' 4 6y 201 65 5 1 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-8 Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project G M E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 sheets of gymC m So cis �a LTU A11.515015.5-1 9 F t' ML Gray sandy silt with occasional gravel (hard, 9 56 I moist) (glacial till) "--z 15 190111-1 3 15—t. 10 1 65 1 4 i8 I S5 I Mc Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. sm [ Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) Large boulder obstruction Becomes wet 12 REMARKS Light omiation staining Dnlling on rack at 12 feet bgs Moved over 5 feet ro complete baring Perched water Log of Boring GEI-9 FIELD Total 25 8 GM E N G I N E E R5 Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hdlow-Stem Auger Drilled 41512016 41512016 Depth (ft} _ °' Checked By DTM MATERIAL Method Surface Elevation (ft) 91.83 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment m Easting (x) 1233121.94 System WA State Piane,North Groundwater b m Northing (Y) 165017.35 Datum NAD83 (feet) Dale Measured Depth to Water fft) Elevation (ft) See remarks Notes: gymC m So cis �a LTU A11.515015.5-1 9 F t' ML Gray sandy silt with occasional gravel (hard, 9 56 I moist) (glacial till) "--z 15 190111-1 3 15—t. 10 1 65 1 4 i8 I S5 I Mc Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. sm [ Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) Large boulder obstruction Becomes wet 12 REMARKS Light omiation staining Dnlling on rack at 12 feet bgs Moved over 5 feet ro complete baring Perched water Log of Boring GEI-9 FIELD DATA GM E N G I N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 _ m ra _ °' MATERIAL o t_ ag g 0 DESCRIPTION r a o rn g Li c m m t a 11.7 iu m w ❑ Itm � a b m a u t— m � E C7 22 C7 U AC 1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement Gp 5.5 inches base course SM Brown to gray silty fine to coarse sand wil gravel and occasional coal fragments s° (dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 12 35 1 gymC m So cis �a LTU A11.515015.5-1 9 F t' ML Gray sandy silt with occasional gravel (hard, 9 56 I moist) (glacial till) "--z 15 190111-1 3 15—t. 10 1 65 1 4 i8 I S5 I Mc Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. sm [ Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) Large boulder obstruction Becomes wet 12 REMARKS Light omiation staining Dnlling on rack at 12 feet bgs Moved over 5 feet ro complete baring Perched water Log of Boring GEI-9 Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project GM E N G I N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 2 Log of Boring GEl-9 (continued) Project: Valley Medical Center -Medical office Building Project G W E N G I N E E R s Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 sheet 2 of 2 51011 EW Total20 9 FIELD Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Drilled 415/2()16 4!5!2016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft) 86.23 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298928.15 System WA Stale Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 164820.19 Datum NAD83 (feet) Da Measured Depth to WaterM Rmstion lfl See remarks Notes: Log of Baring GEI-10 Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project FIELD DATA Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 1 E m z 16 F o MATERIAL REMARKS 4 9 -J DESCRIPTION v v O m 8 N m t m 9 In � 12 w m y w w ❑ S Of m o U F (7 0 U 20 iTV o AC 1.5 inches asphalt concrete pavement GP 4 inches base course Brownlorange silty fine to coarse sand with SM gravel (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) 18 10 1 Ovdation staining SM Gray siltyfine sand with occasional gravel L (medium dense, moist) 5-1 18 11 217 f. 41 18 24 3 I' i - i Becomes wet Perched water 3M Gray siltyfine to medium sand with occasional '0_118 48 4 gravel (dense, moist) (glacial till) �5 15-118 82 5 I Becomes very dense �a i 20 11 5015" e SM Gray silty fine to medium sand (very, dense, moist) (Renton Formation Sandstone) Nate: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Baring GEI-10 Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project G M E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 1 Mau Drilled 415!2016 Lad 4!5l2016 Total 26.5 Depth (h) G Eo E N G I N E E R S /// LoggedBy SJB Checked By DTM Driver Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Method Surface Elevation (ft) 91.62 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299044.81 System WA State Plane, North Groundwater Northing (Y) 164834.36 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to Water (ft) Elevation (ft) Not encountered Notes: Project: Valley Medical Center- Medical Office Building Project G Eo E N G I N E E R S /// Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 Sheet 1 of 2 rVw Yv YY@I@-,a V---- lYY�YYY� Project: Valley Medical Center - Medical Office Building Project G ED E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 200 sheet 2 of 2 APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers' laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to determine the moisture content, percent fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) and sieve analyses. The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. Moisture Content Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Percent Passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve (%F) Selected samples were "washed" through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages of coarse- and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the respective sample depths. Sieve Analyses Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The wet sieve analysis method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, and were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are presented in Figure B-1. It should be noted that the sieve analyses were performed on soils obtained from samplers that have an opening size of 11/2 inches, so larger sized particles can't be obtained by the samplers. Therefore, the sieve results do not account for soil particles that are larger than 1112 inches. Soils with larger sized materials are described in this report qualitatively based on visual observations and experience on projects where excavations were made into similar formations. GEOENGINEERS September 16, 2016 Page B-1 File No. 2202.024-W w � ( / ) a ! k j \ \\ � ) / \ \ §& m � \ \ § u 2a=% � §1>1 \ ( \\ d � - ���° § rt-- ) \\ Cn ± / G � \ � / � ■ a � gCL = 0 d k {{ 2 U � @ a /f w w � 2 � o I §15 LU 2 p _EDf §ca), d { N �\ § \ z \ \\§ « I u / }[§ \ k \\ LL t)a ƒ § 73 o - - . q ; § - u 7 o \\ w\ \ _ S �k \ �( 12 ^` o � 2 � R q ° z R a) 2 r- 2 9 � i @]« OmSSb 1 3 83 Sieve Analysis Results 7 Valley MemGICe�erMegG|O#deBuiBuilding Renton, WA 9 « G M E N G|N EERY � � Figure 1 § ( / ) k j \ � ) / \ \ m = § 2a=% k ���° ) / ± / G � \ � / � ■ � APPENDIX C Boring Logs from Previous Studies APPENDIX C BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES Included in this section are logs from previous studies completed in the immediate vicinity of the project site: ■ The log of seven borings (GEl-1 through GEI-7) completed by GeoEngineers and presented in the Valley Medical Center FY 2017 Parking Garage Geotechnical Report dated May 6, 2016 as task one of this study. ■ The log of one boring (B-1) and eight test pits (21 through 28) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Garage project; ■ The log of one boring (B-2) completed by Converse Consultants NW in 1989 for the Valley Medical Center Garage Phase Il project; ■ The logs of seven borings (B-1 through B-7) completed by Terra Associates in 1987 for the Valley Medical Center Office Building project; and ■ The logs of four borings (B-1 through B-4) and two hand augers (HA -1 and HA -2) completed by GeoEngineers in 2001 for the Warehouse Office Building project. GWENGINEERS September 16. 2016 Page G1 Ge Nu. 2202 a24 00 End Total 26.5 Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -stem Auger Drilled 41412016 41412416 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Wthod Surface Elevation (ft) 76.39 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298928.83 System WA Stale Plane,North Groundwater Depth to Northing (Y) 165386.17 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Water{ftl FleSrafinn (fl) Not encountered Notes: FIELD DATA rk - g o MATERIAL REMARKS o $ DESCRIPTION �Z �O�7 S m L i o. 2 O C O W ❑ ? m 5 tY P W U N Ca U' U O 2 U LLL U uM Ac 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement GP 3 inches base course SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel �y J (medium dense, moist) (fill) ML — — — — Brown to gray sandy silt (stiff, moist) 18 14 JA 35 53 1 e SM Brown silty fine to medium sand (medium dense, moist) 5-1 18 13 2 With occasional gravel Opdation staining, till -fill SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel 18 22 . (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial 13 46 %F till) "-to is I fib I 4 15—t-0 17185111-1 5 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Gray silty fine to medium sar dense, moist) (glacial till) Log of Boring GEI-1 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 sheet 1 of 2 LVy VI LJLJI 11 I1, V1.1- 1 kU%011L11 IUIULA) Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G EO E N G I N E E RS/ /J Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 ��� Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of 2 5= Ead Total 31 G M E N G i N E E R5 Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Drilled 41412016 4!4/2016 Depth (ft) m Gheaked By DTM g Method Surface Elevalian (ft) 90.28 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (Ibs)130 (in) Drop Equipment DESCRIPTION Easting (X) 1299094.03 System WA State Plane,North GrounaMW Zi Northing (Y) 165403.44 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured nye to Water (RS Elevation fffY See remarks Notes: 8 19 1 0%kiabon staining'orange mottling, till -fill 5 10 27 2 5M Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel Ozdadon staining (medium dense, moist) 3 5013• 3 V 10 A 14 12 %r I 1. 18 1 14 1 5 1s*■ to 1 75 1 6 20--f-V 161 54 1 7 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Becomes gray ML I Gray silty fine to medium sand with occ gravel (very dense, wet) (glacial till) Becomes moist iL111111tr_I 'slawcount overstated, sampler bouncing on rock during sampling Water in sampler Log of Boring GEI-2 FIELD DATA G M E N G i N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number 2202-424-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 oft m v -, g o MATERIAL REMARKS o = $ d u_ DESCRIPTION R N Aa1 Y m Zi m Ti O N m S4 d 12 Q N O m m m o Y TJ M P GP 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot -. '', surface) SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and organics (medium dense, moist) (fill) 8 19 1 0%kiabon staining'orange mottling, till -fill 5 10 27 2 5M Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel Ozdadon staining (medium dense, moist) 3 5013• 3 V 10 A 14 12 %r I 1. 18 1 14 1 5 1s*■ to 1 75 1 6 20--f-V 161 54 1 7 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Becomes gray ML I Gray silty fine to medium sand with occ gravel (very dense, wet) (glacial till) Becomes moist iL111111tr_I 'slawcount overstated, sampler bouncing on rock during sampling Water in sampler Log of Boring GEI-2 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G i N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number 2202-424-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 oft L-%P LI OVI11IIS t4VIILIIIUCUI Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G E4 E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of 2 B= End Total 31 .5 Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stern Auger Drilled 4/4/21716 4/4/2016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft) 87.92 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299048.22 System WA State Plane,North Grouodwpt Northing (Y) 165275.15 Datum NAD83 (feet) nate Measured Depth to Water (%1 Elevation int See remarks Notes: wy W1 uvI a F %.7LI-a kw -WI nu FUCUI Project: Valley Medical Center- Parking Garage Project GEo E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2of2 F I Z�' I REMARKS a N ' MU MU 18 f s l 96F I I'.I- 11 I I ZO 149 181 9 1 2 1 U 1 11 r -1 1 1 Perched water Mi I- Gray to brown silt with sand (medium stiff, is 6 3A moist to wet) OAdation staining 3B Perched water 10-111 20 4g srvi Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 8 38 5 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Boring could not be advanced furthr, practicai 15 3 1 5013" 8 Qbsiniction encountered - — riBfrLsal met Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-4 E� Total 15 5 DATA Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hallow -Stem Auger Drilled 41412016 41412016 Depth (ft) Checked By DTM Method Surface Elevation (ft) 96.7 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1299202 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165242.05 Datum NAD83 (feet} Date Meas Depth (ft) Elevation fft} Not encountered Notes: F I Z�' I REMARKS a N ' MU MU 18 f s l 96F I I'.I- 11 I I ZO 149 181 9 1 2 1 U 1 11 r -1 1 1 Perched water Mi I- Gray to brown silt with sand (medium stiff, is 6 3A moist to wet) OAdation staining 3B Perched water 10-111 20 4g srvi Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 8 38 5 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Boring could not be advanced furthr, practicai 15 3 1 5013" 8 Qbsiniction encountered - — riBfrLsal met Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-4 FIELD DATA G M E N G I N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 sheet 1 of 1 m N m `s MATERIAL o `y _ D J U DESCRIPTION m� W ❑ g Q= m a m U 2 C7 2W t7 U 0 GP 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (pi surface) sM Brown silty fine to medium sand wi (loose, moist) (fill) F I Z�' I REMARKS a N ' MU MU 18 f s l 96F I I'.I- 11 I I ZO 149 181 9 1 2 1 U 1 11 r -1 1 1 Perched water Mi I- Gray to brown silt with sand (medium stiff, is 6 3A moist to wet) OAdation staining 3B Perched water 10-111 20 4g srvi Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) 8 38 5 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense to very dense, moist) (glacial till) Boring could not be advanced furthr, practicai 15 3 1 5013" 8 Qbsiniction encountered - — riBfrLsal met Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEl-4 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 sheet 1 of 1 Drilled 41412016 J 41412016 Total 35.8 Depth (ft) Logged By SJ$ Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Checked By DTM Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Method Surface Elevation (ft) 98.02 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich D50 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment MATERIAL Easting (X) 1299210.26 System WA State Plane,North groundwater $_ Northing (Y) 165309.34 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to Waters fft Elevation (ft) Not encountered Notes: Log of Boring GEI-5 FIELD DATA G M E N G I N E E R S //J Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet oft C E. Z g J 2 MATERIAL REMARKS o $_ 4 J U DESCRIPTION j L N S4 y 6 d7 «� Df m C N rl w 1 0 .- Wcr rn U H ti (% ci 20 0 I Q GP -', 1 inch crushed gravel surfacing (parking lot SM surface) Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and trace organic debris (rooWwood) (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) �h 8 14 1 5— 10 6 2 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with 12 19 Zoccasional gravel (medium dense, moist) 14 35 OAdation stairung 0 (weathered glacial till) 10 13 28 4R Becomes brownish orange 49 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (medium dense, moist) (glacial fill) h Becomes very dense 15-10 2111.5 57 it 24 Silt lenses 0 20-110 56 6 f Note: See Figure A-1 for a)planation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-5 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R S //J Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet oft G M E N G I N E E RS� Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 2 of2 Drilled*40 6 E 016 Total 21 5 Depth (ft} Logged By SJB Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Checked By OTIA Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Method Surface Elevation (ft) 75.8 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich 050 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs)130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298925.69 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165180.99 Datum NAD83 (feet) Date Measured Depth to Waler_(flj Elevation Iftlfft) Not encountered Notes: &-.,y yr uvr it ry WA -1-v Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R J /// Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-7 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 of 1 a5.w End Total 30.6 Logged By SJB -n Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Drilled 4W2016 4/4/2016 Depth (ft) Checked By D m £ ' Wthod Surface Elevation (ft) 67.53 Hammer Autohammer Drilling Diedrich 050 Track Rig Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop Equipment > Easting (X) 1299051.06 System WA State Plane, North Groundwater Northing (Y) 165090.91 Datum N AD83 (feel} Date Measured Water m �[ter ($s FIRvaBnn (a1 3 Not encountered Notes: 5 15016" 1 1 I I ..I �Samper hourrr , blowcourn SM I Brown siltyfine to medium sand with gravel 5 18 60 F (very dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) .. 10 28 D>adation sha n ng 0 5013" 3No recuvery SM I Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Slow drilling 15—[-. 12 15016- 1 5 Rougher drilling 14 1 56 1 6 w w Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Becomes with occasional gravel 0 w S� I nn of Rnrina GEI-7 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington GEOENGINEER� � 9 Figure A-8 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 oft FIELD DATA au m £ ' m - a MATERIAL REMARKS o ma > DESCRIPTION > EE 0) m a :ao ili2 2 � m w`m co IiJ ❑ m U H 0 1 00 1 Op FU tL U D 2 inches asphalt concrete pavement 1.5 inch base course VAG Brown silty fine to coarse sand and gravel (very dense, moist) (fill) 5 15016" 1 1 I I ..I �Samper hourrr , blowcourn SM I Brown siltyfine to medium sand with gravel 5 18 60 F (very dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) .. 10 28 D>adation sha n ng 0 5013" 3No recuvery SM I Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial till) Slow drilling 15—[-. 12 15016- 1 5 Rougher drilling 14 1 56 1 6 w w Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Becomes with occasional gravel 0 w S� I nn of Rnrina GEI-7 Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project Project Location: Renton, Washington GEOENGINEER� � 9 Figure A-8 Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 Sheet 1 oft Log of Boring GEI-7 (continued) FIELD DATA Project Location: Renton, Washington JI Figure A-8 �!r Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 sheet 2 of 2 m Z S E m m 4 c s MATERIAL o REMARKS o $ QQ �, -JU DESCRIPTION t4 } Q 2 p m u o m UY d f0 7 N O m p y m LLU 5 25 B 5015- 7 0 0 5014- 8 w 0 y S U W 0 0 w w w w 0 c� m ❑ 'a z w u 0 3 z a 3 v vi w w z z 0 w Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring GEI-7 (continued) Project: Valley Medical Center - Parking Garage Project G M E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington JI Figure A-8 �!r Project Number: 2202-024-00 Task 100 sheet 2 of 2 'OATS nan.LLn: 12/28/8 6 SUMMARY: BORING NO, ELErrAr,orl: B-1 Tine 9.610421 A"%bE% Ora► Ar TWO t6CAT406 Or TAPS 911214PO •2e AT Two Tim Or 9rlaueC 9.61.2.A62 CsrO1T16■11 101► e1P9t■ AT OTY1r 1L$cAT16r• Ate 10&1 Cr6e6H AT Trq 60CATIO• O. ,b ,91.4 O' i j.AA 61Tw Tr! PAaa&ea Of 71012. TWO PAT• ►err$rT$a IS • 919et VTCAT1Os er ACTYAL Crr21T16r2 Ap fig.Q p, pQ pE` Gi r1000.r►u26. f i 404 OESCRtp'TION SYMBOL YOIS' UAE CONS,STXNCY J 5 - soft ,'� Al 15 125 20 r„ :1 ' A. 2- sp"t-spoon sampler ' a. Z' O.A. thin-wall sampler C. 3-1/4' O.D. x 2-1/7' 1111419 ''A-AtterboM C - CvauolldotleTT, OS - direct shear, .. . _ ... . - __n. ►_w-1 ..--A-. Y ..101 .rrw.rlyd O - wain "me, T - triaslal, P-.7OrnbeablUIV AV *tat lore, iongervious $eel pNiom41lar tip Renton, Wa5bington 86-352 87 for"Mahlum'and Nordfors Drawing No. GootecltdicAl Englnering A� .�►� Converse Consultants and Applied Sdonc:a OD �p T�lPSO i[ v .moist loose 2 FILL 1A 1 SILTY SAND; mottled br.own,& olive, SM very loose 2 fine to medium, trace coarse, some moist silt, trace gravel, occasional lumps of silt, organics, iron stain 2 medium 2A 10 color becomes olive dense 8 2 loose 3A 2 4 LACUSTRINE - SILT; mottled brown and ML very blue -gray, trace fine sand, occ. moist organics (hard drilling @ 15') 6 scattered gravels; pockets of moist medium 4A 10 black organics stiff 31 BEDROCK - SILTY SAND; white to SM moist dense fight gray, fine to medium, some 12126/8 18 silt, occ. lumps of brown silt, 5A 41 poorly lithified — very 50/5" dense 6A 37 50/3. Bottom of boring at depth 28.3' Piezometer installed to depth 28.3' ' A. 2- sp"t-spoon sampler ' a. Z' O.A. thin-wall sampler C. 3-1/4' O.D. x 2-1/7' 1111419 ''A-AtterboM C - CvauolldotleTT, OS - direct shear, .. . _ ... . - __n. ►_w-1 ..--A-. Y ..101 .rrw.rlyd O - wain "me, T - triaslal, P-.7OrnbeablUIV AV *tat lore, iongervious $eel pNiom41lar tip Renton, Wa5bington 86-352 87 for"Mahlum'and Nordfors Drawing No. GootecltdicAl Englnering A� .�►� Converse Consultants and Applied Sdonc:a DA -M lmILED. 1/20/89 SUMMARY: BORING NO. B-2 02VAT101h Approx. 72 THIS SUMMARY APPLES ONLY ATT WE LOCATION OR THIS BORING AND Ar Tme Tams OF DFnu.IN1 %J83URFAoX CONDITIONS LIAY DIFFER Ar oTHFN LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION � O� 1 wRH THE PAS AQa OF TIME rHE DATA PRESENTED 1S A SIMPUFICATIDN OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS v -Qv O�°A rAt �� O¢ O�_p� QKAUNTEREM � O~ vii 4 [3ESCAI�TICN SYIt�QL YCf�TI1RE COMstsTtrcv 0 5- 10 - 15 - 20 25 - 30 - water level - A, 2" split -spoon sampler impervious seal S. 3" O.D. thin-wall sampler C. 3-1/4" O.D. x 2-112" liner "A - Atterberg, C - consolidation, OS - direct st+ear, D. 3-1/2" O.D. split barrel sampler X. sample not recovered G - grain siSe, T - triaxial, A - permeability piezometer tlp PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE - PHASE 11 Project NO. Renton, Washington 86-35287-03 for Valley Medical Center Figure Na. Converse Consultants NiN and G*otechnic engineering 2 and Applied Sciences SILTY SAND (Fill); brown, fine to SM very loose 3 medium, trace coarse sand, Tittle moist lA 2 silt, trace fine roots, occasional 2 organics 26 moist dense SILTY SAND (Glacial Till); gray, SM 2A 15 fine to medium, trace coarse sand, 19 little to some silt, trace gravel 26 3A 34 - grades with gravel very 35 dense 4A 28 50/5' moist i very SANDSTONE (Bedrock); light gray, 5A��/5 fine to med. sand grains, with soft silt matrix, highly weathered slightly - grades moderately weathered Imoist soft Bottom of boring at depth 28 feet. I i No groundwater encountered. water level - A, 2" split -spoon sampler impervious seal S. 3" O.D. thin-wall sampler C. 3-1/4" O.D. x 2-112" liner "A - Atterberg, C - consolidation, OS - direct st+ear, D. 3-1/2" O.D. split barrel sampler X. sample not recovered G - grain siSe, T - triaxial, A - permeability piezometer tlp PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE - PHASE 11 Project NO. Renton, Washington 86-35287-03 for Valley Medical Center Figure Na. Converse Consultants NiN and G*otechnic engineering 2 and Applied Sciences Location: See Drawing I Surface Conditions: 4 Z �-- a VI r o o tri vl LOG OF TEST PIT NO, TP -21 Sod, marshy ground DESCRIPTION Elevation SM ' TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, 1 some silt, few gravel, abundant organics, scattere fine roots; very moist, loose 2 SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled 1 gray to reddish -brown, fine to medium, trace 3 coarse, little silt, little gravel, occ, carbonize organics; moist,, dense 4- 2 grades to gray -blue and very dense 5 1 r Bottom of test pit at depth 5,0' Moderate seepage at depth 1-1/2' to 2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 Approx. 48 REMARKS seepage at 2' PKUr StU VN Ltr Mk.UIGAL LLNILR UAKAba Protect No Renton, Washington 86-35287 - for Mahlum and Nordfors _ Qrdwvs9 No Goolechnical � 634 Converse Consultants NW ..ApPfi dEartlhi'Seences A-2 c U dl; G •r r- cn U r- O � V G E re Ln E A V1 DESCRIPTION REMARKS 1 Tupsm FILL - SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, little sit, trace to little gravel, occasional organics; 2 1 very moist loose occasional cobbles 3- 4- 1' diameter boulder at depth 4' 5 i TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, fi trace coarse, some silt, trace gravel , abundant organics, occasional fine roots; very moist, loose seepage at 5' GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled 8 olive to reddish brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel; moist, dense occasional cobbles rade blue -gray and Yery dense . Bottom of test pit at depth 9.0' Moderate seepage at depth S' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PROPOSED VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER G K GE preie<[Mo Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Drawing No Converse Consultants NW ndapp dizalh[scen es A-3 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -23 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 59 Surface Conditions: Sod ,� •.- CU o cn Q Ln DESCRIPTIONREMAPKS TOPSOIL 1 FILL - SILTY SAND; brown, fine to medium, some boulder at 1' si— , little gravel, occasional organics; .very 2— 1 moist, loose occasional cobbles 3—TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dant brown, fine to medium, 4 some silt, trace gravel, abundant organics roots,• seepage at 4' .ver moist loose 5 2 GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND; mottled brown to reddish -brown, fine to medium, little silt, few to 6 3 little gravel; moist, dense Jgrades blue -gray, and very dense occasional cobbles Bottom of test pit at depth 6.0' Moderate seepage at depth 4' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 I i j { t 1 i k KU cU VALLt Y MLOI,AL Lti I tK UAKAbt PrG�tt: No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahl um and Nordfors dr0wmg NQ dpEngineering Consultants NWap� dEc� , A--4' 3 LOG OF TES -T PIT NO, TP -24 Location: See Drawing 1 Surface Conditions: Sod and bare ground a�e r DESCRIPTION o 4A V1 cj TOPSOIL Elevation: Approx. 70 FILL - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; brown, fine to medium, trace coarse, little silt, little gravel , occasional organics; wet, loose to medium dense 1 REMARKS 3 TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, seepage at 3.5' 4 some silt, few gravels , abundant organics 5 GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND; mottled brown to caving from 5-6' 6^ 2 reddish -brown, fine to medium, little to some silt, few to little gravel; very moist, medium 7 dense p grades to dense O . 9 i 3 grades blue -gray Bottom of test pit at depth 9.0' Heavy seepage at depth 3-1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 PRUPOSED VALLLY ft it L LtN1 LA U KA6t ❑roleuNo Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors lealechnical �r0vrn9 Na. Converse Consultants NW andAppli dEarth'Science I LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -25 Location: See Drawing I Elevation: Approx.,59 Surface Conditions: Sod, marshy ground ++ as I DESCRIPTION REMARKS C •r C o N N Iitt SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, fine to medium, seepage to 2.5' a to some silt, few to little gravel, abundant organics, occasional fine roots; very moist to wet 2 loose 3 SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled gray and reddish -brown, fine to medium, trace 4 coarse, some silt, little gravel; very moist, dens grades blue -gray 2' dia. boulder 5 i 6� Bottom of test pit at depth 5.5' Heavy seepage from surface to depth 2-1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 i d U U5 V LL�_Y MEDICAL i+ s itK GAKAUc Prowc:No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahl um and Nordfors Ora ng NO Converse Consultants NW ..Appf+dEarlh'Scani, A-6 ..u U t L J iLA' L CL i LK G KA6c Proles! Na Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Drawing Na Engineering Converse Consultants NW enijAppli d6athSciences A---7 LOG OF TEST PIT NO, TP -26 Location: See Drawing 1 Elevation: Approx. 68 Surface Conditions: Sad o DESCRIPTION REMARKS 4-;4. aj r:. = 6 EA T to U TOPSOIL SILTY SAND; dk. brown f/m, little to SM some silt, few gravels abund. org; wet, loose 1 MLI GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILT W/SAND; streaked gray and bedded • brown few to little f . sand, thinly stiff 2 1 SM SILTY SAND; mottled brown & red -brown, f/m, trace =T' coarse, little silt, few to little gravel; moist, 3 dense- grades blue -gray, and very dense Bottom of test pit at depth 3.5' 'y.. No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 ..u U t L J iLA' L CL i LK G KA6c Proles! Na Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Drawing Na Engineering Converse Consultants NW enijAppli d6athSciences A---7 Location: See Drawing 1 Surface Conditions: Sod LOG- OF TEST PIT NO, TP -27 Elevation: Approx. 60 +� 0 w 4-J CL DESCRIPTION Q a -M Ln � o U GRAVEL AND SAND FILL I SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dark brown, f/m, little to some silt, few gravels, abund. ora.; wet, loose SM 2 GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND; mottled brown and 1 orange, f/m, trace coarse, little to some silt, 3 trace to few gravels; moist, medium dense 4 grades dense 5 2 grades blue-green, and very dense 6 Bottom of test pit at depth 6.0' Light seepage at depth 1/2' Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 REMARKS i� seepage at ,5' occasional cobbles 11 Y U SCID VH Lt T AE1JILAL Ltl 1 kK UAKK G Arolty No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors Drawing No Converse Consultants N W nd App1{ d Vanh1neering SCien es V j Location: See Drawing I Elevation: Approx. 46 Surface Conditions: Sod aj DESCRIPTION RE,.+ARKS 5 o � Q �c n SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dk. brown, f/m, little to 1 some silt, few gravel, abundant organics; very _ loose 2 SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled brown &red -brown, f/m, tr, coarse, little silt, 3 lithe g ravel• moist, very dense; g rales g ray Bottom of test Pit at depth 3.0' No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 1y b li�1U.ZLVN Lk Y MLJiuAL 1.t1 I tK GAKALZC Proiec: No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors prawY ng No arthiScenConverse Consultants NWand App dE, A—g LOG OF TEST PIT NO.Tp-28 Location: See Drawing I Elevation: Approx. 46 Surface Conditions: Sod aj DESCRIPTION RE,.+ARKS 5 o � Q �c n SM TOPSOIL - SILTY SAND; dk. brown, f/m, little to 1 some silt, few gravel, abundant organics; very _ loose 2 SM GLACIAL DEPOSITS - SILTY SAND W/GRAVEL; mottled brown &red -brown, f/m, tr, coarse, little silt, 3 lithe g ravel• moist, very dense; g rales g ray Bottom of test Pit at depth 3.0' No groundwater encountered Completed and backfilled 12/29/86 1y b li�1U.ZLVN Lk Y MLJiuAL 1.t1 I tK GAKALZC Proiec: No Renton, Washington 86-35287 for Mahlum and Nordfors prawY ng No arthiScenConverse Consultants NWand App dE, A—g BORING NO. B--1 Logged By CRL Date : 4/Q7/89 ELEV. 48 ± Graph CS Soil Description fft )h Sample (N) W Blows Ft. SM Grey, brown, silty fine SAND to sandy ML SILT with varying.amounts of gravel, moist to wet, very dense (TILL). T �� 50/6 9 sieve 5 I 50/4" 12 10 I50/6,T 15 50/4" 13 20 50/6" 5 Boring terminated at 23 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. BORING LOG TERRA Medical Office Building II ` Valley Medical Center ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington Geotechnical ConsultantsProj. No.T-996 Date 5/89 Figure 4 BORING NO. B-2 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 45± Graph cS Soil description °{ft ih Sample (N) Blows W (oJo} Ft. SM Grey with orange stains, silty SPIM, wet, medium dense. 25 13 5 SPI Grey silty SAND with varying amounts of gravel, moist to wet, very dense. 55 9 Sieve 10 I50/6" 10 15 50/6" 6 Borng, tenrdmted at 18' below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during dn l7ing- BORING LOG TERRA Medical Office Building A Valley Medical Center - ASSOCIATES Renton Washington �� Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-996 LDate 5/89 Figure 5 BORING NO. B-3 Logged By CRL Date 4-5-89 ELEV. 44t Graph P US CS Soil Description P Depth (ft.} Sample Blows Ft. {3" A.C.} SI, Tan -grey with orange suns silty fine to medico SAND, wet, loose to medium dense. 111 21 Sieve 4/4189 SM Grey silty SAtm with varying amounts of gravel, hoist to wet, very dense. (TILL) 56 14 10 I90/7" 10 15 50/311 9 1 Sieve Boring terminated at 17.8 feet below ex� grade. Ground Oter seePaoe enm entered at 7 feet during drilling. 3/4 inch PVC standpipe installed to bottan of borirU- BORING LOG TERRA Medical Office Building 11 Valley Medical Center Y " ES ASSOCIAT • Renton Washington rP�rojNo.T-9961 Date 5/89 Figure 6' Geotechnical Consultants BORING NO. B-4 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV. 42± Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample (N) Blows IoW Ft. ML Brown to brown grey clayey SILT with organics, wet, ss i f. I 8 qtr 1.0 t,sf 5 66 SM Grey silty SAND with varying amomts of gravel, 10 moist to ti,et, very dense. (TILL) 15o/5f, 15 Possible boulder and/or cobbles encountered at 12' and 16'. 87/6" Boring terminated at 18' below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 8' during drilling. BORING LOG - • +: TERRA Medical Office Building 11 ' �...'.. - ASSOCIATES Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.T-996 Date 5/89 Figure 7 BORING NO. B-5 Logged By CRL Date 4-5-89 ELEV. 42t Graph US Soil Description Depth {ft.) Sample Blows CS { 10) Ft. SM Brown silty SAND with numerous cobbles, wet, mediun dense. ' 16 20 5 SM Grey silty SAND irlth varying amounts of clay C. and gravel, mist to i,et, very dense. (TILL) � 53 13 10 = 5Q/6" 9 15 I T 80 Boring terndnated at 19' below existing, ,rade, tdo groundwater encountered dud -ng drilling. BORING LOG TERRA Medical Office Building it Valley Medical Center. ASSOCIATES Renton Washington Geotechnical Consultants proj. No. T-99 pate 5189 Figure 8 Logged e CRL By Date 4-7-89 Graph us CS BORING NO. B-6. ELEV. 38± N Soll Description �ftpj� TSarmnple Blows NFt. ` SM Brawn mixed silty S94D and clayey SILT, wet, 4` -`k ' ML loose. ML Grey -tan clayey SILT, wet, stiff. SM Grey silty SAPID with varying amounts of gravel and clay, %Rt, very dense. (TILL) 5 I 8 10 15 I 9 G'Jm Boring tenTdmted at 18.5 feet below existing grade. GroundAeter encountered at 10' during drilling. A-71 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants qu= 2.0 tsf BORING LOG Medical Office Building II Valley Medical Center Renton Washington Proj. No.T-996 Date 5189 1 Figure 9 BORING NO. 7 Logged By CRL Date 4-7-89 ELEV.. 38± Graph CS Soil Description IFILL- D�� �h Sample (N) Slows W (%) Ft. SM Grey brown silty SA1ID with varying amounts of gravel, gist to uet, madium3 dense. 4/4/89 40 5 5 Mixed/bedded tan. SM Clayey SILT and grey silty SMD with clay, uet, loose to stiff. ML IX 13 24 qu= 2.0 tsf 10 50/3" 12 SM Grey silty medium SAND with gravel, tat, very dense. (TJIL) Boulder at 16'? 15 a 90/9" 18 Boring terminated at 18.7 feet below existing grade. No groundwater enrrnmtered during drilling. 3/4" standpipe installed to bottm of boring. BORING LOG ` TERRA Medical office Building Il " Valley Medical center ASSOCIATES Renton Washington prof. No.T-996 Date 5189 Figure i0 Geotechnical Consultants Project Job Number Lil(iilLWil Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA 08/01/01 Logged KHC Contractor Holt Drilling Drilled Drill Equipment ment Truck -mounted Mobile B-59 drill ri Drill Hollow Stem Auger E9 .p 9 Bit Method Sample DEM Sampler Hammer 3001b, hammer wI 30 inch drop X-coordinate: Not Determined Not Method Data Y-coordinate: etermined Datum: Not Determined Total Depth (ft) 33 Elevation (ft) 44 Svstem: Not U. z " �' 06 c v = Other Tests ~ z a E r N Material Description .- C R And = T a EW CL 0� a =)Notes a LU ae (n fn o a o o � D Dinch SM sod zone Dark brown silty fine sand ;;nth gravel (medium dense, FF moist) 100 1 12 ML Dark brown sandy silt (stiff moist) (fill) 14 114 5 5 17 2 1 Becomes very soft with organic matter ML Gray sandy silt (soft to medium stiff moist) 100 3 5 1D 10 OL Dark gray sandy organic silt (medium stiff moist) 100 4 7 23 99 15 15 SM Gray silty sand with organic matter (loose, moist) (root fragments) 56 5 8 20 ML 2D Gray silt (medium still moist) 100 6 8 SM Brown silty fine sand and gravel (loose, moist) Harder drilling at 25 feet 8 25-25 o SP -5M Gray tine sand with silt (very dense, moist) $Z 00 7 50(6" 30 30 it Q LU 0100 8 5014" 10 a Boring completed at 33 feet on 8101141 n Ground water encountered at 26 feet during drilling 35 n 35 J Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols m t LOG OF BORING B-2 W ` "veers FIGURE A4 z Geo En r W Project rn Other Tests w LL Valley Medical Center Date And 08101101 Drilled Notes Drill Method Hollow Stem Auger Sample Method o D&M Sampler Total Depth (ft) 23.5 w LL y o Z c 7 m _J 2— z _ O y a 0 U n (7 60 (L o m in w U uJ Sol)0 _ ML ®D© Job Number 2202-017-00 KHC col pment Truck -mounted Mobile 5-59 drill rig Dn Bit mer 300 Ib. hammer wl 30 inch drop Y--( ation (ft) 36 Da Material Description rk gray silt with organic with occasional tine to coarse gravel and organic matter (very soft, moist) (fill) 5 144 2 8 Grades to dark brown and becomes medium stiff ISE 1 15 1 20 31 30 5M Dark brown silty Fine sand with occasional fine to coarse 100 3 3 gravel (loose, moist) (fill) 56 4 3 Black silty fine to medium sand with organic matter and gravel (loose, moist) (fill) Q Kent, WA Holt Drilling Not Determine 14 1 120 17 1 44 ML Gray sandy silt with occasional tine to coarse gravel (stiff; wet) Gravelly drilling at 16 feet 78 5 19 12 124 83 1 E 150/6"�l6111Bemes hard and moist LLL� i� Boring completed at 23.5 feet on 8101/01 Ground water was encountered at 12 feet during drilling Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols LOG OF BORING B-3 Geo ��oEngineers FIGURE A-5 15 1 35 1 rn Other Tests w LL And N Notes a o� o 14 1 120 17 1 44 ML Gray sandy silt with occasional tine to coarse gravel (stiff; wet) Gravelly drilling at 16 feet 78 5 19 12 124 83 1 E 150/6"�l6111Bemes hard and moist LLL� i� Boring completed at 23.5 feet on 8101/01 Ground water was encountered at 12 feet during drilling Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols LOG OF BORING B-3 Geo ��oEngineers FIGURE A-5 15 1 35 1 Project Other Tests z .. ! And = Job Number a a r.� Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Date 08101101 Logged KHC By Contr figDrilled Dnil Drill Hollow Stem Auger Equipment Truck -mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig Bit i Method Sample D&M Sampler Hammer 300 Ib. hammer wl 30 inch drop X -co[ Y_coc r� Method Data Datui Total Depth (ft) 14 Elevation (ft) 41 ISVste 4 I UJ w L ci Z - F - CL 3 ? Material Description a E cn U y Qbrown silty tine sandwithorganic matter (Dose, moist) PT 00 k1.ASPHALT fill (topsoil) 3 inch as halt concrete pavement SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) rf (fill) 100 1 10 - ML Gray sandy silt {medium stiff. moist) 5 tR 100 2 6 106 3 26 rA Becomes very stiff .� 10- 100 4 53 Becomes hard Boring completed at 14 feet on 8/01101 15 No ground water encountered during drilling 20— 25 R m A 30— (L L) w c7 +. -. 0. (7 n R ry 35 ca Note; See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols t z or Kent, WA Holt Drilling v W Other Tests z .. ! And = 0 ` Notes a a 28 1 91 m �* LAG OF BORING B-4 W Geo Engineers �' FIGURE A-6 5 FEE 20 1 0■ 2 LU 5 FEE 20 1 0■ Project Job Number Location Valley Medical Center 2202-017-00 Kent, WA LOG OF HAND AUGER HA -1 Date Excavated: 8/1/01 Legged icy; KHC Eq r W W U - z LU 00 5 uipment: Hand Equipment Surface Elevation (ft): 46 `u ~ °Other 0 a 0$ u 0 z SF �� Tests CL U. z �� ° 2 ; Material Description m other Tests W w CL c E_ ECL m 2 �' Material Description a o ;� And z M �n o �t m Notes m D ML w Dark brown sandy silt with gravel and/or silty sand with gravel (soft, moist) (fill) 00 SM Brown silty sand with gravel loose to medium dense, Hand auger completed at 2 feet on 8102/01 moist) (fill) 8 No ground water seepage observed 2 No caving observed Obstruction encountered (possibly rocks/cobbles) 4 O N Q Hand auger completed at 4.5 feet on 8102101 No ground water seepage observed � � 5 5 No caving observed 5 0 r? Notes: The depths of the hand auger togs are based on an average of measurements across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. LOG OF HAND AUGER HA -2 Date Excavated: 811101 Logged by: KHC Equipment: Hand Equipment Surface Elevation (ft): 38 ~ °Other 0 a 0$ u �� Tests W U. z �� ° 2 ; Material Description 2 o ;� And z z X ECL m 2 �' o� o Notes F Q m W �0S 0 Sod layer D ML Dark brown sandy silt with gravel and/or silty sand with gravel (soft, moist) (fill) t As halt debris encountered Hand auger completed at 2 feet on 8102/01 8 No ground water seepage observed No caving observed 4 O N Q � � 5 5 0 r? 0 U W U' a 0 n q Nates: The depths of the hand auger logs are based on an average of measurements across the hand auger and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. N N LOG OF HAND AUGER ""a �041F —07 ininee�`� FIGURE A-7 W APPENDIX D Report Limitations and Guidelines For Use APPENDIX D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Valley Medical Center (VMC) and other project team members for the VMC FY 2017 Medical Office Building Project. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Is Based on a Unique Set of Project -specific Factors This report has been prepared far the VMC FY 2017 Medical Office Building Project in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, a not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or ■ completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ■ the function of the proposed structure; ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; 1 Developed based on material provided by GBA, GeoProfessional Business Association; www.geoprofessional.org. GEohNGINEERs� September 16, 2016 Page D-1 }Ile Nc_ "G2 U4 OU is composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations atthe site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. GEoENGINEERS September 16. 2016 Page D-2 File No. 2202.024 W Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to onsite personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geologY) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding specific project. GMENGINEER� September 16, 2016 Pagel) -3 H e. tin 2202-C24 01 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. GEoEMGINEER September 16, 2016 Page D-4 FOP No 2207-024-00 Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www.geoenglneers.com/feedback. GWENGINEERS� WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS October 17, 2016 Daniel Pederson Project Manager Valley Medical Center 400 S 43fd Street Renton, WA 98055 Re: Valley Medical Center MOB Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Daniel, 2101 Fourth Avenue Suite 1210 Seattle, WA 98121 Tel: 206.745.9555 www.wuikerporking.com Walker is pleased to submit the enclosed traffic impact analysis for the proposed medical office building (MOB) at Valley Medical Center. The study has been prepared pursuant to City of Renton guidelines for traffic impact analysis and comments provided by the City to VMC on July 14, 2016. This report has been provided for forwarding by Valley Medical Center to the City of Renton. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Jeff Weckstein Vladimir I. Ivanov, PE, SE Parking Consultant/Transportation Planner Managing Principal TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING RENTON, WA Prepared for: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER OCTOBER 17, 2016 14 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 40PARKING CONSUITA-147 OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 TABLE Of CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _.. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 2 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................... .3 ........................................ . METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................... 3 Level of Service (LOS) Methodology.......................................................................................... 3 EXISTINCONDITIONS....................................................................................................................................6 STUDYAREA............................................................................................................................................ 6 BICYCLE AN DPEDESTRIAN FACILITIES................................................................................................. 8 PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE...................................................................................................................... 8 EXISTINGTRAFFIC VOLUMES.................................................................................................................8 OBSERVATION OF EXISTING OPERATIONAL ISSUES.......................................................................... 12 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE...................................................................................... 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS..................................................................... 13 PROPOSEDPROJECT.................................................................................................................................15 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION...............................................................................................................15 PROJECTTRIP DISTRIBUTION................................................................................................................15 MODALSPLIT.........................................................................................................................................22 PROJECTTRIP ASSIGNMENT................................................................................................................22 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC....................................................................................................... 22 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS.................................................................................................... 27 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE........................................................... 27 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS. .......................................... 31 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS............................................32 PROJECT OPENING YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUMES..................................................................................32 PROJECT OPENING YEAR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE.........................................................32 PROJECT OPENING YEAR SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS................................................................39 ALTERNATIVE GARAGE ACCESS PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT ...................................... 40 ALTERNATIVE GARAGE ACCESS OPENING YEAR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE.................40 ALTERNATUVE GARAGE ACCESS SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ................................................... 41 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................ 42 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TALBOT ROAD/VMC NORTH ACCES ROAD INTERSECTION ...........43 RECOMMENDATION FOR TALBOT ROAD/S 43RD STREET INTERSECTION.......................................43 Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: HCM Analysis Sheets Appendix C: Signal Warrant Analysis Sheets VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB wPALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4# PARKINGCQNSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 39-1037.00 Table1: Level of Service Definitions... ...................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Existing A.M., Mid -Day and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ........................................ 13 Table 3: Existing Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis............................................................................................ 14 Table 4: Proposed Project Trip Generation....... .................................................................................................... 15 Table 5: Cumulative Projects...................................................................................................................................22 Table 6: Existing Plus Project A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service .................. 27 Table 7: Existing Plus Project Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis.......................................................................31 Table 8: Project Opening Year Without and With Project Intersection Level of Service................................32 Table 9: Project Opening Year Signal Warrant Analysis...................................................................................... 39 Table 10: Alternative Garage Access Intersection Level of Service................................................................. 40 Table 1 1 : Alternative Garage Access Project Opening Year Signal Warrant Analysis .................................. 41 Table 12: Project Opening Year With Project & City Recommended Improvements Intersection Level of Service......................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 13: Talbot Road/S 43rd St Intersection: LOS with no Operational Constraints ....................................... 43 Figure1: Project Location..........................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Study Intersection and Roadway Geometry .......................................................... ... ............................. 7 Figure 3A: Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3B: Existing Mid -Day Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....................................................................................... 10 Figure 3C: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................................................................................ 11 Figure 4A: AM Peak Hour - Inbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips .............................................. 16 Figure 4B: AM Peak Hour - Outbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips...........................................17 Figure 4C: Mid -Day Peak Hour - Inbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips.....................................18 Figure 4D: Mid -Day Peak Hour - Outbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips.................................19 Figure 4E: PM Peak Hour- Inbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips...............................................20 Figure 4F: PM Peak Hour- Outbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips............................................21 Figure 5A: AM Peak Hour Trip Assignment.............................................................................................................23 Figure 5B: Mid -Day Peak Hour Trip Assignment ............................ .. ...................................................................... 24 Figure 5C: PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment............................................................................................................. 25 Figure 6: Cumulative Project Locations................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 7A: Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..........................................................28 Figure 7B: Existing Plus Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................. 29 Figure 7C: Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.......................................................... 30 Figure 8A; Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................ 33 Figure 8B: Project Opening Year Without Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................34 Figure 8C: Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................... 35 Figure 9A: Project Opening Year with Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... 36 Figure 9B: Project Opening Year with Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 37 Figure 9C: Project Opening Year with Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................... 38 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS it PARKING CONSU[TANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes Walker Parking Consultants analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed 150,000 square foot Medical Office Building (MOB) addition to the Valley Medical Center campus in Renton, Washington. The proposed MOB would displace existing surface parking east of the Talbot Professional Center building. To accommodate displaced parking, increased parking demand due to growth in services at the campus, and parking associated with the new MOB, a new parking structure is planned north of the new MOB, next to the existing parking structure. This analysis summarizes the current traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project along Talbot Road and evaluates projected traffic conditions with construction of the new MOB and parking structure. The following five (5) intersections were studied as part of the level of service (LOS) analysis: • Davis Avenue (NS)/S 43rd Street (EW); • Talbot Road (NS)/VMC North Access Road -177th Street (EW); • Talbot Road (NS)/VMC Central Driveway fEW); • Talbot Road (NS)/VMC South Driveway (EW); and • Talbot Road (NS)/S 43,d Street (EW). EXISTING CONDITIONS The study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. peak hours with the exception of the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -17Th Street intersection during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, and the Talbot Road/S 431d Street intersection during the A.M. peak hour. Peak hour traffic signal warrants are not met at the Talbot Road/VMC North Access Road -177th Street intersection for existing conditions. Severe operational deficiencies were observed at the Talbot Road/S 43'd Street intersection during the AM peak hour, resulting in long westbound queues at the intersection taking several hours to clear. The source of the issue appeared to be related to the following downstream intersections on S 43,6 Street and S 180th St • Lind Avenue -88th Ave SIS 180th St • Valley Highway/S 180th Street • SR -167 Ramps/S 43,11 Street intersection. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The minor street approaches at the Talbot Road/VMC North Dirveway-17th Street intersection are projected to operate at an unsatisfactory LOS (LOS F) for existing plus project conditions. The Talbot Road/S 431,1 Street intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour for existing plus project conditions. The westbound approach at the Talbot Road/VMC Central Driveway is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour; however, westbound traffic volumes at the intersection during the PM peak hour are very low (3 vehicles during the peak hour). VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4# PARKINGCONsulrANTz OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Peak hour traffic signal warrants are met at the Talbot Road/VMC North Access Road -177th Street intersection for existing plus project conditions. PROJECT OPENING YEAR CONDITIONS The Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour in 2019 without and with project conditions, but is projected to operate acceptably during the Mid -Day and PM peak hours. The minor street (eastbound and westbound) approaches at the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection are projected to operate at LOS E/F for 2019 without project conditions, worsening to level of service F and breakdown conditions for 2019 with project conditions. The westbound approach at the Talbot Road/VMC Central driveway intersection, which serves 3 vehicles (1 vehicle every 20 minutes) during the PM peak hour is projected to operate at LOS F. The provision of employee only access to the upper levels of the new garage via a direct ramp through the HR lot, would provide benefits to on-site circulation, including circulation in the parking structure. However, provision of the additional access point would not change the need to signalize the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS The following potential improvements are recommended to improve traffic operations and circulation in the study area: Talbot Road/VMC North Access Road -177th Street: Signalization of this intersection is recommended. Signalization of this intersection will improve level of service at the intersection to LOS 8 and could also have the ancillary benefit of providing gaps in traffic for vehicles turning out of the VMC central and south driveways onto Talbot Road, as well as from the medical office building driveways on the east side of Talbot Road. Talbot Road/S 431d Street: Walker observed that the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection is not the limiting factor for existing conditions, and therefore capacity improvements at the intersection may lead to little or no improvement in the intersection's operation, since the issue of queue spillback from the SR -167 Northbound Ramps, Valley Road and Lind Avenue intersections is limiting throughput along the corridor. Walker recommends that VMC and the City explore the installation an eastbound right -turn overlap phase at the Talbot Road/S 43,d Street intersection. While this recommendation will not alleviate the existing westbound issues during the AM peak period, it could potentially improve PM peak period operations in the eastbound direction without requiring right-of-way dedication. S 180"' St -S 43rd St Corridor: Walker recommends the City of Renton, the City of Kent, and the Washington State Department of Transportation undertake a corridor study of S 180th St -S 43rd Street between Lind Avenue -88th Avenue and Talbot Road to determine appropriate actions to alleviate the severe westbound queuing observed during the AM peak period, and to a lesser extent, the eastbound queuing that is observed during the PM peak period. VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2010 INTRODUCTION WALKER PARKING CONSULTANT 39-1037.00 This report summarizes Walker Parking Consultants analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed 150,000 square foot Medical Office Building (MOB) addition to the Valley Medical Center campus in Renton, Washington. The proposed MOB would displace existing surface parking east of the Talbot Professional Center building. To accommodate displaced parking and parking associated with the new MOB, a new parking structure is planned north of the new MOB, next to the existing parking structure. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed MOB and parking structure. Figure 1: Project Location Image Source: Google Earth Pro 2016 2 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# PARIUNCCONSLATANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 This analysis summarizes the current traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project along Talbot Road and evaluates projected traffic conditions with construction of the new MOB and parking structure. OBJECTIVES The traffic impact analysis will address the following questions: • What are the existing traffic conditions? • What will be the traffic impact of the additional trips to be generated by the proposed MOB development? • What traffic improvements are recommended, if any, to mitigate traffic circulation concerns with the proposed project? • What traffic improvements could potentially address existing operational deficiencies along S 43rd Street and at the S 43rd Street/Talbot Road intersection? METHODOLOGY This traffic impact study follows an approach consistent with the standards of the traffic engineering profession and the City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Policy Guidelines for New Development (January 2016). The first phase of the study included field review of the study area, including roadway and intersection geometrics, documentation of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, and collection of new traffic data at the study intersections, which was analyzed to determine existing operating conditions. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was used to analyze this data to describe the operational characteristics of the study intersections. The analysis then involved projected trip generation for the planned project. Industry standard Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized to determine the potential trip generation of the proposed MOB. Next, the study determined the distribution of project trips into and out of the site and on adjacent streets based primarily on the location of anticipated access. Travel patterns observed at the VMC's existing access points were also reviewed to aid in determining trip distribution. After that, project trips were assigned to the street network to evaluate the resulting traffic operations and LOS with the proposed project. Per City comments, dated July 14, 2016, traffic signal warrants were evaluated as appropriate and specific improvements at the S 43rd Street/Talbot Road intersection have been analyzed. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) METHODOLOGY Level of Services (LOS) is commonly utilized to describe the quality of flow on roadways and at intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A to LOS F. The City of Renton traffic impact analysis guidelines state that level of service (LOS) analysis may include any of the commonly accepted methods but do not explicitly require a certain methodology be utilized. This report utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 analysis methodology for accessing the 3 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 itWALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 level of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. The HCM methodology has been chosen as it focuses more on the operational characteristics of an intersection as opposed to the strictly volume -to -capacity based Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Typically, HCM analysis is more conservative than ICU analysis as the resulting LOS results are typically lower (worse) compared to ICU analysis. Level of service at signalized intersections is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements at the intersection, while LOS at unsignzalized intersections is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for the worst performing stop -controlled minor street movement or major street left -turn movement. Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of traffic flow and accompanying delay ranges at intersections. Table 1: Level of Service Definitions Level Of Service Signalized Intersection Very favorable progression; most vehicles arrive A during green signal and do not stop. Short cycle lengths. Average Delay <10 seconds/vehicle Good progression, short cycle lengths. More B vehicles stop than for LOS A. Average Delay 10.01-20.00 seconds/vehicle Fair progression: longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stop is significant, though C many vehicles still pass through without stopping. Average Delay 20.01-35.00 seconds/vehicle Unsignalized Intersection Little or no delay. Delay <10 seconds/vehicle Short traffic delays. Delay 10.01-15.00 seconds/vehicle Average traffic delays. Delay 15.01-25.00 seconds/vehicle Multiple vehicles in queue. Drivers feel restricted. Progression less favorable, longer cycle lengths Delay 25.01-35.00 seconds/vehicle and high flow/capacity ratio. The proportion of D vehicles that pass through without stopping diminishes. Individual cycle failures are obvious. Average Delay 35.01-55.00 seconds/vehicle Severe congestion with some long standing queues on critical approaches. Poor progression, long cycle lengths and high E flow/capacity ratio. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Average Delay 50.01-80.00 seconds/vehicle Very poor progression, long cycle lengths and F many individual cycle failures. Arrival flow rates exceed capacity of the intersection. Average Delay >80 seconds/vehicle Delays approaching intolerable levels and demand approaching the probably maximum number of vehicles that can be accommodated by the moment. Delay 35.01- 50.00 seconds/vehicle Very constrained flow representing an intersection failure situation caused by geometric and/or operational constraints. Delay >50 seconds/vehicle Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 AtWALKER PARKING CONSULTANT{ 39-1037.00 The City of Renton traffic impact analysis guidelines do not specify a LOS target. This analysis utilizes LOS D as the target for acceptable intersection operation, which is the most commonly seen LOS target in other jurisdictions. 5 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# PARKINGCQNSUFAWS OCTOBER 2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS STUDY AREA 39-1037.00 This study analyzes traffic operations at the following five intersections in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project: • Davis Avenue (NS)/S 43rd Street (EW); Talbot Road (NS)/VMC North Access Road -177th Street (EW); Talbot Road (NS)/VMC Central Driveway (EW); Talbot Road (NS)/VMC South Driveway (EW); and • Talbot Road (NS)/S 43,d Street (EW). The locations of the study intersections, as well as the existing roadway network and intersection geometry are shown on Figure 2. The characteristics of the roadway system in the vicinity of the proposed project site are described below. S 431d Street in the vicinity of VMC is an east -west, four -lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit on S 43rd Street is 35 miles per hour. East of Talbot Road, S 43rd Street changes name to S Carr Road. East of Talbot Road, S Carr Road is a four -lane roadway with a painted median between. Between Talbot Road and the SR -167 northbound on/off ramps, S 43rd Street is a seven -lane roadway with a raised median, and between the SR -167 northbound Ramps and Valley Road, S 43rd Street is a four -lane roadway with a painted median. On Street parking is not permitted on S 43rd Street. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on S 43rd Street at the SR -167 interchange is 45,000 vehicles (WSDOT, 2015 www.wsddot.wa.gov). Talbot Road in the vicinity of the proposed project is a north -south, two-lane roadway with a continuous left -tum lane and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. On -street parking is generally prohibited on Talbot Road with the exception of a small area where it is permitted on the west side of the roadway, just north of the VMC campus. Walker collected ADT counts on Talbot Road adjacent to VMC on Tuesday September 13, 2016. The observed ADT on Talbot Road was 12,149 vehicles. Davis Avenue is a north -south, two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. On -street parking is permitted on Davis Avenue south of S 43'd Street. VMC Access Driveways on Talbot Road VMC has three driveways on Talbot Road. The northernmost driveway is slightly off set from 177th Street on the east of Talbot Road but function as two-way stop -controlled intersection with Talbot Road being uncontrolled. The northern driveway provides access to the main employee parking structure on the northern edge of the campus. The central driveway provides access to surface parking areas near the Talbot Medical building, and the southernmost driveway provides access to the emergency department drop off. 6 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 Figure 2: Study Intersections and Roadway Geometry } i ; Parking ; Structure ' Site RD MOB ."`:. Site •' "� �', + Ow w r' 1.. legend: '� '!► � Travel Lane Vis.. `r STOP Stop-CO(+tr011Bd ApprOpCh Y 2U 2 -Lane Undivided Roadway 2D 2 -Lane Divided Roadway � 4U 4 -Lane Undivided Roadway V +sA 4D 4 -Lane Divided Roadway g Ov Overlap Right -Tum Phase r► S 4W $TVON -_ ��-► 15 4 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANT< Source: Image: Google Earth Pro, Graphics: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 i"` -v- - 39-1037.00 i '7th ST /1 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 39-1037.00 There are no on -street bicycle facilities in the study area. Sidewalks and curb ramps at intersections are generally present. PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE The City of Renton is served by King County Transit. There are two King County bus routes serving VMC, Route 169 and Route 906. Route 169 runs between the Renton Transit Center and the City of Kent, with headways of approximately 30 minutes on weekdays and weekends. Route 169 operates from approximately 4:30 AM to 11:30 PM on weekdays, and from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM on weekends. Route 169 runs along Carr Road and Talbot Road in the study area, with a stop adjacent to VMC at VMC/s southern driveway on Talbot Road. Dart Route 906 runs between Fairwood and Southcenter, with headways of approximately 60 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, with no service on Sundays. Route 906 operates from approximately 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekdays, and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. Route 906 runs along Carr Road/S 43,d Street in the study area, with a stop adjacent to VMC on S 43rd Street on the farside of the Talbot Road/S 43,d Street intersection. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES To determine the existing operations of the study intersections, peak period traffic counts were collected on Tuesday September 13, 2016 between 7:00 A.M., between 11:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M., and 9:00 A.M. and between 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. in 15 -minute increments. The peak hour traffic volumes utilized in this analysis are from the highest hour within the peak period counted for the A.M., mid-day, and P.M. peak hour. Appendix A contains the collected traffic count data. Figures 3A -3C show existing A.M., mid-day, and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. 8 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4&PARKING CONSULTAN'S OCTOBER 2016 ■ 39-1037.00 Figure 3a: Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 Parking , Structure Site i 1 � 1 `------ ""' N ACCESS RD 11 41 r + MOB Site + R ten fro!n-. Legend: XX AM Peak Hour Volume Does not include approximately 500 vehicles of unmet demand (residual queue) a j,1+--611237 871,Tr S43RDST 198 "-1, _ N LU w 5 Source: Walker Parking Consultants. 2016 0 1 1 •-- 0 �/� r-- 0 2 ' Drwy 0. 32 I r �hro South Day j 0 2Drwy 46 a v +_ 44 22 224 514 147 I I I co 10 Q V O m 177th ST 0 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 4# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Figure 3b: Existing Mid-day Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Parking ; ' Structure ' Site `---""--"N ACCESS RD L ~16 245 � try 177th ST MOB ,` I ! +vn + Site f � , e v� +--2aha/ pM y Ji r 4-0 4 �2 )4� Drwy 10 Legend: N Legend: XX Mid-day Peak Hour Volume 1 L15 41296 1193 S 43RD ST 103 qv C4 LU N W Q Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 2 14`.! Drury so +__68 749 53 216=tr �ir co 741 i 256 D 0 co Q f - H VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 3c: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Parking ; Structure Site ;_.-_-----NACCESSRD `"i� X316 -•—i i'8 MOB �• I 257 �] f r F 77th ST Site " i r ray � f-2 !per Drwy 0 92err �1_ R t-' Legend: outh SXX PM Peak Hour Volume Drwy 11164 Is w 2089 S 43RD ST 226--+ 79— I 1227 64,3--+ 0 L 0 LULU 0 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 OBSERVATION OF EXISTING OPERATIONAL ISSUES Walker staff visited the study area on Wednesday August 31, 2016 and Thursday September 1, 2016 to observe the existing operational characteristics of the study intersections, and in particular the signalized Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection during the A.M., Mid-day and P.M. peak hours in response to the City's concerns related to existing operational issues at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection. During the mid-day peak hour, traffic operation at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection, and in the study area as a whole, appeared to function acceptably. During the P.M. peak hour, traffic operation at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection, and in the study area as a whole, appeared to function acceptably; however, the P.M. peak hour is characterized by heavy eastbound traffic flows, the eastbound queue at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection typically extended almost to the SR -167 Northbound Ramps/S 43rd Street intersection. However, the vehicles in the queue generally made it through the Talbot Road/S 43,d Street intersection in one cycle. Based on Walker's observations, it is the Valley Road/S 43,d Street intersection and/or the SR -167 Northbound Ramps/S 43rd Street intersection that limit traffic flow in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour. The A.M. peak hour is characterized by heavy westbound traffic flows, experienced the worst operational deficiencies of the three peak hours. At the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection, the queue for the westbound through movement reached approximately one -mile in length, and persisted throughout the peak hour, the peak period and beyond. The northbound and southbound approaches on Talbot Road generally made it through the signal in one cycle, except during the peak 15 -minutes of activity, when the southbound queue stretched back beyond VMC's frontage on Talbot Road and the northbound queue stretched back beyond S 45th Place. Because of the gridlock in the overall system during the A.M. peak hour, recorded westbound traffic volumes were lower in the A.M. peak hour than during the other observation periods as the traffic flow broke down. The timing of the traffic signal at the SR -167 Northbound Ramps is such that the Talbot Road traffic turning left/right onto westbound S 43rd Street is often unimpeded, while the westbound S 43,d Street traffic is often blocked from proceeding for a majority of its green time due to the westbound queues at the SR -167 Northbound Ramps. Walker observed that the Talbot Road/S 431d Street intersection is not the limiting factor for existing conditions, and therefore capacity improvements at the intersection may lead to little or no improvement in the intersection's operation, since the issue of queue spillback from the SR -167 Northbound Ramps, Valley Road and Lind Avenue intersections is limiting throughput along the corridor. Walker staff observed a lack of coordination and potential sub -optimal timing/actuation at the Lind Avenue-88�h Ave S/5180th Street intersection during the A.M. peak hour that was affecting the westbound throughput along the corridor. 12 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# PARKINGCONSULTANT< OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE The existing A.M., Mid -Day and P.M. peak hour level of service, based on the collected traffic counts and the existing roadway/intersection geometry in Figure 2, is shown in Table 2. Detailed 2010 HCM analysis sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 2: Existing A.M., Mid -Day and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Source: Walker Parking Consultants As shown in Table 2, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. peak hours with the exception of the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, and the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection during the A.M. peak hour. EXISTING CONDITIONS SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for existing conditions have been prepared based on existing peak hour intersection volumes at The Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177Th Street intersection. Table 3 summarizes the results of the signal warrant analysis. Detailed warrant analysis sheets are contained in Appendix C. 13 AM Peak Hour Mid -Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control Dela - LOS Dela - LOS Dela - LOS Davis Ave/S 43rd St NB Right -Turn NB -SB Stop 10.7 - B 11.1 - B 13.5 - B SB Right -Turn 9.2 - A 9.3 - A 9.2 - A Talbot o rwy EB Approach 30.1 - D 17.8 - C 49.3 - E WB Approach EB -WB Stop 53.7 - F 15.8 - C 18.2 - C NB Left -Turn 9.3 - A 8.1 - A 8,1 - A SB Left -Turn 7.6 - A 7.6 - A 8.0 - A lalbot Hd/VMC Centralrwy EB Approach 11.8 - B 13.4 - B 15.6 - C WB Approach EB -WB Stop 10.1 - B 14.6 - B 25.7 - D NB Left -Turn 8.4 - A 8.4 - A 8.8 - A SB Left -Turn 8.0 - A 7.8 - A 8.0 - A albot Kcl/VMC Southrwy EB Approach 11.9-B 15.8-C 12.8-B WB Approach EB -WB Stop 14.9 - B 15.5 - C 18.0 - C NB Left -Turn 8.5 - A 9.3 - A 8.8- A Talbot Rd/S 43rd St Signal 105.1 - F 33.7 - C 41.6 - D Source: Walker Parking Consultants As shown in Table 2, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) during the A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. peak hours with the exception of the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, and the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection during the A.M. peak hour. EXISTING CONDITIONS SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for existing conditions have been prepared based on existing peak hour intersection volumes at The Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177Th Street intersection. Table 3 summarizes the results of the signal warrant analysis. Detailed warrant analysis sheets are contained in Appendix C. 13 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 Table 3: Existing Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Intersection Signal Warrants Met? Mid -Day Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hour Talbot Rd/VMC North Drwy-1771h St No No No Source: Walker Parking Consultants Signal warrants are not met at the Talbot Road/VMC North Access Road Driveway -177th Street intersection for existing conditions based on peak hour warrant analysis. 14 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 49 PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists of a 150,000 square foot medical office building on an existing surface parking lot, and construction of a new 1,250± space parking structure to support the MOB as well as existing parking displaced by construction of the proposed MOB and parking structure. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of traffic, both inbound and outbound, produced by a development. Determining trip generation for a proposed project is based on projecting the amount of traffic that the specific land uses being proposed will produce. Industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 9th Edition trip generation rates were used to determine trip generation of the proposed project. Table 4 shows the ITE 9th Edition trip generation rates used to calculate projected trip generation of the proposed project, and the proposed MOB's projected trip generation based on those rates. For the Mid -Day peak hour, the ITE rates for the peak hour of generator were utilized, which is a worst case scenario. Table 4: Proposed Project Trip Generation Proposed Project Trip Generation Rates Land Use/ITE Code Unit ADT AM Peak Hour Mid -Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In I Out Total In I Out Total In Out Total Medical Office (720) TSF 36.13 1.89 1 0.50 2.39 1.67 1 2.60 4.27 1.00 2.57 3.57 Proposed Project Trip Generation Land Use Unit ADT AM Peak Hour Mid -Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out I Total In I Out TTotal In Out Total Medical Office 150.0 TSF 5420 284 75 1 359 251 1 390 1 641 150 386 536 Note: ISF = Thousand square reel Source: Walker Parking Consultants As shown in Table 4, the proposed MOB project is forecast to generate approximately 359 AM peak hour trips, 641, Mid -Day peak hour trips, 536 PM peak hour trips and 5,420 daily trips. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Projecting trip distribution involves the process of identifying probable destinations and traffic routes that will be utilized by the proposed project's traffic. The potential interaction between the proposed land use and surrounding regional access routes are considered to identify the probable routes onto which project traffic would distribute. The projected trip distribution for the proposed project is based on anticipated travel patterns to and from the project site as well as existing travel patterns to and from VMC based on the collected traffic data. Figures 4A -F shows the projected trip distribution of proposed project trips. 15 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 A# WALKER PARKING CONSLATANTS Figure 4a: AM Peak Hour - Inbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips 39-1037.00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 16 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 4b: AM Peak Hour Outbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips 39-1037.00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 20] 6 17 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 Figure 4c: Mid -Day Peak Hour - Inbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips waLrKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Source; Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 Ill: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Figure 4d: Mid -Day Peak Hour - Outbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips 39-1037.00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 m VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 Figure 4e: PM Peak Hour - Inbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 20 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 49 WALKER PARKING CONSUCTANT� Figure 4f: PM Peak Hour - Outbound Trip Distribution of Proposed Project Trips 39-1037.00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 %i VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 MODAL SPLIT While two King County Metro bus routes directly serve VMC, the trip -reducing effects of potential transit, walking and bicycle trips have not been considered in this analysis to present a conservative analysis. PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT Figures 5A -C show the corresponding projected trip assignment of project trips based on the trip distribution in Figures 4A -F. CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC In addition to an ambient growth factor, near-term traffic volumes include other reasonably foreseeable development projects which are either approved or are currently being processed in the study area as part of the project opening year analysis scenarios. A list of cumulative projects within a three mile radius of the proposed project site was developed for this analysis based on obtainment of current development status reports on the City of Renton website. Figure 6 shows the location of nearby cumulative developments. A summary of the cumulative projects land uses is shown in Table 5. Table 5: Cumulative Projects # Project Name/Description land Use Quantity 1 Sonic Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant 2.668 TSF 2 Avana Ridge PUD Multi -Family Residential 74 DU 3 Grant Place Townhomes Multi -Family Residential 36 DU 4 Reserve at Tiffany Park Single -Family Detached 97 DU 5 Vuecrest Estates Single -Family Detached 20 DU 6 Renton Commons Multi -Family Residential 48 DU 7 Starbucks at Airport Plaza Coffee Shop 2.0 TSF 8 Asian Restaurant Addition Restaurant 3.321 TSF 9 Longacres Business Center Phase II Office 260.0 TSF 10 Carmax Auto Sales 20.22 TSF Note: ISf = thousand square teet. uu = uwening unit Source: Walker Parking Consultants 22 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 Figure Sa: AM Peak Hour Trip Assignment A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 23 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 Figure 5b: Mid -Day Peak Hour Trip Assignment A# WALKER PARKING CONSULiAI*[n 39-1037.00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 24 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 Figure 5c: PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment A# WALKER PARKING CCKu5UL7A 4'S 39-1037,00 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 25 r r "■ ILtit 1 •� I��il � r! ��� �� � .�5. 3rd Ga°rlbC ley Ved ci.Cc-tc r = cp,gorcy:'coartrr'c^t Nil J Ilfe U? e cast E I Vc, than ISO VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 49 PARKING CONSULTANT OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Figures 7A, 713 and 7C show existing plus project A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. peak hour volumes, derived by adding the projected project trip assignment to existing traffic volumes. Existing Plus Project A.M., Mid -Day and P.M. peak hour level of service, based on the exiting plus project volumes, is shown in Table 6. Detailed HCM 2010 analysis sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 6: Existing Plus Project A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Source: Walker Parking Consultants As shown in Table 6, the minor street approaches at the Talbot Road/VMC North Dirveway-17th Street intersection are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS for existing plus project conditions. The Talbot Road/S 431d Street intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour for existing plus project conditions. The westbound approach at the Talbot Road/VMC Central Driveway is projected to operate of LOS F during the PM peak hour, however, westbound traffic volumes at the intersection during the PM peak hour are very low (3 vehicles during the peak hour). 27 AM Peak Hour Mid -Da Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control Dela - LOS Dela - LOS Dela - LOS Davis Ave7S 43rd S NB Right -Turn NB -SB Stop 11.2 - B 11.9 - B 14.4 - B SB Right -Turn 9.5 - A 9.6 - A 9.4 - A Talbot o rwy EB Approach 288.4 - F 179.4 - F 329.4 - F WB Approach EB -WB Stop 249.0 - F 28.7 - D 38.3 - E NB Left -Turn 10.3 - B 8.5 - A 8.4 - A SB Left -Turn 7.6 - A 7.6 - A 8.0 - A olloot Rd/VMC Centralrwy EB Approach 12.2 - B 19,1 - C 25.5 - D WB Approach EB -WB Stop 10.5 - B 24.5 - C 50.7 - F NB Left -Turn 8.6 - A 92 - A 9.7 - A SB Left -Turn 8.1 - A 8.0 - A 8.1 - A Talbot South rwy EB Approach 12.3 - B 23.0 - C 16.9 - C WB Approach EB -WB Stop 16.5 - C 23.2 - C 26.6 - D NB Left -Turn 8.7 -A 10.6 - B 9.6 - A Talbot Rd/S 43rd St Signal 1 112.7 - F 39.9 - D 44.2 - D Source: Walker Parking Consultants As shown in Table 6, the minor street approaches at the Talbot Road/VMC North Dirveway-17th Street intersection are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS for existing plus project conditions. The Talbot Road/S 431d Street intersection is projected to continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour for existing plus project conditions. The westbound approach at the Talbot Road/VMC Central Driveway is projected to operate of LOS F during the PM peak hour, however, westbound traffic volumes at the intersection during the PM peak hour are very low (3 vehicles during the peak hour). 27 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 4# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANS� 39-1037.00 Figure 7a: Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Volumes Parking ; Structure ' ' Site , •----- - -- �NACCESSRD +f d! +x-78 - ref 49--# f-50 64 � r 177th ST MOB ; + f f Site r1 trp10fvv), ~ 0 f-0 Drwy 40 qtr CO Legend: XX AM Peak Hour Volume Does not include approximately 500 vehicles of unmet demand {residual queue) j 116 .--12s4 913 S 43RD ST 269 � w Q Q a Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 1300th 0 Drwy �° +53 f 1 4— 460' 14 �— 22 266 1 522 147 r c' x d P�:3 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 7b: Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Volumes Parking , ' Structure ' Site Lo � ----------N ACCESS RD X29 +.. + 117— f5 432--j 277th ST MOB ;r ! r + Site ' + day J 0 ,[ 4 f— 2 Drwy 124--1 1 o9 o Legend: XX Mid-day Peak Hour Volume 1450 1268 S 43RD ST 153 v Q LU Q V) LU a Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 SaUth pyjzcP0 0 2Drwy ��;2 jl1 291 761 256 a O 93 749 53 29 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS At PARKING conrsuLrnNrs OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 7c: Existing Plus Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Volumes Legend: Parking , ' Structure ' Site N ACCESS RD a r , r a MOB ; Site +� + 1p__.:� ' XX PM Peak Hour Volume 1 L9 1 � 1318 2134—► S 43RD ST 109 = o. v LU a w Q a Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 Lo *--- 1 f-2 — Drwy Soo ^a *--a s� - 3 Drwy r. +56 612 f I I j-46 4b 271 1246 ni 643 O a O 30 6 176 26~ 177th ST442 XX PM Peak Hour Volume 1 L9 1 � 1318 2134—► S 43RD ST 109 = o. v LU a w Q a Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 Lo *--- 1 f-2 — Drwy Soo ^a *--a s� - 3 Drwy r. +56 612 f I I j-46 4b 271 1246 ni 643 O a O 30 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Traffic signal warrants for existing plus project conditions have been prepared based on existing peak hour intersection volumes at The Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection. Table 7 summarizes the results of the signal warrant analysis. Detailed warrant analysis sheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 7: Existing Plus Project Conditions Signal Warrant Anaiysis Intersection Signal Warrants Met? Mid -Day Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hour Talbot Rd/VMC North Drwy-1771h St No Yes Yes Source: Wolker Parking Consulfants 31 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PARKINGCONsulTANrz OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS PROJECT OPENING YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUMES This analysis assumes the proposed MOB will be built and generating trips in 2019. Project opening year without project traffic volumes were derived by application of an ambient growth rate of one percent per year for three years to existing traffic volumes, plus trips associated with the previously discussed cumulative projects. Project opening year with project traffic volumes adds trips projected to be generated by the proposed MOB to project opening year without project volumes. figures 8A, 8B and 8C show project opening year without project A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. peak hour volumes. Figures 9A, 9B and 9C show project opening year with project A.M., Mid -Day, and P.M. peak hour volumes. PROJECT OPENING YEAR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Project opening year without and with project A.M., Mid -Day and P.M. peak hour level of service is shown in Table 8. Detailed HCM 2010 analysis sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 8: Project Opening Year Without and With Project Intersection Level of Service Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 32 9 Without Project 2019 With Project MD PM AM MD PM Intersection Control Dela LOS Dela - L05 Dela - L05 Dela -LD5 Dela -LD5 avis Ave 43rd StNB r1a Right -Turn NB -SB Stop 11.4-B 14.0-B 11.4-B 12.2-B 14.9-B SB Right -Turn 9.5-A 9.3-A 9.6-A 9.7-A 9.6-A Jabot o rwy EB Approach 38.5 - E 20.4 - C 73.9 - F 703.1 - F 303.8 - F 407.4 - F WB Approach EB -WB Stop 76.5 - F 17.1 - C 20.2 - C 351.4 - F 36.8 - E 50.3 - F NR Left -Turn 9.6-A 8.2-A 8.2-A 10.6-B 8.6-A 8.5-A SB Left -Turn 7.7-A 1 7.7-A 8.0-A 7.7-A 7.7-A 8.0-A laltDot K(I/VMC Centralnary EB Approach 12.2-B 1 14.0-B 16.8-C 12.7-B 20.6-C 28.6-D WB Approach EB -WB Stop 10.3 - B 15.5 - C 28.6 - D 10.8 - B 27,0 - D 59.7 - F NB Left -Turn 8.5-A 8.5-A 8.9--A 8.7-A 9.3-A 9.9-A SB Left -Turn 8.1 -A 7.9-A 8.1 -A 8.2-A 8.0-A 8.2-A albol Kd/VMC Southrwy EB Approach 12.2-B 16.7-C 13.3-B 12.7-8 24.8-C 17.8-C WB Approach EB -WB Stap 15.7 - C 16.4 - C 19.1 - C 17.4 - C 125.4 - D 28.9 - D NB Left -Turn 8.7-A 9.4-A 9.0-A 8.8-A 10.8-B 10.1-B Talbot Rd/S 43rd 5t Signal 117.6 - F 35.6 - D 43.7 - D 125.3 - F 42.5 - D 47.3 - D Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 32 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PAR3{NGCONSutTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 8a: Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Volumes Parking ; Structure ' Site i '--^-----'N ��� +-30 ACCESS RD +�--- -'; 36-.-! r52 } 177th 5T MOB f j ,' + Site N to Legend: XX AM Peak Hour Volume Does not include approximately 500 vehicles of unmet demand (residual queue) �I L 6 �l I +-1324 947 S 43RD ST LU LU LU d Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 +-0 �0 2 Drwy South Dry �� 0 2 Drwy Y] 47 a 45 23 X � 23 2411 565 156 Q O m ti 33 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4 PARKINGCONSuITANITS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 8ka_ Project Opening Year Without Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Volumes 1 1 , 1 , Parking , Structure Site 1 � `--------` 1cvj� NACCESS RD X16 _ r r 7 252 r' 177th ST ;r MOB ; I I'\ Site r o o a a a r a a r � rryy Legend. XX Mid-day Peak Hour Volume +-15 �1 X1385 1279 f' S 43RD ST 106 cv w Q Lu Lu Q 0 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 2 14� '' Drwy 6 °--" � it South Drt'�,1, I �— o �2 r¢� , Drwy �0 --� 7r I 807 1 4 f-55 233 r 798 269 Qc O CD 34 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS *4 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 8c: Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 Parking , ' Structure ' Site , � 1 1 P �S7 ■ - - - - -- NACCESSRp "i'+ X16 q-3 r' 122 --} f8 MOB 26s --I, +T r 177th 5T f + I Site � ��� r + 2 1C) Dnffy 9°� 7rr '0 Legend: XX PM Peak Hour Volume n o +--9 �I 4 1249 2202 I 5 43RD ST 81� LLA Q V7 W 7 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 South 10 Dr"y �1h ��- I 3 S-�$ +' Drwy S �r a� r+r L 42 466 4 f-47 243 I t 1299 N 667 n Q 0 Q ti 35 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4# WALKER PARKING CONSUITAWS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 9a: Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour Volumes Parking ; ' Structure Site - - ` N ACCESS Rd w80 50—} ' X52 f � � 65 � 1 I r 177th ST MOB _ I Site { cv �` a. V' f � •-_ _ ' v 0 n F- 0 2 Drwy 4°� 1 tr '0 Legend: XX AM Peak Hour Volume Does not include approximately 500 vehicles of unmet demand (residual queue) 485 l+ S 43RD ST 275 � LU U.3 O Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 South orw y .11 � o 2 Drwy 2� 5s� 7r n� a �b �1 l X54 �509. r 23 283 573 156D�' O m 36 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Figure 9b: Project Opening Year With Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Volumes Parking ; ' Structure ' Site i , o co --- - - - - -- �NACCESSRD �•� X11 X29 19 439 nnoa - I r 177th ST Site i $ o h r � 2 Drwy 0� 126 + t 1 Legend: XX Mid-day Peak Hour Volume w Q Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 South Dry° 0 2 lq� �• Drwy ��IQ +95 807 j;-- 55 308 I 818 T N 269 o ^ a 0 a O m Q 37 j X15 1539 ♦1 1354, S 43RD ST 156 ,n w Q Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 South Dry° 0 2 lq� �• Drwy ��IQ +95 807 j;-- 55 308 I 818 T N 269 o ^ a 0 a O m Q 37 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Figure 9c: Project Opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes Parking ; Structure Site i J :__--_--- �NACCESSRD+L + +.+ 180— ''f-8 i r 177th ST 4 MOB ,� t r �N^ �+ Site m LO j �2 l p� Drwy 15°--4 7rr 4 Legend: O:M011 .17:[1RaR.7lRi Ta j,L-9 1 X1403 2247 ::�Tr S 43RD ST 111 53 w Q ,n _w Q Q Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 South rte- 0 s S� Drwy a"a L57 X666 47 47 288 -J' 1318 667 I {^a v m Q r - 38 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS it PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 As shown in Table 8, the Talbot Road/S 43,d Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour for both 2019 without and with project conditions, but is projected to operate acceptably during the Mid -Day and PM peak hours. The minor street (eastbound and westbound) approaches at the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection are projected to operate at LOS E/F for 2019 without project conditions, worsening to level of service F and breakdown conditions for 2019 with project conditions. The westbound approach at the Talbot Road/VMC Central driveway intersection, which serves 3 vehicles (1 vehicle every 20 minutes) during the PM peak hour is projected to operate at LOS F. PROJECT OPENING YEAR SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants for project opening year plus project conditions have been prepared based on project opening year with project peak hour intersection volumes at The Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -1771h Street intersection. Table 9 summarizes the results of the signal warrant analysis. Detailed warrant analysis sheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 9: Project Opening Year Signal Warrant Analysis Intersection Signal Warrants Met? Mid -Day Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hour Talbot Rd/VMC North Drwy-1771h St No Yes Yes Source: Walker Parking Consultants 39 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 ALTERNATIVE GARAGE ACCESS PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS This scenario evaluates project opening year with project conditions assuming that the proposed parking structure has an additional access point to Talbot Road through the existing HR building driveway. VMC is considering construction a direct ramp from the HR lot to the employee levels of the proposed parking structure. This scenario assumes the following: • Trip generation assumptions remain the some as in prior scenarios • Approximately one half of the vehicles entering/exiting VMC of the north driveway from both the north and south during the AM/PM peak hours are employees who would shift to using the HR/Talbot egress and direct ramp to the upper levels of the parking structure. • Approximately one third of the vehicles entering/exiting VMC at the north driveway from both the north and south during the Mid-day peak hour are employees who would shift to using the HR/Talbot egress and direct ramp to the upper levels of the parking structure. • No changes to traffic patterns would occur at other VMC access points. ALTERNATIVE GARAGE ACCESS SCENARIO INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Project opening year without and with project A.M., Mid -Day and P.M. peak hour level of service is shown in Table 8. Detailed HCM 2010 analysis sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table IQ: Alternative Garage Access Intersection Level of Service Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 As shown in Table 10, the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection would still be projected to operate at level of service F and breakdown conditions for 2019 with project conditions with the alternative access point through the HR Lot. 40 2019 With Project AM MD PM Intersection Control Dela - LOS Dela - LOS Dela - LOS Talbot Rd/VMC North Drwy EB Approach 39.8 - E 308.8 - F 455.5 - F WB Approach EB -WB Stop 102.4 - F 36.8 - E 33.4 - C NB Left -Turn 9.2 - A 8.6 - A 9.0 - D SB Left -Turn 8.0 - A 7.7 - A 8.2 - A Talbot Rd/Alf Garage Access EB Approach EB Stop 16.0 - C 12.1 - B 24.7 - C NB Left -Turn 9.8 - A 7.9 - A 8.4 - A Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016 As shown in Table 10, the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection would still be projected to operate at level of service F and breakdown conditions for 2019 with project conditions with the alternative access point through the HR Lot. 40 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PARKING CONSMTA'r- OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 ALTERNATIVE GARAGE ACCESS SCENARIO SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants would stili be met at the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection with the alternative garage access. Detailed warrant analysis sheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 11: Alternative Garage Access Project Opening Year Signal Warrant Analysis Intersection Signal Warrants Met? Mid -Day Peak AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hour Talbot Rd/VMC North Drwy-1771" St No Yes Yes Source: Walker Parking Consultants In general provision of an alternative ingress/egress point for the proposed garage through the HR lot does not charge the need for signalization of the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway - 177th Street intersection for project opening year with project conditions. However, it has the potential to improve queuing on site by providing an additional egress point onto Talbot Road, and should result in improved on-site circulation as employees could bypass multiple levels of the parking structure and head directly to their designated parking area. The potential separation of employee and patient/visitor ingress/egress afforded by the potential alternative access would be a positive development. 41 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS At PARKING CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 RECOMMENDATIONS 39-1037.00 The City of Renton, in its comment letter to VMC dated July 14, 2016, requested that the traffic study look at specific improvement at both the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street and Talbot Road/S 43i6 Street intersection. These potential improvements, suggested by the City are summarized below. Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street: Signalize intersection Talbot Road/S 431d Street: 1. Remove the split phasing on the North/South Talbot Road approaches 2. Two eastbound through lanes on S 43rd Street (matches existing condition) 3. Two eastbound left -turn lanes from S 43rd Street to Talbot Road S (increase from one left -turn lane to two) 4. Two northbound left -tum lanes from Talbot Road S to S 43r11 Street (matches existing condition) 5. One westbound right -turn lane from S. Carr Road to Talbot Road S (currently there is not a dedicated westbound right -turn lane at the intersection) Table 12: Project Opening Year With Project 8, City Recommended Improvements Intersection Level of Service 2019 With Project With Improvements Intersection Control AM Dela - LOS MD Dela - LOS PM Dela - LOS Talbot Rd/VMC North Drwy Signal 9.7 - A 19.3 - B 18.6 - B Talbot Rd/S 43rd St Signal 74.3 - E 37.0 - D 44.5 - D Source: Walker Parking Consultants As shown in Table 10, installation of a traffic signal at the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway - 177th Street intersection would improve level of service at the intersection. The City recommended improvements at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection would theoretically improve operation of the intersection; however, based on the observations of the intersections during the peak hours, the improved operation projected in Table 11 would likely not materialize. This is due to the back-up of westbound vehicles during the AM peak hour origination at the Lind Avenue -88th Ave S/S184th intersection. To illustrate this point, Table 1 1 compares the 2019 With Project AM hour level of service at the Talbot Road/S 4316 Street intersection based on existing operating conditions without improvements to the projected AM peak hour level of service if the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection exists in a vacuum without operational constraints from upstream/downstream intersections. 42 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PARKJNG CONSULTANTS OCTOBER 2016 39-1037.00 Table 13: Talbot Road/S 43rcl St Intersection: LOS with no Operational Constraints Source: Walker Parking Consultants RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TALBOT ROAD/VMC NORTH DRIVEWAY -177TH STREET INTERSECTION A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) peak hour traffic signal warrant was prepared for the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection. Peak Hour signal warrants are met at this intersection with the proposed MOB project. Therefore signalization of this intersection is recommended. Signalization of this intersection could also have the ancillary benefit of providing gaps in traffic for vehicles turning out of the VMC central and south driveways onto Talbot Road, as well as from the medical office building driveways on the east side of Talbot Road. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TALBOT ROAD/S 43RD STREET INTERSECTION Analysis of the existing and projected operation at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection indicates that the existing and projected operational deficiencies during the AM peak period are due to bottlenecks created at downstream intersections at Lind Avenue -88th Ave S/S180th, Valley Highway/S 180th St -S 431d St, and SR -167 NB Ramps/S 43rd Street. Walker observed that the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection is not the limiting factor for existing conditions, and therefore capacity improvements at the intersection may lead to little or no improvement in the intersection's operation, since the issue of queue spillback from the SR -167 Northbound Ramps, Valley Road and Lind Avenue intersections is limiting throughput along the corridor. The improvements analyzed at the City's request potentially improve the intersection on paper, but would do little to alleviate the true source of delays at the intersection during the AM peak period, which at its core is the fact that westbound traffic through the intersection is impeded by a long back-up of westbound vehicles on S 1801h St/S 43rd St that starts at the Lind Avenue -88th Ave S/S 180th intersection and stretches eastward, with westbound queues observed stretching back well east of the Talbot Road/S 43r11 Street intersection. Walker recommends that the City of Renton, the City of Kent, and the Washington State Department of Transportation undertake a corridor study of S 180th St -S 43rd Street between Lind Avenue -88th Avenue and Talbot Road to determine appropriate actions to alleviate the severe westbound queuing observed during the AM peak period, and to a lesser extent, the eastbound queuing that is observed during the PM peak period. 43 2019 With Project No Improvements 2019 With Project No improvements "Stand Alone" intersection Control AM AM Delay - LOS Delay - LOS Talbot Rd/S 43rd St Signal 1 125.3 - F 54.1 - D Source: Walker Parking Consultants RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TALBOT ROAD/VMC NORTH DRIVEWAY -177TH STREET INTERSECTION A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) peak hour traffic signal warrant was prepared for the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177th Street intersection. Peak Hour signal warrants are met at this intersection with the proposed MOB project. Therefore signalization of this intersection is recommended. Signalization of this intersection could also have the ancillary benefit of providing gaps in traffic for vehicles turning out of the VMC central and south driveways onto Talbot Road, as well as from the medical office building driveways on the east side of Talbot Road. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TALBOT ROAD/S 43RD STREET INTERSECTION Analysis of the existing and projected operation at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection indicates that the existing and projected operational deficiencies during the AM peak period are due to bottlenecks created at downstream intersections at Lind Avenue -88th Ave S/S180th, Valley Highway/S 180th St -S 431d St, and SR -167 NB Ramps/S 43rd Street. Walker observed that the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection is not the limiting factor for existing conditions, and therefore capacity improvements at the intersection may lead to little or no improvement in the intersection's operation, since the issue of queue spillback from the SR -167 Northbound Ramps, Valley Road and Lind Avenue intersections is limiting throughput along the corridor. The improvements analyzed at the City's request potentially improve the intersection on paper, but would do little to alleviate the true source of delays at the intersection during the AM peak period, which at its core is the fact that westbound traffic through the intersection is impeded by a long back-up of westbound vehicles on S 1801h St/S 43rd St that starts at the Lind Avenue -88th Ave S/S 180th intersection and stretches eastward, with westbound queues observed stretching back well east of the Talbot Road/S 43r11 Street intersection. Walker recommends that the City of Renton, the City of Kent, and the Washington State Department of Transportation undertake a corridor study of S 180th St -S 43rd Street between Lind Avenue -88th Avenue and Talbot Road to determine appropriate actions to alleviate the severe westbound queuing observed during the AM peak period, and to a lesser extent, the eastbound queuing that is observed during the PM peak period. 43 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2016 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 39-1037.00 Additionally, while the following recommendation will not alleviate the existing westbound AM issues, it could potentially improve PM peak period operations in the eastbound direction without requiring right-of-way dedication: • Install an eastbound right -turn overlap phase at the Talbot Road/S 43rd Street intersection. U-turns are already prohibited from northbound to southbound Talbot Road at the intersection. Addition of eastbound right -turn overlap phasing would increase the efficiency of the existing eastbound right -turn movement (643 vehicles during the PM peak hour). 44 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MOB WALKER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A# PARKING CONSJUANT= FEBRUARY 2017 39-1037.00 the queue is projected to spill back and block northbound Talbot Road one percent of the time. Retaining the existing two-way continuous left -turn lane between the Talbot Road/HR Lot - Garage Driveway and the Talbot Road/VMC North Driveway -177tH Street intersections is recommended to accommodate projected northbound left -turn queues during the AM peak hour. "Do Not Block" or "Keep Clear" striping and accompanying signage should be utilized on Talbot Road at the HR Lot -Garage Access intersection. If a raised median is pursued, a 75 -foot northbound left -turn pocket would accommodate projected 95th percentile queues at the intersection. Restriction of left -turns into and out of the HR Lot -Garage Access driveway are not recommended as it would reduce the efficacy of the employee direct access ramp in reducing ingress and egress queues at the VMC North Driveway. Construction of a raised median would also impact existing access to the Springbrook Professional Plaza on the east side of Talbot Road S. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Walker recommends that VMC implement transportation demand management measures that could reduce projected vehicular trip generation associated with the proposed Medical Office Building as well as the already existing facilities. These measures could include the following: • Carpool/Vanpool Incentives - This could include increased provision of preferential carpool parking spaces, provision of preferential vanpool parking spaces, and vanpool subsidies • Proactive ride matching - VMC could implement a system wherein employees could receive suggestions about carpooling and vanpooling based on home zip codes/addresses and shift schedules • Transit Incentives - to Walker's knowledge, VMC does not provide any transit incentives to employees. To encourage transit usage by employees, VMC should consider providing subsidized transit passes to interested employees. • Bike education workshops - in order to promote more bicycling by employees, we recommend offering bike education workshops to employees that teach safe bicycling and how to maintain and repair bicycles. These workshops should be offered free of charge. • Offer parking cash out - an option for reducing the amount of traffic to and parking needed at the campus in the future would be to implement a parking cash out program. Parking cash out programs are one of the simplest and most effective ways of encouraging employees not to drive alone to work, and benefits employees by allowing them to choose whether or not to continue to driving to work alone. In a parking cash out. VMC would offer each employee the option of surrendering their parking privileges for a pre -determined monthly benefit amount. 45 APPENDICES A# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Appendix A Traffic Counts a;!| )f(} § E:lB3 :NBa¥ B]■�@ �qN!! ;&;!2 § } ����: ,� „ _ ��.�, •§! nm;�! ;n■m[ §mwn! /$§ :„!; :;„;_;Nm 2! ... ..... ..... .4K m=r*! !!n*! a=,r, al m4 !�! Eur!! § «an mug mi ro grv�Rg" mMv�Ra ry,8a-* AA§R MRRri s *A AMU. i n M $m- g8� `��ii - 9 Wm�M1 6s8 rm M r; 83� P 2Z? oao ama omo aoa omm o�� -�n R FS A � m X788 ---VA - - - - - oao oaa oao 004 040 0�0 amo oao 000 ooa aoo a�� AMU. i n M $m- g8� `��ii - 9 Wm�M1 ƒ . ..... ..... ..... . ;:m;r*�4al�;o§ m,, «;;-* ! ! ,■< ¥§§ .�■ «:§ HH M. HMS 2.VM a;B;§ 5;;;R [ 7 Ae 2 »,:;m e; „ ■ ,�_�! ,,,,y �§ „ � §§) 9 ZR 9:E§! 92!!! n;§,e ■!§y§ elye§ § | §§■:; ----- --- ---- !¥!!■ 222 a■! �! fel, P 0 M ----- - m--- _-_ ---- - mom M n ---- -- 0 oQo 0 000 00o aoa o00 000 0�� g=g=lam nnM«I� -«M«Im -M^�Iti _43,�I� ffi m 11A aim =wl ...-k TIS m$� MSS 8— Ao- lg'im - ----- ---- - mom M n ---- -- 0 oQo ... ... ... ... . c� 4 aim =wl ...-k TIS m$� MSS 8— Ao- Prepared by NDS/ATD VOLUME Talbot Rd Bet. VMC Central Dwy & VMC South Dwy Day: Tuesday Date: 9/13/2016 City: Renton Project U.- WA16_2048_001 PeriodAM 10:00 11:15 SB EB WB TOTAL 15:45 PM Period NB 439 ss EB WS TOTAL 401 644 • Pk Hr Factor 0.971 0.956 0.987 Pk Hr Factor 0.864 0.936 0.922 7 - 9 Volume 702 867 1569 00:00 8 1223 11 7 - 9 Peak Hour 19 07:45 12:00 71 16:45 130 16:30 201 387 00:15 7 4. 6 Pk Volume 11 638 18 Pk Hr Factor 12:15 77 0.923 117 0.857 194 0.%1 00:30 8 4 12 12:30 76 105 181 00:45 3 26 5 31 8 57 12:45 76 300 99 451 175 751 01:00 7 5 12 13:00 75 107 182 01:15 3 2 5 13:15 96 105 201 01:30 3 8 11 13:30 77 98 175 01:45 7 20 6 21 13 41 13:45 88 336 112 422 200 758 02:00 1 3 4 14:00 110 121 231 02:15 0 4 4 14:15 90 138 228 02:30 5 12 17 14:30 98 116 214 02:45 4 10 3 22 7 32 14:45 96 394 125 500 221 894 03:00 2 4 6 15:00 102 119 221 03:15 3 5 8 15:15 67 132 199 0330 1 7 8 15:30 107 147 254 03:45 4 10 4 20 8 30 15:45 116 392 162 560 278 952 04:00 5 1 6 16:00 84 164 248 04:15 4 7 11 16:15 94 146 240 04:30 4 9 13 1630 87 172 259 04:45 11 24 8 25 19 49 16:45 88 353 148 630 236 983 05:00 13 13 26 17:00 78 169 247 05:15 24 23 47 17:15 105 149 254 0510 30 22 52 17:30 89 149 238 05:45 39 106 29 87 68 193 17:45 63 335 126 593 189 928 06:00 47 23 70 18:00 75 93 168 06:15 81 52 133 18:15 81 76 157 06:30 87 49 136 1830 71 103 174 06:45 95 310 88 212 183 522 18:45 80 307 58 330 138 637 07:00 78 117 195 19:00 44 94 138 07:15 86 95 181 19:15 34 50 84 07:30 60 85 145 19:30 36 139 175 07:45 101 325 125 422 226 747 19:45 42 156 73 356 115 512 08:00 84 94 178 20:00 32 40 72 08:15 91 117 208 20:15 34 59 93 08:30 111 111 222 20:30 31 28 59 08:45 91 377 123 445 214 822 20:45 20 117 27 154 47 271 09:00 94 106 200 21:00 25 27 52 09:15 113 89 202 21:15 24 22 46 09:30 102 125 227 21:30 28 37 65 09:45 96 405 101 421 197 826 21:45 20 97 22 108 42 205 10:00 112 108 220 22:00 16 26 42 10! 15 113 119 232 22:15 6 18 24 1030 105 127 232 22:30 14 17 31 10:45 109 439 123 477 232 916 2245 15 51 19 80 34 131 11:00 76 122 198 23:00 13 13 26 11:15 84 118 202 23:15 9 10 19 1130 69 133 202 23:30 9 13 22 11:45 70 299 135 508 205 807 23:45 6 37 12 48 18 85 TOTALS 2351 2691 5042 TOTALS 2875 4232 7107 SPLIT% 46.6% 53.4% 41.5% SPLIT% 40.5% 59.5% 58.5% AM Peak Hour 10:00 11:15 10:00 PM Peak Hour 15:30 15:45 15:45 AM Pk Volume 439 516 916 PM Pk Volume 401 644 1025 Pk Hr Factor 0.971 0.956 0.987 Pk Hr Factor 0.864 0.936 0.922 7 - 9 Volume 702 867 1569 4. 5 Volume 688 1223 1911 7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:45 07:45 4 • 6 Peak Hour 16:45 16:30 16:30 7 - 9 Pk Volume 387 447 834 4. 6 Pk Volume 360 638 946 Pk Hr Factor O.S72 0.894 0.923 1 Pk Hr Factor 0.857 0.927 0.%1 Appendix B HCM Analysis Sheets Existing Conditions Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Existing AM Peak Hour -A t i Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vehm) 0 871 198 0 1237 6 0 0 21 0 0 74 Future Volume (Veh1h) 0 871 198 0 1237 6 0 0 21 0 0 74 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 927 211 0 1316 6 0 0 22 0 0 79 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 vC, conflicting volume 1322 1138 1550 2354 337 1573 2457 442 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 805 1138 1071 2006 337 1097 2125 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 97 100 100 92 cM capacity (vehlh) 701 610 138 51 659 139 42 933 Diredon, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 MB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 265 265 265 343 526 526 269 22 79 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 211 0 0 6 22 79 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 659 933 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.16 0.03 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.7 9.2 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.7 9.2 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 9/2712016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Existing AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 10.2 Minor Laneftlor Mvmi NBL NBT NBR EHLnlWBLnl 89L SBT SBFt Capacity (vehlh) EBL EBT EBR WBL WST WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 7.6 - + A - - D r A I T - 1.8 4.3 1� Traffic Vol, vehlh 35 5 47 50 50 29 149 172 5 11 316 220 Future Vol, vehlh 35 5 47 50 50 29 149 172 5 11 316 220 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - - None - None Storage Length 50 - 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 38 5 51 54 54 32 162 187 5 12 343 239 Majo�IM tror . !Minor? Minorl Majorl Majot2 Conflicting Flow All 1044 1003 463 1029 1121 190 583 0 0 192 0 0 Stage 1 487 487 - 514 514 - - - - - - - Stage 2 557 516 - 515 607 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Cdfical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 207 242 599 212 206 852 991 - - 1381 - - Stage 1 562 550 - 543 535 - - - - Stage 2 515 534 - 543 486 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 132 201 599 165 171 852 991 - 1381 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 132 201 - 165 171 - - - - - Stagel 470 545 - 454 448 - - - - - Stage 2 365 447 487 482 - - ApproaG h EB WB -._. _.._ .... NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 30.1 53.7 4.3 0.2 HCM LOS D F Minor Laneftlor Mvmi NBL NBT NBR EHLnlWBLnl 89L SBT SBFt Capacity (vehlh) 991 - 236 205 1381 - - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.163 - 0.401 0.684 0.009 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - - 30.1 53.7 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS A - - D F A HCM 95th °/utile Q(veh) 0.6 - - 1.8 4.3 0 - - 9/26/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Existing AM Peak Hour Irbrseetion Int Delay, slveh Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 8BL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11� T Traffic Vol, vehlh 2 0 32 0 0 1 53 315 8 2 415 10 Future Vol, vehlh 2 0 32 0 0 1 53 315 8 2 415 10 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None None - None - - None Storage Length 50 50 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 34 0 0 1 56 335 9 2 441 11 MajorlMinor Minor2 Minora Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 904 907 447 920 908 339 452 0 0 344 0 0 Stage 451 451 - 452 452 - - - - - - - Stage 2 453 456 - 468 456 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 - Cribcal Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 258 276 612 251 275 703 1109 - 1215 Stage 1 588 571 - 587 570 - - - Stage 2 586 568 - 575 568 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 247 262 612 228 261 703 1109 - 1215 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 247 262 - 228 261 - - - Stage 1 558 570 - 557 541 - - - - Stage 2 556 539 542 567 Approach E8 WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 10.1 1.2 0 HCM LOS B B Minor LgrWWjor Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLnl SBL_ SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1109 - 563 703 1215 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.051 - 0.064 0.002 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 11.8 10.1 8 - HCM Lane LOS A - B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.2 0 0 - 9126/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9-. Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Existing AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #!hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 1.2 4 2 0 46 2 0 46 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 - 530 530 0 - - - - - - 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 49 1000 1000 470 470 470 - 530 530 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 222 243 594 574 560 - 533 527 - 212 229 594 334 344 - 541 560 - 502 497 - 11.9 B 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 1 58 382 0 58 382 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 170 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 62 406 0 t 0 431 21 0 431 21 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 0 - 0 - 94 94 94 2 2 2 0 459 22 1024 1011 406 481 0 - 0 530 530 - - - - - - - 494 481 - - 7,12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - 6.12 5.52 - - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 214 240 645 1082 - 0 0 - 533 527 - - - 0 0 - 557 554 - - - 0 0 - - 188 226 645 1082 - - - - 302 329 - - - - 502 497 - - - - - - - 511 554 14.9 1-1 0 B Capacity (vehlh) 1082 - 575 367 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.057 - 0.089 0.009 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - 11-9 14-9 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.3 0 - - 9/26/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Existing AM Peak Hour --t r 4--- Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tl� T t r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 224 514 147 22 960 44 429 198 36 74 76 323 Future Volume (vehlh) 224 514 147 22 960 44 429 198 36 74 76 323 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhfIn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 238 547 156 23 1021 47 456 211 38 79 81 344 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 273 1200 537 41 717 33 1002 448 81 320 336 530 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.34 0,34 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3446 159 3442 1537 277 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehm 238 547 156 23 524 544 456 0 249 79 81 344 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1835 1721 0 1814 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 13.1 7.8 1.4 22.5 22.5 11.7 0.0 12.2 4.1 4.0 19.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 13.1 7.8 1.4 22.5 22.5 11.7 0.0 12.2 4.1 4.0 19.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 273 1200 537 41 368 382 1002 0 528 320 336 530 VIC Ratio(X) 0.87 0.46 0.29 0.56 1.42 1.42 0.46 0.00 0.47 0.25 0.24 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 467 1456 651 107 368 382 1002 0 528 320 336 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 44.7 27.9 26.2 52.3 42.8 42.8 31.3 0.0 31.5 38.0 38.0 30.6 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 8.8 0.3 0.3 11.5 206.2 205.8 1.5 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.4 2.8 Initial Q Delay(0),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 7.6 6.4 3.5 0.8 32.0 33.2 5.8 0.0 6.5 2.1 2.1 9.1 LnGrp Delay(d),stveh 53.5 28.2 26.5 63.8 249.1 248.7 32.8 0.0 34.5 38.4 38.4 33.4 LnGT LOS D C C E F F C C D_ D C Approach Vol, vehlh 941 1091 705 504 Approach Delay, slveh 34.3 245.0 33.4 35.0 Approach LOS C F C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 7.0 41.2 24.0 21.2 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 6.5 44.5 19.5 28.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.2 3.4 15.1 21.5 16.2 24.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 2.9 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 105.1 HCM 2010 LOS F 912612016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Existing Mid-day Peak Hour --* --I. f- ■-- I i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations HIT4 ++I* r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 1193 103 0 1296 15 0 0 24 0 0 61 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 1193 103 0 1296 15 0 0 24 0 0 61 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1311 113 0 1424 16 0 0 26 0 0 67 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 1440 1424 1909 2808 384 1786 2856 483 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 824 1424 1387 2467 384 1239 2525 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 96 100 100 93 cM capacity (vehlh) 668 474 79 25 614 105 23 903 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 375 375 375 300 570 570 301 26 67 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 113 0 0 16 26 67 GSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 614 903 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.18 0.04 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 9.3 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.1 9.3 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 09130/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Int Delav, s/veh 7.9 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehm Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #!hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (vehm) HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th °/utile Q(veh) 58 7 245 58 7 245 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop None 0 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 63 8 266 673 663 245 255 255 - 418 408 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 369 382 794 749 696 - 612 597 - 326 348 794 326 348 - 685 693 - 534 546 - 17.8 C 4 5 16 11 5 16 11 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - None 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 5 17 12 NBL NBT NBR T 102 164 7 102 164 7 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 - 0 - 92 92 92 2 2 2 111 178 8 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Mid-day Peak Hour � T 5 198 54 5 198 54 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 - 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 5 215 59 796 689 182 274 0 0 186 0 404 404 - - - - - - 392 285 - - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - 6.12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 305 369 861 1289 1388 - 623 599 - - - 633 676 - - - - - - 186 336 861 1289 - 1388 - 186 336 - - - 569 547 - - - 415 674 15.8 3 0.1 C 1289 - 612 367 1388 0.086 - 0.551 0.095 0.004 8.1 - 17.8 15-8 7.6 A C C A 0.3 - 3.3 0.3 0 0 09128/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Dgmy Existing Mid-day Peak Hour Int Delay, sfveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 1.7 14 0 65 14 0 65 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 13.4 B 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 2 0 2 32 255 6 32 255 6 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 33 260 6 5 445 4 5 445 4 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 5 454 4 828 0 - 458 0 0 0 329 98 98 98 2 2 2 14 0 66 796 798 456 466 466 - 330 332 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 305 319 604 577 562 - 683 644 - 296 308 604 296 308 - 560 560 1103 - 661 625 308 13.4 B 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 2 0 2 32 255 6 32 255 6 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 33 260 6 5 445 4 5 445 4 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 5 454 4 828 797 263 458 0 0 266 0 0 329 329 - - - - - - - 499 468 - - - - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - - 6.12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 290 319 776 1103 - 1298 - - 684 646 - - - 554 561 - - - - - - 252 308 776 1103 - 1298 - - 252 308 - - - 664 627 - - - - - - - 491 559 - 14.6 0.9 0.1 B Capacity (veh/h) 1103 510 380 1298 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.158 0.011 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 13.4 14.6 7.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0 0 - - 09/28/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Existing Midday Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol: vehlh Conflicting Peds, #!hr Sign Controi RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow 1.5 KIA 14 0 50 14 0 50 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 - 94 94 94 2 2 2 15 0 53 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 2 t 63 345 0 63 345 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 170 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 67 367 0 T 0 627 14 0 627 14 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 0 667 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Mirtorl _ . Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1176 1175 674 1202 1183 367 682 0 0 Stage 1 674 674 - 501 501 - - - - - Stage 2 502 501 - 701 682 - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 168 192 455 161 189 678 911 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 444 454 - 552 543 - - - 0 0 Stage 2 552 543 - 429 450 - - - 0 0 - - Ratoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 158 178 455 134 175 678 911 - - - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 279 299 - 233 276 - - Stage 1 411 454 - 511 503 - - - Stage 2 510 503 - 379 450 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.8 15.5 1.4 0 HCM LOS C C Minor LanelMajor Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 911 - 400 347 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.074 - 0.17 0.012 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - 15.8 15.5 HCM Lane LOS A C C HCM 95th °%tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.6 0 09/2812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Existing Mid -lay Peak Hour --* --w --* t t Lane Configurations tt r t t r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 216 741 256 53 749 68 291 87 50 105 99 293 Future Volume (vehlh) 216 741 256 53 749 68 291 87 50 105 99 293 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehNIn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, v&h 232 797 275 57 805 73 313 94 54 113 106 315 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehfh 268 1540 689 74 1069 97 619 200 115 306 321 512 An1ve On Green 0.15 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3282 298 3442 1112 639 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 232 797 275 57 434 444 313 0 148 113 106 315 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1810 1721 0 1750 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.4 17.3 12.5 3.3 23.0 23.0 8.6 0.0 8.0 5.9 5.2 17.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.4 17.3 12.5 3.3 23.0 23.0 8.6 0.0 8.0 5.9 5.2 17.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 268 1540 689 74 576 589 619 0 315 306 321 512 VIC Ratio(X) 0.87 0.52 0.40 0.78 0,75 0.75 0.51 0.00 0.47 0.37 0.33 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veWh 441 1869 836 160 655 670 619 0 315 306 321 512 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 43.6 21.6 20.3 49.9 31.7 31.7 38.9 0.0 38.6 38.4 38.2 30.0 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 9.7 0.3 0.4 15.8 4.3 4.2 2.9 0.0 5.0 0.7 0.6 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile BackOfQ(50%),vehAn 7.3 8.5 5.5 2.0 11.9 12.2 4.3 0.0 4.3 3.0 2.8 8.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 53.2 21.9 20.7 65.7 36.0 35.9 41.8 0.0 43.6 39.2 38.8 32.2 LnGrp LOS D C C E D D D D D D C Approach Vol, vehm 1304 935 461 534 Approach Delay, slveh 27.2 37.8 42.4 35.0 Approach LOS C D D D Timer 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 j Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 8,9 50.2 22.6 20.4 38.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 9.5 55.5 18.1 26.1 38.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.6 5.3 19.3 19.7 15.4 25.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.3 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.5 9.2 Intersection Sumnwy _.._. _ ....._. _.. HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.7 HCM 2010 LOS C 9127/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Existing PM Peak Hour --I. ---* I # Lane Configurations MTM +0 Traffic Volume (vehm) 0 2089 79 0 1164 9 0 0 30 0 0 99 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 2089 79 0 1164 9 0 0 30 0 0 99 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2176 82 0 1213 9 0 0 31 0 0 103 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 vC, conflicting volume 1222 2258 2724 3439 585 1792 3476 409 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 806 2258 2499 3304 585 1449 3345 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 93 100 100 89 cM capacity (vehlh) 723 224 12 7 454 76 7 962 Direcflon Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 St31 Volume Total 622 622 622 393 485 485 252 31 103 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 82 0 0 9 31 103 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 454 962 Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.07 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 9.2 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 13.5 9.2 Approach LOS B A Intention Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 912712016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Existing PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 18.3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBFT Lane Configurations 4.) T+ T Traffic Vol, vehm 118 18 257 8 3 16 43 298 7 13 292 38 Future Vol, vehlh 118 18 257 8 3 16 43 298 7 13 292 38 Conflicting Peds, #mr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None - - None Storage Length - 50 - 50 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 127 19 276 9 3 17 46 320 8 14 314 41 MajorIf imr Mlnor2 Minor! Majorl Major2_ Conflicting Flow All 789 782 334 927 800 324 355 0 0 328 0 0 Stage 1 362 362 - 417 417 - - - - - - - Stage 2 427 420 - 510 383 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6-52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - CNbcal Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6-12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 308 326 708 249 318 717 1204 - - 1232 - Stage1 657 625 - 613 591 - - - Stage 2 606 589 - 546 612 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 287 310 708 139 302 717 1204 - 1232 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 287 310 - 139 302 - - - Stage 1 632 618 - 590 568 - - - - - - Stage 2 566 566 - 319 605 - Approach EB WB NB 813 HCM Control Delay, s 49.3 18.2 1 0.3 HCM LOS E C Minor Lan~ Mvrnt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL 8BT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1204 - - 472 301 1232 - - HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.038 - - 0.895 0.096 0.011 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - 49.3 18.2 8 - HCM Lane LOS A - - E C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 9.9 0.3 0 - - 09/2812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 413 413 - 41) - - - Stage 2 1 414 - T 646 Traffic Vol, vehlh 10 0 92 2 1 0 24 336 1 1 550 5 Future Vol, vehlh 10 0 92 2 1 0 24 336 1 1 550 5 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized 1197 - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 593 - 460 490 - 50 - Platoon blocked, % 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % 980 - - 0 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 213 0 - - 0 232 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 99 2 1 0 26 361 1 1 591 5 Conflicting Flow All 1010 1010 594 1059 1012 362 597 0 0 362 0 0 Stage 1 596 596 - 413 413 - - - - - - - Stage 2 414 414 - 646 599 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 218 240 505 202 239 683 980 - - 1197 - Stage 1 490 492 - 616 594 - - - Stage 2 616 593 - 460 490 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 213 233 505 159 232 683 980 - - 1197 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 213 233 - 159 232 - - - Stage 1 477 492 - 600 578 - - - Stage 2 599 577 - 370 490 - - HCM Control Delay, s 15.7 25.6 0.6 0 HCM LOS C D Capacity (vehm) 980 - - 445 178 1197 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - 0.246 0.018 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - - 15.7 25.6 8 - - HCM Lane LOS A C D A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1 0.1 0 - - 09/2812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Existing PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #1hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 1.7 4 5 0 52 5 0 52 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 - - 0 0.092 97 97 97 2 2 2 5 0 54 1010 1010 523 523 523 - 487 487 - 7,12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 218 240 554 537 530 - 562 550 - 202 218 554 320 334 - 488 530 - 509 500 - 12.8 B �1 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 18 C Capacity (veh/h) 0 - 282 0 0.092 97 97 97 2 2 2 3 1 0 1036 1018 297 487 487 - 549 531 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 210 237 742 562 550 - 520 526 - 176 215 742 274 308 - 510 500 - 470 526 - 18 C Capacity (veh/h) 1036 521 282 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.092 0.113 0.015 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 12.8 18 HCM Lane LOS A B C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.4 0 - - 92 288 0 92 288 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 170 - - 0 - - 0 97 97 97 2 2 2 95 297 0 0 499 16 0 499 16 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None - 0 0 97 97 97 2 2 2 0 514 16 531 0 0 4.12 - - - - 2.218 1036 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1036 - - - 2.1 0 09/2812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Existing PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r* tT M 1 t r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 226 1227 643 46 612 41 264 97 54 117 232 319 Future Volume (vehlh) 226 1227 643 46 612 41 264 97 54 117 232 319 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhAn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 240 1305 684 49 651 44 281 103 57 124 247 339 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 272 1585 709 63 1110 75 578 189 105 344 361 550 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3365 227 3442 1128 624 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 240 1305 684 49 342 353 281 0 160 124 247 339 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1823 1721 0 1753 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.4 37.5 48.8 3.2 18.6 18.7 8.6 0.0 9.7 7.0 14.3 20.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.4 37.5 48.8 3.2 18.6 18.7 8.6 0.0 9.7 7.0 14.3 20.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 272 1585 709 63 584 601 578 0 294 344 361 550 VIC Ratio(X) 0.88 0.82 0.96 0.78 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.00 0.54 0.36 0.68 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 403 1600 716 115 584 601 578 0 294 344 361 550 HCM Platoon Rabo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 48.1 28.0 31.2 55.5 32.3 32.3 43.8 0.0 44.2 40.6 43.5 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 14.2 3.6 25.1 18.2 1.5 1.5 2.9 0.0 7.0 0.6 5.3 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile Back0fQ(50%),veh1In 8.6 19.1 26.2 1.9 9.4 9.7 4.3 0.0 5.3 3.5 7.9 9.3 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 62.4 31.7 56.2 73.8 33.8 33.8 46.7 0.0 51.3 41.2 48.8 33.6 LnGrp LOS E C E E C C D D D D C Approach Vol, vehlh 2229 744 441 710 Approach Delay, slveh 42.5 36.5 48.3 40.2 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 8.6 56.5 27.0 22.3 42.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 7.5 52.5 22.5 26.4 33.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 11.7 5.2 50.8 22.7 17.4 20.7 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 10.8 lntsT � _ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 41.6 HCM 2010 LOS D 9/26/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Existing Plus Project Conditions Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour --I' --,, 'r *-- ',- I Lane Configurations tlM +0 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 913 269 0 1254 6 0 0 29 0 0 92 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 913 269 0 1254 6 0 0 29 0 0 92 Sign Control Free t=ree Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 971 286 0 1334 6 0 0 31 0 0 98 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fills) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 1340 1257 1657 2454 386 1611 2594 448 vC1, stage 1 oonf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 691 1257 1073 2034 386 1017 2203 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 89 cM capacity (veh/h) 746 549 129 47 613 151 37 900 EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 -.534 WB 2 � r534� - WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 277 277 277 425 273 31 98 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 286 0 0 6 31 98 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 613 900 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.16 0.05 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 9.5 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.2 9.5 Approach LOS B A IMereection Summarmr Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 09129/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Int Delay, sJveh 58.1 NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh1h) 905 97 130 1381 - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.247 1.345 1.313 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SB Lane Configurations 10.9 0 - Notes T 1 Traffic Vol, vehlh 49 7 64 50 78 29 206 172 5 11 330 305 Future Vol, vehlh 49 7 64 50 78 29 206 172 5 11 330 305 Conflicting Peds, #!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 53 8 70 54 85 32 224 187 5 12 359 332 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Ma ort Ma'or2 Conflicting Flow All 1244 1188 524 1225 1352 190 690 0 0 192 0 0 Stage 1 548 548 - 638 638 - - - - - - - Stage 2 696 640 - 587 714 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.598 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 151 188 553 156 150 852 905 - 1381 - Stage 1 521 517 - 465 471 - - - Stage 2 432 470 - 496 435 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver —46 140 553 105 112 852 905 - 1381 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver —46 140 - 105 112 Stage 1 392 513 - 350 354 - - - - Stage 2 238 354 - 423 431 - Approach EB WB NB _ SB HCM Control Delay, s 288.4 249 5.5 0.1 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane)Ma'or Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh1h) 905 97 130 1381 - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.247 1.345 1.313 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 288.4 249 7.6 - HCM Lane LOS B F F A - HCM 95th °/otile Q(veh) 1 - 9.4 10.9 0 - Notes Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ": All major volume in platoon 09/2912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Irderseotion Int Delay, slveh 1.2 Lane Configurations il, It* Traffic Vol, vehlh 2 0 40 0 0 1 67 372 8 2 432 24 Future Vol, vehlh 2 0 40 0 0 1 67 372 8 2 432 24 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None None - - None - - None Storage Length - 50 - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - - 0 - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 43 0 0 1 71 396 9 2 460 26 Conflicting Flow All 1020 1024 472 1041 1032 400 485 0 0 404 0 0 Stage 477 477 - 543 543 - - - - - - - Stage 2 543 547 - 498 489 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 215 235 592 208 233 650 1078 - 1155 - - Stage 1 569 556 - 524 520 - - - Stage 2 524 517 - 554 549 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 204 219 592 183 217 650 1078 1155 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 204 219 - 183 217 - - - Stage 1 532 555 489 486 - - - - Stage 2 489 483 513 548 - - - HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 10.5 1.3 0 HCM LOS B B Capacity (vehm) 1078 - - 543 650 1155 - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.066 - - 0.082 0.002 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 12.2 10.5 8.1 - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - HCM 95th °%otiie Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.3 0 0 - 09/2912016 Synchro 9 Report Waiker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/D= Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, siveh 1.3 Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #4hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Sig 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (vehm) HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) KA 2 0 54 2 0 54 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - o - 431 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 57 1132 1131 496 496 496 - 636 635 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 180 203 574 556 545 - 466 472 - H 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 - 431 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 1 1160 1142 482 635 635 - 525 507 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 172 240 584 467 472 - 536 539 - t 72 453 0 72 453 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 170 - 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 77 482 0 507 4.12 2.218 1058 170 188 574 0 - - 146 185 584 1058 291 306 - 258 290 - - 516 545 433 438 - - 431 438 482 539 - - 12.3 16.5 12 B C 1058 - 555 317 - - 0.072 0.107 0.01 8.7 - 12.3 16.5 - - A B C - 0.2 0.4 0 - - T 0 456 21 0 456 21 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 0 485 22 0 - 0 0 0 - - 0 0 - - - 0 0 - - 0 09/29/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r 0 T t r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 266 522 147 22 960 53 429 232 36 82 84 340 Future Volume (vehlh) 266 522 147 22 960 53 429 232 36 82 84 340 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-BikeAdj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlin 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 283 555 156 23 1021 56 456 247 38 87 89 362 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 317 1266 567 41 689 38 973 446 69 310 326 560 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.20 0.20 0,28 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow.vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3412 187 3442 1577 243 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 283 555 156 23 529 548 456 0 285 87 89 362 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1830 1721 0 1820 1774 1863 1583 Q Senre(g_s), s 17.4 13.3 7.8 1.4 22,5 22.5 12.2 0,0 14.8 4.7 4.6 19.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.4 13.3 7.8 1.4 22.5 22.5 12.2 0.0 14.8 4.7 4.6 19.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 317 1266 567 41 357 370 973 0 515 310 326 560 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.44 0.28 0.57 1.48 1.48 0.47 0.00 0.55 0.28 0.27 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 454 1414 632 103 357 370 973 0 515 310 326 560 NCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 44.7 27.2 25.5 53.9 44,5 44.5 33.0 0,0 34.0 39.9 39.8 30.2 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 14.8 0.2 0.3 11.9 231.2 230.9 1.6 0.0 4.3 0.5 0.4 2.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 9.8 6.5 3.5 0.8 33.9 35.0 6.0 0.0 8.0 2.4 2.4 9.8 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 59.5 27,5 25.7 65.7 275,7 275.3 34.7 0.0 38.2 40.4 40.3 32.7 LnGrp LOS E C C E F F C D D D C Approach Vol, vehlh 994 1100 741 538 Approach Delay, slveh 36.3 271.1 36.0 35.2 Approach LOS D F D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 7.0 44.4 24.0 24.4 27.0 Change Period (Y+RC), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Seaing (Gmax), s 31,5 6.5 44.5 19.5 28.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 16.8 3.4 15.3 21.5 19.4 24.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 3.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 112.7 HCM 2010 LOS F 09/29/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Existing Plus Project Mid-day Peak Hour --,t *-- # Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL 5BT SBR Lane Configurations tilt+ tit r r Traffic Volume (vehm) 0 1268 153 0 1450 15 0 0 44 0 0 100 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 1268 153 0 1450 15 0 0 44 0 0 100 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0%n 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1393 168 0 1593 16 0 0 48 0 0 110 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.83 0.83 0,83 0.83 0.83 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 1609 1561 2118 3086 432 1997 3162 539 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1018 1561 1631 2797 432 1485 2888 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 92 100 100 88 cM capacity (vehlh) 562 419 49 15 571 66 13 900 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB. 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 398 398 398 367 637 637 335 48 110 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 168 0 0 16 48 110 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 571 900 Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.20 0.08 0.12 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 9.6 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.9 9.6 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 092012016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Existing Plus Project Mid-day Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 81.4 Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehm Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #Ihr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (vehlh) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th °/utile Q(veh) 09130/2016 Walker Parking Consultants 117 15 432 117 15 432 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 179.4 F #1� 5 29 11 5 29 11 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 5 32 12 177 164 7 177 164 7 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 - 0 - 92 92 92 2 2 2 192 178 8 5 211 104 5 211 104 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 - 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 5 229 113 1107 0 182 - 0 - 92 92 92 2 2 2 127 16 470 886 868 286 297 297 - 589 571 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6,12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 265 290 753 712 668 - 494 505 - 205 243 753 205 243 - 600 666 1217 - - 380 425 227 179.4 F #1� 5 29 11 5 29 11 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 5 32 12 177 164 7 177 164 7 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 - 0 - 92 92 92 2 2 2 192 178 8 5 211 104 5 211 104 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 - 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 5 229 113 1107 920 182 342 0 0 186 0 0 567 567 - - - - - - - 540 353 - - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4-12 - - 6.12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 188 271 861 1217 - - 1388 - 508 507 - - - 526 631 - - - - - - 59 227 861 1217 - - 1388 59 227 - - - 428 427 - - - - 192 629 28.7 4.3 0.1 D 1217 468 200 1388 - - 0.158 1.31 0.245 0.004 - - 8.5 179.4 28.7 7.6 - - A F D A o.6 26.7 0.9 0 - - Synchro 9 Report Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Existing Pius Project Mid-day Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, veWh Conflicting Peds, #mr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Fallow -up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 2.9 14 0 124 14 0 124 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 19.1 C 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 2 0 2 T 70 330 6 70 330 6 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 71 337 6 T 5 632 17 5 632 17 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - - 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 5 645 17 1210 0 - 662 0 0 0 483 98 98 98 2 2 2 14 0 127 1148 1150 654 664 664 - 484 486 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 176 198 467 450 458 - 564 551 - 165 182 467 165 182 - 416 456 927 - 519 509 181 19.1 C 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 2 0 2 T 70 330 6 70 330 6 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 71 337 6 T 5 632 17 5 632 17 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - - 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 5 645 17 1210 1155 340 662 0 0 343 0 0 483 483 - - - - - - - 727 672 - - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 6.12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 159 197 702 927 - - 1216 - 565 553 - - - 415 454 - - - - - - 109 181 702 927 - 1216 - - 109 181 - - - 522 511 - - - - - - 301 452 - 24.5 1.6 0.1 C Capacity (vehlh) 927 394 189 1216 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.077 0.357 0.022 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 19.1 24.5 8 - - HCM Lane LDS A C C A - HCM 95th °/otile Q(veh) 0.2 1.6 0.1 0 - - 0913012016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Existing Plus Project Mid-day Peak Hour intersectian Int Delay, slveh 1.8 Lane Configurations 4� 4 + T Traffic Vol, vehlh 14 0 68 2 0 2 76 458 0 0 873 14 Future Vol, vehlh 14 0 68 2 0 2 76 458 0 0 873 14 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - - None - - None None Storage Length 170 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - Q - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 0 72 2 0 2 81 487 0 0 929 15 Major/Minor 14=2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1586 1585 936 1621 1593 487 944 0 - 0 Stage 1 936 936 - 649 649 - - - - - - Stage 2 650 649 - 972 944 - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 87 108 321 83 107 581 727 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 318 344 - 458 466 - - - 0 0 - Stage 2 458 466 - 304 341 - - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 79 96 321 59 95 581 727 - - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 187 215 - 122 186 - - Stage 1 283 344 - 407 414 - - - - Stage 2 405 414 - 235 341 Appmach E13 WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 23 23-2 1.5 0 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvm1 NBL NBT EBLn1WBLnI SBT SBR Capacity (vehm) 727 - 286 202 - - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.111 - 0.305 0.021 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 - 23 23.2 - - HCM Lane LOS B - C C HCM 95th %file Q(veh) 0.4 - 1.3 0.1 - - 09/30/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Existing Plus Project Mid -Jay Peak Hour ---* --* t Lane Configurations ++ r 0. 1) 1 + r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 291 761 256 53 749 93 291 112 50 160 154 447 Future Volume (vehfh) 291 761 256 53 749 93 291 112 50 160 154 447 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 313 818 275 57 805 100 313 120 54 172 166 481 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehfh 344 1666 745 74 1009 125 577 204 92 285 299 561 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.47 0.47 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3169 394 3442 1218 548 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 313 818 275 57 449 456 313 0 174 172 166 481 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1793 1721 0 1766 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.5 17.9 12.5 3.6 26.2 26.2 9.4 0.0 10.3 10.2 9.3 18.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.5 17.9 12.5 3.6 26.2 26.2 9.4 0.0 10.3 10.2 9.3 18.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 344 1666 745 74 563 571 577 0 296 285 299 561 VIC Ratio(X) 0.91 0.49 0.37 0.78 0.80 0.80 0.54 0.00 0.59 0.60 0.56 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 411 1742 779 149 610 619 577 0 296 285 299 561 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 44.5 20.5 19.1 53.5 35.1 35.1 43.0 0.0 43.3 44.0 43.6 33.7 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 21.6 0.2 0.3 15.8 6.9 6.8 3.6 0.0 8.3 3.6 2.2 12.5 Initial Q Delay(0),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(50%),veh1ln 11.6 8.8 5.6 2.1 13.8 14.0 4.8 0.0 5.7 5.3 4.9 15.8 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 66.0 20.8 19.4 69.3 42.0 41.9 46.6 0.0 51.6 47.6 45.9 46.2 LnGrp LOS E C B E D D_ D D D D D Approach Vol, vehlh 1406 962 487 819 Approach Delay, slveh 30.6 43.6 48.4 46.4 Approach LOS C D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 9.2 57.6 22.6 26.4 40.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 9.5 55.5 18.1 26.1 38.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 5.6 19.9 20.1 21.5 282 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.2 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.4 7.7 IntemeWm Suffrmry HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.9 HCM 2010 LOS D 09/3012016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour -� --I' --* *-- t \01 1 Lane Configurations MTM +0 r P Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 2134 109 0 1318 9 0 0 49 0 0 138 Future Volume (Veh1h) 0 2134 109 0 1318 9 0 0 49 0 0 138 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2223 114 0 1373 9 0 0 51 0 0 144 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 vC, conflicting volume 1382 2337 2882 3662 613 1984 3714 462 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 975 2337 2670 3553 613 1656 3612 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pb queue free % 100 100 100 100 88 100 100 85 cM capacity (vehth) 622 208 8 5 436 50 5 959 Diredon,L.ane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WI3 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 635 635 635 432 549 549 284 51 144 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 114 0 0 9 51 144 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 436 959 Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.12 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 13 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4 9.4 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 14.4 9.4 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 0912912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 147.7 Mirror Um~r Mmd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NK NBT NBR SSL SBT SB 0.011 Lane Configurations 8.4 *T* 38-3 8 - - 4 A F T A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) to 40.7 Traffic Vol, veh/h 176 26 442 8 11 16 87 298 7 13 300 67 Future Vol, vehlh 176 26 442 8 11 16 87 298 7 13 300 67 Conflicting Peds, #mr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 189 28 475 9 12 17 94 320 8 14 323 72 MajorNinor Mnor2 Minorl Maw Major2 Conflicting Flow All 913 902 359 1149 934 324 395 0 0 328 0 0 Stage 1 387 387 - 511 511 - - - - - - - Stage 2 526 515 - 638 423 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 254 277 685 176 266 717 1164 - - 1232 - Stage 1 637 610 - 545 537 - - - - Stage 2 535 535 - 465 588 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 222 252 685 46 242 717 1164 - - 1232 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 222 252 - 46 242 - - - - Stage 1 586 603 - 501 494 - - - - - Stage 2 469 492 134 581 - - - AppraOah EB WB IAB 88 - - — HCM Control Delay, s $ 329.4 38.3 1.9 0.3 HCM LOS F E Mirror Um~r Mmd NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1164 - - 418 145 1232 - HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.08 - 1.657 0.26 0.011 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - -$329.4 38-3 8 - - HCM Lane LOS A F E A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 40.7 1 0 - - Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 0912912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hous Intersection Int Delay. s/vch 3.5 Movement_,1 EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *T* T T Traffic Vol, vehlh 10 0 150 2 1 0 47 380 1 1 735 13 Future Vol, veh/h 10 0 150 2 1 0 47 380 1 1 735 13 Conflicting Peds, #mr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - !None - None Storage Length 50 - 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 161 2 1 0 51 409 1 1 790 14 MajorlMinor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Ma o_r2 Conflicting Flow All 1310 1310 797 1390 1316 409 8C4 0 0 410 0 0 Stage 1 799 799 - 510 510 - - - - Stage 2 511 511 - 880 806 - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 136 159 387 120 158 642 820 - - 1149 - Stage 1 379 398 - 546 538 - - - Stage 2 545 537 - 342 395 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 129 149 387 67 148 642 820 - 1149 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 129 149 - 67 148 - - - Stage 1 355 398 512 505 - - - - - Stage 2 510 504 199 395 - - Approach EB WB NB 813 HCM Control Delay, s 25.5 50.7 1.1 0 HCM LOS D F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 820 344 82 1149 HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.062 0.5 0.039 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 25.5 50.7 8.1 HCM Lane LOS A D F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 2.7 0.1 0 - 09/29/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9, Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Intersection IAnoi2 Minorl Majarl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1346 1345 Int Delay, slveh 1.8 1382 1353 366 781 0 0 Stage 1 773 773 - 572 Move EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SRA Lane Configurations Critical Hdwy 4r 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 t 4.12 - - - 1� 6.12 Traffic Vol, vehlh 5 0 71 3 1 0 100 355 0 0 742 16 Future Vol, vehlh 5 0 71 3 1 0 100 355 0 0 742 16 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized 374 - None - - None - - None None Storage Length - - - Mov Gap -1 Maneuver 116 132 399 170 - 132 679 837 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 - Grade, % 0 442 - 0 - - - - 0 442 - 0 305 Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 73 3 1 0 103 366 0 0 765 16 MajodMinar IAnoi2 Minorl Majarl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1346 1345 773 1382 1353 366 781 0 0 Stage 1 773 773 - 572 572 - - - - Stage 2 573 572 - 810 781 - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6,22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5,52 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 128 151 399 121 150 679 837 - 0 0 - - Stage 1 392 409 - 505 504 - - - 0 0 - - Stage 2 505 504 - 374 405 - - - 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Gap -1 Maneuver 116 132 399 89 132 679 837 - - - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 228 254 - 159 221 - - Stage 1 344 409 - 443 442 - - - - Stage 2 442 442 - 305 405 - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.9 26.6 2.2 0 HCM LOS C D Minor Um~ MWM Nil- NBT EBLOWBLni SBT SBR Capacity (vehm) 837 - 380 171 - - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.123 - 0.206 0.024 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 16.9 26.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A C D - - HCM 95th °/utile Q(veh) 0.4 0.8 0.1 - - 0912912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour __-* __* 4,,, 4- T EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 2 tt r 5 6 tT 8 1) T 3 4 + r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 271 1246 643 46 612 56 264 112 54 171 286 473 Future Volume (vehlh) 271 1246 643 46 612 56 264 112 54 171 286 473 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initiaf 0 (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 285 1312 677 48 644 59 278 118 57 180 301 498 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 316 1583 708 62 996 91 579 200 97 345 362 590 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.45 0.45 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veWh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3279 300 3442 1188 574 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehm 285 1312 677 48 347 356 278 0 175 180 301 498 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1810 1721 0 1761 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.2 37.7 47.8 3.1 19.7 19.7 8.5 0.0 10.6 10.5 18.0 22.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.2 37.7 47.8 3.1 19.7 19.7 8.5 0.0 10.6 10.5 18.0 22.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 316 1583 708 62 537 550 579 0 297 345 362 590 VIC Ratio(X) 0.90 0.83 0.96 0.78 0.65 0.65 0.48 0.00 0.59 0.52 0.83 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 404 1604 718 115 537 550 579 0 297 345 362 590 HCM Platoon Ratio 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 46,6 28.1 30.9 55.5 34.9 35.0 43.6 0.0 44.5 41.8 44.8 33.3 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 19.4 3.8 23.2 18.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 0.0 8.4 1.4 15.1 10.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %de BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 10.6 19.2 25.4 1.8 10.0 10.3 4.2 0.0 5.8 5.3 10.8 16.3 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 66.0 31.9 54.1 74.1 37.6 37.6 46.4 0.0 52.8 43.3 59.9 44.1 LnGrp LOS E C D E D D D D D E D Approach Vol, vehlh 2274 751 453 979 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.8 39.9 48.9 48.8 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 8.5 56.3 27.0 25.1 39.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 7.5 52.5 22.5 26.4 33.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.6 5.1 49.8 24.5 20.2 21.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.4 10.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.2 HCM 2010 LOS D 09/29/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Project Opening Year Without Project Conditions Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour --* 1 I Lane Configurations ttM Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 947 204 0 1324 6 0 0 22 0 0 76 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 947 204 0 1324 6 0 0 22 0 0 76 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow rate (vph) 0 1007 217 0 1409 6 0 0 23 0 0 81 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 vC, conflicting volume 1415 1224 1666 2530 360 1687 2636 473 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1075 1224 1354 2314 360 1377 2431 29 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 96 100 100 91 cM capacity (vehJh) 580 565 89 34 636 90 28 936 Diredion, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 288 288 288 361 564 564 288 23 81 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 217 0 0 6 23 81 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 636 936 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.04 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 9.2 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.9 9.2 Approach LOS B A ln*aoctfan Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 09128/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 13.1 Lane Configurations - 0 - Traffic Vol, vehlh 36 5 48 Future Vol, vehlh 36 5 48 Conflicting Peds, #mr 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - 167 None Storage Length - 376 247 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 552 Grade, % - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 39 5 52 52 52 30 52 52 30 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 92 92 2 2 57 57 154 197 5 154 197 5 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - - o - SBL SBT SBI 11 346 227 11 346 227 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - - a - Malodmi1nar _ - 0 - - 0 - 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 33 167 214 5 12 376 247 Malodmi1nar _ M - 201 181 Ndnorl HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.175 Majorl M*r2 Conflicting Flow All 1119 1077 499 1104 1199 217 623 0 0 220 0 0 Stage 1 523 523 - 552 552 - - - - - - - Stage 2 596 554 - 552 647 - - - Cribcal Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - Cribcal Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 184 219 572 188 185 823 958 - - 1349 - - Stage 1 537 530 - 518 515 - - - - - Stage 2 490 514 - 518 467 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 109 179 572 144 151 823 958 - 1349 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 109 179 - 144 151 - - - - Stage 1 443 525 - 428 425 - - - - Stage 2 337 424 - 462 463 Approach . EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 38.5 76.5 4.1 0.1 HCM LOS E F !Manor LanafMaior Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 WBLni SBL SBT Capacity (vehlh) 958 - - 201 181 1349 - - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.175 0.481 0.805 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - 38-5 76.5 7.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A E F A - HCM 95th °/utile Q(veh) 0.6 2.4 5.5 0 - - 09/2812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, siveh Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4;* 1 T Traffic Vol, vehlh 2 0 33 0 0 1 55 345 8 2 448 10 Future Vol, vehlh 2 0 33 0 0 1 55 345 8 2 448 10 Conflicting Peds, #mr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - - None - None Storage Length 50 - 50 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 35 0 0 1 59 367 9 2 477 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Nnor1 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 975 979 482 992 979 371 487 0 0 376 0 0 Stage 1 486 486 - 488 488 - - - - - - - Stage 2 489 493 - 504 491 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 231 250 584 225 250 675 1076 - - 1182 - - Stage1 563 551 - 561 550 - - - Stage 2 561 547 - 550 548 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 221 236 584 202 236 675 1076 - - 1182 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 221 236 - 202 236 - - - - Stage 1 532 550 - 530 520 - - - - - - Stage 2 529 517 516 547 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 10.3 1.2 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (vehm) 1076 534 675 1182 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.054 0.07 0.002 0,002 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 12.2 10.3 8.1 - HCM Lane LOS A B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.2 0 0 0912812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drvvy/Drwy Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Inte eftn 1073 505 505 505 - 569 568 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 Int Delay, sNeh 1.2 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 198 220 567 549 540 Movement E;BL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + T Traffic Vol, vehm 2 0 47 2 0 1 60 414 0 0 464 22 Future Vol, vehlh 2 0 47 2 0 1 60 414 0 0 464 22 Conflicting Peds, #)hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None None - - None - None Storage Length 170 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 50 2 0 1 64 440 0 0 494 23 Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 1074 1073 505 505 505 - 569 568 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 198 220 567 549 540 - 507 506 - 1098 1085 440 568 568 - 530 517 - 7-12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 190 217 617 508 506 - 533 534 - 517 4.12 2.218 1049 188 207 567 165 204 617 1049 311 324 - 279 309 - - 516 540 - 477 475 - - 475 475 486 534 - 12.2 B 15.7 C Capacity (veh1h) 1049 - 549 341 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 - 0.095 0.009 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - 12.2 15.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A B C HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0.2 - 0.3 0 - - 1.1 0 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0912812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour MoverneM EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tT 1 ) 1+ t r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 241 565 156 23 1009 45 447 204 37 86 78 343 Future Volume (vehm) 241 565 156 23 1009 45 447 204 37 86 78 343 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial 0 (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehmlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 256 601 166 24 1073 48 476 217 39 91 83 365 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 291 1224 548 42 709 32 990 443 80 316 332 542 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.02 021 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3451 154 3442 1538 276 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 256 601 166 24 550 571 476 0 256 91 83 365 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhAn 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1836 1721 0 1814 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.4 14.6 8.4 1.5 22.5 22.5 12.5 0.0 12.8 4.9 4.2 19.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.4 14.6 8.4 1.5 22.5 22.5 12.5 0.0 12.8 4.9 4.2 19.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 291 1224 548 42 364 377 990 0 522 316 332 542 VIC Ratio(X) 0.88 0.49 0.30 0.57 1.51 1.51 0.48 0.00 0.49 0.29 0.25 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 462 1439 644 105 364 377 990 0 522 316 332 542 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 44.7 28.2 26.2 52.9 43.5 43.5 32.2 0.0 32.3 39,0 38.7 30.8 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 11.3 0.3 0.3 11.7 244.4 244.1 1.7 OA 3.3 0.5 0.4 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(50%),vehfIn 8.4 7.2 3.7 0.9 35.6 36.9 6.2 0.0 6.9 2.4 2.2 9.9 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 56.0 28.5 26.5 64.6 287.9 287.6 33.9 0.0 35.6 39.5 39.1 34.0 LnGrp LOS E C C E F F C D D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1023 1145 732 539 Approach Delay, slveh 35.0 283.1 34.5 35.7 Approach LOS D F C D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 7.1 42.4 24.0 22.5 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 6.5 44,5 19.5 28.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 14.8 3.5 16.6 21.5 17.4 24.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 3.0 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 117.6 HCM 2010 LOS F 09/2812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour f � 4 4\ 4 1 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR 86L SBT 88111 Lane Configurations HIT4 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 1279 106 0 1385 15 0 0 25 0 0 63 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 1279 106 0 1385 15 0 0 25 0 0 63 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1405 116 0 1522 16 0 0 27 0 0 69 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed {itis) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 vC, conflicting volume 1538 1521 2039 3001 409 1908 3051 515 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 838 1521 1458 2647 409 1296 2709 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 92 cM capacity (vehlh) 641 435 68 18 591 92 17 877 Direction, Lane # EB 1 €B 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 401 401 401 317 609 609 320 27 69 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 116 0 0 16 27 69 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 591 877 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.19 0.05 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 9.5 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.4 9.5 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7°/% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 0912812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour Intersecdan Int Delay, slveh 8.5 Lane Configurations T+ T Traffic Vol, vehm 60 7 252 5 16 11 105 189 7 5 224 56 Future Vol, vehlh 60 7 252 5 16 11 105 189 7 5 224 56 Conflicting Peds, Whir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length 50 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 65 8 274 5 17 12 114 205 8 5 243 61 Conflicting Flow Al 737 726 274 863 752 209 304 0 0 213 0 0 Stage 1 285 285 - 437 437 - - - - - - - Stage 2 452 441 - 426 315 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5-52 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 - Pot Gap -1 Maneuver 334 351 765 275 339 831 1257 - 1357 - Stage 1 722 676 - 598 579 - - - Stage 2 587 577 - 606 656 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 292 318 765 161 307 831 1257 - 1357 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 292 318 - 161 307 - - - Stage 1 657 674 544 526 Stage 2 509 525 383 654 - - HCM Control Delay, s 20.4 17.1 2.8 0.1 HCM LOS C C Capacity (vehlh) 1257 - 573 332 1357 - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.091 0.605 0.105 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 20.4 17.1 7.7 HCM Lane LOS A C C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 4 0.3 0 09/28/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour Int Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane WC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 14 0 67 14 0 67 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 2 2 0 2 98 98 98 2 2 2 14 0 68 860 862 490 500 500 - 360 362 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 276 293 578 553 543 - 658 625 - 268 283 578 268 283 - 535 541 - 635 605 - 14 B 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop A - None - 0 - 0 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 2 0 2 893 861 292 359 359 - 534 502 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 262 293 747 659 627 - 530 542 - 225 283 747 225 283 - 638 607 - 465 540 15.5 C 1071 - - 482 346 1266 - - 0.031 - 0.171 0.012 0.004 - - 8.5 - 14 15.5 7.9 - - A B C A 0.1 0.6 0 0 - - 33 283 6 33 283 6 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - - 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 34 289 6 5 478 4 5 478 4 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 5 488 4 492 0 0 295 0 0 4.12 - 4.12 - - 2.218 2.218 1071 - - 1266 - 1071 - - 1266 - 0.9 0.1 09128/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s)veh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehm Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, Or Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor H eavy Ve h id es, % Mvmt Flow 1.5 14 0 52 14 0 52 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 15 0 55 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 2 Vii t 65 375 0 65 375 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 170 - 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 69 399 0 T 0 666 14 0 666 14 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None - 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 0 709 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl maw M ' r2 Conflicting Flow All 1254 1253 716 1281 1260 399 723 0 0 Stage 1 716 716 - 537 537 - - - - - - - Stage 2 538 537 - 744 723 - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 149 172 430 142 170 651 879 0 0 Stage 1 421 434 - 528 523 - - 0 0 Stage 2 527 523 - 407 431 - - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 140 158 430 116 157 651 879 - - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 259 280 - 212 258 - - Stage 1 388 434 - 487 482 - - - Stage 2 484 482 - 355 431 - Approach EB WB NSSB - _ - HCM Control Delay, s 16.7 16.4 14 0 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Lane/MajorMvmt NBL NBT EBLn1WBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehfi) 879 377 320 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.079 0.186 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - 16.7 16.4 HCM Lane LOS A C C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.7 0 09/28/2016 Synchm 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour --* "r Lane Configurations tt r 0 1) T + r Traffic Volume (vehm) 233 798 269 55 807 70 305 90 52 118 102 312 Future Volume (vehlh) 233 798 2:69 55 807 70 305 90 52 118 102 312 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hJIn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 251 858 289 59 868 75 328 97 56 127 110 335 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Peroent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 286 1593 713 76 1095 95 600 193 112 296 311 519 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3297 285 3442 1109 640 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehm 251 858 289 59 466 477 328 0 153 127 110 335 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1812 1721 0 1750 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.0 19.1 13.3 3.6 25.9 25.9 9.4 0.0 8.6 7.0 5.7 18.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 19.1 13.3 3.6 25.9 25.9 9.4 0.0 8.6 7.0 5.7 18.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.37 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 286 1593 713 76 588 602 600 0 305 296 311 519 VIC Rabo(X) 0.88 0.54 0.41 0.78 0.79 0.79 0.55 0.00 0.50 0.43 0.35 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 427 1811 810 155 635 650 600 0 305 296 311 519 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 44.5 21.7 20.1 51.4 32.8 32.8 40.9 0.0 40.5 40.6 40.0 31.1 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 13.1 0.3 0.4 15.3 6.4 6.3 3.6 0.0 5.8 1.0 0.7 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),stveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile Back0fQ(50%),veh1ln 8.4 9.4 5.9 2.1 13.7 14.0 4.8 0.0 4.7 3.5 3.0 9.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 57.6 21.9 20.4 66.7 39.2 39.1 44.4 0.0 46.3 41.5 40.7 33.8 LnGrp LOS E C C E D D D D D D C Approach Vol, vehm 1398 1002 481 572 Approach Delay, slveh 28.0 40.8 45.0 36.9 Approach LOS C D D D Tuner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 9.2 53.3 22.6 22.0 40.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 9.5 55.5 18.1 26.1 38.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 11.4 5.6 21.1 20.1 17,0 27.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.3 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.5 8.1 Intersedian Summary _- HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 35.6 HCM 2010 LOS D 0912812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour --* --* 4--- 11, �*\ I # Lane Configurations tttT +0 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 2202 81 0 1249 9 0 0 31 0 0 102 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 2202 81 0 1249 9 0 0 31 0 0 102 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% C% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2294 84 0 1301 9 0 0 32 0 0 106 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 vC, conflicting volume 1310 2378 2876 3646 616 1911 3684 438 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 cont vol vCu, unblocked vol 820 2378 2626 3515 616 1513 3558 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 93 100 100 89 cM capacity (vehlh) 698 201 9 5 434 66 5 940 Direction Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WS 3 NS 1 SB 1 Volume Total 655 655 655 412 520 520 269 32 106 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 84 0 0 9 32 106 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 434 940 Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.16 0.07 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 9.3 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 14.0 9.3 Approach LOS B A Inteme0on Summry Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 09/2812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 26.2 Minor Laneftior MwM NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (vehm) 12131- EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 8 - - 4 A - F 4 A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) "fir - 12.8 0.4 1� Traffic Vol, vehlh 122 19 265 8 3 16 44 327 7 13 321 39 Future Vol, vehlh 122 19 265 8 3 16 44 327 7 13 321 39 Conflicting Peds, #!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - None - - None Storage Length - - 50 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 131 20 285 9 3 17 47 352 8 14 345 42 Ma' prlMinar IAnar2 Minarl Ma' „ , ,pr1 _ Mapr2 Conflicting Flow All 854 848 366 997 865 355 387 0 0 359 0 0 Stage 1 394 394 - 450 450 - - - - - - - Stage 2 460 454 - 547 415 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6,12 5.52 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 279 298 679 223 292 689 1171 - 1200 - Stage 1 631 605 - 589 572 - - - - Stage 2 581 569 - 521 592 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Gap -1 Maneuver 259 283 679 118 277 689 1171 - 1200 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 259 283 - 118 277 - - - - Stage 1 606 598 565 549 - - - Stage 2 541 546 289 585 Approach EB W8 NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 73.9 20.2 1 0.3 HCM LOS F C Minor Laneftior MwM NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (vehm) 1171 - 437 265 1200 - - HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.04 - 0.999 0.11 0.012 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 73.9 202 8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - F C A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 12.8 0.4 0 - - 0912812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #Ihr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critica# Hdwy Stg 1 Crifical Hdwy Stg 2 Fallow -up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LDS 1.9 h 10 0 95 10 0 95 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 11 0 102 1084 1084 634 636 636 - 448 448 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 194 217 479 466 472 - 590 573 - 189 211 479 189 211 - 453 472 947 - - 572 557 573 16.8 C 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 2 1 0 25 366 1 25 366 1 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 27 394 1 1 587 5 1 587 5 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 1 631 5 1135 1087 394 637 0 0 395 0 0 448 448 - - - - - - - 687 639 - - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - - 6.12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 179 216 655 947 - - 1164 - 590 573 - - - 437 470 - - - - - 138 210 655 947 - 1164 - 138 210 - - - 573 557 - - 344 470 - 28.6 0.6 0 D Capacity (vehm) 947 418 156 1164 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.028 0.27 0.021 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - 16.8 28.6 8.1 - HCM Lane LOS A C D A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 1.1 0.1 0 09128/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9-. Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/DgAty Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Int Delay, s)veh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #Ihr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (vehlh) HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th 96ti1e Q(veh) 1.7 09128/2016 Walker Parking Consultants 5 0 54 5 0 54 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 - - 0 6.12 97 97 97 2 2 2 5 0 56 1082 1082 559 559 559 - 523 523 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 195 217 529 513 511 - 537 530 - 180 196 529 298 315 - 463 511 - 484 478 13.3 B 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 97 97 97 2 2 2 3 1 0 95 317 0 95 317 0 0 0 a Free Free Free - None 170 0 - 0 97 97 97 2 2 2 98 327 0 1 0 534 16 0 534 16 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None - 0 0 97 97 97 2 2 2 0 551 16 1110 1090 327 567 0 0 523 523 - - - - - - 587 567 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - 6.12 5.52 - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 187 215 714 1005 0 0 - 537 530 - - 0 0 496 507 - - - 0 0 - 155 194 714 1005 - - - - 252 289 - - - 485 478 - - - - - 444 507 - - 19.1 2.1 0 C 1005 - 496 260 - 0.097 - 0.123 0.016 9 - 13.3 19.1 - - A B C - - 0.3 - 0.4 0 - - Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL E8T EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL 5BT SBR Lane Configurations ++ r 1 0 T t r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 243 1299 667 47 666 42 277 100 56 131 239 339 Future Volume (veh1h) 243 1299 667 47 666 42 277 100 56 131 239 339 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 256 1367 702 49 701 44 292 105 59 138 252 357 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 288 1593 713 63 1094 69 575 187 105 342 359 562 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow. veh/h 1774 3539 1583 1774 3383 212 3442 1121 630 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 256 1367 702 49 367 378 292 0 164 138 252 357 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehHln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1825 1721 0 1752 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.5 40.4 51.1 3.2 20.6 20.6 9.0 0.0 10.0 7.9 14.7 21.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.5 40.4 51.1 3.2 20.6 20.6 9.0 0.0 10.0 7.9 14.7 21.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 1593 713 63 572 590 575 0 293 342 359 562 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.86 0.99 0.78 0.64 0.64 0.51 0.00 0.56 0.40 0.70 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 402 1593 713 114 572 590 575 0 293 342 359 562 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 47.8 28.7 31.7 55.8 33.7 33.7 44.2 0.0 44.6 41.2 43.9 31.3 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 16.4 4.9 29.9 18.2 2.4 2.3 3.2 0.0 7.5 0.8 6.0 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile BackOfQ(50%),vehl1n 9.4 20.6 28.1 1.9 10.5 10.8 4.6 0.0 5.5 4.0 8.2 9.9 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 64.2 33.7 61.6 74.0 36.1 36.0 47.4 0.0 52.2 42.0 49.9 33.7 LnGrp LOS E C E E D D D D D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 2325 794 456 747 Approach Delay, slveh 45.5 38.4 49.1 40.7 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 8.6 57.0 27.0 23.4 42.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 7.5 52.5 22.5 26.4 33.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 12.0 5.2 53.1 23.9 18.5 22.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 43.7 HCM 2010 LOS D 0912812016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Project Opening Year With Project Conditions Valley Medical Center MOB T1A HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6-. Davis Ave & S 43rd St Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour --I --I. --,, *-- 1k, .0%, t * t Lane Configurations tf M +0 rr r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 989 275 0 1341 6 0 0 30 0 0 94 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 989 275 0 1341 6 0 0 30 0 0 94 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1052 293 0 1427 6 0 0 32 0 0 100 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pK, platoon unblocked 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 vC, conflicting volume 1433 1345 1774 2632 410 1725 2775 479 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 701 1345 1124 2186 410 1063 2363 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6,9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 95 100 100 89 cM capacity (vehlh) 720 508 115 36 591 136 28 875 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB i WB 2 WB 3 IIB 1 8113 1 Volume Total 301 301 301 443 571 571 291 32 100 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 293 0 0 6 32 100 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 591 875 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.05 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 9.6 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.4 9.6 Approach LOS B A Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 09129/2016 5ynchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 105.1 IGiernt' EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations HCM Lane LOS B F F A HCM 95th °%otile Q(veh) 1.1 - T 12.9 0 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 7 65 52 80 30 211 197 5 11 360 312 Future Vol, vehlh 50 7 65 52 80 30 211 197 5 11 360 312 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None None - - None - - None Storage Length 50 - 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 54 8 71 57 87 33 229 214 5 12 391 339 Ma' rMnor _ Mmar2 Ninon Majorl Conflicting Flow All 1320 1263 561 1300 1430 217 730 0 0 220 0 0 Stage 1 585 585 - 676 676 - - - - - - - Stage 2 735 678 - 624 754 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 134 170 527 138 135 823 874 - 1349 - - Stage 1 497 498 - 443 453 - - - - Stage 2 411 452 - 473 417 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver —27 124 527 90 99 823 874 1349 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver —27 124 - 90 99 - - - Stage 1 367 494 - 327 334 - - - - - Stage 2 215 334 - 400 413 - - - Approach FB WB NB . SB HCM Control Delay, s $ 703.1 $ 351.4 5.4 0.1 HCM LOS F F Minor Laneftior MM NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SK SSR Capacity (vehlh) 874 60 114 1349 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.262 2.21 1.545 0.009 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10-6 - $ 703.1$ 351.4 7.7 - HCM Lane LOS B F F A HCM 95th °%otile Q(veh) 1.1 - - 12.9 12.9 0 Notes —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ": All major volume in platoon 0912912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TiA HCM 2010 TWSC 12. Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #mr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Ven in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Cntical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 1.2 2 0 41 2 0 41 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 432 520 0 0 0 579 94 M M 2 2 2 2 0 44 1091 1095 507 512 512 - 579 583 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 192 214 566 545 536 - 501 499 - 181 199 566 181 199 - 507 535 1046 - 465 464 196 12.7 B 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - None 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 0 0 1 T 69 402 8 69 402 8 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 73 428 9 2 465 24 2 465 24 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 - - 0 - 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 495 26 1113 1103 432 520 0 0 436 0 0 579 579 - - - - - - - 534 524 - - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - 6.12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 186 211 624 1046 - 1124 501 501 - - - 530 530 - - - - 162 196 624 1046 - 1124 - - 162 196 - - - 466 466 - - - 488 529 - 10.8 1.3 0 B Capacity (vehlh) 1046 515 624 1124 - - HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.07 0.089 0.002 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 12.7 10.8 8.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A B B A - HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 0.2 0.3 0 0 - 09/29/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9_ Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehm Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #Ihr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap 1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 1.3 KA NL 2 0 55 2 0 55 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop 6.12 - None - 0 - - 0 3.318 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 59 1206 1205 532 532 532 - 674 673 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 160 184 547 531 526 - 444 454 - 150 170 547 271 289 - 490 526 - 409 419 23 12.7 B 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop None 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 1 1234 1217 516 673 673 - 561 544 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 153 181 559 445 454 - 512 519 - 129 167 559 238 272 - 411 419 - 457 519 - 17.4 C Capacity (vehlh) 1025 - 528 294 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.077 0.115 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 - 12.7 17.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A B C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 0 - - 544 0 0 4.12 - - - - - 2.218 - 1025 - 0 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 1025 - - - - - 1.2 0 09/2912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 74 485 0 0 489 22 74 485 0 0 489 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free Free Free - - None - None 170 - - - 0 - - 0 0 0 94 94 94 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 2 2 79 516 0 0 520 23 544 0 0 4.12 - - - - - 2.218 - 1025 - 0 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 - 1025 - - - - - 1.2 0 09/2912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary I Talbot Road & S 43rd St Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour � � 1l � � I 740. i Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SOL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r 0 I + r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 283 573 156 23 1009 54 447 238 37 94 86 360 Future Volume (vehlh) 283 573 156 23 1009 54 447 238 37 94 86 360 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehmlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 301 610 166 24 1073 57 476 253 39 100 91 383 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, vehlh 334 1290 577 42 682 36 962 441 68 307 322 572 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3419 182 3442 1577 243 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 301 610 166 24 555 575 476 0 292 100 91 383 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhtln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1831 1721 0 1820 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 14.9 8.4 1.5 22.5 22.5 13.0 0.0 15.5 5.6 4.8 19.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 14.9 8.4 1.5 22.5 22.5 13.0 0.0 15.5 5.6 4.8 19.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 334 1290 577 42 353 365 962 0 508 307 322 572 VIC Ratio(X) 0.90 0.47 0.29 0.58 1.57 1.57 0.50 0.00 0.57 0.33 0.28 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 448 1397 625 102 353 365 962 0 508 307 322 572 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 44,7 27.5 25.4 54.5 45.1 45.1 34.0 0.0 34.9 40.9 40.5 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 17,1 0.3 0.3 12.0 270.9 270.7 1.8 0.0 4.7 0.6 0.5 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 10.7 7.3 3.7 0.9 37.5 38.7 6.5 0.0 8.4 2.8 2.5 10.5 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 61.8 27.8 25.7 66.5 316.0 315.9 35.8 0.0 39.5 41.5 41.0 33.3 LnGrp LOS E C C E F F D D D D C Approach Vol, vehlh 1077 1154 768 574 Approach Delay, slveh 37.0 310.7 37.2 36.0 Approach LOS D F D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 7.1 45.6 24.0 25.7 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 6.5 44.5 19.5 28.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 17.5 3.5 16.9 21.5 20.7 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 Intersection Surnnery HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 125.3 HCM 2010 LOS F 09/2912016 Synehro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6- Davis Ave & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour ---* f, *-- *,- t /0� 1 Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBS Lane Configurations lilt* +tT r _§3B r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 1354 156 0 1539 15 0 0 45 0 0 102 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 1354 156 0 1539 15 0 0 45 0 0 102 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1488 171 0 1691 16 0 0 49 0 0 112 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 vC, conflicting volume 1707 1659 2249 3280 458 2120 3358 572 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1021 1659 1696 2981 458 1535 3077 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 91 100 100 87 cM capacity (vehlh) 542 384 42 11 550 58 10 870 Volume Total 425 425 425 384 676 676 354 49 112 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 171 0 0 16 49 112 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 550 870 Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.40 0.40 0.21 0.09 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 9.7 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 12.2 9.7 Approach LOS B A Intersec�on - Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 09/30/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 138.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 601 + - - - - - - Stage 2 622 604 T+ 592 384 Ta - Traffic Vol, vehlh 119 50 439 5 29 11 180 189 7 5 237 106 Future Vol, vehlh 119 50 439 5 29 11 180 189 7 5 237 106 Conflicting Peds, #!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - 488 None - - None - - - - None Storage Length 50 - 183 50 725 40 Veh in Median Storage, # 831 0 1357 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 0 222 - 0 - - 0 - - Grade, % 573 0 - 406 0 - 0 Stage 2 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 129 54 477 5 32 12 196 205 8 5 258 115 Conflicting Flow All 948 930 315 1193 985 209 373 0 0 213 0 0 Stage 326 326 - 601 601 - - - - - - - Stage 2 622 604 - 592 384 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 241 267 725 164 248 831 1185 1357 - - Stage1 687 648 - 487 489 - - - Stage 2 474 488 - 493 611 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Gap -1 Maneuver 183 222 725 40 206 831 1185 - 1357 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 183 222 - 40 206 - - - - Stage1 573 646 - 406 408 - - - - - Stage 2 360 407 - 154 609 HCM Control Delay, s $ 308.8 36.8 4.1 0.1 HCM LOS F E Capacity (veh/h) 1185 HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.165 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %file Q(veh) _ 0.6 - 411 161 1357 1.608 0.304 0.004 - $ 308.8 36.8 7.7 F E A - 37.8 1.2 0 --: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined `: All major volume in platoon 09/30/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehm Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #fir Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (vehfi) HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) NCM Lane LOS HCM 95th °/otile Q(veh) 2.9 09/3012016 Walker Parking Consultants 1�1 14 0 126 14 0 126 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 14 0 129 1211 1213 687 697 697 - 514 516 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3,318 159 182 447 431 443 - 543 534 - 148 167 447 148 167 - 397 441 900 - 498 491 536 20.6 C �1 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 - 98 98 98 2 2 2 2 0 2 71 358 6 71 358 6 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 72 365 6 5 665 17 5 665 17 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - - - 0 - 0 98 98 98 2 2 2 5 679 17 1275 1219 368 696 0 0 371 0 0 513 513 - - - - - - - 762 706 - - - - 7.12 6.52 6,22 4.12 - 4.12 - 6.12 5.52 - - - 6.12 5-52 - - - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 144 180 677 900 - 1188 - 544 536 - - - 397 439 - - - - - - 96 165 677 900 - 1188 - 96 165 - - - 500 493 - - - - - - 282 437 - 27 1.5 0.1 D 900 - - 372 168 1188 - - 0.08 0.384 0.024 0.004 9.3 20.6 27 8 - - A C D A - 0.3 - 1.8 0.1 0 - - Synchro 9 Report Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Dpgy Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow 1.9 14 0 70 14 0 70 0 0 0 StopStop Stop - - None 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 15 0 74 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 2 0 2 77 488 0 77 488 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 170 - 0 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 82 519 0 T 0 912 14 0 912 14 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 0 - 0 94 94 94 2 2 2 0 970 15 WodMinor Minor2 Minorl Majora Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1662 1661 978 1698 1668 519 985 0 0 Stage 1 978 978 - 683 683 - - - - Stage 2 684 683 - 1015 985 - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 77 97 304 73 96 557 701 - 0 0 Stage 1 301 329 - 439 449 - - 0 0 Stage 2 439 449 - 287 326 - - - 0 0 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 70 86 304 50 85 557 701 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 174 203 - 108 174 - - Stage 1 266 329 - 388 396 - - - - - - Stage 2 386 396 - 217 326 - Appmach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 24.8 25.4 1.5 0 HCM LOS C D Minor Lanelftr Mvmt NBL NBT EBL.n1WBL-n1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh1h) 701 - 270 181 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.117 0.331 0.024 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 24.8 25.4 - HCM Lane LOS B C D HCM 95th °/utile Q(veh) 0.4 - 1.4 0.1 09/30/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Project Opening Year Without Project Mid-day Peak Hour ---* _. 'r 4 ' ► ~ Lane Configurations ++ r 0 1� + r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 308 818 269 55 807 95 305 115 52 173 157 466 Future Volume (vehlh) 308 818 269 55 807 95 305 115 52 173 157 466 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhAn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 331 880 289 59 868 102 328 124 56 186 169 501 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 360 1704 762 76 1026 121 563 199 90 278 292 569 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3191 375 3442 1216 549 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 331 880 289 59 481 489 328 0 180 186 169 501 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1797 1721 0 1766 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 21.1 19.8 13.4 3.8 29.3 29.3 10.2 0.0 11.0 11.4 9.7 18.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.1 19.8 13.4 3.8 29.3 29.3 10.2 0.0 11.0 11.4 9.7 18.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.21 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 360 1704 762 76 569 578 563 0 289 278 292 569 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.52 0.38 0.78 0.85 0.85 0.58 0.00 0.62 0.67 0.58 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 400 1704 762 146 595 604 563 0 289 278 292 569 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 45.2 20.7 19.0 54.8 36.6 36.6 44.7 0.0 45.0 45.9 45.2 34.7 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 24.8 0.3 0.3 15.4 10.6 10.4 4.4 0.0 9.8 6.1 2.9 14.8 Initial Q Delay(6),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile BackOiQ(50%),vehlln 12.9 9.7 5.9 2.2 16.0 16.2 5.2 0.0 6.1 6.0 5.3 17.2 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 70.0 21.0 19.3 70.1 47.1 47,0 49.1 0.0 54.8 52.0 48.1 49.6 LnGrp LOS E C B E D D D 0 D D D Approach Vol, vehlh 1500 1029 508 856 Approach Delay, slveh 31.5 48.4 51.1 49.8 Approach LOS C D D D Timer 1 2 3 -4 5 6 _ 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 9.5 60.2 22.6 27.9 41.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 9.5 55.5 18.1 26.1 38.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 5.8 21.8 20.1 23.1 31.3 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 1.2 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.3 5.9 Intersection Summary - - . I HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 42.5 HCM 2010 LOS D 09012016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Davis Ave & S 43rd St Project Opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour 09129/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 -.4 --► .- k- t 01110� 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations RM ttll� r r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 0 2247 111 0 1403 9 0 0 50 0 0 141 Future Volume (Vehlh) 0 2247 111 0 1403 9 0 0 50 0 0 141 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 2341 116 0 1461 9 0 0 52 0 0 147 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft1s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 334 402 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 vC, conflicting volume 1470 2457 3033 3869 643 21 D3 3922 492 vC1, stage 1 Gonf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 984 2457 2798 3768 643 1718 3830 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 87 100 100 84 cM capacity (vehlh) 601 187 6 4 416 44 3 934 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 EB 4 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 669 669 669 450 584 584 301 52 147 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 116 0 0 9 52 147 GSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 416 934 Volume to Capacity 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.18 0.13 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 9.6 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 14.9 9.6 Approach LDS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 09129/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB T1A HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Project Opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 177.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBI Lane Configurations 8 - - 4, A F F A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 45.8 1.3 T Traffic Vol, vehm 180 27 450 8 11 16 88 327 7 13 329 68 Future Vol, vehlh 180 27 450 8 11 16 88 327 7 13 329 68 Conflicting Peds, #!hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - - None - - None Storage Length - 50 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 194 29 484 9 12 17 95 352 8 14 354 73 Major/Minor Minor2 MTinorl Majorl Majoa Conflicting Flow All 977 966 390 1220 1000 355 427 0 0 359 0 0 Stage 1 418 418 - 545 545 - - - - - - - Stage 2 559 548 - 675 455 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Cribcal Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 230 255 658 157 243 689 1132 - - 1200 - Stage 1 612 591 - 523 519 - - - - Stage 2 513 517 - 444 569 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 200 231 658 35 220 689 1132 - - 1200 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 200 231 - 35 220 - - - Stage 1 561 584 - 479 475 - - - - - - - Stage 2 447 474 110 562 - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s $ 407.4 50.3 1.8 0.3 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1132 386 116 1200 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.084 1.83 0.324 0.012 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 -$407.4 50.3 8 - - HCM Lane LOS A F F A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 45.8 1.3 0 - - M: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 09129/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 12: Talbot Road & VMC Central DrwX/Drwy Project Opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 3.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NK NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 545 - - - - - - Stage 2 1� 545 - T 922 Traffic Vol, vehlh 10 0 153 2 1 0 48 410 1 1 772 13 Future Vol, vehlh 10 0 153 2 1 0 48 410 1 1 772 13 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized 1118 - - None 381 - None - - None - - None Storage Length 519 - 324 378 - 50 - Platoon blocked, % 50 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 0 - - 0 133 Grade, % 792 - - 0 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 114 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 11 0 165 2 1 0 52 441 1 1 830 14 Conflicting Flow All 1384 1384 837 1467 1391 441 844 0 0 442 0 0 Stage 1 839 839 - 545 545 - - - - - - Stage 2 545 545 - 922 846 - - - Cribcal Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 121 143 367 106 142 616 792 - - 1118 - Stage 1 360 381 - 523 519 - - - Stage 2 523 519 - 324 378 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 114 133 367 56 133 616 792 - - 1118 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 114 133 - 56 133 - - - Stage 1 336 381 - 489 485 - - Stage 2 488 485 179 378 - - HCM Control Delay, s 28.6 59.7 1 0 HCM LOS D F Capacity (vehm) 792 - - 323 69 1118 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.065 0.543 0.047 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 - 28.6 59.7 8.2 - HCM Lane LOS A D F A HCM 95th °%otile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 3.1 0.1 0 09/2912016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Talbot Road & VMC South Drwy/Drwy Project Opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #!hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Gap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (vehlh) HCM Lane VIC Ratio NCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th °/otile Q(veh) wo 09129/2016 Walker Parking Consultants 4 5 0 73 5 0 73 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 - 818 0 0 0 - 97 97 97 2 2 2 5 0 75 1418 1417 809 809 809 - 609 608 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6-12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 114 137 380 374 394 - 482 486 - 102 119 380 212 240 - 325 394 390 418 422 17.8 C 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 0 97 97 97 2 2 2 3 1 0 t 103 384 0 103 384 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 170 0 - 0 97 97 97 2 2 2 106 396 0 i; 0 777 16 0 777 16 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 0 - 0 - 97 97 97 2 2 2 0 801 16 1455 1426 396 818 0 0 608 608 - - - - - 847 818 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - - 6.12 5.52 - - 6.12 5.52 - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 108 135 653 810 - 0 0 - 483 486 - - - 0 0 - 357 390 - - - 0 0 - 78 117 653 810 - - - - 143 205 - - 420 422 - - - - - 286 390 - 28.9 2.1 0 D 810 362 155 - 0.131 0.222 0.027 10.1 - 17.8 28.9 B C D 0.5 0.8 0.1 - Synchro 9 Report Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Project opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT MfBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tt r tT+ T + r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 288 1318 667 47 666 57 277 115 56 185 293 493 Future Volume (vehlh) 288 1318 667 47 666 57 277 115 56 185 293 493 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial 0 (0b), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhlln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 303 1387 702 49 701 60 292 121 59 195 308 519 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 333 1593 713 63 983 84 575 198 96 342 359 603 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.45 0.45 0.04 0,30 0.30 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3300 282 3442 1184 577 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 303 1387 702 49 376 385 292 0 180 195 308 519 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1813 1721 0 1761 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.5 41.3 51.1 3.2 22.1 22.1 9.0 0.0 11.1 11.6 18.7 22.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.5 41.3 51.1 3.2 22.1 22.1 9.0 0.0 11.1 11.6 18.7 22.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.33 1,00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 333 1593 713 63 527 540 575 0 294 342 359 603 VIC Ratio(X) 0.91 0.87 0.99 0.78 0.71 0.71 0.51 0.00 0.61 0.57 0.86 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 402 1593 713 114 527 540 575 0 294 342 359 603 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(i) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 46.4 29.0 31.7 55.8 36.5 36.5 44.2 0.0 45.1 42.7 45.5 33.3 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 21.7 5.5 29.9 18.2 4.5 4.4 3.2 0.0 9.1 2.2 18.2 12.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 11.6 21.3 28.1 1.9 11.4 11.7 4.6 0.0 6.1 5.9 11.4 17.3 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 68.1 34.5 61.6 74.0 41.0 41.0 47.4 0.0 54.2 44.9 63.7 45.4 LnGrp LOS E C E F D D D D D E D Approach Vol, vehlh 2392 810 472 1022 Approach Delay, slveh 46.7 43.0 50.0 50.8 Approach LOS D D D D Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 8.6 57.0 27,0 26.4 39.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 7.5 52.5 22.5 26.4 33.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 13.1 5.2 53.1 24.5 21.5 24.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 8.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 47.3 HCM 2010 LOS D 0 912 912 0 1 6 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS SCENARIO - PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Alternative Access Scenario OYWP AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 16.9 Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #Ihr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS 4 25 7 33 25 7 33 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 39.8 E 52 80 30 52 80 30 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 57 87 33 � % 106 302 5 106 302 5 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 115 328 5 11 392 156 11 392 156 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 12 426 170 1118 0 331 596 0 0 0 561 92 92 92 2 2 2 27 8 36 1156 1099 511 535 535 - 621 564 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 174 212 563 529 524 - 475 508 - 89 185 563 89 185 - 467 519 980 - 323 448 166 39.8 E 52 80 30 52 80 30 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None - 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 57 87 33 � % 106 302 5 106 302 5 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 115 328 5 11 392 156 11 392 156 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 - 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 12 426 170 1118 1181 331 596 0 0 334 0 0 561 561 - - - - - - - 557 620 - - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 - 6.12 5.52 - - - 6-12 5.52 - - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 184 190 711 980 1225 - 512 510 - - - 515 480 - - - - - 151 166 711 980 - 1225 - - 151 166 - - - 452 450 - - - 470 475 102.4 2.4 0.2 F Capacity (vehlh) 980 - 172 187 1225 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.118 0.411 0.942 0.01 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - 39.8 102.4 8 HCM Lane LOS A E F A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 1.8 7.5 0 10/17/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 21: Talbot Road & New Garage Access Alternative Access Scenario OYWP AM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 1.8 Lane Configurations Y + T Traffic Vol, vehlh 25 32 105 252 527 156 Future Vol, vehlh 25 32 105 252 527 156 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 70 - 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 27 35 114 274 573 170 Conflicting Flow All 1160 658 742 0 - 0 Stage 1 658 - - - - - Stage 2 502 - - 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 216 464 865 - - Stage 1 515 - - Stage 2 608 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Gap -1 Maneuver 188 464 865 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 324 - - - Stage 1 515 - - - Stage 2 528 - - HCM Control Delay, s 16 2.9 0 HCM LOS C Capacity (vehlh) 865 - 390 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.132 - 0.159 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - 16 HCM Lane LOS A C HCM 95th °Mile Q(veh) 0.5 - 0.6 - 10/1712016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 4 Valley Medical Center MOB TiA HCM 2010 TWSC 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Alternative Access OYWP Midday Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 138.7 Movernerrt EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T+ T T Traffic Vol, veh/h 119 50 439 5 29 11 180 189 7 5 237 106 Future Vol, veh/h 119 50 439 5 29 11 180 189 7 5 237 106 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - - None - None Storage Length 50 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 129 54 477 5 32 12 196 205 8 5 258 115 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 MajoQ Conflicting Flow All 948 930 315 1193 985 209 373 0 0 213 0 0 Stage 1 326 326 - 601 601 - - - - - - - Stage 2 622 604 - 592 384 - - - Cribcal Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Cribcal Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 241 267 725 164 248 831 1185 - - 1357 - Stage 1 687 648 - 487 489 - - - Stage 2 474 488 - 493 611 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 183 222 725 40 206 831 1185 - - 1357 - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 183 222 - 40 206 - - - Stage l 573 646 406 408 - - - - Stage 2 360 407 154 609 - - HCM Control Delay, s $ 308.8 36.8 4.1 0.1 HCM LOS F E Capacity (veh/h) 1185 - 411 161 1357 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.165 1.608 0.304 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 -$308.8 36.8 7.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A F E A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 37.8 1.2 0 - - Noses —: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ': All major volume in platoon 10/17/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 21: Talbot Road & Alternative Garage Access Alternative Access OYWP Midday Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, slveh 3.7 Lane Configurations Y + "fir Traffic Vol, vehlh 40 146 60 259 202 35 Future Vol, vehlh 40 146 60 259 202 35 Conflicting Peds, #1hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - 60 - - 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 43 159 65 282 220 38 Conflicting Flow All 651 239 258 0 - 0 Stage 1 239 - - - - Stage 2 412 - - 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 433 800 1307 - - - Stage 1 801 - - Stage 2 669 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 411 800 1307 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 505 - - - Stage 1 801 - - - - Stage 2 636 - - - HCM Control Delay, s 12.9 1.5 0 HCM LOS B Capacity (vehlh) 1307 - 711 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - 0.284 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - 12.1 - HCM Lane LOS A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 1.2 - 14117!2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 4 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Int Delay, slveh 133.2 Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, vehlh Future Vol, vehlh Conflicting Peds, #!hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow Aft Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Fallow -up Hdwy Pot Cap -1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Capacity (vehlh) NCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) Notes 180 27 225 180 27 225 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None $ 455.5 F 8 11 16 8 11 16 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 9 12 17 HCM 2010 TWSC Alternatuve Access OYWP PM Peak Hour 44 371 7 44 371 7 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 - 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 47 399 8 1274 0 403 - a - 93 93 93 2 2 2 194 29 242 1154 1143 614 642 642 - 512 501 - 7.12 6.52 6.22 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5,52 - 3.518 4.018 3.318 --174 200 492 463 469 - 545 543 - -- 154 188 492 -154 188 - 440 463 - 493 516 - $ 455.5 F 8 11 16 8 11 16 0 0 0 Stop Stop Stop - - None 0 - 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 9 12 17 HCM 2010 TWSC Alternatuve Access OYWP PM Peak Hour 44 371 7 44 371 7 0 0 0 Free Free Free - None 50 0 - 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 47 399 8 1274 1157 403 632 0 0 497 497 - - - - 777 660 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - 6.12 5.52 - - 6.12 5.52 - - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 144 196 647 951 - 555 545 - - 390 460 - - 62 184 647 951 62 184 - - 528 518 - - 184 454 - 33.4 0.9 D 951 - 244 164 1153 0.05 1.904 0.229 0.012 9 -$455.5 33.4 8.2 A F D A 0.2 - 32.9 0.8 0 - 13 554 34 13 554 34 0 0 0 Free Free Free - - None 50 - 0 0 93 93 93 2 2 2 14 596 37 406 4.12 2.218 1153 1153 Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined ': All major volume in platoon 0.2 0 0 10/17/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 3 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 TWSC 21: Talbot Road & New Garage Access Alternatuve Access OYWP PM Peak Hour Int Delay, slveh 6.3 Lane Configurations Y t T Traffic Vol, vehlh 90 225 44 523 376 34 Future Vol, vehlh 90 225 44 523 376 34 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 60 - 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 98 245 48 568 409 37 Conflicting Flow All 1091 427 446 0 - 0 Stage 1 427 - - - - - Stage 2 664 - - - Cribcal 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 238 628 1114 - - Stage1 658 - - - - Stage 2 512 - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 228 628 1114 - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 357 - - Stage 1 658 - - - - - Stage 2 490 - - HCM Control Delay, s 24.7 0.7 0 HCM LOS C Capacity (vehlh) 1114 - 516 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.664 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 24.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4.8 - - 10/1712016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 4 Project Opening Year With Project and Improvements Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM. 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3-. Talbot Road & S 43rd St Improved OY With Project AM Peak Hour - s Lane Configurations M tt r ++ r T t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations M tt r ++ r T t r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 283 573 156 23 1009 54 447 238 37 94 86 360 Future Volume (vehlh) 283 573 156 23 1009 54 447 238 37 94 86 360 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhAn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 301 610 166 24 1073 57 476 253 39 100 91 383 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 397 1157 517 44 835 374 1137 602 93 138 241 388 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.24 0.24 0.33 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, vehlh 3442 3539 1583 1774 3539 1583 3442 1577 243 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 301 610 166 24 1073 57 476 0 292 100 91 383 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1721 1770 1583 1774 1770 1583 1721 0 1820 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 13.4 2.8 1.3 22.5 2.7 10.2 0.0 11.3 5.3 4.3 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.1 13.4 2.8 1.3 22.5 2.7 10.2 0.0 11.3 5.3 4.3 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 397 1157 517 44 835 374 1137 0 695 138 241 388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.53 0.32 0.55 1.28 0.15 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.72 0.38 0.99 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 1029 1652 739 121 835 374 1137 0 695 363 381 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 40.9 26.1 3.3 46.0 36.4 28.9 24.8 0.0 21.7 43.0 38.0 14.6 Incr Delay (d2), stveh 3.0 0.4 0.4 10.3 137.2 0.2 1.1 0.0 1.9 7.0 1.0 33.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),sNeh 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(50%),veh1In 4.0 6.6 2.9 0.8 26.8 1.2 5.0 0.0 6.0 2.9 2.3 12.2 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 43.8 26.5 3.6 56.2 173.7 29.1 25.9 0.0 23.6 50.0 39.0 47.6 LnGrp LOS D C A E F C C C D D D Approach Vol, vehlh 1077 1154 768 574 Approach Delay, slveh 27.8 164.1 25.0 46.7 Approach LOS C F C D Teter 1 2 3 4 5._ 6 7 8.. Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 40.9 6.9 35.7 36.0 16.8 15.5 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 31.5 6.5 44.5 31.5 19.5 28.5 22.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.3 13.3 3.3 15.4 12.2 11.1 10.1 24.5 Green Ext Time (p c), s 0.2 3.3 0.0 15.1 3,4 1.2 0.9 0.0 Intersection Surnmary 71 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 74.3 HCM 2010 LOS E 10103/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Improved OY With Project AM Peak Hour Lane Configurations,, T> T Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 7 65 52 80 30 211 197 5 11 360 312 Future Volume (vehlh) 50 7 65 52 80 30 211 197 5 11 360 312 Number 7 4 14 3 8 118 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhAn 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate. vehlh 54 8 71 57 87 33 229 214 5 12 391 339 Adj No. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 175 41 138 155 150 49 449 1221 29 865 621 539 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Sat Flow, vehlh 507 261 879 417 961 316 723 1813 42 1157 922 800 Grp Volume(v), vehfh 133 0 0 177 0 0 229 0 219 12 0 730 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhfIn 1647 0 0 1694 0 0 723 0 1855 1157 0 1722 Q Seive(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 13.9 0,0 2.3 0.2 0.0 12.7 Cycle Q Ciear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 2.3 2.5 0.0 12.7 Prop In Lane 0.41 0.53 0.32 0.19 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.46 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 353 0 0 355 0 0 449 0 1250 865 0 1160 VIC Ratio(K) 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 627 0 0 656 0 0 545 0 1495 1018 0 1387 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 20.4 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 3.2 3.7 0.0 4.9 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),shreh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/pile Back0fQ(50%),veh1In 1.8 0.0 OA 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 6.1 LnGrp Delay(d),sNeh 21.1 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0,0 3.3 3.7 0.0 5.6 LnGrp LOS C C a A A A Approach Vol, vehm 133 177 448 742 T_ Approach Delay, slveh 21.1 22.0 8.4 5.5 Approach LOS C C A A Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.2 12.8 40.2 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.7 18.3 42.7 18.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 28.7 5.7 14.7 7.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 7.0 1.5 10.0 1.4 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.7 HCM 2010 LDS A 10103016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Improved OY With Project Mid-day Peak Hour ---1 ---► *,- t ► Lane Configurations tt r tt r T t r Traffic Volume (vehlh) 308 818 269 55 807 95 305 115 52 173 157 466 Future Volume (veh1h) 308 818 269 55 807 95 305 115 52 173 157 466 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhAn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 331 880 289 59 868 102 328 124 56 186 169 501 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0,93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, vehlh 421 1479 662 76 1198 536 638 290 131 221 330 475 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow,veh/h 3442 3539 1583 1774 3539 1583 3442 1216 549 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 331 880 289 59 868 102 328 0 180 186 169 501 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1721 1770 1583 1774 1770 1583 1721 0 1766 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 19.6 7.0 3.4 21.9 4.6 8.8 0.0 8.8 10.5 8.4 16.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 19.6 7.0 3.4 21.9 4.6 8.8 0.0 8.8 10.5 8.4 16.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 421 1479 662 76 1198 536 638 0 421 221 330 475 VIC Ratio(X) 0.79 0.59 0.44 0.78 0.72 0.19 0.51 0.00 0.43 0.84 0.51 1.06 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 881 1925 861 165 1350 604 638 0 421 315 330 475 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 43.5 23.0 5.9 48.3 29.6 23.9 37.4 0.0 33.0 43.7 38.0 14.5 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 3.3 0.4 0.5 15.3 1.7 0.2 3.0 0.0 3.2 13.2 1.3 56.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/wile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 4.7 9.6 3.1 2.0 11.0 2.1 4.4 0.0 4.7 5.9 4,4 14.7 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 46.7 23.4 6.4 63.6 31.3 24.0 40.4 0.0 36.1 56.9 39.3 71.2 LnGrp LOS D C A E C C D D E D F Approach Vol, vehlh 1500 1029 508 856 Approach Delay, slveh 25.3 32.4 38.9 61.8 Approach LOS C C D E Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 28.8 8.9 47.1 23.4 22.6 17.0 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.1 18.9 9.5 55.5 18.9 18.1 26.1 38.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 12.5 10.8 5.4 21.6 10.8 18.7 11.5 23.9 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 1.4 0.0 18.0 1.4 0.0 1.0 10.6 Irrtersedon Summary - HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 37.0 HCM 2010 LOS D 10/03/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Improved OY With Project Mid-day Peak Hour � � � � A., 4� t Lane Configurations T4 1 Traffic Volume (vehlh) 119 50 439 5 29 11 180 189 7 5 237 106 Future Volume (veh/h) 119 50 439 5 29 11 180 189 7 5 237 106 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hfln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 129 54 477 5 32 12 196 205 8 5 258 115 Adj No. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 193 78 457 116 507 174 397 707 28 531 485 216 Arrive On Green 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, vehlh 242 194 1136 69 1261 431 1005 1781 70 1164 1222 545 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 660 0 0 49 0 0 196 0 213 5 0 373 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhAn 1572 0 0 1762 0 0 1005 0 1850 1164 0 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 3,5 0.1 0.0 7.2 Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 3.5 3.6 0.0 7.2 Prop In Lane 0.20 0.72 0.10 024 1.00 0.04 1,00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 728 0 0 797 0 0 397 0 734 531 0 701 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.53 Avail Cap(c _a), veh/h 728 0 0 797 0 0 403 0 744 538 0 711 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 13.7 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 9.2 10.4 0.0 10.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 OA 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 9.4 10.5 0.0 11.1 LnGrp LOS C A B A B B Approach Vol, vehm 660 49 409 378 Approach Delay, slveh 28.7 8.3 13.2 11.1 Approach LOS C A B B Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 22.5 22.3 22.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 17.5 20.0 9.2 2.8 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 0.0 3.0 4.7 Intermccdon Sumrnary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.3 HCM 2010 LOS B 1 010 312 0 1 6 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Improved OY With Project PM Peak Hour Lane Configurations ++ ++ r 1J + r Traffic Volume (veh1h) 288 1318 667 47 666 57 277 115 56 185 293 493 Future Volume (vehlh) 288 1318 667 47 666 57 277 115 56 185 293 493 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,veh/hAn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 303 1387 702 49 701 60 292 121 59 195 308 519 Adj No. of Lanes 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, vehlh 378 1539 688 63 1275 570 541 291 142 225 402 515 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow,vehlh 3442 3539 1583 1774 3539 1583 3442 1184 577 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehm 303 1387 702 49 701 60 292 0 180 195 308 519 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln 1721 1770 1583 1774 1770 1583 1721 0 1761 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 41.7 29.1 3.1 18.1 2.9 9.0 0.0 9.8 12.4 17.8 22.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 41.7 29.1 3.1 18.1 2.9 9.0 0.0 9.8 12.4 17.8 22.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 378 1539 688 63 1275 570 541 0 433 225 402 515 VIC Ratio(X) 0.80 0.90 1.02 0.78 0.55 0.11 0.54 0.00 0.42 0.87 0.77 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 676 1621 725 93 1275 570 541 0 433 283 414 526 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 49.8 30.1 11.0 54.8 29.2 24.4 44.5 0.0 36.3 49.1 42.2 16.8 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 4.0 7.1 38.5 21.5 0.5 0.1 3.8 0.0 2.9 19.9 8.2 40.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile BackOfQ(50%),vehAn 4.9 21.7 19.9 1.9 8.9 1.3 4.5 0.0 5.2 7.3 10.1 15.4 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 53.7 37.2 49.5 76.3 29.7 24.5 48.3 0.0 39.2 69.0 50.4 57.8 LnGrp LOS D D F E C C D D E D F Approach Vol, veh/h 2392 810 472 1022 Approach Delay, slveh 42.9 32.2 44.9 57.7 Approach LOS D C D E Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 32.7 8.6 54.3 22.5 29.2 17.1 45.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.3 25.2 6.0 52.5 18.0 25.5 22.5 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 14.4 11.8 5.1 43.7 11.0 24.1 11.8 20.1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 1.7 0.0 6.1 1.2 0.6 0.8 13.4 labrsscbon Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 44.5 HCM 2010 LOS D 1010312016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd/177th St Improved OY With Project PM Peak Hour --1' --1' 'r *- k. 4\ t ► Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4+ T T Traffic Volume (vehlh) 180 27 450 8 11 16 88 327 7 13 329 68 Future Volume (vehlh) 180 27 450 8 11 16 88 327 7 13 329 68 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhAn 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 194 29 484 9 12 17 95 352 8 14 354 73 Adj No_ of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 267 55 513 197 263 306 273 630 14 328 521 107 Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, vehlh 373 113 1057 236 543 630 957 1814 41 1017 1499 309 Grp Volume(v), vehth 707 0 0 38 0 0 95 0 360 14 0 427 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhfln 1544 0 0 1409 0 0 957 0 1855 1017 0 1808 0 Serve(g_s), s 20.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 8.4 0.6 0.0 10.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 8.4 9.0 0.0 10.8 Prop In Lane 0.27 0.68 0.24 0.45 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 834 0 0 766 0 0 273 0 645 328 0 628 VIC Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.00 0,05 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.56 0.04 0.00 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh1h 853 0 0 783 0 0 285 0 667 340 0 650 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 13.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 14.2 17.9 0.0 15.0 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 2.8 Initial Q Delay(0),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/Dile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.5 0.2 0.0 5.8 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 20.9 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 15.2 17.9 0.0 17.7 LnGrp LOS _ C_ A C B B B Approach Vol, vehlh 707 38 455 441 Approach Delay, slveh 20.9 7.3 16.7 17.7 Approach LOS C A B B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.2 30.6 23.2 30.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.3 26.7 19.3 26.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 17.9 25.3 12.8 2.6 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.8 0.7 2.8 6.2 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.6 HCM 2010 LOS B 10103/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Talbot Road/S 43rd Street Intersection Analyzed as a Standalone Location with No Operational Constraints and No Improvements for Project Opening Year with Project AM Peak Hour Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Talbot Road & S 43rd St Stand Alone OY With Project AM Peak Hour Assigned Phs ---* --* -,;v #,- 4--- 8 4� I 7.1 56.1 22.5 24.2 Movement E8L EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j ++ r 3.5 tl+ 20.0 20.5 1 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 t r Traffic Volume (vehfh) 283 573 156 23 1009 54 447 238 37 94 86 360 Future Volume (vehlh) 283 573 156 23 1009 54 447 238 37 94 86 360 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehlhAn 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 301 610 166 24 1073 57 476 253 39 100 91 383 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 318 1660 743 42 1072 57 619 284 44 290 305 543 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 3539 1583 1774 3419 182 3442 1577 243 1774 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehfh 301 610 166 24 555 575 476 0 292 100 91 383 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh1hM 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1831 1721 0 1820 1774 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.5 12.2 6.8 1.5 34.5 34.5 14.5 0.0 172 5.5 4.7 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.5 12.2 6.8 1.5 34.5 34.5 14.5 0.0 17.2 5.5 4.7 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 318 1660 743 42 555 574 619 0 328 290 305 543 VIC Ratio(X) 0.95 0.37 0.22 0.57 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.00 0,89 0.34 0.30 0,71 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 318 1660 743 92 555 574 619 0 328 290 305 543 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 44.6 18.7 17.3 53.2 37.8 37.8 42.9 OA 44.0 40.8 40.4 31.3 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 36.7 0.1 0.2 11.7 38.3 37.8 8.9 0.0 28.5 0.7 0.5 4.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile Back0fQ(50%),vehlln 12.3 6.0 3.0 0.9 22.7 23.4 7.6 0.0 11.3 2.8 2.5 10.7 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 81.3 18.9 17.5 64.9 76.1 75.5 51.8 0.0 72.5 41.5 41.0 35.5 LnGrp LOS F B B E F F D E D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1077 1154 768 574 Approach Delay, slveh 36.1 75.6 59,7 37.4 Approach LOS D E E D Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.3 7.1 56.1 22.5 24.2 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.8 5.7 48.5 18.0 19.7 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 19.2 3.5 14.2 20.0 20.5 36.5 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 0.2 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.1 HCM 2010 LOS D 10/03/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 1 Valley Medical Center MOB TIA HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 15: Talbot Road & VMC Access Rd1177th St Stand Alone OY With Project AM Peak Hour --* --► *-- '-'- t /00. Lane Configurations +4 4 o T+ Traffic Volume (vehlh) 50 7 65 52 80 30 211 197 5 11 360 312 Future Volume (vehlh) 50 7 65 52 80 30 211 197 5 11 360 312 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped -Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, vehfhlln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 54 8 71 57 87 33 229 214 5 12 391 339 Adj No. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 175 41 138 155 150 49 449 1221 29 865 621 539 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Sat Flow, vehlh 507 261 879 417 961 316 723 1813 42 1157 922 800 Grp Volume(v), vehlh 133 0 0 177 0 0 229 0 219 12 0 730 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhAn 1647 0 0 1694 0 0 723 0 1855 1157 0 1722 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.0 12.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0,0 2.3 2.5 0.0 12.7 Prop In Lane 0.41 0.53 0.32 0.19 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.46 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 353 0 0 355 0 0 449 0 1250 865 0 1160 VIC Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.18 0,01 0.00 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh 627 0 0 656 0 0 545 0 1495 1018 0 1387 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 20.4 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 3.2 3.7 0.0 4.9 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),sfveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °/vile BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 1.8 0,0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 6.1 LnGrp Delay(d),stveh 21.1 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 13,3 0.0 3.3 3.7 0.0 5.6 LnGrp LOS C C B A A A Approach Vol, vehlh 133 177 448 742 Approach Delay, slveh 21.1 22.0 8.4 5.5 Approach LOS C C A A Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.2 12.8 40.2 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.7 18.3 42.7 18.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 28.7 5.7 14.7 7.0 Green Ext Time (p -c), s 7.0 1.5 10.0 1.4 Intermdan Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.7 HCM 2010 LOS A 10103/2016 Synchro 9 Report Walker Parking Consultants Page 2 Appendix C Signal Warrant Analysis Sheets 10/6/2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: AM Major Street: Talbot Road Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 873 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 600 F a Soo y r v W 0 M 400 CL a m � 300 0 Lm 200 2 m 100 O G_ i 0 Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 129 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) ---------------- 1 1 1 400 600 so 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) —c— 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor --13--2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor --&--2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot RoadIVMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10/6/2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: Mid -Day Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 530 Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 310 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED 600 S a 500 5 L V 0 4 CL 400 Q a 3 300 0 9 m m 200 2 m 100 0 C 2 Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 0 400 500 600 700 Soo 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) HD-1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor —0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor —h-2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Existing Conditions Mid -Day Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 1016/2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: PM Major Street: Talbot Road Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 691 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 600 F a 500 t u m O `a 400 Q Q m 300 O S m 200 Z m m lb 100 O c 2 Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 393 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 0 400 500 600 700 80o 9o0 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) �a-1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor --0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor --ep--2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 1016/2016 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: AM Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH)-. 1029 Higher Volume Approach (VPH); 157 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED 600 E IL 500 s U ro O 400 CL a m 300 0 7 L _ay 200 Jb 100 0 C L Figure 4C-3" Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 400 500 600 700 Boo 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) —*.—I Lane Major S 1 Lane Minor --0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor --a-2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 1016/2016 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: Mid -Day Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 668 Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 564 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 600 S CL 500 M a 400 rL a m 300 0 m zm 200 100 `o c 0 SIGNAL WARRANT SATISFIED Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) I ri I I 01. I I _ 1 i I I I - I 1 , 400 'Soo 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) —4-- 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor --0-2 or Mora Lanes Major & 1 Lane Mina —v�-2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note; 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Existing Plus Project Conditions Mid -Day Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot RoadIVMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10/6/2016 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: PM Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 772 Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 644 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT SATISFIED 800 2 CL 500 r U 16 D Q 400 CL a m 3 300 0 `m 200 Z m m N 100 0 C i Figure 4C3_ Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) --o— 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor —.C).-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor --a— 2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor " Note 150 vph Applies as the tower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Existing Plus Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 1016/2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: AM Major Street: Talbot Road Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 940 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 600 2 E 500 t U O a 404 m 300 0 `m 200 N 100 0 c � a Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 134 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED Figure 4C3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) EL A 1 I 1 400 500 600 700 Bao 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor --Q-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor —a--2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year Without Project AM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road1VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10/6/2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: Mid -Day Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 530 Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 310 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED 600 2 CL 500 s u 0 O � 400 Q. a m 300 0 m 200 Y N 100 O C i 0 Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 1 1 1 1 I I 1 400 50o 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) –mc— 1 Lane Major 8 1 Lane Minor --0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor –ma -2 or More Lanes Major 8 2 or More Lanes Minor " Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year Without Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 1016/2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITHOUT PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: PM Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 691 Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 393 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED Soo 2 j 500 s u m 0 qa 40 Q m 300 O 7 Figure 4C-3- Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 400 sm Soo 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) --c— 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor 42 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor d2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor * Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 ri I 1 1 I 1 I t 1 1 1 400 sm Soo 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) --c— 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor 42 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor d2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor * Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year Without Project PM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10!6!2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: AM Major Street: Talbot Road Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 1096 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 600 F CL 500 t U l6 O a 400 a a m 300 0 m 200 RMm m 100 CIO0 0 Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 162 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) ®�M® 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) —0— 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor —0--2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor --6-2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Souroe: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 1016/2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: Mid -Day Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th 5t Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 724 Higher Volume Approach (VPN): 573 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT SATISFIED 600 2 a � s ca rn Q Q 4W CL a m 300 a 7 m 200 2 i N 100 a c_ � D Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 400 500 600 700 800 90o 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) mmlo� 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor -0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor ---a-2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor ' Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year With Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road[VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 1 r I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 400 500 600 700 800 90o 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) mmlo� 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor -0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor ---a-2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor ' Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year With Project Mid -Day Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road[VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10/6/2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: PM Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 832 Higher Volume Approach (VPH); 657 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT SATISFIED Boo 2 j 500 t u 0 a CL 400 Q a m 3 300 0 m 200 'x m m N 100 0 r- 2 2 Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) 41 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor —0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor --er--2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 104 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 20119 (FHWA) Project Opening Year With Project PM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10/17/2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: AM Major Street: Talbot Road Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 1096 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 600 CL t u m 0 40 a m 30 0 `m 20 2 m m :. 10 0 r- 2 2 Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 162 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT NOT SATISFIED Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 160 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) 1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor --E]--2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor —Cr -2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 Kph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 Kph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCQ 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year With Project AM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10/17/2016 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: Mid -Day Major Street- Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 724 Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 573 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 dumber of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT SATISFIED 600 CL 500 t U eV CL 400 m F 300 a y m 200 2 m m 100 0 r_ 2 Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 0 i I H i I ii i -a 1 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) --Y1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor ..o— 2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor —a- 2 or More Lanes Major & 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Sireet Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year With Project AND Alternative Access Mid -Day Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016 10117/2416 PROJECT OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT URBAN CONDITIONS Peak Hour: PM Major Street: Talbot Road Minor Street: VMC Access Road - 177th St Total of Both Approaches (VPH): 1023 Higher Volume Approach (VPH): 432 Number of Approach Lanes: 2 Number of Approach Lanes: 1 SIGNAL WARRANT SATISFIED 600 2 a � a 0 0 40 a m 3 30 0 L m 20 4+ m 10 U) L a c 2 Figure 4C-3. Peak Hour Warrant (Urban) 0; I 1 ..1 ' I I I i —1. - 1 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street -Total of Both Approaches (VPH) —kY--1 Lane Major & 1 Lane Minor —0-2 or More Lanes Major & 1 Lane Minor —ap-2 or More Lanes Major 8 2 or More Lanes Minor Note: 150 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 vph Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with One Lane. Source: MUTCD 2009 (FHWA) Project Opening Year With Project and Alternative Access PM Peak Hour Volume Warrant Talbot Road/VMC Access Road -177th Street Prepared by Walker, September 2016